San Bernardino’s Code Enforcement Problems

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

The San Bernardino Sun had this Voice of the People letter, which appeared, I believe, in the print edition on May 11, 2012.

I wish San Bernardino would give me just 5 percent of the fines I could collect if I cited all the ordinances and laws not being enforced.Example: On Dec. 15, 2010, San Bernardino City Council passed an ordinance and code enforcement law on yard sales to help clean up the city and not have it look like a Third World city and help local businesses.

The ordinance states clearly: Only on the third weekend of the month will yard sales be permitted, and no new items may be sold at any of these sales. In addition there are to be no signs on street corners, phone poles, trees, cars, etc., except in the yard of the sale. There is to be a $300 fine for a first offense and $100 for each sign found – this is law.

Legitimate businesses that pay for permits, state and federal sales tax, business tax, code tax, OSHA inspections, liability insurance, licenses, and more in this town are struggling and being driven out of business by those selling new items in their yards or street corners. You can find this any day, but even more on holidays like Mother’s Day, Valentines Day, Christmas, and so on – people selling flowers, candy, baskets, toys, fruit, jerky, even clothes in these makeshift stands or sitting on an off-ramp with milk crates full of their goods.

These crates, by the way, are stamped clearly on the sides – if stolen the person in possession will be fined $250-$500 for each one. These losses are added to our food bills. Why does our city not enforce these laws and ordinances considering the huge income it will provide for the city as well as help keep our legitimate businesses here?

These ordinances have been in the newspapers, mailed to all homes, and talked about everywhere and they are still ignored and these people have zero respect for the law.

STEVE PORTIAS
San Bernardino

I wrote before (and I have excised it from the original post because the law changed):

When I was a Deputy City Attorney in San Bernardino, mobile food vendors (except for people selling paletas, which were permitted) were a common complaint.  These ranged from people selling flowers at freeway off-ramps (for some reason, they often had the same address on Union Street in Los Angeles . .. more on that some other time), to people selling roasted corn out of coolers, almost uniformly with mayo as the condiment.  I, along with other Deputy City Attorneys, prosecuted them under San Bernardino Municipal Code section 5.04.495.  The section was amended in 2004 by the Common Council to prohibit a transient merchant with a “valid City of San Bernardino Business Registration Certificate or Permit” from staying “at any location not listed on their Business Registration Certificate or Permit for more than five (5) minutes in a twenty-four (24) hour period.”  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 5.04.495(B).  The origin of that section was quite colorful.

. . .

Update 5/14/2012  The Mayor and Common Council passed MC-1363 in August 2011, changing the transient vendor ordinance, San Bernardino 5.04.495, to have an exception to allow food carts as allowed by the Development Code, 19.70.060(1) which says “food carts and produce stands may be permitted for one year initially, and renewed annually, subject to verification of compliance with conditions of approval and County permit requirements, as applicable.”  19.70.020(11) states that temporary uses, subject to a Temporary Use Permit, including  “Food carts, operated at fixed, pre-approved locations, in the Main Street Overlay District, at least 500 feet away from any restaurant and under current permits from the County Environmental Health Services Division.”  SBDC section 19.70.020(12) also allows produce stands in community gardens.

Mr. Portias is correct, even with the changes to the Transient Vendor ordinance, 5.04.495, the things complained of are illegal in San Bernardino.  Even though it is not codified, MC-1363, amending section 5.04.495(a) of the San Bernardino Code states:

5.04.495 Transient merchants/vendors and temporary businesses prohibited. A. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to offer for sale, trade, or barter,
to create, to possess items to be sold, traded, or bartered, or to sell, trade, or barter any items including but not limited to manufactured items, homemade
items, packaged and unpackaged goods, commodities, food, agricultural products, vehicles, furniture, or any other item or to offer any service, from a
temporary stand, or other temporary location, upon any public street, alley, sidewalk, right-of-way, easement, or other public place, doorway of any room
or building, unenclosed building, building for which no certificate of occupancy has been issued, vacant lot, front or side yard, back yard (except as permitted
in chapter 5.68 of this title), driveway, parking lot, or parcel of land, either paved or unpaved, at any time, except as permitted pursuant to Chapter 19.70. San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council Ordinance MC-1363, passed August 1, 2011.

I also wrote about garage sales, in one of my more popular posts.  As of this writing, the Municipal Code is still not updated to show these changes (at least online), a fact I decried in this post.  I prosecuted many people for violating both ordinances, as well as other examples of visual blight.  I helped amend the previous version of 5.04.495 when I was a Deputy City Attorney to cover more categories.

The City of San Bernardino has the tools to deal with these issues.  In addition to Code Enforcement, at least when I was there, the Police Department would also enforce the transient vendor ordinance, as would the City Attorney Investigators.  Why are these ordinances not being enforced?

I would guess that to some degree, they are still being enforced, but anecdotal evidence suggests that they are not being enforced.  For example, as I drove down West Highland Avenue during two nights before Mother’s Day, and there were tons of people selling flowers for Mother’s Day, in addition to actual florist shops.
Mr. Portias is also correct in that there is money to be made in enforcement, with administrative citations and misdemeanor and infraction citations.  Whether it actually pays for code enforcement is debatable.

The political will to enforce the laws is there, the staffing may not be.  Though there were Code Enforcement officers, and sometimes City Attorney Investigators assigned to work weekends and nights, enforcement has not made a measurable dent.  Citing your way into compliance may not be feasible, because the city of San Bernardino (and I’m not talking about the entity, the City of San Bernardino) has changed from the vision of what long-time residents see for their City.  These kinds of vendors and constant yard sales are now the norm because people have decided that’s the kind of city they want to live in.

The vast majority of residents of the City of San Bernardino do not vote in municipal elections (12,466 voted for City Attorney in the 2011 primary). The 2010 Census counted 209,924 residents.  32 percent of the population are under 18, and thus ineligible to vote (67,176 people) leaving 142,748 voting age residents.  It is difficult to find statistics for non-citizens, but assuming that half of the 23.8 percent of foreign-born residents are not eligible to vote (11.9 percent) (23,092), that leaves 119,656 eligible voting age residents.  Assuming, 2000 people are felony parolees, that leaves 117,656 eligible voting age residents.  As of May 6, 2012, there are 71,833 registered voters in San Bernardino.  Of the people eligible to vote, thirty nine percent have chosen not to even register.  Of the people registered to vote, only 17 percent bothered to vote at the last major municipal election.

Code enforcement is a very important municipal function, particularly in an analysis of the broken window theory and what is important to a community.  However, the people actually making and enforcing the rules in San Bernardino reflect only six percent of the population, city-wide.  The vast majority of  people of San Bernardino, not the few who vote in City elections, have apparently decided this is the kind of city that they want to live in.

Does that mean that these rules shouldn’t be on the books, or not enforced?  It does not.  However, residents who want more code enforcement have to realize that the government will have difficulty imposing standards when the vast majority of people in a city, by voting with their feet (by having illegal garage sales, by illegally vending, and by patronizing these garage sales and vendors) in favor of these practices.

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.

Copyright 2012 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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

T: (909) 708-6055

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Pete Aguilar For Congress (California Congressional District 31) Mailer Number One

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

This post has a both a legal and a political bent, so let me start with the legal side.  I have written in the past about blind operators (specifically, in this post dated July 11, 2011):

I was a file clerk/runner for Milligan and Beswick in San Bernardino over twenty years ago.  Part of my job was to file pleadings with the court.  I became fairly intimate with the building at 351 North Arrowhead Avenue.  In the early 1990s, there were no metal detectors at the court.  You could easily run into the court and then back out.

I would sometimes get lunch for people in the office from the courthouse cafeteria.   It was run by a blind operator.   I would also sometimes buy snacks from the other blind operator (his sight was only somewhat impaired).  I remember buying popcorn, peanut M&Ms and six ounce Pepsi Colas in bottles (which by the early 1990s were not easy to come by) from the operator located next to the main stairway in the old courthouse.  I recall that he also sold hot dogs of the sort you could find in a movie theater.

Flash forward to 2012.  I first heard the story you will find bellow a few months ago, but here it is featured in the first Pete Aguilar for Congress mailer (that I have seen, anyway).

On the front is a picture of Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar standing with his hands in his pockets in front of the San Bernardino County Courthouse at 351 North Arrowhead Avenue in San Bernardino.  The caption says “Pete Aguilar Learned Valuable Lessons in This Building” the bottom says “Learn more about Pete at www.peteaguilar.com“

View this document on Scribd

On the second page of the four page flier it says: “PETE AGUILAR. Mayor. Democrat.  Business Owner.”

View this document on Scribd

The second and third page has a picture of Pete Aguilar talking to three people in what appears to be a cafeteria.  The third page has the following pull quotes from Mayor Pete Aguilar:

“My FIRST JOB, as a teenager, was bussing tables and washing dishes at the San Bernardino County Courthouse Cafeteria.

“My grandfather, who was legally blind, managed the facility and manned the cash register.  He taught me the values of hard work, playing by the rules and helping others.

“Washington has lost those values.  Today, our politicians would rather pick fights than solve problems.

“I’m running for Congress to help small businesses, create jobs and protect Medicare for our seniors.  That’s the change that middle-class families need in Washington.”

- Pete Aguilar

View this document on Scribd

I first met Pete Aguilar after he was appointed to the Redlands City Council after the departure of  Susan Peppler, when he went to meet staff.  I was at the Council Meeting at which he was appointed, and I believe I sat either behind him and his wife Alisha and his very young (at the time) son Palmer, or in front of them.  That particular meeting was one of the most interesting I had ever attended, but that’s a post for a different time.  However, it appears we may have had a brush with each other decades earlier in the basement of the San Bernardino County Courthouse.

The final page is a picture of Pete Aguilar and his family, Palmer, Evan and Alisha.  The text says “Pete Aguilar, Leadership on Your Side” and “Pete Aguilar is a small business owner, Mayor of Redlands and a fourth generation resident of the Inland Empire.  He and his wife Alisha live in Redlands with their sons Evan and Palmer.”

View this document on Scribd

Copyright 2012 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law (no claims to the flier, which was produced by and are owned by Pete Aguilar for U.S. Congress, and used pursuant to 17 United States Code section 107).

Friday Aside: How Many Ways Can San Bernardino Be Misspelled?

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

San Bernardino is often misspelled by both residents and non-residents alike.  One of the reasons is that it is sometimes pronounced “San Berdino” or “San Bernadino,” so sometimes people spell it that way.  The easy way to remember how to correctly spell San Bernardino is to think of the English analogue of San Bernardino: Saint Bernard, like the dog.  (Of course, San Bernardino is named not after the dog, but after Saint Bernardine of Sienna, since it was (allegedly) named on the Saint’s Feast Day, May 20, 1810.  However, there are multiple ways to misspell San Bernardino, and they still seem to lead to my blog.  Here are some of them in my recent logs:

• sanbernardino
• san berardino
• san bernadiino

Another site, in reference to the ski resort in Europe says these are common misspellings:

San-Bernardino, San-Bernardo, Sanbarnadino, Sanberadino, Sanberandino, Sanberardino, Sanberdadino, Sanbernadeno, Sanbernadino, Sanbernandino, Sanbernardino, Sanbernardo, Sanberndino, Sanbernidino

A hotel booking site gives these misspellings:

Sn Berardino Bernadino Berdino Bernidino Ber. Bernardido Bernnado Bemardino Sanbernardino

Search engines correct many spelling sins.  Most of these will get (the correctly spelled) San Bernardino in results.  You have to go outlandish to not get San Bernardino: for example, “San Buhnudano.”  However, “Sab ernardino” goes to San Bernardino results, as does “Ban Sernardino” for the intoxicated searcher.  “Sn barnadono” suggests, among others, San Bernardino. Phonetic spelling also works, such as “Sayn buhrnadino” and just “barnardayno” works.  In getting to the San Bernardino Superior Court Website, you can search bernardino superior in Google, press “I’m feeling lucky” and get to the site.

However, some of the misspellings do go to websites if you choose to search the mistyped to go to a search result:  For example, “San Bernadeno”
The San seems easy, even though it is not an English word.  Though, “Sam Bernardino” amusingly, when searching that in Google, brings up San Bernardino Valley College’s Facebook Page.

Puns work sometimes: for example, Tan Bernardino does not, but San Burnadino does (it’s also a legitimate search term in its own right), like Sam Bernardino.

There are also intentional misspellings San Berna[obscenity] (the most famous being a bigoted phrase) or the nonsense San Bernadingo, but I won’t include them here.  I would estimate that half of the misspellings are unintentional (bad typing, typing on a mobile device), and the others are mishearing or not knowing how to spell San Bernardino.

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

Copyright 2012 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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

T: (909) 708-6055

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

The San Bernardino General Municipal Election: A History

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Here is the election post about today’s General Municipal Election over at sbdpolitics.com.  This post is about the history of the San Bernardino Charter regarding primary and general elections.

The Charter of the City of San Bernardino created San Bernardino’s Primary Municipal and General Municipal Elections.

A primary election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each odd numbered year, for the nomination of candidates to be elected at the ensuing general election, and a general election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday in May of each odd numbered year, for the election of City officers. Beginning with the primary election in 1995, and thereafter a primary election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each odd numbered year for the nomination of candidates to be elected at the ensuing general election, and a general election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday in February of the following even numbered year for the election of City Officers. Said election shall be conducted in the manner provided for by general law; provided, however, that the Mayor and Common Council shall have power, by ordinance, to provide for the manner of holding such election.  Charter of the City of San Bernardino section 10.

However, if someone wins a majority of votes in the Primary Municipal Election, then there is no need for a General Municipal Election:

Any candidate for any City office who at a primary election shall receive votes on a majority of all the ballots cast for candidates for the office for which such candidates seek nomination, shall be elected to such office. Where two or more candidates are to be elected to a given office and a greater number of candidates receive a majority than the number to be elected, those candidates shall be elected who secure the highest votes of those receiving such majority, and equal in number to the number to be elected. Any officer elected shall hold office until his or her successor is elected and qualifies.  Charter of the City of San Bernardino section 10A.

That is why candidates were elected at the Primary Municipal Election on November 8, 2011.  The original section 10 of the 1905 Charter read:

 The provisions of all general laws governing elections for state and county officers, not inconsistent with the provisions of this charter, are hereby adopted as the laws governing city elections for city officers, and the provisions of all laws governing general or special elections in municipalities applicable to all municipalities of the state, or to municipalities of the fifth class, and not inconsistent with the provisions of this charter, are hereby adopted as the laws governing all general or special elections held within the city, and in all elections the mayor and common council and the city clerk respectively shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed by law on boards of supervisors and county clerks concerning elections.

Even though there was no reference to a primary nominating election, there was one in existing state law, and there were primary elections before the 1935 adoption of the new section 10.  I have information from one such election in which the candidates actually ran on a partisan ticket to be nominated in the general election.

This section was repealed in 1921 by the voters of San Bernardino.  The a version of the current section 10 was adopted by the voters on April 8, 1935:

Section 10: A primary election shall be held in said City on the third Monday in March  of each odd numbered year, for the nomination of candidates to be elected at the ensuing general election, and a general election shall be held in said City on the second Monday in April of each odd numbered year, for the election of City officers. Said election shall be conducted in the manner provided for by general law; provided, however, that the Mayor and Common Council shall have power, by Ordinance, to provide for the manner of holding such election.

Charter section 10 was next amended in 1949 to read:

Section 10. A primary election shall be held in said City on the Third Tuesday in March of each odd numbered year, for the nomination of candidates to be elected at the ensuing general election, and a general election shall be held in said City on the Second Tuesday in April of each odd numbered year, for the Election of City Officers. Said election shall be conducted in the manner provided for by general law; provided, however, that the Mayor and Common Council shall have power, by ordinance, to provide for the manner of holding such election.

The next Charter election held on March 20, 1951 added section 10A, though not in the modern form:

Any candidate for a judicial, school, or any City office who at a primary election shall receive votes on a majority of all the ballots cast for candidates for the office for which such candidate seeks nomination, shall be elected to such office. Where two or more candidates are to be elected to a given office and a greater number of candidates receive a majority than the number to be elected, those candidates shall be elected who secure the highest votes of those receiving such majority, and equal in number to the number to be elected.

In 1966, section 10 was amended again:

Section 10. A primary election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday in February of each odd numbered year, for the nomination of candidates to be elected at the ensuing general election, and a general election shall be held in said City on the Second Tuesday in April of each odd numbered year, for the Election of City Officers. Said election shall be conducted in the manner provided for by general law; provided, however, that the Mayor and Common Council shall have power, by ordinance, to provide for the manner of holding such election.

In the event any amendment to the Charter involving an election is ratified by the electorate and its approval by the Legislature is not reasonably anticipated to occur before the ninety (90) day period preceding such election, the Mayor and Common Council by ordinance may authorize the necessary election process and procedures to commence, change and establish the boundaries of existing and future wards and authorize related acts in preparation for the election; and such ordinances or acts will be effective and operate retrospectively, cured, ratified and validated, provided the approval of such amendment by the Legislature occurs before said election.

Section 10 was amended on June 4, 1974, and I believe it amended the section to delete the second paragraph added in 1966, and change the primary to March and the  general election to May:

Section 10. Primary and General Election. A Primary election shall be held in said  City on the first Tuesday after the first  Monday in March of each odd numbered year for the nomination of candidates to be  elected at the ensuing general election and a general election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday in May of each odd numbered year, for the election of City Officers. Said election shall be conducted in the manner provided for by general law; provided, however, that the Mayor and Common Council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the manner of holding such election.

Section 10 was amended for on June 2, 1992 to read (which was readopted by voters in November 2004):

Section 10. Primary and General Election. A Primary election shall be held in said  City on the first Tuesday after the first  Monday in March of each odd numbered year for the nomination of candidates to be  elected at the ensuing general election and a general election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday in May of each odd numbered year, for the election of City Officers. Beginning with the primary election in 1995, and thereafter, a primary election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each odd numbered year for the nomination of candidates to be elected at the ensuing general election, and a general election shall be held in said City on the first Tuesday in February of the following even numbered year for the election of City Officers. Said election shall be conducted in the manner provided for by general law; provided, however, that the Mayor and Common Council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the manner of holding such election.

Section 10A was also amended on June 2, 1992:

Any candidate for a judicial, school or any City office who at a primary election shall receive votes on a majority of all the ballots cast for candidates for the office for which such candidate seeks nomination, shall be elected to such office. Where two or more candidates are to be elected to a given office and a greater number of candidates receive a majority than the number to be elected, those candidates shall be elected who secure the highest votes of those receiving such majority, and equal in number to the number to be elected.  Any officer elected shall hold office until his successor is elected and qualifies.

Section 10A was changed when the new Charter was adopted in 2004 to clean up the language regarding judicial and school election, and to put in gender neutral language in the last sentence.  However, the second line about “Where two or more candidates are to be elected to a given office and a greater number of candidates receive a majority” no longer makes sense because no City office allows more than one office holder.  It referred to the school board election, but the amendment deleted a reference to that language.  It could be useful if a “pick two” or “pick four” office is added to the Charter, but as it is currently written, it is anachronistic.

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.

Copyright 2012 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Address : 1255 W. Colton Ave., Suite 104

Redlands, CA 92374

Telephone: (909) 708-6055

Email: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

Website: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Codification of the San Bernardino Municipal Code: A 2012 Update

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

In 2011, I wrote two pieces on codification of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, and an update on the situation.

From the second piece:

To recap, The Mayor and Common Council, at their November 7, 2011 meeting, passed Resolution 2011-299 Authorizing the issuance of a Request for Proposals for Municipal Code Codification Services.  The staff report to the Resolution painted this unflattering picture of how behind the City is in codification:

Table 1.1 Code Supplement Distribution History from 2008 through 2011

Time Period	Distribution Date	Note
1/2008 to 3/31/2008	4/2008	on schedule
4/2008 to 6/30/2008	7/2008	on schedule
7/2008 to 9/30/2008	11/2008	1 month behind schedule
10/2008 to 12/31/2008	9/2009	8 months behind schedule
1/2009 to 3/31/2009	9/2009	5 months behind schedule
4/2009 to 6/30/2009	9/2009	2 months behind schedule
7/2009 to 9/30/2009	10/2009	on schedule
10/2009 to 12/31/2009	1/2010	on schedule
1/2010 to 3/31/2010	3/23/2010	1 week ahead of schedule
4/2010 to 6/30/2010	2/2011	7 months behind schedule
7/2010 to 9/30/2010	2/2011	4 months behind schedule
10/2010 to 12/31/2010	Not yet distributed	9 months behind schedule
1/2011 to 3/31/2011	Not yet distributed	6 months behind schedule
4/2011 to 6/30/2011	Not yet distributed	3 months behind schedule
7/2011 to 9/30/2011	Not yet distributed	Due this month

What that means is that it is difficult for the lay observer and the outside professional to find out the state of the law.

The Mayor and Common Council will consider, at the February 7, 2012 meeting, awarding  the Code Publishing, Inc. of Seattle, Washington.  However, in the staff report and the resolution, you can see tension between the City Attorney’s Office and the City Manager’s Office:

Proposals were then evaluated by a selection committee comprised of City staff representing the City Clerk’s and City Manager’s offices, Public Works, Information Technology, and Community Development departments. The City Attorney’s Office was invited to participate and identified a representative from their office to take part in this process. The representative was present during one of the presentations; however, the City Attorney’s Office was unable to attend the other presentations and did not participate in the evaluation process.  [Emphasis added]

The selection committee recommends that Code Publishing, Inc., be awarded the contract. While all of the codification companies are qualified to provide the needed services, Code Publishing, Inc., received the highest ranking scores based on their flexible pricing, customer service-oriented approach, quality of electronic publishing and internet services, and legal publishing expertise.

. . .

Recodification and the regular distribution of supplement materials is a necessary undertaking to maintain transparency of the City’s Code. It is the City’s responsibility to maintain its laws in a current and comprehensive format. When the Code contains conflicts or discrepancies and outdated or incorrect references it cannot be an effective tool for residents and enforcement officials to follow and enforce the laws with consistency and accuracy. Moreover, the public, including property and business owners and developers, are poorly served by not having access to updated codes in order to assess information necessary when, for example, applying for business registrations, building permits, or planning new development options.

Outsourcing codification services is a standard practiced by most California cities. A recent survey conducted by staff shows that 91 percent of California cities outsource codification services. Of the 362 cities governed by general law, 332 or 92 percent of cities outsource codification services. Of the 120 charter cities in California, 105 or 88 percent of cities outsource codification services. Within the group of charter cities, 9 or 82 percent of the 11 charter cities that elect a city attorney outsource codification services. [Emphasis added]

By outsourcing services, the City will be able to promptly provide subscribers with quarterly supplements while reducing the time the City Attorney’s and Clerk’s offices and the Planning Division devote to codifying, indexing, proofreading, publishing, and distributing activities. While the City Attorney’s Office is responsible for drafting proposed ordinances and resolutions, the Planning Division is responsible for updating changes to the Development Code (Title 19). Title 19 is one of the most dynamic sections of the Code with the largest number of annual amendments (20 amendments in three years).

The mostly unexecuted version of the resolution says “decline to sign” and the initials “JFP.” City Attorney James F. Penman has declined to approve the resolution as to form.  From time to time, the City Attorney does not sign resolutions or agreements.  The reasons he declined to do might be found by examining the minutes and video of the November 7, 2011 Council Meeting.

Video on the discussion surrounding the item is available on the City’s website, and the item is about at the 3:37:00 mark. For context, the meeting was the day before the Primary Municipal Election. City Attorney Penman said that the first he heard about it was when it appeared on the agenda.  He said the situation was low priority and created by Council not fully funding the City Attorney’s Office, because the Legal Secretary II responsible has been taken off codification and placed on litigation.  He took issue with the cost of $40,000, and said it could be done for $10,000 using a part-time legal secretary without benefits.

Council member McCammack said that City Manager McNeely’s staff had politicized the issue.  She also said that it was more important to pay the $40,000 in defending the liability cases.

Council member Marquez asked about other cities contract with vendors, and City Clerk Rachel Clark said that the Clerk’s Office did a survey but that she didn’t have the numbers with her at the Council Meeting.

Council Member Jenkins said that the money could be better used on potholes, trimming trees or broken street lights.

Council member Kelley had concerns that sending out the RFP would start an unavoidable path to paying for outside codification.

City Attorney Penman said that the biggest request was to annotate the code and Charter with case law, and the codification company would charge extra. City Attorney Penman said that they were ahead of schedule a year before, but that staff had been taken off of it, and that it was not high priority.

Mayor Morris said that the City Attorney’s Office would be part of the RFP process.

Council member McCammack asked which staff would be involved with the codifier to make sure the codifier was making accurate changes to the code.  City Manager McNeely said that the City Attorney and City Manager and City Clerk’s Office would be involved, and that mostly the City Clerk’s Office would be involved.

City Clerk Clark highlighted the times that the City Attorney’s Office was late in the quarterly updates, but when confronted said that it had been on time before the highlighted period.  She also said that it was during Tom Minor’s administration that it came in-house.  Council member McCammack said the item was a political ploy to embarrass the City Attorney’s Office.
The first public speaker said that it was difficult to find the code online, particularly related to code enforcement.  The second speaker was then-City Clerk candidate Esther Jimenez discussed an issue regarding a proposed tobacco ordinance in the past which wasn’t really related to the discussion (and City Attorney Penman disputed her view of the events).
City Attorney Penman disputed the part of the RFP that there was a need to make corrective measures to the existing code, and he said that Council had blocked some moves already proposed by the City Attorney’s Office, and that his Office didn’t have the resources to make the needed changes.  City Attorney Penman said that all hands were defending lawsuits so that no one could participate in the selection process.

The Common Council voted on strictly partisan lines.  According to the minutes of November 7, 2011, Resolution 2011-299 was passed on a 4 to 3 vote with Council members Virginia Marquez (1st Ward), Tobin Brinker (2nd Ward), Fred Shorett (4th Ward) and Rikke Van Johnson (6th Ward) in favor; Robert Jenkins (2nd Ward), Chas Kelley (5th Ward) and Wendy McCammack (7th Ward) opposed.
Update:  The Common Council voted 5-2 (Shorett and Johnson opposed) to continue the item to March 19, 2012, where, given the new majority will most likely be defeated, if it even comes to a vote.

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.

Copyright 2012 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Address : 1255 W. Colton Ave., Suite 104

Redlands, CA 92374

Telephone: (909) 708-6055

Email: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

Website: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

City Attorneys of San Bernardino County Cities and Towns

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

People are searching the Internet for a definitive list of City Attorneys in San Bernardino County and the Inland Empire.   Here is the information, which is current as of today (2/1/2012)  to the best of my knowledge.  Please note that I am not the City Attorney nor the Assistant City Attorney for any of these cities.

City of Adelanto:

 

Todd Litfin

Rutan & Tucker LLP

611 Anton Blvd. #1400

Costa Mesa, CA  92626

 

Town of Apple Valley:

 

John E. Brown

Best Best & Krieger LLP

3500 Porsche Way, Suite 200

Ontario, CA 91764

 

City of Barstow:

 

Teresa Highsmith (Interim City Attorney)

Colantuono & Levin

300 S. Grand Ave. Ste 2700

Los Angeles CA 90071

 

City of Big Bear Lake:

 

Stephen Dietsch

Best Best & Krieger LLP

3500 Porsche Way, Suite 200

Ontario CA 91764

 

City of Chino:

 

Jimmy L. Gutierrez

12616 Central Ave
Chino, CA 91710

 

City of Chino Hills:

 

Mark D. Hensley

Jenkins & Hogin LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Ave #110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

 

City of Colton:

 

Dean Derleth

Best Best & Krieger LLP
300 S Grand Ave 25th FL
Los Angeles, CA 90071

 

City of Fontana:

 

Clark Alsop

Best Best & Krieger LLP

3500 Porsche Way, Suite 200

Ontario, CA 91764

 

City of Grand Terrace:

 

Richard L. Adams, II

Jones & Mayer

3777 N. Harbor Blvd.

Fullerton CA 92835

 

City of Hesperia:

 

Eric Dunn

Aleshire & Wynder LLP
18881 Von Karman Ave #400
Irvine, CA 92612

 

City of Highland:

 

Craig Steele

Richards Watson & Gershon

355 S. Grand Ave., 40th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101

 

City of Loma Linda:

 

Richard E.  Holdaway

Robbins & Holdaway
201 W “F” St
Ontario, CA 91762

 

City of Montclair:

 

Diane E. Robbins

Robbins & Holdaway
201 W “F” St
Ontario, CA 91762

 

City of Needles:

 

John Pinkney

Slovak, Baron & Empey LLP
1800 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262

 

City of Ontario:

 

John E. Brown

Best Best & Krieger LLP

3500 Porsche Way, Suite 200

Ontario, CA 91764

 

City of Rancho Cucamonga:

James L. Markman

Richards Watson & Gershon
P O Box 1059
Brea, CA 92822-1059

 

City of Redlands:

Daniel J. McHugh

P.O. Box 3005

Redlands, CA 92373

 

City of Rialto:

Jimmy L. Gutierrez

12616 Central Ave
Chino, CA 91710

 

City of San Bernardino:

James F. Penman

300 North D Street

Sixth Floor

San Bernardino, CA 92418

 

City of Twentynine Palms:

Patrick Munoz

Rutan & Tucker

P.O. Box 1950

Costa Mesa, CA 92628-9990

 

City of Upland:

William P. Curley III

Richards Watson & Gershon
P O Box 1059
Brea, CA 92822-1059

 

City of Victorville:

Andre de Bortnowsky

Green, de Bortnowsky & Quintanilla

23801 Calabasas Rd. #1015

Calabasas, CA 91302-1595

 

City of Yucaipa:

 

David Snow (Interim City Attorney)

Richards Watson & Gershon

355 S. Grand Ave., 40th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101

 

Town of Yucca Valley:

 

Lona Laymon

Aleshire & Wynder LLP
18881 Von Karman Ave #400
Irvine, CA 92612

 

Copyright 2012 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Creating a Tracked-Changes Version of An Ordinance, Resolution, or Charter Is Helpful to The City Council or Legislative Body

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

In my series about the Charter of the City of San Bernardino, I have created tracked change versions of the Charter through the years.  I started by recreating a modern version of the 1905 Charter.   I created that by finding the Statutes of 1905, page 940.  This book is now in the public domain, having left copyright a long time ago.  Google has scanned the book.  If you look at the first page, the physical book scanned by Google was from the ” Library Leland Stanford Junior University.”  Though it is a cut-and-paste job to get from the OCR version provided by Google,  you have to go line-by-line and take out the funky annotations.

Then, as the Charter of the City of San Bernardino was updated, first (successfully) in 1908, I took the 1905 Charter, reviewed the changes added by charter amendment, and made a strike out version with additions and deletions.  Each charter amendment is in the Statutes of California for the respective year of passage, because the Legislature of the State of California had to approve the changes until the law changed, and now municipal charters must be sent to the Secretary of State, so they still appear in the Statutes of California.  You can find these at better law libraries; in particular, I can recommend the Victor Miceli Law Library, where I found the versions that I use in the series.  They also have an excellent legislative history collection.

Back to the subject at hand, here is an example of a strikeout or legislative version:

Section 133. Whenever the mayor and common council shall by ordinance or resolution, determine that the public interest or necessity demands the acquisition, construction, or completion of any municipal improvement, the cost of which would be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the city, they are hereby given the power and authority to call a special election and submit to the qualified voters of the city the proposition of incurring indebtedness to pay the cost of such improvement set forth in said ordinance or resolution. If said proposition be accepted by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors voting at such election, the mayor and common council may issue and dispose of bonds of said city in evidence of said indebtedness.; provided that such indebtedness, together with the unpaid and outstanding bonded indebtedness actually existing at the time such proposition is submitted to said voters, shall not exceed three hundred and fifty thousand dollars.  But the city or municipal corporation of San Bernardino shall not incur any indebtedness for public improvements which shall in the aggregate exceed fifteen (15) per cent of the assessed value of all the real and personal property of said city or municipal corporation.  In all other respects not herein provided for, the procedure for calling and holding such elections and the issuance of bonds shall be governed by general law of the State of California applicable to cities of the fifth class.

A strikeout version allows the city council member (or in the case of a charter amendment, the voter to see what is being changed).   A strikeout version is particularly useful to a member of a legislative body if an entire chapter or title is being changed because it allows them to see a large amount of changes.  I recommend to any municipal attorney to consider creating a strike out version for their clients even if one is not specifically requested.

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.

Copyright 2012, Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104,

Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 708-6055

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

City of San Bernardino’s 1919 Charter Amendments: Pay Raises

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

After the people of San Bernardino adopted a charter in 1905,  amended it in 1908, rejected amendments in 1911, and  amended it  in 1913, the Charter was amended again in 1919.     The amendments concerned salaries of local public officials.  I have drafted a legislative version with the 1913 version with the amendments adopted by the citizens of San Bernardino and approved by the California Legislature.

A special municipal election was held on March 19, 1919, and a majority of voters approved Proposed Charter Amendments One through Five.  Below is a strikeout version:

 

Sec. Section 24. The officers hereinafter named shall receive the salaries, following annual salaries: The mayor shall receive an annual salary of , $800; councilmen, each, $200; city clerk, $1000; city attorney, $600; chief of police, $1500.00; police judge, $1000, who shall be ex-officio treasurer. Salaries of all officers shall be , payable monthly.

Section 24A.  The councilmen shall each receive an annual salary of $300.00 payable monthly.

Section 24B.  The City Clerk shall receive an annual salary of $1500.00 payable monthly.

Section 24C.  The City Attorney shall receive an annual salary of $1500.00 payable monthly.

Section 24D.  The police Judge shall receive an annual salary of $1500.00 payable monthly.  The Police Judge shall be Ex-officio City Treasurer.

 

Section 24, salary of the Mayor, was approved again on June 4, 1974, March 6, 1974 and November 5, 2002.  Section 24-A was amended at least once, as the annual Council salary is now a princely $600 a year.  Section 24C was amended, and repealed.  Section 24D was also repealed.
Currently, these sections read:

Section 24. Salary of Mayor. The Office of Mayor shall be a full time
position and the incumbent shall not engage in any business, professional or
occupational activities which interfere with the discharge of the duties of such
office. Effective January 1, 2003, the annual salary of the Mayor shall be set at
fifty percent (50%) of the salary for a Superior Court Judge, County of San
Bernardino, State of California, as of July 1, 2002, and shall thereafter be adjusted
and implemented January 1 of each subsequent year at the same fifty percent
(50%) figure of the salary for said Superior Court Judge then in effect on said
January 1 date.
Section 24-A. Salary of Council. The Council Members shall each receive
an annual salary of six hundred dollars ($600.00), payable monthly.
Section 24-B. Salary of City Clerk. That the salary to be received by the
City Clerk shall be fixed by the Mayor and the Common Council.

 

Here is the preamble from Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 23 “Approving certain amendments to the charter of the City of San Bernardino in the county of San Bernardino, State of California, voted for and ratified by the qualified electors of said city of San Bernardino, at a special municipal election held therein on the eighteenth day of March, 1919 [Filed with Secretary of Sate April 11, 1919.]  Found at Chapter 38 of the Statutes of California 1919, starting on page 1485:

PREAMBLE

            Be it known that,

WHEREAS, The city of San Bernardino, of the county of San Bernardino, State of California, has at all times mentioned herein been and now is a municipal corporation of said State of California, containing a population of more than three thousand five hundred (3,500) inhabitants, and has been ever since the eighth day of February, 1905, organized and existing and acting under a freeholders’ charter adopted under and by virtue of section eight, article eleven of the constitution of the State of California, which charter was duly ratified by the qualified electors of said city at an election held for that purpose on the sixth day of January, 1905, and approved by the legislature of the State of California, on the eighth day of February, 1905 (Stats. 1905, page 940, et seq.); and

WHEREAS, the mayor and common council of said city of San Bernardino, did by resolution designated as “Resolution No. 928” adopted by said mayor and common council on the twentieth day of January, 1919, and approved by the mayor of said city on the twentieth day of January, 1919, and pursuant to section eight of article eleven of the constitution of the State of California, duly propose to the qualified electors of said city of San Bernardino certain amendments, hereinafter set forth, to the charter of said city to be submitted to said qualified electors at a special municipal election to be held in said city on the eighteenth day of March, 1919; and,

WHEREAS, said resolution and said certain proposed amendments hereinafter set forth was published for one day in a daily newspaper  printed and published in said city and of general circulation therein, to wit: In the San Bernardino Daily Sun, said publication being on the twenty-second day of January, 1919; and

WHEREAS, copies of said proposals containing said proposals containing said proposed amendments were printed in convenient pamphlet form and until the date fixed for election hereinafter described and required by law, an advertisement was published in said San Bernardino Daily Sun, that such copies could be had upon application thereof, at the office of the city clerk;

WHEREAS, Thereafter the mayor and common council of said city did by an ordinance designated “Ordinance No.714” which was duly passed and adopted on the third day of February, 1919, and approved by the mayor of said city on February 4, 1919, call and order the holding of a special election in the city of San Bernardino on the eighteenth day of March, 1919, which said last-mentioned date was at least forty days and not more than sixty days after the completion of the publication of such resolution and proposed amendments to said charter for one day  in said San Bernardino Daily Sun, a daily newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in said city, and which said ordinance calling such special election specified and ordered and ordained that said proposed amendments be submitted to the qualified electors of said city at said special election for ratification or rejection, and designated the time of such election and established election precincts, and designated the polling places therein, and the election officers for each such precinct, and which said ordinance was published ten  times in said San Bernardino Daily Sun, the last date of such publication being on the twentieth day of February, 1919; and

WHEREAS, Said amendments were duly submitted to the qualified electors of said city of San Bernardino at said special election held on said eighteenth day of March, 1919, which said special election was held not less than forty days nor more than sixty days after the completion of the publication of such proposal for one day in said daily newspaper; and

WHEREAS, In and by said ordinance and said resolution so passed, approved and published as aforesaid, said proposed amendments were submitted to the qualified electors of said city at said special municipal election; and

WHEREAS, On the twentieth day of March, 1919, at a meeting of said mayor and common council of said city of San Bernardino duly convened in accordance with law and with the provisions of said charter of said city, said mayor and common council of said city of San Bernardino did duly and regularly  canvass the returns of said special municipal election so held on the eighteenth day of March, 1919, and did find thereupon that each said proposed amendments to said charter, hereinafter particularly set forth, was duly ratified by the electors voting thereon; and

WHEREAS, Said mayor and common council after canvassing said returns and at said meeting so held as aforesaid, after said canvass, did duly find and declare that said proposed amendments had been ratified and adopted by the majority of the electors voting thereon; and

WHEREAS, Said amendments so ratified by the electors of said city of San Bernardino at said special municipal election held on the said eighteenth day of March, 1919, are now submitted to the legislature of the State of California for approval or rejection, as a whole, without power of alteration or amendment, in accordance with the provision of section eight of article eleven of the constitution of the State of California; and

WHEREAS, No other proposed amendment to said charter had been submitted to the electors of said city of San Bernardino within two (2) years immediately prior to said 18th day of April, 1913 [sic, it was unchanged from the Preamble of the 1913 amendment];

Now, THEREFORE the undersigned, J.W. Catick, the mayor and chief executive of the city of San Bernardino, and J.H. Osborn, city clerk and clerk of the mayor and common council of said city, authenticating their signatures, with the official seal of said city, do hereby certify, that said amendment to said charter of said city so ratified by the majority of the electors, voting thereon at said special municipal election, held on the eighteenth day of March, 1919, as submitted to said electors in the words and figures as follows, and are and shall, if so approved by said legislature, be in the words and figures following, to wit:”

The Charter of the City of San Bernardino, as amended in 1919, was not amended again until 1921.  I find it amusing that even in 1919, the Preamble was largely a cut-and-paste job.

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.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104,

Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 708-6055

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

When Should You Contact A Lawyer For A Code Enforcement Problem?

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Many California cities have departed from filing misdemeanor or infraction citations or complaints in their local Superior Court.  The reason why is that the Government Code provides a more efficient process with administrative citations.  For many situations, such as leaving your garbage cans out too long, it makes more sense to pay an administrative citation then to be arraigned on a criminal citation.   Further, with the ever-increasing amount of penalties piled upon criminal citations, it is also beneficial to the violator to only have to pay $100 for a ticket.  The city or town benefits because they get the entire fine, minus any processing fee from a third party administrator, versus getting roughly half of the base fine for the criminal citation.  In most cases, the alleged violator does not need an attorney.  Even when it is a criminal case, unless your time is exceedingly valuable or you will be out of the area at the time, it does not make sense to pay an attorney to appear on your behalf.

The number one way to get rid of a code enforcement problem is to come into compliance with the ordinance.  Sometimes that is not possible for financial, logistical, or other reasons.  However, an attorney is often the wrong tool to deal with financial problems, as the attorney’s fee will increase the cost to remedy the situation.  Sometimes an attorney can help with the process and explain the situation, and work with the agency to come up with a compliance plan.

However, with administrative civil penalties cases, where the city wants to charge the property owner up to a thousand dollars a day for a continuing violation, it may make sense to speak to an attorney sooner than later.  Once the citation becomes a lien against the property, depending on the implementing ordinance, it may be impossible for anyone — including a skilled attorney, to do anything about the situation.  Also, attorneys will not guarantee results, because with code enforcement,  the same City that cited the alleged violator that must be convinced to change their course.

Alleged code enforcement violators like to think that they are being singled out for selective enforcement, or some kind of discrimination is at hand.  Though that may be the case, having hundreds of junked cars on a property makes a selective enforcement case difficult to win.  Though code enforcement departments sometimes very technical interpretations of vague municipal codes that are problems, the majority of code enforcement cases are not based on animus towards the property owner.

For out-of town landlords and property holders, it sometimes helps to have an attorney who has dealt with a code enforcement department in the past.  Each code enforcement situation is different, and property owners and tenants should consult with an attorney about their particular situation.

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.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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

T: (909) 708-6055

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

How To Act In Front of A Code Enforcement Hearing Officer

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Many cities in California have shifted away from hearing boards for administrative hearings and hired hearing officers to hear appeals of administrative citations, administrative actions, and administrative civil penalties.  Here are some general, common sense rules to follow when appearing before a hearing officer.

1. Be prepared.  Bring all the relevant information, including current photographs, and any witnesses on your behalf.  Draft an outline of remarks before the hearing.

2. Be respectful.  There’s no point in being bombastic.  When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, I had the occasion to observe hundreds of hearings in front of a few different hearing officers.  One well-known unlawful detainer attorney argued his way into a higher fine for his client.

3. If you are challenging any aspect of the hearing, make a record.  Submit any objections to the process or hearing officer in writing.

4. As a corollary to be prepared, show up early, watch how the hearing is conducted, and obtain any rules  adopted by the hearing officer or City in advance.

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.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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

T: (909) 708-6055

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com