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

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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

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. BE SURE TO CHECK WITH THE INVOLVED CITIES FOR CURRENT LAW AND FEES.

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 returning California Mobilehome Parks Act responsibility back to the State of California

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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.

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 Code Enforcement Salaries and Benefits as of July 24, 2012

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

As a follow-up to Tuesday’s post on San Bernardino’s Fiscal Emergency Operation Plan Memorandum, and yesterday’s snapshot of the City of San Bernardino’s Community Development Department Code Enforcement Division contained in the memorandum, here are more details from the Operation Plan Memorandum regarding Code Enforcement Salaries.

View this document on Scribd

This was found on page 48 of the Fiscal Emergency Operation Plan Memorandum.

As you can see, it shows the Code Enforcement Division Manager budged at $132,565 in salary and benefits, including salary, the employee portion of PERS, the employer portion of PERS, unemployment, fringe benefits, and the employer portion of Medicare.  The City of San Bernardino does not pay into Social Security.  You can also see that a portion of the Community Development Director’s salary is shown in Code Enforcement, $53,347 in total.  The three supervising code compliance officers each are budgeted $113,545.  Of course, that doesn’t mean they are taking home $113,545, but that is the current budgeted cost of the position.  The two Senior Code Compliance Officer positions are set at $102,915 in salary and benefits.  The lowest-cost employees appear to be the Code Compliance Processing Assistants without special pay.  They are budgeted at $53,007 each.

In total, $3,024,254 are allocated towards Code Enforcement salaries in the City of San Bernardino.  As the Mayor and Common Council make cuts in anticipation for Chapter 9 Bankruptcy, this amount going forward could be cut through agreed-upon give-backs or lay-offs.

The thing that seems strange about the numbers is that all similarly situated code enforcement officers and other positions are receiving the exact same amount of pay, which if they were all stepped-out would make sense, and like I said before, a lot of the officers were there when I started as a Deputy City Attorney in 2001.  Also, it shows salaries for more officers than positions that are currently filled.

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 Code Enforcement Organizational Chart as of July 17, 2012

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post on San Bernardino’s Fiscal Emergency Operation Plan Memorandum, here is a snapshot of the City of San Bernardino’s Community Development Department Code Enforcement Division contained in the memorandum.

On Page 50 of the Memorandum is an organizational chart for Code Enforcement dated July 17, 2012.  It details the names and titles of the code enforcement officials responsible for code enforcement in the City of San Bernardino as of July 17, 2012.  In all, it shows 34 filled positions, and two vacant positions.  There is a Code Enforcement Manager, Steve Wilkomm, and three Supervisor Code Enforcement Officers.  The three Supervisor Code Enforcement Officers were all with the City when I was last a Deputy City Attorney, and two of them were with Code Enforcement before I became a Deputy City Attorney in 2011.  In all, there are still 19 code enforcement employees that were employed at the time I left the City of San Bernardino to become the Assistant City Attorney of Redlands.

View this document on Scribd

While this organization chart is likely to change in the coming months because of the Chapter 9 bankruptcy and the planned (but heretofore proposed) reorganization, likely retirements and possible further attrition, this chart gives the public insight into how Code Enforcement in San Bernardino is organized at the moment.

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

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

California Health and Safety Code Section 17980.7(c) Receiverships

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

The California Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(c) receivership is a unique code enforcement tool, that should strike fear in the hearts of any property owner. The receiver, if appointed,

California Health & Safety Code section 17980.7(c) specifically authorizes a court to appoint a receiver over a substandard property if the property owner has failed to comply with a notice or order to repair issued by a local agency.  The receiver oversees the rehabilitation of substandard properties if the property owner has failed to comply with an order or notice to repair issued by a local code enforcement agency pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 17980.6.

Section 17980.6 allows a local agency to issue an order or notice to a property owner to repair a building if  the building is a nuisance or is maintained in violation of the State Building Standards Code or similar State Law, or any provision of a local ordinance that is similar to that part of the Health and Safety Code. and the a violation and the extent and nature of the violations are such that “the health and safety of residents of the public is substantially endangered.”  If the owner does not correct the condition of the property after having a reasonable opportunity, after the notice or order is issued, Section 17980.7(c) authorizes the enforcement agency to petition the court for the appointment of a receiver to oversee the management, repair and rehabilitation of the property.  Section 17980.7 provides, in pertinent part that:

If the owner fails to comply with the terms of the order or notice pursuant to Section 17980.6, the following provisions shall apply: . . . “(c) The enforcement agency . . . may seek and the court may order, the appointment or a receiver for the substandard building pursuant to this subdivision.”

Appointment of the receivership petition must be personally served on all persons with a recorded interest in the property at least three (3) days prior to the filing of the Petition.  Health & Safety Code section 17980.7(c).

Section 17980.7 provides that in determining whether to appoint a receiver, “the court shall consider whether the owner has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to correct the conditions cited in the notice of violation.”

Pursuant to Section 17980.7(c)(4), a city can request that the court appoint a  receiver to oversee the rehabilitation of a substandard building and grant the receiver the following powers and duties:

• to take full and complete control of the Subject Property;
• To manage the Subject Property and pay operating expenses, including taxes, insurance, utilities, general maintenance and debt secured by the property;
• To secure a cost estimate and construction plan from a licensed contractor and enter into contracts for repairs necessary to correct the conditions cited in the notice to repair;
• To enter into contracts and employ a licensed contractor as necessary to correct the conditions;
• To collect all rents and income from the Subject Property, and use those funds to pay for the rehabilitation work; and
• To borrow funds to pay for the rehabilitation work and relocation benefits, and to secure that debt with a recorded lien on the Subject Property for any amounts borrowed.

In addition, Section 17980.7(c)(4)(H) provides that a receiver shall have all of the powers granted to receivers under Code of Civil Procedure section 568.  Section 568 provides that a receiver has broad authority, under the control of the appointing court, “generally to do such acts respecting the property as a court may authorize.”

A city may ask for an order prohibiting the owner from interfering with the receiver.  Section 17980.7(c)(3) provides that “if a receiver is appointed, the owner and his or her agent or the substandard building shall be enjoined from collecting rents from the tenants, interfering with the receiver in the operation of the substandard building, and encumbering or transferring the substandard building or real property upon which the building is situated.”

The receiver may be authorized to borrow funds to finance costs incurred during the receivership, including but not limited to property management and maintenance expenses, rehabilitation costs, and the receiver’s fees.  Health & Safety Code section 17980.7(c)(4)(G).  The receiver will borrow funds by issuing “receiver’s certificates” to project lenders.  The certificates will act as both promissory notes to evidence the debts and as deed of trust to secure repayment of the debts.  The receiver’s certificates will become recorded first liens on the property with priority over all other preexisting financing to the property, since lenders are unlikely to finance rehabilitation projects unless their security is in the most senior position.

A city will request that the amount disbursed under the certificates, along with interest, shall be immediately due and payable upon completion of the receiver’s duties with respect to rehabilitation of the Subject Property.  If the debt is not satisfied (either by the property owner securing permanent secured financing or from some other source), the receiver or the holder of the certificates shall be authorized to apply to this court, on notice and hearing, to sell the Subject Property free and clear of all subordinate liens and encumbrances pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 568.5.  Under the terms of the receiver certificate, this sale will be held as a publicly-noticed auction in the same manner as a foreclosure sale under a judgment lien. The Health & Safety Code is silent as to the method of foreclosing on the lien of the receiver’s certificates.  The City believes that the judgment lien sale process is the fairest and most expeditious process for selling the property following a failure by the owner to satisfy the certificates.  See Code of Civil Procedure section 568.5, section 701.510, et seq.  Moreover, the holder(s) of the certificates would be permitted to credit bid at this sale.  The proceeds of the sale will go first to pay the debt evidenced by the certificate, second to pay subordinate debts and third to the property owner.  See Code of Civil Procedure section 701.810. The sale would be final when confirmed by the court.

Any property owner should heed the words of the California Supreme Court:

Examination of the legislative intent underlying these statutes leads us to conclude that an enforcement agency’s failure to fully comply with the requirements specified in section 17980.6 does not necessarily invalidate a receiver’s appointment under section 17980.7, and that the particular instances of noncompliance here did not invalidate the receivership orders on appeal. We also find that, in view of all the circumstances presented, the trial court below acted well within its discretion in authorizing the receiver to forgo rehabilitation of the substandard property at issue and to instead contract for demolition.  City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 905, 913.

A property owner, and anyone else with an interest in the property, facing a receivership needs to speak to an attorney immediately.  It is a drastic remedy for what sometimes already is a drastic 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

Garage Sales and Yard Sales in the City of San Bernardino, California

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, a frequent complaint to code enforcement by residents, city staff, and elected officials, was yard sales in violation of the San Bernardino Municipal Code.  Since I was Deputy City Attorney, the ordinance has been changed.

As of this post, the blurb on the City of San Bernardino’s website says: “GARAGE/YARD SALE You are allowed to have a yard sale on the 3rd weekend of every month (“weekend” means Friday, Saturday & Sunday).  No signs are allowed to be posted on public property (i.e. utility poles).  Citations may be issued if conducting yard sale on non-designated weekends.  For more information they can call our number [909]  384-5205.”
That’s much better than when I was a city prosecutor.   You could only have a garage sale every six months, and the big kicker was that you could not have a yard sale, unless it was in your back yard.  You could have a garage sale, and that meant that the merchandise had to be in your garage.  For many residents, this was impossible because their garage was full.  As of this writing, that ordinance is still listed on the online municipal code, Chapter 5.68.  It has been repealed, do not rely on it.

Unfortunately, the ordinance has not been codified online.   You can get the codified version in the official copy of the Municipal Code in the City Clerk’s Office.  I called the City Clerk’s Office to obtain a copy of MC-1344, the current ordinance.  The deputy city clerk I spoke to  said she could email me a copy of  MC-1344 .  She very promptly did.  The ordinance, current as of this post, can be found here.

The highlights of the ordinance are as follows:

“Yard Sale” means the offer of sale of personal property open to the public conducted from or on a premise in any residential or commercial zone.  The term “Yard Sale” includes, but is not limited to, all sales entitled advertised or called “garage sale,” “lawn sale,” “yard sale,” “porch sale’”, [sic] patio sale”, [sic]  “estate sale”, [sic] “moving sale”,[sic] “flea market,” or “rummage”[sic] sale.  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 8.14.010(E).  [I typed it as found in the ordinance, including the unconventional switch from commas within the quotes, and the fact that rummage is quoted, but sale is not.]

Residents can’t have yard sales more than 12 times in a calendar year.  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 8.14.020(A).  Yard sales can’t be longer than three consecutive days.  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 8.14.020(B). Yard sales can only be held during daylight hours (which aren’t defined).  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 8.14.020(C).  Yard sales can only be conducted the third weekend of the month (Friday, Saturday, Sunday).  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 8.14.020(D).

Only Personal Property (“property which is owned utilized or maintained by an individual or members of a residence or family and acquired in the normal course of living in or maintaining a residence. It does not include new merchandise or merchandise which was purchased for resale or obtained on consignment.”) can be sold at a yard sale.  No  Personal Property can be displayed in the public right-of way (Public right-of-way is undefined, but probably means sidewalk and parkway, on lots with sidewalks and/or parkways, and certainly in the street).  All “Personal Property
shall be arranged so that fire safety service and other officials may have access for inspection at all times during the sale.”  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 8.14.030.

Signage: Three unlighted signs not exceeding four square feet, only during the sale, only on the Yard Sale real property, they may be posted 24 hours before the sale and removed after the sale.  That last part contradicts the earlier sentence that “Such signs shall be displayed only during the period of the Yard Sale.”  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 8.14.040(A).  No more than four Directional signs, not larger than 2 square feet, may be placed on private property with the owner’s consent (but not in the public right-of-way).  San  Bernardino Municipal Code section 8.14.040(B) & (C).

Estate sales, as defined by the Code, are exempt from the limitations on frequency (12 times a month and the third weekend) and  require a permit.  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 8.14.050.  Non-profits, as defined by the Code, are exempt from the limitations on frequency listed for estate sales if the sale is on property owned or leased by the non-profit, and do not require a permit.  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 8.14.060.

The violation is a wobblette, an alternate misdemeanor or infraction. San Bernardino Municipal Code section 8.14.070.  When I prosecuted Chapter 5.68, it was a straight misdemeanor.

There are some problems with this ordinance.  It was cut and pasted from the previous Chapter 8.14.  Estate sales require a permit, though no permit process appears in the ordinance.  The ordinance defines “Department” and “Residential Zone” and then neglects to use those terms in the revised Chapter 8.14.  The first sentence of section 8.14.030 uses the term yard sale instead of “Yard Sale,” creating ambiguity as to whether the definition of “Yard Sale” found in 8.14.010(E) applies.

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

Front Yard Fruit Stands in Redlands, California

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

I am a native of the Inland Empire and some of my earliest memories are of Redlands, from the San Bernardino County Museum, to field trips to Kimberly Crest, and attending meetings in the Assembly Room of the A.K. Smiley Public Library.  I learned much more about Redlands as Assistant City Attorney from January 2006 to June 2010. My office as a private attorney is in Redlands.

You can’t really know a city until you have walked its streets, particularly its residential areas.  One of the perksof street level exploration of a city (other than noticing the infrastructure) is finding little gems.  One of the things that gives Redlands its character  is its history in agriculture, not just being the Washington Navel Orange capital of the world, but appreciating the still-large amount of active agriculture.  In addition to active agriculture, there are backyard remnants of groves and other fruit trees.  If you drive around Redlands, you can find many front yard fruit stands.  You can find a story on this phenomenon in the Press-Enterprise article published on March 5, 2010 titled “Citrus Sales are part of the tradition of Redlands, nothing beats fresh” by Jan Sears and Darrell R. Santschi.  As of the writing of this post, it is available online.  I am not going to link to it because newspaper links break very easily.

For example pomegranates grow very well in Redlands.  And even though they are very expensive in supermarkets, you can pick them up at some front yard fruit stands.
I know of no guide to these fruit stands.  As I discover their exact location, I will post their block location and produce.  I do not want to give exact locations, because the people providing the service are doing a great the public a favor, and if the Press-Enterprise story is any indication, running the stands is a hassle.  If anyone with a stand wants to make a comment, or grant me permission to put an exact location, I will publish it below.  If anyone does not want to be included, let me know as well.

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

The Administrative Hearing Officer in the City of San Bernardino, California: Origin of the Position And Legal Basis

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Many cities have Administrative Hearing Officers hear appeals and other due process hearings.  When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, the City already had the process in place.  I helped draft the administrative citation ordinance for the City of Redlands when I was the Assistant City Attorney, and that included an administrative hearing officer.  I have also served as an administrative hearing officer, so I have some insight into the process.

Administrative hearing officers have taken over some of the duties once handled by city councils, planning commissions, or other appointed boards.  This post will explain the legal basis for the administrative hearing officer in the City of San Bernardino.

There are some due process considerations under the United States Constitution, including a line of cases from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  I will discuss those some other time.

If you search the San Bernardino Municipal Code Index, at least the version online, you will find one entry for Hearing Officer under that term: San Bernardino Municipal Code section 8.80.103, in context of  storm water.  You will find one entry for Administrative Hearing Officer:  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 9.93.015.  You will also find other terms, such as Administrative Law Officer: San Bernardino Municipal Code section 9.92.020.  Also, you will find appeal of a hearing officer’s decision at San Bernardino Municipal Code section 6.14.100 (in the context of animal control administrative citations).  You can find the term Hearing Officers under the Chapter related to the Planning Commission and Board of Building Commissioners (referred to as the BBC when I was a Deputy City Attorney): San Bernardino Municipal Code sections  2.17.080 to 2.17.110.

However, when I became a Deputy City Attorney at the City of San Bernardino in 2001, the hearing officer’s powers largely derived from another section: San Bernardino Municipal Code section 8.30.050 Conduct of Hearing.  Enacted in 1991, it states (according to the version available online as of 5/25/2011):

The hearing to determine whether a nuisance exists shall be conducted by the City Administrator or his or her duly authorized representative, who shall act as the hearing officer. At the hearing, the City Administrator or his or her duly authorized representative shall consider all relevant evidence, including, but not limited to, applicable staff reports. He or she shall give any interested person a reasonable opportunity to be heard in conjunction therewith. Based upon the evidence so presented, the City Administrator or his or her duly authorized representative shall determine whether a nuisance within the meaning of this Chapter exists. The hearing shall not be conducted according to formal rules of evidence or procedure but shall be conducted in a manner generally complying with the Administrative Procedure Act at Government Code Section 11370, et seq.

When I started in February 2001, the Hearing Officer was an attorney with a contract with the City, selected by then-City Administrator Fred Wilson.  Along the way, the City Charter was amended by popular vote creating a City Manager, in a hybrid Strong Mayor/City Manager form of government.   Apparently, this code section was not cleaned up to amend it to read City Administrator.

In January 2002, Title 6 (concerning animals) was amended completely.  That included a provision allowing administrative citations (as opposed to field citations / notices to appear in San Bernardino Superior Court).  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 6.14.080(B):

Hearing Officer. The Mayor shall designate the Hearing Officer for the administrative citation hearing.

In September 2003, administrative citations were introduced for other parts of the San Bernardino Municipal Code (specifically Title (though the codified version says Chapter)  5, 8, 9 or 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code.  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 9.92.030.  However, the definition of Administrative Law Officer later changed to its current version in section 9.92.030:

9.92.020 Administrative Law Officer.  The position of Administrative Law Officer is hereby created. The appointment, qualifications, disqualification, and powers of the Administrative Law Officer shall be the same as those provided for the Administrative Hearing Officer as stated in San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 9.93.

Administrative Civil Penalties were added in 2008, and section 9.92.020 was amended.  The Administrative Civil Penalties Ordinance, found in Chapter 9.93 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code has this to say about the Administrative Hearing Officer:

Appointment and Qualifications of Administrative Hearing Officer. An Administrative Hearing Officer(s) shall be appointed by the Mayor and Common Council. The term of the Administrative Hearing Officer(s) shall be three (3) years. The number of Administrative Hearing Officer positions and compensation shall be approved by the Mayor and Common Council. The employment, performance evaluation, compensation and benefits of the Administrative Hearing Officer shall not be directly or indirectly conditioned upon the amount of Administrative Civil Penalties or Administrative Costs upheld, awarded, imposed, or assessed by the Administrative Hearing Officer. The Administrative Hearing Officer(s) shall be an attorney admitted and eligible to practice law in the State of California in accordance with State law, or a judge retired from the California court system, or a commissioner retired from the California court system.  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 9.93.090.

In practice, the same person (or more accurately, classes of people) conducts the nuisance hearings described in Chapter 8.30, the Animal Control administrative citation appeals in Chapter 6.14, the administrative citation appeals in Chapter 9.92, and the administrative civil penalty appeals in Chapter 9.93.  Therefore, the “appointment” process described in San Bernardino Municipal Code section 9.93.090 is used for all four kinds of hearings.

There are other administrative hearings associated with the City of San Bernardino (parking ticket appeals, seizures of transient merchant merchandise) that are not handled by the administrative hearing officer and appear elsewhere in the San Bernardino Municipal Code.

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