San Bernardino Municipal Code for Drinking in Public

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

When I was a Deputy City Attorney in San Bernardino, I reviewed citations of  violations the San Bernardino Municipal Code.  I shared an alphabet split of criminal defendants with another Deputy City Attorney.  My alphabet case load was A-K for the vast majority of my almost five years at the San Bernardino City Attorney’s Office.  I would review each citation, and then put “OK” at the bottom of the citation, or if it needed amendment, City staff would make an amendment and I would put OK as amended, or I would turn down citations that could not be amended., or that did not violate the code, or had some defect.  I reviewed Code Enforcement citations, and also citations from the San Bernardino Police Department.

Many hundreds of the Police Department citations involved what are commonly called drinking in public.  Chapter 9.32 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code is entitled Public Consumption of Alcohol.  The section that needs to be cited is San Bernardino Municipal Code section 9.32.020, but commonly, the San Bernardino Police Department would cite 9.32.015, Possession of open container.  However, that section only states that there is a presumption of consuming alcohol in public when someone is observed with an open container and the odor of alcohol on their breath.  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 9.32.020 makes it unlawful to consume or attempt to consume alcohol in public.  San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 9.32.060 makes a violation of section 9.32.020 a straight infraction.

Typically, after approving the cites, I would never see them again, presumably the defendant plead guilty in front of a judge or commissioner, or the defendant failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued.  When I did see the cases, they were often in connection with a misdemeanor failure to appear.

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

Milligan, Beswick, Levine & Knox, LLP
A: 1447 Ford St. #201
      Redlands, CA 92374
T: (909) 296-6708

 

Is Devore in the City of San Bernardino? Or, how to find if San Bernardino County land is incorporated or unicorporated?

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

One of the highest keyword requests regarding the search term “San Bernardino” is finding out what geographic locations are included in a particular jurisdiction. One such search is “Is Devore in the City of San Bernardino?”   Why would someone want to know if a particular place is in a certain jurisdiction?  Here are some reasons:

1. The amount of taxes.  Different locations in California can have different sales tax rates.  At this moment, the City of San Bernardino’s sales tax rate is 9%.  The City of Redlands’ rate is 8.75%  Similarly,the amount of transient occupancy tax.  This is sometimes called a “bed” tax, the amount a hotel or motel collects based on the lodging’s nightly rate.   There are often different rates between cities, and between incorporated areas and unincorporated areas.

2. Liability.  If someone tripped and fell on a sidewalk, or hit a pothole, that person would need to know which entity to file a government claim with, and should the claim be rejected, against which entity to sue in court.  Of course, sometimes it does not involve a government entity, and sometimes it involves more than one entity, so knowing where the public property is located is only part of the inquiry.  Government Code section 835 (discussed briefly here) requires ownership or control of the property.  Just because property is within an entity does not mean it belongs to the city or county.  It could belong to private entities or to another public agency, like a school district, a flood control district, a water agency, or a combination of agencies and private ownership.  When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, I had a case where the location, according to conventional maps, was right on the border of the City of Highland and the City of San Bernardino.  When I was the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands, I had a case that involved a City easement on Redlands Unified School District property, adjacent to private agricultural land.

3. Voting.  Obviously, someone cannot vote if they are not with the corporate limits of the municipality.

4. Business Licenses.

5. Which set of local laws apply.  This is important for land use, zoning and code enforcement law.

So, how do we find out if Devore is within the City of San Bernardino or unincorporated County of San Bernardino.   One good way used to be the website of the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Bernardino, commonly abbreviated as LAFCO (and pronounced Laugh Co).  LAFCOs are county-wide organizations governed by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Act of 2000, found at Government Code section 56000, et seq.  However, LAFCO’s maps are currently unavailable as of this writing.  San Bernardino County LAFCO can tell you the jurisdiction or jurisdictions of a particular place.  An interested party can call them, or if you need a map, make a California Public Records Act request.  If an interested party makes a Public Records Act request, they should ask for a record.  Such as, “a map that shows the jurisdictional boundaries of x location.”  Remember, the California Public Records Act is for records, not for general information.  Agencies do not have to answer questions, though sometimes it is easier to do so and they will do so in lieu of producing a record.

That means that someone can try to find out by looking in the City of San Bernardino’s website, and the County of San Bernardino’s website.   On the City of San Bernardino’s website, we find the Ward map, which shows the current division of the City for each council member.   Devore is generally thought of being where the 215 and the 15 meet.  You can see on the Ward map that location is not in the City of San Bernardino.  If we are to believe Google Maps, which is far from determinative, it shows the shaded northwest border of the City of San Bernardino  a few parcels away from  Devore Road.

What about the County of San Bernardino?  The County has a Geographical Information Services (GIS) component to its Information Services Department.  I know I have used their mapping applications in the past, but they do not appear to be online at this time.

The short answer is, from my experience as a Deputy City Attorney in the San Bernardino City Attorney’s Office, from having gone to public school with people from Devore, and as a matter of common knowledge, Devore is in unincorporated San Bernardino County.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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

 

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

 

What is “inverse condemnation” in California?

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:  No person shall be. . . deprived of  . . . property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”  Similarly, the California Constitution, Article I, Section 19 reads “Private property may be taken or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation . . . for, the owner.”

These provisions are the constitutional basis for both eminent domain and inverse condemnation.

When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, and later Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands, I was involved in both eminent domain defense and defending the cities from inverse condemnation liability.  Now, as a private attorney, I represent clients in inverse condemnation claims against public agencies in California.

Most people know eminent domain is the taking of private property by the government (or in some cases a private entity such as an electric utility or a railroad) for a public use.   What, then is inverse condemnation?  Inverse condemnation is when a private party sues the government for the government’s taking of private property for a public use.

Some common areas an individual might sue a public entity for inverse condemnation include flooding, mud slides and debris flow, backed up sewer lines, broken water mains, landslides, brush fires, emission of noxious gas, and other similar disasters.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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

 

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

How to find County of San Bernardino Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700s on the Internet

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

The Political Reform Act (not to be confused with the other PRA, the Public Records Act) is another cornerstone of open government in California.  The Statement of Economic Interests (SEI), also known as the Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700, requires certain public officials to disclose a variety of interests.  Some officials are required by state law to file the Form 700, and some are required by the agencies’ conflict of interest code.  I worked on two revisions of the City of Redlands’ conflict of interest code during my time as Assistant City Attorney in the City of Redlands City Attorney’s Office.

The County of San Bernardino provides a redacted version of the form online here.  The address appears to be redacted, though most people put their business office in the address.  If the only zip code appearing is 92415, which I believe is an exclusively County zip code, you can bet it is a business address.  You can inspect at the original filed statement if you want to see the full address.  You can also find the Form 700s of the Board of Supervisors here at the Fair Political Practices Commission website.

On the County site, you can search back to 2007 through 2011, but it defaults to the current calendar year.  By “County site” I mean an outside vendor, netfile.com, which allows County employees to file their SEI online.

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: 300 E. State St. Suite 517, Redlands CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Gourmet Food Trucks in Riverside County and the City of Riverside

My post on Gourmet Food Trucks in San Bernardino County and the City of San Bernardino continues to be popular, so I thought I would add a follow-up about Riverside County and the City of Riverside.  The County’s Code, according to this Riverside Press-Enterprise story, prohibits food from being prepared on a truck, except for things like hot dogs (such as those outside the Riverside County Courthouses).  In effect, it allows “catering trucks” instead of gourmet food trucks.  The Council adopted Ordinance 7112 (an uncodified, unsigned version here) in January 2011 adding Chapter 5.36 of the Riverside Municipal Code.

There is an exception for special events.  Riverside Municipal Code section 5.36.090.

Cities often get pressure from bricks and mortar restaurants to prohibit gourmet food trucks, because they argue that gourmet food trucks are unfairly competing, because they do not have to pay expensive rent.  However, any argument that they do not have to pay a business license tax or registration tax is not correct.  Each truck must pay the proportional share in each jurisdiction it is doing business.  They have to collect and pay sales tax, too.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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

 

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

What Riverside County and San Bernardino County Public Entities Should Do To Promote Open Government

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

I have worked for three California cities:  The City of Santa Clara when I was in law school, the City of San Bernardino as a Deputy City Attorney and as the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands.   Each City was different: Santa Clara is a full-service charter law Northern California city (including its own electric utility) with an in-house City Attorney’s Office.  San Bernardino is a full-service charter law Southern California City with an elected city attorney.  Redlands is a full-service general law city with an in-house City Attorney’s Office.   Since I have started my own firm, I have seen California’s good government laws from a different perspective.  Some cities use the California Public Records Act as a shield, instead of fulfilling the transparency requirements of the Act.  Some cities see the Public Records Act as burden because of the rare cases of alleged abuse.

Based on my more than a decade experience in municipal law, I make the following recommendations to Inland Empire cities, towns, counties, special districts, school districts, and water districts:

1. Have an open government or specifically a California Public Records Act section on your website.

2.  Archive your minutes, agendas and agenda reports online in an easily searched database (good) or make the files available to search engine robots (better).

3. Post the things that most people care about online such as employee salaries, pension information, agreements, Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700s.  If anything needs to be redacted, or can be redacted under the California Public Records Act, it can be done.  Posting this information online will both provide transparency to the public and keep staff from having to respond to different requests for the same information.

4. Let the public know how to make California Public Records Act requests on your website, and train staff regarding their obligations under the Act.  Provide an online and printable form for records.

Today, I searched the City of Riverside’s website for “Public Records Act.”  What were the top results?  This verbiage on Council agendas: “SPEAKER CARDS–If you wish to address the City Council please complete and submit a speaker card to the City Clerk before the scheduled meeting time. Speaker cards can be found at the east entrance to the City Council Chamber and City Hall lobby. Speaker cards will be accepted until the agenda item is called. In accordance with the Public Records Act, any information you provide on this form is available to the public.”   Here, they are using the Public Records Act as a club:  They are warning that if you put information on a speaker card for a City Council meeting, it is a public record.

I also searched the City of San Bernardino’s site today.  The results were more disappointing then those in Riverside.  There was only one mention of the Public Records Act, in the site’s disclaimer and privacy policy.

Cities need to stop making the process so adversarial.  Yes, Public Records Act requests take time and money.  However, with out residents, most cities and other local governments would be out of business.  Elected officials need to realize that keeping residents happy is in their best interest, and making Public Records Act requests is in the best interest of their entities.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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

 

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

Riverside County Superior Court New Telephone Numbers

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

According to this press release, the Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside is switching to a new telephone system.  What this means is that phone numbers for the courts are changing.  The press release links to the Riverside Superior Court’s homepage, its Twitter feed, and states that it has a Facebook account.  The Facebook page is here.  The homepage is here.  The Twitter feed is here.  The actual phone numbers on their website are somewhat hidden, but can be found here.  These are just the general phone numbers.  If you want the individual court room or executive staff phone numbers, they are a little more difficult to come by.  The legal newspaper, the Daily Journal, publishes a courtroom directory.  Unfortunately for the general public, it is available only to subscribers.   Typically, if you do not have a lawyer and you are going to go to a courtroom, you can obtain the phone number of the civil attendant or the clerk in person.

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

The California Public Records Act and The Future of Journalism in California

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

I attended and graduated from Santa Clara University School of Law.  The School of Law is part of Santa Clara University, which opened in 1851.  It claims to be the oldest operating institution of higher learning in California.  That beats the College of California, the predecessor to the University of California, Berkeley, where I earned my A.B.  Anyway, I receive two alumni magazines from the school .  In the Spring 2011 edition of Santa Clara Magazine, the alumni magazine for the University as a whole, I found an interesting series of articles about the future of journalism in the United States.  I have a personal interest it, because of my family in the industry.  Among the articles is one titled: “Journalism: Broadsheets and Spreadsheets” by Jack Gillum, a database editor at USA Today.  It discusses the use of statistical analysis in analyzing public records for investigative journalism.

The California Public Records Act is an important tool for journalists in California.  In Mr. Gillum’s article, he discusses public records acts requests because of proprietary databases.  In California, a public agency can extend the time to respond from ten days to an additional 14 days in unusual circumstances, such when there is the “need to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data.”  California Government Code section 6253(c)(4).  Duplication of electronic records are limited to  ” the direct cost of producing a copy of a record in an electronic format.”  California Government Code section 6253.9(a)(2).

However, a requester does have to pay for “the cost of producing a copy of the record, including the cost to construct a record, and the cost of programming and computer services necessary to produce a copy of the record when either of the following applies: (1) In order to comply with the provisions of subdivision (a), the
public agency would be required to produce a copy of an electronic record and the record is one that is produced only at otherwise regularly scheduled intervals. (2) The request would require data compilation, extraction, or programming to produce the record.  California Government Code section 6253.9(b)(1), (2).

The problem encountered by Mr. Gillum in other states may have been based on a provision similar to this one in the California Public Records Act:  “Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the public agency to release an electronic record in the electronic form in which it is held by the agency if its release would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record or of any proprietary software in which it is maintained.  California Government Code section 6253.9(f).   Part of the Legislative History of AB 2799 (2000) explains the reasoning behind subsection F: ” An agency would not be required to release an electronic record in electronic form if its release would
jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record or of any proprietary software in which it is maintained.  This limitation was added to the bill in order to
alleviate concerns that electronic records, though  created with taxpayer money, may have been produced using  software designed specifically for the agency. This bill
would give the agency the flexibility to refuse to  release a requested record in electronic format, if such a release would mean that the software would also have to
be released. Even without the software problem, though, an electronic record containing the data may be deciphered and the software program reconstructed (see below).

The agency also may refuse to provide the information in electronic format if the electronic record, when transmitted or provided to a requester, could be altered
and then retransmitted, thus rendering the original record vulnerable.

These two concerns were registered by opponents of SB  1065 last year. Thus, AB 2799 includes a provision that gives the public agency the option not to provide the
information if disclosing it would jeopardize the integrity or security of the system.”  California Senate Floor Analysis, Pages 4-5, August 19, 2000.   As of today, I have not seen a reported court decision analyzing California Government Code section 6253.9.

Anyway, the article in Santa Clara Magazine is interesting, and I recommend reading it.  When I was Assistant City Attorney in the City of Redlands I assisted journalists with their California Public Records Act requests.  Today, as an attorney in private practice, I help journalists  with their California Public Records Acts requests.  In today’s fiscal environment, journalists do not have the same access to attorneys as when newspapers had more revenue, so it is important to help local journalists in fulfilling their mission of investigatory journalism.

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

 

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

Finding a building permit (or lack thereof) in the City of San Bernardino

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Someone came to my blog searching for McDonalds Second Street.  I found out why when I drove past the McDonalds at 699 W. Second Street in San Bernardino yesterday and it was being demolished.  I was surprised because even though the In-N-Out Burger on Second Street is moving to Fifth Street because of the widening of the 215 Freeway, it is still open.   Let’s say you want to find a permit from the City of San Bernardino to see what is happening at a particular property.  The City uses an online service called Velocity Hall.  You can search for City permits on any particular property.  The link is accessible through the City’s website or http://www.velocityhall.com

I used Google to find the street address, 699 W. Second Street.  I looked at the permit marked “Demo” for demolition.  When I was a Deputy City Attorney, I was familiar with the demolition permit process, because when Code Enforcement demolished a building pursuant to Hearing Order and a demolition warrant from the San Bernardino Superior Court, Code Enforcement would obtain a demolition permit in conjunction with a contractor who would demolish a building.  Perhaps the most difficult was the years-long saga of demolishing the Ice House at 300-340 North I Street for a variety of reasons.

Here is the permit for the demolition of the McDonalds:

Case / Application / Permit Number                 D1100002
Type / Classification                 DEMO
DCOM: Demo Commercial
BLDG: Building
Address                 699 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA
Parcel Number                 0134341240000
File Date                 2011-02-14
Status                 ISSUED
Status Date                 N/A
Valuation                 $17,000.00
Fees                 $583.42
Payments                 $583.42
Balance                 $0.00
Description                 Demo of existing McDonalds Restaurant

So, you can see that this is a demolition of the McDonalds Restaurant at 699 W. 2nd Street, San Bernardino County Assessor’s Parcel Number 0134-341-24, that it was issued on February 14, 2011 (I saw the demolition yesterday evening on April 15, 2011, and that it cost $583.42.

Other than a demolition, what is happening at the property?  On April 14, 2011, the applicant applied for a temporary meter pole.

Detail

Inspections    Status    Payment History

Case / Application / Permit Number                 B1100931
Type / Classification                 BLDG
E: ELECTRICAL ONLY
BLDG: Building
Address                 699 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA
Parcel Number                 0134341240000
File Date                 2011-04-14
Status                 APPLIED
Status Date                 N/A
Valuation                 $0.00
Fees                 $0.00
Payments                 $0.00
Balance                 $0.00
Description                 INSTALL OF A TEMP METER POLE AND A 50 AMP PANEL ON A SECOND POLE.

View Map (Click the “Back” button on the browser to return to Permit Manager.)

Contacts

Name                 JUNE A GROTHE CONSTRUCTION INC
Business                 N/A
Relationship                 APPLICANT
Phone                 N/A
Name                 JUNE A GROTHE CONSTRUCTION INC
Business                 N/A
Relationship                 CONTRACTOR
Phone                 N/A
We see that June A Grothe Construction Inc is the contractor.  Usually, during construction, a contractor gets a temporary power pole to aid in the construction of the power.  JG Construction is a Chino-based contractor, according to their website.

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: 300 E. State St. #517 Redlands CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

What County is Redlands, California In?

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

There seems to be some confusion as to which of California’s 58 counties, Redlands, California is located in.  The short answer: San Bernardino County.  The long answer is more interesting. I think the confusion comes from people from Los Angeles, as you can see in the media, they sometimes publish “Redlands, Riverside County.”  Here is an example from Fox LA (Channel 11): Earthquake Rattles Redlands Area of Riverside County.

I have lived near or in Redlands, California almost my entire life.  I have family members and friends born in Redlands.  Since 2006, I have been practicing law in Redlands.  And currently, my law firm is located at 300 E. State St. #517 Redlands, California 92373

Has Redlands always been in San Bernardino County?  Yes, and no, and almost no.   You can see from this map in the Bancroft Library at my alma mater, the University of California,  Berkeley,  from the 1840s, Redlands was part of Rancho San Bernardino.  Upon statehood, the area comprising Redlands and San Bernardino and Riverside and Moreno Valley was a part of a super-sized Los Angeles County.  That super-sized Los Angeles County also included Orange County.  On  April 23, 1853, the County of San Bernardino was formed from Los Angeles, San Diego and Mariposa County.  The City of Redlands, for which I was Assistant City Attorney for almost four and one half years, was incorporated in 1888.  The County of Riverside split from San Bernardino County and San Diego County in 1893.  Today, the San Bernardino / Riverside County line is the southern border of the City of Redlands.

Because this is a legal blog, I have bolded the portion  of the Government Code which describes the boundaries of San Bernardino County (California Government Code section 23136):

23136. The boundaries of San Bernardino County are as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of Sec. 1, T. 25 S., R. 40 E., M. D. B. & M.; thence east along the township line between T. 24 and 25 S. of the Mount Diablo base line, being the sixth standard south, Mount Diablo Base, and continuing east by said standard line and extension thereof, to the western boundary of T. 19 N., R. 12 E., San Bernardino Base and Meridian; thence north along said western boundary to the northern line of said township; thence east along the northern line of said township to the eastern boundary of the State of California, being the oblique boundary line between the states of California and Nevada, as surveyed and monumented by the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1899 and approved by Act of the California Legislature on March 1, 1901, and by the state of Nevada on February 27, 1903; thence southeasterly along said interstate boundary to its intersection with the centerline of the channel of the Colorado River as constructed by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, said point being common to the boundaries of Arizona, California, and Nevada, where the 35th degree of north latitude intersects the centerline of said channel, the above mentioned centerline being a portion of the interstate boundary between the States of Arizona and California as described in “Interstate Compact Defining the Boundary Between the States of Arizona and California”, a certified copy of which is recorded and filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County; thence downstream along said centerline to the southerly end of construction; thence, continuing downstream, along said interstate boundary to its intersection with the east and west center line of T. 1 S., R. 24 E., S. B. B. & M., or the prolongation thereof; thence westerly along the northern boundary of Riverside County to the corner common to Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties; thence northwesterly along the boundary line established by joint survey in December, 1876, and January, 1877, as the line between Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties to the corner common to San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Orange Counties; thence northerly along the eastern boundary of Los Angeles County to the corner common to Los Angeles, Kern and San Bernardino Counties; situated at the northeast corner of T. 8 N., R. 8 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence east on the township line between T. 8 and 9 N. of San Bernardino base line to the section line between Secs. 32 and 33, T. 9 N., R. 7 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence north following section lines to the eighth standard parallel south of Mount Diablo base line; thence east along said eighth standard parallel to the southwest corner of T. 32 S., R. 41 E., M. D. B. & M.; thence north along the township line to the seventh standard parallel south of Mount Diablo base line; thence along said standard parallel to the southwest corner of Sec. 36, T. 28 S., R. 40 E., M. D. B. & M.; thence north along section lines to the southwest corner of Section 24, T. 26 S., R. 40 E; thence east along the south line of said Section 24 to an intersection with the east line of said Section 24; thence north along said east line, and continuing north along the east line of Section 13, same township and range, to an intersection with the north line of said Section 13; thence west along said north line and continuing west along the south line of Section 11, same township and range, to an intersection with the west line of said Section 11; thence north along said west line and continuing north along the west line of Section 2, same township and range, to an intersection with the north line of said Section 2; thence east along said north line to an intersection with the east line of said Section 2; thence north along section lines to the northwest corner of Sec. 1, T. 25 S., R. 40 E., M. D. B. & M., said point being the place of beginning. That portion of the San Bernardino County boundary line which coincides with the Arizona-California Interstate Boundary is shown on a series of Planimetric Maps appearing in Exhibit “A” of above mentioned Interstate Compact. Geographic Positions and Plane Coordinates of all boundary points mentioned in above description are listed in Exhibit “A” of said Interstate Compact That means you have to look at the legal description of Riverside County to find if it defines the county line between Riverside and San Bernardino. I’ve bolded the relevant portion. 23133. The boundaries of Riverside County are as follows: Beginning at the corner common to Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties, being located at the point of intersection of the easterly boundary of the El Canon de Santa Ana Rancho with course number seven of the boundary line, established by joint survey in December 1876, and January 1877, as the line between Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties; thence southeasterly along said line of survey to the most northerly point of that survey on file in Book 87 of Records of Survey, at Pages 60 through 61, in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside County; thence south 68 49´57″ west a distance of 35.37 feet; thence south 48 16´56″ west a distance of 150.70 feet; thence south 65 40´06″ west a distance of 75.15 feet; thence north 84 32´29″ west a distance of 155.61 feet to the beginning of a nontangent curve, concave to the northwest, with a radial bearing north 29 06´47″ west and a radius of 1,550.00 feet; thence along said curve through an angle of 15 01´17″ a distance of 406.35 feet to the easterly line of the Rancho Lomas de Santiago; thence south 02 53´27″ east, along said easterly line, a distance of 3,273.18 feet to the south line of Sec. 36 T. 3 S., 8 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence south 89 07´27″ east, along said south line, a distance of 818.46 feet; thence south 89 05´38″ east, continuing along said south line, a distance of 2,484.00 feet to the southerly most point on said survey on file in Book 87 of Records of Survey, at Pages 60 through 61, in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside County, said point also being on said line of survey between Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties; thence continuing southeasterly on said line of survey to the point of beginning of said joint survey, it being upon the northern boundary of San Diego County, as it was then established; thence southwesterly to a point on the eastern line of Rancho Mission Viejo or La Paz two miles north of the south boundary of T. 7 S., S. B. B. & M.; thence south along said boundary to the point of intersection of said line and the northwest corner of Lot 1 of Sec. 33, T. 7 S., R. 6 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence south 89 16´14″ east along the north line of said Lot 1 and the north section line of said Sec. 33 a distance of 2,086.39 feet to the northeast section corner thereof; thence south 00 27´14″ west, along the east section line of said Sec. 33, a distance of 2,647.46 feet to the east quarter corner of said Sec. 33; then south 01 00´50″ west, continuing along said east section line, a distance of 1,320.33 feet to the southeast corner of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; thence north 89 25´11″ west, along the south line of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter and the south line of Lot 3 of said Sec. 33, a distance of 2,042.68 feet to the eastern boundary line of Rancho Mission Viejo or La Paz; thence 00 00´35″ east, along said boundary, a distance of 1,324.46 feet to the point of intersection with said line with the township line between T. 7 S. and T. 8 S., S. B. B. & M.; thence easterly along said township line to its intersection with the western boundary of Santa Rosa Rancho; thence southerly along the boundary of said rancho to where said boundary of said rancho intersects the range line between T. 8 S., T. 3 W., and T. 8 S., T. 4 W.; thence south on said range line to the point of intersection of the said line with the second standard parallel south; thence east along said parallel to its intersection with the interstate boundary between the States of Arizona and California on the centerline of the Colorado River, said interstate boundary and centerline being described in “Interstate Compact Defining the Boundary Between the States of Arizona and California”, a certified copy of which is recorded and filed in the office of the County Recorder of Riverside County; thence northerly along said interstate boundary to its point of intersection with the east and west centerline of T. 1 S., R. 24 E., S. B. B. & M., or the prolongation thereof; thence westerly along the section lines to the southeast corner of Sec. 17, T. 1 S., R. 16 E., S. B. B. & M.; thence south to the southeast corner of Sec. 32, same township and range, said point being on the township line between T. 1 and 2 S., S. B. B. & M.; thence west on said township line to the northeast corner of T. 2 S., R. 1 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence south to the southeast corner of Sec. 12, T. 2 S., R. 1 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence west to the southwest corner of Sec. 8, T. 2 S., R. 3 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence north to the northwest corner of said Sec. 8; thence west to the quarter corner of the south line of Sec. 2, T. 2 S., R. 5 W., S. B. B. & M.; thence north to the quarter corner on the north line of said Sec. 2; thence west to the southwest corner of Sec. 31, T. 1 S., R. 6 W.; thence south along the section lines to the northern boundary of the Jurupa Rancho; thence southwesterly along said north boundary to the northwest corner of said Rancho; thence south along the west boundary of said Jurupa Rancho to the quarter corner on the east line of Sec. 9, T. 3 S., R. 7 W., thence west in a direct line to the center of Sec. 7, same township and range; thence south in a direct line, to the quarter corner on the south line of Sec. 19, T. 3 S., R. 7 W., thence west to the east boundary of the El Canon de Santa Ana Rancho; thence southerly along the easterly boundary of said Rancho to the place of beginning. That portion of the Riverside County boundary line which coincides with the Arizona-California Interstate Boundary is shown on a series of Planimetric Maps appearing in Exhibit “A” of the above-mentioned Interstate Compact.

If you plotted that on the survey of California along the San Bernardino Base & Meridian, you would find that the City of Redlands is in San Bernardino County, California.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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

 

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708