Downtown Redlands and Walkability

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

When I moved from West Redlands to Downtown Redlands, I found that it was much easier to walk to lunch.  The Walk Score is listed as

84 Very Walkable

Most errands can be accomplished on foot.

Today, on a particularly clear 68 degree day, I was able to walk from 300 E. State Street to the Citrus Village Shopping Center.  By contrast, my old address had a Walk Score of 48 (Car Dependent). Even though I would walk when the weather was nice, it had a lot of bad or non-existent sidewalk, a lack of marked pedestrian crossings, and since the start of the Alabama widening, a complete nightmare.

Putting aside debates about sustainability, I have a personal preference to walk around a downtown like Redlands’ downtown because I can patronize local businesses with ease. You cannot truly know a City until you have been able to walk it a ground level.

Also, when a business neighborhood, like downtown Redlands is walkable, it allows you to park once and visit a variety of stores, restaurants, or businesses without having to move your car.

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

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.

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

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

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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

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

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

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: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Fireworks in the City of San Bernardino, California (2012 Update)

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Happy Independence Day!

“Safe and Sane” fireworks are legally sold in the City of San Bernardino.  All fireworks are generally prohibited above the 210 Freeway in San Bernardino and near Perris Hill.  The City of San Bernardino Fire Department has a map and information about fireworks in this brochure.   Of course, all fireworks not approved by the State Fire Marshal are illegal in California.  Misusing legal fireworks (for example, making bottle rockets) is illegal in San Bernardino.

The San Bernardino Fire Department, particularly the Fire Prevention,  is out in force during the Fourth of July.  They have a variety of San Bernardino Municipal Code and California laws to enforce.  Even if you are not afraid of prosecution, fireworks are a leading cause of injury and property damage.

The San Bernardino City Fire Blog has some tips about fireworks.

A version of this post was published in 2011.

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

Friday Aside: Locally Grown Blueberries in Redlands

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

I have written about local agriculture before ( Locally Grown Strawberries in Redlands, Growing and Selling Crops and Agricultural Products in the Inland Empire , Front Yard Fruit Stands in Redlands).

Last night, at Redlands’ Thursday Market Night, I had the locally produced blueberries from Soffel Farms in Redlands.  I first heard about the blueberries in a Redlands Daily Facts article last year because they had you-pick blueberries.  I asked the woman at the stand if they were going to do that again this year, and she said they were in a few weeks.

In addition to blueberries, they have raw honey, avocados, and oranges.  They have a stand at 1545 East San Bernardino Avenue, Redlands, CA 92374 at the corner of Dearborn and San Bernardino Avenue, near the Redlands Sports Complex also known as the AYSO fields.  I haven’t been there yet, but it appears on Google Street View that the entrance is on Dearborn.
According to the flier they are open 7 days a week, Monday through Friday 12 to 6 p.m and Saturday and Sunday from 9 to 5 p.m.

 

Copyright 2012 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Inspecting and Obtaining Copies of Building Permits and Building Plans in California

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

I have been to multiple City Halls lately inspecting permits and plans, and obtaining copies of permits from local public agencies.  Here is a primer on using the California Public Records Act to inspect building permits and plans, and to receive copies of permits.

As we have discussed before, the California Public Records Act is a way to inspect and obtain copies of documents.  This works for permits, as well.  Some forward-thinking cities have their permit systems online for anyone to inspect.  Others require you to take the trip to City Hall to look at the physical files, either because there is no online system, or because some cities are not as resident-friendly as others.

Every city I have ever dealt allows the public to inspect permits without any prior notice, and without the necessity of sending them to the City Attorney’s Office.  Likewise, getting copies of permits is easy, without the bureaucratic review process seen with many other Public Records Act Requests.

Health and Safety Code section19851 says that plans are open to inspection on premises of the building department as a public record.  No copy of the plans may be duplicated in whole or part except:

with the written permission, which permission shall not be unreasonably withheld as specified in subdivision (f), of the certified, licensed or registered professional or his or her successor, if any, who signed the original documents and the written permission of the original or current owner of the building, or, if the building is part of a common interest development, with the written permission of the board of directors or governing body of the association established to manage the common interest development, or (2) by order of a proper court or upon the request of any state agency.  California Health and Safety Code section 19851(a)(1).

There is also an argument that the plans are exempt from duplication pursuant to Government Code section 6254(k), the exemption part of the California Public Records Act that states: “(k) Records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.”    The idea is that since federal law, 17 United States Code section 102(a)(8) protects architectural works, and “architectural works” is defined as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.”  17 U.S.C. section 101.  I think that argument fails (as to inspection, not copying) because I don’t think it is among the bundle of rights associated with copyright specifically 17 U.S.C. section 106.

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.

Address : 300 E. State St. #517
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone: (909) 296-6708

Government Code section 6254.21 Being Used to Deny San Bernardino County Property Tax Information Over the Internet

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

If you ever have searched the San Bernardino County Tax Collector’s database for property tax information, which also has relatively current property ownership and other information (including finding Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs)  from street addresses, and Assessor Parcel Maps, you might be confronted with this warning:

Please Note – We no longer display addresses on this page per CA. Govt. Code Sect. 6254.21 If you need assistance determining the correct parcel number please call the County of San Bernardino Assessor’s Office at (909) 387-8307.”
Back when I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, the site used to give street addresses, and it was a great resource.  Then, the notice displayed above was posted.   If you need an address for an APN, you can call the Assessor’s Office, and eventually, someone who will give you their first name, but not their last, will tell you an address.  Similarly, if you need to know the mailing address (where tax bills are sent), they will give that to you over the phone, too.
The Government Code section posted above is in the California Public Records Act.  Does the section say that counties cannot display addresses on tax bills on the internet?
Government Code section 6254.21 reads, in its entirety:

(a) No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.

(b) No person shall knowingly post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official, or of the official’s residing spouse or child, on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or child, is a misdemeanor or a felony.

(c) (1) (A) No person, business, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official if that official has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number.

(B) A written demand made under this paragraph by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the Legislature, a city council, or a board of supervisors shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official’s home address.

(C) A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected official shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official’s term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period.

(D) (i) A person, business, or association that receives the written demand of an elected or appointed official pursuant to this paragraph shall remove the official’s home address or telephone number from public display on the Internet, including information provided to cellular telephone applications, within 48 hours of delivery of the written demand, and shall continue to ensure that this information is not reposted on the same Internet Web site, subsidiary site, or any other Internet Web site maintained by the recipient of the written demand.

(ii) After receiving the elected or appointed official’s written demand, the person, business, or association shall not transfer the appointed or elected official’s home address or telephone number to any other person, business, or association through any other medium.

(iii) Clause (ii) shall not be deemed to prohibit a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code, or its affiliate, from transferring the elected or appointed official’ s home address or telephone number to any person, business, or association, if the transfer is authorized by federal or state law, regulation, order, or tariff, or necessary in the event of an emergency, or to collect a debt owed by the elected or appointed official to the telephone corporation or its affiliate.

(E) For purposes of this paragraph, “publicly post” or “publicly display” means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public. (2) An official whose home address or telephone number is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a court finds that a violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the official court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) may be imposed for a violation of the court’s order for an injunction or declarative relief obtained pursuant to this paragraph. (3) An elected or appointed official may designate in writing the official’s employer, a related governmental entity, or any voluntary professional association of similar officials to act, on behalf of that official, as that official’s agent with regard to making a written demand pursuant to this section. A written demand made by an agent pursuant to this paragraph shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official’s home address.

(d) (1) No person, business, or association shall solicit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an elected or appointed official with the intent to cause imminent great bodily harm to the official or to any person residing at the official’s home address. (2) Notwithstanding any other law, an official whose home address or telephone number is solicited, sold, or traded in violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that official in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000).

(e) An interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title 47 of the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harm to an elected or appointed official.

(f) For purposes of this section, “elected or appointed official” includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) State constitutional officers. (2) Members of the Legislature. (3) Judges and court commissioners. (4) District attorneys. (5) Public defenders. (6) Members of a city council. (7) Members of a board of supervisors. (8) Appointees of the Governor. (9) Appointees of the Legislature. (10) Mayors. (11) City attorneys. (12) Police chiefs and sheriffs. (13) A public safety official, as defined in Section 6254.24. (14) State administrative law judges. (15) Federal judges and federal defenders. (16) Members of the United States Congress and appointees of the President.

(g) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69, 76, or 422 of the Penal Code, or any other provision of law.

 

Thus, we apprehend the 1998 enactment [section 6254.21]  as having been intended to prevent public agencies from posting on their public websites any list or directory of public officials’ home addresses and telephone numbers, without first obtaining each official’s written permission to be included in the listing. This apparent intent informs our conclusion.
So opined the California Attorney General in Opinion No. 06-802, May 20, 2008, 91 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 19.  However, the Attorney General, perhaps because of the more limited question the Office was asked to answer, opined:
We therefore conclude that, in the circumstances presented here-that is, where a county maintains a comprehensive database of property-related information that may incidentally contain the home addresses and telephone numbers of persons who are elected or appointed public officials, but who are not identifiable as such from the data-Government Code section 6254.21(a) does not require the county to obtain permission from those officials before transmitting the database over a limited-access network, such as an “intranet,” “extranet,” or “virtual private network.

A city attorney who shall not be named, who liked to say that an opinion of the California Attorney General is just “one attorney’s opinion.”   However, I think this is the correct interpretation of the statute.

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.

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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