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

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

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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

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

What does California Elections Code section 13116 say?:

(a) In an election at which state, county, city, or other local measures are submitted to a vote of the voters, all state measures shall be numbered in numerical order, as provided in this chapter or division. All county, city, or other local measures shall be designated by a letter, instead of a figure, printed on the left margin of the square containing the description of the measure, commencing with the letter “A” and continuing in alphabetical order, one letter for each of these measures appearing on the ballot.
(b) An elections official may commence designating local measures with any letter of the alphabet following the letter “A,” and continuing in alphabetical order, in order to avoid voter confusion that might result from different local measures carrying the same letter designation in successive elections.
(c) Where two or more counties or cities submitting measures to the voters are in close proximity, the elections officials of those counties or cities may mutually agree to use letter designation for ballot measures that will not conflict or confuse the voter.

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

Opinion issued in Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust et al. Real Parties in Interest) No. E052253.

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Yesterday, July 31, 2012, the California Court of Appeal 4th District, Division 2 issued a ruling, certified for partial publication in the case of Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto.  The appeal arose out of a writ of mandate case heard before Judge Donald Alvarez of the San Bernardino Superior Court (San Bernardino Superior Court Case CIVSS 810834).  The ruling is found at, for the moment, 2012 WL 3089826.  The real parties in interest are Wal-Mart related entities.

Justice King wrote the opinion, with Acting Presiding Justice McKinster and Justice Miller concurring.  The procedural history, summary and conclusion follow:

Defendant, City of Rialto (the City), approved a 230,000–square–foot commercial retail center to be anchored by a 24–hour Wal–Mart “Supercenter” (the project). Plaintiff, Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth (Rialto Citizens), petitioned the trial court for a writ of administrative mandate invalidating several project approvals, including the City’s resolution certifying the final environmental impact report (the EIR) for the project, several resolutions amending the City’s general plan and the Gateway Specific Plan governing the project site, and an ordinance approving a development agreement for the project.

The trial court entered judgment in favor of Rialto Citizens and issued a peremptory writ invalidating the challenged resolutions and ordinance. Real parties in interest, Wal–Mart Real Estate Business Trust, Wal–Mart Real Estate Business Trust, Inc., and Wal–Mart Real Estate Trust, Inc. (collectively Wal–Mart), appeal. The City and its redevelopment agency, another named defendant, join Wal–Mart’s appeal. Based on our de novo review of the City’s actions certifying the EIR and approving the project, we find no prejudicial abuse of discretion on the part of the City. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in its entirety.
II. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND CONCLUSIONS
As a preliminary matter, Wal–Mart claims for the first time on appeal that Rialto Citizens lacks standing to challenge the project approvals because neither it nor any of its members are beneficially interested in the issuance of the judgment or writ. Based on the record before us, we conclude that Rialto Citizens has public interest standing. It is therefore unnecessary to determine whether Rialto Citizens or any of its members have a beneficial interest in the issuance of judgment or the writ.
In a separate section of this opinion, we address whether the City violated the Planning and Zoning Law (Gov.Code, § 65000 et seq .) in approving the project. The trial court set aside the City’s resolutions approving the general and specific plan amendments and the ordinance approving the development agreement on the ground the City violated the Planning and Zoning Law in two respects. First, the court concluded that the notice of the public hearing on the project before the City Council was defective because it did not include the planning commission’s earlier recommendations that the City Council approve the plan amendments and the development agreement. (§§ 65033, 65094.) The court also ruled that the City erroneously adopted the ordinance approving the development agreement without expressly finding that the provisions of the agreement were consistent with the general and specific plans governing the project site, as the Planning and Zoning Law also requires. (§ 65867.5, subd. (b).)
On independent review of these legal questions, we agree with the trial court that the notice of hearing was defective because it did not include the planning commission’s recommendations. We also agree that the City erroneously adopted the ordinance approving the development agreement without finding that the provisions of the agreement were consistent with the general and specific plans. Importantly, however, Rialto Citizens made no attempt to show and the trial court did not find that either the defective notice of hearing or the omitted factual finding resulted in prejudice, substantial injury, and that a different result was probable absent these errors or omissions. (§ 65010, subd. (b).) In the absence of these factual findings by the trial court, the resolutions approving the plan amendments and the ordinance approving the development agreement were erroneously invalidated as a matter of law.
 In the final section of this opinion, we address whether the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) in approving the project, specifically in certifying the EIR and in rejecting a “reduced density alternative” as infeasible. The trial court ruled that the EIR was inadequate and therefore erroneously certified because: (1) its project description did not identify the development agreement as an approval required to implement the project; (2) it inadequately analyzed the project’s cumulative impacts on air quality, traffic, and on greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change; and (3) it improperly deferred mitigation measures to reduce the project’s potential impacts on five special status plant species and three special status wildlife species, namely, the San Bernardino and Stephens’ kangaroo rats, and the burrowing owl. The court also concluded that insufficient evidence supported the city council’s factual finding, at the project approval stage, that the reduced density alternative to the project was infeasible.
We agree with the trial court that the project description was inadequate because it did not identify the development agreement as an approval required to implement the project. Importantly, however, this omission did not preclude or undermine informed decisionmaking on the project as a whole or the development agreement, because the ordinance approving the development agreement was duly noticed and considered, along with other project approvals, at the public hearing on the project before the City Council.
We also conclude, contrary to the trial court’s rulings, that the EIR adequately analyzed the project’s cumulative impacts on air quality, traffic, and on greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change, and did not improperly defer mitigation of potential impacts on any of the special status plant or wildlife species. Lastly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the City’s finding, at the project approval stage, that the reduced density alternative was infeasible.
Thus we find no prejudicial violations of either the Planning and Zoning Law or CEQA in the City’s approval of the project.  Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) .       Cal.Rptr.3d      , 2012 WL 3089826, *1-*2 [Footnotes omitted].
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 Municipal (Local City and Town) Offices are Up for Election in San Bernardino County in November 6, 2012?

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

In short, it is an election year for everyone except the City of San Bernardino.  Many local cities consolidate their election to either the Presidential election and the Congressional Midterm Elections, because it costs less.

Starting with the High Desert, the City of Adelanto is electing two Council Members; Apple Valley, two Town Council Members; Barstow is electing the Mayor, the City Clerk, City Treasurer, and two City Council Members, Hesperia, two Council Members, Needles is electing two Council Members and the Mayor, Twentynine Palms is electing two Council Members. Rounding out the High Desert is Victorville, electing three Council Members, and Yucca Valley electing two Town Council Members.
In the San Bernardino Mountains, the City of Big Bear Lake is electing two City Council Members

In the Southwest of San Bernardino County, Chino is electing two City Council Members, and Chino Hills, the same number.

In the East-end of San Bernardino, the City of Colton is electing City Council Members in two districts, 3 and 5; the City Clerk and City Treasurer, and the Blue Mountain City, Grand Terrace, is electing three Council Members.  Fontana, which either is the western part of the East Valley, or the Western part of the West-end, is electing two City Council members.  Highland is electing two Council Members, the adjoining City of Redlands has two Council Member seats up for election, and City Clerk and City Treasurer.  Rialto has a mayoral election, City Clerk, City Treasurer, and two Council Member seats.  Lastly, Yucaipa is electing three Council Members.

In the West-end, Montclair is electing two Council Members; Ontario is electing Mayor, City Clerk, City Treasurer, and two Council Members; Rancho Cucamonga, land of Victoria Gardens, is electing its City Clerk, City Treasurer, and two Council Members; Upland, is electing one Council Member, the Mayor and Treasurer.

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

City Attorneys of San Bernardino County Cities and Towns

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

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

City of Adelanto:

 

Todd Litfin

Rutan & Tucker LLP

611 Anton Blvd. #1400

Costa Mesa, CA  92626

 

Town of Apple Valley:

 

John E. Brown

Best Best & Krieger LLP

3500 Porsche Way, Suite 200

Ontario, CA 91764

 

City of Barstow:

 

Teresa Highsmith (Interim City Attorney)

Colantuono & Levin

300 S. Grand Ave. Ste 2700

Los Angeles CA 90071

 

City of Big Bear Lake:

 

Stephen Dietsch

Best Best & Krieger LLP

3500 Porsche Way, Suite 200

Ontario CA 91764

 

City of Chino:

 

Jimmy L. Gutierrez

12616 Central Ave
Chino, CA 91710

 

City of Chino Hills:

 

Mark D. Hensley

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

 

City of Colton:

 

Dean Derleth

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

 

City of Fontana:

 

Clark Alsop

Best Best & Krieger LLP

3500 Porsche Way, Suite 200

Ontario, CA 91764

 

City of Grand Terrace:

 

Richard L. Adams, II

Jones & Mayer

3777 N. Harbor Blvd.

Fullerton CA 92835

 

City of Hesperia:

 

Eric Dunn

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

 

City of Highland:

 

Craig Steele

Richards Watson & Gershon

355 S. Grand Ave., 40th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101

 

City of Loma Linda:

 

Richard E.  Holdaway

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

 

City of Montclair:

 

Diane E. Robbins

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

 

City of Needles:

 

John Pinkney

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

 

City of Ontario:

 

John E. Brown

Best Best & Krieger LLP

3500 Porsche Way, Suite 200

Ontario, CA 91764

 

City of Rancho Cucamonga:

James L. Markman

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

 

City of Redlands:

Daniel J. McHugh

P.O. Box 3005

Redlands, CA 92373

 

City of Rialto:

Jimmy L. Gutierrez

12616 Central Ave
Chino, CA 91710

 

City of San Bernardino:

James F. Penman

300 North D Street

Sixth Floor

San Bernardino, CA 92418

 

City of Twentynine Palms:

Patrick Munoz

Rutan & Tucker

P.O. Box 1950

Costa Mesa, CA 92628-9990

 

City of Upland:

William P. Curley III

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

 

City of Victorville:

Andre de Bortnowsky

Green, de Bortnowsky & Quintanilla

23801 Calabasas Rd. #1015

Calabasas, CA 91302-1595

 

City of Yucaipa:

 

David Snow (Interim City Attorney)

Richards Watson & Gershon

355 S. Grand Ave., 40th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101

 

Town of Yucca Valley:

 

Lona Laymon

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

 

Copyright 2012 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

California Public Records Act, How and Where to Make a Request in San Bernardino County and Riverside County

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

The California Public Records Act is an invaluable tool for individuals, traditional and new media,  public interest groups, non-profits, business entities, and even lawyers and political groups to find out what local government is doing.  This first post has to do with a very brief overview of the Act, and how to make a Public Records Act request.  Private Attorneys especially do not use the Act efficiently, much to the delight of City Attorneys and much to the detriment of their clients.

I have handled Public Records Act Requests on behalf of local agencies, and I have made Public Records Act Requests to local agencies, so I have a good perspective about how the Act is handled on both sides of the counter.  Having an attorney knowledgeable about the California Public Records Act is important if a client is involved in a case against a City, County, or other local government agency.

The Public Records Act is found in the California Government Code.  A Requester can find the California Government Code here.  The version found here is unannotated.  If a Requester wants to see an annotated code, it can be found at most public libraries and law libraries.  The annotated version gives case law and secondary source references.  The Act is codified at Government Code, Title 1 “General”, Division 7 “Miscellaneous,” Chapter 3.5 “Inspection of Public Records”, Article 1, “General Provisions” and Article 2 “Other Exemptions From Disclosure.”   If a Requester is searching manually, the Act is found in Government Code section 6250 et seq.  [“Et seq.” is legal jargon from the Latin “et sequentia” meaning “and following.”  It is shorthand to tell a court, or others, the general location of an some amount of primary or secondary law.]

The California Legislature, in enacting the Act, found and declared  “that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in” California.  Government Code section 6250.

While, there are generally two rights, to inspect and/or copy public records, this post will focus on how to make the request.

How and When to make a request to a local government agency in San Bernardino County and Riverside County:

The Act requires that records not subject to an exemption are to be made available “upon a request”  Government Code section 6253(b).  The Court of Appeal for the Second District of California found that the “California Public Records Act plainly does not require a written request.”  Los Angeles Times v. Alameda Corridor Transp. Authority (2001) 88 Cal.App. 4th 1381, 1392.

What does this mean, practically?  A Requester can ask the local government agency in person, or over the phone, to inspect or copy records.  However, the practical thing to do is to put it in writing so that there is a record of the request.  Local governments are collections of individuals, and if the individual employed by the government does not understand the request, or does not write the request down correctly, a Requester may not get to inspect the records in a timely fashion.  A Requester’s best practice is to put the Public Record Act request in writing and date it.  A Requester does not have to use a form provided by the local government agency, but sometimes it is easier to use their form.

Where and to whom should the Request be made?  Though the Act does not specify, local government agencies in Riverside and San Bernardino County usually have Departments that are responsible for responding to routine requests, such as for copies of ordinances or minutes.   In an incorporated city or town, the Requester can usually request the documents from the City Clerk, and it should be routed within the City to the right department if it is not the City Clerk .  In cities with in-house City Attorney’s Offices, such as the City of San Bernardino and the City of Riverside, a Requester can request the documents from the City Attorney.  Likewise, it will be routed to the correct department.

However, the best practice is to request from the specific department that has the records.  If the Requester is ling with a specific department, such as Planning or Code Enforcement, the Requester can make the request directly to the department who is likely to handle the request.  If the Requester is asking for records from different departments, the Requester might want to make the request to the City Manager or City Administrator.  A Requester should feel free to ask someone in the particular city, town or county.  Most local government entities understand their responsibilities under the Act, and want to help the public.  Some do not.

A later discussion with examine how to make a reasonably described record request.

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