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.

A: 300 E. State St. #517 Redlands CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 708-6055

The Religous Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and Zoning in the Inland Empire

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

What is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)?

RLUIPA was enacted by Congress in 2000.  RLUIPA states, regarding land use,  that the government may not “impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden” on religious exercise unless the government demonstrates that the imposition of that regulation (and its accompanying “burden”) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest,” and is the “least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”  42 United States Code section 2000cc.  RLUIPA broadly defines the term “religious exercise,” to include “the use, building, or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise.”  42 United States Code section 2000cc-5(7)(B).   The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “for a land use regulation to impose a ‘substantial burden’ it must be ‘oppressive’ to a ‘significantly great’ extent.  That is, a ‘substantial burden’ on ‘religious exercise’ must impose a significantly great restriction or onus upon such exercise.”  San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill (9th Cir. 2004) 360 F.3d 1024, 1034.

RLUIPA also states that “no government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.”  42 United States Code section 2000cc(b)(1).  The “equal terms” section requires the government to treat religious assembly uses in the same way it would a non-religious use.

RLUIPA adds a layer of federal regulation to local Inland Empire government’s land use authority.  In discretionary land use decisions involving religious uses, local governments need to be familiar with the requirements of RLUIPA.  When I was Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands, RLUIPA was an issue that arose from time to time in City Council and Planning Commission land use decision-making.

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

Growing and selling crops and agricultural products in Inland Empire Cities

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

The San Francisco Chronicle has a story today on page A-1 about a property owner who has a pocket farm in Oakland.  The City of Oakland says that she needs a Conditional Use Permit to continue to sell her produce and livestock-derived food.  According to the same article, the City and County of San Francisco has already created new ordinances to deal with the urban farming trend in the Bay Area.

The Inland Empire has a rich history of agriculture, and unlike Oakland, still has agriculture.  According to the California Department of Agriculture,  of California’s 58 counties,   Riverside County was the 12th largest farm county in California in  2007, slipping to 13th in 2008.  Riverside’s crops were valued at $1,268,590,000.  The leading commodities for Riverside County in 2008 were nursery stock, milk, eggs, table grapes and hay.  San Bernardino County was the 17th largest farm county in California in 2007, slipping to 20th in 2008.  That probably is largely due to the dairies leaving Chino and South Ontario.  San Bernardino County’s crops were valued at $547,158,000 in 2008.  The leading commodities that year were milk, eggs, cattle and calves, replacement heifers and trees and shrubs.

By 2009, San Bernardino County had fallen to 25th out of  58 counties, with total production down to $355,379,000, with alfalfa becoming a top crop.  The march of urbanization made a significant dent in just two years.  The recession was probably the only thing preventing more losses.  Much prime agricultural land has been converted into housing.

When I was Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands, there was still significant agriculture in the City.  Some parts of the City and areas within the City’s sphere of influence were zoned agricultural.  In the A-1 Agricultural zone (one of a number of zones where agriculture is allowed by right) in Redlands, allows agricultural  uses  (only part of the section is quoted below, as shown by the ellipses):

“Apiaries, provided that no hives or boxes housing bees are kept closer than three hundred feet (300′) from any dwelling other than that occupied by the owner of the apiary;

Farms or ranches for the grazing, breeding or raising of not more than two (2) horses, cattle, goats or sheep per acre. . . .

Orchards, groves, nurseries, the raising of field crops, tree crops, berry crops, bush crops, truck gardening and commercial flower growing;. . . The sale of fruit, vegetables, produce, flowers and other similar products grown on the property; provided, however, that roadside stands used for such sales shall not exceed five hundred (500) square feet.”   Redlands Municipal Code section 18.20.030.  Other zones allow produce stands, either explicitly, or by reference to other zones.

In San Bernardino, where I was a Deputy City Attorney, there are only remnants of agriculture.   If you have a fast connection, or some spare time, you can find San Bernardino’s zoning map.  According to the City of San Bernadino’s Development Code, San Bernardino Municipal Code section 19.08.o20, agricultural production-crops, is allowed, subject to a development permit in the IH (Industrial Heavy) and IE (Industrial Extractive) zones.  Like the City of Oakland, agricultural uses are allowed in almost every residential zone in San Bernardino (except RSH, Residential Student Housing) with a Conditional Use Permit.  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 19.04.020.  “Agriculture” is defined as the ” use of land for farming, dairying, pasteurizing and grazing, horticulture, floriculture, viticulture, apiaries, animal and poultry husbandry, and accessory activities, including, but not limited to storage, harvesting, feeding or maintenance of equipment excluding stockyards, slaughtering or commercial food processing.”  San Bernardino Municipal Code section 19.02.050.   It is not immediately clear if that includes a produce stand.  That would probably be subject to the development permit or conditional use permit process.

The common sense advice is to check with your city, or if you are in an unincorporated area, Riverside or San Bernardino County before you start your mini-farm.  Also, there are other issues out there, such as legal non-conforming uses, non-zoning issues such as the keeping of animals, the need for a business registration certificate or a business license if you’re selling your produce or animal products, the possibility of County Health inspections and permits.  As with anything, you should get legal advice before starting instead of  facing a citation or a lawsuit alleging nuisance.  If you find yourself in trouble, find an attorney versed in land use or code enforcement, or both, depending on your situation.

Update 4/22/2011  The Mayor and Common Council had this agenda item on the 4/18/2011 meeting agenda.   According to the summary, the matter was sent to the Legislative Review Committee to review the proposal to allow food carts, coffee carts and vegetable stands.

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

 

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