HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-225
I.
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-225
2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
FINDINGS OF FACT ON THE APPEAL HEARING OF EZZAT SOLIMAN
3 CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 2000-2 AND
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE THEREOF.
4
5 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
6 SAN BERNARDINO, AS FOLLOWS:
7
8
9
SECTION 1: The Findings of Fact on the Appeal Hearing of Mr. Ezzat Soliman challenging
the validity of Executive Order 2000-2 (a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
by this reference is incorporated in its entirety herein) are hereby adopted.
10
11
SECTION 2: The City Clerk is hereby directed to immediately send upon execution a copy
of this resolution and the attached Findings of Fact to appellant Ezzat Soliman and to his attorney of
2000-225
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
FINDINGS OF FACT ON THE APPEAL HEARING OF EZZAT SOLIMAN
2 CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 2000-2 AND
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE THEREOF.
3
4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a Joint Regular
meeting thereof,
, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
NAYS
ABSTAIN ABSENT
.~~~
18
19
20
21
The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this :)(c L. day of Jul v
,2000.
22 Approved as to form and
legal content:
23
JAMES F. PENMAN,
24 City Attorn y
25
26 By:
27
28
HTC[EZZATl]
2
.'".,<.i;';'
2000-225
FINDINGS OF FACT ON APPEAL HEARING
OF EZZAT SOLIMAN CHALLENGING THE
2 VALIDITY OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 2000-2
3 The above-indicated matter concerning the appeal hearing ofMr. Ezzat Soliman (appellant)
4 challenging the validity of Executive Order 2000-2 came on for hearing on June 19,2000 before the
5 Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino in the City Hall Council Chambers at
6 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California 92418.
7 Appellant was represented by his attorney of record, Mr. Roger Jon Diamond, The validity
8 of Executive Order 2000-2 was defended by the City Attorney's office, to wit: City Attorney James
9 F. Penman and Deputy City Attorney Jolena Barnes. The Mayor and Common Council heard the
10 testimony of all witnesses presented, the arguments of counsel for both sides, and received into
II evidence Mr. Diamond's remarks concerning the first reading of an ordinance on the agenda which
12 would implement by legislation Executive Order 2000-2, as well as the Request for Council Action,
13 Staff Report, Executive Order 2000-1, Executive Order 2000-2, letter dated June I, 2000 from
14 Roger Jon Diamond to Robert L. Simmons, Sr. Assistant City Attorney, letter dated June 2, 2000
15 from Roger Jon Diamond to Robert L. Simmons, Sr. Assistant City Attorney, letter dated June 7,
16 2000 from Rachel Clark, City Clerk, to Roger Jon Diamond, and copy of ordinance amending
17 Chapter 2.64 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
18 The appeal hearing was continued to July 10, 2000 so that the Common Council could read
19 the entire deposition of Mayor Judith Valles (which was introduced in its entirety as evidence) which
20 had been taken by Mr. Diamond in a related federal court lawsuit. On July 10, 2000, Mr. Diamond
21 was once again present with appellant and presented further arguments in support of his client's
22 posi1ion. The City Attorney's office once again defended the validity of Executive Order 2000-2.
23 After due consideration of arguments, testimony, and all evidence presented as part of the record by
24 both sides at these two appeal hearings, it is the 5-1 vote of the Common Council in favor of the
25 following Findings of Fact:
26 FINDINGS OF FACT
27
I.
The Mayor has the power and authority to issue Executive Orders pursuant to the
28 Charter of the City of San Bernardino;
I
Exhibit "A"
.... ',' .....~.. '.~ ',,- ".', '-',.<>.
. - . -. ----
"c. "'. ,,' __;- ,. .~.~.....-;"."._~,..""",.,;i;,'-,",..~'-
2000-225
2, Any Executive Order of the Mayor may be overridden, amended, revised or
2 withdrawn by two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Common Council;.
3
3.
Executive Order 2000-2 is applied equally to all concerned and limits San Bernardino
4 Baseball Stadium parking to events being held on the Baseball Stadium premises;
5
4,
Appellant has not demonstrated that he is being irreparably harmed by the existence
6 and enforcement of Executive Order 2000-2;
7
5.
Appellant has not demonstrated that being unable to use the parking facilities at the
8 Baseball Stadium has resulted in a lack of parking for patrons, thus directly adversely affecting
9 appellant's business operations;
10
6.
Appellant has not demonstrated that being unable to use the parking facilities at the
11 Baseball Stadium has resulted in any directly-demonstrated tinancialloss;
12
7.
Appellant has not demonstrated that the City of San Bernardino is required to provide
13 available parking for his business; therefore
14
8.
The appeal of Ezzat Soliman challenging the validity of Executive Order 2000-2 is
15 hereby DENIED.
16
17 DATED:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
July 24, 2000
2
Exhibit "A"
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2000-225
1 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the time within which judicial review of the decision in
3 this matter must be sought is governed by the provisions of Section 1094.6 of the California
4 Code of Civil Procedure, which provides, in part, as follows:
5
" (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency, other
than school district. as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951
of the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent
thereof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this Code only if the
petition for Writ of Mandate pursuant to such Section is filed within the
time limits specified in this Section,
6
7
8
9
"(b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day
following the date on which the decision becomes final . , ,
"(c) The complete record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the local
agency or its commission, board, officer or agent which made the decision and shall be
delivered to the petitioner with 90 days after he has filed a written request therefore,
The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or
otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the transcript of the
proceedings, all pleadings. all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing
officer the final decision. all admitted exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of
the local agency or its commission. board, officer or agent. all written evidence. and
any other papers in the case.
"(d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified
in subdivision (c) within 10 days after the date of the decision becomes
final as provided in subdivision (b). the time within which a petition
pursuant to Section 1094.5 may be filed shall be extended to not later
than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either
personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of record,
if he has one."
3
Exhibit "A"
2000-225
1 PLEASE ALSO TAKE NOTICE that Section 1.26.030 of the San Bernardino Municip~l
2 Code provides as follows:
3 "1.26,030 Preparation and Payment for Record and Reporter's
4 Transcript.
5 "Upon the filing of a written request for the record of the
6 proceedings or any portion thereof, an amount estimated to cover the
7 actual cost of preparip.g the record shall be deposited in advance with the
8 City official preparing the record. The record prepared by the City
9 official shall include the transcript of the proceedings, other than a
10 reporter's transcript; all pleadings, notices, orders, final decision,
11 exhibits admitted or rejected, all written evidence, and any other papers
12 in the case, When a hearing has been reported by a court reporter and
13 the petitioner desires a reporter's transcript, the petitioner shall arrange
14 directly with the court reporter for the transcript, pay the reporter
15 directly. and lodge the transcript with the court, serving notice of the
16 lodging [0 the City Attorney."
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
ExhibitllAII