HomeMy WebLinkAbout36-City Attorney
, .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
FRANK A. WEISER
Attorney at Law
3460 Wilshire Blvd., #903
Los Angeles, CA 90010
(213) 384-6964
ANDREW J. GUNN
Attorney at Law
363 West Sixth Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Attorneys for permitees and Appellants,
LEI WANG and CINDY L. WANG
Q
BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY COUNCIL
IN RE THE REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL)
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 198, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Permittees and Appellants.)
)
)
)
CIVIC CENTER MOTEL -
655 NORTH "0" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA
LEI AND CINDY WANG,
PERMITTEE'S MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF APPEAL OF REVOCATION
OF CONDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 198:DECLARATIONS
OF CINDY L. WANG AND
FRANK A. WEISER IN
SUPPORT THEREOF
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
July 15, 1991
2:00 P.M.
City Hall
>0 ::0
M'1
- n
':!!
~
-.. .,
::J
I ,
- ,
-,
-0 -<
.~ .,
~ ..."
,.,
,. 3"
, .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2S
24
25
26
27
28
.w
w
o
a
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Adams v. DeDa~ment 0 Motor Vehicles,
(1974) 11 Cal.3d 146, 155,
113 Cal.Rptr. 145, 520 P.2d 961. . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. 5
Arnett v. Kennedv,
(1974) 416 US 134.
. . . . . . . . . .
.11
. . . . . . . . . .
Auaust v. DeDt. of Motor Vehicles,
(1968) 264 CA2d 52, 64, 70 CR 172, 180
. . . . . . . . . .
. 7
Bell v. Burson,
(1971) 402 U.S. 535, 542,
91 S.ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90
. . . . .
.4, 5
. .
Blair v. Pitchess,
(1971) 5 Cal.3d 258, 277, 96 Cal.Rptr. 42, 486 P.2d 1242 5
Boddie v. Connecticut, (1971) 401 U.S. 371, 378-379,
91 S.ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . 5
Brooks v. Small Claims Court,
(1973) 8 Cal.3d 661, 667-668,
105 Cal.Rptr. 785, 504 P.2d 1249
. . . . . .
5
. . . .
civil Serve Ass'n. v. citv and Countv of San Francisco,
(1978) 22 C3d 552, 561, 150 CR 129, 134. .. . . . . .3, 4
Conev Island Dairv Prods. COrD. v. Baldwin,
(App Div 1935) 276 NYS 682 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Enalish v. citv of Lena Beach,
(1950) 35 C2d 155, 159, 217 P2d 22, 24 . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Everett v. Gordon,
(1968) 266 CA2d 667, 72 CR 379
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
FTC v. Flotill Proas.. Inc.,
(1967) 389 US 179, 183 . . . .
. . . .
.10
. . . . . . . .
Fuentes v. Shevin,
(1972), 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556
. . . .
4
Fuentes v. Shevin, sUDra,
407 U.S. 67, 82, 88, 90-91, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556. 4
Geneva Towers Tenants Ora. V. Federated Mortaaae Inv.,
(1974) 9 Cir., 504 F.2d 483, 495-496 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Goldbera v. Kellv,
(1970) 397 U.S. 254, 261-262,
90 S.ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4, 9
2
, .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
liI.
~
o
o
H. Moffat Co. v. Heeke,
(1924) 68 CA 35, 39, 228
Administrative Law 366 (1965).
P.546,
548,
1 Copper,
state
. . 7
. . . . . .
Jewell v. MCCann,
(Ohio 1917) 116 NE 42. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . 7
Kinnev v. Sacramento City EmDIQvees' Retirement Svs.,
(1947) 77 CA2d 779, 782, 176 P2d 775, 777. . . . . . . . . . 9
Lanadorf United Bakeries. Inc. v. lAC,
(1948) 87 CA2d 103, 195 P2d 887. . .. .......... 9
Massachusetts Bondina & Ins. Co. v. lAC,
(1946) 74 CA2d 911, 915, 170 P2d 36, 38. . . . . . . . . . . 9
Mathews v. Eldridae,
(1976) 424 US 319, 335
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 4
McCalloD v. Carberrv,
(1970) 1 Cal.3d 903, 907, 83 Cal.Rptr. 42, 496 P.2d 1242 . . 5
McCalloD v. Carberrv,
(1970) 1 Cal.3d 903, 907, 83 Cal.Rptr. 666, 464 P.2d 122 . . 7
McCullouah v. Terzian,
(1970) 2 C3d 647, 654, 87 CR 195, 200. . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co.,
(1974) 416 US 600, 610 . . .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . J
Niahtinaale v. State Personnel Bd.,
(1972) 7 C3d 507, 518 102 CR 758, 766. . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Old Santa Barbara Peer Co. v. State,
(1977) 71 CA3d 250, 255, 139, 332, 334
. . . .
. .10
. . . . .
Olive Proration Proaram Comm. v. Aaricultural Prorate Comm'n
(1941) 17 C2d 204, 210, 109 P2d 918, 921 . . . . . . . 7, 8, 9
Parker v. citv of Fountain Vallev,
(1981) 127 CA3d 99, 179 CR 351 ............ .11
PeoD1e v. Galleaos,
(1960) 180 CA2d 274, 4 CR 413. .............. 6
Pinkin v. Board of Sunervisors,
(1978) 82 CA3d 652, 147 CR 502 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Randone v. ADDellate DeDartment,
(1971) 5 Cal.3d 536, 547, 96 Cal.Rptr. 709, 488 P.2d 13. . . 5
Rios v. Cozens,
(1972) 7 c3D 792, 103 cr 299 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
3
. .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
Romero v. Hern,
(1969) 276 CA2d 787, 790, 81 CR 281, 284 . . . . . . . . . . 6
Safewav stores. Inc. v. citv of Burlinaame,
(1959) 170 CA2d 637, 647, 339 P2d 933, 939 . . . . . . . . . 7
Shivelv v. stewart,
(1966) 65 C2d 475, 479, 55 CR 217, 220
. . . . . . . . .
. . 6
Skellv v. state Personnel Bd.,
(1975) 15 C 3d 194, 209, 124 CR 14, 25
. . . . . . .
.3, 4
sniadach v. Familv Finance Coree,
(1969), 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349. . . . . 4
Suckow v. Alderson,
(1920) 182 C 247, 249, 187 P 965, 966. .
. . . . . . .
.10, 11
Tonanaa Ass'n v. Countv of Los Anaeles,
(1974) 11 C3d 506, 113 CR 836. . .. . . . . . . . .10, 12
Walker v. Citv of San Gabriel,
(1942) 20 C2d 879, 881, 129 P2d 349, 351 ........ 8
Willner v. Committee on Character & Fitness,
(1963) 373 US 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
statutes
Government Code section 11517(al . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. 9
Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"),
Government Code Section 11342
. . . .
.10
California Code of civil Procedure Section 1094.5.
.10
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 . .
. . . .
.12
4
. ..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1.
THE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS WERE
CONDUCTED IN CLEAR VIOLATION
OF THE PERMITTEES' RIGHTS TO
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW
While the due process laws of the United States
Constitution protects substantial rights no particular form of
procedure is set forth and the process appropriate for a
particular case is dictated by the circumstances. Mitchell v.
W.T. Grant Co. (1974) 416 US 600, 610.
Both the United States Supreme Court and the California
Supreme Court have attempted to list certain factors in
defining whether the procedure in a particular case satisfies
due process.
In Skellv v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 C 3d 194, 209,
124 CR 14, 25, the court identified the following factors as
significant in balancing the computing interest:
(1) Whether predeprevation safeguards minimize the risk
of error in the initial decision;
(2) Whether the surrounding circumstances necessitate
quick action;
(3) Whether postdeprevation hearing is sufficiently
prompt;
(4) Whether the interim loss incurred by the person
affected is substantial; and
(5) Whether the individual involved will be entitled to
adequate compensation in the event the deprevation of his or
her property proves to be wrongful. Cf. civil Serve Ass'n. v.
5
. .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
city and County of San Francisco (1978) 22 C3d 552, 561, 150 CR
129, 134; Mathews v. Eldridae (1976) 424 US 319, 335.
When there is a legitimate entitlement to a protective
interest, the scope of due process protections is dictated by
the Constitution.
As SkellY stated:
"Property interests, of course, are not
created by the Constitution. Rather, they
are created and their dimensions are
defined by existing rules or
understandings that stem from an
independent source such as state law--
rules or understandings that secure ceratin
benefits and that support claims of
entitlement to those benefits.
Thus, when a person has a legally
enforceable right to receive a government
benefit provided certain facts exist, this
right constitutes a property interest
protected by due process. (Goldbera v.
Kellv (1970) 397 U.S. 254, 261-262, 90
S.ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287; see Geneva
Towers Tenants Ora. V. Federated Mortaaae
.lnL.. (1974) 9 Cir., 504 F.2d 483, 495-496
(Hufstedler, J., dissenting).)
Until last year, the line of United States
Supreme Court discussions beginning with
Sniadach v. Familv Finance COrD. (1969),
395 U.S. 337, 89 S.ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d
349, and continuing with Fuentes v. Shevin
(1972), 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.ct. 1983, 32
L.Ed.2d 556, and the line of California
decisions following Sniadach and Fuentes
adhered to a rather rigid and mechanical
interpretation of the due process clause.
Under these decisions fOllowing Sniadach
and Fuentes adhered to a rather rigid and
mechanical interpretation of the due
process clause. Under these decisions,
every significant deprivation -- permanent
or merely temporary -- of an interest which
qualified as "property" was required under
the mandate of due process to be oreceded
by notice and a hearing absent
"extraordinary" or "truly unusual"
circumstances. (Fuentes v. Shevin, suora,
407 U.S. 67, 82, 88, 90-91, 92 S.ct. 1983,
32 L.Ed.2d 556; Bell v. Burson (1971) 402
6
. .
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
U.S. 535, 542, 91 S.ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d
90; Boddie v. Connecticut (1971) 401 U.S.
371, 378-379, 91 S.ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113;
Adams v. DeDartment 0 Motor Vehicles
(1974) 11 Ca1.3d 146, 155, 113 Cal.Rptr.
145, 520 P.2d 961; Brooks v. Small Claims
Court (1973) 8 Cal.3d 661, 667-668, 105
Cal.Rptr. 785, 504 P.2d 1249; Randone v.
ADDellate DeDartment (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 536,
547, 96 Cal.Rptr. 709, 488 P.2d 13; Blair
v. Pitchess (1971) 5 Ca1.3d 258, 277, 96
Cal.Rptr. 42, 486 P.2d 1242; McCalloD v.
CarberrY (1970) 1 Cal.3d 903, 907, 83
Cal.Rptr. 42, 496 P.2d 1242; McCallOD v.
CarberrY (1970) 1 Cal.3d 903, 907, 83
Ca1.Rptr. 666, 464 P.2d 122. The
authorities uniformly held that such
hearing must meet certain minimum
procedural requirements including the right
to appear personally before an impartial
official, to confront and cross-examine
adverse witnesses. to Dresent favorable
evidence and to be reDresented bv counsel."
Ibid. at Pgs. 23 and 24.
The Civil Discovery Act (Code of Civil Procedure Section
2016-2036.5) does not apply to administrative proceedings.
Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 CA2d 787, 790,81 CR 281,284;
Niahtinaale v. State Personnel Bd. (1972) 7 C3d 507, 518 102 CR
758, 766. In the absence of statute, regulation, or ordinance
setting forth discovery procedures,
discovery in
administrative proceedings is determined on a case-by-case
basis by analogizing those proceedings to criminal cases.
Shivelv v. Stewart (1966) 65 C2d 475, 479, 55 CR 217, 220;
Everett v. Gordon (1968) 266 CA2d 667, 72 CR 379.
In criminal proceedings discovery can be obtained during
trial by an oral motion or by a subpena duces tecum. PeoDle v.
Galleaos (1960) 180 CA2d 274, 4 CR 413; Pen C Section 1327.
Some courts have held that constitutional due process
principals requires a statute or ordinance to provide for
7
. .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
compulsory attendance of witnesses in the absence of such.
Jewell v. McCann (Ohio 1917) 116 NE 42.
In Conev Island Dairv Prods. COrti. v. Baldwin (App Div
1935) 276 NYS 682, in which the statute did authorize the
agency to issue subpenas, the court commented that:
"the privilege of a litigant to enforce the
attendance of witnesses is an ancient
right." Ibid. at P.684.
The due process requirement of a fair hearing includes the
right to present issues of fact and law in a deliberate,
regular and orderly manner. H. Moffat Co. v. Heeke (1924) 68
CA 35, 39, 228 P.546, 548; 1 Copper, state Administrative Law
366 (1965).
The respondent has a right to cross-examine witnesses and
produce evidence in refutation; willner v. Committee on
Character & Fitness (1963) 373 US 96; Enalish v. Citv of Lena
Beach (1950) 35 C2d 155, 159, 217 P2d 22, 24; Olive Proration
proaram Comm. v. Aaricultural Prorate Comm'n (1941) 17 C2d 204,
210, 109 P2d 918, 921.
Consequently the respondent must be apprised of the
evidence on which the agency relied.
An administrative
adjudicatory determination cannot be based on confidential
reports or undisclosed or ex parte information received by the
hearing body of the agency but not known to the aggrieved
party.
Enalish v. citv of Lena Beach (1950) 35 C2d 155, 217
P2d 22; Safewav Stores. Inc. v. Citv of Burlinaame (1959) 170
CA2d 637, 647, 339 P2d 933, 939.
In Auaust v. Dent. of Motor Vehicles (1968) 264 CA2d 52,
64, 70 CR 172, 180, the court implied that, in the absence of
8
. .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
statutory authorization, it would be error to admit hearsay
evidence over objection.
However, even if hearsay evidence is admissable in the
administrative proceeding, the rule of law is that hearsay
evidence alone will not SUDDort a findina. Walker v. city of
San Gabriel (1942) 20 C2d 879, 881, 129 P2d 349, 351; Kinney v.
Sacramento City EmD1ovees' Retirement Svs. (1947) 77 CA2d 779,
782, 176 P2d 775, 777.
The Walker case dealt with an issue of an objection to the
introduction of hearsay evidence being introduced and a request
to cross-examine the witness which was denied.
The Kinney case dealt with as doctor's report that
contained certain unauthenticated documents that were admitted
over objection.
The right to cross-examine opposing witnesses is a
substantial part of a guaranty of a fair trial.
Go1dbera v.
Ke11v (1970) 397 US 254; Olive Proration proaram Comm. v.
Aaricu1tura1 Prorate Comm'n (1941) 17 C2d 204, 210, 109 P2d
918; Massachusetts Bondina & Ins. Co. v. lAC (1946) 74 CA2d
911, 915, 170 P2d 36, 38, and applies to quasi-judicial
administrative proceedings. McCU110uah v. Terzian (1970) 2 C3d
647, 654, 87 CR 195, 200; Lanadorf united Bakeries. Inc. v. lAC
(1948) 87 CA2d 103, 195 P2d 887.
Government Code section 11517(a) states in pertinent part
that:
"Where a contested case is heard before an
agency itself, no m..mher thereof who did
not hear the evidence shall vote on the
decision."
9
o
o
. .
1 Although this statute specifically applies to procedures
2 and hearings subject to the Administrative Procedures Act
3 ("APA"), Government Code Section 11342 et seq., underlying
4 logic for the rule should apply to non APA hearings. Old Santa
5 Barbara Peer Co. v. State (1977) 71 CA3d 250, 255, 139, 332,
6 334.
7 Furthermore, the generally accepted rule is that a
8 tribunal majority constitutes a quorum for the transaction of
9 business in a maioritv of the auorum convened is sufficient to
10 take any particular action. FTC v. Flotill Proas.. Inc. (1967)
11 389 US 179, 183.
12 Finally, the findings of the hearing are required pursuant
13 to California Code of civil Procedure Section 1094.5 to allow
14 available judicial relief for review of the record by way of a
15 wri t of mandamus. TODanaa Ass' n v. County of Los Anaeles
16 (1974) 11 C3d 506, 113 CR 836.
17 In TODanaa the court concluded that California Code of
18 Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 implicitly requires that the
19 agency that renders the challenged decision set forth findings
20 that will allow the reviewing court to review the reasoning and
21 inferences followed by the agency from the evidence to the
22 decision and order. Ibid. 113 CR at 841.
23 In light of TODanaa the effect of an ambiguity, ommission
24 or conclusionary findings of law rather than findings of fact
25 unsupported by reference to evidence should not be disregarded
26 on the ground that the failure was not prejudicial.
27 An administrative action to suspend or revoke an
28 individual's license is auasi iudicial in nature. Suckow v.
10
o
. .
o
1 Alderson (1920) 182 C 247, 249, 187 P 965, 966; Rios v. Cozens
2 (1972) 7 c3D 792, 103 cr 299); Goldbera v. Kellv (1970) 397 US
3 254; and Arnett v. Kennedv (1974) 416 US 134.
4 As in court proceedings, the moving party, i.e., the party
5 making the charges, generally has the burden of proof before an
6 administrative tribunal. Parker v. Citv of Fountain Vallev
7 (1981) 127 CA3d 99, 179 CR 351; Pinkin v. Board of Sunervisors
8 (1978) 82 CA3d 652, 147 CR 502.
9 To summarize the legal propositions from our proceeding
10 analysis:
11 (A) Revocation proceedings of the permittees' Conditional
12 Development Permit are quasi-judicial in character and is
13 consti tutionally protected as to the procedural due process
14 guarantees;
15 (B) One of the guarantees constitutes a right to subpena
16 witnesses for discovery or examination purposes as in criminal
17 proceedings;
18 (C) Another guaranty is in the course and conduct of
19 these proceedings to confront and cross-examine witnesses and
20 more specifically for purposes of objecting to introduction of
21 hearsay evidence without proper foundation; apprisal of
22 evidence and witnesses which the agency relies upon prior to
23 the hearing; full representation by counsel at all stages of
24 the proceedings;
25 (D) Guarantying that any final determination by the
26 agency should not be made by agency members who do not hear all
27 the evidence and any particular determination should be made by
28 a majority of the quorum presiding;
11
w.
tHl
~
-
o
o
. .
1 (E) That a final determination meet the quantum and
2 burden of proof upon the applicant for bringing the revocation
3 proceedings:
4 (F) That the findings of fact required under Code of
5 civil Procedure Section 1094.5 as interpreted by the TODanaa
6 case be unambiguous, not omit relevant information and not
7 state ultimate conclusions of law rather than facts.
8 In the instant case none of these procedural or
9 substantive due process requirements were met in the
10 revocation proceedings:
11 (1) . The official record indicates that the applicant
12 introduced into evidence Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 as part of
13 their case without laying a proper foundation as to the matters
14 contained therein.
15 (2) . Hearsay objections were raised but evidence was
16 admitted into the record. (City of San Bernardino Planning
17 Commission Meeting Minutes of 5/08/90 and 10/9/90).
18 (3) . Requests were made by the permittees as to cross-
19 examination and subpenaing witnesses present and not present
20 which were denied. (City of San Bernardino Planning Commission
21 Meeting Minutes of 10/2/90: Exhibit "3").
22 (4) . Requests were made to have both counsel for the
23 permittees cross-examine witnesses, present evidence and
24 closing arguments were denied. (City of San Bernardino Planning
25 Commission Meeting Minutes of 10/2/90 thru 11/13/90).
26 (5). The vote by the commission members to exclude one of
27 the counsel for the permittees to present a closing argument
28 was not by a majority of the quorum present. (City of San
12
o
o
, ,
1 Bernardino Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 11/13/90).
2 (6). The final vote by the commission members to revoke
3 Conditional Development Permit Number 198 included --.hArs who
4 did not hear the evidence throughout the proceedings. (City of
5 San Bernardino Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 4/06/90
6 thru 11/13/90 dealing with commission members present at
7 hearings) .
8 (7). The Findings of Fact and Statement of Decision does
9 not recite any specific evidence relied upon as to the basis
10 for the decision and recites only vague and self-serving
11 conclusions and does not state why, if conditions detrimental
12 to the public health and welfare do exist to constitute a
13 nuisance why it cannot be cured by a remedy less harsh than
14 revocation of the permit. (Findings of Fact and Statement of
15 Decision; Notice of Time Limits for Appeal).
16 CONCLUSION
17 The permittees, LEI and CINDY WANG, were entitled to a
18 fair proceeding both under state and federal constitutional
19 standards and clear statutory law and case law dealing with
20 quasi-judicial proceedings such as this matter.
21 Revocation proceedings of a conditional development permit
22 is understood to require adherence to the strictest standards
23 of procedural and substantive due process of law in order to
24 protect the appellants from dire economic and personal
25 consequences.
26 These standards that are a given in proceedings of this
27 kind were flagrantly denied to the permittees and appellants
28 as if to imply the conclusion had already been determined at
13
'. .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.III
I?;:I
..L..
- -
o
o
the outset of the proceedings.
The permittees have attempted (without admitting the
allegations by the applicants) at all stages prior to and
throughout the proceedings to avoid litigation with the City of
San Bernardino in the hope of finding middle ground that would
resolve the issue at hand.
The applicants and respondents have sadly taken the course
of action set forth in the record that finds the City Council
in the unenviable position of deciding whether the permittees
due process rights were violated and whether the revocation
decision by the commission was an abuse of discretion.
The permittees and appellants, LEI and CINDY WANG,
respectfully request that the City Council upon due
consideration of the record and law in this case find in their
favor and overturn the decision by the Planning Commission to
revoke Conditional Development Permit Number 198.
To do so will promote justice and fair play and restore
the sense of confidence required of this honorable governing
body.
DATED: June 24, 1991
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF FRANK A.
WEISER AND ANDREW J. GUNN
~ " 0.. -
.J_./,:,......)J..... .~~'"
FRANK A. WEISER, Attorney
for Permittees and
Appellants, LEI and CINDY
WANG
14
, ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iii
.L
_ _ 1.
~
o
o
DECLARATION OF CINDY L. WANG
I, CINDY L. WANG , do hereby declare:
1. I am one of the permitees in the instant action
regarding the CIVIC CENTER MOTEL ("Motel") located at 655 N. "0"
street, San Bernardino, California 92401 and the City of San
Bernardino Planning Commission ("Planning Commission").
2. The other permi tee is my husband LEI WANG who is
presently in Taipei, Taiwan.
3. My husband has been in Taipei since 1988 but prior
to his leaving the United States he signed a Power of Attorney
authorizing me to transact all matters, including matters
regarding the motel, on his behalf. A copy of the Power of
Attorney signed by my husband authorizing the same is attached
hereto as Exhibit "1".
4. Throughout this case my husband and me have
attempted to be represented by seperate co-counsel for each of
us which Frank A. Weiser, Esq. and Mr. Andrew J. Gunn, Esq. did
on our behalf.
5. Prior to Mr. Weiser entering in this case, no
objection was made to the previous counsel, Joshua Kaplan, Esq.,
speaking on our behalf along with Mr. Gunn.
.
6. Allowing Mr. Weiser to speak at the final argument
stage was critical to the record in this case.
7. Two parties that the Planning Commission never
brought forth and questioned in any direct testimony but
accepted by way of their submitted declarations have given me
subsequent declarations to the contrary. They are attached as
Exhibit "2".
8. They prove how unreliable the evidence was used
15
, , .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
-
-
-
o
o
against me in coming to the City's determination.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
state of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 20th day of June, 1991 at Los
Angeles, California.
~L IJ9--
CINDY L. ANG
16
tb.
~
IlL U _
o
o
, .
>
1
2 DECLARATION OF FRANK A. WEISER
3
4 I, FRANK A. WEISER, do hereby declare:
5 1. I am one of the attorney's for the permittees and
6 appellants, LEI and CINDY WANG, and make this declaration in
7 support of the appellants request from the City Council of the
8 City of San Bernardino ("City Council") to overturn the
9 decision of the Planning Commission of the City of San
10 Bernardino ("Commission") to revoke the appellant's Conditional
11 Development Permit Number 198.
12 2. The memorialization of the proceedings are set forth
13 in the official minutes that took place from April 6, 1990 thru
14 November 13, 1990 with a Statement of Official Planning
15 Commission Action taking place on December 11, 1990.
16 3. The entire official record of including said minutes
17 of such proceedings including a document entitled "Finding of
18 Facts and Statement of Decision; Notice of Time Limits For
19 Appeal" have been sent with the instant Memorandum of Points
20 and Authorities to the hearing officer in this matter, Allan
21 Gresham, Attorney at Law and Henry Empeno, Deputy City
22 attorney.
23 4. Also attached to the instant Memorandum of Points
24 and Authorities is the Declaration of Cindy Wang with attached
25 Exhibits "1" and "2".
26 5. Also attached as Exhibit "3" is a letter dated
27 October 12, 1990 from Dennis Barlow, Senior Assistant City
28 Attorney to Andrew Gunn, Attorney at Law regarding the subpena
17
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~
_ _ 1
o
o
power of the Commission.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 27th day of June, 1991 at Los Angeles,
California.
-
.;., ,..) ro, ~
S--~ v-.^.......~_...r~
FRANK A. WEISER
18
o
o
. .
.
\ EXHIBIT 1
1 4- - - -
ii! 0 ~
I WHEN ".00 ....L TO ~
~
, . Ir ::i
Cindy L. Wang I ~
~ ..... ~
l!! lIT.'" 2132 Almadale Ave.
~_.. L08 Angelee. CA 9003 ~
61 ir..~l
ZOO .J
L
CSNa _ THIS L_E FOII_'S USE,
POWER OF ATTORNEY - GENERAL I.............. DUWLE POWEll OF ATTDRNEY)
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: Thil,. Lei Wan~
IIIe unclersigned (JOInlly or_rilly. d _'lhln OIItllltftbymakt. COIlIIiluttanclappalnl Cindv L. Wanll
my true Incllawful AlIornty lor me and on my name. pIICt anclllllcl ancllor my use and IIIntld:
") To...., _.... tor......... ___ .....--r-._.... _. tsgocy.......... _. _.IIIIlIiIy_
-C-- II. _ __.... _.....1__..-....-..-......,__...._
_..........__._......__1.- ..__..............__..110.... .--''''
clam. _,
lb) To_..,. III 01 .. -.no _...IIII..-IY.'" __IIIllI...,IIuIIIliIlg_: To_......-.__
'''..___01_01._.._......101..,_._.-._101_._._.._,._
dI.~ll5fd; 10 III. 1ICftInge. .,m or canvey.. ........., ...... ....,; ... II..... ...... trul" or.........., ..._ .......
same III secure PIY"'IfII 01 I ...... or nan-.....- ..., ......~ .. "".............. .
Ie) To_..,...oI..-.no_....._..,....~_....__..............._..____..
_ ..._ To _ tor. CIuy. SIll.IItfIInge. __....,. _ .,...__.. _... ......... _"IruIl..
CIIhIrMIe......, or~..AI ......... II IICIlfI ~ 011 ........, _. _ _. .-'..._D II.,...........
ld) To___.___......-._ . ....___._~,....__..._......-
._.nogaIIIIIII___IUCII_....'...___.
CI.To_._..... ....__..,trusl_._..._.._...,__....IIItY._.--'..
qpresenI...sVOllIlOClt. MraII--' ngms. KCIIII and _.... IfIJdMdInd." -...... ......""............. _... -...,.....,.
1IQuIdIbDn. consoIlCSIbOn or'" 1CIIOn'" "'1IIInIIOn. .......ollIl...~,...... ....__4............. ................01
""'COfP'I'IIe _k. tIOnIl. noli. dItIInIUftor......IlCUl'Ily.lDcarnoauna. _._..._..... -...IIiIIItf.........................-.noDv
.1O""JIlCllOlI"'._..,~_,.__...._.......__..__..__._._
lIltreo!.
III To IrIllSlCI"""'" '" "" klld. _....."" act'" _... _. ""'-_=...... _.., _. _. . ..... 01_.
_nt.-...._...-."""OtIlt._"'.......g......"'''''''OtIlt.... ___.IruIl._._
",...,lIClkgIIlOIl. .............._oIllIlOItIY.~. ....,.-1lIf\Y. ....'*'0. ............. _. _. _nogaIIIIIII._'
_. _. _oIlleOI. 1""."""'_" __01..................__. _IDr............_.A/IlICI"'_oI
IrUSI Jnd SUCh ..,., lnstrurnemS 1ft wnfIng or Ifty IUnII or CIIIS . IItIJ . ......,. . ..... .. .. .......
1I/[1fll!'lf~ ~'lIll\Ml'ltlllJllrllk__lL'lIIkllk."""'" ~A ......-1II..
_ 01 years.... .. --, . _ occ"'1
!l!lcMX'X!1ll'Jrlr..,{~t:l8.J",_....:fWnAlJl.."'"""":olH...Jlll<'MUIJll......_......."lIMIIx
years .... .. --'. _ occursl
(I) II (9,'ncl'. ChI art ... IIIlCkt1l. .. -.no 1dr1lllll_ . _1N8 TO PIIlIlllI DKlITM ,... DOCUMENT:
TlIIs II. ............... . _............,. ....................
,.. sIlIIIId U. ... ......... 1Ict1:
1. TlIIs .... .., ..- .. ..... ,.. ....... .. .. ..... III1ct .. ..... ..... ..
=. ..... .... ... -..y.. NIl... ...........,..... _..,...........,..
tar .. 11III.
Z. r....s..... wi _ ... . ....... $ .... .... ,.. ..... ...... II'" .......
r....s..............._... .. . .... .......,.. . OJ.
3. YIe............. __ . _ ..... ...... .
4. ....11..,............ _ tlIII,.... III ~I. <. ,........ .......,..........,...
GIVING AND GRANTING _""....-...,..._...-.;oy........pertann.....-rtcl......_...,_.-..ry
._.._"IIlIl_.._..tuI~..._..._..,IIigIII._....IIIIIIIlIiIY_.lWo1lIyrlliljilog..IllIt""....
-...,_IawtuIIy....CIUIt.Ile_by_"'....~. T..__-.;oyIWo1lly_..,""....-...,_.-.....,
1III1IlIl_~.____.__by""___.
My....-...,is.,_..dIWo1lly._..hllll....._....._._tor__IIl_..,___
uponlllll.....,Ile__._..-..._.ncl-."'''''_.__mey._._..........nt_.JIlCl
In..acquisiIlon._"'........-_.""....-.ey____.....__IOI_._...'.......y.
and it on aIdd with or witnout secunty.
-.. context so requiIts. ~ -Ilflldtr -.. - ...,~....,....... r;;--" pIont.
WITNESSlII)'hlndlhis / · dlrol-'r----. Jl-.' I ~
,-._t~_ -
...ax
01
.19~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
}u
COUNTY Of California
llnllliS 17th day 01 Jun.. .IIl..yUrlUlB......"".........'ivo..d..~_inllllltor....SII1e.
~y~ L.i WAnD YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
_~_"""c...-.""on.._",~_,....ptIIII\Jt_...... ;a
lIlIlack"-",, . "" IllIt _1le..X _ II.
_tolllt___nt.
WITNESS Illy hanIl iIIlIl on..., sui.
IlDWEAOFATlOIUlf:'l'.Gt.lllAl..i_
__llUMIIJfiQlllELIIOfATtOllNEYj
fIIIIIOl.COTtSfOllMIG-"'IHi
'. .. waLl:ons. IIIC ...._.
fIaIiIY_IIl_IOII1ill_.
fj OFFIClAI.IEAL
LEA ANN IWlClA
..,.... - .~
LDI""-' ... COUNfY
My _. &,. IIoy 2l'. ""
/
"
~
,........__s_......-......... .....,..
L-:':': ..':=.. -:. -:-...;..~:...:::-....
. .
.
-
t;I ~
o
o
- - -
\ EXHIBIT ~
. .
C';
\..... .
c:
,
.
C'
....1
L
.
.
o
?AC5C. I
5.~4-9\
..
0JJ ~ it, JJUlf vCfJnWf) :
. I y.oO~~JJ.m
I ~ ...w&JJJ>~171
..ftV..J..,- ~.PJJ .s-Ift;,
~~'oJ~:1lJ ' .I~
'~.J-t'a/v1l1'J),~.e.u ~..o.. m.o..'(!eL.
,'J.fL ~ '-f!A.clJo.u.id.- ~~I
! J.U/l-4, ~a.:1ln.cjJ. V''1fV.~
f - ~ ~ ~ .tdi~.ALtOfu~";
I' . ~ d!:D .k~ '.:J:Ju" f~
. ,I . Jd~~~~i/1JDWWj~).
. \. \. ..c1Ju ~ do:lmrurtf..:i:l1~ LI
--In ~ n /J ~ ..J.JJCJ.ItJ ...J.J.) I Y.,t.~ JilJd.lA.tio.rdJ:;
, .#ta:G . ~. ollcvl (!)/~ ..w~ ~ ~u/t.-
~~~;;;~~
. '11f}t.~ eJ&f hU: nu, V.i.lI1du-
.irl::aocL :::J;D ..Ju '.i:ItL .J.JJc.4hW arxf OtdRv
! ' ~ ,c.i::k .!Jl1'b"h L
,
I
.
,
.,; _'. ~... ,'1: ..... __ ._- L ..
I r - -- , 7J.....' '''-'''-1- ~ I r.' , ."
, '.- () , , ., " '__.'.00 ....-.....'1
- ...---"-' "-"---:-. ...' :,;:- , . '.. '.~ '~.~ . /
. ,
!
" .
FRCI'I :
o
PfOE t-IJ, : 21~20
P01
..
. .
-_.. ......__u..__..._...." ._......._...._
,''fag E J.
,,' ~'~~-91
~
,
, ,
. -. _u.. '.-., , n..
, ,~.oIla.t1.,fI;~ '..(Jjld'~/J1ad-tL !
t:::(~/:::;tdJ,''n?i~~'
E. .....aJ.mc.ng d/) a:'~lJUJom. ~;
'--~~ ~....J.u..htn.J , .
, ".~., J:.tJ ..Jt.LJllfn :;It ?' ~ d .
I dhL DYLe- &:tJJ.ctll. 'MwJ .., I
I ~ r..().:J.. d:ltL ..m1frbJ, ~ ~~
..d\A.t- Q-P ~ ~ ~ n.y ~c/ 1
clt.()an1 ~ :OJ.1 .:b ~~. ~ ;
.A.t..rY),,' . ) .,J.JJ.Jv:.e/L ~ ,;
'-ptfJ W. dJd Ji..JJ.,., ,
"
.
, ,
.. ...... .... .
't.J1:d;liJu ~ i:,~ Ilfa.n., 1&An- :
.A.AdV10 (jJ{)Uf'.~~~1 .',
u ~Q/)mLd{j~...J.U.U.h.r ;:',
~/ a.tJ..d / vCaru.nL pI1luLdIp.: ",
f '. d:::Jtal:.i (l)Ju..v..td l.. au:tU(:.J ~ . ~ JtAJf/n,: '..
" ~ lWtd..utJ.d~~()nc/:
t ~~.;J:1> ~u., ~d, v.:JlYI.. o..w:, ' . . '
'-h~ v~ I. O>c~Dty.~ '," '
vULt? . " J1A.u) \P ufti~d pm ': " . '>-
~ tM.A?U.i. ~.d..__.....__._. ),
: .-... U - . -, . . ;.' '. ...J' .....
' ....,,,, , ",l.A(I (\ v, nn'". i IllfJ/)7i:JJrI/,' IINi; .
. .
-
1
FRIl'1 :
o
PH:JE~. : 2060420
P01
.
.. .._---:-:;. w__-"___ -.--
'?A~E" 3
5.;)-1,91
. . ~ '1a./I.J?;rAI1c.Ad Vw fJolL~J.., ~*,-tl.AJ
~llIl.nl.tC/ ....nu.. .:1:ha:J:. .:1::Ju. ..nrf:IbL~JJ
L/)'if' cAOo...n (]Jz D."a JJo....d.,.L~ 1 b. d d:l-zJi'tJ
./}J-/J:;j,.J::nta:, ~ ...LtiJA.L Jt1t7Jd.r1fM
-u, .)JUJm and J1L Ll.,ut/.nt.1d 1/i1pf) }
....Iu.rniJll'-L.d unlnJ. died,.,I'!.
~.u.o. I~ a.P c...hoJi L1...1J~ J.)j/JJu
~.~hOllrJ ~ L~lA;' 'JJ~
t!., v~ eu,k J..fDT1/ L J:IuJ 'J..aJai-
cf ~ P!'-.c...l1/i. V.,A) . tj ~/ 0;4 l ntlJ do
~ ~na.l.. tU:?au;t~/.JJJ.rn
I - - -- {'
~~ J'\J. .J:Jw.J...mu. rfUlWJ no..~
...-0.." d ....uJCYIJ.1.cI Q. c.o-U.d .A1.~.f)N
. /nU ..j...A_nd.(.A.. L~_ ~(Jndl,j<(OrJ).
. .
.
~ ..:1::hiJ .JlL~1 ....c..nd ~.(1...JJ4". "
~6 o:!JOJL ~ .. () .dl.0IUJ ...wfu.lY1. t/'~1f/JIt!
. ~ ~ J./nLia.N\(UJ~ttk .iz> '!
-6~ ~~ JJ..n.d
..:to .U'Y\J.f 1...cJ,;r~ ) ~ ~ v..1ft
~C! cuJlo::r ~ ...u-
I '-"nv.r pw..1I~~.d-6-~-90
.
.':,
!
.
.... ..___..___.n....... ~
.
't -.. F'RCJ1:
..~. . - -t.. .. '."'~':"
~. . ~',~...: ';'.,: )~.",:::. ';"f':; .;~ .'
I( . .it '')1, J ... .... ".
.. ~'~~-..;:" t "A;" ....~;:..t _, ~ ", .'._',;" . . .
. "..' ,'. .'.r.~.t, ","
. : .~\. ,,'f; '~,~'. !'-~:}..~.;~~::!:~'~.."
.i.O:.....
I . . ..'::~;_EP.hi:J'E..,~....
C' .......-_.
. I
.,
1.._... ._..
. I
o
o
PI-DE NO. : 213 22611420
P01
.....j...
J ,
I .
. ,
I
..,.~ .
. '. '.'
;'t.ot:.,"
. .' ....
'.
.... "'- ,---~.. ..... ....
..~,.c.4-~1
.! _H_ -. ._.~.'" ~~.A ~_pW..Dd .
... .... ~ ~_~~~ a.nd. Ylnant.ii-.
. .. '" ..l:i.f..Jj.'u..~l!.illtL...'&n~ J.4otJ)) v~d_
J7'Uv..tL .JtLaAd 'i2 ~ ~1.Nvf M. tuidy .
. 4Ja/n~.40..1u~ Vtv. ~ iJ~k.
~A I/(.e. & n tv.. M ~ td }' /n OJv...hM ;.p
. D V ~_-l. .c2.Un.J:.Ju.m &.-Qn .:J:)u, JYl.I.n1~ ~
vn OA . t:A..1..k..td ~ l/Jum on .Yk~. :
- 0'" . . .... ... .
. _.. .... ,,~,,_\.P. vUJ..(LIV3..f ...a:ta-b. .:J:ha.:f
.' .;J;;Ju...6.J~_~a.rI~ ~~ .
. " .. . .t..9:I. J;hL_.~r-'!::~'-'().;J;.~ !
. U1 V/.c ..{Jeo~...::A.)6tzL. .. _ .. .
(- .
.
. .
,
c
'~~'J \.P.d!JrUm.. ~
....w1.i/JA_...:i!i_j~cJ_~. '.
~ Lf.)..Ja...tJ ..LnII ULnc..td...n4J:.
.AJ\b; 'JJYJnVY .~ ., . and
..~ JdJuJaJl.dV I .cIJ.a.i) lMonfj",
..Au:E,I'1.1.'1m .- 1l'.('flIlt!JfJ JJfJr::f1'1t~-fJJUJ t-.Oc.r
..:J:i)o:f.... 'rxp .aO:Jri.d r$faL}~ &J.W .
'~~;PXho,t~..lt~
. ,.1
.... '.:..~.:z.;.' ...._..___....... "'_..'__
-
...
- ...
:-RO'1 :
o
f'IoOE NO. : 21~20
P02
. .
.
,
1I
..----
......-
'.
':.~~e..5 . . .
. , . '. 5-.:1'4-'1)
.' ._~...,... '.' -." . "''7:."..':''~': ":", ."
. ....c.O~.rJ)'M.. .. \1). ...i.OOilJdfl" . L.AJ.CJ.4.K.P.-.
. ~--I '" .
. . .~" . .. "'~: .""' "...J.L:!o;;:..,-;.L.;;;':funa.I'xI,no
....0.. .., . _o;;1iJilJ.,..iI{.A.fJ} .
~~~~~~..~ .
~/a.. ..j..0lW .VQLJd1J.UJ if .~ t
".~: .~d~tiJlJI'1d~.
. I dec.lQr-e ur"lder fe.no I~ o~F"':_\v.r'l
unc.ler- -the. law 0+ +he.. S'tn~ b~ 'C'lI,~r"';ICl
+hcI~ ~. .ro.rcjo)flCj I. +n.I' ""cor, ~rrLd-.
~ 'lIeCL.rled. OfoJ. s.a..j.q, I 11 -H,)trC.I~y'. o.t S::a.n
Bc.r.na..rd'!,b,C.~I,~,.nit:, . (,
VAuJ~ t. ~~:.c,.,)
.ISSJr ~rnot'\ Sf
h.n-bM}Cq,:.c.rnIA.
c..a.~
dG~* ~c;t~ ~L
,
~~,~-. ~~tL
~ a
"
.':
.","
'j,-'
...\ ... .
',...,,:..,1' .
"
I _.
I.
" .
-
, .
o
.
- -
o
'\ EXHIBIT 3
.
o
o
BERNARDINO
300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92418
JAMES F. PENMAN
CITY ATTORNEY
(7141384-6355
October 12, 1990
Andrew Gunn
Attorney at Law
290 North "D" street, Suite 708
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Re: Hearing on the Revocation of the Conditional
Development Permit of the Civic Center Motel
Dear Mr. Gunn,
Your suggestion at the above hearing on Tuesday, October 2,
1990, that subpoenas be issued raised a question in my mind. In
all the time I have advised the Planning Commission, it has never
issued a subpoena. I therefore researched the issue and can find
no power for the COmmission to do so. If you are aware of any
authority for the COmmission to issue subpoenas I would be more
than happy to review your documentation.
However I am sure that if you correspond directly with Larry
Reed, the Director of the City's Planning and Building Service
Department, he w~ll be more than happy to cooperate with any
reasonable request to have the necessary staff present at the
continued hearing.
Very truly yours,
DENNIS . BARLOW
Sr. Assistant City Attorney
cc: Larry Reed, Director, Planning and Building Services
Henry Empefto, Deputy City Attorney
~;:J.!~1cunn.l tr
~,., '
~ ...." iii .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HI
l :L
o
o
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND TELEFAX
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California.
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the
within action: my business address is 3460 Wilshire Blvd., Suite
903, Los Angeles, California 90010.
On June 28, 1991, I served the foregoing document
described as: PERMITTEE'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT NO. 198: DECLARATIONS OF CINDY L. WANG AND FRANK A.
WEISER IN SUPPORT THEREOF on interested parties in the action
by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope
with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at
3460 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90010,
addressed as follows and by telefax:
JAMES F. PENMAN, city Attorney
DENNIS BARLOW, Sr. Assistant City Attorney
HENRY EMPENO, Deputy City Attorney
300 North "0" Street, Room 668
San Bernardino, California 92418
Telefax - (714) 384-5238
ALLEN GRESHAM, Attorney at Law
GRESHAM, VARNER & SAVAGE
600 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, California 92401
Telefax - (714) 888-2120
The Honorable Mayor W.R. "Bob" Holcomb and
the City Council of the City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Telefax - (714) 384-5461
BY MAIL AND TELEFAX I caused such documents to be sent by
. . .. ..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
-
-
o
o
telefax transmission and envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid to be placed in the United states Mail at Los Angeles,
California.
~state) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
of the state of California that the above is true and correct.
___ (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a
member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service
was made.
li:j,,~// -
S gnature
2