HomeMy WebLinkAboutS8-City Clerk
Cll
OF SAN BERNARDI' 0 - REQU ST FOR COUNCIL A\.. .fION
From:
Shauna Clark
Subject: Request for outside legal
services
De~: City Clerk
Date: January 28,1987
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None
RecommentJed motion:
That the City Clerk (or Mayor or City Administrator) be authorized
to engage outside legal counsel for the purpose of rendering an
opinion on a matter that appears to be a conflict of interest
and that the City Attorney be disqualified from selecting and
supervising said counsel and from participating in the rendering
of the opinion.
lir~.
~~~~~
,/ Signature
Contact person:
Shauna Clark
Phone:
383-5109
Supporting 'CIata attached:
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Unknown
Sou rce:
Elections budget
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No. 5-:?
STAFF REPORT
City Clerk's Office
CHRONOLOGY OF APPEAL ON APARTMENT PROJECT
ON SOUTH SIDE OF MILL STREET, WEST OF RANCHO AVENUE
August 7, 1986
The Development Review Committee approved Review of Plans
No. 86-43 for a 48 unit, three-story apartment complex on
the south side of Mill Street, west of Rancho Avenue. The
applicants were Frank Del'Andrae, architect, and Darwin
Reinglass, developer.
Some time in August, 1986
Councilman Hernandez advised Mrs. Alice Steil, co-owner of
Stardust Mobile Home Park, a neighbor to the proposed
development, that the Review of Plans for the proposed
apartment complex would come before "some commssion" and
advised Mrs. Stiel to file an appeal. (See Attachment
"1", Mrs. Steil's letter of December 15, 1986, page 2,
paragraph 1)
August 18, 1986
Mrs. Steil attempted to file a written appeal in the Plan-
ning Department and was told by a staff member that she
could not appeal the Review of Plans, as the appeal period
had expired. (See Attachment "1", page 2, paragraph 2 of
Mrs. Stiel's letter of December 15, 1986, and Attachment
"2", Ralph prince's opinion of December 18, 1986.)
Mrs. Steil then spoke to Ralph Hernandez about her inabil-
ity to file an appeal.
Councilman Hernandez talked with Mrs. Steil at the August
18, 1986, Council Meeting and then indicated to Planning
Director Schuma that he desired to appeal the Review of
P 1 a ns . ( S ee At t a c hm e n tI' 2 ", C i t Y At tor n e y 's 0 pin ion 0 f
December 18,1986)
A review of the minutes and the Council tape gives no
indication that Councilman Hernandez made an oral appeal
on the Review of Plans. However, Planning Director Schuma
and Councilman Hernandez remember the appeal.
September 8, 1986
At this Council Meeting, Ralph Hernandez again indicated
he wished to appeal the Review of Plans. No formal action
was taken and there is no indication on the tape that
Councilman Hernandez made an appeal.
September 25, 1986
The applicant, Frank Del'Andrae, was advised in a letter
dated September 25, 1986, from the Planning Director, that
the appeal would be heard before the Planning Commission
on October 21, 1986.
October 14, 1986
Alice Steil submitted a protest of the project in petition
form.
November 5, 1986
The Planning Commission ruled that the appeal had not been
filed timely or in an appropriate manner.
November 7, 1986
Alice Steil submitted a written appeal to the Planning
Department requesting that the project be denied. (See
Attachment "3")
Some time near November 13, 1986
Mr. and Mrs. Henry Steil carne to the City Clerk's Office
and talked to the City Clerk about their desire to file an
appeal of the project to the Mayor and Common Council.
They presented a copy of an appeal dated November 7, 1986,
that they had submitted to the Planning Department. They
explained to the City Clerk that the only reason that
their own appeal was not filed was because they had been
given the wrong information by Planning Department staff
and that Councilman Hernandez was trying to straighten out
the matter.
The City Clerk advised them that they could not appeal the
Review of Plans per se, however, they might be able to
appeal the decision of the Planning Commission that the
oral appeal was not appropriately and timely filed.
November 13, 1986
Councilman Hernandez submitted a written appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision not to hear his original
appeal, on the grounds that it was his opinion that his
oral appeal was appropriate and timely filed. (See At-
tachment #4, Ralph Hernandez's memorandum of November 13,
1986)
December 8, 1986
The Mayor and Common Council heard Councilman Hernandez's
appeal that the original appeal was appropriate. The
matter was continued to the next meeting to allow the City
Attorney to review the documentation. (See Attachment #5,
December 8, 1986, minutes)
December 22, 1986
The Ci ty
Council an
the matter
sion for a
Attorney submitted to the Mayor and Common
opinion, (dated December 18,1986) ruling that
should be referred back to the Planning Commis-
hearing on the merits of the project.
Based upon the opinion of the City Attorney, the Council
referred the Review of Plans back to the Planning Commis-
sion. (See Attachment #6, Council Minutes of December 22,
1986)
January 6, 1987
The Planning Commission held the appeal hearing and
reversed the Development Review Committee's decision of
approval and denied the Review of Plans.
January 9, 1987
City Attorney Prince received a contribution of $1,000
from Mrs. Alice Stiel. (See attachment #7, a copy of
campaign statement)
January 15, 1987
Frank Del'Andrae, applicant, appealed the Planning Commis-
sion's decision of denial of the project to the Mayor and
Common Council.
The project is still pending and appears on the agenda of
February 2, 1987, as item No. 48.
REQUEST FOR LEGAL COUNSEL
Attached is a copy of Ralph Prince's campaign statement
which indicates that on January 9, 1987, three days after
the Commission's decision of denial, Mr. Prince received a
$1,000 contribution from Mrs. Alice Steil, the co-owner of
Stardust Mobile Home Park.
It is evident by Mr. prince's legal opinion and by other
facts presented, that on January 9, 1987, when Mr. Prince
received $1,000 from Mrs. Steil, that he was aware that
Mrs. Steil was a participant in the appeal.
Since the issue was whether the appeal was timely and
appropriately filed, Mr. prince's opinion had a strong
influence on the Council's decision to refer the Review of
Plans back to the Commission for a hearing on the merits.
Attached is a copy of Government Code Section 84308. This
Section prohibits an officer of an agency from accepting a
contribution of two hundred fifty dollars or more from any
party, or his or her agent, or from any participant, or
his agent, while a proceeding involving a license, permit,
or other entitlement for use is pending before the agency
and for three months following the date a final decision
is rendered in the proceeding, provided that the officer
knows that the participant has financial interest.
I request that the Mayor and Council provide legal counsel
to see if this section would apply to our City Attorney,
and if it does apply, recommend a course of action.
December 15, 1986
700.30
Ms. Alice Stiele
c/o Sawdust Mobile Home Park
2250 West Mill street
San Bernardino, CA
Dear Mayor and Common Council:
My husband and I own and operate the ~~Aus~Mobile Home Park
located at 2250 West Mill street in the City of C.oltCl\,.\
Our property is on the same side of the street, and
approximately 200 feet west of the proposed project which you
refer to as Review of Plans 86-48, a proposed three-story
apartment complex.
Between our property and this property is one lot which
contains a ten-unit apartment project built under the HOD
Section Eight Program.
I never received notification that Review of Plans 86-48 was
proposed, nor that it had been approved.
TheZ:,:;e4C;~
December 15, 1986
Page 2
posted with a notice saying that this project was proposed,
and I did not read about it in any newspaper. I heard about
it from my Councilman, Ralph Hernandez, probably sometime in
August. Mr. Hernandez advised that the project would come up
before some commission and he advised me to file an appeal in
order to propose this project.
Subsequently, I spoke with Sandra Paulsen in the Planning
Department, approximately on August 18, but I cannot be
certain of the date. Mrs. Paulsen told me that there was
nothing that I could do at that point. Thereafter, there
were further conversations with Councilman Hernandez. I
later spoke with Mrs. Paulsen again: this was sometime in
late August or early September. She told me the same thing
that there was nothing that I could do at that point.
Subsequently, I found Frank Schuma, Planning Director, and
was told again that there was nothing that I could do.
In the meantime, I spoke with officials of the City of
Colton, including the Mayor, who subsequently sent a letter
to the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino. There was a community meeting at which Frank
Alvarez of the San Bernardino Police Department attended, and
Patty Gonzales of the Mayor's office also attended.
December 15, 1986
Page 3
On October 21, I attended a meeting at the Planning
commission, where this item was supposed to be considered.
However, the Stubblefield project was on the agenda first,
and our item did not come up until 1~:30. Due to the
lateness of the hour, the Planning Commission continued the
discussion of Review of Plans 86-48. No one from the
community was allowed to speak, but Robert Holcomb, attorney
for the developer, was allowed to speak in opposition to the
appeal.
On November 5, the Planning Commission heard the matter.
Again, Mr. Holcomb, lawyer for the developer, was allowed to
speak, but no public testimony was accepted and no one from
the community was allowed to speak.
On December 8, this matter was scheduled for the agenda of
the Mayor and Common Council. Again, no one from the public
was allowed to speak in support of the appeal, but Mr.
Holcomb was allowed to speak.
I never received a notice that this project was proposed, and
yet I have been told that it is too late to appeal. How
could I know that it was too late to appeal if I was never
informed that the project had been proposed or approved? I
have attended three meetings where the Planning Commission or
the Mayor and Common Council was supposed to consider this
December 15, 1986
Page 4
item: I have not been allowed to speak at any of these
meetings, not has anyone else been allowed to speak in favor
of allowing the appeal. However, the developer's lawyer has
been allowed to speak at all of the meetings.
I feel that I and other members of the community in
opposition to this project should be allowed to speak on this
matter. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Mayor and
Common Council grant the right to appeal this project.
Respectfully,
"
~
~ '.)~l\.;~
ALICE STIELE
-CITY OF SAN Br~NARDIN~ - MEMORANCJM
To MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
From RALPH H. PRINCE
Date City Attorney
December 18, 1986
Subject Review ot Plan. No. 86-43: Appeal ot,
Approved
Opn. No. 86-54, 10.85
Date 700. 30, 700. 1
Backaround
The appeal of the Planning Commi..ionl. denial ot appeal of
Review of Plans No. 86-43 was continued trom the City Council
meeting of December 8, 1986 to Dece~r 22, 1986, for further
legal advice concerning the tiaeline.. and fona of the
appeal.
Fact.
Review of Plans No. 86-43 va. tentatively approved by the
Development Review Committ.e on August 7, 1986; a letter
advising applicant that the application had been approved and
enclosing the conditions and requirements was ..iled to the
applicant on August 25, 1986. At that tiae, Resolution No.
83-48 Section 9 limited an appeal to the Planning comai.sion
from the decision of the Planning Department to the
applicant.
At the Council meeting of August 18, 1986, Councilman
Hernandez talked with a neighbor of the proposed development
who was attempting to appeal the decision to the Planning
Commission. At the meeting, Councilman Hernandez orally
indicated his desire to appeal Review ot Plans No. 86-43.
Mrs. Alice stiel the neighbor, contends that .he was advised
on August 18, 1986 by the Planning Department that it was too
late to file an appeal. Frank Schuaa, Planning Director,
concurs that the oral reque.t was made at the Council
meeting, and that the request by Councilman Hernandez was
reaffirmed at the Council ..eting of September 8, 1986.
On September 25, 1986, the applicant was advised that an
appeal had been made. The appeal was not in writing.
Analvsis
Resolution No. 83-48 Section 9 provided on August 18, 1986
and September 8, 1986 that the wdecision shall be final
unle.. an appealw is aade to the Planning Commission in
writing, Wby the applicant vithin ten days of the decision."
On the following day, Septeaber 9, 1986, Section 9 was
amended to permit an appeal by any interested party, not just
the applicant. The Planning Co..i.sion i. now required to
give notice ot the time and place of the hearing on the
appeal by publication in a newspaper and by mail to all
1
~~ #2&-)
persons owning real property within five hundred feet of the
subject property.
The amendment of Section 9 by the Co..on Council indicated
its awareness that neighboring property owners, a. vell as
the applicant, were entitled to notice and the .... right as
the applicant to the appeal process. The .o.t fund..ental
right available to property owners is the right of due
proces.: n..ely, notice and an opportunity to be heard. They
are entitled to pre.ent evidence that the develo~nt will
not "occur in a ..nner which coapl~ts the character and
quality of surrounding develop.ent. . . . · or be . . .
"haraonious with their site. and with surrounding site. and
structures . . . · a. set forth in Resolution No. 83-48
Section 3.
Therefore, in the absence of notice and the appeal right
being afforded to surrounding property owner., fund..ental
principles of due process require an iaplied right of appeal
of the property owners and tenants from decisions to the
Planning Commi..ion.
Since the surrounding property owners, who could be.adversely
ettected by the proPO.ed project, were not provided written
notice of the ORC .e.ting or the decision or its conditions,
a requirement that the appeal had to be made in writing would
be inequitable at this time. The timeliness ot the appeal is
evident from the attempt by at least one neighboring property
owner to file an appeal on August 18, 1986, and then request
her Councilman to assist in tiling the appeal.
The cases of Horn v. Citv ot Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605,
156 Cal.Rptr. 718: and Mead v. citv Council. citv of Redlands
(1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 199, 205 Cal.Rptr. 443 are ..ple
authority for the proposition that procedural due process
requires notice and bearing to .urrounding property owners,
and that the failure to give notice and an opportunity to be
heard constitute. a denial of due process, and could render
the decision void.
Attached tor your perusal is a copy ot a legal opinion
prepared by Deputy City Attorney CYnthia Grace; in ber
opinion, she concluded that the appeal ot ORC 86-48 wbich was
made by Councilman Hernandez on behalt ot the Stiels should
be beard.
2
Conclusion
The appeal ot Review of Plans No. 86-43 should be reterred to
the Planning Co..is.ion for a h..ring on the .erits. Interes-
ted partie. should be notitied.
~ li.fl e?
ur-~~v
H. PRINCE
City Attorney
RHP: p_
cc: Mayor
City Administrator
Planning Director
Attach: Legal Opinion
3
1
2
3
.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
APPEAL
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF PLANS NO. '6-43
p~ope~ty tocdtion; Aubject p~ope~ty iA 7.3 dc~eA hdvin9 app~o
498' on the Sou~h Aide o~ Milt dnd being tocd~ed dpp~OX.
200' weAt 06 ~he cen~e~line o~ Rancho Avenue
TO. CITY CLERK
CITY 06 SAN BERNARDINO
CITY HALL
SAN BERNARDINO, CA.
--,
\...--\
--1
--'
I
At! unde~~igned pd~LieA do he~eby 4ppedt ~he above ~
men~~oned pldn b 'o~e ~he Pldnn~ng COmm~~~on d~ ~h~A llme.
_J
The Jtea~on~ 60~ ~he appedl (pJto~eQ~J aJte l~~~ed a~ 60l9.w~: -,
,
7. VlnAi~y 06 ~he a~ed----- ~he~e aJte Aeve~al com~lexeA
in ~he a~ea a~ ~hiA t~e.......-.
one complex haA 784 un~~
~he nex~ one haA 156 un~~A
fiiI nex~, 204 unti-6 (wi~h a vacancy 60IL ~hii6 one
~alone 06 62%1, dno~he~, ha-6 70 unit-6...the~e
a~e ~wo mob~le home pa~k~-------one with
703, dnn~heIL 93.....thi-6 ~A ~n the ~med~att
CITY PlANNiI~~ Lci'ABTMENT d~etl... .leA-6 than tl block d~~tdnce 6Jto," tht
SAN BERNARDINO, CA
pJtopoAed Aite.........the~e dJte ohe~ pa~kA
dn~ complexe-6, dl-6o, in ~he -6u~~0Ikdin9 4Jtea.
00 ~ @ ffi n ~7 ffi
NOV 07 1986
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. CJtime aet~v~~y-----theJte ~A d high eJtime aJtea......
dJtugA, bUJtgla~y, petty the6t....all with~n thiA
immed~dte aJtta. .....one Ahopping ctnttJt ItdA
become a "waAtland" 0' empty bUA~neA6eA....
due to tht cJt~me in the a~ea. .....it iA
adjacent to Col~on, dnd tht~e6o~e, Au"eJtA
the ove~610w 6Jtom tht~ cJtime Atat~At~cl.
3. SchoolA....the pJtopeJtty ~ wi.th~n the Rialto $chool
ViA~Aict~....thiA Achool i~ alJteady at ~ mdX-
imum peak load 60Jt the~ popultltion limit.
I , ,
~~p- .3'~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.
25
26
27
28
PLAN "-43 eOllt.
/
4. IIlvolv~mtllt 0' tk~ 'o~m~.....Bob HoleoMb ~l-
M4YO~, h4A t4k~Il it UpOll hiM~t16 to bteom~ lllvolv~d
....thiA iA totAlly out 06 lillt. ...hi~ u~i"g h~
ill6lutllet in 0'6iet~ wkt~t ht i~ IlO lOllgt~ in
4utho~i~y, bu~ ~ying ~o u~t Wh4~ ill6lutnet ht
k4A ~~m4illillg. ..to tlleOu~4gt .o~t e~imt 4etivity
-....MO~t ~4"ie p~obltmA....o~t p~obltm~ with 4n
4l~t4dy bu~d~ft~d Ackool AYAt~.....Wt 't~ i4 4
d~tet illAult to tht cu~~tllt M4YO~....tkt Hono~a.blt
Evlyn WUco x.
A petU.i.o n MA been c..u.c.uta..ttd, a.nd Aigll4.tcatA ga.thUtd......
in 4 vuy Aho~~ ltng~h 06 ~e.....l~~~ Wt~t Aubmitted
to the Pla.nnillg COmm.iA~ioll, th~ Ma.YO~'A o"ice, the Council
0'6.i.ce....a.ll 'o~ ~evitw 0' ~ del.i.ca.tt ALtu4t.i.on.
ThiA pt(utning iA ~u~e.ty no"t .in the beAt iuueAt 06 the. c.om"unUy I
. . . . . U could 0 nty e.x44 ub4te .the. a.~e4dy txuUIlg p~o bltmA .
flATE'~~ .1ils:j"J{ .'.
. ~\) . r.l"~ ~\
" ." C( C.l~JO.9 _
---l. "" ......
ALICE STIEL
..
Sl f\"Kbus\ fv\o€>\l.~ ~R"
~:,).So \..V, %\Ll. ~'. ~~b
Co\.."'lON) C. J\ q ~ ~~ ~
<6~~-~"?>S\c \ ~~<6-\o\O~
...~ ~"SJ
'EA TTE STIEL
..~~~...
~ITY OF SAN BEr JARDINe - MEMORANDl-\1
To Shauna Clark, City Clerk
Subject Appeal/Project 86-43
From Council Office
Date November 13, 1986
Approved
Date
I herewi th appeal the decision of the Planning
Ccommission to not hear my appeal of Project 86-43. My
opinion is that my appeal was filed in a timely and correct
manner and that the Planning Commission and Council have
the authority to review the Developmental Review Committee's
recommendations.
u-~.
RALPH HERNANDEZ
Councilman, Third Ward
RH : s r
cc: Planning Department
.....
. >
--"
v--
fit/iuftJrUdll~
RECONVENE MEETIh
At 2:06, the II.dJourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor
and Common Council reconvened in the Council Chambers of
City Hall, 301il North "0" Street, San Bernardino, Cali-
fornia.
ROLL CI\.LL
Roll Call was taken by Deputy City Clerk South with
the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Mem~
bers Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Frazier, Strickler; City
Attorney Prince, Deputy City Clerk South, City Administra-
tor Schweitzer. Absent: Council Members Marks, Quiel.
APPEAL - REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 86-43 - SOUTH SIDE OF
MILL - 21il0 FEET WEST OF CENTERLINE OF RANCHO AVENUE -
COUNCIL MEMBER HERNANDEZ
In a memorandum dated November 18, 1986; Planning
Director Schuma presented a written request dated November
13; 1986, from Council Member Hernandez, Third Ward; ap~
pealing the decision of the Planning Commission to not
hear his appeal of Project 86-43: It was his opinion that
his previous verbal appeal was filed in a timely and cor~
rect manner, and that the Planning Commission and Council
have the authority to review the Development Review Com-
mittee's recommendations: (53)
Also attached to the memorandum were petitions from
neighbors of the proposed project, which is construction
of a 48 unit, three-story apartment complex located on
approximately 1:3 acres on the south side of Mill Street;
west of Rancho Avenue; opposing the proposed development:
The Planning Director gave the background of the
appeal; stating that Council Member Hernandez had pre~
sented a verbal appeal to the proposed project at a
Council Meeting on September 8; 1986; which reaffirmed an
earlier verbal appeal by the Council Member:
City Attorney Prince answered questions regarding a
legal opinion dated December 5, 1986, in which he outlined
the background of the appeal and attached a copy of Reso-
lution No. 86-361 which adds provisions which establish a
procedure for the appeal of administrative decisions to
the Planning Commission. In the opinion, Mr. Prince
stated in part as follows:
"At the time that Councilman Hernandez'
appeal was orally made, there was no time
limit and no requirement that an appeal be
in writing."
Mr. Prince recommended that the appeal of Review of
Plans 86-43 be referred to the Planning Commission for a
hearing on the merits, and that interested parties be
notified:
City Attorney Prince answered questions, stating that
the appeal procedures were established by resolution on
September 9, 1986, and the appeal was made prior to that
date: He also referred to a general appeal process which
is set forth in a City ordinance which could arguably be
applicable in this instance:
CITY CLERK CLARK ARRIVED
At 2:15 p.m., City Clerk Clark arrived at the Council
Meeting and replaced Deputy City Clerk South:
W. R. Holcomb, Attorney representing the developer;
referred to City Resolution 83-48; which was adopted in
13
12/8/86
~17/IH/ II-S-
1983 and established the review process. Mr. Holcomb read
Section 9 of the resolution, as follows:
"SECTION 9. Action - Appeal. The Planning
department shall approve or reject the
plans submitted for review, and the deci-
sion shall be final unless an appeal to the
Planning Commission is filed, in writing,
by the applicant within ten days of the
decision".
Mr. Holcomb also referred to San Bernardino Municipal
Code Chapter 2.64 which sets forth appeal procedures. It
was his contention that the appeal was not filed in a
timely manner, and that no appeal was made in writing:
COUNCIL MEMBER QUIEL ARRIVED
Council Member Quiel arrived at the Council Meeting
and took his place at the Council Table.
City Attorney Prince requested that this matter be
continued in order that he have time to review the docu-
ments.
Attorney Holcomb stated that a delay would be costly
for his client:
Jess Vasquez, 866 W: Louise; Colton, asked to be
heard:
Mayor Wilcox stated that comments from citizens were
not being received at this time; as the issue before the
Council is that of determining what the legal position of
the City is:
City Attorney Prince answered questions, stating
there was no liability to the City in this issue.
Attorney Holcomb offered to pay for an independent
legal opinion if the conclusion was the same as that pre~
sented by Mr. Prince.
Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by
Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that the
appeal on Review of Plans No. 86-43 be continued to Decem-
ber 22,1986, at 2:00 p.m:, in the Council Chambers of
City Hall, 300 North "D" street, San Bernardino, Cali-
fornia.
COUNCIL MEMBER FRAZIER EXCUSED
Council Member Frazier left the Council Meeting.
CHANGE OF ZONE 86-11 - CHANGE ZONE OF RECENTLY
ANNEXED PROPERTY TO C-M COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING -
BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY TIPPECANOE - ON THE SOUTH BY
1-10 FREEWAY - ON THE WEST BY ORCHARD DRIVE - ON THE
NORTH BY THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING SAN BERNARDINO
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
In a memorandum dated November 21; 1986, Planning
Director Schuma stated that at the meeting of the Planning
Commission held on November 18, 1986, the application for
Change of Zone No: 86~11, on recently annexed property to
C-M Commercial Manufacturing, was recommended for appro-
val. There are various owners of this property; and the
applicant is the City of San Bernardino; and encompasses a
site recently annexed into the City located on approxi~
mately 29.4 acres bounded on the east by Tippecanoe Ave-
nue, on the south by the 1-19 Freeway, on the west by
Orchard Drive and on the north by the previOUSly existing
San Bernardino Corporate Boundary. (54)
14
12;8;86
ROLL CALL
Roll Call was taken by the City Clerk with the fol-
lowing being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members
Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Strickler; City Attorney
Prince, City Clerk Clark, City Administrator Schweitzer.
Absent: Council Members Marks, Quiel, Frazier.
APPEAL - REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 86-43 - SOUTH SIDE OF
MILL - 200 FEET WEST OF CENTERLINE OF RANCHO AVENUE -
COUNCIL MEMBER HERNANDEZ - CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER
8, 1986
This is the time and place continued to for consider-
ation of whether or not an oral appeal by Council Member
Hernandez regarding Review of Plans No. 86-43, south side
of Mill; 200 feet west of centerline of Rancho Avenue for
an three-story apartment complex; was filed in a timely
and appropriate manner: (36)
At the Council meeting of August 18, 1986, Council
Member Hernandez orally indicated his desire to appeal
Review of Plans No. 86-43, and reaffirmed this desire at
the Council meeting of September 8; 1986.
At its meeting of November 5; 1986, the Planning
Commission reviewed Review of Plans No: 86~43 and it was
the determination of the Commission that the appeal was
not filed in a timely and appropriate manner, and, there-
fore, no further action could be taken by the Planning
Commission: Subsequently; this matter was brought to the
Common Council on December 8; 1986:
This matter was continued at the meeting of December
8, 1986, in order to provide City Attorney Prince suffici-
ent time to review documents considered at that meeting:
City Attorney Prince stated he had reviewed the opin-
ion prepared in his office dated December 5; 1986; and
presented at the meeting of December 8, 1986. A new legal
opinion dated December 18, 1986, in which more authorities
were cited, was presented in which the conclusion was
basically the same, as follows:
"The appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-43
should be referred to the Planning Commis-
sion for a hearing on the merits. Interes-
ted parties should be notified."
City Attorney Prince stated his position was that the
resolution that was in effect in August, 1986; only
granted the right of appeal to the developer: It was his
contention that surrounding property owners who would be
affected by the development are entitled by constitutional
rights to receive notice and a right to appeal regardless
of the appeal time limits. The property owners had not
previously been provided notice of the conditions and the
right to appeal. Mr. Prince stated that his opinion is
based on the State and United States Constitutions, giving
property owners the right to notice and an opportunity to
be heard.
City Attorney Prince answered questions, stating that
he thought the appeal should be heard before the Planning
Commission, rather than the Council. It was his opinion
that Council Member Hernandez had made the appeal on be-
half of his constituents.
W. R. Holcomb, Attorney representing the developer,
was present, and stated that the issue before the Council
was that of the appeal made by Council Member Hernandez,
and whether or not it was filed in a timely and appropri-
17
12/22/86
~~nr*fo
~.~ m~nner. Hp st3t-d that there had not been a written
eal and the or'! ?peal given at a CounCil meetin<
~~uld not be locate~ In the tape or 1n the typed minutes.
Mr. Holcomb referred to Chapter 2.64 of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code which sets forth provisions for Appeals to
the Common Council and stressed that the City's integrity
demands that the Council follow the laws of this City.
Mr. Holcomb suggested that if the time limit for
appeals of 15 days was not adhered to, property owners
could go back and review every Review of Plans that has
been made in the past year and appeal. He urged the
Council to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission
that found the appeal was not submitted in a timely and
appropriate manner.
Mr. Harry Stiel, a property owner near the proposed
development, spoke of the high crime rate in the area and
indicated his disapproval of the proposed apartments, and
his preference for another type of development that would
upgrade the area.
Planning Director Schuma answered questions, stating
that he did remember Council Member Hernandez' oral appeal
at Council meetings on August 18, 1986 and September 9,
1986, but did not act on it due to an oversight.
Jess Vasquez, 866 W. Louise, Colton, a resident in
the area adjacent to the proposed development, spoke in
opposition to the proposed apartments, as his property
would be totally impacted, and there is already much crime
in the area.
City Attorney Prince answered questions regarding
liability to the City if citizens are given the right to
appeal on past developments, stating that there would be
no liability if the attorney's legal advice is followed.
Council Member Marks made a motion, seconded by
Council Member Frazier and unanimously carried, that the
appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-48 which was made by
Council Member Hernandez on behalf of his constituents was
found to be timely and valid.
City Attorney Prince answered questions, stating it
was his opinion that the appeal should be heard before
the Planning Commission rather than the Common Council.
Planning Director Schuma answered questions regarding
the date of the next Planning Commission meeting and
stated that there is sufficient time to prepare notice to
surrounding property owners and to the newspaper for a
hearing at the Planning Commission on January 6, 1987.
Council Member Strickler made a motion, seconded by
Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that the
appeal of Review of Plans No. 86-48 be referred back to
the Planning Commission for hearing.
STUBBLEFIELD ENTERPRISES - MOUNTAIN SHADOWS
VILLAS - EXTENSION OF TIME - GRANDFATHER CLAUSE -
R-3 ORDINANCE - CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 8, 1986
This is the time and place continued to for consider-
ation of the extension of time on the Grandfather Clause
relating to the R-3 Ordinance for Stubblefield Enter-
prises, Mountain Shadows Villas Project. (37)
Planning Director Schuma requested that this item be
continued.
18
12/22/86
1Cl11a"''' A
MONlTdY CONTII.unotIa IIICINID
POIlM GO. GO 011"
CAmouma M8y .. ......... To Whole Dolen)
..... 011 C#1IDiO'" ft OIl car i . .-
RALPH H. PRINCE
DAft
~
M.L...... Me~ OP
~
. M . ,_ auo..... LD. ..... 011
....~.--s..... ~D ~I
....4...
OCQ8-
..., ......,......
...... ~II
1/9/ ~ice Stie1
87 2250 W. Mill Street
Colton, CA
Mobi1ehome Stardust Mobi1e-
Park owner home Park
1/22/ Gail Cifford Hutton
87 16292 Wishingwe1l
Huntington Beach, CA
City Attorne City of Huntington
Beach
....
1000
1.00
O It mare --=- . neaded. chec:k box . left
and --" Mdltional Schedu- It..
suaTOTAL 1100
"MARY
1. AMOUNT RECEIVED - CONTIU8UTIONS Of .,00 011 MORE
(Include all Schedule A. ........>> .................................... - . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·
2. AMOUNT RECEIVED - CONTRllunONS OF LESS THAN .,00 (Not itemized) .........
3. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRllunONS THIS PERIOD
(UM 1 + Une 2) Enter here and on Une 1 Column' 01 Summary.... ................
1100
288
;~~!~~l
.. ~~
AMGUIIIT
~1M
to ..."
1000
100
. 1388
-3.
~t-#7
~ : ~I j illl" t ~ ~51- ~ I j E s
~ ~ s ~ ) ~~
109 .i. ~
"Q
j I I
if : I Jdtl !~U!~! ! h i I
:j I:;; ~H Lh~1 f j S,ll !I. J ~
E
~
si i ~ .. i . I ' Is... ~ ti
1~! ii 1 f S S i . . a- . !t ~f' i _ ;
. . 1"0 ~ -- t a~: ~ I II 'I ItI ! ~ f..)
8 ~ _ .... J .. _ ~ .s. ~ _ i:'
.!~ I ~~"'I I II ts f J;.. "0,..; ~
· ~i ~i :, Uhdl; i~. li~~ 1 ~fl t ii"f~
~ ~.. !! ; lii~jni; 11 J'll~ n~: HiH
~ ; v oS ~ ~ i I-N la a i' 1 . j~ l.i ... ~ ~ t ! :;! .~ ~
(Ill !! 5 .S t .e ~ "11;1 S N N .~ 1. ! ~ 1 ~:'.I" ~ l & ~ 3
~;. 'I~~; ~: ~I~ a 11lll!1 ~~.t t ..~ Jj~~ ~ ~.=j ~ ~; j ~
IiI1 z: ~ Z . ~ Q, IJ 'S 'S . I ~ 1... ,.:.:1 II " . ~ Z -.. ra. : z: : 'i
~ i" E: ~8.::g~ <~~~. ~!~lti..il~ !'II : ~i~ e 2~ 8!
~ f:: . f:: ~.. ~ _ _ 0 _ uc ~._
tp-
!
8
~
w
::I
~
ail
;.
8
QIO
c::>
;
tOt
55 2
'!t~ -
ED ~
~l ~
f t ~.~ ~
~ ~ tl t
~ ... :I ~. 'tit
i ! ! ~~r~II~!
.~! !':I': a iJ
r ~ J e:i 1 iJ..
J ~ l~] 5~ !!tj ,
1 ~ ~.=! ~t; ,
~I i U:: I J .
.{ '1 I :~ ~! 1 c 1
I ~ ~ Ii:' l )I!
=.! I..:a - cI.
l:e i~~~~ i ~
i ~ g ~~lr:' ~ 11
C = till 3'5 s; E J i
~ 21,.0 1l~ i I j S J
.:. .:I::s....'" Gl")_-
2 ..c:;ccn 'SJl}
~ . ~.s ~ ~ N 'Il..i
c g ~ - .!2 R ~-...
~ 8 :"0 6.~ ~ E'~)J. i
t!CIl)::!: ao Zfe,,=, .. VI r.1I
d5~ _ 8.Q,~ :e
a'!.....;-",. ._~~...:.. .,' -'-'-', .. "_'-"fJ~""'_l"-"'-' ,.,,'fl"'. '.,' I,"" '''I.L..'.~'.
t :tW~.....i~L:' . g'g~;~:.:tf'=~ .. i~ s.'~~ :$:.:1tr'.~c~Sie:g";~'I.~;.f~E~: .a~l~l:\
: . ..':t;'.ll~':~';~ Zli' ~." ik;;.= l...aoa:"~'~"~';~C'~fGM'~ 1:. -a .~~;
.: I, ~r' :':1'. ;21')' I'~ 8 o. t.1J i. >~;!t ~h~ . . v.; . :I ,~c '1.1t }:!
'.~~. ..:r.;,It. ,..... :i~t[ . '''.'' IS:! ~ 'S.Ia:.&:aa tl~"'cl~:I..~/'~~.''''I'~ .....,:....:to...~~1 ~.~.........li 'I~;,.;'
..,. t.. " It. '~.&:a= i 0, 1-' ; ",' : -'1 .. " '.'1..... "1'tJ!'8 . ~
,. .'fc', _ ~ . 0- ....0. ...........,....... .. .
. ..~.It. . .:1 '~v 11 . .~~l , ,~ .;; .".- J '. ~
.r;\;. 't.~~..~~..~: "'. . '4~. .' J "iiJ' j!i a alt:'i':i~'I~l:~'l1';. ~>.II:"".: JI. ;)
. ',". '. -t.'-o..:" . , .~. ....Ura: iF....'..' ~. a.t :"1' I.!}.:'. HI...I' 411., ~ .
"t!\~ i~~(.'. j"i; taisJi iJ1Jjli .i.~' i.'J' .~j;ii.a:~
~.'~.{.""'.1'..;f=. :.' '.'_cu. ....1 1'~~I~~l)iiltl!lalill'~ 1'.l1I.. i~lIiiJII"i'
;";l~ y...... ~ ~.. Ib.. .... - J... I. S r:, IJJiR t ,
-.'< ':.' ~'.'.;!;.=".' . . . 11=1 ; .3'1"1.~:.1..'
....;<~1.>/ II'. . . :.. itl I.,~,.
. . .:....,~ .";' . ~ .: ... .
c. . ~ . ~ . ,.. .... *' .... <M .
~'7~..~' I :.... ~;~. ~ '. . ".- ; 1"(": '''''01
.:',;,;:} :-.~~...,. "I oS .!!.)--a . '. .~.:."
~~ . '.. . .s.. 1.., s'1J1jI .
..,...".~~..:...' l'.' S J . s:.~ ::It 8''.1 :..~i
",!~if.~!'.: L .. t ~ 5l' )~: :a... 0
~.~ I.' I' ~ ~ '~~I~~
. -.::.::1'{$'l.. · . .., 's 0 ." ~ica' ca. '.
. ",:, ~.'lJ'~# .... . _ "_.". ...,' c:I
. -.."'f ....~ , . '. . a~a~ :9..t. -:'...~ .:
~....;.\,,':...j: .~:' <.'........... .., ~ ):o.:.r... ..:t "D. S Ia.. .A.-1"I' .':Jtf..
f.'~' . "-'-' . ...... '... .9 -! '. ~ i.
'v .. ;~~~:~~.'~ . .'I"g~~jI ei .; ~g;. a
!t ~"'~' f :'~cii:a~ S . > ....'0. 8'
\~'; ".:'::=. . ':..:.6;:' ~'a-J~~!" 5~1~ t'j I e.la~':~e.J$~~g.l;..... .:a.!~~.$l-...~.:.
.J. ... . 8.;8 · i.. I i 0 c bt fl. . .. I' - D.... i QOIIe -
;f. ... = >-~ ;.. - 0 . 0...,,; - a:_
".t... c;.i.: " =-. .&:a ~11 ....b .:s. A~~~. .':. ~ _..,,;.~~ . ~
.' '. : ~ ... 0 < . ,.f:( ':, i=':- . D
:....". . ...tia',.... . ';.'. ":!rI.i. 1ici.f:i lz~=1 ~ilj ~i, l.iJ!~.:.aQJ~..".. ..,;j:'..l~~ll:li.i.e~.
.., . ." . .s! d~Aa.aA 11 Ca OS,! ~;;A.a g.!'Q'1:J.sII~ st: ="j-li- o.
....;~~. ~. l":~' ~... '~o'g1 -i{ e ; ~ Q Q Q a 8 a 8 t. .:;:,,': . ! r: i 3'.~' ~. '. :.;~
: :.;-. ..., .. .s 8. 8 Q ,.c:a.; , . ~ - ,- "
.:.~i" . ..), . ::":'lil'I.!s.~....,.tf II !; ~ Ijast ~J'C5~ t~:.:{IB.: 'I.'a-=-~~-". e i_...~
.,. to ,,:!~'ii . ~ 1-:1 ,oa!"l~ = I. ___ ....AI I .( '.sA o!i~ a; v
.. ,. .,: . 'J '~'AlSil sea H 11..,....I'5<A&V~..:. ~ i :......,~.~.:ei.I...-
." , . ;Jf . ... ...""'_" _ .. ..,. ca""'_ ='i2, e
... . ';i.' '. ..~ ...). . -s~.... 'G',S _~: ".. a'ca:~'1lI: .~~
~.~' ,.:Q , .e ,.'~IJ,.=... ~lllll h~~2 ~dl;~b'i'.I:iii~I' ,.~:
:'j,~~; .. 5.1 Q!.:! h.... U ~t!:i:ll s.!O.Jt..a '" .. 0 8S .. '
..'.f~..~.., .,;.:., ..~..,..... '.. " .s ~.=. S.. '.a.::AitS .
,.~. . '. 'I t;,t~~....s D. ~.'
- .:~ ,-'C'., :l. ". '. . 'S'::I".. C).&:a.f:l ~'.'
~ .0' . '.. '111'0 III a. IS.
~i;1W' ~, ..... :,. . ",,'~- ',QJ R .
~.7",,~~Ma: ]i'~t ~~!Hl'
'''''. ..,>~. *.'...-l e ' ~ I I~.h I. l.ll ~.IJ
lrf"'''!~ ~ i! H=:ll!I~"l 1
.'~.'VS.. I. rI1:.. ..g]' .)i.:' pl~jj':..el~lll;l!
~.... ~ ~. oa'>.i:l~i'~G "=
". \,'IIIIII!IIIII ~. ".'~"... ....
. ....."', ..~.~ <1J . . ~ ~rn "', =' . ~
~;~.-.~.:. .... . "'0 ';;1:13 eal' I. t1tJa.s ~Df~'S'-'~"~'ji.::&' il~
'.:' .i:,.....-4 :;=' o~s J f =-.. a.9 ii1 1:1; . g "1
.' . a Q ~ aU lS. f S
~' n"'t-. \ . ~ a ~ i g i ~ .9 . D I
'.':;~' ,.~, ~I~~~ ~;~al ~.~~=~ .ttitf~~:..'Jjp Gil~ f' .
~ . .... ~ ~pdl ~, -s 'S it .. b ~ '.'J~S'ifg'; .'
,: <>r,~. ~ 5.!.a !=. i' ~ 8 :;... . ;:';:'1 ~ gal .8
~'.~ . J ~ v ria s..., t ' ~'''I' '~,'.l ..i ~ .t~ ;.
;~~:4i;7' -8":' Ii l~il il JSJ!- i: s J s ltWl~~:~lih~'I~ '
v, ~d b~h Bid dib ~tU!'. und r
.... ~ . . . . -.
.
..
0"" . \
~
\
\
~
.
~
.
.
.
.
j ,
~
.~
.
-,
.
t,1
'. '
;f,
t..
.. 1
~
..
~: :
.f'.
, I
~::I
\,
, I
~l
\;.1
Q..
'r (
'.~ )
. I......,.~..rl . ',J:" ...... ....,.../_:.-l:-.,~~ ,':"'l"""~"""").o"I,.,:-r"'I""'-'.. I._..l....\....~........:)..;.. ...,,,.0..',,.. 0'," ....~..... (
'.,'r; -","'. . ",,-' '. '.... ~....\... " ,.' , , 1...JEltlllr.lle San
CARD-CARRYJ,..~.'~OTl!8naR~~t.,~~,~m.htJ.eiri2t~r<ne;g~~~~~,aY ~l,....t
. Monday at Sa~ eern,~dl~O c"r.'\~".9~".~.t!~~~ I : <:,'i' ;<IJ'j~ ~;~~~./; \'. ',! .:-.:;:'.,-p.:.,;.,' ~I '-';(II.,:P
1 .; ;'..'J'" ":':,'. ,'t.<,.' ,i' ..' ..:~.,r." f'~ii';""'J,[ ." :'...(!I'-!j.J.' 1.,1' ..'il,P~.'l
C . :i'}.:.:,'.;.;.I.'.....F...,.e.....'I.o..:"..'CtaB:... .' ..:,.ii:/.tI;~\ .1.... A".~;"r'.D......... ."...."...B..... .......~~.;,~i~l
0011' . 'm' '. . ," '. .' ". I ~ "~.'''''' I'Jj" ~l' 'S;,.r
. "J f, ~ ',~.p - ..."(t~.' '.i-"~" ~ .';,~.... \ ~. M; ~. .l~!. -:'. t,.; , 'J ~ - ~ ".o.fr..t
-, '. '."r, , .', ". - . ' , . h , "" . :, j,.:. J ~': ~"1, r .... ,..-f~lrr'
;""4",,"-),,,,,, ..'..-. ,..":.~..t,.l,',,, ...1,',....,'1.1 -4;' ,c""..:.. ..;'."\",,.. '~'..." I
". - ,".: -', ", . , , ;.'_...' . ,. ...." 'I' .~, ;.. .T ..')'. ., .' i>. .~.. 4~, '1 '
I ,.. 'iW"": /. "." ...."f.. ',':"" .!. I.;' "'." "V'~:") .....i.,.....:....'... ,,~.'I.\ 'I..~:I..;:...'.~.~.:!..J' . i.-. '
, p~' ,," ,:.1;'(,\; .'. ~, >." p~arMl':I\- ,- \......... :e'" ;'D;'~ .:. '. '~...: ,.,'al'. ~:;:.,1:. fl....",...."}
a '0 ..a. . .... .,. ~li;"', .O~ ~....."'..
. '. ,- ,'.' ". ' '" " "( :~ .f .. .." -:",'i'''t
. ~ . ~ .' ..... : .';:', . ...-... :.... " I .~:,:- :.;,~~
: . ':,,' ,'..' '_ : ,', ':' '~~'1;') I tl....'~rr~., -~__"':'.f,i - :~.;, . . '.
I-STEPH'-.,u\,8"TE.' R'N' h .. """, ..../j... ,'r!'. ..::;;..,.,;_i5f.,.:-:t>i~..t...,-.::.:...dJ~.:.....;.~..
J -, An W 0 never w - iv.'~el' . uv;0r8:'Ut.'
. = Sun Staff Writ.... .' went betortt.. ,.~~tt8l:.He~:.c," ". ed..'tbat~'l
~ . SAN BERNARDINO - A city councuman's.an.eventhoU8h~. .fo1icYd08lD't~u.lrliuCliDII~. .,;--r.
III 'W . . r tion. the rem~~tI..wl have . rlphd.,.'heard": . -.\;'
peal of a propoeed. '. est Side apartment project, re- AbOut 15cr6f the residents man '6tiwbcJm IIv . ~~t..
I jected by the PlanniD. . g Commission last mo~tb, WU Colton near th....1SrOpoeed a~':ta,;tIOebd to ~.
given new lUe Monday. . '. . COUDeD me8tbi,.eartyJna~etI!.HiClbiC ~ .~:..,"\1'!Tti!
On a UDanlmoUl :vote, . IOmewhat reluctant CIty low-Income. . "meAt&. ~o mOrij: '. .:. ,~~:.;;,
Council agr.ed. to 101l0w City Attorney R.lph ....v. our ~~". :'i..-t'l:(~"', ,.... .
. PrInce'. advlee:"and.accept u. val1d. .,Councllman Because 01 th~~B~~ iaJd bli~" ."
. Ralph Hernandez's oral appeal of . eunttapartm.nt noUDeecl hJI deme..to. Jr.tJie.I;' 0 . "i:d . "
1\11 compleJ:on)(I11~eet,weltofRaneho.Av.nue. CoUDeD meet1Dp AUg..~~ ttjll~. ~'~
The dec:ll1on. wb1eh directed the Plannln, Com- d1reeted p'anft1n..De t:eh1e:f4~:'&'IiWiil.... I
mIIIIon'to reeoDIider the .ppeal Jan. e, prompted to fUe. wrttten. . but SchUma'a.klIll:'f..ltd'..to:,;
. "IllY - fn>iD'former Mayor W.K. Ho........ who do... '. . ~.:;;,!"'" c, "I'" ((..j,
I repr8lentsthe.apartmentbuUden.. Cl~'=fUld. 'nettherl'"tipel;~.?~~l
. \. Holcomb. eaDecs . PrInce'. lepl.advice "patently wrttteJi. . Of ..th. e'COUDd1. .m.~. ....,. d .tbl\..~ ~'.(
WI'OIlI" and IIicl he bad "utter'dJquIt for the optn- alioral .ppeal".bill'1iMD.ftIe4rlltboU8li CQ1ddi;'\
Ion of thee1ty.ttorDey." '. cIlmaD.Steve1~d ~~t:.. . '-;t~eY'~.';J,
I Tbe .partllieDt ,backen, santa .ADa develo.pen heard. It. . .al~ . .. ":'.j..I'~I'~li ,. ....~;...,.!:.:i-r.ii..\.
"ft.._.._ Re.-....... "';"d "'--I .....1.. ."'~.... ed OIlNOY.l.li. -"'~\.~ DeJIf'..
, UU"ww' uaa- au. -..- -..... uuv._D to SU. lb:hear'the.' ytq.1t<:'tiadD~~""':f11eJ. in;. ,'"
the city If commlalioDen uphold the .ppeal .nd re- MM-ely...;.......p...--..telllAftlli..."i' ;I;t~... ....f,.... .". ..... ,
I jecttheprojec:t. . WIll IIU\I ....~..,... .... ..L ~" '. ,.\~.
. .. HenwacleI,.""""wt the;f"Ol"m tIeo'lIIqil.. .'
The ,e1tyDevelopment Review CommIttee a~ and WttlLP.rIIlee~",~ . :.J11m /., . ~~
proved the th~ry project A~.. 7... . ,1UAd ~.' :" ~.... ." .' 'I(
, A~ Monclay'J meeuna. PrInce rei1i8ed'to retreat - eIly. ~.. . ':.' ,.~~"n'-~~~
from Ita_...blt.... - ..-' ....lhol ...... \', SlIU ._~'"""'...1 -"",:.
thouIh Henwid...~.pPeal of.the eomm1ttee'.dod-~'ibif ' . : . '~b1&J!. . .' . ra "".
aloD wU made Orally-. . and DOt rued In writing wtlb. ' . that tbey'bacl' ~ ......,. "'\~.fL~' ".\\K~
in the l~or ta.day.ttme Umlt city codes reqUire - It. : . "Yom'" ". ". ..'tk'i~' 'lOt-of ~
walltUl vaUd." , ' '. ble, Ralph,..,vi - 'CouD~;GOriSoa:Qu~ ~'-:
Prince said Hernandes wu repreeentiDg conaUtu- can aee:otbe1'prO~e:o"'bU"th.hlrildY ~~."
-:_6.. ....1.._ .11...... _-.Au_A ...._ _.....~aII ................ft.. ...A 'hPn1r6ft ~nfttl It - ^!\: ,) 't.' \, i..., ..,.:-\.1...
if) . - ''-<31.ii 3
tD ~.. iJ:..i!i
'~ ".-I:!
:;; 'C rioSa,e8
~ 8 iih1i~
i' IIIJ;.J-
,i .:: rIJ p.elilf
IDa:
!~
~~ .~
IrIJ
..~
~.
"'~.
=
.,...
~-
t
'i
O ~..; 6 'S;i; : !I · ~ ~ OJ ~,;,.c ~ 8 ~ · 'i iU ~ Jl. -,! ~'ii .b .P :a ..: · ~ -.i; e
<l i IS. ,.a;"" _.!! "po. ... := Cl S S 'i ~ ! " .s" ~ · .. ,,- lj Cl...., S ;;:
Q 1..!11ii.i1 5!W~g &:1>) fS.1j; iE~ t':8~.s~~I'S
~i~i!t.:flll!';fj~t~-, ;1. .lli.~IJ~! ~~liij~i~J
~ ~Ij:~ ~tI~ '1 !!iI!m:I~~~ ljh!~!lIil
~!i~-;;i i1 ~.Ji~. ;Jjil~I~~ii.. 511:1; I
rI1 'iISj"jllCl i> ~~!Uii'.. Iltsl8:; ~1 ;11.9
~= t f 'l~. '!li~!~~li ~:.~Iljl!
~. :a !!I.!l_ .s~.aW!~_I.. aa.. .1 ~
......~-
:a
~
e
s ~16!1- ~ i;I~~ ~J 5: gl111' jl~~ .ell':'II'~lJ
~ l:.:S :: -= ...-a= -'" 8 !!.i" 'ii · g t <IJ~I
= e:I:' ...:. l~=a 01 · I ~i1'" i .t ~1
I Iii_ sj JilJ1!Hi !i . it~dl~! uH~ i
E Bli isilm ~jmti ~!- .In!n~t!!l ~mi!i!i
2 u I'~ i18H~8. ~~Jt~I!~ ~1 'til1~iua~ 5!~Jf!.st
~~~. . ni i!ffr m 1m ~~~.;!l
M :!:ai ;:.,,~~ x.~ ll=1 !11i~li~
~i~'ail~ ~j!itt !~~I i:~! ;j!! l .~
~;;i'.!131~ :;oSS:g<l ~i:~ Jl:~~ illi :,
2 il~8t~!. "':l~A~i if5i!iSI~ Jl ";m
s=. l' .i~ ~~ iii~U:l iJ5! ;i-5ct cl 1asl= ii
. {;~ ~s a ~i ~ ai, 8 ;e.z!!s ~~I
U~zi i:l ~ i'i~ !!~I !B
,.
. ".1 :t~t-lls!~1 t;~l~JJl.l~ j:;;)a'.1
_? !Of'o., ~ J'" €I 18 .x :I I.. B ..jI-3 ~ ~:l u '5 s I :I
~. \,> :I ..a... . as~ Cl';i"iiJo.@. .8~1l"
J,.. ~ I~ Ii i': i! !:. :l!~i~~ dilg
'i,b ':J! ij~!,i:;i 'liii1~iit. ij!1 '
t-- :-C i)q 11:11,;. lrulJlu~ t&:s.:.
UiM'i] Ut!tttj~i" I~Jli:im iUiI!
e-._~.-t~
._~~~ -
~ :8,~~'-~~
,:; '" -s '" ~ 'l:; ~
~:: S;:~-S '" o:u
t:::S._"-...., ~ ~
S;: -S! Qo o:u bo..:o;: '-
... \,> S;:' ~.S;:. ~
~ ~ ';:: ~~. -,~
Cl:l\,>.....,l:S~o
S;: ,:; c~ ; "'C c:..
l:S ... \,>!S;:... c::,
Cl)Q"c::"l:Sl:Sl:S-
.~ lJI!~' It {1*lG'at Ii: .tJi
c: -if ,I :;!.a_ I! c: .. c:i 5 Cl
8 :.SII ~. lt~.lo'ii ~~!! 0
i '0 c: ! ~ - Ii .. S ~ ~ · ; · e l! : ~ · 1:: ::: 8
_ ~'i~- _~I ~ ...-~Q. ~ . 0_
-s i5~.ga' ::;;! t ls;i..!- 31-..; ~e.e
;; =~ IS.'E g i..,~ S!!'$"oS 05 · ..ei ..,S go
~ e ~:I ~ >.;; . 8t ,~ ~~';~:i ~JI ~~ ii!
.c~ :i>;.-5.&:1.s oS!-< g~oE..2~... ,g~~... 8o.!!
!!- :;~...l;-.5l ~~1 ::s:lU="!o! .5>;.; .9..-
_.........g,;:;,;. 00 -=. ..s.....,o
~! ClsiS~" S!;lu."a ='i ~ ""';"
......11..11 8. >.-~I.:S 0.. =..8
:i~ ~ ..)!I1 r'. ~!l ~ ~~ sJ~ 1l pi:IIlll..~
. "0 -li II c.~ ...~ iU:.2 8.-= ls ~ iI, s Cl
'\
(Section 235 amemieri IJY election held November 2, 7976 ami approved hy State Leg
islature. )
(Section 236 repealed by election held the 4th day of February, 7969, and approved
by State Legislature the 25th day of February, 7969.)
(Section 237 repealed by election held the 4th riay of February, 7969, and approved
by State Legislature the 25th day of February, 7969,)
Section 238. In all cases where advertising is required for sealed proposals under Sec-
tion 140 of this Charter, the Mayor and Common Council, or any board or officer
making such advertisement, shall have power to reject any or all bids and readvertise in
their discretion.
(Section 238 Subsection (a) repealed by election held on the 6th day of February,
1973 and approved by State Legislature.)
(Section 239 repealed by election held on the 6th day of February, 1973 and approved
by State Legislature.)
Section 240. Whenever it becomes necessary for the City to take or damage private
property for public use, the Mayor and Common Council may direct proceedings to be
taken therefor under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of this State to pro
cure the same.
Section 241. The Mayor and Common Council shall have power and authority to em-
ploy and engage such legal counsel and services and other assistants, as may be necessary
and proper for the interest and benefit of the City and the inhabitants thereof,
Section 242. The Mavor and Common Council may prescribe the number, qual ific3
tion and compensation of the deputies, clerks, assistants, employees and attaches of the
City Attorney, City Treasurer and City Clerk, All deputies, clerks, assistants, attaches
and employees of the City Attorney, City Clerk and City Treasurer shall be appointed
by the respective officers with the consent and approval of the Mayor and Common
Council, and shall hold office at the pleasure of the officers appointing them.
(Section 242 as amended by special election held on the 4th day of November, 1924.)
(Section 243 repealed by election on the 5th day of November 1974 and approved by
State Legislature.)
Section 244. This Charter shall take effect from and after its approval by the Legisla-
ture of the State of California.
Section 246. A Civil Service Board is hereby created which shall consist of five memo
bers who shall be qualified electors of the City and appointed as hereinafter provided.
The three members in office on the first Monday in May, 1959, shall continue to serve
for the remainder of their respective terms. On July 1, 1958, or as soon thereafter as
this Charter amendment becomes effective, the Mayor, with the consent and approval
of the Council, shall appoint one member to serve until the first Monday of May,
1959, and one to serve until the first Monday of May, 1961, and thereafter, by rotation
in the following manner: Two members shall be appointed on the first Monday of May,
1959, two on the first Monday of May, 1961, and one on the first Monday of May,
-39-
Rejected
Bids
Advertisi 119
Pr ivate
Property
Taken or
Damaged
Legal Counsel
Employment of
Quald!catlons
of City
Employees
and Appoint-
ment
When Charter
Takes Effect
Mayor and
Council to
Appoint
Civil Service
Board