Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.E- City Manager i 1 RESOLUTION (ID# 1917) DOC ID: 1917 C CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO—REQUEST FOR COUNCIL.ACTION Agreement/Contract From: Andrea Travis-Miller M/CC Meeting Date: 07/02/2012 Prepared by: Heidi Aten, (909)384-5122 Dept: City Manager Ward(s): All Subject: Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Authorizing the Execution of a Professional Services Agreement by and Between the City of San Bernardino and Brunick, McElhaney & Kennedy for Hearing Officer And/Or Administrative Law Officer Services. Financial Impact: For FY 2012-2013, approximately$125,000 was projected for hearing officer services. The Firm's rate for service is $190 per hour. This rate includes a 5 percent compensation reduction. ACP and Administrative Citation hearings are held twice a month. The actual cost to the City each year depends upon the actual number of hearing officer hours.Account Budgeted Amount: Account No. 001-090-0053-5502 © Account Description: General Government Fund Please note this balance does not indicate available funding. It does not include non-encumbered reoccurring expenses or expenses incurred,but not yet processed. Motion: Adopt Resolution. Synopsis of Previous Council Action: April 23, 2011-Council Adopts Resolution 2011-249 authorizing an amendment to the 2009 Professional Services Agreement with William Holt for Hearing Officer and/or Administrative Law Officer services. November 1, 2010-Council Adopts Resolution 2010-361 authorizing the execution of an amendment to the 2009 Professional Services Agreement with William Holt for Hearing Officer and/or Administrative Law Officer services. December 7, 2009-Council Adopts Resolution 2009-361 ratifying the execution of an agreement with William Holt for Hearing Officer and/or Administrative Law Officer services retroactive to December 1,2009. Updated:6/28/2012 by Sabdi Sanchez C 1917 April 23, 2009-Council Adopts Resolution 2009-82 authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement with the Law Offices of Jones and Mayer, and retaining Gregory P. Palmer for Hearing Officer and/or Administrative Law Officer services. December 19, 2007-Council Adopts Resolution 2007-475 authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement with William Holt for Hearing Officer and/or Administrative Law Officer services. September 6, 2006-Council Adopts Resolution 2006-304 authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Mandel E. Himelstein for Hearing Officer and/or Administrative Law Officer services. November 7, 2005-Council Adopts Resolution 2005-365 authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement with William Holt to provide Hearing Officer services. Backeround: The City maintains a rotation of two independent hearing officers qualified to hear Administrative Citation cases and Administrative Civil Penalties (ACP) to address violations of the Municipal Code. To be in compliance with the San Bernardino Municipal Code (SSMC) 9.93.090 and the 2002 California Supreme Court decision(Haas v. County of San Bernardino,27 Cal. 4th 1017), at this time it is necessary for the City to retain a new hearing officer to allow for the required rotation of hearing officers. The California Supreme Court decision required the ! establishment of a rotation of at least two hearing officers for administrative citation hearings; and Section 9.93.090 of the SBMC states the term of an Administrative Hearing Officer shall be three years. Mr. William Holt has heard ACP and Administrative Citation cases since December 2005. The City has extended his Professional Services Agreement several times. In April 2011, Mr. Holt's contract was amended to continue to utilize his services on a month-to-month basis while staff completed the Request for Proposal(RFP)process to retain a new administrative hearing officer. The Administrative Hearing Officer Services RFP was advertised on the City website, in the San Bernardino County Sun, and through the San Bernardino Chamber of Commerce. The Business Registration Division also generated a list of attorneys registered in the City and notice was sent to 85 local attorneys. Updated:6/28/2012 by Sabdi Sanchez C 1 a 1917 The City received four proposals from professional law firms. The proposals were evaluated by a selection committee comprised of City staff representing the City Clerk's and City Manager's offices and the Finance Department. Proposals went through a selection process which consisted of two phases. The first phase included a review of the all written proposals. The proposals were given scores in the four following categories: fee for service, hearing officer experience, legal experience, and quality of writing samples. Proposals with the highest ranking scores were invited to participate in the second phase of the process, the oral interviews. Three of the companies were invited to meet with the selection committee for further consideration. The selection committee recommends that the City enter into a professional services agreement with Brunick, McElhaney & Kennedy, retaining Mr. Leland McElhaney, to serve as a hearing officer for the City. A local firm, Brunick, McElhaney& Kennedy received the highest ranking scores based on their price,hearing officer and legal expertise. The proposed agreement is for a period of three years, from July, 2012, through June, 2015. The Firm's rate for service is $190 per hour and includes a 5 percent compensation reduction. ACP and Administrative Citation hearings are held twice a month. The ACP hearings are scheduled by the City Attorney's Office and the Administrative Citations hearings are scheduled by the Code Enforcement Division. City Attorney Review: �1 Suuoortina Documents: Hearing Officer Resolution Brunick,McElhaney,Kennedy (DOCX) Exhibit A-McElhaney Hearing Officer Professional Services Agreement (DOCX) Brunick McElhaney Kennedy Proposal (PDF) Updated:6/28/2012 by Sabdi Sanchez C 7.E.a RESOLUTION NO. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF _u SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A PROFESSIONAL it d 3 SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARINO N AND BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENNEDY FOR HEARING OFFICER AND/OR u 4 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OFFICER SERVICES. m 5 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON 6 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: i d 7 SECTION 1. The City Manager of the City of San Bernardino is hereby m 8 c authorized and directed to execute on behalf of said City, a Professional Services Agreement E 9 'a between Brunick, McElhaney & Kennedy and the City of San Bernardino, for hearing 10 11 officer services and administrative law officer services under the City's Municipal Code, a c 12 copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference ° N 7 13 as fully as though set forth at length. T 14 SECTION 2. The authorization to execute the above-referenced agreement is 15 x 16 rescinded if the parties to the agreement fail to execute it within sixty (60) days of the A 17 passage of this resolution. W U 18 U 19 M 20 21 y 22 d 23 tt- 0 24 25 26 ` E 27 �,,, 28 ME RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 1 SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A PROFESSIONAL 7 2 SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARINO u AND BRUNICK MCELHANEY & KENNEDY FOR HEARING OFFICER AND/OR d 3 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OFFICER SERVICES. y a v 4 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor o a 5 =_ and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting d 6 = thereof,held on the_day of 2012,by the following vote,to wit: 7 8 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT E 9 MARQUEZ a 10 JENKINS 11 VALDIVIA c 12 .N 13 SHORETT > 14 KELLEY m c 15 JOHNSON Y 16 MCCAMMACK c m r 17 tu 18 Y Georgeann Hanna, City Clerk 19 m 20 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of 12012. o ._ 21 0 d 22 Patrick J. Morns, Mayor 23 City of San Bernardino 0 24 Approved as to form: c JAMES F. PENMAN, 25 City Attorney = 26 By: E s 27 P°- a 28 Packet Pg. 1015 ME PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENNEDY FOR HEARING OFFICER AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OFFICER SERVICES. `m ' This Agreement is entered into this day of , by and between 1 rn 2 Brunick, McElhaney & Kennedy ("CONSULTANT") and the City of San Bernardino 5 .q 3 ("CITY"or San Bernardino.) _ 4 WITNESSETH: ` 5 � WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council have determined that it is E 6 a advantageous and in the best interest of the City of San Bernardino to engage in a professional �- 7 8 services agreement with CONSULTANT to act as an independent Hearing Officer and/or R c 9 Administrative Law Officer; and 2 10 WHEREAS, CONSULTANT possesses the professional skills and ability to provide rc c d 11 said services for the CITY; and E m 12 NOW,THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: a 13 © 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. Z 14 y 15 For the remuneration stipulated, the City of San Bernardino hereby engages the services 0 .y 16 of CONSULTANT to designate Leland Paul McElhaney or other qualified attorney from the 0 17 n law firm to provide Hearing Officer services and/or Administrative Law Officer services as ; 18 set forth by San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapters 8.30, 9.92 and 9.93. No other o 19 20 person unless agreed upon shall provide these services pursuant to this agreement. r d 21 2. COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES. r 22 w a. For the service delineated above, CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT a rate of$190 f 23 a per hour for preparation, conduct of hearings, and signing of orders. The hourly rate of n 24 x 25 $190 includes a 5% compensation reduction and will be reflected on the invoices. The w d 26 E L _ U 27 a 28 6 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND BRUNICK MCELHANEY & KENNEDY FOR HEARING OFFICER AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OFFICER SERVICES. d hourly rate includes overhead expenses such as telephone, photocopy, postage, mileage and 1 0 related costs. 2 E d 3 b. No other expenditures made by CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed by CITY. d 4 c. Bills shall be submitted by hearing, monthly or quarterly, to the City Manager's a 5 `- Office,300 N. D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418. E 6 a d. Support staff for hearings shall be provided by the City of San Bernardino. All 7 8 hearings shall be held in the City at City Hall. N c 9 3. TERM; TERMINATION. m d 10 a. The term of the Agreement is for a fixed period of three(3) years, commencing July 2, c 11 E 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015. At the conclusion of the agreement, the Hearing Officer 0 12 m will not be eligible to be retained or employed in any capacity by the City for a period of y 13 g 14 twelve(12)months. Vl 15 b. CONSULTANT agrees to be available to hold hearings at least two (2) days per .2 16 month at City Hall. The hearings shall be held on days that City Hall is open to the public 2 0 17 a` and at times specified by the CITY, unless changed by mutual agreement of the parties. 18 0 CONSULTANT will be available for a full day of hearings on days scheduled for hearing. 19 20 c. CITY may terminate this Agreement only upon CONSULTANT'S inability or refusal m x 21 to conduct hearings and render decisions or his failure to maintain his good standing and m L 22 active status with the State Bar of California. CITY shall have no other right to terminate v 23 this Agreement. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement at any time by thirty (30) a a 24 t days written notice. w 25 26 4. INDEMNITY. E s 27 a 28 Packet Pg. 1017 7.E.b PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENNEDY FOR HEARING OFFICER AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OFFICER SERVICES. m CONSULTANT agrees to and shall indemnify and hold the CITY, its elected 1 0 m officials, employees, agents or representatives, free and harmless from all claims, actions, 5 2 v damages and liabilities of an kind and nature arising from bodily m = 3 g Y g Y � j�Y. including death, m 4 or property damage, based or asserted upon any actual or alleged act or omission of H 5 CONSULTANT, its employees, agents, or subcontractors, relating to or in any way v 6 a connected with the accomplishment of the work or performance of services under this 7 8 Agreement, unless the bodily injury or property damage was actually caused by the sole N C 0 9 negligence of the CITY, its elected officials, employees, agents or representatives. As part d 10 of the foregoing indemnity, CONSULTANT agrees to protect and defend at its own c 11 expense, including attorney's fees, the CITY, its elected officials, employees, agents or E 12 r.. 13 representatives from any and all legal actions based upon such actual or alleged acts or d 14 omissions. CONSULTANT hereby waives any and all rights to any types of express or a f/l 15 implied indemnity against the CITY, its elected officials, employees, agents or o .y 16 representatives, with respect to third party claims against the CONSULTANT relating to or o 17 a` in any way connected with the accomplishment of the work or performance of services 18 19 under this Agreement. 0 0 c .c 20 5. INSURANCE. r m 21 While not restricting or limiting the foregoing, during the term of this Agreement, r 22 'w CONSULTANT shall maintain in effect policies of comprehensive public, general and 23 a automobile liability insurance, in the amount of $1,000,000.00 combined single limit, and a 24 K statutory workers' compensation coverage, and shall file copies of said policies with the 25 w d 26 CITY's Risk Manager prior to undertaking any work under this Agreement. CITY shall be r U 27 a set forth as an additional named insured in each policy of insurance provided hereunder. 28 Packet Pg. 1018 MN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENNEDY FOR HEARING OFFICER AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OFFICER SERVICES. m The Certificate of Insurance furnished to the CITY shall require the insurer to notify CITY 1 at least thirty (30) days prior to any change in or termination of the policy 5 2 A m 3 6. NON-DISCRIMINATION. d 4 2 In the performance of this Agreement and in the hiring and recruitment of 5 S employees, CONSULTANT shall not engage in, nor permit its officers, employees or a 6 a agents to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because of their race, religion, 7 8 color, national origin, ancestry, age, mental or physical disability, medical condition, R c 0 9 marital status, sexual gender or sexual orientation, or any other status protected by law. .D m 10 7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR � 11 E 12 The Parties intend that the relationship between them created under the Agreement is 13 that of an independent contractor only. The CONSULTANT shall perform each element of d 14 the work set forth in the Scope of Services as an independent contractor and shall not be d N 15 considered an employee of the CITY. This Agreement is by and between the `o .y 16 CONSULTANT and the CITY, and is not intended, and shall not be construed, to create the c 17 a relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture, or association, between 18 19 the CITY and the CONSULTANT. The CITY is interested only in the results obtained w 20 under the Agreement; unless otherwise indicated and under unusual circumstances, the T m 21 manner and means of performing the services are subject to the CONSULTANT'S sole `m L 22 w control. The CONSULTANT shall have no right or authority to find or commit the CITY, f 23 a unless specifically authorized in writing by the City Manager in each specific instance. The a 24 L N 25 CONSULTANT shall not be entitled to any benefits, including, without limitation, workers' w m 26 compensation, disability insurance, vacation or sick pay. The CONSULTANT shall be 27 a 28 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENNEDY FOR HEARING OFFICER AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OFFICER SERVICES. m responsible for providing at its expense, and in its name, disability, workers' compensation E 1 0 0 or other insurance. c 2 d 3 The CONSULTANT assumes full and sole responsibility for, and shall therefore m 4 pay, any and all federal and state income taxes, Social Security, estimated taxes, ` Yl 5 unemployment taxes, and any other taxes incurred as result of the compensation set forth E 6 a herein. The CONSULTANT agrees further to provide the CITY with proof of payment 7 8 upon reasonable demand. The CONSULTANT holds the CITY harmless from and against R c 0 9 any and all claims, demands, losses, costs, fees, liabilities, taxes, penalties, damages or .y m 10 injuries suffered by the CITY (including, but not limited to, attorney fees and court costs, c d 11 whether or not litigation is commenced) arising out of the failure of the CONSULTANT to d 12 13 comply with this provision. Further, this right indemnification shall apply to any and all w 14 claims, demands, losses, costs, fees, liabilities, taxes, penalties, damages and injuries d N 15 suffered by the CITY as a result of the classification of the CONSULTANT as independent o .y 16 contractor under this Agreement. c 17 a 8. BUSINESS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS. d 18 19 CONSULTANT warrants that it possesses or shall obtain, and will maintain, a 20 business registration certificate pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code, and any other m x T d 21 license, permits, qualifications, insurance and approval of whatever nature which are legally r 22w required of CONSULTANT to practice its profession. g 23 a 9. NOTICES. a 24 k 25 Any notice to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be deposited with the m d 26 United States Postal Service, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: u 27 a 28 Packet Pg. 1020 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENNEDY FOR HEARING OFFICER AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OFFICER SERVICES. w TO THE CITY: City of San Bernardino 1 300 North"D"Street, 6a'Floor rn 2 San Bernardino, CA 92418 Telephone: (909) 384-5140 d 3 Attention: City Manager's Office w 4 N TO THE CONSULTANT: Leland Paul McElhaney 5 5 Brunick,McElhaney&Kennedy v 6 Professional Law Corporation a 1839 Commercenter West 7 San Bernardino, CA 92408 8 Phone: (909) 889-8301 N C 0 9 10. ATTORNEYS' FEES d 10 In the event that litigation is brought by any party in connection with this agreement, C d 11 the prevailing parry shall be entitled to recover from the opposing party all costs and d 12 a expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the a .. 13 14 exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, d N 15 conditions or provisions hereof. The costs, salary and expenses of the City Attorney and o 0 16 members of his office in enforcing this Agreement on behalf of the CITY shall be c 17 0 considered as "attorneys' fees" for the purposes of this paragraph. 18 k 11. ASSIGNMENT 0 19 20 CONSULTANT shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, sublet or r 21 encumber all or any part of the CONSULTANT's interest in this Agreement without CITY's s 22 prior written consent. Any attempted assignment, transfer, subletting or encumbrance shall be m 23 a void and shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and cause for the termination of this a 24 x Agreement. Regardless of CITY's consent, no subletting or assignment shall release w 25 v 26 CONSULTANT of CONSULTANT's obligation to perform all other obligations to be t U A 27 performed by CONSULTANT hereunder for the term of this agreement. 28 Packet Pg. 1021 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND BRUNICK MCELHANEY & KENNEDY FOR HEARING OFFICER AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OFFICER SERVICES. 12. VENUE 1 o, 2 The parties hereto agree that all actions or proceedings arising in connection with this .s m 3 Agreement shall be tried and litigated either in the State courts located in the County of San 4 Bernardino, State of California or the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, a .S 5 Riverside Division. The aforementioned choice of venue is intended by the parties to be the n 6 a mandatory and not permissive in nature. 7 ° 8 13. GOVERNING LAW N 0 9 This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 'A m 10 14. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS c m 11 This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties to this d 12 Agreement and their respective heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns. 13 14 15. HEADINGS H A 15 The subject headings of the sections of this Agreement are included for the purposes g 16 of convenience only and shall not affect the construction or the interpretation of any of its e 17 a provisions. u 18 0 19 16. SEVERABH.ITY 20 If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent = T 21 jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, such determination shall not affect m r 22 W the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the 23 a offending provision in any other circumstance, and the remaining provisions of this a 24 x W 25 Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. m 26 17. REMEDIES; WAIVER 27 a 28 PacketPg. 1022 ME PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENNEDY FOR HEARING OFFICER AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OFFICER SERVICES. `m All remedies available to either party for one or more breaches by the other party 1 O 0 2 are and shall be deemed cumulative and may be exercised separately or concurrently without 3 waiver of any other remedies. The failure of either party to act in the event of a breach of 4 this Agreement by the other shall not be deemed a waiver of such breach or a waiver of a 5 E future breaches, unless such waiver shall be in writing and signed by the party against v 6 a whom enforcement is sought. 7 8 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; MODIFICATION N c 0 9 This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and the understanding between the d 10 parties, and supersedes any prior agreements and understandings relating to the subject � m 11 manner of this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written d 12 13 instrument executed by all parties to this Agreement. m u 14 N 15 O 'w 16 0 17 18 O 19 20 T 21 A L 22 /// U 23 a 24 K w 25 26 E L U C 27 28 Packet Pg. 1023 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENNEDY FOR HEARING OFFICER AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OFFICER SERVICES. d 1 0 m 2 q m 3 4 N 5 E 'O 6 a 7 m c 0 9 " d 10 11 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and E m 12 date set forth below. a ® 13 14 N 15 ` Dated: 2012 CONSULTANT o N 16 d By: o 17 Leland Paul McElhaney a 18 Brunick, McElhaney& Kennedy O 19 20 = T 21 C N 22 Dated 12012 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO w U 23 By: a 24 Andrea Travis-Miller, Acting City Manager B X w 25 W 26 Approved as to Form: t © JAMES F. PENMAN, 27 City Attorney 28 Packet Pg. 1024 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENNEDY FOR HEARING OFFICER AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OFFICER SERVICES. d u 1 By: O m 2 v 3 = d 4 m w 5 ` E v 6 a 7 8 N 0 9 " d 10 11 E 12 0 a 13 v u_ 14 2 d N 15 0 16 " d 0 0 17 a` v 18 0 19 20 21 d 22 w u g 23 a 24 X 25 W c v 26 t u 27 a 28 Pacjta}'t2y,;1A25 CO 7.E.c BRUNICK, McELHANEY & KENNEDY ��R PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION !" 1839 COMMERCENTER WEST `. SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92408 WILLIAM J. BRUNICK MILLING n DRESS: - TELEPHONE: 90 9-889-8301 LELAND P. McELHANEY POST OFFICE BOX 13130 FAX: 909-388-1889 STEVEN M. KENNEDY SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA. 924233130 ti v U May 9, 2012 e' d U_ 0 Ol C City of San Bernardino d 300 North D Street City Manager's Office—61 Floor Attn: Heidi Aten y San Bernardino, CA 92418 a Re: Proposal, RFP F-12-17, Administrative Hearing Officer Services m ~` Dear Ms.Aten: 0 0 Pursuant to "Instructions to Offeror(s),"attached please find: (1)completed 0 checklist; (2)this law firm's resume; (3)proof of my active membership in the State Bar a of California;(4)writing samples; (5) affidavit of Non-Collusion; (6) signed copy of Appendix B; and (7) insurance certificates (if selected, will provide evidence that the City Y shall be given thirty days prior written notice in the event of cancellation or reduction in v coverage on Professional Liability Insurance). L W Brunick,McElhaney&Kennedy is a local bidder, and a full service law firm; I am a principal in the firm. I have been a member of the firm for more than 20 years, have practiced law for more than 40 years(my previous employment was with Sheppard, 2 Mullin, Richter& Hampton), and for more than 30 years have enjoyed an "av"rating m with Martindale &Hubbell Law Directory.Before commencing the practice of law in E 1969,I obtained a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science from the University of California,Berkeley, in 1963; a Juris Doctor Degree from Boalt School of Law, University of California,Berkeley, in 1966; and, I served as a Captain in the United a States Army, 1'Armored Division, from 1967 -1969. I am the attorney in the firm designated to provide the hearing officer services PackatPg. 1026 referenced in the RFP, and I am prepared to provide all of the Hearing Officer services referenced in the RFP. Neither I nor my firm are currently under contract with the City for other services, or currently involved in any litigation to which the City is a party. I have extensive experience in code enforcement work, having in the past provided code enforcement litigation support to the City of Yucapia and,to a lesser extent,to the City of Calimesa, the City of Highland, and the City of Adelanto; such work included court appearances on infraction hearings,negotiations with residents, and the prosecution d of civil actions in the San Bernardino Superior Court against residents accused of various U) code enforcement violations. I also served as a hearing officer for the City of Seal Beach on a very involved matter pertaining to the termination of a police officer's employment, o and, also, for the City of Adelanto. v The following references are submitted for your consideration: John McMains, v Community Development Director, 34272 Yucaipa Blvd., City of Yucaipa, CA 92399 2 (jmcms ypcaipa.org;tel. (909) 797-2489); Gary Martin, Director of Engineering, y Mojave Water Agency, 13846 Conference Center Drive,Apple Valley, CA 92307 E (izmartin@Moiave.org. tel. (760) 946-7030; Greg Franklin, Director of Administrative a Services, 34272 Yucaipa Blvd., City of Yucaipa 92399 (gfranklin@yucaipa.ora.tel. (909) 797-2489;Eunice Ulloa, General Manager, Chino Basin Water Conservation District, A` 4594 San Bernardino Street, Montclair, CA 91763 (eulloa&chwcd.org(909) 267-3220); Randy Anstine, General Manager, City of Calimesa, 908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA o 92320 (ranstinena ci1yofcalimesa.net.tel. 795-9801). 0 a. T Brunick, McElhaney&Kennedy agrees to accept compensation at the rate of $190.00 per hour, not including travel time. The hourly rate includes overhead expenses Y such a telephone, photocopy, postage, mileage, and related costs. Invoices will be T submitted by hearing, monthly or quarterly. m w I am the President of this law firm, and I am fully authorized to obligate the firm to perform the commitments contained in the proposal. I remain, U Sincerely ours, m c E 4an P. M cElhaney haney @bmbla office. ~ /Ipm (� Enc. as stated 2 PacketPg. 1027 7.E.c City of San Bernardino, Finance Department Purchasing Division RFP F-12-17 Administrative Hearing Officer Services Bid Documents to Be Returned Cover Letter d N Resume u -Certificate of Good Standing" or other similar document rn c Proof of active membership of the State Bar of California x Background Statement Writing Samples 2 L✓J References E a Fee Schedule � Affidavit of Non-Collusion C; One (1) signed original of Proposal in a SEALED ENVELOPE n 0 (� Three(3) copies of signed Proposal in a SEALED ENVELOPE T v One (1) electronic copy in PDF format(CD or DVD) ` LJ Y Signed copy of Appendix B w c Authorized Binding Signature(s) r w U ❑ Verifications of Addenda Received (City Form) IV Forms Y U ❑ Listing of Proposed Subcontractor, if applicable (City Form)IV Forms m ❑ 90 Day Minimum Proposal Validity Statement°'Additional Requirements,A General spedr¢eSens" Insurance Certificates u m ❑ Contract Exception Statement a Ef Copy of Contractor License or other appropriate Licenses where applicable Vi Genefal Specifications lt35 Offeror(s)are requested to submit this checklist completed with all bid documents This list may not be inclusive of all documents needed to submit your RFP. Please refer to entire packet for additional documents. 3 Packet� ��z8`i BRUNICK, McELHANEY & KENNEDY PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 1839 COMMERCENTER WEST SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92408 WILLIAM J. BRUNICK MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 909-889-8301 LELAND P. MCELHANEY POST OFFICE BOX 13130 . FAX: 909-388-1889 STEVEN M. KENNEDY SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92423-3130 N d V N V) d FIRM RESUME 0 m I "w x INTRODUCTION Brunick, McElhaney&Kennedy Professional Law Corporation, is an"AV"rated firm N and provides services to its clients from offices located in San Bernardino and Redlands. The firm primarily serves the Southern California area representing clients in San v Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles Counties. The firm practices a in both State and Federal Courts in these Counties. With the ability to have remote telephonic appearances we have also represented clients in Courts outside our normal geographic area as well. The firm can trace its history in Southern California back to 1969. N O 6 O a` T II � AREAS OF PRACTICE Y The firm provides a general civil practice with major emphasis in general business litigation, insurance defense, municipal and public agency law, labor and employment s practices, environmental litigation, water law, taxation, corporate, probate and estate U planning. The attorneys in the firm have a wide variety of experience in representing Y clients in administrative investigations, hearings and appeals and civil trials and appeals c in both State and Federal Courts. m Members of the firm have been or are members of numerous organizations d including the American Board of Trial Advocates, Federation of Insurance and Corporate E Counsel, International Association of Defense Counsel,American Bar Association,League A of California Cities Legal Advocacy Committee, American Planning Association and the California Redevelopment Association. Members of the firm have also been actively involved in their communities and have served on the Boards of various institutions and organizations. Pacltettig. IU29'] 7.E.c III ATTORNEY RESUMES WILLIAM J. BRUNICK Bill Brunick received his B.A. degree from San Jose State College in 1966 and his J.D. degree from Hastings College of Law, University of California in 1969. He also received a Masters of Law degree in taxation from Boston University in 1970. He was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1970 and has practiced in the San Bernardino and Redlands area since then. Although Bill has a general civil practice, his major emphasis has been in water, N municipal and labor law, taxation, business and corporate law, and probate and estate planning. He has served as City Attorney or General Counsel for numerous cities, water agencies and districts and school districts in the Southern California area. o rn c LELAND P. McELHANEY d x Leland ("Lee") McElhaney received his B.A.degree from the University of California d at Berkeley in 1963, and his J.D. degree from Boalt School of Law in 1966. From 1967- y 1969, Lee served as a Captain in the United States Army, In 1969, he joined the law firm A of Cosgrove, Cramer, Rindge & Barnum, an "av" rated firm in Los Angeles, and in 1975 became a partner in the Cosgrove firm. In 1987, Lee joined the Los Angeles office of a Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, as its "Senior Attorney, Litigation." Lee joined Brunick, Alvarez & Battersby in October, 1991 and became a partner in the fall of 1996. The primary focus of Lee's practice is general civil litigation. He is a member of the o Los Angeles and American bar associations, has argued successfully before the California c Supreme Court, and has been admitted to practice before the United States Supreme T Court. v c Lee is active in community affairs and, for 11 years,was a member of the Personnel Y Commission of the Rowland Unified School District. Lee currently resides in Lake d c Arrowhead. L w u STEVEN M. KENNEDY Z Y U Steve Kennedy received his B.A. degree from California State University, San Bernardino, in 1985 and his J.D. degree from the University of San Diego in 1988. m` c Stevejoined Brunick,Alvarez&Battersby as a law clerk in June of 1987 and served E in that capacity until being admitted to the California Bar in 1989. Mr. Kennedy became m a partner of the law firm in the fall of 1996. Steve's primary emphasis is on public agency a representation,civil litigation and environmental litigation. He presently serves as General Counsel to East Valley Water District, High Valleys Water District and Three Valleys Municipal Water District. Steve is active in community affairs and has served on the Board of Directors for Kiwanis and the San Bernardino Child Advocacy Program. paek6t pg�1R30. State Bar of CA :: Leland Paul McElhaney Page 1 0 Tuesday,May 8,2012 ATTORNEY SEARCH Leland Paul McElhaney - #39257 u Current Status: Active Z m This member is active and may practice law in California. N `w See below for more details. t: 0 O Profile Information c The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of CaRbirria. 2 Bar 39257 m Number: Address: Brunick,McElhaney B Phone Number: (909)BBM301 w Beckett 1839 Commercenter W Fax Number: (909)388-1889 .E San Bernardino,CA -o Q 92408 a-mall: Not Available Map it County: San Bernardino Undergraduate Uri of California Berkeley; m School: Berkeley CA m District: District p Sections: None Law School: 1-10 Berkeley SOL Boalt Hell; o Berkeley CA 0- a v Status History Effective Date Status Change y Present Active m c 12/2311988 Admitted to The State Bar of California s Explanation of member status w u Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law Disciplinary and Related Actions m Overview of the attorney discipline system. " c This member has no public record of discipline. d E L U Administrative Actions This member has no public record of administrative actions. Q Start New Search n ca+.au� 1 Pbe NeP 1 PilreaY Pdq �`� camM I oaaa s I r<o �, e�anm.eae mracerow Packet .' r N v _U In 1 � k " THE STATE��OF CALIFORNIA v O LELAND PAUL MCELHANEY E A 39257 MCLE GROUP 2 m PRESERVE AND IMPROVE OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM > i IN ORDERTOASSUREA FREEAND JUSTSDCIETY UNDER LAW OMy ectiw memECrs aro enOtleO w ma .I., jL U/^ ACTI E a yore otramrlcso �� Mn v — a A © N O O ! McElhaney Expires '� '� - .. _ 121 2 ©3926 f j ffs�� j{ m d E r U a Packet Pg. 1032 1 2 3 4 5 � J 6 �/ w 7 v 8 CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE m 9 CITY OF SEAL BEACH a x 10 "> 11 CHARLES CASTAGNA, Case Novi GICCO3580 c 12 Appellant, STATEMENT OF DECISION a 13 vs. 14 SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, `..' 15 Agency. a 0 16 - 2 L IL 9 17 d The Civil Service Board for the City of Seal Beach submits the following statement of a 16 Y its decision in the above-entitled matter. 19 On January 31, 2001, the City of Seal Beach'("City');by its Chief of Police,Michael w . 20, F. Sellers,gave written Notice of Intent to Discipline to Charles Castagna,who was then Y 21 v employed as a City police officer(Exhibit 12).The Notice advised Officer Castagna that he 22 m` was in violation of certain police department general orders and the City of Seal Beach . 23 personnel rules,and indicated that"[a]fter a careful review of the information presented,it is 24 my opinion that the charges constitute a showing of cause for disciplinary action as required a 25 hereby notified by City of Sea] Beach Personnel Rule)(Ill,, Section 1. In this regard,y ou are y 26 that I am considering disciplinary action against you: [1] Up to and including termination of 27 f^° employment. [1] . . . [¶] As additional elements of the investigation are completed, you will \..r 28 STATEMENT OF DECISION 1 Packet Pg. 1033 7.E.c i I be provided with additional documents as to this matter. [1] As provided by City of Seal 2 Beach Personnel Rule XIII, Section 3, you have the right to respond orally or in writing prior 3 to the imposition of any disciplinary action against you. A pre-disciplinary conference will 4 be scheduled and you will be advised in advance of the date and tine."The grounds given 5 for discipline included a charge that Officer Castagna had, "Lied under oath in a court of 6 law; and . . . rendered[himself] incapable of performing the role of a police officer by N 7 compromising[his] ability to testify as a material witness in a court of law." 8 The Notice included copies of (a) a Minute Order dated March 31, 1999, issued in O S 9 the probate court proceeding entitled the Estate of Ernest William Henault, Orange County d 10 Superior Court Action No. Al 85465,wherein the trial judge concluded that,"Charles 11 Castagna[] introduced a self-serving, forged document to this court and lied under oath 12 about its authenticity and circumstances of creation" [the document referred to was an E a 13 alleged 1993 contract transferring real property from Ernest Henault to Officer Castagna]; 14 and, (b)a December 19,2000, letter from Doug Woodsmall of the Office of the Orange 15 County District Attorney to the Seal Beach Police Department, stating that"the allegations a 0 16: made against Officer Charles C[a]stagna, including the Court's findings,must be disclosed it T 17 to any future defendant on trial in any case where Officer C[a]stagna is a material witness." 18 On February 26,2001,the City provided to Officer Castagna a written Notice of Y T m 19 Right to Respond to Proposed Discipline.(Exhibit 14), along with various supporting t LU 20 documents and audio tapes. This Notice indicated that a pre-disciplinary conference was Y 21 scheduled for March 6,2001, at which time Officer Castagna would be given the opportunit; •� 0 22 to respond to the charges upon which the proposed discipline was based. m` c 23 Whereupon,in Orange County Superior Court Action No.OI CC03580(the"Action") E 24 Officer Castagna then obtained a preliminary injunction precluding the City from imposing a 25 disciplinary action against him,pending the outcome of that Action. Among other things, 26 Officer Castagna alleged therein that the City had violated the Police Officer's Bill of Rights 27 (Government Code section 3304)by not timely completing its investigation of the charges 28 against Officer Castagna and, also, violated Officer Castagna's due process rights as set STATEMENT OF DECISION 2 7.E.c I forth in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194. 2 After trial in the Action,the Orange County Superior Court entered judgment against 3 Officer Castagna, and the preliminary injunction was vacated. Officer Castagna then filed a 4 timely appeal from the adverse judgment in the Action. 5 On October 24,2003, Officer Castagna and his legal counsel attended a pre- 6 disciplinary conference, at which time Officer Castagna and his legal counsel disputed and w 7 responded to the charges referenced in Exhibit 12. 8 On January 26, 2004,the City provided Officer Castagna with written Notice of S 9 Termination of his employment as a City police officer(Exhibit 16). In part, the Notice x 10 states that, "there is sufficient evidence . . . that you did lie under oath in a court proceeding . m 11 and,therefore, "effective January 27,2004,you will be terminated from your position as 12 police officer. . . This action is being taken for the following reasons: Eo a 13 1. You lied under oath in a court of law; rn 14 2. You have rendered yourself incapable of performing the role of a police officer m 15 by compromising your ability to testify as a material witness in a court of law." o 2 16 The Notice referenced various provisions of Rule XIII of the City's Personnel Rules a` T 7 and Seal Beach Police Department General Order 1.01.04,and advised Officer Castagna of d 18 his right to an administrative appeal from the termination of his employment. r 19 On October 18, 2004, October 20,2004, October 23,2004,December 16,2004, w 20 January 3, 2005, January 4,2005, January 6, 2005,February 15,2005,February 16, 2005, Y 21 March 3, 2005,April 4,2005,May 24, 2005,May 31,2005,September 6,2005, September 22 7,2005,November 14, 2005,November 15,2005,January 28, 2006, and May 24,2006,an 00 23 evidentiary hearing was held on Officer Castagna's appeal from the termination of his E E U 24 employment as a City police offer.On June 23 2006,by a letter of that date which is made a x a 25 part of the administrative record, the Board's counsel ruled that the only charge upon which 26 the discipline can be justified and sustained in this proceeding is that Officer Castaga lied 27 under oath in a court of law as to the genuineness of Mr. Eric Henault's alleged signature on 28 the disputed 1993 contract(the"1993 contract', a copy of which is included in Exhibit 5. A STATEMENT OF DECISION 3 Packet Pg. 1035 1 typewritten statement prepared by the Board's counsel regarding the admission status of the 2 documentary evidence also is made a part of the administrative record. 3 On August 29, 2005,the Court of Appeal rendered its Opinion in Action No. 4 Ol CCO3580, determining therein that the City had not violated Officer Castagna's Skelly 5 rights or his rights under the Police Officer's Bill of Rights(Government Code section 6 3304). The parties herein and the Board agree that the Court of Appeal's Opinion on those H 7 issues is res judicata in this proceeding and, accordingly, Officer Castagna and the Board are 8 bound by the Court of Appeal's determination of those issues. The Board's counsel had 0 9 previously determined, however,that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply to the x 10 probate court's determination in Action No. Al 85465, that Officer Castagna lied under oath ; 11 and, accordingly,that issue would be determined by the Board in this proceeding based upon H E 12 the evidence presented. E a 13 On June 29, 2006,the City and Officer Castagna,through their respective legal 14 counsel, submitted both oral and written closing arguments to the Board. °i 15 Thereafter, on June 29,June 30, and July 1,2006,the Board conducted deliberations, a 16 during which it carefully considered the evidence presented and the parties' closing a T 17 arguments. Whereupon,the Board snakes the following findings: c 18 In providing notices of(a) intent to discipline;(b)the right to respond thereto,(c)the x T y 19 termination of Officer's Castagna's employment as a City police officer, and in conducting a s 20 pre-disciplinary conference prior to the imposition of discipline,the City adequately g Y 21 complied with the provisions of its Personnel Rules,and Officer Castagna was not P 22 prejudiced by any alleged failure to follow the provisions of the City's Personnel Rules. m` 23 Therefore, Officer Castagna's motion to dismiss,based upon the City's alleged failure to E L 24 follow its Personnel Rules relating to the imposition of discipline against Officer Castagna, a 25 is denied. 26 Regarding the evidence as to the genuineness of Eric Henault's purported signature 27 on the 1993 contract, and whether Officer Castagna lied under oath in a court of law 28 regarding same,the Board makes the following additional findings: STATEMENT OF DECISION 4 Packet Pg. 1036 I Mr. Castagna testified that he personally observed Mr. Eric Henault sign the 2 questioned document in December, 1993. Ms. Michelle Harding testified that several years 3 prior to 1996, she was present in Mr. Henault's apartment when Mr. Henault signed certain 4 documents. Ms. Harding did not,however, see the documents that were then signed,she did 5 not actually see Mr. Henault sign any document, and she does not have any personal 6 knowledge as to whether the questioned document(the purported 1993 contract)was signed N 7 by Mr. Henault on that occasion when she was present. (Tr., 1566:2-1567:9; 1596:18- 8 1597:8; 1598:18-20; 1604:15-1605:8.) Ms. Harding also testified that she has some o, c 9 familiarity with Mr. Henault's signature and she believes that the signature on the questioned 10 document is that of Mr. Henault,but the Board is unpersuaded that she was sufficiently ; 11 familiar with Mr.Henault's signature to be able to recognize it on the questioned document. H C 12 (Tr., 1605:19-1606:6; 1607:9-25.) E a 13 During the probate proceeding,Mr.James Black, a qualified handwriting expert,was r 14 jointly selected and paid by the attorneys representing the two sides; he was given the 15 assignment to analyze the purported signature of Eric Henault on the questioned document, c a 16 and to report his findings to the Court.In performing his analysis,Mr. Black requested a r 17 handwriting samples for the months of November; 1993,December, 1993 and January, 1994. 18 Explaining his reason for selecting handwriting samples in that three month period,Mr. x T d 19 1 Black stated that it is preferable to use handwriting samples that are close in time to the L 20 questioned signature.(Tr, 534:9-535:16.)Mr. Black examined 96 handwriting samples of wo 21 Eric Henault,but excluded checks 111, 1466 and 1471.Based upon his analysis,Mr. Black 2 22 concluded that the questioned signature was a simulation and was not genuine,based upon m 23 the following three factors: (a)the questioned signature evidences a pronounced tremor to a d E L 24 degree not found in any of the handwriting samples available during November, 1993, a 25 December, 1993, and January 1994; (b)the questioned signature exhibited characteristics in 26 letter formation that are markedly different than seen in the handwriting samples Mr. Black 27 examined during the same time period; and(c)the questioned signature evidenced pen stops 28 at places where they would not normally be expected. STATEMENT OF DECISION 5 MEMO 7.E.c 1 None of the other handwriting experts questioned Mr. Black's testimony that: it is 2 usually preferable to use handwriting samples that are close in time to the questioned 3 signature; the questioned signature evidences a pronounced tremor to a degree not found in 4 any of the handwriting samples of Mr. Henault during the same time period; the questioned 5 signature exhibited characteristics in letter formation that are markedly different than in the 6 handwriting samples of Mr. Henault during the same time period; and,the questioned N 7 signature evidenced pen stops at places where they would not normally be expected. Mr. 8 Black's April 3, 1998 report to the Court(Exhibit 5), in part states: "I have reached this m 9 opinion because the tremor in the agreement signature is more pronounced then [sic] in the x 10 exemplar signatures dated contemporaneously,the three loops of the capital 'B" are not ; 2 11 matched in any of the exemplars and numerous pen-stops are present in the signature. It is 12 my opinion that the pen-stops are present because the person executing the simulation had to E a 13 pause frequently and refer back to the model signatures to see where next to move his pen." 14 Mr.Michael Gryzik, another qualified handwriting expert, also testified that it is 15 usually preferable to use handwriting samples close in time to the questioned signature,i.e., n 0 16 he wants "signatures around the same time frame as the one in dispute. And also on like a` 17 documents, if possible'(Tr., 2146:21-2147:6).Mr Grizyk apparently believed,however, that 18 the questioned document is a"formal"document and,therefore,signatures on formal 0 19 documents should be compared to signatures on other`like"(formal) documents. r w 20 Accordingly, in performing his analysis,Mr. Gryzik relied primarily upon handwriting � Y 21 samples on formal documents,all of which were executed in 1996. 22 In his testimony during the prior probate proceeding,however, Mr.Gryzik testified m` 23 that he did not find any different characteristics between Eric Henault's signatures on formal E 24 and informal documents. (Ex. 3,485:25-486:1.) Therefore, in this case,there does not appear a 25 to be any valid basis for focusing particularly on handwriting samples on formal, as opposed 26 to informal, documents, or on handwriting samples in 1996,i.e.,two to three years after the 27 reported execution of the questioned signature. 28 When the emphasis on"formal"documents is eliminated and Mr. Gryzik reverts to STATEMENT OF DECISION 6 MEN I his usual preference for handwriting samples close in time to the questioned signature,he 2 testified both in the prior probate proceeding and in the current administrative proceeding 3 that he would be inclined to doubt the genuineness of the questioned signature,i.e.,"If I was 4 limited only to 1993 check samples that were in the court the day I came in, I would have to 5 lean toward it not being a genuine signature."(Ex. 3, 511:17-19; Tr., 2195:15-22,2243:11- 6 2246:4.) y 7 Thus,when handwriting samples on "formal" documents are not emphasized, and the 8 focus reverts to handwriting samples close in time to the questioned signature,Mr.Black and O1 E 9 Mr. Gryzik are largely in agreement that,based upon the handwriting samples that allegedly x 10 are close in time to the questioned signature, the latter does not appear to be genuine. ; 11 Supporting the foregoing conclusion, Mr. Gryzik testified that he was bothered by the y 12 . questioned signature being obviously slow drawn,not fluid,and not"normal."He also a a 13 indicated that tremor and shakiness can evidence a forgery (Ex. 3,498:1-4). 14 Mr. Gryzik's July 6, 1998 report,however,in part states: "some handwriting 15 similarities were noted . . . when compared with the available known handwriting . . . "0 CL 0 16 Because of the these similarities,the writer of the ERIC HENAULT exemplars could not be a` 17 eliminated as having written this questioned signature and the possibility exists that this c 18 questioned signature may have [been] written by him." Y T m 19 While Mr. Gryzik's written report appears to rely primarily upon 1996 handwriting r 20 samples on formal documents (Tr.,2250:9-21 ["I am basically drawing the similarities from v Y 21 those set of documents"]),nonetheless, Mr. Gryzik never provided an adequate explanation 2 0 22 as to: (a) why the 1993 contract should be considered to be a"formal"document and, m` 23 therefore,compared only against other"formal" documents; or(b),more importantly, why E L 24 he believes that whoever signed the 1993 contract considered it to be a"formal" document. a 25 (Tr. 2258:24-2266:7.) Moreover,Mr. Gryzik did not retract his earlier testimony that there 26 does not appear to be any significant variation between what he describes as the 27 "characteristics" of Eric Henault's signatures on formal and informal documents within the 28 same general time frame. Nor did Mr. Gryzik's written report provide any specific reasons STATEMENT OF DECISION 7 Packet Pg. 1039 I for the conclusions reached therein. 2 Mrs. Connie Brinker is another qualified handwriting expert who examined 171 3 checks purportedly signed by Eric Henault during the time period from November, 1993 4 through July 5, 1996. Like Mr. Black and Mr. Gryzik, she prefers to compare handwriting 5 samples that are close in time to the questioned signature(Tr., 936:17-22), and she observed 6 changes in Mr.Henault's signature toward the end of his life in 1996 (Tr., 922:1-3, 1844:11- rn d 7 15), including increased tremor. Mrs. Brinker testified that slow drawn signatures,such as 2 8 the questioned signature, can indicate simulation, and pen stops are associated with slow o 9 drawn signature. (Tr.,927:25-928:6.) 10 Comparing the 1993 handwriting samples to the questioned signature, Mrs. Brinker 11 noted that the vertical direction of the questioned signature was straight up and down, 'e 12 whereas Mr. Henault's handwriting samples have a slight slant(Tr., 931:19-22), and, unlike E 13 the allegedly contemporaneous handwriting samples,the questioned signature did not have a m �,.. 14 period after the initial `E" and there was no break between"n" and"a" in Mr.Henault's last 15 name. (Tr., 932:3-8,939:12-940:9.)Her report,Exhibit 26, notes: "The questioned signature n 0 16 is a slow drawn signature. Mr. Henault's Standards used have a period after each initial.The a` v 17 Questioned has no period after the capital E.He also breaks between the n and a in the last I a 18 name. The Standards are not drawn,they are fluidly written_The capital E in the standards v 19 lean to the right as the Questioned is straight"Based upon the foregoing,Mrs. Brinker's r w 20 report concluded that"the Questioned signature was not by the same writer as the Y 21 Standards." 22 Unlike Mr. Gryzik, Mrs. Brinker does not appear to believe that it is necessary to °0 23 compare the questioned signature to Mr.Henault's signatures on"formal"documents. (Tr., t U 24 948:9-18, 949:25-950:6.) a 25 Mr. Glen Owens was the last handwriting expert to testify. Mr. Owns considered 26 handwriting samples in 1993 and, also, in 1996. His July 12,2000, written report(Exhibit 27 "C"), in part, states: "it is my opinion that the person that wrote the known writings . . . 28 cannot be identified not eliminated as having written the questioned signature in the name of STATEMENT OF DECISION 8 I E.W. Henault on the questioned document. . . While it may be true that the questioned 2 signature in the name of E.W. Henault exhibits characteristics that can be associated with a 3 simulated or imitated signature, i.e. slow execution, tremor etc., it is vital to note that these 4 characteristics are also displayed in the known writings of Mr. Henault. Thus, I do not 5 believe that the evidence at hand can firmly support an opinion that eliminates the possibility 6 that the true Eric W. Henault could have executed the signature on the December 3, 1993 y 7 Agreement." 0 8 Mr. Owens testified that signatures on formal documents can be different than °o 9 1 signatures on less formal documents (Tr., 2303:11-2304:8; 2329:21-2330:25; 2349:1- v 10 2350:15["While you need to take that into consideration about the formal versus the "> 11 informal,I don't know that is can always be the overriding factor"]). Mr. Owners did not y .9 12 indicate,however, that he noticed any significant variation between Mr.Henault's signatures a a 13 on formal and informal documents. 14 Therefore,none of the handwriting experts testified to finding any significant 15 difference or variation in the characteristics of letter formation between Mr. Henault's o 0 16 signatures on formal and informal documents. In his signatures on certain formal documents, v 17 however,Mr. Henault sometimes spelled out his complete first and middle names,rather m 18 than merely using initials. Because his signatures on checks and the questioned signature use d 19 only initials for his first and middle names;this circumstance suggests that the writer w 20 considered the questioned document to be an "informal" document. Accordingly,the Y 21 evidence does not suggest any valid basis for emphasizing the handwriting samples on 0 22 formal documents, or disregarding handwriting samples on informal documents,such as m` d 23 checks. s t 24 Mr. Owens also testified that upon his examination of the questioned signature he sac z a 25 some indications of simulation (tremor,hesitation,blunt terminal and ending strokes),whicl 26 normally would be a red flag that the signature may not be genuine; however,Mr.Henault's 27 physical condition, alcohol and drug use could explain the presence of those indications of 28 simulation and, along with certain similarities found between the handwriting samples and STATEMENTOFDECISION 9 r I the questioned signature,made it difficult for Mr. Owens' to determine, one way or the other 2 ["its right in the middle'l, whether the questioned signature is genuine. (Tr., 2321:13- 3 2322:9; 2630:6-2631:13)Mr. Owen's written report, however, does not indicate a lack of 4 concern about the indications of simulation based upon Mr. Henault's assumed alcohol and 5 drug use. v 6 Regarding the importance of comparing handwriting samples close in time to the it 7 questioned signature,Mr. Owens testified that his"normal expectation is that the signatures 8 executed over[a] three-to-five day period would be more similar"than signatures executed °� c 9 two or three years apart,but he has seen it both ways. (Tr., 2332:3-15;2607:4010.) Thus, m x 10 Mr. Owens did not disagree with the other handwriting experts' testimony that,usually, it is > 11 appropriate to focus on handwriting samples close in time to the questioned signature. w 12 However, as to the similarities he observed,Mr. Owens appears to have been most impressed a a 13 with 1996 handwriting samples, e.g., checks 478 and 608 (Exhibit NN; Tr, 2637:18- in 14 2640:24.) Mr. Owens was not asked to consider separately either the 1993 handwriting 15 samples or the 1996 handwriting samples; accordingly,he was unable to express any opinion o 2 16 as to the variations between the two sets of handwriting samples (based on date), or the 9 17 variations between the 1993 handwriting samples and the questioned signature. jr.,2629:3- m 18 17.) 19 Based on all of the handwriting experts' aforesaid usual preference to compare t w 20 handwriting samples that are executed close in time to the date of the questioned document, Y 21 the Board believes that it was appropriate for experts Black and Brinker to focus on the 1993 P 22 handwriting samples. The Board also believes that there is no valid basis to focus primarily, f° c 23 as Mr. Gryzik did,upon handwriting samples on 1996 "formal"documents(while Mr. E V 24 Henault clearly was in failing health). Three of the four handwriting experts (Black,Brinker x a 25 and Gryzik) also testified that if reliance were to be placed on the allegedly 26 contemporaneous 1993 handwriting samples, each of them would be inclined to conclude 27 that the questioned signature is not genuine. As noted above,Mr. Owens was not asked to 28 perform that analysis and, accordingly,his opinion (like Mr. Gryzik's written report) appears STATEMENT OF DECISION 10 Packet Pg. 1042 7.E:c I to rely on 1996 handwriting samples that are not close in time to the questioned signature. 2 Based upon all of the foregoing,the Board finds that Officer Castagna did not testify 3 truthfully as to the alleged date (1993) when the questioned document was signed because, 4 among other things,the questioned signature is markedly different than Mr. Henault's 5 handwriting samples in 1993. Based on this finding,his obvious self-interest in this 6 proceeding, and the other matters set forth above, the Board also finds that Officer m N 7 Castagna's testimony is not credible regarding the questioned document's execution, 8 including whether it was actually signed by Eric Henault. 0 w c 9 For the reasons indicated above with respect to her testimony,the Board also does not 'm x 10 give any weight to Ms. Harding's testimony, so far as it relates to the genuineness of Mr. 11 Henault's purported signature on the questioned document.Ms.Harding also testified, y 12 however,that Mr. Henault was"fanatical about his paperwork,"usually requiring that v 13 signatures be notarized (which was not done in the case of the 1993 questioned document). a 14 (Tr., 1546:16-22; 1578:6-24.) 15 Based upon all of the foregoing,the Board finds that the City has demonstrated,by a c a 16 preponderance of the evidence,that the purported signature of Eric Henault on the a. 17 questioned document is not genuine and, accordingly, Officer Castagna's lied under oath in a c 18 court of law regarding same. Accordingly,the charges upon which the discipline was r" T d 19 imposed are sustained. M 20 The Board also finds that termination of Officer Castagna's employment was, and is, 21 appropriate discipline for a police officer found to have testified falsely in a court of law. 2 C 22 This is the final administrative decision;both parties are bound by this decision. m 23 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, either party may appeal this decision to E t 24 a court of competent jurisdiction within 90 days. a 25 Dated: August 28, 2006 26 CONCUR: Judy Coleman, Ester Cummings, and Terry Barton. 27 DISSENT: Penny Mazman, and Robert Goldberg, M.D. 28 STATEMENT OF DECISION I1 7:E.c DIV I Ma_r��uue� ri�t�e P. Battersb ,CEt�Attorney, City of Yucaipa (SBN 115422) RICHARDS WATSO�&GERSHON Ri ptfim PIIMB Pas Per Gant Code§6103 2 355 S. Grans Ave 40 FL Los Angeles,CA 90071 3 1 Telephone: (213) 626-8484 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 4 Leland P. McElhaney', Sppecial Counsel{{SBN 3925 5 BRUNICK,McELHANEY& BECKETT, Special Couns611 L E D 1839 Commercenter West?P.O.Box 6425 COM, COURT 6 San Bernardino California 92412-6425 SAN BERNARDIND DISTRICT n Telephone: 90 889-8301 7 Facsimile: 909 388-1889 SEP 21 2005 0 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff,Real Party in Interest 13Y DEPU�� - �Z and Cross-Defendant, CITY OF YUCAIPA TY � 9 x m 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT N 'E E 12 a 13 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CASE NO. SCVSS 095119 CALIFORNIA, 14nded-Proposed) AMENDED. Plaintiff, 15 FAR PERMANENT INJUNCTION n THE CITY OF YUCAIPA,a municipal AND ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC 0 16 corporation, NUISANCE a T 'O 17 Plaintiff and Real Party In Interest, a,3 w 18 vs. Y Date: September M6, 2005 d 19 RICHARD W.YOST,JR-, aka RICH Time: 1:30 p.m YOST; CATHLEEN M.YOST; and Dept.: S-15 s 20 DOES 1 to 100,Inclusive, Judge: Honorable Tara Reilly w 21 Defendants, 2 22 m` AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS 23 w E L 24 � 25 Upon the Court's grant, of plaintiffs motion for an award of fees and costs a 26 incurred in this action, and,to amend the judgment previously entered in this action to 27 include the fees and costs awarded, and good cause appearing therefor, the judgment 28 entered in this action on October 26, 2005, is amended, as follows : AMENDED JUDGMENT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCITON AND ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE 1 PaCketPg. 1044 7.E.c ... i 1T IS ADJUDGED,ORDERED AND DECREED thatthefollowingconditions 2 and items on the real property located 32817 Avenue"D,"identified as APN 0301-101- 3 1 109, and further described in the plot plan attached as Exhibit "A" to City's complaint 4 ("the Property")constitute violations of City's Municipal Code and a public nuisance d 5 which must be abated: z v 6 a. Making commercial or industrial use of the Property; y 2 7 b. Conducting a business on the Property without obtaining from the City a 8 business license and conditional use permits or land use approvals required 9 therefor; _ d 10 c. Structures(including a storage container)erected on the Property without '- m 11 obtaining from the City either: (i) a required building permit or set-down 5 12 permit therefore; and, (ii) a conditional use permit or other land use E 13 approvals required therefor; . in 14 d. Maintaining on the Property inoperable vehicles and vehicle parts that are 15 not stored in a structure consisting of four walls and roof and are visible n 0 16 from the public right-of-way; a T 17 e. Parking, or allowing others to park, on the Property commercial vehicles 18 with a gross weight of 10,000 pounds or more; Y T 19 £ Maintaining on the Property scrap lumber and salvage materials,along with 20 trash, litter,vehicle fluids,paint and debris; and, 21 g. The additional building code and fire code violations specified in the 2 22 August 12,2004,Correction Notice attached as Exhibit"A"hereto,and in m 23 the September 13, 2004, memorandum listing major fire code violations 24 attached as Exhibit`B"hereto,both of which are incorporated herein by 25 this reference. a 26 rr IS FURTHER ADJUDGED,ORDERED AND DECREED that 27 defendants, and each of them, and their agents, servants, employees, heirs, 28 representatives, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for them, or any of AMENDED JUDGMENT FOR FSRMANENT INJUNCTION AND ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE 2. Packet tug 1A4S 7.E.c ... 1 thcni, are permanently enjoined and ordered: h r , 2 1. Within Vdays,to remove from the Property all of the items and nuisance 3 conditions described in subparagraphs "c,""d," "e," and'f," above. 4 2. Within�Ry days,to bring the Property into full compliance with City's y 5 Municipal Code by, among other things, correcting all of the deficiencies noted in the z d 6 August 12, 2004, Correction Notice attached as Exhibit "A' hereto, and in the d 7 September 13,2004,memorandum listing major fire code violations attached as Exhibit o s 1 `B"hereto. A 9 3. Nottoplace any structure(including,withoutlunitation,storage containers) _ d l o on the Property without firstobtaining from the City of Yucaipa the necessary building 11 or set-down pennuts,and conditional usepermits or land use approvals required therefor, 12 and complying with all other applicable requirements of City's Municipal Code and E a 13 zoning ordinance. 14 4. Not to conduct any business on the property without first obtaining from 15 the City of Yucaipa a conditional use permit or other required land use approvals, and a 0 16 a business license authorizing the conduct of such business on the Property. a 17 5. Not to place on the Property any inoperable vehicles orvehicle parts,unless d 18 same are stored in a structure consisting of four walls and roof and not visible from the T v 19 public right-of-way; t 20 6. Not to park on the Property any commercial vehicle with a gross weight of Y 21 10,000 pounds or more. 22 7. Not to place on the property any junk,debris,trash,scrap lumber, salvage 23 materials,paint or vehicle fluids. e 24 8. Not to maintain on the Property any condition which violates Yucaipa's 25 Municipal Code sections 8.16.03(A)(2) and 8.16.030(A)(3), and Yucaipa's Fire Code a 26 sections 3403, 3404, 3405, 3406,3407, 3408 and 3410. 27 9. Not to maintain any public nuisance at the Property. . 28 IT IS FURTHERADJUDGED,ORDERED AND DECREED thatthepresence AMENDED JUDGMENT FO PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ABATEMENT OF FUMIC NUISANCE 3 PaCket Pg.1046.- 7.E.c e: x ' "a" through „ r 1 on the Property of the items and conditions identified in paragraphs gh "g• 2 above are declared to be a continuing public nuisance which must be abated forthwith, 3 and that conditions also exist on the Property which constitute violations of Yucaipa's 4 Municipal Code sections 8.16.03(A)(2) and 8.16.030(A)(3), and Yucaipa's Fire Code U 5 .sections 3403, 3404, 3405, 3406, 3407,3408 and 3410. d 6 IT IS FURTHER DECLARED,ADJUDGED,ORDERED AND DECREED 7 that, pursuant to Article 11, section 7, of the California Constitution and Government o 8 Code section 38771, the City of Yucaipa is authorized, and has jurisdiction, to S' m 9 reasonably regulate the use and development of the Property: 10 IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED,ORDERED AND DECREED thatifdefendant 11 does not remove the items and nuisance conditions specified in paragraphs "1." and 12 "2."above within the time limits specified therefor,the City may cause such items to be a 13 1 abated,demolished and removed from the Property,and,pursuant to Government Code 14 section 38773 et seq.,and City's Municipal Code section 8.16.250,a special assessment 15 and lien shall be imposed on the Property to secure payment of all costs and fees o 16 reasonably incurred by plaintiff in such abatement and removal, and this Judgment may r 17 be amended to reflect such special assessment and lien imposed on the Property. 18 Additionally, such special assessment and lien may be: (a) levied and collected at the a v 19 same time and in the same manner as provided for ordinary municipal taxes,and subj ect s w 20 to the same procedures for foreclosure and sale in case of delinquency;or,(b)foreclosed . 21 by judicial or other sale in the manner provided by law; and, further, that such fees and 22 costs shall also be assessed as the personal liability of defendants,Richard W.Yost,Jr., m 23 Cathleen M.Yost, and Robert E. Schaefer(Trustee of the Yost Family Trust),and each E U 24 of them a 25 IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED,ORDERED AND DECREED that if City is 26 required, as aforesaid, to remove from the Property the items and nuisance conditions 27 specified in paragraphs "l." and "2." above, then City may dispose of such items and 28 personal property after they are removed from the Property, as follows: AMPT.'DED JUDGMENT PO PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ARATEMENF OF PUBLIC NUISANCE 4 Packet Pg. 1047 7.E.c dP i i - 1 i. Any motor vehicles removed from the Property shall be stored and 2 disposed of in accordance with law, including, without limitation, 3 California Vehicle Code sections 22658, 22660, 22662 and 22689 et seq. 4 In this connection, removal from the Property of inoperable or other y v 5 vehicles is deemed authorized by this Judgment. The person causing d 6 removal of any vehicle from the Property shall immediately give,or cause N 7 to be given,notice in writing to the registered and legal owner of the fact o 8 of the removal,the reason for the removal, and indicate the place to which 9 the vehicle has been removed. If the vehicle is stored in a public garage, a d 10 copy of the notice shall be given to the proprietor of the garage.The notice '- R 1 I shall include the amount of mileage on the vehicle at the time of removal. 12 If the person does not know and is not able to ascertain the name of the a 13 owner or for any other reason is unable to give the notice to the owner i I 1a provided for herein,the person causing removal shall immediately notify, 15 or cause to be notified,the Department of Justice, Stolen Vehicle System a 0 16 Removed vehicles shall be released to the owners thereof as provided in the a T 17 Vehicle Code, and any vehicle not claimed and re-possessed by the owner 18 within thirty days may be disposed of in any reasonably commercial Y T d 19 manner, with the proceeds thereof, if any, being applied to defray the L 20 expense of removal,towing and storage,and the expense of any abatement 21 activity authorized by this Judgment, Charges to a re-possessing owner for C 22 towing and storage shall be in accordance with section 22658 and other m 23 pertinent provisions of the Vehicle Code. E 24 ii. Hazardous materials removed from the Property shall be transported and 25 disposed of in accordance with California and federal law, and the y 26 implementing regulations promulgated by the State of California and the 27 United States of America. 28 iii. Other personal property removed from the Property may be disposed of in AMENDED NDOMENT PO PERMANENT INJUNC'nON AND ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE 5 Packet Pg. 1048 1 anyressonably commercial manner with the proceeds thereof,ifany,being 2 applied to defray the expense of the abatement activities authorized by this 3 1 Judgment. 4 Tr IS FURTHER ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED that upon the 5 giving ofat least 24-hours notice to the owner of record,plaintiff s employees,attorneys N 6 and agents shall have the right, from time to time, to inspect the Property and every 7 structure located on the property to confirm compliance with this Judgment and City's 8 Municipal Code.The Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce or modify the provisions of d 9 this judgment. 10 I'T IS FURTHER ADJUDGED,ORDERED AND DECREED that plaintiff is 11 awarded judgment against defendants for its recoverable costs in the sum of$1,221.35; .9 12 for its reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the sum of$26,064.75; and,for fees in the a 13 amount of$747.50 awarded by the United States District Courtin its order remanding 14 this action to this Court. 15 Dated: September23 2005 P a T 16 D d TARA IRELI LY 17 g Y JUDGE T 18 c m 19 w U 20 _ ,c U 21 / �// ✓ 2G�d9- 23 71t? � B r 24 26 27 28 AMENDED JUDGMENT Fo PSIAfANENr DiNNCnDN AND ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NULMANCE 6 Packet,Pg.1049' 7.E.c 1 MARGUERITE P.BATTERSBY,City Attorney(SBN 115422) Exempt From Filing Fees LELAND P.McELHANEY,Assistant City Attorney(SBN 39257) Pursuant to Gov't Code§6103 2 BRUNICK, BATTERSBY,McELHANEY & BECKETT 1839 Commercenter West 3 Post Office Box 6425 San Bernardino, California 92412 4 Telephone: (909) 889-8301 Facsimile: (909)388-1889 City Attorneys for City of Yucaipa a U 5 ' Attorneys for Plaintiff, y 6 THE CITY OF YUCAIPA `m v 7 0 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA q 9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,CENTRAL DISTRICT i d 10 N 11 CITY OF YUCAIPA, a municipal ) CASE NO.: corporation, and the PEOPLE OF THE E 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY 13 Plaintiff, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION in TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE 14 vs. (MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS; a FOR UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES) o 15 RAYLENE J. CORWIN, and DOES ) ° 1 through 10, Inclusive, ) n 16 ) DEEMED VERIFIED PURSUANT TO Defendants. ) Civil Code of Procedure §446 17 x r 16 Plaintiff, City of Yucaipa(hereinafter"City"), alleges as follows: z 19 1. The City is and at all times relevant herein was, a Municipal Corporation duly 20 organized and Incorporated in December 1989,existing under and pursuant to the laws of the State 'c 21 of California. The City is located within the County of San Bernardino. m` 22 2. Defendant, Raylene J. Corwin is the owner of real property located at 12494 Ruth 23 Lane,Yucaipa,California,within the City limits. The Ruth Lane property consists of a residential s i Q 24 house and a small detached guest house. It is further identified as Assessors Parcel Number 318041- 1 25 13. 26 3. The City is ignorant of the true names and capacity of the Defendants sued herein as 27 DOES I through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by fictitious names. The City 28 will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities when ascertained. The City is COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 1 1 informed and believes and herein alleges that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is 2 responsible in some manner for the conduct herein alleged, or for causing, permitting, aiding or 3 abedding such acts or omissions alleged. 4 4. The City is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief, N 5 alleges that Raylene J.Corwin and the other Defendants are legally responsible for the maintenance Z d 6 and repair of the subject property. n `m 7 The City is further informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief, 8 alleges that Raylene J. Corwin either performed or authorized the other defendants to perform the c 9 acts complained of herein and such other defendants performed such acts while actively engaged in 10 the operation, management, direction or control of Corwin's affairs and while acting within the m 11 course and scope of her authority. E 12 5. The actions alleged herein occurred within the County of San Bernardino and the 13 State of California, City of Yucaipa, and this court is the proper venue for the resolution of the 14 controversy as hereafter alleged. o 15 6. On April 11, 1994 in accordance with State law, the City Council of the City of 16 Yucaipa duly adopted Ordinance No. 124, the Yucaipa Development Code (here inafter c 17 "Development Code"). The Development Code is Volume II of, and is incorporated into the City x r 18 of YucaipaMunicipal Code(hereinafter"Municipal Code")codifies the Land Use and Development z 19 Ordinances at the City. The Development Code as it applies to the facts in this case is and at all Y 20 times herein in force and effect. 21 7. Title 15, Section 15.04.010 of the City's Municipal Code adopted the Uniform m 22 Building Code,by which specifies the standards for construction within the City. Ordinance 190 E r 23 amended the Municipal Code to incorporate a 1997 version of the Uniform Building Code and the s a 24 Uniform Administrative Code. At all times relevant,the City's Building Code,Administrative Code 25 and Municipal Code provided that no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, altered, 26 repaired,improved or converted unless a separate permit for each building or structure has first been 27 obtained. This is set forth in the Uniform Housing Code as Section 301 of the Uniform 28 Administrative Code. COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Packet Pg. 1051 2 7.E.c 1 8. The Municipal Code Section 84.0510 permits accessory uses to each single dwelling 2 unit. A second dwelling unit is permitted provided that the lot area of the subject property is at least 3 two times the minimum lot size specified by the Land Use District for the subject property. Section 4 84.0510(b)states in pertinent part that a guest house,with bathroom plumbing only,is a residential N 5 occupancy of a living unit located on the same parcel as the primary dwelling unit,but separated Z 6 from it by at least 10 feet. This housing is for use by the occupants or temporary guests of the w d 7 occupants of the premises,but is not to be rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling,except C 8 as provided by this section. A true and correct copy of the pertinent portions of the Municipal Code c m 9 Section 84.0510 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. _ m 10 9. Defendant,Raylene J.Corwin,has in the past,and Plaintiff is informed and believes 11 is at present renting out the front residence located at 12494 Ruth Lane,Yucaipa,California despite ;E 12 the fact that it has had work performed on it without obtaining a building permit from the City of 'a n 13 Yucaipa. Defendant Corwin has refused to permit the inspection of said property, the principle © 14 residence located at 12494 Ruth Lane, Yucaipa, California. Work has been performed that has a 0 15 created additional rooms on the residential structure without obtaining and required permits to be a 16 sure that such additions comply with applicable building codes enacted for the safety ofthe residents a c C 17 and tenants of such properties. x T 18 10. In addition to renting the front residence at 12494 Ruth Lane,defendant,Raylene J. z 19 Corwin and DOES 1 through 10 have rented as a separate rental,detached guest house despite the LOU f 20 fact that it is illegal to do so and despite the presence of utility connections to the guest house for c 21 both gas and electricity which are not in confomuty with building codes designed for the safety of m c 22 the residents and tenants of such properties. a E r 23 In calendar year 2001, defendant, Raylene Corwin sued the tenants of the guest house at a 24 12494 Ruth Lane,in an action filed in San Bernardino Superior Court,Redlands District, as Case 25 No. CRE 030333 entitled Raylene Corwin v. Jamie Smart and Gary But& Attached hereto is a 26 Notice to Vacate addressedto the defendants residing inthe guesthouse at 12494 Ruth Lane together 27 with a Writ of Possession and Notice of Entry of Judgment from said case all attached as Exhibit 28 C. COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Packet Pg. 1052 3 1 11. Despite having sued her tenants in the guest house for possession and back rent,as 2 set forth in the Notice to Pay Rent of Quit addressed to Jaime Stuart,a true and correct copy which 3 is attached hereto as Exhibit D,defendant,Raylene Corwin alleged that the guests are not renters 4 and were not residing in the guest house by letter to the City of Yucaipa dated September 26,2001, a m 5 a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E. it 6 12. Subsequently within the calendar year 2002,defendant Corwin rented the property w a 7 out to a couple,Raymond and Lisa Lopez. Defendant Corwin directed Raymond and Lisa Lopez to 0 8 advise any authorities that they were not renting the house,when in fact they were renting the guest c q 9 house despite the fact that it had substandard electricity and gas, and was being rented out in x" m 10 violation of the City's Building and Development Code as set forth above. m 11 In February of 2003 defendant Corwin was cited criminally for misdemeanors in connection 'c E 12 with the use of the guest house as a rental property, and the failure to obtain building permits for a n 13 alterations to the principle house located at 12494 Ruth Lane. The criminal complaintwas dismissed in 14 by the court as a result of a calendaring error, and without addressing the merits of the criminal w 0 CL 15 complaint on or about September 12,2003. The present civil complaint follows. o IL 16 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief alleges 0 c c 17 that the aforesaid conditions and violations continue to exist to this present date. Y T 18 14. California Government Code§38771 permitsthat a City maydeclarewhat constitutes A r 19 a public nuisance. Pursuant to the City's Municipal Code, each of the conditions described above i M 20 constitutes a public nuisance per say. In its present condition as noted above the subject property v c 21 adversely affects and impacts the entire community and neighbor and its current illegal condition is m` 22 potentially injurious to the health and safety of members of the community, and in particular the E 23 tenants and residents of both the principle residence and guest house at 12494 Ruth Lane. a 24 15. The City has notified Corwin that the subject property is not in compliance with the 25 City's codes,and Corwin has failed and refused to comply and continues to fail and refuse to comply 26 therewith after being served numerous notices of violations. 27 16. Title 15 section 15.04.130 of the City's Municipal Code provides that a violation of 28 any of the provision of the Building Code shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated as follows: COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION PackefPg.7053 4 7.E.c 1 `the violation of any of the provisions of the codes adopted shall 2 constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil 3 process by means of a restraining order, preliminary or permanent 4 injunction,or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement a 5 of such nuisance."(Ordinance 149, Section 11, 1995) 2 it 6 17. Section 81.0225 of the City's Development Code provides that a condition existing y m 7 in violation of the development code is a public nuisance and that a civil action for abatement and o 8 enjoyment thereof may be brought. A true and correct copy of Section 81.0225 of the City's c m 9 development code is attached hereto and provides in pertinent part: _ a 10 "any building or structure erected or maintained, or any use of N 11 property contrary to the provisions of the development code. ..shall :E E 12 be and is hereby declared unlawfiil and a public nuisance . . . an a 13 action for injunctive relief shall be commenced for the abatement, o 14 removal,and enjoinment thereof in the manner provided by law." N 0 15 18. To abate the public nuisance as noted above,the City will incur substantial costs and $ IL 16 expense,recovery of which is also sought herein as well as a prior lien on the subject property to m c c 17 secure payment of such costs and expenses. Y T 18 Ordinance 221, adopting subsection C of section 1.12.030, and subsection B of section m r 19 E.16.230 of the Municipal Code provides in pertinent that: LU 20 `the prevailing party in any proceeding associatedwiththe abatement v 'c 0 21 of a public nuisance,or a violation of any provision of the Municipal m` 22 Code(Volumes I and In has been declared a public nuisance shall be ! `m E L 23 entitled to recovery of attorney's fees incurred in any such a 24 proceeding, where the City has elected, at the initiation of that 25 individual action or proceeding,to seek recovery of its own attorney's 26 fees. In no action, administrative proceeding,or special proceeding 27 shall an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing party exceed the 28 amount ofreasonable attorney's fees incurred by the City in the action COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 5 7.E.c 1 or proceeding."(Section 1.12.030,subsection C) 2 "the prevailing party in any proceeding conducted pursuant to this 3 chapter and associated with the abatement of a public nuisance , 4 shall be entitled to recovery of attorney's fees incurred in any such a m 5 proceeding, inn accordance with Section 1.12.030(C)of the z d 6 Municipal Code"(Section 8.16.230, subsection B) fe m 7 19. Pursuant thereto,the City elects that the inition of this action to seek recovery of its o 8 attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting those causes of action below wherein a specific request is c m 9 made for the recovery of attorney's fees. _ d 10 The City Attorney for the City of Highland acting to protect members of the general public, N 11 and with the required consent of the District Attorney for the County of San Bernardino brings this :E 12 action in part pursuant to the provisions of California Business and Professions Code§ §17204 and °a 13 17206. The act of renting out property in violation of the Development Code,with substandard and m 14 illegal utility connections,in reference to the guest house,and in renting a house with substandard w 0 a 15 construction made without a permit in violation of the Uniform Building and Administrative Codes. o CL r 16 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION c 17 ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE-VIOLATIONS OF BUILDING CODE. Y r 18 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND MUNICIPAL CODE m 19 20. The City realleges and incorporates each paragraph, 1 through 19 above. 20 21. Defendant Corwin's use of the guest house as a rental,and violation of the Building u c 0 21 Codes and Administrative Codes in regards to utility connections to the guest house together with in 22 unauthorized alteration and construction in the principal house violates the City's Building Code, E E 23 Administrative Code and Municipal Code. As suchthe structures are unlawful and constitute public 24 nuisances which should be abated. 2 5 22. Pursuant to the provisions of its Municipal Code(see paragraph and 26 above)the City elects to recover its attorney's fees on this cause of action. 27 \\\ 28 % COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Packet Pg. 1055 6 7.E.c 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 2 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 3 23, The City realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation 4 contained in paragraphs 1 through above. N 5 Defendant Corwin's use of the subject property as alleged above is illegal,apublic nuisance, Z d 6 imposes an immediate threat to the public health, safety,and welfare of the community in that w a v 7 (A)a dwelling unit(the principle residence)has had construction without building 8 permits and appropriate inspections to determine whether the construction complies with the c 9 applicable provisions of the Building Code and Administrative Code,constituting an inherent risk m 10 to the health and safety of anyone who occupies that un-permitted structure; N 11 (B)the illegal and substandard utility connections for both gas and electricity to the :E v 12 guest house at the address,constructed without proper building permits and appropriate inspections a 13 to determine whether the construction complies with the applicable provisions of the Municipal m 14 Code,Administrative Code and Building Code,constitutes an inherent risk to the health and safety w 0 a 15 of anyone who occupies the guest house. 0 a. 16 24. Sections 15.04.130 of the Municipal Code and Section 81.0255 of the Development a c c 17 Code both declare such actions to be illegal and a public nuisance,and specifically authorize the City Y a 18 to commence an action for injunctive relief for the removal, abatement and enjoinment of public r w 19 nuisances. 20 25. The City has demanded that defendant Corwin bring the subject property into v 'c 0 21 compliance with the above referenced codes. The City is informed and believes and thereon alleges In 22 that Corwin has had and continues to have the ability to maintain and operate the subject property E E 23 in compliance with the above referenced codes. COrwin has not abated the nuisances and continues x a 24 to fail and refuse to bring the subject property into compliance. 25 26. Corwin's wrongful conduct,unless and until enjoined,will cause great and irreparable 26 injury to the City in that the public,residents,neighbors,and tenants will be subject to the unlawful © 27 nuisances and the public's health, safety, and welfare will continue to be threatened thereby. 28 27. The City does not have a plain,speedy or adequate remedy at law in that monetary COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Packet Pg. 1056 11 7 I damages do not compensate or remedy the unlawful and hazardous maintenance and use of the 2 subjectproperty as allegedhere,andmoney damages do notalleviatethe dargersto health and safety 3 risks posed to the members of the public. 4 28. Injunctive and Abatement Relief is necessary to enjoin the continuing violations of ^w 5 the referenced codes as set forth above, and to ensure that the use of the subject property is in 8 6 compliance with the law,and not a threat to the public health,safety and welfare. Injunctive relief y m 7 is additionally expressly authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure § §526 and 731. 0 B 29. In maintaining the public nuisances complained of here,defendant,Corwin is acting c m 9 with full knowledge of the consequences and provisions of the law, and her conduct is willful, s m 10 malicious, and intentional. N 11 30. Preliminary and permanentinjunctions are necessary to abate and prevent continuance c E v 12 of the public nuisances described above. a n 13 31. As to this cause of action,pursuant to the provisions of its Municipal Code(see 14 paragraph_above)City elects to recover its attorneys' fees. a 0 15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 0. 0 a` 16 UNFAIR BUSINESSES PRACTICES v c 17 32. City realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation x T is contained in paragraphs 1 through 31 above. A E 19 33. Marguerite P. Battersby, as City Attorney for the City of Yucaipa, acting to Lu f 20 protect members of the general public, and with the consent of the District Attorney for the 21 County of San Bernardino, brings this action pursuant to the provisions of California m 22 Business and Professions code §17204 and 17206. E s 23 34. The acts described herein,most particularly in renting out the guest house,and m 24 the renting of the primary residence without obtaining proper building permits constitute a 25 unlawful business practices and acts of unfair competition against all other persons lawfully 26 renting residential property within the City of Yucaipa and elsewhere within the County of 27 San Bernardino. 28 35. Unless restrained, defendant, Raylene J. Corwin will continue to engage in COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Packet Pg. 1057 8 1 such acts of unfair competition and illegality. City is without an adequate remedy at law,and 2 an injunction is appropriate, to prevent a multiplicity of actions. 3 36. The aforementioned acts of defendant are daily continuing, and pursuant to 4 California Business and Professions code §17206, a $2,500.00 penalty for each such act 5 constituting a separate violation each day the unfair business practice is continuing may be Z m 6 levied against defendant. m 7 37. Pursuant to California Business and Professions code §17206,the City is o 8 entitled to recover its cost of investigation and prosecution of this action. Further, the City m 9 is entitled to recover its administrative costs and attorneys' fees based on its own Municipal s 10 Code as set forth in paragraph_above. N 11 WHEREFORE,City prays for judgment against defendant,Raylene J. Corwin,and :_ E v 12 defendants, and each of them as follows: ¢ r 13 1. For an order requiring defendants' to show cause, if any they have,why they 14 should not be enjoined as hereafter set forth during the pendency of this action; CL 15 2. For a preliminary and permanent injunction,enjoining defendants and each of 2 IL 16 them and any agents,servants,employees and all persons acting under,in concert with or for d c 17 them for maintaining and using the property located at 12494 Ruth Lane,Yucaipa,California Y r 18 92399, in violation of the City's Municipal Code,Building Code and Administrative Code A UJ z 19 including: 20 a) For maintaining a public nuisance on the property; u 'c 0 21 b) From renting the guesthouse in violation of the City's Codes; m` 22 c) From renting the principal residence without proper building permits E E 23 for any additions or construction thereto; 24 d) For maintaining improper electrical and gas utility to the guesthouse; 25 e) From engaging in any of the acts set forth in this complaint or any other 26 unfair business practice. 27 3. For civil penalties in the maximum amount allowable under law, up to 28 $2,500.00 for each act constituting an unfair business practice against defendants under COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Packet Pg. 1058 9 1 section 17206 of the Business and Professions code; 2 4. For a declaration of the court that the activities of defendants, and each of 3 them are in violation of the City's Codes and constitute a public nuisance; 4 5. For a declaration of rights in favor of the City allowing it to abate any an all d 5 uses of the property which constitute nuisances; z 6 6. For damages and the cost of abatement of the illegal activities; N m 7 7. For attorneys' fees on the causes of action specified,administrative costs,and 8 all costs of suit incurred herein; and 9 8. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. i d 10 Dated:January.2004' BRUNICK,BATTERSBY,WELHANEY&BECKE I I MARGUERITE P.BATITRSBY,CITY ATroRNEY rn 11 LELAND P.WELHANEY,ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY v 12 ¢ r 13 By. LELAND P. McELHANEY, 19 Attorneys for Plaintiff, City of Yucaipa 0 a 15 CL r 16 m c 17 Y d 18 A L w 19 Y 20 C 21 m C 22 E r v 23 x 29 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION rPacket Pg. 1059 10 7.E.c Appendix B Affidavit of Non-Collusion N d To be Executed by the Submitter of this RFP m ur IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION, I CERTIFY THAT OUR BUSINESS: o m 1. Does not and will not have a financial interest in any business, property or source of income, which could be financially affected or otherwise conflict in any manner with the performance of services under this Request for Proposal (RFP); m 2. Has not, directly or indirectly, entered into any agreement, participated in any collusion, or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free, competitive bidding in connection with this u RFP; and E 3. Is not currently suspended or debarred from doing business with any government entity. a I affirm that the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California. m \r- o a 0 a` a v d C J;/9ZIZ�7iz Y big o horiz d prese ive Date c Leland P. McElhaney w Pse.i' x +snick McElhaney & Kennedy Name and Title of Authorized Representative Business Name Y U C J 1839 Commexcenter West lmcelhaney @bmblamoffice.com p`p Mailing Address san Bernardino, CA Email Address c 92408-3303 L U A Q 23 Packe°Pg. 1060 72E:c`' APP F-12-17 Administrative Hearing Officer Services Are there any other additional or incidental costs that will be required b r firm in order to meet the requirements of the Proposal Specifications? Yes No (circle one). If you answered "Yes", please provide detail of said additional costs: u it d to 2 Please indicate any elements of the Proposal Specifications that cannot be met by your o firm. c d x d Have you included in your proposal all informational items and forms as requested es / No . (circle one). If you answered "No", please explain: E v a r- This offer shall remain firm for 90 days from RFP close date. A Terms and conditions as set forth in this RFP apply to this proposal. o 0 Cash discount allowable % days; unless otherwise stated, payment terms i T are: Net thirty (30) days. In signing this proposal, Offeror(s) warrants that all certifications and documents Y requested herein are attached and properly completed and signed. A From time to time, the City may issue one or more addenda to this RFP. Below, please w indicate all Addenda to this RFP received by your firm, and the date said Addenda g was/were received. u 0 Verification of Addenda Received CO c Addenda No: Received on: E Addenda No: Received on: Addenda No: Received on: a FIRM NAME: BRaNICK, McELHANEY & KENNEDY PLC 1839 Coffinercenter West ADDRESS: San Bernardino. CA 92408-3303 25 PacketPg. 1061 RFP F-12-17 Administrative Hearing Officer Services Phone: (909) 889-8301 Email: lmcelhaney @lmlblawoffice.com N d Fax: (909) 889-8301 u .2 C N Authorized Signature: 'M d u Print Name: Leland P. McElhaney p 0 President c Title: A d x m IF SUBMITTING A "NO PROPOSAL", PLEASE STATE REASON (S) BELOW: Z C E v Q n m m N O 6 O a` T 'O d C C d Y T d G R S W u Y V C 3 m C E E t u m Q 26 Packet Pg.1062s RFP F-12-17 Administrativc Herring Offs=Services SUBCONTRACTOR'S LIST As required by California State Law, the General Contractor bidding will hereinafter state the subcontractor who will be the subcontractor on the job for each particular trade or subdivision of the work in an amount in excess of one-half of one percent of the General Contractor's total bid and will state the firm name and principal location of the mill, shop, or office of each. If a General Contractor fails to specify a subcontractor, or if he specifies more than one subcontractor for the same portion of work to be performed N under the contract in excess of one-half of one percent, he agrees that he is fully qualified to perform that portion himself and that he shall perform that portion himself. 0 0 c DIVISION OF NAME OF FIRM OR LOCATION WORK OR CONTRACTOR CITY = TRADE v a m 0 0 0 0 a T Leland P. McElhaney m c Print Name i lure o idd r Y T d Company Name: BRUNICK, McELHANEY & KENNEDY PLC s W 1839 Comnercenter West, San Bernardino, CA 92408-3303 c Address: Y U C rtl REJECTION OF BIDS E The undersigned agrees that the City of San Bernardino reserves the right to reject any or all bids, and reserves the right to waive informalities in a bid or bids not affected by a law, if to do seems to best serve the public interest. 27 .PacketPg. 1063 FA K RY `L Fonk Crysbl 6 OZ.Inc. &GommV 1 Flnancial square 32 Old Slip.17th floor New Yolk,NY 10005-3504 INSURANCE BINDER 22:341-:444eoourse3a raa z1z 509-1292 sz Reprint NAMED INSURED BINDER DATE BINDER NO. Brunick, McElhaney Beckett 07/01/11 230333 Dolen & Kennedy •� 1839 Commercenter West CLIENT CODE POLICY TYPE N San Bernardino, CA 92408 BRUNBA IRenewal Page 1 of 2 ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE Wiliam J. Lambiase,Jr.212-5045938 `m m EFFECTIVE GATE EXPIRATION DATE POLICYNUNBER INSURER = 07/01/11 07/0.1/12 1 001095700 Ironshore Specialty Insura COVERAGE DESCRIPTION AND AMOUNTSAIMITS Coverage: Lawyers Professional Liability 'c Limit of Liability* Deductible** Premium*** E (Inclusive of Claims Expenses) (Aggregate) (Annual) Q $5, 000, 000 $25, 000 $38, 920 I. m * Inclusive of an additional $5, 000, 000 Limit for Claim Expenses -� Q ** Deductible is Aggregate ***Not inclusive of applicable CA. Surplus Lines Taxes and Fees of a $1,255. 17 0 a` >1 Coverage will be pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Ironshore m Specialty Insurance Company Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance m Policy Form, in addition to the following endorsements : Y r m Claims Expenses in Addition to the Limit of Liability c m Amend Definition of Claim -attached r Amend Definition of Insured -attached w 0 Most Favorable Venue Punitive Damages wording -attached � Amend Claim Reporting Provision to when management committee or senior managers first become aware of Claim 'c Final Adjudication Wording for Intentional Fraud and Personal Profit 2 Exclusions m c 1 m L 1 0 Q FRAVS\`i2�1J AL+ Frank Crystal&CD..Inc. COs PA &N 32 old Slip,17d, lX�+ 1V11"111V I Financial ial Square floor New York,NY 10005-3504 nlox[n2 344-2494 800 u'-5830 INSURANCE BINDER °212509-1292 Page 2 of 2 NAMED INSURED BINDER DATE BINDER NO. Br"3nick, McElhaney Beckett 07/01/11 230333 N d V COVERAGE DESCRIPTION AND AMOUNTS/LAMITS V)o d U_ 0 G d d 7 N N .0 E Q r d N O f2 O CL T V d C C d Y T d The undersigned company agrees,for its respective interests only and to the extent respectively indicated, to effect insurance or changes as set forth.This agreement is binding for account of the Assured until acceptance of satisfactory policy and/or t ndomement and/or term agreed to by Frank Crystal&Company and/or its subsidiaries and affiliates. This binder is issued w for a period of 60 days and automatically will be extended for additional consecutive periods of 60 days until acceptance of D the Policy,Bond,and/or Endorsement by the Assured. Y U In addition to the fees and/or commissions received by Frank Crystal&Company for the placement of insurance coverages,in .2 certain circumstances other parties may eam and retain usual and customary commissions for their role in providing insurance products or services under their separate contracts with insurers and/or reinsurers. Additionally,the firm may receive o0 contingent payments or allowances from some Insurers based on factors which are not client-specific,such as aggregate loss y experience,size or performance of an overall book of business produced with the insurer. d DISCLOSURE OF GUARANTY FUND NONPARTICIPATION: E Your policy Is written with a Surplus Lines Carrier and is not covered by the given state's guaranty fund. In the event the insurance company is unable to fulfill its contractual obligation under a policy,Contract,application,certificate,or x evidence of coverage,the policyholder or certificate holder Is not protected by an insurance guaranty fund or other solvency Q protection arrangement. Premium: $38,290 plus$1,255.17 taxes/fees Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. Confirmed By: Authorized Representative: At Frank Crystal&Co., Inc. Refer To: William J.Lambiase,Jr. Admitted: Non-Admitted: X „Ra�ketPg,{U85; 7.E.c Report a claim, schedule an appraisal, and reserve a rental car on usaa.com, 2417. Accident Tow: 1: 1-8031-8722 it N Roadside Assistance: 1-800-531-8555 m U y N I w 0 W G m d 2 d CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE IDENTIFICATION CARD £ E This identification card is evidence of liability insurance for your vehicle. The card is valid only as long Q as liability insurance remains in force. KEEP A COPY OF THE ID CARD IN YOUR VEHICLE AT ALL TIMES. You may be required to produce your identification card at vehicle registration or inspection, when ca C applying for a driver's license, following an accident, or upon a law enforcement officer's request. C 0 a 0 a` 50781-0510 >` FCA1 _-•------- --------°'_---.--__--.------ .'-°------- ° back c CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY `m Name and Address of Insured NAIL 25941 a California Evidence of Financial Responsibility LELAND P MC ELHANEY Keep this card. r PO BOX 877 u SKYFOREST CA 92385-0877 IMPORTANT: The California Financial Responsibility z Act (Section 16020) of the Vehicle Code requires every owner or operator of a vehicle subject to the '3 requirements of the Financial Responsibility Act to carry m evidence of financial responsibility in the vehicle at all times. Under vehicle code (Section 16028) every driver m f involved in an accident must provide evidence of E 0 financial responsibility at the scene. Failure to comply is LELAND P MC ELHANEY I an infraction and shall be punishable by fines, TERRY L MC ELHANEY d impoundment or license suspension. ASHLEY M MCELHANEY Insurance Company UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSN Policy Number I Effective Date Expiration Date Additional copies available at Usaa.com 00076 84 71U 7101 5 12119/11 06/19/12 Vehicle Make/Vehicle Identification Number Year VOLVO YV1LS61,17Y2662220 20DO POLICY SERVICE(800)531-8111 - This policy provides at least the minimum amounts of liability Insurance CLAIMS(800)531-8222 required by the CA VEH CODE SECTION 16056 for the specified vehicle and named insureds and may provide coverage for other persons and other 9800 Fredericksburg Road, San Antonio, T� vehicles as provided by the insurance policy. Packet Pg 1066 N U ,' MINI 9 Nil I . .� f. I d N CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO v BUSINESS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE - rna Bu Reww•om C,msmc&ee ow m t the�oamtao ofmk w j' n mu away. wa>vB.o.av M ouwf Cnr i ACCOUNT arynmm�a vum®D,.napvcm seexm w.y x„m�ma uk C,.acwe s Ww x mow.e5ceeim�dent m,wNram m mbjw w w rn NUMBER &m 4f gM the StW efGlfw 20904 ° 1 e B"'°°' Dw cr v, ,He fo,tvo y,may. Nw wwrvm8 a rmewel Douce br eery twon aoo ow m .eNO®LLry fwtaelYP,Y,^mt.Ifrotpsitl witAa Nldrys ofpeupvMoodx,Fowq s:A%peeukYxillbcagod. _ BUSINESS CLASS: ATTORNEY AT LAW EXPIRATION DATE i DATE PAID NOTES: 12/31/2012 m - 02/02/2012 BUSINESS LOCATION: 1839 COMMERCENTER W ¢eep a in C OVINER,FIRM OR WM BRUNICK -� E - CORPORATION ~ BUSDJFMNAME BRUNICK, MCELHANEY,BECKETT&KENNEDY ✓ r u t � ATTENTION MAI.INO ADDRESS PO BOX 13130 Georgeann "Gigi"Hanna IcSAN BERNARDINO, CA, 92423-3130 CITY CLERK o e C. 0 a` w c 0 Y T W C W U Y U C m E A