HomeMy WebLinkAbout28-City Administrator
'Q" .
.... ...",
t.,-,:,': ., '.
:. ' ;~.-. .,. ~
, . - . ';'
,t, ,
"
;l~. I-f', ,.\',
. "
'. .'...\..2
. ~"_ _,' f' " \"..
..,.It"".' ' " /' ~'\"! ,
$'\: ('/- /::-'3
I:.." ' \.1
:ft;' J..
kiA.' 4
.5
,'"
6
..I,
'7
J , ..: 8
1':,:,'
.~.~ -'-
:1 :;
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
. " 26
, '
" "l27
','
28
~.~,:~'
}~;;
-t/'o
I"~
.:. -,
I,
~:;) ":-. .
~/ I
::'j"I:1 ,~,~ '.r', ,'~ 'r
-
01
o
o
,
,
i
,
I
....,
I'
.~
GARY W. SMITH
Attorney at Law
"323 West CourtStreet~ Suite 408
San Bernardino, CA 92401
(71~) 880~.9829
Attorney for Petitioner
"
/
,1 ',;
SUPERIOR COURT OF TilE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAH BEIlNARlHNO
:/:
KHODR I. SAJ\B, )
~! )
Petitioner, )
)
vs. )
)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDInO, )
)
Respondent. )
)
-.'------
)
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED )
SCHOOL DISTRICT, )
)
Real Party In Interest. )
)
'.'-i
CASE NO. 2315Gl
STATEMENT OF DECISION
This matter having come on re;,';ul a :'1 y rOt' he'a r i Ill: on
December 8,1980, GARY W. SMITII, apl"'''l'ill!; on behalf of
Petitioner, KIIODn 1. SAAB, JOliN F. W1LC:ON, appearing' on behalf of
Respondent, CITY OF SAN BEHNAfllJINO, "nrl rIlAIlJ.E:.: S. SCOLASTICO,
appearin!l 011 behalf of Heal I'at'ty r 11 Inl.cl'(~sl., S,\N IlE:lNAHiJINO
CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, the COlIl'l rcnden; tlw rollo\'ling
Statement of Decision.
STATE~.q~NT OF FACTf"'
.
.
The Court finds that L:1C <'In'oll"]"!::: of' event>; leadinG to the
-1-
;<y
;., i~'!~.',
.l,' 14
15
"
16
'17
18
19
, ' I,
20
I,
"
coo
filing of the within Petition 1'01' W,'it or ?Iandatu is as' follows:
That Petitioner received "PPJ'ov,,] or his nlans for the
.......,
development pri"6r to the adopt iOIl 0 I' Il('so Jul: i Oil No. 85-337 0 I' the
City of San Bernardino, by the :.Iayol' :ll1d Common Councilor s:lid
Respondent.
Petitioner made applicatioll ("oj' c:':"l!1ptioll Il'OIll paymellt of sai'l
school facilities fees pursuant 1:0 S(~"l:ion D..J. or Iksolulion No.
35-337, and the Office of the City Al:l:ol'lWY recomr.lCllded denial of
said applica tiQn. The Legisla t i VP. !((~vi "IV Commi t tee then heard
the matter, and recommended th,,1: p,'l:i ( iOllcr's "-pplieation for
exemption from payment of said sehool 1':I('iliLius rees be ~:ranted.
Real Party In Interest appealed tlw ,'(,c.ommcndation or the
13 . Legislati ve Review Committee, a 1 LilOIl!,h tile Court rinds that neal
Party In Interest had. no real illvolv('r.1('IlL in the pI'oeeedings.
The City Council voted to dellY ""tit.lol1P.r's application for
exemption from payment of said school I'"eilil:l"s ("uus. but said
vote was vetoed by the Mayor of ResponclrllL. Pl'<lctically speaking,
the status of Petitioner's said application should have <,;one
back to the decision of the LP.I,isl:Jl:ivC' Revi,)w Committee, to grant
" .'
Petitioner's .application.
Although the veto of tiw ?.!a)'oJ' :IP!)(',\I'S to havC' ])C'en ravo]'able
to the Petitioner, the ef fee t 0 I' Llw !).,,:~ponden t Council's treatmcn t
of the veto was to deny Peti tiolwr'" al'l'l i (~at.i.on for cxemption
from payment of said school rae il i 1. i ('s r(~('s.
The Court finds that SeptenDler 22, lDBO was the last date
which any action was talten by !1pspolHlelJ t wi 1.11 respect to
Petitioner's application for (':':('Plpl.ion ("I'r'lll1 paym('nt of school
facilities fees, and thatPetiLioncJ' riled his Detition on
-~-
I,
t > '0
~~ .
.!:{. '
~...:'1 "
'J'
, 1
, '
'. 2
"
3
4
,5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
,17
18
" ,19
"
" "'20
. 21
'22
,;.'. ,,' . ,', 23
,
,.I ,24
25
.. , , ..,I
26
27
28
I.
.
o
o
o
October 7, 1986.
.......';
"
"
STATE!.IEN'l' OF I SSUl\S
a) On October 7, 1986, Petitioncr, KIlOD~ 1. SAAB, filed a
Petition for Writ of Mandamus pursuanL Lo ~~~~~_,~.~' Civil Procedure',
Section 1094.5, whereby said Pet i tion('!' seeks an Order of th is
Court requiring Respondent, CITY OF SAN flEI1NAHDINO, to reverse it.
decision whereby Petitioner was den iecl ''lwmpt ion from the paymen t
of school facilities fees pursuant Lo ll"solution No. 85-337 of the
City of San Bernardino.
By way of the Verified Petition of ~mDg T. BAAB, the
following arguments are presented in SUPPOl't of the issuance of
the herein prayed for Writ of ~andamus pursuant to Code of Civil
.:.''''
Procedure, Section 1094.5:
1. Petitioner has allegcd that tncrc were no guideline
established for the purpose of clarifyin~ and administering the
exemption provisions of Resolution No. 8:j-:137 of till) City of
,
San Bernardino;
'l
~.
That the application of said ROf;olution as effects
Petitioner resulted in a denial or Equal Protection to Petitioner;
3. That the opinion or lil(' City ALi,o!'IH'Y with respecL
to Petitioner's application for CXCl1ll'Liol1 [rom p:tyment of school
facilities. fees, pursuant to Resolutj"l1 No. 85-337 of the City or
San Bernardino, was not bindill~ upon the Ci. Ly Counei 1 of::espondon;;
4. That the implied Findinr~ that t1w c~,r.;mitment
let tel' of Peti tioller' slender submi L L('cI ill suppo]' tor !)el. j t j oner' r;
application' for exemption, as auovc-d<,s('1' i bed, cOIWti. tu ted an
.
abuse of discretion;
5. ' That the decision of Hcspondent, as effects
"
-..,-
. .
I' .
.....1+.:, C.
.;. "',,(' ,
;If'!},
\-<' ;,::, ,- .
. "
'.
1'\. ',."
, "
,
. .'
'I .'
o
o
o
1 Petitioner, constituted a denial or equal treatment;
2
6.
That Respondl~lll; fai l.ud I I, ~)"(}l'.(~(~d aCl:ordin~ to law
by "'ivin'~ the' Office of the Ci ty AtLol'l1ey the power to administer
.3 "
4 applications for exemption pUl'suanl. 1.0 Hesolution No. 85-337 of
',5
the City of San Bernardino;
That the decision or Respondent is l10t supported b,
That the decis ton 0 f 1\,'spoIHlel1 t is not supported b'
,. ,;,1 ",' /,:1
'. ." 9 the evidence; ,
,l/ ,""
"". . . "
.' ' ~ 7.
7 the findings;
. ; ,8.
8
. \ "J
.
..
". '10
" ,
0.
That the Le~islative Review Committee in fact
11 granted Petitioner's exemption;
10. That the Court should :l;'pl~1 tiw independent judr:rner t
12
13
14
test in reviewing the decision 0 I' n""I'()lld0n t.
b) Respondent, CITY OF SAN HEIl.liA"j) [NO.
by way of its Demur
,
15 and Answer,' ancI Real Party III 1111.('1'('sl.. SAN nr:lm.\!'mIll0 CITY
16 UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, by way ()f i I.s '\I1SW01'. ,jOi:lt.1y arr~uecl:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1) That Governf!1ent__~_C?c.!.~. S,'ction GCi013.lj is exclusive
and therefore precludes any review by Lhis Court 01' Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 1094.5.
2) Respondent and Real Party In Interost both submit that
the statute of limitations for the fil il1K or a PetiLion ror Writ
of Mandate pursuant to CodE_2f Ci_,:,_i~__PI")(~('_'!L~l:~. S()"tion ]084.5 is
a bar to the within Petition.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND rONf:r.us IONS OF LAW
The Court makes the fo 11 owi 11~~ I'i I1d i ngs 0 r r ae: t and conc 1 usion'
27 of law in addressing the mcr i U; 0 fill i" 'P~'()('()Ocli.l1f'. :ts 10 nows:
28
That the decisi()n-rnal<il1f~ c:lp:tbiliLy IVil.lJ Joo";,,,,'L to
1.
-'1-
~
""r:k
'"t~:
,i
.
'.~;
..,......
),i:
. ;)~f
, i,~:'
,
, ,
.:.!i:,
,~k
'~I~~':)'
I -11< .,
",' ',: ,.~ '
. .....
.~-~{ ,
,.
..~j;t.
.'~
, ;~~~:
."~~'~'
.,~ii"
~~~~.
~t:.!
j-;~'; ;
.,."
.~.~
,~:"
-',"'..'1,
~;" t.'
, ,'A~"
:~:~"
.~
. . .::1p;'
. .' ....
, ,
,,'
....~ .', "
. "
" ~:
"
.J,_
rir, ,
,~,
. ,t~:F('
o
o
1
2
3
4
5
,6
7
8
applications for exemption fl'or' payment () f SdlOOl f:wili tip.s fee"
pursuant to Resolution No. 85-:137 0 r t.he City 0 f San Bernardino,
"
.'..
delegated by, the Mayor and Common Council of fim,pondent to the
Office.of the City Attorney of Hespondent, \'Ias a proper delegatio
. ,~. -:J~" '-,
of power, in that there was a review available by \\'ay of the
Legislative Review Committee of fiespondent;
2. The fact that there were other commitment letters with
language similar to that complained of by fiespondent is not of
"9 "great weight;
10
H
12
.13
14
3. That the proper test to be appliecl by the Court in
reviewin!~, the proceedings below is the subs t.ant ial evidence test;
4. 'That there was no denial of due process as to the
form of hearings held by Respondent;
5. That the primary problem appearing from a review of the
,
'15 proceedings by way of transcri pts prepal'ecl hy Respondent, CITY OF
',,21
22
,23
",',24
25
..I,
, 26
, ,I 27
16
17
18
19
20
,
SAN BERNARDINO, is that it is clear that no one in any decision-
making position, with respect. to Pet.it.i,onOl"H appljeatio'n for
exemptiop, knew what Reso1utioll No. 35-337 actually meant.
Reliance upon the definition profJ'crcd by the O'[fice of the City
Attorney of Respondent is misplaced in that said interpretation was
.the subj~ct of a veto;
G. The Resolution No. 85-337 doeH llOt. meet constitutional
standards of reasonableness :If; outlillPd in Cal..Tllr. 3d' 45, Section
201, P. 219, which requires that ordinanecs, resolutions and the
like be clear, definite and speci fi c in their operation. 1'0 meet
the constitutional tent of due process, an ordinance may not -forbi I
require the doing of act in tor!'1H . that of
or an ~o va~ue men
28 common intellir,ence must necessarily guess at its !'1C!anin~ and
-5-
,~
'<"lik
~~" 1
t. ~-ll
1, ,i'{;' 2
t~, .~~. 3
.!~ /,:,:.
';-~; \;.1,:;
.'~ .,'~~_ I
;';, I ,'~_::
~ ,;:, ~,'
'p
.
~.
0./.<';' ~
.::~].
;.f4t:
i~,-.
.!~..-
'i!~
.;.:,.
',"';";f
,,- ~-_'l
;~\
.~;:: -
>
':'l'
"
"
1,1 .
,'~!~\:
...-',
, ~,.);'
';'C<.
~%~.
".~~
(-.,,{-,
..."'i'"
.,.....
..i<~
.)....
.t'.
.
13
14
15
:16
17
,18
""H)
20
-
o
o
o
differ as to' its application;
, ,
7. . <Government
reVie;bY~~Court
Code, Section 65913.5 docs not preclude
by way of Petitioner's Petition for Writ of
4
,Mandate pursuant to Code of Civil p-T~_ce~~ul:~, Scction 1094.5. Saie
5,
Government Code) Section (-:5B136 5 provi.dcs that a party "may",
6
"
7
8
and therefore is permissive, and not exclusive. The question of
whether Petitioner filed a proper protest must be viewed in light
of real life situations, such as here, wherc it was obvious that
9 Petitioner vehemently opposed having to pay the school facilities
10 fees pursuant to Resolution No. 85-337. ~he fact that Petitioner
11 did not file ,a specific document doeR not preclude the filincr of
12 this Petition, nor the issuance of the Writ.
The date of imposition of fecs for purposcs of the
statute of 11mi to. tions pursuan t to Gov.!.'l.!.!!!:~~_~--5:cz..c!.C?, ~<cction 65913.5
is inapplicable. The date for purposcs of the stalule of
limitations is that 'date beginning 90 clays after Scptember
.,.,
~~,
Petitioner's Petition having been filed on October 7, 1986, is
therefore timely.
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing, the Court hereby remands this
.'., :21 matter to Respondent for the purpose of conctuctinrr a further
I ,1-\: .
.'{.'i '. "'."22 hearing o'r hearings in order to make a determination whether to
,..,23 gra'nt or deny Petitioner's application for exemption from payment
24 of school facilities fees pursuant to Resolution NO. 85-:117 of
. ":f$'.1
~1 25 the City of San Dernardino.
" ..
.-
&,'".,.,.
~' ,.:.~~
. ;~
~<':y,'}
,~:..
26
27
Said decision must comply with the constitutional st::tndards
of reasonableness, as outl ined hCI'c1 nalJo've'. The Responden t is
'28 di rected to reconsider its deci s.i on to I~ran t or deny Peti t ioner' s
-11-
.,,~(' ^;
"~';'"
w~- .~;.
'~]._...--
'f" ~~~
~'>;" l'&-r'
';~~_<' '~'J::.'
~~~'~.
:"i;i"~":"":"I'"':'~:
. -:I'!I:_~''';''',_J
~'T; y.
~., ./'.{ J; j
.Il
~'/~('l'
I'i~,:
, J",
"
13
/; ,";}4
,
':t;
..
,',E-
,
,', !)
'.J.;
10
,', 11
" '
, :'12
,0',',
, 16
..I,
'17
",I 18
I!)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C''''
,t.:,'
'~;l!;':'
- .,.
:"-"
o
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
above-described application, and the Hayor and Common Council must
set forth the basis for their findings. Further, the Court
"'r' .
specifically directs Respondent to make a finding as to the meani K
of the language contained within Section 9.J. of Resolution No.
85-337, to-wit: "Verified, fi rm. .. in p1 ace and rroC'orded".
IT IS:SO ORDERED.
DATED:
HONORABLE DOB N. -KrWG
JUDGg OF TIlE SUPER lOR COURT
~..; ~
.~!
ll;:
.~:
~,.'
"
,,',
.
.
-7-
---
J
.L
!-
L
-
l_
J L
L
-
c
o
\ t':'''''L r"
o
o
I,
. ,
NAMI AND ADORlSI OF A TTOANlY; nUPHONf. NO.: fOR COURT USI: ONLY
GATIY If., S!.IITH, ESQ. (714 ) 389-9829
323 W. Court Street, Suite 408
San Bernardino, CA 924C}1
A naNd'" 'OR: Petitioner, KHODn 1. SAAB
....lIIlT NAUI OF Cou..T. JUDICIAL OtITRtCT OR "AHeH COURT. tF ANY. AND POll OfFICE AND STRUT ADUIt"SS:
SAN BERNA!mmO COUNTY SUPERIOR COUnT
351 N. Arrowhead Avenue
Sltn Bernardino, CA 92416
'lAIN'''F''1 Pfl'ITIONlRtSI;
KHODR 1. SAAB
,
DUING."NT,'I MPONOINflSI:
, "":: l!"""
C~TY 'OF SAN BERNARDINO,
.' ,',J., '. .':'j " I , " . ," '
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL CASl NUMUlH
" .. 234561
Hearing: Date
Time
Dept.
.
.'
"
,.,~
"
,.',.
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. I am a resident 01 or employed in the county where the
mailing occurred. My residence or business address is: 323 W. Court Street San Bernardino
CA 92401. "
1 ' ,I. ,
1 served a copv of the following documents (list documents):
I
STATEMENT OF DECI'SION
.
", J'I ',:'".
by placing a true copy of each document in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully
prepaid. as follows: .
,a. Date of deposit: January 16, 1987
"
",,'b. Place of depositlcity and state):San Bernardino, CA
'. ." I
c. Addressed as follows:
.,1,
JOHN WILSON, ESQ. CHARLES S. SCOLASTICO, ESQ.
Deputy City Attorney Parker & Covert
City of San Bernardino 1901 East Fourth Street, Suite 312
" 300 'Nort 11 "D" Street San tit Ana, CA 92705
San 13ernarrlino.. leA: f !J241R h f ., d d h h' d I .. d
I cfeclare unaer pella ty 0 perJury that t e oregolOg IS true an correct an t at t IS ec aratlon IS execute
Type tH Print N."..
~~n nern~rdiIH?
JhW~ ~,.
, California.
on (date) .T""11""l' 1(;. Hlfl7 ,at (place)
SUSAN LYTLE
.
.
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL