HomeMy WebLinkAbout39-Planning
Larry E. Reed, Director
Darwin Pearson's appeal of
BBC action of March 2, 1990
Re: 3251 Del Rosa. Appeal
Re: abatement and cost.
CITY OF SAN BERNaRDINO
EQUEST FUR COUNCIL ACTION
1m:
Planning and Building services
Dept:
March 20, 1990
Date:
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None
:,"",
~.''''''-
'" "~
:::)
-
1'"":'
..::'
,..,,1
(,'"
CJ
~ -'-'1
MTl
Recommended motion:
That the Board of Building commissioners finding of March 2, 1990, that
the city had incurred costs of $15,400 for abatement actions at 3251 Del
Rosa, and the BBC Order toassess the costs of the abatement as a lien
against the property~nc a personal obligation of the owner be upheld.
CC:
Marshall Julian, city Administrator
Jim Richardson, Deputy city Administrator
Patricia Zimmermann, Deputy City Attorney
~ .:-~
~ignature
384-5281
Don H. Hesterley
Contact person:
Staff Report
Supporting data attached:
Phone:
. Ward 4
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: $15.400. ,
Source: (Acct. No.)
001 181 53156
(Acct. Description)
.Building Demolition Costs
Finance:
)uncil Notes:
COUNCIL:CA.REQUEST-O
Agenda Item No. 3&:f
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
~ACKGROUND:
STAFF REPORT
The following is a chronological listing of events leading up to and
including the costs incurred by the city.
1. 3/24/87 The building was posted as a dangerous building. The owner(s)
were notified and sent a correction notice . and an inspection
report.
2. 3/26/87 A notice of Pendency was placed on the property and recorded on
March 3l, 1987.
3. 4/26/87 The building was secured and a chain link fence was repaired and
the gate was locked.
4. 5/31/88
Complaints were received from
teenagers in the structure.
the owner(s).
neighbors regarding children and
The structure was again secured by
5. 10/13/88 The structure was again found to be open and vacant. At this
time there was a new owner, Darwin Pearson. Mr. Pearson was
contacted by phone in regard to the structure. The structure
was now severely vandalized.
6. 1/9/89 Mr. Pearson was again contacted by phone. He wanted the City to
burn the house for training of Fire Department personnel. The
City refused. Mr. Pearson stated he tried to contact other
agencies to burn the structure with no success.
7. 1/10/89 An inspection revealed that someone set fire to the structure;
it was severely fire damaged. The fence was cut in many places
and the property was not secure. The Code Compliance Supervisor
contacted Mr. Pearson, giving him until 1/l3/89, stating that
the City will begin action to demolish if the owner does not.
8. 1/12/89 Mr. Pearson was called regarding demolition. When Mr. Pearson's
answering machine answered, a message was left on the machine.
9. 2/7/89 Mr. Gary Quam, a demolition contractor, who was hired by Mr.
Pearson was contacted. He stated he would pull a permit on the
following day, 2/8/89.
10. 2/21/89 Mr. Quam was again contacted. He stated he tried to pull a
permit for the demolition, however, he had no workmen's
compensation insurance or City License or State Contractors'
License. He then sent the paperwork to Mr. Pearson and he
received no response.
11. 2/2l/89
Mr. Pearson
left on his
and he was
demolition.
was again contacted
machine indicating
informed of the
with no response. A message was
the health and safety problems
City's intention to abate by
!. 2/23/89 A demolition Permit was finally pulled on this date after
several phone conversations. The structure was knocked down
after a few weeks and all the debris was left on the property.
Mr. Pearson was notified that he had sixty (60) days on the
75.0264
Permit and that the debris and cement slabs must be removed
within the sixty (60) day time limit.
13. 5/17/89 An inspection was made in regard to the debris, which still
remained on the property. A ten (10) day notice was sent to Mr.
Pearson by certified mail, demanding removal of all the
materials and debris and grading of the property.
14. 5/22/89
A letter was received from Mr. Pearson stating
would be removed wihtin sixty (60) days.
that the debris
15. 8/28/89
A reinspect ion showed nothing had been done to
debris. More than six (6) months had now
Demolition Permit was pulled.
remove any of the
passed since the
16. 8/29/89 The Code Enforcement Division ordered an abatement of the
property since Mr. Pearson had not responded to the ten (10) day
notice.
17. 9/15/89
Demolition and
completed by the
months after the
removal of cement slab(s)
City-hired contractor. This
Permit had been pulled.
and debris was
was six and a half
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Pearson, in his protest keeps referring to a sixty (60) day action by
-,de Enforcement, which, in fact, took place almost a year after Mr. Pearson
~s first contacted.
Mr. Pearson is
out for bid on
He turned in
administrative
protesting the high
this property. Mr.
a bid of $11,000.
costs, bringing the
cost of the demolition. Requests were put
Kelly was the only contractor to respond.
The Code Enforcement Division added 40%
total to $15,400. (see supplemental staff report)
since the contractor, Mr. Kelly refused to appear at the BBC hearing, staff
is requesting the City Attorney to subpoena the contractor and his records.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Council uphold the decision of the Board of
on March 2, 1990, to incur the cost of the abatement
lien against the property and a personal obligation of
Building Commissioners
at 3251 Del Rosa as a
the owner.
Attachments:
A - Appeal
Supervisor B - BBC Order
BBC Minutes
''i-;t. r-- ~ /,I BBC Agenda backup
v ~ ~~~ C - Code Enforcement Staff
Approv by: Larry E. Reed, Director D - Original Letter & Statement
~~partment of Planning and Building Services
~f11~
Prepared. by: .. Don Hes erley
Code Compliance
information
of Costs
DHH:nhm
15.28.150
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
The Board of Building Commissioners, when hearing Darwin Pearson's case, had
the correct statement of Costs as part of their packet, and the BBC Order was
drafted using the original, correct statement of Costs sheet, and shows the
correct total - $15,400. Darwin Pearson had been mailed a copy of this with
a notification letter in November, 1989 (see attachment "D").
Darwin Pearson's letter of March 16, 1990 refers to a different amount since
he was mailed a reminder in February, 1990, on which the total cost listed
was incorrect.
:nhm
~ c
.-.1-._,//
V"'..., '....,
Darwin K, Pearson
1249 1/2 ~. Balboa Blvd.
~ewport Beach. C.\ 92661 ')~.'':'' ,-"'\
(71-1) 673-5712
c
C!#-~':\
"
'" '.., "" r-'""'\"
-.~ ,
'14 "
_:t~f)
, elL
:1arch 1-1. 1990
'" ',.;
>-. It
. i
City of San Bernardino
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino. CA 92418
Attn: City Clerk
Re: Notice for appeal to the City Council regarding action taken
by the Board of Building Commissioners concerning 3251 ~. Del
Rosa Ave.
:1embers of the City Council:
Specific action appealed from:
City of San Bernardino (City) did not have legal justification to
proceed with an "emergency abatement" as indicated in their letter
to me dated November 8. 1989. It should be noted that this was the
FIRST notification given me concerning a City abatement instruction
approved on August 28,1989. (72 days later)
City did not follow legal notification requirements as mandated by
the City's Municipal. Codes, Specific code sections are detailed
in this letter.
City did not follow legal posting requirements as mandated by the
City's Municipal Codes. Specific code sections will follow.
City paid Contractors bills without any form of backup. Bills
handed me in front of the Board of Building Commissioners (Board)
on ~arch 2. 1990 appear fabricated. Specific allegations will
follow.
I am seeking relief from the $15,692.25 in costs the City has
stated they have incurred.
~y letter to the Board of Building Commissioners dated November 16.
1989 is to be included and made a part of this appeal. (copy
enclosed)
The City sent me Order No. 1351 dated :1arch 7, 1990 ~hich states
that the referenced property had been posted according to Code
Section 15.28. This is ~ot true. ~o posting has been done at the
site to date. In addition this Order contained an inspection
2
report dated _;ugust ~8, :989 and prepared on February 13, 1990
(five and one half months later), This should have been sent to
me immediatelv according to ~unicipal Code Section 15,28.040 and
the code also states the City SHALL post a "~OTICE TO ABATE
NUISANCE" on the property, ,;ddi t ional posting requirements as
mandated in Section 15.28.140A were not followed yet ~r. Hesterly
sites this section in his letter of November 8, 1989. The City's
neglect of posting requirements is pertinent as described in my
referenced letter to the Board on November 16, 1989.
The City indicates that this was an emergency procedure in their
letter of November 8, 1989. In this letter, ~r..Don Hesterly also
says that a "Notice of Pendency" has been filed. What he doesn't
state is that this notice was filed on ~arch 22, 1989 (over SEVEN
months prior to my being advised of it, and over FIVE months before
the order was given for removal of UNSIGHTLY material) (copy
enclosed). This "notice" was not given to me, nor two other owners
of r:ecord, nor three (3) other holders of Trust Deeds which were
recorded on the property, Section 15.28.050 specifically mandates
these people be notifled. This "notice" was recorded in the names
of and sent to property owners who had not owned the property for
12 months! The record shows that this was not an "emergency
abatement" as ~r. Hesterly states for the following reasons:
(1) Improper notification and legal action was started 5 months
prior to ~s. Daniels issuing an order to a demolition contractor,
with the approval of ~r. Don Hesterly and Mr. Mark Young.
(2) ~s, Daniels stated in the public hearing on March 2, 1990 that
she \oiai ted one week after she thought my demolition permit had
expired to begin the \oiork order. If this were an emergency
situation, why did she wait for this time frame to expire? Note:
~y permit would not have expired until mid September. The permit
states that it would expire if work is suspended or abandoned for
180 days. The Building was knocked down in mid ~arch, not in
February \oihen the permit was first pulled.
(3) 5 months is enough time for proper notification as mandated by
the Municipal Codes. These same codes and sections are the method
which the City is demanding monies from me.
(4) The City initiated the "unsightly material" removal after two
inquiries by members of the Ci ty Council, again wi thout proper
authority and immediate notification as required under Section
15.28.140C as referenced by ~r. Hesterly.
(5) Over 2 \oieeks elapsed from the approval of the notice to proceed
for Kelly L, Demolition, dated .;ugust 28, 1989 and signed by C1s,
Daniels and ~r, Reed, before actual removal took place. During
this time, no DANGER, DO NOT ENTER signs '"ere ;Josted for this
"emergency abatement". This posting is mandated under Section
l5,28.l40A, again with immediate notification required (not 72 days
3
later) as Section 15,28.1JOC states ::':1 the first sentence. In
addition, Section 15.28.150 states that if the building official
determines the property to be an immediate danger or hazard he may
abate the nuisance in several manners. the first being FE~CING.
The subject property has a six foot fence already surrounding the
unsightly material, The City ~ould only have had to put a lock on
the front gate and close a section approximately 8 feet wide in
the back, along with posting the site. If this were an emergency
situation and "necessary to protect the health and safety of the
community" this would have been done. ~ote: The inspection of the
property was said to have taken place on August 28, 1989, but was
written up and prepared on February 13, 1990, almost six months
later.
During my appeal ro the Board of Building Commissioners, Ms.
Daniels justificat10n that I had been given sufficient notice was
that a Notice of ppndency had been recorded back in March of 1987
(copy enclosed), hh1ch 1S over 1 year PRIOR to my purchase of the
property. This notlfication is what is referred to in
correspondence as ., "file" which was already started which
effectively shortt'fl:.i ::IY demolition permit time to 60 days. The
Board then quest ll'lled me for 10 minutes on why I would buy a
property with a ~orLce of Pendency on it without cheCking it out.
I did not remember Jny ~otice of Pendency and did not bring my
title insurance poll<:Y ^lth me to the hearing.
NOTE: Ms. Daniels dnd Mr. Don Hesterly both failed to tell the
Board that on August lJ. 1987, (8 months PRIOR to my purchase) that
a "Release of Notlce of Pendency" (copy enclosed) had been signed
by Mr. Hesterly and ~ecorded. This notice was found in the same
file which she read before the Board. Also, my title policy does
not list any noticps ~t all (copy enclosed).
In regard to the actual work performed to remove the material there
are a number of questions which Ms, Daniels, Mr, Don Hesterly, and
Mr. Mark Young have been unwilling (as described in my letter to
the Board of Buildlng Commissioners dated :Jovember 16, 1989) or
unable to answer,
1) Under whose authority was the work performed? Mr, Don Hesterly
first stated on public record before the Board that he believed the
Mayor had ordered it.
2) Was a permit pulled and was there an estimate of contract
amount?
3) Are bids required when contracts are over a certain amount?
4) How long did the job take, do time and material contracts have
signed daily sheets. are monies paid without supporting
documentation as to work performed?
5) Who authorized payment to the contractor on a hand ~ritten 5X7
invoice wi thou t any order no., no backup, no phone number, or
permit number?
In the first hearing before the Board. ~r. Hesterly did not know
4
why the contractor had been paid because he usually requires
backup. The Board asked ~r. Hesterly to have the Contractor show
up at the next hearing "if he wanted to do any more work in the
Citv", The Contractor did not appear and the night before the 2nd
hea~ing he provided "backup" to ~r. Hesterly. This information was
handed to me the minute before I was to address the Board at the
podium to give testimony, without the opportunity to see it first.
While at the podium, several members of the Board looked at the
backup and questioned why the dates were Sept. 1990, and not 1989.
Also why the dump s1te was in Hemet, and that the backup did not
total $11,000. It appeared this backup just provided had been
fabricated just recently,
In reviewing the backup provided other peculiar items come to mind.
The purchase order numbers are in sequence, yet the work is
supposed to have taken place over 3 days. The hand written
purchase order which the Ci ty used to pay the Contractor was
photocopied so as not to show any number. The receipt from the
dumpsite in Hemet is in the same handwriting as the purchase orders
from Kelly Demolition, and lists all the dumps on one day, not over
3 days. I have been ~nable to locate such a dump as listed on the
receipt in Hemet. The unsubstantiated backup totals only $7566.64.
In addition, the Contractor refused to be present at the hearing
and back in November would not return my calls. This led some
members of the Board to think that someone in the City may have
asked the Contractor not to call me back and give me timely
information. One 0r the questions I wanted to ask the Contractor
was why the crushed rock which covered the parking lot was scraped
up and removed? Did ~his also present a hazard, and who authorized
and paid for this?
If one would take the time and read all the correspondence relating
to this abatement, it is apparent that this was not an emergency
abatement but more d vendetta against me personally. The
correspondence will point out those involved and their lack of
proper legal procedures, their lack of proper legal follow through
which has denied me and the other record property owners their
rights as mandated in the codes. I believe that Kelly demolition
is personal friends with people in the City, and this in
conjunction with the City's effort to thwart my attempt at getting
accurate and timely information with which to present an explicit
appeal has greatly damaged myself and the other property owners.
Special Note: At the last Board meeting I asked why I am unable to
get information from people in authority on what transpired, or
information requested in a timely manner and not when I am walking
up to the podium. This has happened 3 times, I was assured by ~r.
Hesterly that I could get any information I requested from him.
The .fact is he did not speak with me when I '-'as at the desk
requesting information, he only gave me a 1 day notice of the first
5
Board meeting and did not provide any further information hhich was
requested in my appeal letter, ~r. ~ark Young would not come out
from the back room to answer any questions, nor would ~s. Daniels
come out to answer any questions. At the 2nd Board meeting all
three were present, yet no answers were given to my questions.
Thev tried to cloud the issue by reading only parts of the file
whi;h were not relevant at all (a Notice of Pendency prior to my
purchase). In addition I was not able to get to see the "personal
memos" in the file as requested. Now 7 months and 2 appeal
hearings before the Board has elapsed with no requested information
given to me, additional "documentation" has been added to the file
which appears to have been fabricated recently, and I'm sure there
will be no "personal memos" found at this point which will shed any
light on this file.
In summary:
1) Why was proper notification not given according to ~unicipal
Codes 15.28.030, 15.28.040, and 15.28.140?
2) Why was proper posting not done according to ~unicipal Codes
15.28.040 and 15.28.1JO?
3) Why was I not given the opportunity to stand before the Board
prior to the City doing any work, as specified in Municipal Code
15.28.050?
4) Why were record property owners not notified "immediately" after
the inspection and demolition order issued as MANDATED in Municipal
Code 15.28.140C? This would have afforded the property owners over
2 weeks to act themselves. Instead, we were not notified until 72
days later while walking up to the podium in front of the Planning
Commission.
5) Who supervised the work done?
6) Why was the Contractor paid without any backup?
7) Is the Contractor personal friends with someone in the Bldg.
Dept?
vQerv truly you..rs.
/ //7
,~~vtA-V"/ j~~
Darwin K. Pearson
cc: Mr. Harry Kerames, Owner
~r. Alan J. Parnigoni. Owner
Mr. John Coombe, Atty.
---
Darwin K. Pearson
1249 1/2 W. Balboa Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92661
(714) 673-5712
November 16, 1989
City of San Bernardino
Board of Building Commissioners
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Appeal - 3251 N. Del Rosa, San Bernardino
Letter from City of San Bernardino, dated November 8, 1989
Members of the Board of Building Commissioners:
The specific action appealed from is the "emergency abatement" of
the above-referenced property, and the resultant undue economic
hardship caused by the City of San Bernardino's (City) actions.
Specific grounds of appeal:
The City cited three Municipal Code Sections in their subject
actions, Sections l5.28.010(A) (11), 15.28. (140A) and 15.28.150.
Section 15.28.010(AI (11) reads as follows:
"Whenever the building or structure has been so
damaged by fire. ~ind. earthquake or flood, or has
become so dilapidated or deteriorated as to become
(a) an attractive nuisance to children; (b) a harbor
for vagrants, criminals or immoral persons; or as to
(c) enable persons to resort thereto for the purpose of
committing unlawful or immoral acts;"
On November 14. 1989 I went to the City and asked for a copy of the
file concerning this matter. I asked to have copies made of
certain documents but a decision was made in the back room that
al though the file is public record I could not get copies of
certain memos with ~hich to file my appeal. However, I was given
a copy of two complaints by Councilman Tom Minor and Councilman
Maudsley (copies enclosed). ~either of these complaints cited a,b,
or c of the referenced Section, only that the site was unsightly.
Section 15.28.030 states that if there is a public nuisance as
defined in Section 15.28.010 (above), the building official SHALL
give written notice of the defects to the owners of record.
Section 15.28.040 mandates the manner of the required "Service of
1
notice to owner", and additional posting requirements necessary.
Nei ther I, nor either of the other two owners of record were
notified pursuant to the statutes of the Municipal Codes. Nor did
the file reflect an emergency condition requiring actions by the
City to "proiect the health and safety of the community" as stated
in their letter. Nor were posting procedures followed per the
Municipal Codes.
It should be noted that ~e have been actively trying to sell or
obtain financing for the project as this site. The site has been
visited frequently by myself, appraisers, and bank officials and
had their been the proper posting we would have been alerted that
action by the City was forthcoming. I personally was at the
counter of Building and Safety on August 14, 1989, as was Ms. Debra
Daniels, yet no mention was made as to any forthcoming action by
the City.
Another document which was provided from the referenced file is a
Notice of Pendency of Administrative Proceedings and a copy
enclosed. This document was recorded on March 22, 1989, and lists
the owners as Edwin & Edith Boon. I had owned and held title to
the property for about a year and had prior correspondence with the
people who caused the document to be initiated. November 14, 1989
was the first time we ever saw this Notice of Pendency. It appears
that proper procedures. title searches and notifications were again
not followed. The Department of Building and safety did know that
~e held title at this time.
The City and specificallY the Code Enforcement Division has been
aware of my situation in regards to the demolition of the subject
property as evidenced by previous correspondence, and by the
Demolition Permit obtained on February 23, 1989 (copy enclosed).
My previous correspondence asked that I be informed in writing of
any actions taken by the City at my expense. Also the letter from
the City, dated May 17. 1989, cannot be construed to be the
required notification according to the Municipal Codes for the
following reasons:
Notice of defects to owner as defined in the previouslY
referenced Section were not listed.
Proper service was not given to all the owners of record.
Proper posting was not done as required.
I was not notified under Section 15.28.050 - Failure of owner to
abate nuisance - Notice of hearing, that I could submit to the
Board of Building Commissioners my plans to abate the nuisance.
2
If the letter of May 17, 1989 is construed to be proper
notification, then Section 15.28.050 mandates extremely explicit
notification requirements complete with a letter with blanks to
fill in which must be mailed to the owners, lien. holders, mortgage
or trust holders as ascertained from title company records. We had
three (3) Second Trust Deeds recorded on the property since May of
1988, up until mid August of 1989. Again, proper notification and
procedures were not followed.
In addition, the demolition permit states that "This permit will
expire if work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days.
My permit was pulled on February 23, 1989 and work was done to
knock the building down, as agreed upon with Mr. Hesterly at the
time, during the 2nd week of March. That means that 180 days would
expire in September of 1989. The order for the abatement removal
due to unsightly material was signed by Ms. Debra Daniels on August
9, 1989, prior to the permit expiring.
During this period of time I was completely unaware that this site
~as such an extreme hardship to the City and that this action was
about to take place. I have always returned calls, and
correspondence which I receive and had not received any calls or
correspondence since May 17, 1989. I responded to the letter of
May 17, 1989, but was not contacted again saying that my response
was not sufficient. Also I WAS actively trying to complete the
demolition by getting the financing for the project. There is and
always has been a line item for demolition in the construction
costs, and I had spent the required up front appraisal and bank
charges in regards to obtaining financing.
The only time we became aware of the extreme consequences of my
inability to remove the debris in the referenced time period is
when I was called to the podium at the Planning Commission Hearing
in which we were requesting a time extension for the project. The
Chairman was so upset that the lot had not been cleared, (evidently
he drives by the site twice a day) that he did not even wait to
hear Staff's explanation of the request at hand. The Chairman
wanted to know KHY I had not torn down the house after being
requested by the City for over two years, and why they should do
me the favor of extending the project when I have refused to tear
the house down for 2 ~'ears. I was shocked and unprepared for this
as my last dealings ~ith the City concerning the demolition was in
May, almost 6 months before the meeting. I was in constant contact
with the City since August regarding the extension of time and was
not made aware of any problem. Also, we did not own the property
for 2 years, and the Notice of Pendency was recorded under the
previous owners, because a title search had not been done, yet they
knew I was an owner of record. The Planning Commission proceeded
to deny the extension of time which essentially killed the project.
It should be noted that we have spent approximately $125,000 in
3
development costs to date which does not include the land cost.
Back in January and February I had two estimates for removal of the
house, a single story structure which had been totally destroyed
by fire. Both estimates were approximately $4500. I knocked down
the structure myself and pushed the debris into a pile so that all
that remained to be done was to load and haul the debris away. I
spent $1200 on this. The City hired a contractor at a cost of
$11,000 to complete this work and then added another $4400 for
their administrative costs! It should be noted again that
administrative procedures for legal notification and posting were
not done. I asked the Code Compliance Officer, Mr. Dany R. Nolfo
how was the contract awarded, how long did the job take, what
backup was there to substantiate a cost of $11,000. At this time,
Ms Debra Daniels arrived back in the office and Mr. Nolfo followed
her to the back room and spoke with her. Mr. Nolfo returned to
say he did not know the answers to my questions, that there was
nothing in the file and that he understood my feelings but that he
was stuck in the middle. Mr. Nolfo then presented me with some of
the documents I had requested, but said Mr. Mark Young would not
OK the release of all of them. I asked to speak with his
supervisor, Mr. Mark Young, who was in the back room. At this time
Mr. Nolfo returned and presented my wi th a photocopy of a hand
written invoice on a 5X7 piece of paper in the amount of $11,000
(copy enclosed). This invoice had no order number, no backup, no
phone numbers or permit number. Mr. Young still did not come out
to answer any questions nor did Ms. Daniels even though she is the
one that handled the file. Instead, they sent Mr. Nolfo who was not
familiar with the file, didn't know the proper procedures for this
type of occurance. and could only tell me he understood my feelings
but that he was stuck in the middle!
Even if the City had legal justification for clearing my property,
which they did not, they do not have authority to give a "blank
check" to a demolition contractor, for the following reasons, but
not necessarily limited thereto:
1) Section 15.28.150 states," Although the manner and method used
by the building official shall be at his discretion, he shall, in
making his determinations, seek the most economical method and
endeavor not to place an undue economic hardship upon the owners
of the property,"
2)The City must have a policy of securing written bids when
contracts are over a certain amount. Is $11,000 over this amount?
3)What is .the 40% Administrative cost for? It wasn't used for
notification, or posting requirements, nor for bidding the work for
4
the debris removal. Nor was there any record in the file as to
site supervision for the work performed. If the City lets out a
contract for time and materials, don't they require a system of
checks and balances to prevent kickbacks or abuses by contractors.
It should be noted that these abuses are widespread as every week
there seems to be another contractor brought up on charges
resulting from work with government agencies.
4)This was not an emergency situation which required extreme and
immediate action by the City, as the site conditions had not
changed for about 5 months (although we were making progress on
project financing). Only after two councilmen put in a complaint
that noted the site to be "unsightly" was this action taken. There
certainly was time for proper City procedures such as notification,
written bids, and proper posting of the site.
5)Was a permit required and if so what was the estimated amount
listed on the permit?
The letter dated November 8, 1989 requesting payment of S15,400
also asks that my appeal include specific grounds for my appeal,
yet the City has been unable to furnish me with a complete file
with which to form my appeal. Mr. Nolfo was unable to answer my
questions as to how contracts like this are handled, nor how this
one was specificallY handled. The people in the back room would
not OK the release of all material in the file, nor was there
anything in the file relating to bids, inspections, supervision,
notifications, posting of notices, or anything relating to the
amount of time, machines used, number of men, or anything
concerning the work done at my expense.
In this appeal we are seeking relief from the excessive charges by
both the City and the contractor involved due to apparent abuses
and violations of the Municipal Codes by the City in this matter.
After reviewing any documents which the City has not furnished us
and given the opportunity to meet with responsible people who can
answer further questions arising from our review of those documents
we wish to sit down and negotiate a payment to the City ",hich
reflects an amount ",ith respect to the work necessary. We do not
wish to get into a legal battle as to the rights and procedures
involved and realize that there was a cost involved to remove the
debris.
I t should be noted that \Oe do pay taxes on the property, even
supplemental taxes assessed from a time prior to our purchase.
Although we do not live in the subject area as do the Councilmen,
5
I
I.
I.
I
we have invested heavily and should have been afforded the rights
according to the Municipal Codes. The fact that we don't live
there is all the more reason for proper notification and posting
;requirements.
We do sincerely regret the hard feelings felt by the Councilmen
and the Planning Commission concerning this matter. We do not feel
however that the City acted properly or the $15,400 charge is
justified.
Very truly you~
U~4_/~~ -
Darwin K. Pearson
-
cc: Mr. Harry Kerames, Owner
Mr. Alan J. Parnigoni. Owner
Mr. Bud Roberts, Sierra Engineering
enclosures
,
6
. ,
,
[
Recording Requested By
89-101623
City of San Bernardino
Department of Building & Safety
1m 21-.'5Y';! 3?CuR 4WNT
RECORDED IN
0rO:iC~AL RECORDS
and when recorded mail to:
89 HAR 22 AM II: 54
S;:.ii t.:;;L~~ DllciO
A... "". I .-'.
I..~, \,,{,~;i-.
5SVY 5_ _ OTT ,7"
I\J
Department of Building and Safety
300 North 0 Street, Room *331
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Space above this line for
recorder's use
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the matter of the public
nuisance on property of
3251 N. Del Rosa Drive
San Bernardino, CA
Assessors No: 155 102 04
No. 3028
and DOES I through X, owners
NOTICE OF PENDENCY
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Edwin & Edith Boon
Notice is hereby given to all persons, pursuant to the San Bernardino Municipal Code,
Title 15 of the City of San Bernardino that administrative proceedings have been
commenced with respect to the structure or land located upon the following described
real property in the City of San Bernardino:
A.L3:J\tS , ONIO'lnS
ON'nw"".IIJ~" ..<u.. ._ . .._
,.
-.
.:,,;
......{
"
and when recorded mail to:
Space above this line for
recorder I s use
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
'I:.
No. 3028
RELEASE OF
In the matter of the public
nuisance on property of
3251 N, Del Rosa Drive
San Bernardino. CA
Assessors No: 155 102 04
. .
NOTICE OF PENDENCY
OF ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS
And DOES I through X, owners:
Edwin & Edith Boon
,,;,~...: '
Notice pursuant to. the San Bernardino Municipal Code. Title 15 of .the City of
San Bernardino, having been recorded on th,.. ~~t d,ay of Mareh ' , 19~,
Document No.~, of Off.icial Reeo s of the County of Sin BernardTiiO;
State of Cll~ing to~eirea' property therein described; and
The condition located on said real property no longer being in a state of.
violation of any law, and no longer.existfng IS. a public nuisance; and
There being no moneys.owing and'due'to.said City for abatement expenses. Dr
there being no cause for a tax and special assessment lien on the real property
because of proceedings giving rise to the exectuion and recording of the above
mentioned notice; now therefore '., [,
The above mentioned NOTICE'OF PENDENCY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS is hereby
released and said document shall be of no fu.rther foree or effect..
DATED August 13. 1987 BUILDING OFFICIAL
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
State of California
C:ty of San Bernardino ~,s.
On thls.lltA.-day of d"g"" , In the yea~before IIlI City Clen personally
appeared-~~_ u. pIa. , known to me~the Building and Safety Officer
of the CiPro~ sari l:rnafdlno anaknown ~o met"o-be-"the-person-whtrexecutaG tlIe---
within instrument on behalf of said public corporation, agency Dr political subdivlslQr
and acknowledged to me that suc~ City of San Bernardino executed the same.
'. ' ,'/ .:
.\, ;, ';"1..'
. ' . "! ,- '., 'I ';' "1 I"
, .". '-., ',', Ifjj ~
.~ 17t?~.~1;:~:;',~~"'~ ;,;".. 8rJ-.1J.,~ -.
CHy ~erk~": 1,'J)i ,~ M~'~:~~; ,...
~Il~ ~t..z.(~~/<,tf~:;X.~
. I
I .ti'
...
"
,rdlng Requested By
.
,-10464
.tl, .
~..-_....-- .j
City of San Bernardino
Department of Building & Safety
.."Lan e
ZMlYI JPCOR (l"NT
. RECORDED IN
OFFICIAL RECORDS
_190_~ MAR 31 PM 2= 21
SAN BERNARDINO
CO" CAL.IF.
and when recorded mall to:
H
Department of Building and Safety
300 North 0 Street. Room '331
San Bernardino. CA 92418
-"
Space above this line for
recorder I s use
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the matter of the public
nuisance on property of
3251 N, Del Rosa Drive
San Bernardino. CA
Assessors No: 155 102 04
No. 3028
NOTICE OF PENDENCY
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
and DOES I through X. owners
Edwin & Edith Boon
Notice Is hereby given to all persons. pursuant to the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
Title 15 of the~lty of San Bernardino that administrative proceedings have been
conmenced with respect to the structure or land located upon the following described
real property in the City of San Bernardino:
Orange Grove Tr PTN Lot 1 Blk 22 Com at Intersection CIL Del Rosa Ave and CIL
Lemon Ave TH N 314,2 FT to POB TH E 440 ft to E LI Sd Lot TH N 196 ft. TH W 440 ft
TH S to POB EX W 61,25 Ft 1,71 Acre Book 155 Page 10
that such proceedings are based upon the noncompliance of such structure or land with the
requiremenu af the San [le,'na. Jlna 14unicipal Codo; th~t every owner of Slid reel "rop-.rty
waives his right to hearing on such proceeding. unl... h. make. a proper request in the
form and within the time prescribed by the COde_~fted; and_that faflure to comply wfth the
lawful orders of the Building Official and Board of BulTding CQRDisiioners- heretofore-and
hereafter issued relative to the above matter may result in demolition of the offending
structure or abatement of the public nuisance and assessment of the costs and explnses
thereof to the property heretofore described as a tax and specia1.asslssment lien on such
property; that any purchaser. his heirs. or assigns acquiring said property subsequent to
the recording of the Notice with the County Recorder shall have such Interest subject and
subordinate to said tax and assessment lien,
.
CITyaUILDJNG.OFFICIAL
DATED
March 26, 1987
~~o
__~'_ t ____.__.
Form NO.1 402 (6/87)
AL TA Ownefs Policy
':l'{
....~
~
A.MER[
C
..,
1-
..~ '
POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE
ISSUED BY
First American Title Insurance Company
SUBJECTTOTHE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN
SCHEDULE B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a California corporation. herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in
Schedule A. against loss or damage. not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A. sustained or
incurred by the insured by reason ot
1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein;
2, Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title;
3, Unmarketability of the title;
4, Lack of a right of access to and from the land,
The Company will also pay the costs. attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as insured,
but only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations.
. ........~""".",''\
,.-' . , \ E I. \\,
.. < \.. .v S ~ l
. "' \ (/ " ~.
;'....' ........ 'TA .~.
- ,,("'. ...,}- .,
f " ,,' ~ / J ~ " '~ 'J
. ~ . '~' ,.. ,.." I
: 1_ : :.J /'. j
1 ~ . ~ ~ : ~ I,
,c:- =,=~
· "-JrE~'" 'I ' 'C ·
i'" . ICe. ,c". '_ ~
. ~ ' ' ~ #
-, d- "-a ..... J
I~ .' ". >.J .' ~ f
.,. ';.', ,,' ~ '"
'. .. ...... .. ""
\,. C f [I F 0 \\ ':\ \" _.;'.:'
'h ~
''\,''''''....,~...
First American Title Insurance Company
BY
PRESIDENT
BY
.
1V~1t: C. )~LJ.
SECRETARY
u "~Q~nA
1: "\tEIlI
~., C'
, ~ .~'
~~!I.~~~
,~~.~..~.3~'4'/~
-~ ~-
~."'
- ... - ..... ...c ...........qJany to proseCute or p;ovlde tor-tt
-,
-
First American Title Insurance Company
323 COURT STREET (P. O. BOX 63271 SAN BERNARDINO. CALIF. 92412 . (7141889-0311
Insurance Policy No. ~ (OJ~ ~ ~
NOTE: THIS CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE REAL ESTATE
TRANSACTION YOU HAVE JUST COMPLETED. READ IT AND RETAIN
IT WITH YOUR OTHER VALUABLE PAPERS PERTAINING TO THE
PROPERTY.
The new home or other real estate you have purchased is protected
with a policy of title insurance issued by First American Title
Insurance Company, This is your guarantee of ownership.
We have assigned the above number to your records to assure prompt
processing of future title orders involving the property. If you
sell or obtain a loan on this property within two years. FIRST
AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY will REDUCE the usual policy rate
20 per cent.
To obtain this SAVINGS. it will be necessary for you to infortl the
real estate agent and/or escrow holder handling further transactions
that such policies of title insurance as are required should be
issued by First American Title. You should request that the escrow
officer refer to the above number when opening the order with us
for title insurance.
the opportunity of serving you and will be glad to
PROTECTION OF YOUR PROPERTY
tf;~
U1J_
919656-A
FIRST A"ERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO"PANY
323 COURT STREET (P. o. BOX 6327)
SAN BERNARDI~O, CA 92412
(714) 889-0311
SCHEDULE A
POLICY NO. 919656-A LOC
A"OUNT OF INSURANCE: $224,246.12
PREMIUM $722.00
DATE OF POLICY: MAY 19. 1988, AT 8:00 A.M.
1. NAME OF INSURED:
DARWIN K. PEARSON. HARRY KERA"ES AND ALAN J. PARNIGONI
2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LANO WHICH IS COVERED BY
THIS POLICY IS:
A FEE
3. TITLE TO THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND IS VESTED IN:
DARWIN K, PEARSON, A SINGLE "AN. AS TO A S7~ INTEREST. HARRY
KERA"ES. A "ARRIED ~AN. AS HIS SOLE AND SEPARATE PROPERTY. AS
TO A 33\ INTEREST AND ALAN J. PARNIGONI. A SINGLE MAN. AS TO
A 10\ INTEREST. ALL AS TENANTS IN CO"MON
PAGE 1
919656-A
4. THE lAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS DESCRIBED AS FOllOWS:
PARCEL NO.1:
THAT PORTION OF lOT 1. BLOCK 22. ORANGE GROVE TRACT. WEST HIGHLAND.
IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AS PER
PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 11 OF "APS. PAGE 14. RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTER LINE OF "OUNTAIN AVE. NOW
KNOWN AS DEL ROSA AVE.. 695.2 FEET NORTH ALONG SAID CENTER LINE
OF SAID "OUNTAIN AVE. NOW DEL ROSA AVE.. FRO" CENTER LINE OF
LEMON STREET; THENCE EAST 440 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID
LOT 1: THENCE SOUTH ALONG EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1. 185 FEET:
THENCE WEST. 440 FEET TO SAID CENTER LINE OF MOUNTAIN AVE. NOW
DEL ROSA AVE.: THENCE NORTH 185 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFRO~ THE WEST 61.25 FEET. AS CONVEYED TO THE
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. A CORPORATION.
8Y DOCUMENT RECORDEO AUGUST 27. 1951, IN BOOK 2815, PAGE 303.
OFFICIAL RECORDS. TOGETHER WITH AN EASE"ENT FOR INGRESS AND
EGRESS OVER THE EXISTING BRIDGE LOCATED WITHIN THE ABOVE MENTIONED
WEST 61.25 fEET.
PARCEL NO.2:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 1. BLOCK 22. ACCORDING TO THE MAP OF ORANGE
GROVE TRACT. WEST HIGHLANDS. IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AS PER PLAT RECORDED
IN BOOK 11 OF ~APS. PAGE 14. RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF LE"ON STREET
AND DEL ROSA AVENUE (FOR~ERLY KNOW~ AS ~OUNTAIN AVENUE) SHOWN
ON SAID ~AP; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF DEL ROSA
AVENUE. 510.2 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EAST 440
FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF LOT 1. 196 FEET; THENCE WEST 440 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE
Of DEL ROSA AVENUE: THENCE NORTH 196 fEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFRO~ THE WEST 61.25 FEET AS GRANTED TO THE SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. A CORPORATION. BY
DECREE OF CONDEMNATION. RECORDED AUGUST 27. 1951. IN BOOK 2815
or OFFICIAL RECORDS. PAGE 303. RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE EXISTING
BRIDBE LOCATED IN THE WEST 61,25 FEET. SO EXCEPTED FROM ABOVE
DESCRIBED PROPERTY,
PAGE 2
9196S6-A
SCHEDULE B
THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON
OF THE MATTERS SHO~N IN PARTS ONE AND T~O FOLLO~ING:
PART ONE:
1. TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS ~HICH ARE NOT SHO~N AS EXISTING LIENS
BY THE RECOROS OF ANY TAXING AUTHORITY THAT LEVIES TAXES OR
ASSESSMENTS ON REAL PROPERTY OR BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
2. ANY FACTS. RIGHTS. INTERESTS. OR CLAIMS ~HICH ARE NOT SHO~N
BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS BUT ~HICH COULD BE ASCERTAINED BY AN INSPECTION
OF SAID LAND OR BY MAKING INQUIRY OF PERSONS IN POSSESSION THEREOF.
3. EASEMENTS. CLAIMS OF EASEMENT OR ENCUMBRANCES ~HICH ARE
NOT SHO~N BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
4. DISCREPANCIES. CONFLICTS IN BOUNDARY LINES. SHORTAGE IN
AREA, ENCROACHMENTS. OR ANY OTHER FACTS ~HICH A CORRECT SURVEY
WOULD DISCLOSE. AND ~HICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY PUBLIC RECORDS.
S. UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS: RESERVATIONS OR EXCEPTIONS IN
PATENTS OR IN ACTS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE THEREOF: WATER RIGHTS.
CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER.
6. ANY LIEN. OR RIGHT TO A LIEN. FOR SERVICES. LABOR OR MATERIAL
THERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER FURNISHED. IMPOSED BY LAW AND NOT SHOWN
BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
PART TWO:
1 :
GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1988-89. NOW A
LIEN NOT Y~i PAYABLE.
2 :
THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES ASSESSED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
3.5 COMMENCING WITH SECTION 7S OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND
TAXATION CODE.
PAGE 3
~.
.. "--, 18
919656-~
3:
RECITAL CONCERNING CONTROL OF STREETS FOR PIPES AND POLE LINES.
ETC.. AS APPEAR MORE FULLY ON THE MAP OF ORANGE GROVE TRACT.
RECORDED IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS. PAGE 14. RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
4 :
AN EASEMENT FOR THE HEREINAFTER SET FORTH SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND
INCIDENTAL PURPOSES. RECOROED IN eOOK 134. PAGE 185. OF DEEDS.
SAID EASEMENT IS FOR PIPE LINES AND POLE LINES ANO CANNOT eE
LOCATED FROM THE RECORD.
5 :
AN EASEMENT FOR EITHER OR BOTH POLE LINES. CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL
PURPOSES. IN DEED RECORDED IN eOOK 3735, PAGE 36, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
LOCATED WITHIN THE EAST 4 FEET OF SAID LAND.
(AFFECTS PARCEL NO, 1)
6 :
AN EASEMENT FOR EITHER OR BOTH POLE LINES. CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL
PURPOSES, IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 3735, PAGE 35, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
LOCATED WITHIN THE EAST 4 FEET OF SAID LAND,
(AFFECTS PARCEL NO, 2)
7 :
A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INDEBTEDNESS IN THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL
SUM OF $55.48B.43. RECORDED MAY 19. 1988. INSTRUMENT NO, 88-157720.
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
DATED: NOVEMBER 18, 1987
TRUSTOR: MORGAN DEVELOPMENT. INC.. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION.
DARWIN K, PEARSON, A SINGLE MAN AND JOHN J, GONZALES
AND MERCEDES GONZALES. HUS8AND AND WIFE. EACH
AS TO A 1/3 INTEREST
TRUSTEE: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY. A CALIFORNI^
CORPORATION
BENEFICIARY: JOHN J. GONZALES AND MERCEDES A. GONZALES. TRUSTEES
OF THE GONZALES FAMILY TRUST. ESTABLISHED JULY
30. 19B6
PAGE 4
~~ y 4!~
-it,
919656-A
8:
". -'
.~ L f :e~' . .'. -,:....:.. \':)'"
A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INDEBTEDNESS IN THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL
SUM OF $39.535.36. RECOROED MAY 19. 1988. INSTRUMENT NO. 88-157721.
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
DATED: MAY 2. 1988
TRUSTOR: DARWIN K. PEARSON. A SINGLE MAN. AS TO A 57_
INTEREST. HARRY KERAMES. A MARRIED MAN. AS HIS
SOLE AND SEPARATE PROPERTY. AS TO A 33_ INTEREST
AND ALAN J. PARNIGONI. A SINGLE MAN. AS TO A
10_ INTEREST
TRUSTEE: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY. A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION
BENEFICIARY: MORGAN OEVELOPMENT. INC.. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
SAID DEED OF TRUST RECITES: "THIS DEED OF TRUST IS TO 8E DEEMED
TO 8E OF EQUAL PRIORITY WITH THAT CERTAIN DEED OF TRUST RECORDING
CONCURRENTLY IN THE AMOUNT OF $34.441.33 IN FAVOR OF JOHN J. GONZALES
AND MERCEDES GONZALES."
9 :
A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INDEBTEDNESS IN THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL
SUM OF $34,441.33, RECORDED MAY 19, 1988, INSTRUMENT NO. 88-157722,
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
DATED: MAY 2. 198B
TRUSTOR: DAR~IN K. PEARSON, AS TO A 57' INTEREST, HARRY
KERA~ES. AS TO A 33' INTEREST AND ALAN J. PARNIGONI.
AS TO A 10' INTEREST
TRUSTEE: FIRST A~ERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION
BENEFICIARY: JOHN J. GONZALES ANO MERCEDES A, GONZALES
SAID DEED OF TRUST RECITES: "THIS DEED OF TRUST IS TO BE DEEMED
TO BE OF EQUAL PRIORITY ~ITH THAT CERTAIN DEED OF TRUST RECORDING
CONCURRENTLY IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,535.36 IN FAVOR OF MORGAN
DEVELOPMENT, INC.. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION."
LOC!SPG
PAGE 5
-d
10ATE
(tk-1<i9
I
,
~ TITLE 15.28
___, f~
- IO:;::;a - t::::l ~
'E "EQv'''EO I MOW'..".
IMPOIlTANT
, OOlDE" NU".E. MUST A~EAOI
ALl. .NVOICES.PACKAGES. ETC.
-SE "OTI~" US '....l!DIATl!I.T I~
_ "AI! U""'BI.I! TO SH'" CO"IILl!"rE
,01 By DATIE 5PECI~IED.
"'-EASE SOlO
COPIES r:w YOUOl IMI'QICI:
~.CHASINQ AQENT
!2!!
1<10
,'!an
~
ORIGINAL
1
CJO
1
:!
REPORT/PROJECT NO- ~~---e
I
I
I
I"
I
.,.,..... L ....,.:=-
t
t ~
:l
~ ,1-..-_ - L.~~.
Code Compliance Of icer
Q
~/~/Aq
Date
~ ~
%/..
,- -pp~ by !
1
;l
1
ALL BILLS SUBMITTED MUST HAVE 2 KEYS FOR BOARD UP INCLUDED
.
,
.:..~ '" ~
.. _. I,....
/-. ....~.: ... ..
."' ~ ..~.. '0')
.,\::..; \00
.:~~.
r~':~.
..
III.
a'
..
o
1&1
en
C
2:
U
~
E
. .
~
1M
Q
ae
o
III
en
C
0.
~.
~.
't~
. ,
~:'-2
~~ I; ~
, -
j .
. .....
,. -
" .
. -
...
.i -
"IlL ~..",\:.....:';"',-",
!-'"
!'-
o-t
II ~
u
i5 III
> ~
3; I
II:
:)
0
~
..
0
.
..
_i:
. 0
\ .. C,j.
..
0
.,. z .
II
.
II
,.
C
..
..
..
;.
\,
'.
z
!
:
~
CI
~
I
o
...
-
-
~
,"'.'".!:'~'.~. --:-:;::;).~~~w,.,;.""",'-;."'''', -
Ln
Ln
C">
00
..
.
.. 0 - ~
- -
...
I'~.
'. "..
: '. :...~:.....
r.:
\
~?~
.'
;5
~I
.
..
u
(5
>
3;
II:
;)
o
~
II.
o
.
..
i:
o
u
....
..
.}
..)
o
z
..
.
..
.
c
..
..
..
..t t
-8
I
..,
. ,
,
.="-: ~
.
.----.r_~~-.~
.-.
L. KELLY DEMOUT'ON
.., . "2ND ST. PH. 714.612.1101
AUBIDOUX. CA 82501
2503
PAY .J~ W
TOTHI '
t OIllD..OII_ _ L. .....1_._ . "_
.~~~~(,-
IlCUIIITY MCII'1C NATllINAL UNIt .
~=~CltMO_, ~
'OR_~_CA- '_. . _.. _ In. _
:E~fr~1fir. ~~"ll: 10 ~.O 710 7 ~q~OOO ~ Z" 0..
.r:_''''__'-~_,:'_..''' _ ...._.-.. _.... ~!"
.......--..--.-,,-~-~
L. KEU Y DEMOUTION
.on . "2ND ST. ,", 714-112-ltoI
RUIIDOUX. CA IZ5C18
2502
PAY
TO TNI
I 01110.. 0fI
~ -uf J ~n-I'__IL~1 tNll22l.
, - ---- ~~iil/O
~ ~ ~-tA-..J..... -~. ~ ~DOLLARS
81!CUIIITY NCII'1C NATllINAL BANK . . ':\.~ )
~~CltMO_ ~~o ~
CA_ \ Iha ~
'OR .. .__ _ _ h.A ~ U)'-.
3Q ~I ~.
· 2502 . ~000"11:10~.07Go71q.. "'000003GoO~0'"
-'.~.~"""_...._.-._....-.-.. J". _ ...... ~__ ~
....-..:-~
L. KEU Y DEMOUT'ON
1041 . "2ND ST. PH. 714-t12.1101
AUBIDOUX. CA 12501
2504
I /0 - I ~1.L1 tNma
5~:OPJLa~LJ<_ju~ ._J $5"~~/~r
~~~__~..#_~DOLLARS
81!CUIIITY MCII'1C NATllINAL UNIt. - - . - --< -r. :
Ill....... ..... 0fhCe .....
37n......St.
A".- CA_' ( -,..., _ _ 1/ U
'OR ,.~~- .L~aa"~~D~t
?>:J.Fi u' 02 01," 'i:TnOOOOI,11:10~"07Go71q.. t000005ZBB ...
.-:&-t'_"~.~_1.<!~.-.z.-...._-...._.... _.... ~..r~~ _ __
. ....~......-....~...____.___._.--.l:~
L. KEUY DEMounON
10<' . 42ND ST. PH. 714_.1_
AU81DOUX, CA 12501
2514
PAY IJ 1=. ('.'. .tz:.
:m 0' g A .... ."..d...-rLU. . . . ---l
It '. _ LJ ,7 I!. I"' t (" "/'
~ '-- 7...U~....A ... {L" ... ~_ -<. '.I/..-J ,
IlCUIIITY MCII'1C NATllINAL UNIt .
............ 0MciI ...
~m_... l
""_CA~ ~/. _. .;'" (l '-
'OR . ~ _..J' ,.
~~fd,.- :_t;jJ;.;"............. ........_............_
/ ~ _ J .i_l.!l:! tHllZll
$ ~6t!J,0 ()
DOLLARS
11'
F.. . ,
.' +- L .1, ~
. - .",nnnn"c"n"';
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 I
:1
I
23 i
I
24 I
Ii
:!S I
26
27
28
OUJ-\rtU ur DU 1.I..U i '11.1 i.",VI'U'!!..,}..) J. V I'U:.I'\.J
ORDER NO. 1351 REPORT NO. 3028
ORDER OF THE BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SA~"
BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING TIlE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE. ~~~"'_~
WHEREAS, pursuant to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Title 15,
Chapter 15.28, the Building Official has posted a building(s) located at
3251 N. Del Rosa
, San Bernardino, California, and has
notified person(s) having an interest in the above property that the build-
ings(s) or premises constitute a public nuisance~
WHEREAS, pursuant to San Bernardino Municipal Code, the Building Official
has served a "Notice of Hearing Before the Board of Building Conmissioners of
the City of San Bernardino", relating to abatement of said nuisance, to the
person(s) having an interest in the above property, and has prepared a
declaration of mailing of the notice, a.copy of which is on file in these
proceedings~ and
WHEREAS, a hearing was held to receive and consider all relevant
evidence, objections or protests on March 2
, 19~, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Building Commissioners heard the testimony and
examined the evidence offered by the parties relative to the alleged public
nuisance,
~OW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED BY THE BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS OF
THE CITY OF SAIl BERNARDINO AS FOLL01~S:
SECTION 1. Based upon the evidence submitted, it was found and
determined that the bui1ding(s) and/or premises located at3251 N, Del Rosa
..
San Bernardino, California, constituted a public nuisance for the reasons set
forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
as though fully set forth at length as the findings of fact of the Board.
SECTION 2. Based upon the evi dence submi t ted, it was determi ned that the:
I
,
City of San Bernardino was required to initiate abatement actions~ that the
City incurred costs in the sum of S 15,400.00
to aba te the above property ~ :
II
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 I
16 I
II
17 I
18 I
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
and that these costs and future costs to the City to abate the above property
shall be the personal obligation of the owner(s) as well as a lien on the
above property.
SECTION 3. Any person aggrieved by this order may, within fifteen (15)
days after March 1, 1990
, appeal to the Common Council by filing with
the City Clerk a written statement or the order appealed from the specific
grounds of appeal and the relief or action sought frpm the Common Council.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing order was duly adopted by the Board
of Building Commissioners of the City of San Bernardino at a regular
meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of March
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Miller, Pollock, Westwood, Ponder, Pensiero
, 19.1Q.., by the
NAYS: Gonzales, Flores
ABSENT: Hunt, Lord
1-- ;if /J~~-t.:..,_i_,,~ J
I
CLERK, BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS
The foregoing order is hereby approve 19 90.
CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF BU LDING COMMISSIONER
Approved as to form and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN, City Attorney
(, ~ . ,.
BY:~ !5'tn'-"'t~
2
.EPORT NO. 3028
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
300 North "D" Street
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418
EXHIBIT "A"
An inspection was made of the below mentioned structure (s) and/or
premises, and substanda,rd conditions which shall include but not be
. limited to the following, were' observed.
- The owner(s) and all interested parties, as indicated on the Title
Report, were sent a certified mailing of these conditions.
- The recommendation is for cu,Ja........._J.l j Ll._ _ tu ._~ () &..4)'_1.
'1~.-z;'~~~r i~-;~/7r..(~- (il:U ~~X1Z%LJ;),,1 /j '-;2/7' o/.~ J!/ir
Y:' 7,'( t/..~ .
- All such su standard bUildings or premises are hereby declared to be
public nuisances and such nuisances shall be abated by the repair,
removal or demolition of such unsafe buildings by the proper
procedure. Permits are required prior to starting repair or demo-
lition work.
TOTAL COSTS INCURRED TO DATE: $ i'), /7//:. .25-
OWNER .u/";'//.J;/(/ .,F ,b ;/:/TX/ LOC:TION . =37.. ~ i ;(J. tp ( K;?9:;<_
-, r)" I
,r< j (.'-r1i /)( W;/
ASSESSOR'S NO. /55 //1.2- (5 c/
ADDRESS i - (rrr/ / /1/
CITY Il; (( /J:' r/ /:
I
. /:"
.. ). .
t:..Tr/1 I/~ ,6 >/.1
v
TYPE/BLDG
PHONE NO.
DATE OF INSPECTION <:/ _,..,.;.? - ,,;C
. ~ ,
ITEM NO.
l.
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
lS.
VIOLATION
DATE PREPARED
/17 _ /<- ")0
r.. I ,- .
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING (Inadecuate Sanitationl- UHC CH. 10
SECTION 1001
Lack of or improper water closet, lavatory, bathtub or
shower in dwelling.
Lack of or improper kitchen sink or drainboard in dwell-
ing.
Lack of hot and cold running water in dwelling.
Lack of adequate heating facilities.
Lack of or improper operation of required ventilating
equipment.
Lack of minimum amounts of natural light and ventila-
tion.
Room and space dimensions less than required by code.
Lack of required electrical lighting.
Dampness of habitable room.
Infestation of insects, vermin or rodents.
General dilapidation or improper maintenance.
Lack of connection to required sewage disposal system.
Lack of maintenance of septic system.
Lack of adequate garbage and rubbish storage and removal
facilities.
Inadequate housekeeping - trash, garbage, etc.
THIS
on
STRUCTURAL HAZARDS (UBCl REPORT NO. 3028
1. Open and vacant.
2. Fire damaged structure.
3. Broken doors and windows.
4. Illegal addition (bootleg)
5. Inadequate weather protection (roof leaks, etc.)
6. Inadequate foundation.
7. sagging floors.,
8. Inadequate rat-proofing.
9. Chimney structure unsound.
10. Termite damage.
11. structural integrity questionable.
PLUMBING (uPCl
l. Water heater illegally installed in bath or bedroom.
2. Water heater has no T & P valve or seismic tie downs.
3. Leaking/broken/plugged sewer drains.
4. Leaking and/or broken pipes.
5. Cross connected plumbing.
6. Yard sprinklers must have vacuumn breaks.
MECHANICAL (UMCl
1. Illegal gas heater or appliance.
2. Improperly vented water heater.
3. Inadequate.or missing gas shut off valve.
4. Combustibles stored too near heating appliances.
ELECTRICAL (NECl
1. Overfusing - branch circuits not to exceed 15 amps for
lights and 20 amps for receptacles.
2. Missing electrical covers or fixtures.
3. Inadequate outlets.
4. Electrical service entrance is inadequate.
5. Hazardous or illegal wiring.
GENERAL (SBMCl
1. Pools - stagnant water inadequate fence
inadequate gate
2. Not to be o.ccupied until corrections are made.
3. Certificate of Occupancy required.
4. Improper Occupancy.
5. Nuisance
6. Possible Fire Hazard.
7. Smoke Detectors Required.
8. Address required on all buildings and/or apartments.
9. Supplement:
All Codes are adopted by and
Bernardino Municipal Code (SBMC
INSPECTION REPORT WAS GIVEN TO:
xx A property owner
B manager
C tenant
D by hand delivery
E regular mail
F certified mail
are a part
15.04.020) .
of the San
xx
February 16
19 -22-
r'LrJ..I,I'i.LI'ilJ a UU!l..LJ."\.;.A ...._'\r .\"r......J ""''-, nl\II........
CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
STATEMENT OF COSTS
SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. TITLE 15
PROJECT NO 3028
The unde~signed ~e5pectfully submits the following statement of costs incu~red by
the City of San Se~na~dino in abating the pUblic nuisance that existed on the
prope~ty located at: 3251 N D9' Rn~~
Owne~:
Address:
Assesso~s No: 155 102 04
More particularly described as:
IT::~IZArrON
Building and Safety Depar~~ent Costs:
Title Search
Inspector's Time
Secretary's Time
Comp & ~etirement
Equipment
Ce~tified ~ailing
Pictures
Costs from Previous Hearing
Hearing Time
Attorney's Costs
Contractors's Costs
S
2 x S16/hr S
2 x S13/nr S
25~ S
4 x 50~ $
2 x $2 x 2 S
5 x $1 $
S
40:
s
S
$ 11 .000.00
S
5 4,400
S 15,400
SUB TOTAL
Administrative Costs
TOTAL COSTS
saMC: 1 5.29
Date: February 16, 1990
By:
Code Compliance Officer
Approved by:
Corrected copy -
2/16/90 Statement of Costs
Rev. 1/90
Roll call was taken with the motion being unanimously carried.
Motion carried.
ZTEH NO. 10:
3251 N. Del Rosa
/ CASE NO. 89-3028
PRESENTED BY:
Dany R. Nolfo
Dany R. Nolfo presented photographs and background information for the
Board's review. Don Hesterley stated that Mr. Pearson had called and
requested that this item be removed from the agenda. He had told Mr.
Pearson this was not possible.
staff's recommendation
to adopt an order to incur all current and future costs in the form of
a lien against the property or a personal obligation of the owner(s).
CURRENT COSTS:
$15,400.00
commissioner Pollock asked if there was anyone present to testify on
behalf of the subject property. Darwin Pearson was present to testify.
He stated he had asked for information from the City and from the
contractor, and that the contractor told him the City had advised him
not to talk to Mr. Pearson. He stated he had responded each time he
got a letter from the City and that he had not been given proper
notification of what was about to be done by the City. He said he was
dealing with the Planners and trying to do something.
Mr. Pearson stated he had received two (2) quotes in the range of
$4,500 to $5,000 to do the demolition of the building. He had a man
demolish the building. His contractor was going to haul the debris
away but the contractor was robbed and therefore could not complete the
job. He insisted the $11,000 contractor's charges from the City were
unreasonably high.
commissioner pensiero asked him if he had a contractor demolish the
building. Mr. Pearson answered that he did. When Commissioner
pensiero asked how come he had not had the debris removed he stated
that Don Hesterley had agreed to let him simply demolish the building
and not remove the debris immediately.
Don Hesterley said that the cleanup by the City was ordered by the
mayor due to the debris being dangerous and having been there more than
ninety (90) days. councilmen Maudsley and Minor had also complained
about this dangerous nuisance.
Mr. Pearson
down and not
it was. He
lenders were
property.
responded by asking if it
clean up after. He said he
had been trying to obtain
on the property and no one
is ok to only knock a building
thought Don Hesterley told him
a loan and stated that his
saw any notices posted on the
BBCMlNUTES~/90
Page 5
Commissioner Pollock a~ ~d why it was left in a ~ _~e for over ninety
days. Mr. Pearson stated he was ready to pull permits: he was trying
to obtain a loan and didn't get the loan in time.
Deputy City Attorney Wilson stated that the legal question is: did Mr.
Pearson get notices in time.
Commissioner Lord stated that the billing from the contractor was not
~n adequate breakdown of costs. Commissioner Lord then made a motion,
seconded by Commissioner Pollock to table this item for thirty (30)
days so that Mr. Kelly, the contractor, could answer questions and give
a break down of the bill.
Roll call was taken with the motion being unanimously carried.
Motion carried.
commissioner Pollock called for a 10 minute recess at 10:20 and the
Board reconvened at 10:30.
ITEM NO. 11:
284 East 10th street
/ CASE NO. 89-3547
PRESENTED BY:
Dany R. Nolfo
Dany R. Nolfo presented photographs and background information for the
Board's review.
staff's recommendation
to adopt an order that the owner(s) is directed to keep vacant
building(s) boarded and secure and to keep the premises free of debris,
trash, and graffiti, until such time as the building is demolished, and
that the owner(s) shall obtain a Demolition Permit and demolish the
building(s) located at this address within sixty (60) days. If the
building is not demolished within the prescribed period of time, the
building(s) will be demolished by the City, and to incur all current
and future costs in the form of a lien against the property or a
personal obligation of the owner(s).
CURRENT COSTS:
$3,148.60
Commissioner Pollock asked if there was anyone present to testify on
behalf of the subject property. There being no one to testify,
Commissioners briefly discussed subject property. Code Officer Nolfo
stated that the owner had phoned the office on February 1, 1990. The
owner stated that he'd pay the cost but is having troubles financially.
Dany Nolfo said the house is out-of-zone.
When commissioner pensiero asked if the building is vacant, Dany Nalfo
stated it is secure.
Commissioner pensiero made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Westwood,
to adopt Staff's recommendation.
BBCHINUTES2/90
Page 6
NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF BUILDING
COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Report/Project No. 3028
The owner of the building situated at 3251 N. Del Rosa
is hereby notified to appear before the Board of Commissioners of the City
of San Bernardino at its meeting to be held on March 2, 1990
at the Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino,
California, at the hour of 9:00 a,m. or as soon thereafter as he may be
heard and show cause, if any he has, why said building should not be condemned
as a public nuisance and said nuisance be abated by the City of San Bernardino
by repairing, rehabilitation or demolishing and removing same and charging
the costs thereof to the owner as provided in the San Bernardino Municipal
Code, Title 15.
The sum of costs incurred to date and the alleged defects of the building are
set forth in "Exhibit A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Clerk of the Board of Building Commissioners
City of San Bernardino. California
city of San Bernardino
Departmc.,t of Planning & Building SE:>... vices
Code Enforcement Division
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
9003-2901
'1 Q.. \\
TO: Don H. Hesterley, Code compliance Supervisor
FROM: Debra Daniel, Code Compliance Officer
SUBJECT: 3251 N. DEL ROSA AVENUE - REPORT/PROJECT NO. 3028
DATE: March 12, 1990
COPIES: John Cole, Council Office; File
-------------------------------------------------------------
In reference to the address stated above, please see list of
the chain of events that took place to gain compliance of the
debris remaining from demolition of the structure:
10/13/88 - Contacted Mr. Pearson in regards to structure
being open and vacant he stated plans were being submitted to
construct new condos. He also stated construction will begin
soon.
1/9/89 - Spoke to Mr. Pearson in reference to the open/vacant
structure. He stated that he has tried to contact the local
state college in regards to burning the structure as part of
control fire training. I stated to Mr. Pearson since I spoke
to him on 10/13/88 in regards to securing the building with
no compliance. I could only allow him two (2) working days
from 1/9/89 to secure fence from entrance to structure for
health and safety reasons.
1/10/89 Inspection made with Dany Nolfo. Property had exten-
sive fire damage which prevents property from being boarded
and secured. After inspection of fence surrounding the
property there was evidence of cuts in the fence which could
not be secured to prevent entry.
1/10/89 - Mr. Don Hesterley spoke to Mr. Pearson in regards
to the burning of the structure of the city fire department.
Mr. Hesterley gave Mr. Pearson a time frame of the end of the
week which will be 1/13/89. If no compliance the city will
pursue demolition.
1/12/89 - Called Mr. Pearson in regards to demolition of the
property with no answer left message on answering service.
2/7/89 - Spoke to Gary Quam the demolition contractor Mr.
Pearson hired to handle demolition. He stated he would be in
on 2/8/89 to pull demo permit.
INTEROFFICE MEMO~NDUM:
3251 N. Del Rosa Avenue,
March 12, 1990
Page 2
9003-2901
Report/Project No. 3028
2/21/89 - Spoke to Gary Quam in regards to demolition he
stated that he tried to pull permit but workmans comp was
needed and other requirements, (contractors license) he sent
the paperwork to Mr. Pearson with no response.
2/21/89 - I contacted Mr. Pearson with no response left
message in regards to the health and safety violation of
building still standing in the condition it is in and the
City would act in regards to demolition if compliance is not
met.
2/23/89 - After several phone calls between myself and
Pearson the demo permit was retained on 2/23/89
5/17/89 - Inspection made in regards to debris remaining on
above referenced property after completion of demolition, a
ten (lO) day notice was sent to Mr. Pearson by certified mail
requesting completion of demolition i.e., removal of all
debris, also grading of property.
5/22/89 - A letter was received from Mr. Pearson stating that
debris would be removed within two (2) months from the date
of correspondence.
8/28/89 - reinspect ion of above referenced property to verify
that the property had been cleared of all debris from demoli-
tion, still with no compliance.
8/29/89 - Code enforcement ordered a demolition contractor to
complete demolition of property and remove all remaining
debris, therefore, contractor costs were incurred.
NOTE: Code Enforcement action was taken only after
expiration of demolition permit, which was issued to Mr.
Pearson for complete demolition of structures and clean-up of
property (180 days, six months).
Mr. Pearson had more than enough time to complete demolition
and remove all debris prior to action taken by Code Enforce-
ment Division.
Debra L. Daniel
Code Compliance Officer
DLD/eg
May 22, 1989
4f~
'30 :J--g/
0,
LtJ . "', "
M J
C, 1/ r 2 5 I~ "" ")
7)- 0(: J9o,!/ /.!
8(jllD/~~'" 8~ I.......J
G ~ S. ~"'~
~(:E7"~'tvo
-..
City of San Bernardino
Building and Safety Dept.
300 N. D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Attn: Mr. Mark O. Young
Re: 3251 N. Del Rosa
Dear Hr. Young:
I am in receipt of your letter dated, May 17, 1989. I am
aware of your requirements that all trash and debris must be
removed from the lot and am currently working under City of San
Bernardino (City) Department of Building & Safety Permit No.76772
for the demolition and removal of the site material.
Previous correspondence with the City referenced a 8file"
started on the site over 1 year prior to my purchase of the
property, of which I was not aware. I was contacted last December
and negotiated to have the structure burned down by either the
Air Force or a fire fighting school in the area. This was "vetoed"
by the City Fire Department.
Due to extreme delays in the City's plan checking of this
project (6 months for a single plan check), I have been unable
to obtain financing and begin construction. In the meantime I
have had to carry the financial abligation of the land purchase
and have not been able to complete demolition and removal at one
time. However, with the necessary cooperation-of the City's
Building & Safety Department this project will be started within
2 months and subject removal will be completed. This 2 month
time frame is within the 180 day time period stated in the
referenced permit.
Very truly yours,
/ /)
~/tl.t., ~ .......- / /..... L /t''- I.. .!.-C<. "-
Darwin K. Pearson
1249 ~ W. Balboa Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92661
CITY OF
San Bernardino
BUILDING. SAFETY DEPARTMENT
MARK SUTTON
DIRECTOR/BUILDING OFFICIAL
May 17, 1989
Darwin K. Pearson
1249 1/2 W. Balboa
Newport Beach, CA
Blvd.
92661
RE: 3251 N. DEL ROSA
Dear Mr. Pearson:
On May l7, 1989, an inspection
referenced property, which you are
the following reasons:
was made on the above
the owner of record, for
1) Trash and debris remains on the lot where the demolition
of a structure appears to have taken place.
2) All trash and debris must be removed from lot.
Please be advised that if we do not receive properly
substantiated information within ten (10) days, indicating a
time frame when these violations can be corrected, we will
not be reluctant to take whatever action is necessary to
guarantee compliance with the ordinances through court
proceedings.
We would appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at
384-5181 or 384-5205.
o.
MOY/mes
JOO t>.oORrl-! 0 STREET SAN BERNARDINO
C ..l. L I ;= 0 R r~ 'A. 9 2 4 1 8 0 0 0 1 7 1 . I 3 . . . 5 0 7 1
~..... ,..'.'.
'..-...... -""" ," ..
'f.<i.... -..
~. ~.
..1. -:;;6"
~~...., ,
""-,/f
.
;:I17IiM" t,N '/
., D "
CITY OF
San Bernardino
IUILDING a 1.'ITY DIP.IITIIINT
LARR Y E. REED
D IRE C T D R
November 8, 1989
Darwin Pearson
1249 1/2 W. Balboa
Newport Beach, Ca
st.
92661
Re: 3251 N. Del Rosa
San Bernardino, CA
Demolition
APN #: 155 102 04
Report/Project No: 3028
This notice is
property located
California.
hereby served
at 3251 N.
on
Del
you as
Rosa
owner(s) of the
San Bernardino,
The building(s) located on the above property was found open,
vacant and an attractive nuisance, in violation of the San
Bernardino Municipal Code Sections 15:28.010(A) (11), 15:28
(140A) and 15:28.150.
An emergency abatement of the above property was necessary to
protect the health and safety of the community, therefore the
City boarded, secured and cleaned the property. The building
has been posted against entry. In addition, a "Notice of
Pendency of Administrative Proceedings against the above
property has been filed with the county Recorder's Office.
The costs incurred by the City to abate the property were
~lS, 400. no . This amount should be paid to the City within
thirty (30) days of this notice or a lien will be placed on
the above property.
An appeal may be made to the Board of Building commissioners
at the above address, within ten (10) days of this notice, and
a hearing will be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the
Board. The written appeal should include:
(a) the specific action appealed from;
(b) the specific grounds of appeal; and
(c) the relief or action sought from the Board
300 NORTH D STREET SAN SERNARDINO.
CA'..I~OFlNI,t. 924~Fl ClOOl 71.'3...527..
PRIDE .:
~"f P"OGR-c- c.
~. ,.J H t:~_
.... .,1f..
, -~
Abatement Demand Letter
Page 2
If the abatement action and costs are not annuled by the Board
of Building commissioners, then the city will lien the above
property, unless the costs are paid within thirty (30) days of
the hearing.
Director/Building Official
Department of Building & safety
By:
~jJ .j111 fL..tJ.
Code Compliance Offic~
Phone: (714) 384-5205
~ity of San Bernardino
Department of Building and Safety
Code Enforcement Division
Statement of Costs
Project No. 3028
San Bernardino Municipal Code, Title 15
The undersigned respectfully submits the following statement
of costs incurred by the city of San Bernardino in abating
the public nuisance that existed on the property located at:
3251 N. Del Rosa
Owner:
Darwin K. Pearson
Address: 1249 1/2 W. Balboa Blvd.. Newport Beach. CA 92661
Assessors No:
155 102 04
More particularly described as: Oranae Grove Tr Ftn Lot 1 Blk
22 Com at Intersection C/L Lemon Ave TH N 314.2 Ft to FOB Th
E 440ft to E Li Sd Lot th N 196ft. Th 440ft Th S
to POB EX W 61.25 FT 1.71 Acre Book 155 Page 10.
ITEMIZATION
Building and Safety Department Costs:
Title Search
Inspector's Time
Secretary's Time
Comp & Retirement
Equipment
certified Mailing
Pictures
Administrative Costs
Costs from Previous Hearing
Hearing Time
Attorney's Costs
Contractor's Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
40% $ 4,400.00
-$
$
$
$11,000.00
TOTAL COSTS $15,400.00
SBMC: 15:28
Date: November 8. 1989
By:
Code Compliance Officer
Approved by: ~A)./~~
city of San Bernardino
Departm.....t of Planning & Building. L'Vices
Code Enforcement Division
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
9004-801
TO: Mayor, W.R. 'Bob' Holcomb
FROM: Don H. Hesterley
Code Compliance supervisor
SUBJECT: ABATEMEH'l' OF 3251 H. DEL ROSA AVENUE
DATE: April 4, 1990
COPIES: Larry E. Reed, Director of Planning & Building
Services; File
-------------------------------------------------------------
This memorandum is to clear up some misunderstandings and
misstatements at the Council meeting of April 2, 1990.
First of a~l, I did not issue the demolition permit for the
property referenced above. It was issued by one of my staff
and should have contained the file number and the notation
that the permit was only good for sixty (60) days due to Code
Enforcement action. Secondly, I did not ever tell Mr. Darwin
Pearson that he had l80 days to do the demolition. My Code
office~ issued the permit and as supervisor, I assumed the
responsibility.
Mr. Pearson made one false statement after another, in order
to try and confuse the issue. He even obtained his permit
under false pretenses. See the attached permit and letter.
If you have any questions regarding this matter you can reach
me at my extension 5257.
JJ- j! Jkj~v
Don H. Hesterley .
Code Compliance Supervisor
DHH/eg
attachments
.,r.,
.'
(~._.
CITY OF
San l)ernardino
BUILDING.. I"A,.TY D.PARTMENT
MAR K I. S U T T O. N
DIRECTOR/BUILOIIIIG OFFICIAL
March 16, 1989
Mr. Darwin K. Pearson
1249 1/2 W. Balboa Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92661
Dear-Sir:
I received your letter of March 14,.1989. It is my feeling
that some explanation or maybe clarification of the present
situation ~s of the essence.
(,
We appreci~te the response we received in knocking tHe burned
structures down and eliminating the haven for transi~nts and
others. Ordinarily, when an individual pulls a demo permit,
he has 180 days to complete the demolition. This would
include hauling the debris and grading the lot for drainage.
HmTever, once ~V'e create a file on a property and begin an
action, that. allowable period is shortened to sixty (60)
days.
Mark Young I who is senior Code Officer and immediate field
supervisor of our Code Officers, began this action arfi a file -, ,;
was started. in ?1arch of 1987. This, was ,titf() nyear31 ago_ a~d,'
. Mark has kept an eye._ on the proceed~ngs ~n regards to th~s ~.., _ _ , '
~,- ::.'c=:...::.property.;.--.:::--It: _~aslnY oversight that, led'you too" bel' .ve :that,',- .-' ,<
',.-c~'~.' you' na4...1~o:aays-t:o'c;:omplet~the-.deino1iti.0l1.-.~,-~.'~.'': ~c,:"'.: ~_.;: ,_._'. ,__. ,"
, .~-...~-_.. -. ---, ..~-:~".-'~:". ._. ~..-:-.._,..,...~-,......::..-'- ;'~-:'.....::-: h_
,...~ _~': Ms..,D,ini.els=.,~has beeri.-~acting on. the directives of her
.. ::"::..immediate - supervisor' Mark Young ;.c . While ,. I --am- supe1i;seOlrd...-:-:.tOof:i~.:~~~-..=:-~.._~-~.__~ ~...:;~,:
,.. ...~/-:' the~ode..Enforcement. ~ Division, . . I. . usually" _,ieaveth~-. ,.- _ '
_;'=:.~::"c~-Mr. -Young-L'_:l~ 'am ~noth'attempting: to ,excuse "my part .:.ri~ this' e"T':"~'~ ~i:>
'_-- ~-~_.._-....- .... .-... _... '--.~'''---' -..._-.. - .. . .---.... ..'. .. ..-. . - fl!!. -, .
.-. "'_.~"'':c:''..-:1Datter;'''.'-~ I'atn:s1111ply saY1ng Ms.. Dan~el' I:s-operatlng accord1ng. - .
to her direc~ion and is not making this a personal issue.
I would appreciate your cooperation in completing the demoli-
tion in' the shortest possible time. We are receiving
complaints of children playing on the rubble and.I am sure
. . .
C".
.....;.,
.'.-.
300 ..ORTH .0. STREET. SA" 8ERNAROI..O
C A L I FOR" I A 9 2 .':4 8 . 0 0 0 I 7 1 . I 3 . . . S . 7 1
PRIDE -!
~.~ ..e, IN.PErJCRESS
11:\._-'1 AI
~"l~~....~...7!f 7'
~-~;':?Y
~.. ., , ,
P,..,
~:::f~::!~
Mr. Darwin K. Pearson
March 16, 1989
Page 2
you can
injured.
have
to bring this
potential for
I apologize for any
encountered, but I would still solicit
to a spe~dy conclusion.
see the
Again,.
lawsuits, should a child be
inconvenience you may
your cooperation
Sincerely,
.fL-jJ.~
DON H. HESTERLEY
Ccde Compliance supervisor
DHH/mes
----- ..---..- ----.. --..- --.. .--_..-
--..- .-'. ...1"..: -::-:
..~~:
-t
. ._j ',-~.- -:
--
,._,-..-;~,_:.",'-:"-.,::'
* ~.:.. .. - ....~~ -!.~_:~-...,;.:..""\~.
.-~~ .",,,-'~"
~ - ~ -.. --
.. . +
(
""-'~---- --...-..--. _._.._~---- - --- -- _... _ ..------ '-_..-- ---.-~~'T".-,._-~-- ._._-_. --.___
. .:~~E,~;~l~~:~'~~~~~_-<~:>r~:J~~~~~-::E;S~Z~~:~?t;~=0_.:~~1~:j::"-:::'~~~~J;-~~ - :~-~;:~~ ~'''.~:~':~:~~:;"
-. ::._..:_: ~.~,..--.:. .':="-.:;:. ____.;:,;;;..f;u,_,.'-'~.,_:="'::~ c:"':.:.,..~~:>..:._~:;,_":...::''::.c-: .,-:;~...:.~~J:: . '_-..: :_- .-=-"",_.___.__'" _
..' .-. - .-. -;" -~-;-_.~ _~~~.7~;~~~~~~-~~i:~?~7~;;~~~:~~t:~~;k~~~~~J:.::~:~~~~.?-:B~~~\~:i_
.---'~;':'~-r;.-~j:~~:i1~~f~~~~~~~~1~~~J~~l~~J~
.... _- -,.::,e-- --- - .,.....-----.. -. "-f ~~ - - ._""'><.~.,., "'" ....."""'~- :>.~-'i:i'Iioti "'...._,.,.~..,.~-.... __:!l~..,,_ ---of'" _r.- .--- .----.2-
. -' -.:. - ::-:.. ~~'::'- :~~;~~~~:#:-;-fi;::v'"";~.~:,~~..;;:,~~~~e~~~~~~~:~ ~~~~~i1~.:.'~~~~~~~~
----.,-.. - _... --. - ------ .---:--.~--..-.... - --- iIf.-
"'. _~:::i_-..__.~... r-~-_"'~_ ::~":.~.:.~-..;-.____~ ~.___~ ...::::" ~~~ ~-.~'~'~~~':".~~,-p~."':.""~~.!"":-'.~~.~~ ~:-::~7;~'__ _~~~....oo? _ ~~. ____ _-.-___~-... :~.:'~~~~
.
r:.:.
\i>.
'~
. Building
a
1?1i1 N. n.1. 111\.. ..~.
.
. It. -.;.--
1249J!1 W. Bal~' ........
- . , 1 Tel, "1. --5112
.... Beach ..' 1266 u -
Owner
.......
..
Mailing
Addr_
City ..
.
:'"'. . . .~.;.,
ContrKtOr
.
Add...
.
City
IZiP
Tel,
St.t. Lic.
a CI_if.
Arch., Engr..
O..ignw
Addr...
City
Lic, No,
City
IZIP
nl.
StlItlI
Lic.No.
Int.nd8d
Permit U..: A_ "'-11f""
Sq. Ft.
Size
IND.
I Stori..
No. Ow,
Units
New 0 Add 0 Alter 0 Rep8ir 0 Oemolition 0
LICINIID COMTIIACTOIl" DaCLAII"T1OOl
m:o~=3":: ~.:.='.::-":':-c:.~": l~~'::':'==
.fKl. t...
SIGNATU__.
DATa
OWNIII-aIlLDIII OCCLAII..T_
I ~ aftl"" mat I 81ft ..... ,'ram the ContflClOr'. Lan. L8w for the followi"l
_~: {SM:. 1<<1'.& ~ M4 "'-I..... CINIIlJ:...".,..,.,......" WIItIe/f ""......... ~
PMmIt to COI'IIIrut:t. .tw. j"",,.,,.. *""M1IIt. tit ,.., .. ,fJVCftI,..",;or to ;m ;...,....
::::,::,..-::~r J::~':':' 't.: =.:r;::::~=.: ':.::=:rt&J ~
DirWolt J 01 ".. .wi".. ... Aw,.... t:O*. or rItM ,.. if e".",., """'IOIft. .wi dN"...
,., ".. .,.,.. ......."... Any ........ 0'''''''' 1QJ.., ." .". .",.icMtr ,., . ,."."
..... ".......r to. civil........,.,,,.. ..... H-.1tfIIHItwI tItIIfMt ,l1li>>1.
e I, . """'* of ...~. 01'" ~..... ...... theW... ~"lkNt. wlM
do IN worll. end 1M ItnICtYN II.... IfttIftdIcI or......... tor.... (S<<. 1044. ..,... MttI
=-:1:='~ ,"=r:r.:..u:= ~ = ~~:..-~:~==
",.t1HIlId 111M AICh iIr."'_~~N>I. ..,..,Itt.,..".,.Hw<<I"'", If. "o__.r. rlNlMJildif9
M imrp,.,...,.."r ~ IOItI .",'" ... ,... .f ~,.,.. ".. ....... _iHM' Mil,.... IN""'"
0''''''''''' ",.,,.. .,,,.,...,.,....... ,., IM".",...,....J
C1I, . OWIW of me ~. _........, COftftCtI"l"'" ,.,.... CDft'tI'WtOfI to COfto.
muct m. PrOien. Is.. lOU. ...--.......,.... Coe: 77tlt COlI"..,.', LiclIrtW L..
.. nor ."..., ro .. 0..... ., ",.."., .olwlla III ;'"11"" "..,.",.. ... ..... conneCt ""
...... /I#OitICfI _", . COtI".,.,tlJ 1""-""""" to .. Coftncrw) 4'-'- &..~
CJ t.,..dmIIC...., Sa ... '.Co ,. "'" r-.
I ..,' ,
0_ 2/'lJJOA:1:. ." ,. , , ,. ,..1/ ./ .-;: .:. L-_
. - v....~K.q. calNNlAnON O.CU."A~.oN
. hettDy .ff"'" INI I ... . ~ of..... ID 1IIf.i,..,.. ,. ..,..,.... of Worken"
~... ............ or . cwd.... -. ........ t$a .lIGQ. ,..., CatI&J
..
'''.7'~'. ,
~I'" No. ~
CJ Copy II filed wItIII_ city. a e.rtlfled...., II.... "'"""'-I.
CE,.TIFICATI 0' EXEMl'TlOOl '"0M
WO..ICI.... COWI.....T_,~....NCa
'1101<_ ____11___ ,.,___,.,.""_
..-I
. CIII1ttv tNt 1ft .... ~to...~..ir.. __ ,........ "'it~. I...... not
=fa:r~ III..,,,..,. - -0- ----...... 10.* Wortren'~...
lloIo 2123/AG..::1 )' /1-.,..... X.) ,t'J~ ,,-r_
IfOTIC.n;_~~__on-..,.____
",.., Ie 1M ........ a.... l ...... ., IN LMIIr CNI. ,. ".,., ,.,......
~ _lit 1IICIt",."...., ....................,....-..
_~LIND_AGINCY
,., ~"t..~.:=:...",:=- ,~~~=- ,.,......-.... --......-
. 'W-
:-:.1
WndIr', .....
L..ftcW', Addr.-
.
. .
1__,__..Io_...__....~_Io_,1 \
-..--..-----JP-II..!""'~.-...-.. .
=r~.....1!=~.,.-.-.~--: oj ~..-.. .,-. ........ - ..
-.-...... ~~f.;..~"!".
. _..._ . . V. . ... 25.
-c.
CIIy,-,-
o
#~'.'
~..
~~~:dvn ~ .
.'
__~. .n DAft 2/23" ....-:,~
..:. '''''''~.i).l-. .. ., CIIY___ -. 1111 .c ".'
., DlPAIITIlIUIT OF IUII.DINfI AND 8ARIY
-
3OONordt -0- 5.,.. Sell lemanlno. CA 124" ,. "
. Tel. 17141 -....eo71 ,/
occ. GAP. ' /'
TRACT: LOT V~lE~ 'J.1'n/AQ
Th~ ,. . bulIdIng pennit __ fNDI>>rl'I lllled our. ~ end wlldeted. MId "
wbjet:t ID up/IetIon IfWOlt ~ ,...."ended frII' ,. dItp. un.... flInIIe.
._1t:t>>4 by ~ M:Iion&
7871
.7"
.
BUILDING: lYPE CONST.
'1111 .. ,e 1 ........
~
~
..
I
rl
f
ESTIMATED VALUATlO"
,.. I
/,(../U
/- 17
"--:-. ..r
1r.tV\ .M
ELECTRICAL
Permit F..
TOTAL FEE
PLUMBING
Permit Fee
...-- -- .--- ----- ----TOTALFE~
HEATING AND A.c.
PEIIMIT
PI.n Chit. Dep.
PI.n Chk B.I.
Building
Mech.niCIIl
Strong Motion
Storm Dr.in
Pertce a RlIC.
Sewer Conn.
Sewer C.p.
Sig".
Cultur.. D.C.
Tr.fIIc
School.
TOTAL
REMARKS:
Permit Fee
TOTAL FEE
ACCOUNT _
oot~1n1
oo1~1n1
oo1~1330
oo1~1331
772.181.24591
248-OClO-41818
243-OOCH 1732
2~1822
Aft nn
AMOUN1'
001-000-41332
oo1~133a
242~1803
Aft nn
ZONE: J .;-Z1; r
...... KRACK ...~'
..
..
-
. ,
.
,. 1:..
FINAL DAlE .
Front s.tb8CIt ~ C8nt8r Wile
IlMr s.tb8cl F~ IlMr ProI*tY line
S* StrMts..-. From c.nw LIne
SIde s.dMcIl F_ Pro,.ny Wile
. I . INSPECTClR . ..
'.. k. . ';
.... t.
'II
.
. .
. .