HomeMy WebLinkAbout35-Planning
-
-'
-
.
- -. -
'CITY OF SAN BI!RN(JIDINO - RI!QUI!ST POt COUNCIL ACTION
From: Larry E. Reed, Director
Subject: Appeal of August 3, 1990 Board of
Building Commissioner's finding
concerning the building located
at 276 East Commercial Road
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Dam: September 6, 1990
None.
;';:1-
1'"1
..,
(~-; Cl
I I
r'.;J
I :::....
.eel t;:>
2 ;:.~
{,.,.l 0
.,,-,
U1 on
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Recommended motion:
Uphol~ the B?ard of ~uilding ~ommissioner's decision that the Building
Code 1SSUes 1n quest10n relat1ve to the building located at 276 East
Commercial Road are without meritl that the structure meets Building
Code standards and is safe as defined by the Building Code and that the
appeal be denied.
~
~k/
Signature
Contact person: Jack Masters. Sr. Building InRp.."tcnr Phone:
'iD71
Supporting data attached: Staff Reoort. Appeal with
Attachments
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.1 N/A
(Acct. DescriDtionl N/A
Ward:
J
Finance:
Council Notes:
7...n"~~
Am:mrbt Itpm Nn
_~s
-C.TY OF SAN BERNOIDINO - REQUEST pQ:. COUNCIL ACTION
-
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of Board of Building Commissioner's decision
of August 3, 1990, concerning Building Code
compliance and safety issues ~f the building
locate4 at 276 East Commercial.
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
September 17, 1990
REOUEST
The applicant is appealing the Board of Building
Commissioners decision concerning eight (8) Building Code
issues raised in a letter dated June 29, 1990. The
applicant, in the appeal, raises more questions than were
heard by the Board of BUilding Commissioners. Although not a
part of this appeal, the Report addresses most of those
issues in the Background section.
BACKGROUND
On April 2, 1990, the applicant submitted an application to
the Planning Department for Review of Plans (ROP) No. 90-13.
The ROP application was filed in order to approve a 43,470
square foot concrete tilt-up building that had been erected
on the 2.38 acre site at the northwest corner of Commercial
Road and Waterman Avenue without City Planning and Building
Code approval. The ROP application was scheduled for
numerous Environmental Review Committee (ERC) meetings to
resolve the potential environmental impacts of the project.
The Initial Study prepared for the April 10, 1990, ERC
meeting evolved through the subsequent months as the
applicant provided additional information to the ERC body.
The ERC found that the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment: however, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation
measures have been established and a mitigation
Reporting/Monitoring Program has been prepared to reduce the
impacts. The ERC recommended a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for this project.
The four major impacts of concern, liquefaction, traffic;
noise and aesthetics were evaluated during the ERC process
and addressed in the mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program.
Liquefaction, as determined by the Mayor and Common Council,
is an impact that can be addressed at the grading permit
stage after the project has been approved. The Public
Works/~ngineering Department determined that the information
provided for the subject site was adequate.
Traffic and circulation was evaluated by the city Traffic
Engineer and determined that the information provided was
sufficient to warrant mitigation measures and no further
75.0264
Mayor and Common Quncil
Appeal of BBC Decision
276 East Commercial Road
Page 3
Agenda Item
o
The one issue (item No. 8 of Mr. Gonzales' letter) which
could have been of concern was carefully reviewed. The
structural engineer that designed the wall panels presented a
letter with his Engineering stamp and testified at the Board
of Building Commissioners (BBC) meeting of August 3, 1990,
that the one structural change in question was done with his
knowledge and approval, which he considers designed to be
structurally safe.
The Staff Report (attached) presented to the Board of
Building Commissioners on August 3, 1990, addresses all
issues concerned, as well as explains the Uniform Codes and
Special Inspection Reports.
The Board of Building Commissioners, at the August 3rd
meeting, were hesitant about making a decision due to the
public attention this project has created. The
Commissioner's hesitancy should not be construed as an
incompetent decision.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
The Mayor and Council may deny the appeal of the Board of
Building Commissioner's decision (upholds Staff's position),
or uphold the appeal, specific items not in compliance with
the Building Code and/or accepted Engineering principals
(overturns Staff's position), or continue the item for 30
days and direct staff to hire a third party Building Code
Plan Check/Engineering firm to review the eight (8) Building
Code issues.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council deny the appeal, based upon the
Board of Building Commissioners decision that the appeal is
without merit.
Prepared by:
Jack Masters,
Senior Building Inspector
and Patti Nahill,
Associate Planner
for Larry E. Reed,
Director of Planning & Building Services
A - Appeal to Board of Building commissioners
B - Board of Building commissioners Case
Material
Exhibits:
C - Appeal to Council
o
o
~ 4l<f
(j
.
.
June 29, 1990
Michael Lindseth, Chairperson
Planning Commision
City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, California 92401
Re: project no.90-13
.0.
Dear Mr. Lindseth
,
I wish to file this appeal on the project known as 90-13
(Rodgers Bindery Bldg ) on the Development Review Committee and
Environmental Review Committee of June 21, 1990.
The facts are stated in the attached letter from Richard
Gonzalez. These are a few of the items I am concerned about, but
not necessarily all that I have.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions relating to this
matter.
ria Saldecke
1155 Harris Street
San Bernardino, California 92411
(714)888-9880
encl.
, ~
""1-3
ATTACHMENT "A"
.
-
JUn. 21, 19S1O 0
_. 0
Hiabae1 L1nd.at:b, Cha1rp".OJt
Planning co.-i.. ion
city o~ San Bernardino
300 H. "0" street:
San Bernar4ino, california 92401
D.ar Hr. Lin4s.thr
I wish to appeal the approval by the Development: an4 Environmental
Review Committ.e of items 90-13 on June 21, 1990. The grounds for
the appeal are based on serious violat:ions of the San Bernardino
Municipal Coda regarding building const:ruction. Ho member of the
Building and Safety Department was present: at the June 21st
me.ting. The Chairman, Mr. Montgomery, indicated the committee was
not interested in building-satety issu.. at tbat time.
As you know, no testimony was allowed at any ot the prior planning
commis.ion meetings of May 24, June 5, nor June 19 ot 1990.
Consequently, no testimony regar4ing building and satety matters
bas been beard at any of the noticed hearings. Furtbermore, the
committee totally ignored its own voluminous reports which
recommended a flat denial ot both it... 510-5 and 90-13
For tbe r8cor4, I would like to inform you I am a Certitied
Building Inspector (ICBO #11725), a Certified Building Official
(CABO #973) an4 a licensed aeneral Bui14ing Contractor #524325.
I inspected tbe building on April 15, April 20, April 28, 1990.
I also tooJc pictures beginning wit:b t:be April. 20th visit. The
building i. within eyesight ot my home and I was merely curious at
first about the construction.
When it became obvious to ma that the local Sun Hewspaper was
missing parts to the whole story, I personally purchased the
Superior Court documents ot April 9, 1990, an4 the Planning
Department Staff reports on items 90-5 and 90-13. I also
interviewed various members of City staff.
I personally examined the "approved" st:ructural plans on May 251,
19510 at t:b. Building Department. Thes. plans were "approved" by
Willden and As.ociates on March 23, 19510. I submit my findings to
you in the hope that tha cny doa. not ac1opt: any l1abllny to
itself nor establish a pattern of p8rllittinIJ un.af. or illegal
construction in our area.
-
Hr. L1nd8etJI
Papa
o
o
. The app~veel planal
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
"Waive footin9 anel foundation inspections." The t1niform
Bui14ing C04e-1988, Section 305(e), requires foundation
inspection an4 40e. not permit any waiver.
The plan. lacke4 a structural wet stamp from the
structural En9ineers - STS.
The plans lacked any plumbing, mechanical or electrical
specifications or drawings.
The plans were "approved" March 23, but by this time all
the structural concrete had be.n poured. We cannot know
if the special inspectors supplied by the builder saw the
eame set ot plans.
The Uniform Building Code, Table 5-A, prohibits any
opening. tor this type of building le.. than five feet
from any property line, i.: A door on Waterman Avenue
is not permitted.
There is no report of roof sheathing nailin9 inspection
in any of the documents. This is one of the most crucial
required inspections as the roof diaphra9lll holds up the
concrete panels. .
2.
3.
4.
The plumbin9 system use. pla.tic sewer drain and roof
drain material. Thi. in no longer permitted under
california Plumbing Code. as of 1990.
On March 5, 1990, the .pecial inspector noted that "the
chord bar is 2 feet below the roof ledger and we have no
reinforcing at the ledger-. Thi. appears to be the most
serious flaw in the buildinq. The structural details in
the plans oall for very exact po.itionin9 of reinforcing
steel vis-a-vi. anchor bolt., and the roof ledger stack.
A medium sized quake will in all likelihood damage the
.hear value of the concrete wall panels. Thi. would
result in a root collapse at the perimeter.
Aa YOQ Jcnow, this permit prooe.. i. oomplicated because the builder
ataneel without approved plan. and permit.. The City caMot ea.ily
let a building permit be i..ued now a. it would acc~e many un.een
liabilitie.. I would like very much to pre.ent an outline which
will perait the city to over.ee a leqal proce. which will en.ure
that thi. buildinq i. made .afe. r would qladly do thi. in spite
Mr. L1nd8eth
paqe3
o
o
that: th1. lNild1ng' 1. lII&de ..fe. :r would 9ladly do tht. in .pit:e
of any n.,at:ive thoU9hu :r may have about: the appearance, us., or
location. of the buildin9. The PUblic inter..t: and .afety can only
b. a..ur.d if w. understand thia bulldinq need. 'l'1oC from !nqineer.,
Planners and Craftsmen and 1... pr...ure trom political sources.
With warm regard.,
.ichard GO~
2'19 York Court
San Bernardino, CA.
.
. .
.
-
'"
~~r~l~!rgr~g~~r~'~lr~ ~
- ... = 3 .. ::i '< ='!!.3 :s'!!.::t Q =. (I n (; =: n 0
~~~ n ~= .=_.S.~~=o-~ ~
-"-3~~~-.. ,,=Q,-~ ~:s..-:s'g Q
:r'0:S00, ..:s..g.....n..:sQ:r'.. ~
(D ~ 011 :s 0 "0 OIl .. fa · ....!. · ~ -. n aa- ::I =- "'!t
:s:so Q, ~n-..S3..g.oQ3_~0..~~
~~3Q~ oo~_~oo.._~~ 3"~=
-. 0 o. c 10 0 3 ~ a :r'1i' ... :r''< .. ~ n 0 :s ."
g~.:S5 "a;(Dn_.=~a_a-~-~.q
~ ~ a ~... 3 liog ~ s l! II 2 2 ~ l S 0 ~ ~. 2.
.... :r' if15'.!n~E.Q,~a2:r'erS:g.SS. 0
S er'< tEl 0 er::s _. ~ _ .. _ c ::s.. cs: ~
a~~..2~::s eon~=_c~n~=..~_ d
3 ~ "OI~Q,O=" ~.Q,o::s..::s '"
~~~. · -(D=-~-~~~"o . ..
0::1(1 =.-....o~ ~~._.o _
::I 01 _ 0 8. 0 c::<- 0::1.. c: ::I (:) - .. 0
ao:r'''' ::s~..!...Q,o~o.on~c~~c...
=..(1=0 _--___o~ - _ .
-.r;c=' -o"Cf=-=-(:;-=-= .. ::Jccc:ra i
~q -DJ a~~_OOO"._a..a-n~n _
;::rc:C:Z-c:r _:s..::rc:r:S" ~DJCI~... CI
.. n.co 5Cl: = ~... c .. '" lC .. n~ - ~ ::z ::s c
~ i: e.~ t 5i::;- ~ 6: Q,~ ~ 6- f'2 !; :i s. :; ::s
-3~nQ, -::s~er03=o~~";Q, t
~Q.ao. ~I!!-..~,<~_.noi...er::s~
nonB- a~~"~-~I=a=:s~gn I
Q,aaaf ~::s_~!f!~s.g-:: ~ ~
O~::s~~- 19:r'~-...~::S~Q,_o:r'::~
o M~ aft ~_,<n:S.O_(D a
~-~. e~~~a.coOln_~f::s~Q,
;- 8 iil ~ . er., 2 & ~ !' i ~ ... if g :s S. - er
-a ~.. ~~an;g=~.-=ol~'<
9"0 .... - ~ ... =-.. :a::r::r... 0 =.::1 .., _
-- 0= =-0 0 ='"nO_n ~=-=nn-::r
='< ..~ n..~a~~~.=n.nn::rn
00
'^
o
.
-
-a- -
.. 0 <II
.. !." .
s=-~~~
aiii"n2
e.="'::s S
::s _~ 0
;.no~ff
C:;:~:l
n g .. :r' n.
o....=!!.tI
"0 -0'<-0
,<(ioc:r~
00" (D ~
"'::Sa-lC~
fIl_,<:!--
liln..R
::rc..~c..o
::s .. =-'8c 0
0"'= ...
- .. ~
(i" 0 c..:S :s
.....3a~
;;o! ~.';.
Q.=::-C
c -. ~ 01
-=00
'<~::l:S
a::;_.fIJ
Do1 Do1 n ('Ii
-on-('O ::s
n (II C'" =.
.Q,~,<=
-'n <>>
"0 ::I CD c..
O"~_
=- c.. _. ::r
D) -:1n
aaonri
o7'Q..
(;l
.
"
'"
II
"
.
a.
5'
o
w
Go
w
-
!":l
!=
00
...
-
i
"
r
t
w
Go
w
-
coo '0 8 3 R 6 8 5' a' 3 ; :;':;''11 ~
.Na3 g C ~ =-3~~og 8.... a
~'~a~~s~~a~ao~i~~
1la:::'""c5 .. (i""'~-,,,,o
~n"'~~~~"'1l3_o::SCS:~:Sw
::-' ~p. C. 0" n. 2 (II go... a ;".. '< C>
-~-'c"'.lca::s .. · ~z
~ooiil:S'8lioiE=O"'Oo~ao
~o.~=-~:r'- ~0~3"'3a-cs:=-
-<' -" ::r~ ....::s - C':_.n
.;...~a-15.::s..~o ..~30.n::s"
9'''l::so:::l~~g.~~na::s~o
00:- ... g. ai" ~"O (J ... g- ~ !- E. ~ ~
N..;l.... ~Q,o Q,..; ..
"':S.Q"", .!.:t'lno =::s=-~
oQ,s.g ~a:=g 30 =:: ~ !2 ., ~
...... .....-.oa... _....c...
?-"O a. ~ = e.;" = a !J I: ti . a :
w~ o.='rn~=.(D!.naifIJC:c
.0 3 er;r2.s:"~ g ::s lC! :l.~3 0
oo(i~..o -to ~ ..-=_.~
- c..!. < a-'< 0 ~ ~ 50 ;- :; en :I
'-'a-:I AI (; '< Q. --Q....:s (D :s (I Q'tt
",<..~.co-..~ fOQ,:sQ,c'
., ... c ::r,< -.... :s;. 0 -':S
a~E.a.:;.(I us~;...? ~.C::S c.
.. C'I_.~oa--'5'o.8 ogCfJ_
-er30 _S'O -:I c;l3 0 g 0
~S.'S! :;-E;a (D _:;o;;o...-.=:'o-
VII-O"" ::s :Son -....00
.. S:(i !i.er~ g.Q,...Q,::s ~f::S c
S?~ 3 ;'Ss," ~;'3 S. () Q,~i!
C.o n I) Q.:!c.tIJ C'D"O ;:ro CD iv~
. -.::S:s 50;:; t.1Oo1 e!.(I a ;>>oo<D
~ ~ a c.OQ it;- 5. g-;J M "0 ~ 0 ~
_01>>:1. _. ::rMM_.
\O~"oo_o-S:o.:s_o:s
-. n """ ... ~ -. 0 . .. ='< 0.. I
?>'
I
%
o
-
~
o
...
o
-. !X' >... -
o .0 <II
P-:r'o>omlr""" t:
w ="<c':l .
.c 0"><" S
oo~erer~"3er Q
- M S. tt a- _. S.
iE.~[~[~~S'
;;;'3~ -'0~c3
~fl.tln.:S:s 1:'_.
-. ",011 0..=
-c... .....=..
~g l:! Q,~~ -n=n =-
__.. - D1 (D _. fI C
-,_. :SM:t..::I
".!.GDOCIcrO"-
OQ,=<a" s: Q,O 0
acc a-.... ...
.~nccn
Nni:.l"3~:;'
~>cC2c c.CD
~1:.=~riD
coo':o ~n-<
;a..-O"oC::
~e:lo~3.~
"o:s......o.::a!,.
----=(JQ-
~:r'if a-..
::-';;::s~ ~~.=
-::0: er...!'!3
\0,< !!.:: CD _.
0\. :sno ::s
o lJQ -. (D
..:... (IE ri 0
~ -.'0 ...
I!! ; 0 n
a :S'" I>>
-on;: C
-<.~ Q, lC
.-,
o
...
~~~
w-.c
.c.~i:
OO_(lr
- :r
.-,..::s
~-c
.. ~ !:.
"'0.
e ;s. :s
. ... n
_-'0
ICger
~.'<
... ID Q.
0:S..
.. Q,3
~~ 0
~~=
~a -.
~Q,O
-c:s
0(2 ~
...
.-~;
-..3
~~o
~"...
QO..
"",:""-
S'
..
8
~
..
::s
n
..
8'
-.
-
Q,
S'
IIJ
I
%
o
co.
R
o
...
)
R
---:-n....:sol'lJa"._.'O
~Nl;:;.g ~o ~ =<..~ ~ ~3
g:b.er"'...'"-::sli"'S!o(;l~
';"'Ooc 0I'g.:S!,~ i:~~ a...!!.
t..,)=onC~O"''''!'IUlM.Q.
W' e::I g :s g .. (D ~ 0 0 0 :.
0= tt C i-- 0 _on........(I
~~ -:sO.... _.....:s c.;r-..""c
Q. ~ :s:='"< ""e
'~!2. g. ,,0-l'<'l'<'n3
... _....<'"O::l::l:r-
w=.:re:.-::S'OG.oo ;
.~';;' n'<"Q.C~~~n
ooli~nif 01 n::i::i....
- _ .. == ~ 3 0 5':r' _ :I oQ'~
C :.......:s '000'0....
:;'3% ~55._..- ::s..
.. 00... ::rOl:r';' ..
~ ~-1iil-l~ -." 0.... log
~n- ::r_a."O::Sa"cr.G
~nnct::r~a.E.c.=-
-c.rn.s: aft (I n -_6:=~ a
\0 .....J"::: c.... =- 0 _-.c... Q.
-..,J....-,---- 0-::1__-
",00 a:!.-c.CllN:s.....
.. er>o _'Q;o~.. o~ 5'0
.. ...::s_.~...Q,~o....
S?c:..':;-<g1"!t5'3Q,~
~iil-l::S 30 l!."",,= ;;.n....a:r'
~t!jon""~::i' :-. ..
Wft ..,,::r.-.... CD 0 ....:-51 c
Wo &.nll:sc ....=-_ n
\C~C::CI- n~-(l...._:r
-O-er~'< :r'l!tl::s::s::;~
lIOOa~"~~::scer"on"
. >"-~~03cn.. :z
N_%:l... _ _.OQ,Oo
.... n::s -.. n. 0 cs:~ Q, 0 ::s
:;' <<;'3 m~ IS a. .. ... 5' '< 3 3 a
.. ~ :=-~ S'~"~ ~='2_
':000 =...~ a:s 0 a..::s:r'
.. .. ::I (I .... (ft _'< .. _ 0 '< (I
o
>
%
C)
m
::0
o
53
tEl
c::
-
t""
o
52
C)
~
o
~
C)
m
::0
o
53
tEl
c::
-
t""
o
-
%
C)
~
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 NORTH "0" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92418
JAMES F. PENMAN
CITY ATTORNEY
17141384-6355
July 10, 1990 '~
~hris Saldecke
1155 Harris Street
San Bernardino, California 92411
Richard Gonzalez
2519 York Court
San Bernardino, California 92408
RE: Appeal of Development Review Committee/Environmental
Review Committee Approval of Review of Plans 90-13
Dear Mr. Saldecke & Mr. Gonzalez:
This letter is to inform you that your appeal of the above-
referenced project has been rejected by the City of San
Bernardino because it does not raise issues which are relevant to
an appeal of the DRC/ERC's decision on June 21, 1990. On that
date, the DRC/ERC approved Review of Plans 90-13 and adopted a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Reporting/Monitoring Program pursuant to the California
Environment Quality Act.
Resolution 84-91, states that:
"The review of plans shall determine whether
the plans and proposals comply with the
affected departments' specifications and
requirements, and development standards
prescribed in the San Bernardino Municipal
Code, the provisions of this and other
resolutions of the Mayor and Common Council,
and standard procedures established by the
Planning Department with the approval of the
Mayor and Common Council."
Resolution 83-48, Section 3 outlines the intent and purpose of a
Review of Plans. That section describes the Review of Plans as:
HE:mg\89-13plan.ltr
1
o
o
"a visual, factual document which may be used
to determine and control the proposed
physical layout, design, and use of a lot or
parcel of land, buildings or structures.....
Your appeal of Review of Plans 90-13 raises issues of whether the
building has been constructed in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code and the Uniform Plumbing Code. These issues do not
involve the project's design and development plans and the City's
development standards.
The Director of Planning & Building Services will place on the
agenda of the Board of Building Commissioners for their August
3, 1990 meeting, your letter of appeal raising issues regarding
the construction of the building. Because these issues must be
resolved before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for this
building, the Board of Building Commissioners has jurisdiction
over these matters.
Ihllve.,.requested th~,.Plll.DJ1in.::"'B~~MA\t~vi..c:~~~~
process llnd'returnI~..~find of:you~\,,,,.,..'.-':f.e.XIC'i! ." ". '1/ .
..~-
Please contact me if you have any questions.
V~'~
HENRY EMPENO, JR.
Deputy City Attorney
HE:mg
cc: James F. Penman, City Attorney
Mayor Holcomb & City Council
Michael Lindseth, Planning Commission Chairman
Larry Reed, Director of Planning & Building Services
HE:mg\89-l3plan.ltr
2
----
o AGI!l!IDA 0
FOR UGULJUl HBI!l'l'XIIG 01'
'1'BB CJ:'1'Y 01' SAIl BI!lRJIARDIIIO
BOARD 01' BUXLDXIIG COMNXSSXOIIBRS
DATE:
AUGUST 3, 1990
9:00 A.M.
CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH '0' STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418
TIME:
PLACE:
1.
CALL TO ORDER AT
.
-'-
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF DATE
4. SWEARING IN OF THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY
5. AUDIENCE: PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA
ITEMS. (Note: Please limit items to five minutes per
speaker)
PLANNXNG , BUILDING SERVICES
OLD BUUNESS
ITEM NO.
6.
REPORT/PROJECT NO. 90-3687\
LOCATION: 307 NORTH MACY
OWNER(S): JOSEPH FIORENZA
PLANNXNG , BUILDING SERVICES
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM NO.
7.
REPORT/PROJECT NO. 90-3748 '-
LOCATION: 2607 NORTH 'I' STREET
OWNER (S): ROOSEVELT MILLER JR.
REPORT/PROJECT NO. 89-3357'~
LOCATION: 598 SOUTH GIFFORD
OWNER(S): MOUNIR RISHA
8.
PAGE -1-
ATTACHMENT "B"
BOARD 0 BUILDING COHHISSIONBRS OwA
AUGUST 3, UtO
PLANNING , BUILDING SERVICES
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM NO.
9.
:';NO>uPORTI~~=' ~_
'LO~';t':!;I>>lt~ 2l~ .. :.:.. ;,il;~~""
.' O~~_"'_'--ITZ
ATTACHMENT 'A' - ABATEMENT COSTS:
ABATEMENT COSTS: COST ASSESSMENTS FOR
OWNERS/PARCELS, AS LISTED ON PLANNING
& BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
NUISANCE ABATEMENT ATTACHMENT 'A'
10.
PUBLIC SERVICBS
WEED ABATEHEN'l'
ITEM NO.
1.
APN# 281-081-02 & 281-081-03
OWNER(S): ROBERT C. NEWMAN II
APN# 136-072-26
OWNER(S): LUIS T. GONZALES
APN# 139-032-35
OWNER(S): ENOCH LEE
APN# 138-033-18 & 138-034-08
OWNER(S): ROSCOE SAPP
APN# 143-361-24
OWNER(S): SETRAK M. DADERIAN
EXHIBIT 'A' - WEED ABATEMENT COST
ASSESSMENTS FOR OWNER/PARCELS AS
LISTED ON PUBLIC SERVICES EXHIBIT 'A'
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
PAGE -2-
LIt
BOARD OFOILDING COMMISSIONERS AGEO ITEM
NEW BUSINESS
AUGUST 3, 1990
ITEM NO. 9
NO REPORT/PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION: 276 E. COMMERCIAL RD.
CURRENT ZONING: IL
OWNER: MERV SIMCHOWITZ
CONTRACTOR: ICON GENERAL CONTRACTORS
APPELLANT: CHRIS SALDECKE
BACKGROUND:
This project was started without building permits, causing much public
discussion and many newspaper articles.
The first step in the City approval process was to obtain approval from
the city's Development Review committee. (D.R.C.)
An appeal to D.R.C. further review the project along with a list of
construction deficiencies was submitted on June 29, 1990. The Building
Official and city Attorney denied .the appeal on grounds technical
building code issues must be heard by BBC. The items at issue were
analyzed by building code staff and found to be without merit. Based on
this finding the plans were approved and a permit was issued by the City
Planning & Building Services Department on July 13, 1990.
The appealant(s) are appealing the staff findings to the BBC.
STAFF FINDING:
Each construction deficiency was researched by building code staff in
accordance with attached construction inspection reports, along with the
approved plans. The findings were that each issue was invalid, and that
the construction was in accordance with the engineer's design and the
requirements of the Uniform Codes.
Mr. Gonzales may not have had all the information that was needed prior
to listing his concerns.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To deny the appeal based on the findings.
BBC/276 E. Commercial Rd.
-
-
,""
City or San Bernardino 0
O INTEROFFICE MEMORAHDOM
9007-4301
'1'0: Larry E. Reed, Planning . Building Service.
Direct:or
FROM: Jack Masters, Senior Building Inspector
SUBJECT: Building Code Issues Raised Concerning Building at
258 Commercial Drive
DATE: July 9, 1990
COPIES:
W.R. Holcomb
Administrator,
Supervisor
Mayor, Shauna Edwins City
Dean Pagel - Building Inspection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eight Building Code issues were raised in a letter to the
Planning COllllllission dated June 29, 1990, from Mr. Richard
Gonzales. .In response to these issues, please note that the
Plans for this building have not yet been approved and no
Building Permits have been issued by the City. This building
was constructed without City authorization/permits. I have
researched the issues and submit the following findings:
1. ISSUB: The Uniform Building Code, 1988, Section 305
Subsection e., requires foundation inspection and does
not permit any waiver.
J'IlIDIJlG: Footings inspections
Inspections were done by a private
agency (see attachment "A").
2. ISSUB: Plans lack a structural wet stamp from the
structural engineer.
were not waived.
building inspection
J'IlIDIJlG: The structural engineer submitted a "wet"
stamped, raised seal set of structural calculations
along with the plans. As built, stamped plans will be
required to be submitted prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of occupancy.
3. ISSUB: The Plans lack any plumbing, mechanical, or
electrical specifications or drawings.
J'IlIDIJIG: The architect noted that these items were to
be submitted by "others." The plumbing was inspected by
a private building inspection agency (.ee attachment
"B"). In addition, the City is requiring enerqy
calCUlation. prior to the i..uance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
-
Dn'EROFFrCE ~~DUM: 9007-4301
Building Code ~es Raised concerning
Street
JUlY 9, 1990
Page 2
BuiOng at Commercial
4. :l:88mU The Plans were approved on March 29, 1990, but
by this time the structural concrete had been poured.
.
J'D1DDGI As ot July 3, 1990, the Building Department
has not, as indicated above, issued permits, theretore,
no plans have been approved. However, all the private
building inspection reports app_r to correspond with
the plans submitted to the City (Wildan Engineering) tor
plans checking.
5. :l:88tJ1U Unitorm Building Code Table SA prohibits any
opening tor this type ot building less than tive teet
trom a property line.
J'rJIDDlG I The access door on Waterman Avenue is
closer to ten (10) teet trom the property line, however,
Section 504 (a) ot the Unitorm Building Code states a
Centerline of the adjoining street (public way) shall be
considered to be the property line (see attachment "C").
The centerline exceeds ten (10) feet.
,. I88mlll There is no report ot root sheathing nailing
inspection in any of the documents.
J'IJlDDlGI Root sheathing was inspected by a private
building agency (see Attachment "D").
7. I88UBI The plumbing systam uses plastic sewer drain
and roof drain material.
J':l:JlDrBGI Plastic root drain material is acceptable tor
use in a combustible commercial construction and in
residential construction not more than two (2) stories
in height (see attachment "E"). For turther information
please call Mr. Jack Xerin, Department ot Housing and
Co_unity Development Division of Code and Standards,
P.O. Box 1407, Sacramento Calitornia, 95812-1407, (906)
....5-9471 or the Calitornia State Building Standards'
Commission (916) 323-6363.
e. :l:88UBI The Chord bar is two teet below the root ledger
and there is no reintorcing at the ledger.
J'D1DDGI According to William R. Bloom, President ot
STB Structural Engineers, Inc., the chord bars being
lowered "does not compri.e the structural adequacy ot
the building." (see Attachment "F") .
INTEROFFICE MEM~OM: 9007-4301 f'\
Building Code Ia.be. Rai.ed concerning BuiMng at Commercial
street
July 9, 1990
Page 3
.
Based upon my findings, I believe the building was built in
substantial compliance with the City of San Bernardino
Building tade and is structurally Afe, per the design
standards of the City of San Bernardino Building Code. I am
available to answer any additional questions Which _y be
raised concerning this building.
C!uL
CK MASTERS,
~senior Building Inspector
IlIIth
.
..-,.~ ,..-..;.;0
Qo
. ICG
incotpcrutr!d
SPECIAL INSPECTOR'S REPORT IT'17/, rh1JellfT
-
011..... COUNTY r'\
1'~__CA""
C7U1.'- 'AIlI7'14_
-...I
IAlllUlIO COUNl'l
-~...,...
....::r~a_
..... ......
- ClIWIII". LMIL..,._
_."'CA_'-. -
cn4l71G11 M".__
A-
COYIIlIN& WOM .....~D .
WHICH FlEQUIIlID~A&.1Y
THI8l'EQA&. ._ ..cTOfI M
.IIIJN~ CONCIIIUI
C POaT.TlHIIONID CONC:MTI
C RElN~ 1iI.1OHIlY
C 1TIlUCT. ITIIL . IlTI
!J 1TIlUCT. ITHL . IIHOI'
C
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: Only ona _ no. rallOfted pe, ...... IdeIl'lfJ tvPe of --. "am , II*IlIc -lneIIeclecl m-.
grtdIInea, .IC.); .ClenllfJ" JoIn" wII.n inlPeCllllO -. '1lCl1lolta; lClalll'" _Placllrejaclacl _ by Ilam.nd apacjlIo Iocallon:-..I
aI.Job probI.maallCl DI8CUSSIONSwttll Contractor.ArcIlltao\ Engln",alc.: _._ of m.....IlIaCac1.nllaamllla.lallatl:wrtl.
canlllc:allCHl of work, ""ranclllg 'lIIIIiall_. ._lftcallCHla, aIlCl apprOOjed lllana .IlCl/Ot aIIOIlllrawinp.
.. .Ilo\ ~~"1~r;"~."'~-4"" ;/..,,=-.,.., ...10;"/,1:1 ...I~ ".j) ~ft'''Iv'/ I
.1.,. . P .<:'...
,
J!t,~MAJ.~
I
I
/or nAL. I
..1'~.. Z'y,j("'"
..
..".
'--'. -'-' alI_ __ to Ilia a..-1IIaM _ 'Illlllcaltolla _ '",__IIlll...~ ...
~
~ I......
~-.!lb.stL.
-..-
--
~QL'-
SPECIAL INSPECTOR'S REPORT
0IlANlI1 CCIUIft'I.,O
cn:.;:=~.-
~
IM.1eG co.n
_~"et."" .
.... CIA'"
....,- ~ ...-
lIUIlD ....
'IOI~~"".
(n4 cn4__
COVPING WOM lIIAPOIlMlD
WHlCM IIIQUlIllJ) AI'PIlOVAL BY
TMa UIClAL INII'ICfOfI Of'
c l'lII~coNCllm
8 P'OIT. 10 CONCMTI
. II!IHPOflCID MAlON""
C 1TflUCT. ITiIL . 8ITI
C~'IHOP
C ,.."
.'f ua
REPORnNG REQUIREMENTS: Only on. permit no. rwllOtlecl pet .heel. IcIellllly type 01 -'co It.m a lDeOlflc .... ift,,'IC'M ,."
grtcIllIIeI. .IC.); ideftlily alI/oIlIlI_ _Ill' wellllaftO boItc ldaftlily _Illadlrwjac:lacl__ ~ II.m 1/111 apacillc IOcIIIoft: -.I
III 1011 erotll.muftd DISCUSSIONSwllhCoft~ArcIlitact. Eftgl.......tc.:_ _101 mal.n" placaclaftClump/ft__
certification 01 --. ral.ratlCiftglllpllacl cocIe. _lfiCallOlll, Iftd '1l1lfOVacl plaft. arwJllN '!lOP drawtftga.
IN . DATI
- _c:l
~
~ _~d_""'_."_'_________~' ,~
.~ ? ~./-?" . ~~"3LL~
-- ~...... ~ -
. . ..-
- --,', "
50HM
UNIFORM BUILDING COOl
wall in tIW story and no single opening shall baw: an IRa grearcr than 120 square
feet.
AU openings in noon forming a ..three.hour fire.resistive occupancy separa-
lion" shaD be plOlected by vertical enclosures extending aboye and below such
openings. The walls of such yenicalenclosures shall be of DOC less than two-hour
f.....resistive consll'llClion and all openings lberein shaD be ptOteCted by a ftre
assembly having a ODe and one-half-hour ftre-pnlIeCIioD rating.
3. A "two-hour ftre-resistiw: occupancy separation" shall be of DOC Ie.. than
two-hour ftre-resistiye cnnsltUClion. All openings in such separation shall be
proleCled by a fiR assembly haYing a one and one-half-hour ftre-ptOteCIion
tating.
4. A "one-hour fire-resistiye occupancy seporation" shall be of nOlle.. than
one-hour ftre-resistive CODsltUClion. All openings in such separation shall be
JlRlle<led by a ftre assembly baying a one-hour ftre-plOfCClion rating.
(eI) f1re Ratings for Occup....,. Sepantloas. Occupancy separations shall be
provided belween !he various gmups and divisions of occupancies as set forth in
Table No. '-B.
EXCEPTIONS: I. A __occupancy sepuation may be used _.
Group A. Oiyisioa I on Group I Occupancy Illd a Group B. Diyision 1 Oc:cupancy
used exclusiw:ly for die porting or ..ora.. of private or ple......<ype rnocor vehicles
ad provided no repair or fueUnl is done. A rwo-hour occupancy sepamion may be
used _ . Group A. Division 2. 2.1. 3 or 4 or E Occupancy .... . Group B.
Divisioa I Occupancy lhal is used exclusively for the porting or ....... of private or
pleISlU<"YJlO rnocor vehicles and provided ID repoir or fueling is_.
2. Unless required by Section 702 (a.. die _._ occupancy sepantioa
- . GnlUp R. Divisioa 1 Occupancy Illd a G_ B. Division 1 Oc:""-Y
used only for rhe put<ing or Rora.. of pri_ or p_.<ype _ vehicles willi
IDrepoirorfueling may be reduced 10 lWo-.. Such.....pancy........ioa..y be
__1Oone __ rhe _of_ Group B. Divisioa I Occupancy
_ __ 3000 square feel.
3. In the ....._.....pancy sepanIioo ...-... . Group R. Di.;si... 3 and M
Occupancy. the ........ion ..y be Iimired 10 the _ioa of nwcriaJs __
fat ane-hour r....resiltive COIISUUCtion OD 1M pap side aad a self.dOlin,. liJbl-
IItting solid _door 1'10 inches in lhickMss will be permi.red ilIlieuof .one._
IIIe _mbly. FIre dampen need _ be _ in oir ducts passill, dvoup the
wall. Door or <eililll sepanbala GnlUp R. Divisioa 3 Occupancy _. Group M
Oc:cuponoy. provided such ducts within the Group M Occupancy... _ of
- haYinI'lhickMss nolless thanO.019 iIIdIlNo. 26,01_ sheet IOU'" and
_1lO-"'P in10 rhe GroupM Occupancy.
La DIllon on Property
Sac. 504. (a) GeMraI. Buildings shaD adjoin or haw:...... 10 a public way or
yanI...1IOl1esa _ ODe side. Required yuda shaD be permanendy maintained.
S' For die puIpClIe oflhis section. the ceDler liDeof an adjoining public way shaD
l.. be~anadj......pcop..t~liDe.
ea- _ required windows shaD be ROC Iesa thm 30 inches from the side and
...JlIDPOftY lines. Forea.... see Section 1710.
301
COVERING WORK PERFORMED
WHICH REQUIRED APPIlOYAL BY
THE SI'ECIAL INSPECTOfI ~
OMHOE COUNTY
t~rf'int~
A!~J5 19~
. .:. .- ~.~,,~ L<nt4AftOINQ
.IIEINI'ORClD'llOflli:I'l~t'~ NQ Ie STRUCT. STEEL. SIT!
e PO$T.TENSIONmco. I,"e': e ~UCT. ~EL. SHOP
e IIEINI'ORCED MASON --- e A"'J' 'Ad""f
~':'"
..... IIII:!iQ l:O\INTY
__ 'UCI. SUln tOO
..... DIEGO. CA..a
II'. _"C1Z fAllll1lt _,.
'~ICG 0
~inaJrpofrlk!d
SPECIAL INSPECTOR'S REPORT
DILUID .....
'.-_lNlI.UTlM
_IlI.CA_.
171"- fAll~__
:!..
--
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: Only one permit no. rallOnlld per "'eelldenlily type 01 work. item & IIIICIfic ar.. inapectlld 1_.
gridllne.. elc.); identify allloinla wilen inapeeling _Ida and bOlla; idenlify accePlecllrejec:11Id worItlly ilem and apec:iliC lOcatiOn; rec=n:l
all job problema end DISCUSSIONS with ContraClor.Architec:t, Engin..r ele.; rec:ord amountol materialplacacland ..mplea"ken; ""Ie
canlfication 01 work. referencing elllllllld COCla. _"iCatlon.. and approved plana and/or ahop drawing..
INsP. DATI .I
a
_. ell_ conforma to ilia ap~ plana end apeclflcatlona and appt_ _ and..._
-I'-~"'?O .....~.rC3 LL t'AJ
il__
__.../.:1_ /#-p~"
-..-
Clt.' L__
--
-
&1//:':' /7/'ic-/v '7-
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS U
CHAPTER 4
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
AtIop,. en_ U.RC. CMp,.,.:
[OSAlSSS]
Adopt entire U.Rc. ClMptw., with .,.,. _..,.,"""-:
lBSC, HCDI1, HCDI2, OSHPD, DHS]
NOTE:" Mmtx Adoption ~1dIlr
37
.c
-
Suu.... 401-Ml1ter18.
(a) Oreinage piping shell be ClISl iron, galvenized SlMI, galv8llized
WIlIUght iron, lead, COpper, brau, ASS, PVC, extnllhngtt! vilrifiecl dey
pipe, or other /IpptOved IIloIlerials heving a IIIIOOlII 8IlCI unifonn bore,
~trIet;
(1) No gelvenized wrought iron or ge/Venjzed steel pipe shell be used
uncIefgrouncl8llCl1heIt be kept at leeat Six (6) inches (152.4 rnm) ebove
gnlUnd.
~ (2) ASS or PVC InstdatIana -1ImiIlId 10 ~ COtI8IrucIion,IIOt
_/hen Ilw (Z) IIOtiee in ~
(3) No vltrttIed clay pipe or IillIngs slid be used ebove gIOund or WIlere
~ by a pump orlljec:tot They shell be kepc8l1eut lweIwt (12)
h:hes (.3m) below gl1lUlld.
(b) Drainage IIltIngs shall be 01 cast Iron, IIloIlleable Iron, leael,
brass, copper, ASS, PVC, vitrified clay, or other aPPfOved materials
having a Smooth Interior wat_ay 01 the same eliameter as the pip.
Ing IIfved and all such IIllings shall conlorm to the type 01 pipe ulacl.
(1) Fillings on screwecl pipe shall be 01 IIle receslacl elralnage
type. Burred ends shall be reamed to the lull bore 01 the pipe.
(2) The threaels 01 elrainage lilllngS Shall be taPPed 10 .s to allow
one fourth (%) inch per loot 120.9 mm/m) gracle.
'uu.... 402-Fbltu.. Unit Equlvalen..
The unit equivalent 01 plumbing lixtures shown in Table 4-1 shall be
basecI on the siZe 01 the trap required, anelthe unit equivalent 01 lix.
tunes ancl clevicea not Shown in Table.., shall be based on the rated
diSCharge capacity in gpm (Qallqna per minute) (litera per laConel) in
acc:oraance with TaIlle 4.2. .
Maximum trap loadings lor sizes up to lour (4) inches (101.6 mml
- as lollows:
C
A
C
A
-
e
e
-
e
1 %". (31.6 mm)-1 unit
1 'Iz". (38.1 mm)-3 units
2" . (50.8 mm)-4 units
3" . /78,2 mml-6 units
4" . (101.8 mm)-8 units
Exception on sa".service laundries.
"'t lllw 403-Slze 01 Drainage PIping
(ej The minimum sizes 01 verllcal and/or horizontal clrainage pip.
'nv shall be determined lrom the total 01 all fixture units connected
thereto, and additional, in the case 01 verllcal clrainage pipes, in ac.
~ with their length.
'. UlG caHer.uona ,n SUCh system shall con-
o~'!"la 0iIde. .
All pans 0' !he PlUmbing syst..... of any
It I. mtl\I8d from one tounclatlon to another,
.lIOther, ~I be completely tested as IQ-
section tor '- worIc, except that walls or
ICI '\luring SUCll test when other equlv8/ent
Ptable to the Adm'nlstnltw. Authority are
,t or InSP8Ctlon sh.ll be required where .
:hereof, Is set up for ex"lbltlon purposes
h . w.ter or draln.ge iyatem~ . .
es where It WOUld be Impr.ctlcal to pro-
Iter or air tests, or for minor Inst.ll.tlons
tlve Authority, .t his discretion, m.y make
ms advisable In Order to assure himself
formed In accOrd.nce with the Intent of
'Ptors-Shower recaptors sh.ll be tasted
19 with water to the I_I of the rough
II be so placed th.t both Upper .nd under
subjected to the tast at the paint where It
)lpe-InSP8Ctlon and repair sh.ll con-
MO Installation Standard IS 13, listed in
ge system of any premises under the
Illve Authority sh.ll be maintained in a
:onditlon by the owner or his agent.
ructlon
Ihall be deemed to require a Change in
.r drainage system or any other worle
n an existing building or lot when such
't.'ned in aCCOrdance with law In elfect
S Code, except When any such plumbing
rIe regul.ted bY this Code Is determined
:y to be In 'act d.ngerous, unsefe, in-
nenace to life, heaith or /lrOperty.
ty
III the Provisions of this Code '.Ils to
,nce, or any Other dangerous or In-
involve he.ith or se'ety hazards, the
lIall such addition.' plumbing and
'e such rep.,rs or alter.tlons as may
Ie Authority. .
Xle, or the application thereof to any
invelld, the remainder of the Code, or
n to other PlII80ns or circumstances,
~
. erence i. made to an 8PP!Indlx, the
lOt aPPlY unl_ speclflcally adopted.
- _. -"'-
o
37
CHAPTER 4
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
SuU- 401-M.t......
(a) Drainage piping shall be cast Iron, g.lvaniZed steel, galvanlzecl
wrought Iron, lead. copper, br.... ASS, PVC, extra strangth vitrified
cl.y pipe, or other apProved materials h.ving a Smooth and uniform
bore, axcaptth.1:
(1) No g.w.n/zecl wrought iron or galvaniZed steel pipe Sh.1I be us-
ed underground and shall be kept.tleast six (8) Inches (152.4 mm)
above ground.
Z (2) ASS and PVC DWV Piping installatlOll8 shall be limited to
those structures Where COfIIbuatlble construction Is allowact.
(3) No vitrlfled clay pipe or fittings shall be USed above ground or I
where llressurlZed bY a pump or ejector. They shall be kept atlsut I
twelve (12) Inches (.3m) below ground.
(b) Drainage fittingS shall be of cast Iron, malleable Iron, lead,
braa.. copper, ASS. PVC, vitrified cl.y, or other approved meterials
having a Smooth Interior wat_.y of the same dlamater as the pip.
Ing served and all auch fittings shall con'orm to the type of pipe Used.
(1) Fittings on SCrewed pipe shall be of the recessed drainaga
type. Burred ends Shall be resmed to the full bore of the pipe,
(2) The threads of drainage fillings Sh.1I be taplled so as to allow
one founh (%) Inch per 'oot 120.9 mm/m) grade.
SactIon 402-F1xtura Unit Equlv.......
The unit equlv.'ent of plumbing fixtures shown In Table 4-1 shall be
based on the Size of the trap required, and the unit equivalent 0' fix.
tures and devices not Shown In Table 4-1 shall be baSed on the rated
diSCharge capacity In gpm (08110118 per minute) (liters per HC:ond) In
accordance with Table 4-2.
Maximum trap 1000lngs for sizes up to four (4) Inches (101.6 mm,
are as follOWS:
f
l
1 %" . (31.8 mm)-1 unit
1 %" . (38.1 mrn)-3 units
2" . (SO.8 mm)-4 units
3" . (78.2 mrn)-8 units
4" . (101.8 mm)-8 units
Exception on self'Hrvlcalaundrles.
SactIon 403-SIn of DraInage Piping
(a) The minimum SiZes of venical and/or horizontal drainage pip.
Ing ahaJl be determined from the total of all fixture unlta connected
u..to, and additional, In the case of venlcal drainage plpea, In ac-
COrdance with thalr length.
(bJ Tabla 4-3 ahows the maximum number of t1xture units allowact
-
e
e
e
e
-
-
MATRlXADOPTlON OENDIX
UCUCUCf..ICUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCUCU
= 1 I I I II I I I II I
I I I1111I111I1
I I 11111111111
'1 11111111111
II I I I 1)( I I)()( 1 I
51 11111111111
I I 11111111111
I I )(11)(1111111
II! I )(1)(11111111
I~ I 11111111111
II )( I II 1 I I I I I I I
.
I I 1)(111111111
I. I )()(Ol I I I I I I I I
~I )(I>C\IIIIIIII
II )( L 1)( I )()()( I)()(
. . . . .. . . . . . .
:. : : : : : : : : : : :
. ..................
. t"""""
oll! ..........
.. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .
11:' ..........
:):) ::::::::::
it ..........
. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. ..
. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .
. ... . .. .. .. . .. .
III :vg :-;-~ : :1t~
.- .- ..-
______N......
",...:;;:;;
.1
Ii
ucucucuc
II
II
,
)()(
)()(
)()(
II
II
)()(
)()(
:1: :
~~t' ~
;:);:) .
Ii ~
IlIi
-
.I777"'"-1"fII.~"" .
QB
o
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS INC.
MAilING AD~I!.S: ~.O. BOX 1042.
N~RT BEACH. CAU"'ORNIA 8Ze15a-o.Z8
TELEPHONE, C714J 75.,25.
"'''X: (7,., 7S.'1571
PRINCIPALS
WIWAM H. BLOOM
DOUGLAS S. THOMPSON
DAVID R. NELSON
PAUL G. PITCHER
SE 2273
SE 257.
SE 2553
SE 2515 1
ASSOCIATE
JOHN W. LAWSON
SE 3270
August 3, 1990
City of San Bernardino
Building & Safety Department
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92404
Attn: Mr. Dean Pagel
Subject: Roger's Binding & Mailing
San Bernardino, CA
STB Job No. 90-019
Dear Mr. Pagel:
The precast concrete wall panel reinforcing for this project has
been questioned again. In particular, the chord reinforcing bars
were requested to be located below the roof ledger. This change
was reviewed by us at the time. This is structurally acceptible
and does not compromise the structural adequacy of the building.
The roof ledger is adequately anchored to the precast walls. The
walls are in turn adequately reinforced at the ledger and through-
out the wall panel to provide the necessary tie between the ledger
and the chord.
INC.
fD) ~ reJ rn n W7 [~ 1::1
un AU6 0 6 1990 L:0
CiTY O~ .s.:".:.. ':':.;""\"";<:';''. j
DEP.:',~rME~-n' c~:; '!'.: ~oJt.iIi~G S:
~;ji:"Ci~JG :;~;'i ~ 1_::;
o
o
AUGUST 13, 1990
'""-'
I .
, . I
I.; "
_L.;
" '""
~ <.~
i.J 1 r."7 .--:,
::1 : , .' " ~ ~
': :.: 'LJ' :...S
F.U
I"
ld
....
AUG I 7 1990
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
300 NORTH D STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
r.~.
., ,",.~. :~:,"~ :;'[:r:~~Jo\i;,'.i::-';0
(:':.'~~.'.j~l~;~~~~~~~~NG ~
92401
RE: APPEAL OF PROJECT RP90-13
BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS
AUGUST 3, 1990 ITEM #9
I wish to appeal the decision of the Board of Building
Commissioners of August 3, 1990, item #9 on their agenda known as
RP90-13.
The handling and presentation of this project was a disgrace and
discredit to the Board Members as well as the residents who took
time to be there. Although this was my first Meeting of The Board
of Building Commissioners, it was the worst handling of a case I have
ever seen. Those in the audience were better prepared than the Board
Members.
The Commissioners were given no staff report (see agenda) or file
to adequately prepare to make a decision regarding this project.
All they were given were the letters of appeal from Chris Saldecke
and Richard Gonzales. They asked for a five minutes recess so they
could read the letters. I knew on July 12th this project was going
before the Board of Building Commissioners. Why didn't staff make
a report and give it to the board members to research and study?
Every other item had a report and a project number except item
number 9 on their agenda. Every other meeting that takes place at
the City has back-up or a staff report. So why weren't the
Building Commissioners given the same respect?
Their decision to approve this project was made on Jack Master's,
Senior Building Inspector, verbal testimony that the building was
structurally safe. Mr. Masters stated for the record that he had
never been inside the building. How can he make a statement that
it is structurally safe when he has never been inside of the
building to inspect it. This is another rubber stamp project.
("APPEARS TO MEET CODE, BUT NEVER INSPECTED"). I thought the City
had discontinued use of that stamp. Everyone is going on someone
else's guarantee that the building is structurally safe.
ATTACHMENT "c"
o
o
PAGE 2
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
APPEAL RP90-13
Refering to the July 9, 1990 inter-office memorandum from Jack
Masters, Senior Building Inspector, to Larry E. Reed, Planning
& Building Services Director, addressing the building code issues
raised, concerning the building at 258 Commercial Drive. It is
clear that Mr. Masters may very well have been inspecting the
wrong building. RP90-13 is located at 276 E.Commercial Road,
( not only wrong address but wrong street ). .
I feel that the City has continually gone out of its way to
circumvent the planning process. At each meeting of DRC and ERC
we attended, our concerns were never addressed or answered.
There are still many environmental issues that remain unmitigated.
This project was on the agendas for the Planning Commission
Meetings the evenings of May 24, June 5 and June 19. There
were people in the audience who wished to voice their concerns
about this project, but were never able too, because it was always
continued or pulled from the agenda.
The staff report prepared for the Planning Commission Meeting of
June 5, 1990, addresses several concerns. That Commission
determined that the noise and traffic studies were inadequate for
the project. What happened to the future noise and circulation
studies that were going to be required? The Traffic Report used
for this project is the same report prepared for The Club Develop-
ment by C.G.Engineering in December 1987. This report analyzes
the traffic volumes and impact of the proposed development on the
surrounding streets and adjacent intersections. However, since
1987 substantial changes including new, significant major
development projects have occured or been approved.
This report mentions one residential development adjacent to the
street, and that current traffic volumes on the street are minimal.
In fact, the traffic is horrendous in the mornings and afternoons
because of all the new homes built in the last three years. The
traffic will be even worse after the 400 apartments across the
street, south of the building, are built. The cumulative impact of
this project has been and continues to be overlooked by the city.
This traffic report is outdated and inconsistent with the
development along Commercial Road. It has not been developed
as their master plan called for. Streets and intersections are
all referred to, as under capacity, or near capacity. If you have
driven down there lately, you know all the streets are over capacity
and the freeways are deadlocked in both directions during early
morning, afternoon and during and after the lunch hour. It takes
fifteen minutes to. get off the 1-10 Off-Ramp at the Redlands
Boulevard Stop Sign, ( Waterman South ) which is refered to as
"NEAR CAPACITY" in this traffic report.
o
o
PAGE 3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
APPEAL RP90-13
This buildina is located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study
Zone, with high liquefaction susceptibility. The reports used
to substantiate the "approval" of this project are inadequate and
outdated. The Geotechnical report is dated 1980, the Soil Engineering
and geological control of rough grading is 1981, and the Subsurface
Engineerina geology investigation is 1980. All these reports seem to
be on different parcels in the area, but none address this particular
parcel.
Staff from the City of San Bernardino's Planning Department have
found several of the environmental impacts inadequately addressed.
But still you continue to push this project thru. There are too
many unanswered questions, and too many meetings that have taken
place without public notice. It is not fair that the City has two
different policies. One for the residents of San Bernardino
and another for the Developers. Its time that everyone is treated
equally.
Perhaps in the future there may be litigation or liability
regarding this project. Because of substantial public interest
and concerns regarding this project and the way it has been
handled, the final decision should be made by the Mayor and Common
Council. This project has made San Bernardino the laughina stock
of the Inland Empire. Build now, worry about the permits later, if
and when you get caught.
Section 2.64.030 FILING NOTICE OF APPEAL (page 95) of the San
Bernardino Municipal Code states:
Any person aggrieved by, or dissatisfied
with the decision made by the commission,
may file a written notice of appeal with
the City Clerk, directed to the Common Council.
As a resident and a registered voter of San Bernardino
please accept this as my appeal, on the grounds the Board of
Building Commissioners could not make a competent decision based
on the information that was given them by Senior Building Inspector,
Jack Masters, and our environmental concerns have not been
addressed adequately. Should my appeal be rejected. I will
assume that I have exhausted my administrative remedies and may
proceed with a judicial action.
On July 10, 1990 we received a letter from Henry Empeno, Jr.
Deputy City Attorney, stating he was requesting the Planning &
Building Department to process and return a refund of our appeal
fee because our appeal was rejected. After several calls to that
department, no one knows about the refund, and no one has returned
my calls. It is well over 30 days and I wish to use $75.00 out
o
o
PAGE 4
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
APPEAL RP90-13
of that $100.00 refund as the fee for this appeal.
If you have any questions please contact me at 714 888-7859.
Very. truly yours, ;' .
I:~" .'b~
(. ...,1,'/,.'.,.........4 ~. .-
.j, ]t(/:/(/1.1 i . '- f
BARBARA L. SKY
CONCERNED CITIZEN
cc: MARGUERITE P. BATTERSBY,
BRUNICK, ALVAREZ & BATTERSBY
Mayor and commonc:tuncil
Appeal of BBC Decision
276 East Commercial Road
Page 2
Agenda Item
o
studies based upon cumulative impacts.
Noise was addressed in a report prepared ,by George E.
Leighton on April 9, 1990. The mitigation Reporting/Monitor-
ing Program requires additional testing to be performed prior
to the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy.
The ERC was satisfied with the steps that the applicant was
proposing to lessen the visual impacts of the project to the
adjacent residential uses.
The ERC approved the project on June 21, 1990, subject to the
Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program, the Conditions of
Approval and the Standard Requirements provided by the
various departments. Prior to receiving a Certificate of
Occupancy, all outstanding issues will have to be resolved
and complied with to the satisfaction of the City.
ANALYSIS
The building located at 276 East Commercial Road is of "Tilt-
Up" wall construction, vertical concrete wall panels
constructed while laying horizpntal to the ground, allowed to
cure and then hoisted into 'vertical position with a crane.
The majority of industrial type buildings in the City of San
Bernardino (along with most other cities in Southern
California) are being built the same way.
~
Because of the nature of construction, "Special Inspections"
are required by Section 306 of the California Building Code.
This Special Inspection is usually done by an engineering
company and hired by the developer to ensure that
construction is done according to the City approved plans.
The Special Inspector submits copies of his daily reports to
a certified testing laboratory for review by a licensed
engineer. After tests are made for concrete strengths, and
all reports are reviewed by the laboratory, copies are then
sent to the City Building department for review.
(The Building was built without City Planning and Building
~ode approval: however, there were no inspections waived nor
were there any inspections left off the reports that would
lead the CityJof Saft B8r.Rar~ifto Building Division to believe
that the structure was not built in accordance with City
approved plans, nor anything that indicates that the ~uilding
is unsafe. Although the plans were not approved at the time
of construction, the project 1ft (fQeS~iah was done in the same ,
manner as any oe:er building of this type. The difference.u,""
~~ift' that the eveloper used private Special Inspectors to
,,1-- do ~ in pections, which are normally done by City
Inspectors. Once the city of San aernardino plan checked and
approved e plans, the Building Division checked the Special
Inspection Reports against the City approved plans to
determine if the building was in compliance.