HomeMy WebLinkAbout30-Planning and Building
" m__
-
JlI
CITY'OF SAN BERNAaDINO - REQUEST FO COUNCIL ACTION
From:
Larry E. Reed, Director i"EC'tj. - tsJbject:""il\tlpeal of Revocation of Conditional
Development Permit No. 198 (Civic Center
Planning and Building Services '""Motel)
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
January 7, 1991 February 4, 1991, 2 :00 p.m.
Dept:
Date:
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On December 11, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Findings in support of
revocation of Conditional Development Permit No. 198. The vote was 4 ayes,
1 nay, 1 abstention with 2 absent.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be denied; and, that Conditional
Development Permit No. 198 be denied based on Findings contained in Exhibit 2.
(Supports Staff recommendation and Planning Commission's action.)
OR
That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be upheld, and, that Conditional Develop-
ment Permit No. 198 hot be revoked. (Supports Owner's request.)
OR
The the hearing be closed, that the appeal be partially upheld; and, that Conditional
Development Permit No. 198 not be revoked; but that the following conditions be added.
(Note: These additional conditions may be developed by the Mayor and Common Council
or referred to staff for preparation.)
~b/
Reed Signature
Director
Contact person:
Larry E. Reed
Phone:
384-5057
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Sou ree:
Finance:
Council Notes:
Aaenda Item No. 30
CITY, OF SAN BERNQDINO - REQUEST FOa COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of Revocation of
Conditional Development permit No. 198
civic Center Motel
Mayor and Council Meeting of
February 4, 1991, 2:00 p.m.
REOUEST
To overturn the decision for revocation of Conditional
Development Permit No. 198 made by the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
Conditional Development Permit (COP) No. 198, for the con-
struction and operation of a 50-unit motel at 655 "0" street,
was approved by the Mayor and Common Council on May 13, 1960.
The approved site plan consisted of 50 units with 51 parking
spaces, a perimeter wall, a putting green and a swimming
pool. Landscaping was to be provided throughout on the site.
After a long history of code violations and criminal acti-
vity, the Director of Planning and Building Services initi-
ated COP revocation proceedings before the Planning Commis-
sion, with the first hearing scheduled for April 3, 1990.
(See Exhibit "3" - April 17, 1990 Planning Commission staff
report). The chronology of subsequent hearings was as
follows:
~
April 3, 1990
April 17, 1990
May 8, 1990*
May 15, 1990
June 15, 1990
July 24, 1990
August 21, 1990
September 25, 1990
October 9, 1990*
October 30, 1990*
November 13, 1990*
15.0264
Event/Result
hearing
April 17,
Planning Commission
SCheduled/Rescheduled to
1990
Continued to May 8, 1990
First Planning Commission hearing
held and continued to May 15, 1990
Continued to June 15, 1990
Continued to July 24, 1990
Continued to August 21, 1990
Continued to September 25, 1990
Continued to October 9, 1990
Second Planning Commission hearing
held and continued to October 30,
1990
Third Planning commission hearing
held and continued to November 13,
1990
Fourth Planning Commission hearing
held, motion was adopted to revoke
COP No. 198, but the need for the
preparation of formal Findings
delayed final Planning Commission
action until November 20, 1990
t:,.
lli.
~
~
. Appeal of CDP No. ~8 - Civic Center
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
February 4, 1991
Page 2
Motel
o
December 11, 1990
December 21, 1990
December 11, 1990
Findings adopted for revocation
Appeal to Council filed
Note:
All continuances were agreed to by the owner and
the City.
The Planning commission minutes of the four hearings on the
revocation are attached for review. (These are indicated
above by an asterisk next to the appropriate dates, Exhibits
"4", "5", "6", and "7").
The statement of Official Planning Commission Action (Exhibit
"2") contains the formal Findings for the revocation of CDP
No. 198. The Planning commission voted 4 ayes, 1 nay, 1
abstention, and 1 absent. The owner's legal representative
is appealing the Planning commission's decision based on
various legal issues. The city Attorney's Office has pre-
pared a response to those issues as contained in Exhibit "9".
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
The Mayor and Council may
1. Deny the appeal and revoke CDP No. 198;
2. Partially uphold the appeal and not revoke CDP No.
198, but add additional conditions; or,
3. Uphold the appeal and not revoke CDP No. 198.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends concurrence with the planning Commission
action to revoke CDP No. 198.
Prepared by:
John E. Montgomery, AICP
Principal Planner
For Larry E. Reed, Director
planning and Building Services
-.-..--- ~-
Motel
o
, Appeal of CDP No. ~8 - civic Center
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
February 4, 1991
Page 3
Exhibits: 1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
9 -
lat
SRCDP198
Letter of Appeal to the Mayor and council
statement of Official Planning commission
Action
April 17, 1990 Planning commission staff
Report
May 8, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes
October 9, 1990 Planning commission Meeting
Minutes
October 30, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes
November 13, 1990 planning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Public Hearing Notice
city Attorney's Office Response Memo to Legal
Issues Raised in Appeal
.
o
o
LAW OFFICES
E. SOBEL
OF COUNSEL
FRANK A. ~~~ER-r
A LAW CORPORA'1'"rON"
3460 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 903
LOS ANGELES. CALlFO~~IA~Ol~6 fl' :.::.1
December 26, 1990
TELEPHONE
(213) 384-6964
REFER TO FILE NO.
DELIVERED BY HAND
The Honorable Mayor.W.R. Holcomb
Common council
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re:
Planning commission Revocation of
Conditional Development Permit
No. 198\Civic Center Motel\665 N.
"D" Street\OWDers.; Lei & cindy
Wang\Date of Findings and Statement ~
of Decision:December 11. 1990 ..,
,,-,
c,
'--:
:=;
...;..;
."
,1'1
-'
,
Dear Mayor Holcomb:
"
.,.
..:.:;:" :"1
I represent the above referenced owners, --,
Lei and Cindy Wang ("WANG") ; owners of the Civic Center Motel
located at 665 N. "D" street, San Bernardino, california.
On December 11, 1990, the Planning
commission of the city of San Bernardino ("PLANNING
COMMISSION") revoked Conditional Development Permit Number
198 which in effect does not allow the Wang's to operate the
property as a motel.
My
planning commision's
following grounds:
cliemt's would like to appeal the
ruling of December 11, 1990 on the
(1). Findings numbered 2, 3, 4 and 5 were
incorrect as they were not properly
established either by the necessary
quantum of proof required nor by the
procedural requirements for such a
hearing;
(2). There was an violation of the Wang's
right to process of law in the manner
and conduct of the hearings;
(3). Finding number 5 was clearly
established to the contrary by the
Wang's since the property was under a
r-VIJTnTT 1
--.--.----. -- ----.'-
- --.",--------
,
o
o
The Honorable Mayor W.R. Holcomb
Common Council
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Re: Conditional Development Permit No. 198\
Appeal of Revocation of Permit on 12/11/90
December 26, 1990
Page 2
prior court order to cure any of the
alleged conditions supporting the
hearing and there was a willing and
able buyer who would independently
cure such conditions1
(4). The Commission had no jurisdiction
to conduct the hearing since the
city of San Bernardino had made a
prior election to remedy the alleged
conditions by instituting a court
proceeding against the property and
obtaining a court order to close it
prior to instituting the hearing
procedure.
Council an
December 11,
The Wang's would be seeking from the city
overturning of the Statement of Decision of
1990 and the Findings of December 11, 1990.
We appreciate the earliest possible date to
have this matter heard as it's urgency cannot be overly
emphasized.
Sincerely,
~ .
~ 0--~~,t.J'--.
FRANK A. WEISER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
cc: Lei & Cindy Wang
Mr. Henry Empeno,
Deputy city Attorney
-
..
,.
~
-
-
o
City of San Bernardino
o
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number: conditional Development Permit Number 198
Applicant: city of San Bernardino
Owner: Lei and Cindy Wang
Meeting Date: December 11, 1990
x
Revoked on November 13, 1990.
Findings in Support of Revocation.
Adopted
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Lopez, Lindseth, Stone, Clemensen
Sharp
Cole
Corona, Jordan
I, hereby, certify that this Statement of Official Action
accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning
Commission f the city of San Bernardino.
~J
e
.LJ~ IJ
Dat
Larrv E. Reed. Director of Plannina & Buildina Services
Name and Title
cc: Project Property Owner
Project Applicant
Building Division
Engineering Division
Case File
PCAGENDA:
PCACTION
EXHIBIT 2
,._~...,. .-
....
.u
-
~
&
o 0
1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2
3
In the matter of the Hearing
on the Revocation of
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENT OF DECISION;
NOTICE OF TIME LIMITS
FOR APPEAL
4
CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 198, THE CIVIC CENTER MOTEL,
665 North "0" street,
Owners: Lei Wang and Cindy Wang
5
6
7
The above-captioned matter concerning the revocation of
8
9
Conditional Development Permit No. 198 came for public hearing
before the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino on
May 8, October 9, October 30, November 13, and December 11, 1990
at 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California 92418,
pursuant to San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.78.110.
Cindy wang was present and Ms. Wang and Lei Wang were also
represented at various times by attorneys Joshua Kaplan, Andrew
Gunn, and Frank Weiser.
The Planning and Building Services
Department was represented by Deputy City Attorney, Henry Empeno,
Jr.
18
The Planning Commission was advised by Sr. Deputy City
19
Attorney John Wilson and Sr. Assistant City Attorney Dennis
20
Barlow. A quorum of the Planning Commission members were present
21
22
23
throughout the public hearing. The Planning Commission received
the testimony and documentary evidence offered by the parties,
and the cause was submitted for decision.
24
25
The Planning Commission, based upon the facts, testimony
and documentary evidence presented at the public hearing, makes
its Findings and Statement of Decision as follows:
26
27
/ / / /
28
HE/dys/ccm.fdg
December 11, 1990
1
w -
o 0
1 FINDINGS
2
1.
Written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose
3 of the public hearing was served on Lei Wang and Cindy Wang, the
4 owners of the Civic Center Motel, by registered mail, postage
5 prepaid, return receipt requested, not less than ten (10) days
6 prior to the date of the public hearing. (San Bernardino
7 Municipal Code Section 19.78.ll0(B))
8
2.
Conditional Development Permit No. 198 has been
9 exercised contrary to the conditions of the permit.
10 (San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.78.ll0(A)(2))
11
3.
Conditional Development Permit No. 198 has been
12 exercised in violation of applicable regulations, laws and
13
ordinances.
(San Bernardino Municipal Code Section
14 19.78.ll0(A)(2))
15
4.
The use for which Conditional Development Permit No.
16 198 was granted has been exercised so as to be detrimental to the
17 public health and safety and to constitute a nuisance.
18 (San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.78.ll0(A)(3))
19
5.
The grounds justifying a revocation of Conditional
20 Development Permit No. 198 cannot be cured or corrected by the
21 imposition of new, additional, or modified conditions.
22 (San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.78.ll0(D))
23 STATEMENT OF DECISION
24 Based upon the facts, testimony, and documentary evidence
25 presented at the public hearing, and based upon the above-
26 mentioned Findings, the Planning Commission hereby revokes
27 Conditional Development Permit no. 198, pursuant to
28
HE/dys/ccm.fdg
December 11, 1990
2
ill
.
.J!
.
o
o
1 San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.78.110.
2 NOTICE OF TIME LIMITS FOR APPEAL
3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 19.78.ll0(e)
4 and Chapter 2.64 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, any person
5 aggrieved or affected by the decision of the Planning Commission
6 regarding the revocation of Conditional Development Permit
7 No. 198, may appeal to the Common Council by filing a written
8 notice of appeal with the City Clerk, directed to the Common
9 Council, within fifteen (15) days after the date the Planning
10 Commission adopts these Findings and statement of Decision. The
11 notice of appeal shall be in writing and shall set forth (a) the
12 specific action appealed from, (b) the specific grounds of
13 appeal, and (c) the relief or action sought from the Common
14 Council.
15 / / / /
16 / / / /
17 / / / /
18 / / / /
19 / / / /
20 / / / /
21 / / / /
22 / / / /
23 / / / /
24 / / / /
25 / / / /
26 / / / /
27 / / / /
28
HE/dys/ccm.fdg
December 11, 1990
3
.
'W'
l III ~
.
~
o
o
1 CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 198, THE CIVIC CENTER MOTEL
Revocation Hearing: December 11, 1990
2
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Findings of Fact and
4 statement of Decision were duly adopted by the Planning
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ReQular
Commission of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held on the 11th
7 the following vote, to wit:
8
9
Commission Members:
AYES
LOPEZ
--L
CORONA
LINDSETH
--L
-L
STONE
COLE
SHARP
CLEMENSEN
-L
, 1990, by
day of December
NAYS
ABSTAIN
X (absent)
x
-X.....-
X (~h~ent)
'J ,-\ "
"'--'l. \v, ,,),.1_,., ,
I it\.,....- ~ _ L,. -".-.. J \ -y:1', - ,:\, ",
Planning Commission Secretary
The foregoing Findings of Fact and stateme~/of Decision
were adopted this 11 th day of 90.
JORDAN
21
22
23
Approved as to
form and legal content:
24
25
26
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
BY:~)
./ -
27
28
HE/dys/ccm.fdg
December 11, 1990
>c_~,
, Michael Li se h, Chairman
Planning Commission
4
_- ",:c.;."",--<=.~'~._-~~-
-
CITY OF SAf': OERNARDINO
-
-g:MORANDUM
To
Planninq Commission
Revocation of Conditional Use
permit No. 198
From
Larry E. Reed, Director
planninq and Buildinq
Services
April 17, 1990
Subject
Date
Approved Agenda Item No.1
Om
CERTIFIED MAIL NO. P 197475 551
owner:
city of San Bemarelino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernarelino, CA 92418
Lei , cindy Wanq
2132 Almadale Avenue
Los Anqeles, CA 90032
Applicant:
ReClUAS't
The director of Planninq and Buildinq Services has initiated
this request for the Planninq Commission to consider revokinq
Conditional Development Permit (COP) No. 198 under the
authority of San Bemarelino Municipal Code Section 19.78.110
(A 2 '3). The COP authorized the operation of a. motel at
655 North "0" Street. The motel is known as the Civic Center
Motel.
BackC!round
on Kay 3, 1960, COnditional Development Permit No. 198, to
construct a 50 unit mot.l was recommended for approval by the
Planninq Commission. on Kay 13, 1960. COP. No. 198 was
approved by the Kayor and Common Council .. per the plot plan
submitted (se. Att.cbment A - l.tter of .pproval). city code
enforcement .ctiviti.. date back to Auqust 29, 1983. At this
tia. the inspector reco.mended ..jor repair to correct the
numerous Buildinq and Fire COd. viol.tions. A correction
Notic. w.. i..ued and on S.ptaber 7, 1983, . buildinq permit
was taken out for compl.t. qen.ral repairs. (Se. Attac:hlllent
B).
In February 1915, the code viol.tions had .11 been corr.cted
and . Rel.... of Notic. of' Pendency of AdIlinistrative
Proceedinq was issued.
on Karch 15, 1985, Councilman Robert ca.taned. sent a
..-orandUII to the Polic., Fire and Buildinq and S.f.ty
Departaent.. '1'he aeao indic.ted that h. had r.ceived
compl.int. reqarc!inq" pro.titution, druq., Fir. Cod.
viol.tions, noi.., juvenile d.linguency and litterinq in and
around the Civic Center HOtel. In the lIDO Ifr. castaneda
requested . ccmb1nec! .ffort to abate ~ .forementioned
EXHIBIT 3
REVOCA'l'XON OF
, APR:IL 6, 1990
PAGE 2
o -~
CONDX'l'XONAL DEVELOPMEN'l' PERMJ:'l' ~ 198
activities and to cite all guilty parties (Se. Attachment C).
On April 10,'1985 another correction Notice was issued
indicatinq numerous Buildinq and Fire Code violations (See
Attachment D). Many of the violation were corrected. However
by August 15, 1985 an inspection revealed several violations
had not been corrected. Another correction notice was issued
on August 22, 1985 (See Attachment E). All violation were
corrected by September 3, 1985.
On January 30, 1986 another Correction Notice was issued.
Once. aqain, there were numerous Buildinq and Fire Code
violations (See Attachment F). On February 17, 1986 a
buildinq permit was issued for qeneral rehabilitation of the
motel. On. February 26, 1986, after reinspection, a
correction Notice was issued (See Attachment G). On March
11, 1986, after a third reinspection, a Correction Notice was
issued for one remaininq code violation (See Attachment H).
'l'wo of the six (6) correction notices warned the owners that
under the requirements of their business license and certifi-
cate of occupancy, they are to maintain the prDperty and
structures to the proper Code for their use. 'l'he notice went
on to indicate that failure to properly maintain the property
could result in the closure of the complex and the
cancellation of the business license and certificate of
occupancy.
Xn June of 1986, the County District Attorney filed a civil
lawsuit under the red liqht abatement and druq abatement
state laws, to close the Civic Center Motel. 'l'he court
ordered the motel to undertake more strict security measures.
By this time the motel was the site of two murders and 40
arrests, most of them for prostitution and narcotic
violations.
On F.mruary 26, 1990 a Notice of violation was issued for
numerous violations of the Municipal Code. On March 14, 1990
a Notice of Appear was issued after the owners failed to
correct the violations (See Attaeh"'.nt X). On March 15,
1990, the city found the buildinq to be danqerous and all
persons were ordered to vacate the buildinq. At this time,
the owners were notified. of the City'S intent to beqin
revocation of COP No. 198 (See Attachment J).
On March 23, 1990, a seventh Correction Notice was issued
(See Attach"'ent It).
~
o -0
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 198
APRIL 6, 1990
PAGE 3
An inspection conducted on March 14, 1990 revealed a total of
95 MUnicipal Cede violations includinq:
- 22 counts of exposed wirinq
_ 20 counts of 'substandard housinq
4 counts of maintaininq a danqerous buildinq
_ 51 counts of various housekeepinq violations (walls,
carpets, drapes, etc.)
9 units posted as danqerous
on . March 26, 1990, a buildinq permit was issued to correct
these violations. '~he owners took out the buildinq permit
after beinq notified of the City's intent to revoke the CDP.
Therefore,.they have chosen to assume the risk of havinq the
CDP revoked after expendinq money to correct the code
violations. To date, the owners of the motel are workinq
toward correctinq the code viOlations. On Karch 26, 1990
the Court issued a temporary restraininq order to close down
the motel.
In mid-April, 1990, the City Attorney's Office has a hearinq
in court to determine whether the closure will be extended
because of the code violations and the red liqht abatement
laws.
A computer search of all calls for service at the Civic
Center Kote1 has indicated that the police have responded to
various calls includinq druq sales and use, prostitution,
burglary and homicide 162 times in the last year alone. In
addition there were 79 calls for the 600 block of North -D-
street, which includes both sides of the streets.
Environmental Determination
Revocations are exempt from the provisions of CEQA under
Class 21.
1ftalvsi.
The subject site is located on the east side of -D- street,
approximately 191 feet south of the centerline of 7th Street
and further d_cribed as 655 North -D- Street. The General
Plan land use d_iqnstion is CR-2, COJIJI8rcial aeqionsl
(Downtown) . A aotel is a perllitted use in this desiqnstion
upon approval of a conditional Use Permit.
Surroundinq land use consists of vacant fields to the north,
cOJIIIMrcial to the south, and prof_sionsl offices to the east
and west. The entire area surroundinq the motel is
.IL
REVOCATION OF
APRZL 6, 1990
PAGE 4
CO~~IONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMI:T -9 198
de.ignated CR-2 by the General Plan.
The subject .f:)tel was vranted a Conditional Developaent
Perait in 1960. (The tera -Conditional Development Perait-
wa. chang'ed to -Condi~ional Use perait- in 1982). The plot
plan approved indicat.e. 50 unit. with 5.1 parking' .pace.. The
site plan that was approved al.o proposed a putting' qreen and
pool. A ten-foot-wide planter area with land.cape wa.
propo.ed alon9 -D- street, with nuaerou. ...ller planter
areas provided throug'hout the interior of the .ite. (The
approved plot Plan is available in the Planning' Departaent
for review). .
currently, and in the past, the .ite ha. not been ..intained
a. approved . All of the planter area. are overqrown with
weeds or are void of any veqetation. The putting' g'reen no
long'er exi.t., and the pool is eapty. The pool equip.ent
roo. has been converted without perait., to a kitchen. The
office has been converted to an additional unit and one of
the unit. on the second floor was .ubdivided. A total of 52
unit. currently exist. A storag'e area was al.o con.tructed
and part of the perlaeter block wall wa. reaoved behind the
structure located at the northwest corner of the site. All
of the above described aodification. were done without
perait.. As .indicated in the attached Correction Notice.,
the Motel ha. been in a nearly constant .tate of di.repair
since 1983.
Municipal Code Section 19.56.120 (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) requires
that .etbacks and parking' lot planters be landscaped and
..intained and ahall have operative autoaatic .prinkler
.y.t.... Section 19.56.300 of the Municipal Code require the
off-.treet parking' area. to be ..intained in a clean and .afe
condition. The drive ai.le. and parking' area. currently are
not ..intained and larqe holes exist in the a.phalt.
Therefore, both of the.e Municipal Code requir..enta have
been violated.
section 19.04.430 define. -.otel.- a. a building' or qroup of
two or acre detached, .eai-detached or attached building'.
containing' que.t ~ or dwelling' unite with autoaobile
.torag'e .pace.provided in connection there with, which
building' or qroup is de.iqned, intended or used priaarily for
the acco.aodation of autoaobUe travelers, including' qroup.
designed a. auto cabins, actor courts, actel. and .iailar
de.iqnation.
REVOCATION OF
APRIL 6, 1990
PAGE 5
CONDQ.IONAL DEVELOPMENT. PERMI:2 198
The Civic Center Hotel was designed and built for transient
use. None~. the units, except the lllanaqer'. unit were
approved with kitchens or kitchenettes. Cookinq in the
rooms, i. strictly p~ohibited in this particular 1I0tel.
Because the roOllB were not designed to accommodate cookinq,
and the roOllB are equipped with smoke detectors, when cookinq
occurs, the slloke alarms sound. This.ound can be very loud
and annoyinq, so the tenants either brake or r_ove the slloke
detectors. Apparently cookinq occurs because tenants are
residinq at the 1I0tel and are not transient visitors.
Because the tenants are permsnent residents lllany probl...
occur. There is not adequate storaqe to accollllodate the
necessities for normsn livinq. Therefore, clothes, food and
debris beqin to accumulate and cause fire and health safety
violations. Because the 1I0tel was designed for transient use
and is not beinq used as such, the units incur excessive use
and abuse. The city's code enforc_ent officer found 7 to 9
tenants residinq in sOlie roOllS.
The Welfare Department lllakes checks out directly to the lIotel
for $210.00 per week. Approxilllately 21 units were beinq
rented for Welfare recipients or recipients of other state
Aid.
complaints of criminal activity in and around the 1I0tel has
been rampant since 1983 and continue. to be a lllajor probl_,
(See Attachment L - Declaration of David Stachowski, City
Attorney Investiqation).
The location of the lIotel on -D- Street does not lend itself
to hiqh visibility and is not located near any lllajor office
. buildinqs. Staff a.sume. that the owner. have r_orted to
rentinq the rooms to lonq term residents because of the lack
of transient tenants in the area.
conclusion
The Civic Center Hotel has had a lonq history of probl_
complyinq with city COde.. on .ix .eparate occasions datinq
back to 1983, the owners have been qiven correction Noti~
for nuaerous Fire and Build1nq COde violations. In mo.t
ca.es, the ownere, have corrected the COde violations only to
repeat the .... .cenario over aqain. Staff believe. that at
one tille, yeare aqo, the .otel aay have been a .u~.ful
operation. However, over tille, that. particular area becaae
le.. viable for transient tenants. The owners have therefore
relied on peraanent tenants. The .atel was not de.igned or
built to acco.aodate lonq-tera reaidents. 'fIlerefore, the
.0
REVOCA'l'ZON OF CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
APRIL 6, 1990
PAGE 6
-0
PERJaT NO. 198
IIOtel has repeatedly required renovation to correct: the abu.e
it has received.
The entitl_ent to u.e the property as a motel should be
revoked on the qroun4s that the permit is beinq exerci.ed
contrary to the conclitions of the approval in that the motel
i. not beinq used a. motel and the approved plot plan has
been notified: that the motel has been in violation of the
business license, certificate of occupancy, city requlation.,
law. and ordinance.: and that the motel is beinq operated in
such a manner so a. to be detrimental to the public health,
.afety and welfare, and constitute. a nui.ance. With the
proper approval. or permits, the buildinq could be reused
for another type of cODllllercial use that is permitted in the
CR-2 de.iqnation.
Recommendation
staff recODllllends that the Planninq Commission revoke
Conditional Development Permit No. 198 qrounds stated above.
;&J
Larry . Reed
Direct:or of Planninq and
Buildinq Service.
thw~-~
Ann Lar.on-Perbix
Senior Planner
lke
Attachllents
co: Henry Empeno, Deputy City Attorney
Robert Simaons, Deputy city Attorney
David Stachow.ki, Investiqation
Andrew Gunn, Attorney at Law - Rand Delivered
PCAGENDA:
CDPNO.198
~'" ',' '"
"
,"
.:.
"
.~
t
:~
<,
'1
;
,
.'.
~:.
.;.;
I.
i:
~:
~: .
>
.~;;
~
.,
.:
.'
'~
...;
.,:
it..
"
,.
:.;
,
'0
,',
..
','
..L
~ .-, .
,;
"
'0
-0
"
May 6, 1960
The Mayozo and c.o-on Council
Conditional Dev.1OpMnt 'el'lllt No. 198 -- To e~ed a
~-un1' 110\.1 on the e..' dde .f wDw SUeet bet..en 6th
aDd 7th SUeet. -- GOZ'cI_ P1.1d.
At the .eeUng of the 'laMln, c...s..den - May 3, 1960,
the following nCOIDendaUon ... .ade.
That the application fo~ Conditional DoYel.,..nt 'e~t No.
198 to erect a ~-un1t .etel on the ea.' .lde .f wD. S~eet
bet..en 6th and 7th S~..t. be rec_nded fer .ppnwal,
a. per plet plan .uba1t\ed. ,
Very Vuly your.,
1. ',~' .
I · cok ~",.&.'c."t-
Ja Moder
Planning Director
,
JI.. jb
.
,
;
.~
.. .
.~
~
...
.,
,.
"*"
:,
,
'0
.,
o
-0
.\ .
May 3. 1960
WARD --l
CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 198 -- To erect a ~O-unit motel
on the east side. of -D- Street. between 6th and 7th Streets --
Gordon Fields
The request is to erect a ~O-unit motel. The filing fee has been paid
and the case properly posted.
.
The subject 12~ x 300 foot parcel is proposed to have a ~O-unit
motel with ~l parking spaces. The area is all C-4 Central Business
District. There is a 10 foot set back from -D- Street for the
proposed building. The use appears reasonable.
Recommend a Approval of Conditional Development Permit No. 198. as
per plot plan attached to the ease file.
.
.f ~
,c"
-.~ .~;
. ;'. /.~':';:~
:\ ::~~;
;",,"
,"-..
, ....;
...:,....
. .,
~ :~.~
.'.'-',
:~
:. .
.C;;
,
,.:"
.;~. .
...,
,: .'~
.,:"
"'. .~:':
..:".{:
:;j.
....
~;:- .
:r"
1:'
" .
;}
'.
,:
.
'r
......
{ ..:
~.
.,
~~ "j
~-.
.:
".>
.::
;'.; ,~
.~.
.
t
}.~
.:."::'t-
'. .
~.
.. . ~.
..
,..-
";.
,
..
'~';" "':'"
......
. j
-0
-0
PL.\1I:1I1I:l ccu.\ISSION ~Olf
~lnfIfAL M'Wt-'WI1In'P PIIUIIT NO. 198
"-t-d thin . '-v ,,' 19
un ~ 1t!I___Ug. . -_.....,..-___. -- -60---
TO THE 1I0:IOiWlLE ;;'\yO.l /I1111 .:oJ> !iOI1 COUNCIL.
The "'t'tition in t!t. "boY. ..""Ilcdion e...,. for h..uillC/.on the
dil, et __11&
.
'etlt\on it i. hereby
~..
_' )')_...._. After eonsU.ntlon ~f aaid
....,........"".J<!d that nid r.UUon ""
.............4--
to
~no .110.
ond lhat .aid property"'" el.....,ed fTOS Z~e 110.
.
City PllUlnitlCll C..-1ndon
[I,
::fft"r"lory
l);,TE 'lr.rERllt:D !O PLl\illl lilt; C1X::lSSIO:: _
Do\Tt POOrED
iIIm.: or IlEAilllA
CO'1:JS9ICllI jcC1'1o:1
C[J:nc n. 1C1'ICXI
..........:/..
:l.t~..
.~. ~~;~::~. :r... .
~
4'Il16O
It.."..
tAla
---")"h~___
-I.. .P''-~''-
_~" -. ..1
'. "
i
.,
45
.
.
-
a
.t;..
'.>:' ..... c':'.. .0
Crr:YO.F S~"BERNARDINO
.: <;~-" '~-~7
,.,~.:.,::; :~._,_j('JY ,
.~'....--""04 ~
~... ~~.~,.~.:~.:~
-0
30Il NORTH -0- STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CAUFORNIA a.l.
August 29. 1983
W.R. "8OB" HOLCOMB
......
....... of tile c...._..411 CeuncII
....... A. ~I- ........... PIfII W...
.-...... ........ ... . .......w....
..... . .......... . . . . . . . . . . ..".... W..
.....".,.............. .1I'_rlltW....
.................. .......11'1.....
....0....... ........... ..........
.-........ . . . . . . . . . . . .......... WaN
,Re: 655 North D Street
San Bernardino. CA
Motel CGlIlPlex (50 units)
, Assessors No: 135 011 16
Report/Project No. 2475 ,
Jackson Chen
c/o Civic Center Motel
655 North D Street
San Bernardino;' CA 92401
THIS CO~CTION HOTICl is being directed to your attention as owner of the property
1 isted above.' .
, _ An .inspection. by this department. of the structure(s) located thereon revealed '
certain building code violations. It is therefore necessar,y that these condition(s)
.be repaired in accordance with proper procedures and penatts fJ'Olll this department.
. '
Please contact this office within ten (10) calendar days from this date to make
arrangements to correct those violations indicated in this letter.
In addition to this CORRECTION NOTICE. a .Notice of Pendency of Administrative'
Proceedings. is being filed as to the above property with the County Recorders
office to ensure CORRECTION of the violations and give recorded. public notice
of pending action by the City on this property.
City Building Official
Departlllent of Building and Safety
.
by:
.'
r
714/383 5373
7:30 - 8:30 A.M. or 1:'00 - 1:30 P.M.
"-
. .
Attached hereto and incorporated therein by reference is a list of .SOlll8 of the
JIlIjor defects of the structure(s) as detenathed by our .inspec~ion:
dJ.;"" cc: . Hong Chen
~. "'
VJ
.
:.0
....
.- ..
. .'
..
.
-
.
41
12475
CORRECTION NOTICE
Peg. -2-
MAJOR DEFECTS:
o
-0
1. Broken doors and windows.
2. UlIII&intained pool. fence . ~ate.
3. Inadequate sanitation.
4. Structural hazards.
5. Nuisance.
6. Hazardous wiring.
7. Hazardous.mechanical equipment.
8. Faulty weather protection.
9. Fire hazard.
10. . Faulty materials of construction.
11. ' Hazardous and insanitary premises.
12.. Inadequate maintenance.
13. Improper.occupancy
ClX4PlEX IN GENERAl:
1. All upper' decks and walk areas need repair.
2. All access 'panels~to plumbing need to be replaced.
3. NlI1lbers missing off doors.
4.' Repair all paved parking areas.
5. Cut bushes back from all windows and access panelS and vents.
6. Clean out and cover access openings.
7. -Broken doors and windows.
8. Trash in back by bin.
9. All outside plugs need weather proof covers.
10. An storage rooms. clean out and remove all trash and debris.
.
11 ~ Roofs in a state of deterioration.
POOL AREA:
1. Pool gates and fencing need repairs.
2~ Pipe sticking out of pool deck unsafe condition.
3. Starage area. remove .11 junk. trash, and debris.
.
- .
~
..
,
. -
..".. ..
. "..
.
. .
.
.." "...
.'
...
- .
-.-
" .
..,
. '
-
-
-
655.North D Street
. August 29. 1983
Page -3-
'SPECIALTY ROOMS:
MECHANICAL ROrtI:
o
1)
1. Holes in ceiling and walls.
2. No penait to install new water heater.
3. No combustion air for water heater room
ELECTRICAL PANEL'RQ(Jol: 1. Room full of dirt.
2.. Ceiling leaking.
3. Cover missing from timer boxes.
GENERAL PROBLEMS. ALL RODMS:
All bathrooms are in need of some form of repairs. from replacing missing tiles to
completely rebuilding bathroom.
OFFICE' APT: No door on shower stall.
Apt '1: O.K.
Apt '2: BathroOlll ceiling. front door jamb.
Apt '3: O.K.
Apt '4: O. K.
Apt '5: BathroOlll ceiling.
Apt '6: O.K.
Apt '7: BathroOlll wall and faucets.
Apt' '8: O.K.
Apt '9: Water leaking through wall. bathroOlll walls. replace front door.
Apt '10: Bathroom walls
Apt '11 through Apt '15: BathroOlll walls.
Apt '16: BathroOlll walls. bugs. bad plugs.
Apt '17: Bathroom ceiling. glass in back door.
Apt '18: Bathroom walls.
Apt '19:. ·
Apt '20: O.K.
.
. Apt '21: Bathroom walls and door.
Apt '22: Glass in shower door.
Apt '23: Lights missing.
Apt '24: Cat mess. fire hazard.
Apt '25: sathroom walls and elec:trical.
Apt '26: O.K.
Apt '27: Front door.
Apt '28: Front door.
Apt '29: BathrOaa walls and ce111ng.
Apt '30:. ·
.'
~.
-
655 North D Street .0
August 29. 1983
. Page -4-
.,
Apt '31:
Apt '32:
Apt '33:
Apt '34:
Apt '35:
Apt '36:
Apt '37:
Apt '38:
Apt '39:
Apt '40:
Apt '41:
Apt '42:
Apt '43:
Apt '44:
Apt '45:
Apt '46:
Apt '47:
Apt '48:
Apt '49:
Apt '50:
-0
O.K.
O.K.
61ass in shower door.
61ass in.~hDwer door.
O.K.
BathroClll walls.. .
Bathro.. window.
Bathro.. window and walls.
Bathro.. door and windows.
Holes in outside walls and in bathroom walls.
O.K.
Bathroom wall s.
O.K.
O.K.
BathroQlll walls.
61ass in shower door.
O.K.
O.K.
61ass in shower door and bathroom walls.
BathroClll walls and glass in shower door.
mattress.
SEE ATTACHED FIRE DEPARlMEJfT REPORT.
Deck in front Apt ISO old bedding ar
Failure to respond will result in the filing of a -Notice of NoncClllPHance- of sub-
standard rentals to the State -Franchise Tax Board-.
Please be advised that if we do not receive procrly substantiated infomation within
ten (10) days indicating that these violations ve been corrected. we will not be
reluctant to take whatever action .is necessary to guarantee compliance with the
Ordinance through court proceedings.
.'
We would appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
INSPECTORS REClM4ENDATIONS: MAJOR REPAIR.
'.
CITY OF :SAN~t:;HNAHUINU - -oICMUHAI'IUUM
To JAMES CLARK _ BUILDING INSPECTOR - BUILDING & SAFETY From
Subject
CIVIC CENTER MOTEL - 655 NORTH "0" STREET
KEN FRYE
FIRE DEPARTMENT
AUGUST 25. 1983
Date
Apprcwed
Date
The following violations were observed at the above occupancy:
Uniform Fire Code. Section 3.101 - Unlawful continuance" of a fire hazard.
(1) Remove all trash. debris. scrap materials
and old mattress from all storage areas. and
storage rooms.
(2) Remove dry. dead palm branches from all palm
trees.
Unifom Fire Code. Section 10.301
(l) Install "fourZA lOBIC fire extinguishers on
the south side of the main building. They
shall be evenly spaced~ tMO upstairs and tMO
downstairs. To prevent theft. they shall be
placed in metal cabinets with glass breakout
covers.
(2) Service the existing fire extinguisher by a
licensed. certified fire extinguisher company
Uniform Fire Code. Section 10.307 (l) Install an approved automatic fire alarm
syStelll.
Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Departme
for approval and shall conform to the sundar
set forth in Uniform Fire Code.
~Fg'7:;pector
San Bernardino City Fire Oeaprtlllent
1Cf: rk
c,.,y ON .,,,.=-.~.
'Jr.
-
~
-
a
,
C I
~OOP SAN BBRNAl:-QxNO
IRTEROPPICI IUlIIOlWlDUII
8503-706
TOa Chief Ben Gonzale., Police Departlllent
Chi.ef Gerald Newcombe, pire Departlllent
Mr. ~ack RoSebraugh, Supt., Building. Safety Dept.
PROM a Council OffIce, ward one
SUBJECt a Code ColIPliance
DATBI
COPIES I
March 15, 1985
(6284)
Mayor aDd City Administrator
.L........r
....---....
..-----.
...-----
We have received continuing complaint. regarding prosti-
tutes, drugs, fire code violations (cooking), noi.e, juvenile
delinquency, aDd littering in aDd around the Civic Center
Motel, 655 North -D- Street. Please _ke an iDediate, max-
imum combined effort to abate the aforementioned activities
aDd cite all guilty partie. a. nece.sary.
Please respond with a~tion to be taken.
~~.
IOBBRT A. CASTUBDA
Counci1l1lUl, Pir.t: Ward
RACajv
jt
.
.
. .
o
-0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
3lID NORTH "0. STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALlFOlINIA 12411
. April 10. 1985
W.R. ".OB" HOLCOMB
Moyer
....... of .... c:e.......... Council
-...rtA.(............... ~w..
__.............._w_
....... ......___ . . . . . . . . . . . TIt.,. W...
.__............. .._ftW_
~QuIIlI............. PlfllI."
_....IW.. ....... .... ..'_W_
_._..........._ftW_
Re: 655 North D Street
San Bernardino. CA
Motel Complex (50 units)
Assessors No: 135 011 16
Report;Project No. 2475
.4at.... .
JacksOn~hen
c/o Civic Center Motel
655 North D Street
San Bernardino. CA 92401
THIS CORRECTION NOTICE is being directed to your attention as owner of the property.
listed above. .
An inspection. by this department. of the structure(s) located thereon revealed
certain. building and fire code violations. It is therefore necessary that these
condition(s) be repaired in accordance with proper procedures and permits from
this department.
All work is to be performed by qualified persons for each type of repair.
Please contact this office within ten (10) calendar days from this date to make
arrangeaents to correct those violations indicated in this letter.
All work to be COlllPleted within 120 days from the date of this letter.
City Building Official
Department of Building and Safety
by:
s ar
l1ding Inspector
Phone: 714/383 5373
Hours: 7:30 - 8:30 a... or 1:00 - 1:30 p...
Attached hereto and incorporated therein by reference is a list of SClle of the
_jor defects of the strueture(s) as detenlined by our inspection.
ec: Mayor IfoleOlllb
City Attorney
Councn_n Castaneda
City Adlainistrator
.city fire Chief
Chief of police
-
.lac "son "nell
655 North D Street
. Page 2
o
-0
PREMISES:
1. Pool house has broken windows and trash inside and out.
2. Pool has dirty water and trash in it.
3. Block wall on north side. top row. cOlll1ng off.
4. Center of back east wall has section missing.
5. Old car being dismantled in back.
6. Old car parts laying in back.
7. All paved areas need repair.
8. South side of property has trash.
g. Gate on south side to be closed and locked.
10. In front. on D Street on south side. old batter,y under bushes.
11. In front. on D Street on south side. unsafe and exposed electrical light fixtures.
12. First floor water heater rOOll has vent covers on door missing or damaged.
13. All walking deck areas need _jor repairs.
14. Roof over car entry has holes in it allowing water to enter enclosed structural
areas.
15. First floor storage roOlll. excessive storage and. trash.
16. Second floor electrical panel roOlll has storage in it.
17. Second floor electrical panel roOlll. panel boxes have missing covers with exposed
wiring.
18. Second floor next to stairs. open garbage cans. remove and have tenants place
garbage in trash bins in back.
19. In back and outside of _nager's office. excessive storage. trash and cOlllbust1ble
materials.
20. Pool equipment has storage on and around it.
21. Missing fire extinguishers.
22. Trash cans under stairs at apartment no. 24 to be removed and have tenants take
trash to bins in back.
MANAGER I S OFFICE AND APARTMEN!.:
1. Broken window in laundr,y rDCII.
2. Unsafe electrical wiring to coke _chine.
3. Storage in and around water heater.
4. Old mattresses in storage area. .
5. Old .ttresses in upstair in storage. fire hazard.
6. Water clulage to south wall ofbecb 00II upsta1~.
7. Water clulage.to bathrDCllll walls upstatrs.
8. Hole tn wall upstairs on south wall of bedroom at air condtttoning unit.
9.. Shower door glass broken upstairs.
10. Holes in walls upstatrs.
11. Excesstve storage in apart:llent downstatrs and upstatrs.
12. Electrical light and switch not .worktng for statrs.
AlL APARTMENTS/BASIC DEFICIENCIES:
(Most of the apartlllents have one or Il101'8 of thit following tteaas wrong with t/leII)
1. Mtsstng SIIIOke alarms.
2. Mtssing tub dratn service covers.
3. Broken windows or lIissing windows tn bathrooms.
-
-
Jackson Chen
.655 North 0 Street . 0
Page 3
-0
4. Water dulage to bathroom walls and ceilings.
5. Trash or excessive storage. .
6. carpets in an unsanitary condition which IIIIY be required to replace.
7. Water dulage to.walls outside bathroom.
8. Screens missing on back doors.
g. Holes in walls in back of.entry doors.
10. EntrY doors damaged. .
11. Infestation of bugs and cockroaches, may require fumigation.
12. Holes on inside doors.
13. OVerloaded electrical circuits in rooms and bathrooms, to be upgraded.
14. Broken shower doors or glass.
15. No cooking in rooms. .
16. No refrigerators in rooms for food storage.
17. Bathroom walls and ceilings are loosing their water proofing, windows are to be
left open for venting or power vents are to be installed to help remove steam.
Apt. '1 :No smoke alarm, broken light switch.
Apt. '2: No smoke alam, broken front door, broken shower door.
Apt. '3: Over crowded with storage and furniture, no refrigerator allowed for food .
storage, broken window in sliding glass door.
Apt. '4: No smoke alam.
.Apt."'5: No smoke alarm, hole in ceiling in closet.
Apt. '6: Broken window in bathroom, room needs clearnng.
Apt. '7: No smoke alam.
Apt. 'B: No smoke alana, hole in wall in back of entry door, broken window in
bathroom.
Apt. '9: Bathroom. walls deteriorating.
Apt. '10: Trash outside of back door.
Apt. '11: No 5a)ke alam, broken wondow in bathroom.
Apt. '12: Bathroom _115 deteriorating, broken window in bathroom.
No a~rtment '13.
Apt. '14: No 5a)ke alarm.
Apt. '15: Water daalage to wall in closet.
Apt. '16 & 17 (1 unit): No smoke alarm, tub drain service cover missing, excessive
storage, room needs cleaning.
Apt. '18:
Apt. '19:
Apt. '20:
Apt. '21:
Apt. '22:
Apt.. '23:
Apt. '24:
Apt. '25:
Apt. '26:
Apt. '27:
Apt. '28:
O.K.
Bathnal wall deteriorating, tub drain service cover m15sing, !ioles in
doors. no SIIOke ala".. .
Needs n..mer on door. shower wall needs tile repaired, shower door broken.
No smoke alana. air conditioning unit needs NIIther stripping around sides.
broken window in bathroom.
No smoke ala.... bathroom ceiling deteriorating. bathroom window broken.
No smoke ala.... bad smells in room.
Air conditioning unit needs weather stripping around sides, remove
newspapers fl'Oll heater.
No smoke alanl.
No smoke ala.... hole in outside deck~ hole in wall back of entry door.
tub drain service cover .issing.
No smoke alarm. shower door broken. wall deteriorating next to air conditioning
unit. hole in wall back of entry door:
No smoke alal'll, entry light not working. tonet paper fixture .issing. excessivE
storage outside. unsafe electrical plug at air conditioning unit. .155ing
glass' for window in bathroom.
JII. 41
"'CiC~loQn ..ntln
655 North D Street
'age 4
o
o
Apt. '29: No 5IIIOke alana, hole in bathroom door.
Apt. '3D: Air conditioning needs weather stripping around sides, hole in bathroom
door, unsafe electrical switch~ .
Apt. '31: No 5IIIOke alana, hole in bathroom door, tub drain service cover missing.
Apt. '32: No 5IIIOke ala,., tub dra'!n service cover m15sing, broken window in bathroCD.
. Apt. '33: Badly infested with bugs. hole in bathroom door, unsafe electrical wire.
. from 11 ght fixtur.e on back deck to 11 ght on roof.
Apt. '34: No SIIlOke alal"lll, hole in wall back of entry door. .
Apt. '35: No SIIlOke alana, bathroCllll walls deteriorating, air concidioning needs weather
stripping on sides, repair decking in back under railing.
Apt. '36: No SIIlOke alana, bathroCllll walls deteriorating. .
Apt. '37: Broken window in bathroom, trash on deck.
Apt. '3B: No SIIlOke alana, back deck surface failing, repair decking in back under
rail ing.
Apt. '39: No SIIlOke alal"lll, tub drain service cover m15sing, hole in wall, hole in
_ bathroom door.
Apt. '40: No smoke alal"lll, broken closet door.
Apt. '41: Pass thru door to next apartment has holes, bathroom door broken, bathroom
walls deteriorating, unsafe electrical plug (cover missing), broken glass
in sliding door. .
Apt. '42: No SIIlOke alann, room cCllllpletely unsanitary, hole in bathroCllll door.
Apt..'43: No 5IIIOke'alal"lll, air conditioning unit needs weather stripping on.sides.
Apt. '44: Broken window, broken window in bathroom.
Apt. '45: Broken window, broken window in bathroom, excessive trash.
Apt. '46: Shower walls deteriorating. hole in bathroClll door.
Apt. '47~ Bathroom window missing, shower walls deteriorating.
Apt. '48: Wall in back of toilet deteriorating.
Apt. '49: Broken front window, excessive storage. air conditioning unit needs weather
stripping on sides. .
~
lI.
J
-.. - . - .. - - --
.
To
JAMES CLARK - ~LDING & SAFETY
qrom
Subject
CIVIC CENTER ~OTEL - 655 NORTH .0. STREET ~
MIKEL J. PARK
FIRE DEPART'ltENT
APRIL 10, 1985
.. t
. .
Approved
Olte
Nottce has been tssued on subject factltty, wtth retns~ectton
for compltance on Aprtl 23, 1985.
CODY of nottce attached.
MIKEL .l. PARK
. Ftre Marshal
M.lp:rk
attachllent
elF., OM F.........
.... . -.'. '0
",
..
_PlT_~
.. _DUOCI, CAUPCllI_ -
SroETY NOTICE
1'1_1' DlMJlTII"'"
171.' 38S-...
A F.RE PREVENTION INSPECTJON WAS IWlE
OF THE PREMIIIS LOCATIO AT:
X~A. ADDRESS LISTED BELOW
De. THE MAILINII ADDRESS
r CHEN JACKSON
655 NORTH -D-
.,..... .......
I , SAN BERNARDINO, CA
L-c,n .~...n
........ ....11.
.--,
CIVIC C~NTER ~OTEl
~&55 NORTH -0- STREET
-.
STREET
92401
'"
~
..un .....
SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORN~
&In "M.."
---,- ,.. OIl
DATI
a.IARED
--
.PERSUANT TO SAN IERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE 15....020 YOU ARE REQUESTED TO COMJILl'
WITH THE FOLLOWING.
Upon inspection of your facility known at 655 North 00- Street.
Civic Center Hotel, the followin conditions exist that need
immediate corrections to ~ecure the life safe
and property.
"1. Immediatel and saf 1
Clean all lint'and"dust that has accumula edbehind washer
and dryer.
...
2. The smote detector in all rooms
worth
Building Code, Section 1210(a). Also,
the detectors must be State Fire Harshal listed/a roved.
. .:.
3. The combus
occupied rooms, and te t in neat and orderl manner.
-Next Page-
. -9~
.. IlIINSI'ECTION WLL 81 MADE ON 011 ABOUT /q.~ , ..ts:: TO CHIECK FOIl COMPLIANCE.
qr~ &; ,~-'
DATI 01 NOtiCE .., ~ ' ..~ . _ /1 .
eY ? ..I;tf ~ ..... TITLlF~l ~ ~~"~7r:;
I
'I'D ICII . WHITE' ClCClJMNT' ..,e.
'~:J:~:.
........----......
o
I II ,_
S~ETY NOTICE
100 usr _ ITIIUT
..... '_DIIlO, CALIFDIlIlIA --
Of THE PIlEMlSES
A fiRE PREVENTION INSPECTION WAS MADE
LOCATED AT:
o A. ADDRESS USTEO BELOW
De. THE MAIUNG ADDIlESS
"lIIt~ HMaTMIINT
(7,"1 Jas-o..
....
CHEN JACKSON
Page 2
I
....
r
1I.ln A""U
InllY .......
L.,n
II'
~
II'
.....
a" 'UI'
...A. AI" ... aD
--
DATE PERSUANT TO SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE .,....020 YOU ARE REQUESTED TO COMPLY .
CLEARED WITH THE FOLLOWING.
4. Storage in motel storage rooms need to be kept in a neat
and orderlY manner, and accessabilitv oroyided to all
areas of storage room.
5. Electrical Panel Rooms shall have not storage of any kind,
and a minimum of 3-feet clearance in front of any panel s.
will be maintained at all times.
6. All wal1sand doors shall be properly repaired and/or
replaced when damaged, and brought back to its original
construction.
7. Maintenance of the fire alarm system, and protable extin-
guishers shall be maintained in an operative condition at
all tilles,. and shall be repliced or repaired where defective.
. -Next Page-.
........ ....11.
A IlEINSPECTION WILL IE MADE ON OR ABOUT '" / ~ ~ , I/'.s:.. TO CHECK fOR COMPLIANCE.
~~ /
DATE fIIF ZTICE. ' ..-. /J
IV '!'J' '.~ TlTLEFA':4, ~A~".L~,.
fPO 10:5
WHITE . ClCCUf'tI'NT
...,Ia
o
----
.... _AIIDlllO, CAUPlIIlIlIA -
rlne .
SA'FETY NOTICE
OF THE PREMISES
A , IRE PREVENTION INSPECTION WAS MAllI!
LOCATEO AT:
0.. AOORESS USTED BELOW
Os. THE MAIUNG ADDRESS
11'._1: Dl:NIITIIINT
1714' S.S-5S..
I
CHEN JACKSON
-
Pad@ :'I
.n.... .......
Leey\,
''fA"
...
.an... a"."1
I
~
-
1"'.'1' ........
un . If..
-- - CIIJ
...
---
DATE PERSUANT TO SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL COO! 15.11.020 YOU ARE REQUESTED 10 COMPLY .
CLEARED WITH THE FOLLOWING.
8. Under the provis ions of the Health and Sa fetv Code. Section
17921. 1. cooking shall be prohibited in a motel room.
9. Good housekeepi no shall be maintained at 'all tim@s .", " e
to keep the fire load to a minimum.
.
10. IMMEDIATELY, discontinue running electrical wires under
carpets in front office.
A R!lNSPECTION WILL II! IWlE ON OR ABOUT jl d:3
::" OF~~i4" gd: TO'"
"DIGS
WHITE. OCCUMNT
, ..rs TO CHECK 'OR COMPLIANCE.
..,I'
...
.
~... .nw........w........ J;"
. \. ~ "," I -:; ..
"' ".,
".>. . .<~.~.~~
'0
-0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 3IllINOlIlH"O"STREET.SAH.RNARDlNO.CALlPClllNIA""
August 22. 1985
.- .
:;';"~- . .."
. .
".:..,If__ .
,.:.">
.
UIJRlMft elf.... Cl.1IUMA c.....-
EVLYN WILCOX
--
....., ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . ".,....
...................... .--.......
...... ............ . . . . . . . . . . . TIt... w_
........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . "....... w_
.....QuIII............. ,,""'....
_.._...... ........ ._w..
_._..........._w..
Re: 655 North D Street.
San Bernardino. CA
Motel COlIIPlex (SO units}
Assessors No: 135 011 16
Report/Project No. 2475
Jac:kson Chen
c:/o Civic: Center Motel
655 North D Street
San Bernardino. CA'92401
THIS CORRECTION NOTICE is being direc:ted to your attention as owner of the properi;y
listed above. .
An inspection. by this department. of the struc:turets) located thereon reyealed
c:ertain building and fire c:ode violations. It is therefore nec:essary that these
c:ondition(s) be repaired in ac:c:ordanc:e with proper procedures and permits fMID
this department.
All work is to be perlolWed by, qualified persons foreac:h 13'Pe of repair.
Please contac:t this offic:e within ten (10) calendar days from this date to IIake
arrangeaaents to correct those violations indicated in this letter.
All work to be c:~leted within 120 days from the date of this letter.
City Building Offic:ial
Departlllent of Building and
.....
By:
J Clark
Building Inspector
Phone: (714) 383-5373
Hours: 7:30-8:30 .... .nd 1 :~1:3O p...
Attached hereto and incorporated therein by reference is . list of SClllle of the
ujor defects of the struc:ture(s) as detenlined. by our inspec:tion.
c:c:: Mayor Wilcox
City At~
Council Mellber Estrada
City Adalinistntor
City Fire Chief
Chief of Polic:e
Inspector Caldera, Fire Dept.
~
4:IL1
Jtl
4
-
.
-
--.Jackson Chen
655 North'D Street
Page 2
o
-0
PREMISES:
1. Block wall on north side. top row. cClllling off. (working)
2. All paved areas need repair. . (working)
3. Roof over car entry has holes in it allowing water to enter enclosed structural
areas. (working)
4. Unsafe electrical wiring to coke machine. (working)
5. Screens llissing on back doors.
6. Infestation of bugs and cockroaches. MY require fUlligation. (WOrking)
7. Overloaded electrical circuits in rGCIIIIS and bathroCIIIIS. to be upgraded.
Apt. 13: No smoke alarm.
Apt. IS: Hole in bath wall.
Apt. In: No smoke alarm.
Apt. #15: No smoke alarm.
Apt. #16 & 17 (1 unit): No smoke alarm. tub drain service cover missing. excessive
storage. roCIIII needs cleaning.
Apt. 119: Holes in doors.
Apt. 129: No smoke alarm.
Apt. 132: ,Cooking in roCIIII.
Apt. #33: Unsafe electrical wire frCIIII light fixture on back deck to light on roof.
Apt. #36: Weatherstrip around A/C.
-
T
,
'0
J.TTAClDlEN'l' "F"
-0
.,
..
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 3lIlINCllmt"O'"STIIUUANIIIINAIIDlNO.CAUI'OllNIA .,.
EVLYN WILCOX January 30. 1986
Mov..
u...,..,... .... C&A\.JIL'" c....-.
-_............._-
_-.v..............__
......~ ILl.......... .TIMftI...
__.............P_W_
__................ftll_
_P_.............._W_
........................ ........W..
Re: 655 North D Street
San Bernardino. CA .
MDtel COmplex (50 units)
Assessors No: 135 011 16
ReportlProject No. 2475
Lei Wang . CindY L Wang
. II! Quan . Xiang-L in Mao.
21.D-Almadale Avenue
Los Angeles. Ca 90012
THIS CORRECTION NOTICE is being directed to your attention as owners of- the property
li sted above. ..
During a followup inspection by this depa~t of the property and structurels
located thereon. revHled certain building and fire code violations. It is therefore
necessary that these condition/s be corrected andlor repaired in accordance with
proper procedures and pennits frllll this departlllent.
All work is to be perlonned by qualified persons for each type of repair.
Please contact this office within five (5) calendar days frllll this date to make
arrangements to correct those violations indicated in this letter.
All. work is to be cClllpleted within two (2) weeks frllll the date of this letter.
City Building Official
L~ding and Safety
~ark
Building Inspector
Phone: 714/383 5373
Hours: 7:30-8:30 a... or 1:00-1:30 p...
Attached heretO and incorporated therein by reference is a list of SOIII of the
major defects of the structurels as determined by our inspection.
.,
.
.
....
4L
4j
-
4.
-
4.-
ra
Lei Wang. et a1
J\nuary 30. 1986
Page 2
PREMISES:
Pool full of dirt,y green water.
Pool gate broken and not locked.
Pool pump area filled with excessive storage.
Pool roam is being und for storage.
. Blue and brolllft pick up trucks abandoned.
Barbed wire on toP of walls to be removed.
Fire extinguishers mtssing. .
Stairs-hand rails need additional railing.
Pipe sticking out of slab in front of apartment 120.
'0
-0
MANAGERS OFFICE AND APARTMENT:
Air conditioning unit through fire wall - remove and repair wall.
Smoke alarm not working.
Storage in bedroams upstairs.
No SlIlOke alams for upstairs.
Excessive exposed wiring in apartment from video hookup.
ALL APARTMENTS/BASIC DEFICIENCIES:
Apt 11: Smoke alarm missing
Apt 12: O.K.' ..
Apt #3: Smoke alal"ll! missing.
Apt 14: Smoke alarm llllrk1ng/hole in wall at front door.
Apt 15: Shower ceiling deteriorating.
Apt 16: Cooking/SIII)ke alarm not working.
Apt 17: Cooking/smoke alarm.m1ss1ng/apartment needs house cleaning.
Apt 18: Smoke alarm not working/hole in wall at front door.
Apt 19: Smoke alarm 111ss1ng/broken window.
Apt 110: Cook1ng/SIIOke alarm not working/hole in wall at front door.
Apt Ill: BathroaR walls and ceiling deteriorating.
Apt 112: Cook1ng/dogs/excess1v. storage/bathroom ceiling deter1orat1ng/SIIOke alarm
not llllrk1ng.
Apt 113: No Apt.
Apt 114: Hole in wall at front door.
Apt 115: O.K.
Apt 116: Smoke alarm 111ss1ng.
Apt 117: Smoke alana not working.
Apt 118: Smoke alarm 111ss1ng.
Apt 119: Fire in wall plug/front door needs repairs.
Apt 120: Cook1ng/SIIIlIke alarm not working.
Apt 121: Wiring .to air conditioning unit unsafe.
Apt 1Z2: Bathroml walls deteriorating.
Apt 1%3: Brokln window/SIIIOke alal'll not llllrk1ng/bathroom wall deteriorating.
Apt 124: SIIoke alarm not working.
Apt 125: . O.K.
Apt 126: Cook1ng/SIIOke alarm ..1ss1ng/hole in wall at front door.
Apt 127: Cook1ng/dog/SIIOo alarm 1115s1ng/1Io18 in wall at front door.
Apt 128: Cook1ng/SIIOo' alarm not working.
Apt 129: Cook1ng/SIIoke alanll 1115s1ng.
Apt 130: Cooking/goo alanll IItss1ng/1Io11 in ..11 It front "door.
Apt 131: Door on closet II1ss1ng/goo Illrm nOt working.
41
-
~
-
~
1A1 Wang~ et al
'January 30. 1986
Page 3
'0
-0
"
Apt '32: Sa>>ke ala... not working/tub leaking.
Apt '33: Cook11l9/SlIlOke alanD not working.
Apt '34: Cooking/water leaking in s1nk/SlIIIke alana not working.
Apt '35: Hol. in wall at front door.
Apt '36: Cooking/SlIIIk. alanD not working.
Apt '37: Cook1ng/SIIIIke ala... m15s1ng.
Apt '38: Cook1ng/SlIIOke alarm .1ssing/bathroom mess
Apt '39: Slllake alanD not worktng.
Apt 140: Cooking/SIIIIu alam not working.
Apt 141: Slllake alana missing/bathroDDl walls deteriorating.
Apt 142: Smoke alanD not working.
Apt #42: Cooking/door missing an closet.
Apt 144: Cooking/broken windows/toilet running/excessive storage.
Apt 145: Smoke alana not working. .
Apt '46: Broken windows/SIIIIke alarm not working.
Apt #47: Cooking/SlIIOke alanD not working.
Apt 148: O.K.
Apt 149: Smoke alann not working/air conditioning unit not weather stripped.
Apt 150: NoSlllOke alarm.
In addition to the above listed itllllS. many of the apartments which have had their
air conditioning units replaced. were replaced with smaller units than the originals
and are not properly weather stripped.
.. Although each bathro~ has a window, it is not being used to allow the moisture
and steam out from showers and baths. It is reconmended that bathroolll exhaust
fans be installed to stop any further deterioration to walls and ce11ings in all
bathrooms.
Since the pool is no longer being used, it 15 again recoa.nded that the pool be
f111ed with sand or completely removed. .
Your business license and certificate of occupancy are for I. motel use only and not
for full time living or cooking type of apartalents.
These violations and probllias have been an an going it_ sinea 1982. It appears
that the owners try and correct the probl81S but only tlllparar11y.
\)Id.r the requirllllllllts of your busin.ss l'icens. and certificate of occupancy, you
are to .inta1n the property .and structure/s to the propel" code for their use.
Failure to properly .intain such. could result in the closure of the complex and the
cancellation of your business license and certificate of occupancy.
\)Iless you cCllllllllce ianediately and within the ti. frame given, to correct and
.intain the above listed itlllS, further legal action may result.
we would appreciate your cooperation'in this matter.
If you have any questions, plea.e do not hesita~e to call.
cc: Mayor Wil cox
C1 ty Attal"lllY
City ~1n1strator
City Fire Chief
Chief of Police
Counc11woman Estrada
.
CITY OF SA~OJERNARDINO - _~EMOHANUUM
To
.JAIIBS CLAB - B1J1:tI)ING & SAnft'DEPAJaHENt
CIVIC \OUIUi& MODI. - 655 NOJm[ "D" stIlEE'r -
From FlED UDS
Date .JAIUA&Y 30. 1986
Subie"t
Date
AppnMCI
i
.. pc yous- nqu~, tb folloriDl d18cs-epaIlC1.. ue DOted wb1ch vue foUDd
OIl the fA8pect:1oll cODdllcted OIl .JUIIIUY 29, 1986,at abject locat:l.oll:
1. Bat plat.. ue bema UK ~ twO os- mas-e people. ,na.r as-e placed iIl-
_ d18cda1Aately ill tfle n_..aDd -ue a bum to tha occuputa.
Health' Safety- Code 17921.1 c. -d~ - e
2. There are DO stor..e cabillsts for food or d18h... Health' Safety
Code 17921 i -
3. 'rha ft.....". pool ar.. 18 QDMCUred, aDd cOlltame stalD&te _ter.
4. S..,uelllld.ts COlluilled _ 0IT&r abua-'...ce of coabustibl.. which ill ay
opill:l.oll is cs-eat1Da a f~e bum.
5. Hay of the IIId.ts IlHcl _ka detector. metalled, os- repaired.
It is 'aY opiA:I.oIl that thU llatel 1a beco.Dl obsolete due to lack of ada-
ua.uce, aDd could lead to nr:1ollS colUlequece..
rLlr...
C,,,y .. "". ...1_....-
..
-0
-0
\
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO _NOII'nt"O"muuANIlIlNAIIlllNO.CAUfOIINIA 124l."
EVLYN WILCOX ~ 26, 1986
MIY_
.....~I ef 'M CO"""aR COUMII
__............. ~...w..
__Ill.. .. ......... ._..w..
....... ....fl....:IDeeI . . . . . . . . . . . TII'" w"
........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~OUI'I" w...
QelMftQldll............. JllftIIW'"
o.n~,.._....... ,'..... .11....__
......................... ~w..
RIa. 655 NaI:th D Sl..._t
SIID~, CA
Motel CoTl- (50 ~t.)
J\s...~ No. 135 OU 16
........ L/P3:Oject No. 2475
2nd ~, hb. 25, 1986
Lei Wang , Cindy L Wang
, >>l QuIIn , XiaDg-Lin MIlO
2132 A1mIIdala Avenue
:c.o. Angales, CA 90012
'!!lIS ~nOO tmICE is being dJmc:ted to yr:Mr lltteDtiaD all owners of the
property listed abova.l
During a foJ.lowup inlpict1ca by th1a &..-L....m: of the -pcaperty lIIll1 struetuI:e/s
located thereon, %8W-'''' certain ....~ 'r1~"g lIIll1 f1n oocIII v1oDt~........ It is
therefore ,...----y tbat theBe ~if'itll'l/. be ........_-ud lIIll1/or mpa:ind ill .....oom-
aDOe with~....c ~ ~lnIl11ll1 pem1t1 ~th1a ~t.-.t.
AU llOrk is to be ~t......4 by quallfied pcsais far eIICh type of repIW:.
AU llOrk is to be ~ withiD two (2) -a ~ the date of th1a letter.
City lIh.nrli"lg Offici.al
IE aa;nrli'19 Wety
~ ClaI:k .
.... '''''''''9 ~......-tar
l'tIcne. 714/383 5373
Hom:s. 7.30-8.30 a.m. or 1.00-1.30 p.m.
~.".- baretO lIIll1 ~........at.4 tbKeiI1 by %afwenca is a Uat: of _ of the
aajor ~ of the ~/' all det-_.- by our .....~.
,
~ Wang, at al
hbrUarY 25, 1986
PIIge 2
o
-0
PIlEHISES.
PaoJ. PaIIl _ ~H ,... with .ol ~ -.1w st......l....
Bcbed .u. CD tep of .u. to be "'.... JlIl1.
Sta.:iZa-~ I.ed ad41....,.....1 r"''4n9_
M>>ll\CZRS UUoLO!: AND APAlmlEm'.
SlDka almD DOt warJdng. .
tb SIIOka .,- far ~.
ALL APARlMEN'l'S/USIC ~.
Apt 13. SIDle almD mi.Iaing.
Apt .5. ~ oe<lH"'9 c5et8riarlltmg.
Apt .11. BatbI:I:laD WlIlla m1 oe<lH"'9 det:eriarlltiDg. CooldY\g
Apt 119. Fu. m w1l plu;/frcat daar ~ repdn.
Apt 123. BatbI:I:laD w1l det8riomtmg. ..
Apt "1. BatbI:I:laD walls deteriaratiDg.
Apt 143. Coakjng
Apt 144. CtJoIr'I~g/brOkBD windaws/toiJ.at: running/c-- i". starage.
Apt M9. Air c:cnditi.oning unit DOt ...st....,. strlpped.
In additicn to the abav8 listed itema, IIIIDY of the _L.-ut8 1Ibich bava hid
tblUr air c:cnditiCDiDg units ~'-, ~ ~,-- with -"- UDits tbaD
the oz:1gi-'. lIlld are DOt ........-:ly watb8r lStr1pSled.
Although each tlatb=an hu a viJllbr, it is DOt be1Dg u.lIl1 to a1JDW the llI)iat-
ura lIlld st_ out f:aD shoIer8 lIlld blithe. It is ~..-..- tlIat bat!II:oaD
--I; fms be installed to step lItJ'f fI:tbIr &at8rlaratiCD to walls lIlld ce1l-
mg. m all blIthroamI.
tbIer the ~ of JQJr ~~--- H-lIlld oert'i~~"-. of ~,
you are to IIIIiDta1D the iM'_Lz .." 1It:UCt1Z'8/. to the iM'''''-: ClOlia far tblUr
~. ~ to iM'~ly ae1Dta1D eucb c:cu14 3:MUlt m the ~ of the
~,_ lIlld the c.-c-"-~"" of JQJr ~1--' 1'1__ lIlld certif:l.cate of occu-
pmx::y. .
Wa 1ICIU1d _....-1-. your :: "'~- od.iCD m this matter.
If you baw lItJ'f quuticne, p'..- do DOt bMitate to call.
ce. Mayar ~ ,-
City At'l..-I
City Ma1Dist:I:atar
City P1m QUat
QUat of Polica
eoo-'- Eet:al!a
.
-0
-0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 3lIlNCllmf "0"' STREET. SAN IIIlNAllOINO.c.w_NIA _1'
.
EVLYN WILCOX
Moyw
HIIrCb 11, 1986
RII. 655 NaI:th -D- Sl..._t
Sm BlImlIz:di.DD, CA
Mcrtall"~'- (50 thits)
a"TT~...... Nell 135 OU 16
~L/PrDject No. 2475
3z:r1 rejnspectica, HlIrch U, 1986
M...... Of.. c.mm.n CeuMlI
...................... ~...w..
__Ilr.............._w_
.........~ ~............. ."..,...,.
s............... 0.0....... "..",IIW_
GeI'OoftQutll.............lI'lftIlW...
0......,....,............. .SlxtftW'"
_._.............. _w_
Lei Wang , C1ndy L Wang
. . XU QuIID &- Xiang-IJn MaD
2132 Alndale Awnua
Lee Anga1es, CA 90012
THIS ~uCN tone! is being directed to your atteDtian all owners of the
property listed abcv8.
D.1ring a f~ inspecticn by tlUs d6t-L....d. Af the ..............Lz' and strIX:t\It8/s
local:ed tbancn, J:8\--,.... c:e:i:tai11 bl.n,,;"9 and fin ccxIe vjO]F;N1S. It is
~ .........MrY that ~ conc!itica/s be ...........:ted and/or repajred in ..........4-
anca with proper..... :.....-- and pemits fran tlUs ~L....nt.
All wark is to be perfOl:lllld by qualif:i.lld persoDII far each type . of mpUr.
All wark is to be CICIIpleted within t1IID (2) -a fran the data of tlUs letter.
City ....; "';"9 Offic:i.al
~jt r'........
oJ.- CJark
"''''''''''.'''-g Inspectar
Pbcne. 714/383 5373
HOlla.. 7.30-8.30 a.m. or 1.00-1.30 p.m.
Attact.d bewto and ~_.t..d tbeniD by n6...__ is a list of lIaIB of the
_jar defects of the ~/s .. da+'-..... by our UIspecticD.
.
-0
-0
Lei Nllng, at &I.
MIII:d1 11, 1986
paga 2
ALL APARlMENl'S1BAStC D.r.,,~.
Apt 1441 CQ/"1rI"IJF -4_ lit... y.
In IDSiticD to the ~ u.ted ~, IIIIDY of the _t.....nta wbictl bave bad
thair air ClCf"'4it-:I.....i"!J units ~'--, 118m %'IIP'-- with _11... units thIIn
the arig:I....,. and .. ~ .prcperly 'l1li....--- 1I1:ripped.
Altbaugh eIIIdl batbxacm bIIS a 1dzlr:fgw, it is not be1ng ~ to aJJ.ow tba 1IDist:-
UI:'a and IIteID out ~ st~ and blItbB.. It is J:_.._~'" that batbxacm
--I; f_ be iDstall& to stop aayfurtbE deteriarat1CD of wl1s and c:ell-
mgs in all batm:oaIII.
We 1IlCU.ld _...-1- yr>>r cooperaticD in this 1IIII.tter.
If you bave my quutiaUl, p'..- do not bu1tate to call.
.---.
CCI MIlyar Wi.lccDc
City Attamay
City AdminiStJ:at=
City ria Chief
Chief of PoJ.1ce
COolr"'4 ,_ Estrada
.
-.-. - -..... --..-....11"'._.."."11.. MI.'. 0
coo. .-ofI('IMaVT I.~ NO ).J I) 2 61
NonCE TO ''''PEAR * !.
... ...r- DA".- aPMTMlftTIlID.
~ / 1~.9() t;.~g 1111' I 18'
............IIlIlOII.I.-...n
'\,V~~ ~#1.L--i~~~~' .,~ "-/~
~~ - "/J." "Jr"
gnr- . IT"'''
/.
......
IOLAnoNCSI SECTION I." M......;... c_ : u_.... .~..
cocle . Uniform HoUIfftQ Cocte
~.IIJ.f!. I.)~ 2.,,1 ~N", .P~~r., "IJJ~;T
Um.e. /.S'.ciJ..t:J1." ~J,.+-('^",...<
y./1/.e.( tI.~ I' ) f'.h~(Jr.n IlJ
. r:' ~ J.L J;. -- .J _ ..../ (1.h1 i'h./7.JiyJ h-z..
~4A'914 . II
~.IJ ~.~~. 010 m #tu.1A~
S.6 /iI. C. 7 ,., ID ",. VIL,s-"JC.
~..8 dJ-t-. I~ 7..J? n/t:J 1>>11/'.t"1).JlUS
~T~~ ~~ "~r<j
.. Ilr .,t' ~Et:J U/lr,nC;
.;;/~...~ :;6"" <- /r.:Y< O/~~:.:
%1~lIrs. cl- ~)lI.4tnH...h"",^ C_._.L_'
- DO NOT ACCEPT BAIL
-...t;3?- J/ (.) "
-~2a~r~~
'''''lfl . d/(j
.."'-.,- ...,.;.... ~
[c.
~ ~_ >0
I .
i 7~ t...
~AUtIQIlIOA:I.
WITHOUT AOMlm,..G GUlL T. ~1'Il0Jl1SE TO APPWAr THe TIMe
';0 P.LACE CHeCXED leL~: 1/ _
\s\O....!'.... .~.
IEFOIIU DR A C - OF THE MU,..IClPAL UIIT
=':""'~....... z".;; "'=-
:41"~.a:".1-I"".""""",
~. . q{)
.. c.-f~......
_.c-
*.-
,0>>.':-"0
I '1J~
i~.~~ A ...
--
~.~~-=..::
) SAFETY
-0
:EKENT
?ORT
CITATIOII 110.
SIGHED
~-dTICE OF VIO~"80tt~;o'i
IUI=:::::::::.... '3'9'14 ....V~
CODI~INTDlVI_ ~~ .
_ ~ "D" '"'lIT 3
IAN '1RHNlDINO. CA ..,.
Zone: pate: ..J - ~ b - 90
L.ac:atiorr.
Tenant:
Add..:
Owner:
II Jj~ ~ ","'.c ~..,t.
/ ,..~ R. I.l 1./,,(;
(p S--c;).;" "'7)".s I-
,
/ t=:" I " t"ISlJ \, If 'Q 119
,
AlJdru." 2,3:2. 4IMAIl4/l'> .41/
, .lo:; HA/l!je/t:!.S I ~~ 9c;o 13
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED OF THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS OF THE
SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE CJV("Z.dI~; ,~'rb,;7..JJ''' ~ /1.JI':'-/~{.
k),r rY ~'l 1.) P~~h:~v: J~ /~ ~ r~ -3~ "'J,:ti:~
.r ;;;;"" . oJ I!": \ ("" ., ," /' , c:M._d. _', ~
/.11 . /. ' z,,'" ;':9
,v,""'~..., ~J".I~ .}(~.p LlI I/./;Ad~h' 11 I~ .,r.'T~" \........", 19
I' /" /i -'" .J . .. ~ ~ ,'.;# . /
I'',tv#d. ~~/~ .::vt~/ /. ~ 0:{ ,r..Y;;f:::' '
Thlaviolatlon IIlUIt be correc:tecIby /11t.Vt.d 9. ,99,) . FalluNto correct
this violation may rnult In costa being Incurrad or ,this maltaf being
referred to the CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE for appropriate action.
Please noIIiy the Code ComplIance OffIcer when the COlT8Ction Is made. If you have any
questions, pl.... call the Code Enfarcement DIvIsIon (714) 384-5205.
fit; /) ,/" ~ ; , A , -
NOTES: I-'1:A:.IL-::!-' / .v~~ ,<.,.t ~..1)~"J ~/=t:U' :"'/t"":..~/..-t.(
~; .'~~..;(;".A-~f.. ~ LLJ..u..u!'
)< ~"" ci~ . /;"]14"/ L /1 JLf'c;
0MIIItT_..... . ClIOe:;t:. ~
/ "/..1__ "'];'10.tJr
..,...... may ... punI8hecI by a fine of up to $500 or by imprisonment In_.:Guilty..... for.perIod of 8 months or by both tine and Imprisonment.
.atcn may be I*IOft8IIy I...... for d costa of ~
. .. -.c-
o
'_...,-
.'
"
... ~:
-
,it>..
.J:i
w
-
-
w
'''"
,. ~""""~:Z.' ':
.. .r'" ..' .
- "--
... J' .. .'
,1-/ ~..'.-.' .
(-. ,-"'" ....
':~t...'"\.. ---~ ':.
-:~c....:.-. .-:", :'
\...\t... ..:' ~ .' .
"'.~ ",- . ....
o
-0
C IT yO'
"', '';.' .'
~'..." ."
......: . '--:'
._-~.
~an {)ernardino
Ol,a.,.'.' O' 'La..... a.. IUILO... I,.VIC'.
~ A II II Y E
: I " leT 0 "
II E E O.
March 15, 1990
Lei and cindy Wanq
2132 A1madale Avenue
Los Anqeles, CA 90023
ae: 655 North "0" Street
Dear Lei and cindy Wanq:
Please be advised that,
tion was made at 655 North
listed as beinq the owner ot
on March 14,
"0" street,
record.
1990, an investiqa-
ot which you are
It was found to be a danqerous buildinq as detined in
San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 15.28.150.. Thus the
owner(s), le.ee(s) and/or other such person. are ordered to
vacate the buildinq. The buildinq must remain vacant until
the proper permits are obtained and the structure i. brouqht
up to Buildinq Code standards. In addition, the City will be
startinq procedure. tor revokinq conditional Use Permit (CUP)
1960-198 for your motel operation at 655 North "0" Street.
Staft will send you additional information under .eparate
cover.
It you have any que.tions reqardinq thi., please teel
tree to contact my ottice at 384-5205.
Sincerely..
4r-k/
Larry E. aeed, Director
Department of planninq . and
Buildinq Service.
DRN/LER: nhIII
cc:
.
100 "O.'H D' ".IIT. IaN .......DINO.
C A L I , 0 . N t A . I . t . . 0 0 .' CI t .) .1....' , ,.. I"
..
-
.
~
.
.
01 T" 0' -0
San Bernardino
."I~.I.. ..,....".,., ..ItA.'.'.'
March 23. 1990
Re: 655 North D St.
San Bernardino. CA
Dangerous Motel
Assessors No: 135 011 16
Report/Project No. 2475
Lei & Cindy Wang
2132 Almadale Avenue
Los Angeles. CA 90023
THIS CORRECTION NOTICE is hereby served on you as owner(s) of the
property referred to above.
An inspection. by this department. of the structure(s) located thereon
revealed certain building code violations. It is necessary thlt these
conditions be corrected in accordance with the proper procedures and
with valid pennits from this department.
Please contlct this office within ten (10) calendlr days from the
date of this notice to make arrangements to correct those violations
indicated in this letter.
In addition to the CORRECTION NOTICE. a .Notice of .Pendency of Admin-
istrative Proceedings. regarding the above property is being filed
with the County Recorder's OffiCI to give publiC notice of pending
action by the City on this property.
Director/Building Officill
Department of Building Ind Safety
by: JOA~I~ LJ. ~
~e Off cer
Phone: 714/384 5205
Attached hereto Ind incorporaticl herein by reference is I list of the
llajor defects found in the structure(s) by our inspection. .
J): -00.'- oJ 1-.11- i.l" .......: ..~.
. . . .. . o. ~ ): i . t : ~ ~ , . . , I . . .. . . , ·
..~ -. .-
..~~. .f
. .~ .'
- .;..~.",.,
-
Tbe auilA1n" anA Safety cepartaent ha. i~pecteA the A..cribeA
propertY. The ~paction revealeA that the it... ..rke4 Ao not confom
..to the provido~ of the San Bernar4ino MUnicipal cocle (SIKC). ~
aar1te4 with a DOUBI.E c:HEc:Jt .mu.t be repaireA or correcteA witll1n ~
Aay.. 0'1'HD it... ..t be repairecl of _ cfrreCU4 ~thjn g day..
PEJQIlTS UQtnJtZD ., US NO~" ~
Pemit. an reqllire.i to repair or cornct ..ny of the it.... J'or a
con.ultation re"ar4in" thi. report, a..i.tanCe in .ecurift9 a pemit, or
.checlulin" a rei~pection, plea.e call the office anA .checlule your
reque.t . with the i~pector who.e naae appean on this report.
OFnc:J: HOURS A1tZ U1'\olEN 7:30-8:30 a.a. AND 3:30-06:30 p.m. MONDAY
THROUGH FRIDAY - PHONE NO. (714) 384-5205
" , ~ J
~TION &,5 ~ 9' ,..
~~~~~~i~,:~/f)J;~
VIOIATION"M-" _~ ",,-;o},IJ~~
DATE PREPARED -I - =--- -
-
~/
.
. Ul
^~I,!:!_ OF SAN BElUIARDINO
D. ~ OF IIOII.DING AND 511.-,....
300 NORTB -D- sTl'EZ't ....,
sAN lSZUAld)tJlO, CA 92411
CODE ZlfFOa~ DIVISION
UNIT Ilfsnc:'fIOll 1tEP01lT
J.
-
-
~
-
oWNER.
ADDUSS
e:ITY
PHONE NO(
DA'1'E OJ' INSPECTION
~II
., I
7
2.
3.
tJIf. ,/, 4.
5.
6.
7.
~t/'. . I.
9.
10.
_ 11.
" 12.
t/"" 13.
'7 14.
15.
\
,
I
1!!!EZl"_ ~.'
.:...-
:~~~;;"'~~l"ri\ n~FI ITIOll
Lack of or improper water clo.et, lavatory, bathtub or
.hower in 4wellin9. use: 1205
Lack of or improper kitchen .ink or 4rainboar4 in 4well-
inCJ. use: 1205
Lack of hot an4 co14 runninCJ water in 4wellin9.
use 1205
Lack of a4eqllate'heatinCJ facilitie.. use 1211, ORC
701
Lack of or improper operation of reqllire4 ventilatin"
equipment. use 1205, We: 504
Lack of ainiaa aaounU of natural liCJht anA ventila-
tion. use 1205, ORC 504
aooa an4 .pace AiJIe~ion. le.. than reqllireA by cocle.
UBC 1207, ORC 503 .
Lack of requirecl electrical li9btin". NEC 210-70
. oaapne.. of habitable rooa. UK 104 (4), use 170'7
Infe.tation of i~ect., vemin or roclent.. ORC 1001(S)
General dilapiclation or improper ..intenance. OBC 104 (A)
Lack of conne~on-t"O reqllirt4 ~ewa"e Ai.po.al .y.t...
Upe 1101 MN'~ OA/,n- $';r .
Lack of ..intenanc:a of ,.eptic sy.t... 0l'C 31'
Lack of aAeqllate "arba"e ant rubbi.h a1:Ora"e aD4 raoval
facilitie.. SUC ..21.040 A!/II'~'
. ~Aequate hOUSakaaPi.n9 ~ trash, "arM"e,. ete.
SIKC ..11.010 . .
~........ml1'L .~Zll.llDll ttme\
......rSCTO. SIGIlA'l'UU
_...... -
..---
. .:'C'.~..". ........
.. an aclOp Y 'ar. a p&~o
lenud1no Municipal COde CSIIIC 15.04..020).
'l'BlS DlSnc:nOll UPOJl'l WM GIYIN TOI . .'.
~ A pnputy own. . .
. .......
C UIMI~
D ttr bull d.ll ..ZY
Z nplu ..U
Y F _&'tified ..U
I March 23 1. 90
-
~< 1.
2.
-- 3.
4.
5.
6.
'I.
I.
t.
10.
11.
v.:
1.
2.
OIl
.II
open ~vacan~. SIIIC 15.21.140 ., 1./7, ~"t
Fir. qed .trU~ure. SIIIC 15. ~-r'"'Mo, U8C Sec:. 203
aroken oor. and vindOWa. SBNC 1..~.140, UFC 12.101
RZPORT 110.
11~ addl~lon CboOUeq) U8C Sec:. 301, UBe 301
t...d....~. _aChU' p~~lon Croof leaJu1, e~c.)
VIe 20', uac 2501
%nad....~. foUftda~ion. U8C Tul. 2'A, UBC 2'0'1
.a99iDlJ noon. uac 203, U8C 2501
Inadequa~. ra~-proofift9. UBC SIC. 3205,251'
Cb1aneY .~ru~ur. unsound. UBC S.c. 3703, 3704
Tenal~. d...q.. UBC 203, UBC 104
StrU~al in~eqri~y que.~ion&bl.. UBC 203
pTnMBnrC (UPe' C'H.C./( r;x,T
Wa~.r b.a~.r ill.qally in.~lled in ~a~ or bedrooa. UPC
130t
Wa~.r b.a~.r ba. no T' P valve or...i.atc ~i. down..
UPC 100'1, UMC 504
t.eaJc1nq/~roken/plu99ed ..v.r drains. UPC 31t
t.eakinq and/or brok.n pip... UPC 31'
ero.. conn.c~.d pluabinq. UPC 1002
YarcS .prinkl.r. au.~ bav. vacuWlft ~r.aka. UPC 1003 (b)
M!:~TeAL (UMC' crt~c.K: ClvT
Illeqal qa. b.a~er or appliance. UMC 202
Improperly ven~ed vater beater. UPC 1312
Inadequate or mi..inq va. .bu~ off val... UPC 1213, 1214
Co~u.~ible. .~ored too near b.a~inq applianc...
Eu:~reAL (NEe, c.rt~c.1( OIJT
ov.rfu.inv - brancb circui~. not ~o exceecS15 amp. for
liqb~. and 20 amp. for recep~acle.. NEC 210-23
Mi..inq elec~rical cover. or fix~ure.. NEC 370-15
Inadequa~e ou~le~.. NEC 210-52, UHC 701(~)
Elecnical .ervice en~rance is inadequa~e. NEC Anicl.
23~
C;;Z;;:~U;~~c~lleqal virinq. NEC 202
Pool. - .~aqnan~ vater
inadequa~e vate
2-'024, SIMC 2431
No~ to b. occupied until correction..are made. UHC 303,
UBC 305
Cenifica~e of occupancy required. ule 30'1
Improper occupancy. UBC S.c. 502
Nui.ance. uBC Sec. 203
Po..~le Fir. Buard. U8C S.c. 203
laoJce De~.~or. a.quired. UBC 1210
Addre.. r.quired on all bulldiDlJ. and/or apana.nu. UFC
10.20'
Supp
inad.qua~. fence
. T1~1. 24,
.
. San
4:ti.1~
~..
- ~-
.... -- ~--~-
~
4.
~
4
-
~
-
+>-...\:r.!J'.!~>
""~''-:~~~~
,- .-;r~ ~
'I ;!---:.
~ ,v,. .~~'.. .' .
-.~-~. \...
, . ~.....,.,
~,19..~~:i
-";.;~;--,\>
""oJct'~
o -0
ERNARDINO _NClfI'TM'"D'"STIlIIT.SAN.._DlNO.CAUI'OIlNIA lDI1.
March 23. 1990
Re: 655 North D St.
. San Bernardino. CA
S APN 135,011 16[ RaDorC-P-Croject No. 2475
outhern Ca lfi)rnla EiI'lson _any
New Business Desk
287 Tennessee Street
Redlands. CA 92373
~.:......cn.o....~ ~~.s,^ l:11!.~~IL';"''' I
.
J c,.t.Jh,,,"'-
'Pa~~. II. ~^""'lIIl\lZd""'O ~.^..*,,-Ps.
The Building Official hereby orders the electrical to be discontinued
immediately by the authority of the Administrative Code. Chapter 2.
Section 202-F. as adopted by the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
Title 15.04.020. Please disconnect power by:
~ Shut off only
[ ] Meter Removal
[ ] Disconnect at power pole
If there are any questions about this action. please call 714/384-5071.
Q(] An electrical inspection will be required before restoration of power.
byr ~ ~...~~. f'\ Yrt II-
Code CoIpliance Officer/Building Inspector
cc: Lei . Cindy Wang
Reviewed ~nct approved by:
Bundin
I
;
I
i
I
-
1.
~
J..
-
o -0
C IT., 0'
. San ~rnardino
....LO... , IA,-"! ......"...,
March 23, 1990
Re: 655 North D St.
San Bernardino, CA
APN 135 011 16
Report/Project !O. 2475
Southern California Gas ClllI\PIny
Customer Service Department
1981 Lugonil
Redlands, CA. 92373-0306 II
The property located at ~5'~ AI. S in the
City of Sin Bernardino 'wisfnspected on -...5!!!
The conditions warrant Iblt_nt by the ng ficill as C1;fined
in the SIn Bernardino "'nicipll Code Title 15.28.150.
The Building Officill hereby orders electrical and gas utilities to
be discontinued i_diately by the authority of the AcIIIinfstrat1ve
. Code, Chapter 2, Section 202-F, IS adopted by the Sin Bernardino
Municipal Code, Titl. 15.04.020.
If there Ire 1"1 questions lbout this Iction, please call 714/384 5205.
Director/Building Officill
bY~ e~
. lnee f1cer/ ng nspector
cc: Lei I. Cindy Wang
I" tl4 MA/;-I-.s
~.. ..0.'" 0 IT.'" ..... ........0..0
CALIIO."IA I'." .t., ".,......"
~
rm .11
~
. .
o
-0
@
_. .._.._ _.. it::; A~A...i!.A.~ WA:N#
_."-_ un _._.' ..__._J/~~-__A-~~a.<t,_/~-~ve--
_ _ _ _ ..__..~dS~__ ~~~~s_,_~""'.._9.(f)t?"3
-_. - ... .....- -,._~_._-_.-
.... .--..--...---..- ...-
. ... ...:,,_._..,ec.'._.t~.-tl~.~--- ..---.---.. .
_ .. ._._ ._______t9~,e/:_13~= ~I/.~//.- ._on__ -..---.-.- -.
____._ __._.. __ ___. R~/!JJI:.r.:../Pf"J~(.1:_-- 2.1/:'z.s-.. .-------- ... '-'
..:____ ....P.h~~t~~~~_.~--~~;--. '.~--
. ~.. au&~-e~ . '.-... -..... .---.
.... ...' .-. - - --.........
. /241"" Z ;:.~fr.r<( aU 77J~W"'f ~~A;~4'
.~..(J.., ().l4.A_bpt~i- a.u .u~~..he..a .W~
" UjJ A ~~-, _1'1./J,tI .~..~--~~.tl..-t-"~
_ ...~_~.~hu~.~~~..__~~~~_a~~
.n_.__~-- -- -".
__" .___.., .. ,eum__~ : ,.JJ~-~3~~ ..A4e~'..1dP"/2l-~ .,.~
__ _. _ .J'~ ~.nJ ~ ~~~.44 ~~ ~~ --4."!!..oq~
"J,/M ~~-<tJ .4 /.L.A' .A~.h.A~ /'J_~t:J-1'~._
~^# ...4- ~I~~~ h'I'Lt..n ,,~,; ~(JQt.
, ..
I'-b-,/A;./-~/ c,.~UL
-~~ t1~~~~/X~:;:~:,:=0'
:::::~%~~~ :::ti~'~
~"-~~ I'hAL?!.~ ~ ~!JM"'~~-
-lJ ~
. _.' ._-- , "1-- - .. ---
(9/
O -0
. . '.
_ . ." ~lf. ~ID:::; cm<~~~~ cb#J.J ~I'H'~~"
- .___tJtu4a ~ ~ ~ /J.'- .L ~~ ~:~_._;-
_..__._~~~~e.LrDi~1~.-.,... ~'''~
_ ._. _.._.~()'JJ" S~.'1fJ~:.evnd...J.MJO~t~-Jhf'~~~I_~
~~U'/'ff:~hl9~ ~ ~ Mn~~,J../.A"?Ar"1"(.._1 fK~""~
.. .___ _,.~ I~~ tt.<'~P4_,t)aUd. .~.~_~~r a~...J~fU___
- - "--r'""'~~~~ ~.J~~_."".-
_" ~'.. ..~~_~tVLId .~ntO_~_-.._
.____... '''V'~~I~~ ~.a~.~.~~.
_._.... ~..~_~_.~_~r~-nJ.~J~.~._--....
... P".r. fA &l -;- ~ tt/~ilJ~.,a~ ~~~!~~
__ _ . . p!a,.}?t/x,t:1-) (J.,-YuX ~-I>>r'A.. ~ ~~~~
~! .,~j~~~~.
u_ ...,/z~-~~~.~ . . ....., . -------.... .
__...,.._.. ~Oh1 //1 ~.WfL4,- ...()tl~a,1d_.a..1: .A,J1.U. _~..t-~1U~t:
_.~ ~g-J!.r,.eL1 b:~1~.-~-~(.{M~~
.._,RfJ"1'I II ::;.__.a~~"~?f-:(.~P~~.
~.~ tJ,/tJ.~-.r~~~~.
p~ a/)t~ ~M.I..4I~ /YI~9"6"'-GL-
Rn.-r-. ~,.~ &J.J.I.AL ~.J.lL':'....I'~....,. ~ ~~
.
c..nJ~ ~fr;,.,A.At/L
t€ 16;;
~ u,-q-'~~
. :~~.J~'" ~ ~--(I 'dM./,~~'
p .
CI.."p -i ~ It, -;.~~ ~ ~-J..,~
3-/11-" _~"Ul" A!....tLP~~+-- _ .... . u.fJ~~/.e.."'fJ-d", -"'.
. A1'3
- -- -. . -- - . -. - _.. --
,.. _....~ . .
~
.'.
o
-0
..'...._... ~m .17~_&"'1~~-ul ~ett~./ /U~(~.~.;-m~~~'~
_.. _ ..__ ~~l$t~~~_a._.~~ -,,-~~~~~~.:..~~
. ....~~~~.L,,~__~__~..,~-~--..
.- ~ ._'.~ .... .---.... . --..---.-. -.-. -:- -~---
.. ...._ Ro~<M ..!~ ~_'l)~._ .P,." '- "1!~4~- dl~~.~.#~:-uJ
...W'~ ~~~t~?..~e"~e /d.~~;-:1...(D~
_.". _._ a..~ -:!~, -.. ._. - --.-------.-- .'. - .... ... ... - .-.
....}!e;,CD ..'. ... te~~~_t.'~... _ - . ~...,,~ ~__~It_..
?/~,"IJ I. _~ ~ .~.._~ ~
..._v'<<~L-" _ H,~'- IP'~ _I'~ - -1'fPA,q -
... KA./~. ~ ~ :du<J /f;v~~ A<~(~o ---
.a ml/;~ ~.A{.~ ~~ ,J~
u'.-aa .C/.tVJ~.44 ~~J ~ ~..~/
. _ e~~ W~~; a,bJ.<J ~"~?if wa,~
... 7~ /&-.~'? ~ . -. . . - ........ ...
.... RDDM"UJ::'. ~S '1uJ1.. ..~~<~I.u.l ~I ~i~
. ~ ..v....- /~ , ~ (}.jiLS5 ~ W~
_.--__._.R~t1. /H.1... .~4tlt~"'D~~..~(e.a(__.K:.(~~
___.____ . _ ~~Mi J'~_ -. .. /J2a~!,,~II#!l~.
..______1~f)m~-.. {;lJ~/A~~..I ~.- ---. -.- -
_~ . W~._~_~a-
_ ~fJ'~ 1."t:.. -r~ ~._~~~~
~ ~ ~e& blM ~<"-h-r'~ ~o.-5J.
.
~~~-'.A ~ /Ai'LLlIU'" ~6;M7 6?L- ~-'I'4
4- ~~.~ ~~.(.4 w.JN ~.J'~~
_ _ - (I,~H."" -?~ i~ .. -
.___ ____."e~?!.!-_~_ - iI~~~ ':/.if..<<-4'H'ffi~ -
'Q~'D - ___m.-'I1!Z_()x.~ _att!:t!L~ a,-P..M ~ .~4kU~~~_.__
3~",-,()....._~.~~-;;./Jr6Wtr._t)~ .
u.;.-'
O -0
. ..
__~R~-AJ ~7~ ~I_- bll-"~"~~J A-H.~I!'~~.6
_..n ~~r~"":'f'~ ~~ ~~ ~'/"et~ln_~-:
. .
C'DItr"O. ---~ . .' .. -----
~.,A'" ....A~.-z,s.~-~~ h-_~._~~.~... .
_ .__~ ~.~~~ ~~ /&s<JK-. ~k~ ,~~~
__ ....~ ,..fJ~_#~_~.?:i~!.~._------
_ ....f!;~__W~._t/~._-~-~~~~...-_.-
~ . .~:':-:::::,l;~J::::::";~~(
_ . __ '''''__' ~O$.!(\.._..Z.'f_~_.~._W~-...~-~~.~.-
W"l-. " ok- .. ,. ,~.-~.L ,". L, ./ ~ t?c:-'.A--'I~
..,,,~~ w",,~~~ __~AI. . .!-7- .
. ~./J~ .-- . . ......
n_' lPu~ ~~. (J~ J1,...'4l'y{"-a..M.~
.._....al.ao .cft~~.y!.t"1- .~_~a..L ,~~..:
__ .., W~ ,,;yy(,a"j" ~ /JIJ<J~ r./ .~ "?'-~ ~L1...
...~. .,$;L~.. . ..... _._. _... -.-..,-.. ... --- . ----.....-... ..-.. .
.__ ____ __.._..R~~.1-=-_~._e~.$.~-(~~-~---""-_..
__.~. . ._.._~-_.W~-R-~~._~~_..
~._____.2'i ~ ~4'J..J, ~~(,(La<J
. ,"~,..UJ ~-L"~-' />~"...
J') · .
~H'1tf, ~2.:' rtHA.- fY-,,~~1 bL/.A~
J-/C- tvv-1 I ,o~ ,..D.-M~/'1.h.r~ dI~.I~.v~_
J~~)~_ .~-,h~~J!J ~A~ ~ e~d.
~~,~~ '::; ~~J~
:Pt~ 'rL~/~
:1 l2.ew'.> "3 =_~~- p6!"~Ue/
._.__'. .. ."~ w.<i~'._~~-~--..__._-.-
. P'1 .s- .
." 0 -0
__ __RQDfl'\-_35::;-_..P~A'L I....:. ~ _"I_P~..Pi.~'H
. ~.
--...--. ~~Ip~_~~~ _/??'..'
_'_ __~~.: ~ ~-~ I dA"4. - - .
-- -- ...~~ 0{ .~~.~..- .---... -'.
~. ___._. ctcf~'. 3.'.~. ... P~._.IJ".l,,~_k()~tQ,,~-...J__. .
.' _ _ __.. 12 ~J",() . .. ... . .. -_... . _. .--
_.__ _ __. RD()~ "S7? ~fJ~4~d_.f~f"A~txL ~
_._ .__~~k./~- I.~ .e~~....
___. ._. ....Q~ .::L.JV-d Cl/I-L ~1f,.. /JH4.. ~tJ?~ 4k.
__.. .... /~IlI,n.38 = ~.A.~~~ ~
. ~ ~,~ ;J;t.d. J p~ .~~4,-)C-Q.tf'~
~ 4Lb. ~J"-' ./':.--C.J ,,7'-, ~ ~-tA.
.. ~~~.. "3~:. f}y~~~~1 etub..<.W tu~~
evrd ;7/..e-~~.y.ij Eh~I~.I ~~.I
.._.__ ... /lJ.4.1.. /)')cu..""bn~-u;.t.. .J,?LLL~"1' r'~
.... . ._~ c?dt-.;~. .... -
_ __... ..._.._ .I<~~~._/f~;._. w~__w~.. _.._._......H U_.
.____R-o.tJ.dJ._ ~'- ::_~~--~ ..~._.
. ~~~!.~~~_a&td-_~"-A'~J"~" ._-
~;:~.~ - .. --_..~~-
. *_~~_c1~ ,~-_.-..
~.bL, /L(l:;f!u~ a,.-,.,,d ~~ /n~
. ~~le4~---ca~~ ~ e~
nD~"" ~~':. .~_. fJ~-~~(!"..~~~-'
~ ~U-;::z.
. --~""-!7~~~~.
--"" .,. -~'-~ -~ .
(;3;/
p, ,
- .
. .
-4
ill
~
.'. 0 -0
, -'I ~ ~f/'''<< r fi-,A ~~;,L h~<';rt1:-;
____,_..._a.~ ~~tJt#~__~-A-~-~
___ _'_ nO ~n~_,,_~d1. ~ _..~-~.wA ~--(~-~-
. __ ..__~-,e~~(~41__M/~--r~"-"-~"-'-
,€. . ~~_. ~../2~~
6J"1- . -'.. ~ -
_.. . __ 6-, h'\. __ ~ . .;~. r- -- - .h'\. . .
JfH'u....-_"I,~ _~_4/.~#i(./lO. ~_..<3~.::-_
___..~_,...".~r.~~~4.~AeJ~~~ )-----
. .... R~/)~- _ J;/9~. .()~t 1.__.V~.;;t..~ w.~;t;J.
.___ _. ..~~_.~~__#.:~~ dH1A.-..,.-tLtr1PL
. ~ <t ch"A~t.4-.f~~;:L~
o. __ K~tQ I a.toA 'a'~" t!../,.Ui..L- tJ. l..
.. ~~."'-<- ~ .;CU.-<.<A <<.4 . ~<(f>.t'
...~.. ~ ~J~ ~u.Jo~~r
_ _ .... .,;t/~. W~_,. ~.4I~. tv.lu~'-
_. ...fJut.r1 da-?.'~~1.._ ~.._.<h-~U-~(.l w~
_ ... ~ ._~ __"- '1., ...Ii ilr-!l--7~.. ~', -'i:r ,L~, ..,
. .
--"'--=fi~~--~~-'WA-;-~t.L~6~ .- 00'
. ~-11/-90 . - '--
_. 'r~Yl!!~
.- ... - ......- - --.-.-...--. ~_._- .. ~ ---.- --
\
-
..
.
~
Ll
.
1
2
3
6
5
6
7
8
9
10
.7AND P. .L. a~ At.t.os'nQ' -0
_~ 10. 1%I.IOJf8. Depu~ a~ A~
300 I -D- Iu..t:. aCIClII "a
a.~. ca1i.fcn:nLa 9261a
(716 t."..;JN-USI
SUPERIOIl COUItT OJ' 'l'U STAH OJ' CALIfOUlA
fOil THB COUN'1'Y OJ' SAN al1lNAltDIIIO
27 / r /
28
Ds:mg/br[Civicl.Dac] 1
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASB 110.:
At'tOmQ8 for CI'l"l OJ' SAN aDNAltDINO
. .
'1'HB PBOPLB OJ' THB STATE OJ'
11 CALIfOUIA.
12 Plaintiff.
13 v..
16 LEI WANG: CINDY L. WANG. and DOES
1 througb 60. Inclu.iva.
15
16
Defendant. .
DBCT.lUIATION OJ'
DAVID STACROIfSaa;"
CI'l"l A'l'TOItNBY
INVBSTIGATOIl
17 1. DAVID STACHOwsaa. City Attorney Inve.tigator, declare
18 tbat 1 a.. at all ti... ..ntionad berein wu, a C1~ Attorney
19 Inve.tigator for tbe City of San Bernardino, engaged in tbe
20 perforaance of official dutie..
21 1 bave bean an Inve.tigator for the City Attorney'. Office
22 for five .ontba. 1.. a reti.red Le. Angele. police Officer witb
23 twenty-three year. of .ervice witb that department retiring a. a
26 Detective Sergeant. 1 bave eigbteen year. experience a. an
25 Inve.tigator, two year. a. a Vice and Narcotic Inve.tigator and
26 bave bad experience in various type. of inve.tigations including
.j.
.
t_ ~ 9a~c~a x-aUga1:e=. ~Q adlU,1:i.oD. % "- --~
~....~~enc. a. a p~op.r1:7 ine~anc. ad,uat.~and a.
f~ vi.'tb bas~ and d.....gee cauaed by wat~. u~ and o1:heI:
.l-'~..
On 'p.bruary' 23. 1990. an inv..tigation wa. 1n1t1ated
regarding 'the .Ci,,1c c_ter Mo1:el loc.ted at 655 Nor1:b "D" Sueet
in 'the Ci1:y and COun1:y of San 8u'nardiJIO. 'rbe 1nve.1:igat1on w..
1nit~.ted due to numeroua coaplaint. of bu.1n.....n and tbeir
e.ployee. 1n addition to po11ce officer. about tbe drug.
pro.titut10n and crim. activ11:y 1n tb. v1cin11:y of tb. Civic
Center Motel and the numerous arreat. for var10ua riol.t1ona 1ft
addition to the voluminous amount of call.d for .~ce.. ~ the
,
'o11ce D.partment.
I bave obtained certified cop1e. of tbe deed. for the
prope~ and building. located at 655 No~ "D" Sue.t frea P1nt
"'er1can Title Company. 'l'be.e deed. contain the n_e. of all
partie. wbicb ar. inve.ted intere.t in tbe property. Tbe.e
document. .how Lei wang fa Cindy L. wang of 2132 A1l1&dele Avenue.
Lo. Angele.. C.lifornia a. owner. of tbe property. Tbe.e
document. are attached .et forth a. Exhibit "A" and A-l
respectively.
I have obtained buainea. t_ and permit 1nfo~tion frOlll
'the Ci1:y Clerk'. Office which reflect. an active account in the
na.e of Lei Wang " Cindy L. wang. Certified copies of the.e
docu.ent. are .et forth a. Exhibit "B-1" through "B-4",
inc;u.ive. totb1. declaration, wbich exhibit. are bereby
inCOrpor.ted berein.
Ds:mg/br[Civicl.Decl 2
a
4
.
lL
j
Jll
on .~uy 23. 1990. X ~.Qll-> 9 w a ao.plai.1ft t_ ..
...11j.. Qrrq. ot ~'. p~ Aut 1bi.le. l00a~ a1: WI ......th
.~,.
-De .~_t;. Ian ..~. . C~ i.n41ca'ted tba1: Oft ,,~
21. 1990. wb8n he c... W hi. buai.ne.. w OpeD i.t; up. he obaeZ'ge4
'that; nuiHrou. vehicle. on hi. uaed car lot; had bun 4lI...ged. I
ob.arved daaage't;o app~ziaat;elY 8-10 vehicle.. one of which w..
a 1957 ~let; whicb a .uapact; had walked on 'tba I'OOf of in &II.
apparent; at;t;apt; t;o e.cap. t;be guard dog. The vehicle. were
parked in .ucb a .anner t;bat; t;be da.age wa. in area. wbich,
incUcat;ed 'that; nUllerou. piece. of ..phal t; ware tN:own fro. t;he .
adjoining p~per'ty that being 'the Civic center Mo'tal. .. canr
related that there ba. been ongoing p~bl'" for 'tba put; .aevaJ:al
'i:
year. with resident. of 'the Motel. 81. 4aclaraUon and 1:118 MIlO
o.
regarcUng hi. .interview are part of Bsh1bi t; -C-l-.
After having interviewed Mr. carey. I want to 'tba Civic
Canter Motel and intervi.wed 'tba Manager. Wee Cbaong Cbong. vbo
identified hi..elf a. Dan Chong. Ke .tated he had been 'tba
.anager for over a year and a half. I infoned Mr. Cbong of the
nu.erou. proble_ 'that were _anating frOll hi. IIOtel 1nclucUng
'the damage to tb. vehicle. of carey'. Fine AutOllObile. and the
ongoing pro.titution and drug proble.. at the Motel. I
.ugg..t;ac! w Mr. Chang that he ""ecUately h1.~e an aned Sacur1.1:y
Guard to alleviate the.e p~bl"', On Saturday, February 24,
1990. I checked the location and cUd not see a securi'ty Guard at
1:30 in the afternoon.
I did .peak to Mr. Chong 'the following week and r_arked
'that I cUd not .ee a Security Guard on Saturday and he repl1.ec
Ds:mg/br[Civicl.Dec] 3
-
.
1
2
3
6
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
15
16
17
18
19
20
.21
22
23
26
25
26
27
28
4.
J:U
Jl.
-0 -0
'tba~ ~ .ecur1~ Quad ~ ~ 1a. ~ ad "17 ~
baL-~iF:" iDd:lca~" 'tba~ ~b.gua~4 va. no~ a a~.4 ..ou~i~
-- .
-
~ i.~ v_ a 1...1. vbO be bad U8ed on a pr10z0 ooo..:loft -.. .
h1a 8ec=1 q. H. iDd:loa~ on 'tba pr1o~ ooo..1on be bad traded,
free rent: for .."io.. ~endend .. . securi t7 Guard.
.
*. .11:11_ ~ey ..t:. f~ ill bi. deol~.t:ion t:b.t: - bi. I
ou.t:o..~. h.v. b..n b.r....d b7 proat:it:ut:.. and dzug deal~.
B. ha. 8Uff.~.d .any .ot:. of vandali_ and 'tbaft:. t:o bi. ftbiol..
on bi. u..d c~ lot:. Hi. guard doga ha.. been poi8ONMl aevval
t:iIDe.. H. ha. .pok.n t:o t:b. ovn.~. .nd .an.g.r of t:b. aot:.l
..v.~.l t:ia.. reg~ding 'tba p~b1_ t:o no .vail.
Monica M. Sait:b i. an employee of t:b. Budg.t: ..n'.l C.r
10cat:.d .t: 601 Nort:b -n- St:r..t: .nd h.r d.cl~.t:ion OIlt:lina.
having be.n .cco.t:.d ....r.l t:iaa. and ~...ed ftUIMZOU8 tin. b7
individual. vho .b. Icnov. have liv.d at: t:be Civic Cent:~ Maul.
Th.ir c~. h.v. been vand.liz.d ill .ddit:ion t:o rook.. bot:t:l..
and t:r.ah h.ving been t:~ ont:o t:b. p~part7 b7 oooupant:a of
t:b. aot:.l. 5.. Exbibit: -C-2- .t:t:.chad ber.t:o and incorpor.t:.d br
t:beir r.f.r.nc..
a.y.ond , M.gd.1.n. N.gr.t:. .r. t:b. ovn.r. of N.n..
Mexic.n a..t:.ur.nt: .t: 662 Nort:b -D- St:r..t:. S.n B.rn.rdino.
Th.i.r d.ol.r.t:ion indic.t:.. t:bat: t:b.y h.v. no buain... 1ft t:ba
.vening t:iIDe due t:o ~.....nt: .nd .ot:. 0Ivio1.nc. fro. the
t:.n.nt:. of th. Civic C.nt:.r Mot:.1. Th.ir cu.t:o..r.' .nd
..ploy.... v.bicl.. h.ve baen vand.1iz.d and b~k.n int:o. v.ry
r.c.nt:ly. on. of t:b.ir cua~n v.. .oco.t:.d by an individual
v.~ing . ...k vho demanded aaoney bUt: v.. .ub.equant:ly frigbt:.nac
ns:ag/br[Civicl.n.o] 6
~
41
.
..J..
jJ
1
2
3
o .. -0 ".
-87. 'l'tw d8cluaUon o. Meogdaleaa ~e_ j,8 a<t:t:aot>... beI:.to ..
......'rJf_..c-a. and j,~para'" ~~. re..enae.
. _. GIla Ma~ o. Ma~ SOUlld Sya1:'" loca~ed a~ 633 ...th
"""
. -D- suae~, San .emard1nO ... i.n~enj,ewe4. He hall been a~ that
5 locatlon for t:h1~ yeara. In t:he put.is yean, he hall kept:
.
6 hi. front and rau cSoor. locked during tnw1ne.. hour.. lie ha.
7 bed daaage t:o hi. vehicle. puked on hi. .,rope~. He loaka hi.
8 cSoora a. he ba. hae! people enter hi. tnw1ne.. who are not: ob9j,ou.
9 bu.lne.. peopla but who he beU.... re.lc!e at t:he lIOt:el and have
10 entarae! the bu.lna.. j,n" an atte.pt to a.certaln lf there 1.
11 prope~ t:hara t:hat couleS be .t:olen. . Hi. e!ecluaUon 1. attached
12 a. Exh1bj,t wC_'w ane! lncorporatae! by t:h1. raferanee.
~
13
Mr. Stava Max.on ha. been i.n buai.na.. .i.nce 1982! ~t 600
1. Nort:h wDw Straat, San .e~na. He baa a Mot:orcycle Jlepa1r and
15 Acce..ory Shop. Hj,. bu.lne.. baa baen ~ ncta of ftUlMr0u8
16 t:heft. frOll t:ha vehicla. pukae! on hi. lot and attrlbute. 8ClIle of
17 the thaft. to the ra.j,e!ant. of tha Cj,vlc Cantar Motal. Bj,.
18 e!ecluatlon 1. lDukae! Exhlblt -C-5w ane! lncorporatae! by thl.
19 rafarenca..
20 Mr. Rlchare! Steller, 1. tha Pra.le!ant of the Stane!are!
21 Mortgaga COJDpany locatae! at 375 Wa.t 7th Straat, San .arnarc!1na.
22 At~achee! 1. a e!aclaratlon of Rlcbare! sta:Uar wblcb j,a
23 lncorporatee!.. Exhlblt wC_6w anUllaratlng nUllarou. act. af
24 vandall.. and crllDa. which have been encountarae! by t:ha alllPlayaas
25 of that a.tabll.hIDent.
26 on MUch 13, 1990, Inve.tlgator. Dava "stachoWakl ~ Robert
27 Jani..e i.ntarvla..e! one Antolnetta Tata who ha. actae! ln th4
28
DS:IDg/br[Clvlcl.Dacl 5
-
....
~
1 capac~'ty.A secu~~'ty cau-4. U\ ~ -01: aa4 ~1:17 d ~
2 cs........1:.~ Mo1:e1. bO.e"e~. ahe ~. no1: a 1~canae4 ._~s.1:y
3 OffS.~ .. fu.1: wodCed at: 1:hat: locat:S.Oft frca Sept...-.. 15.
6 1981 ~ ~~ 15. 1989 and worked a~'telY frca 11:00 p...
5 'to 5:00 ..... She 1nd1c.'te4 1:ha't during 1:ha't t:1ae two f-.1.. in
6 aoCW. 8 and 9. hae! baeD conduC't1ng ~.'t1 'tu't10n 1n 'tho.. roo..
7 4u~ing 'tb.'t p.~10e! of t:i... Sb. w.. ~ecen'tly ..plcyacS frca
8 FebZ'UUY 28. 1990 - MUch 7. 1990 .ne! 1ne!1cat:.. 'th. .... 'two
9 f...l.. .r. .t111 cone!uc'ting pro.t:1tu-t10n 1n tho.. roo...
10 Ant:ona"e Tate ln41c.t..' 1:ha't .he 'tOle! tb. Managar DaD Cheong
11 Chong. ragu41ng 'the ac1:1 vi 1:7 and he 'tOle! bar not: 'to bo'tbar 'the
12 f...le. a. 1:hat wa. bow 'th.y .aeSe a li,,1ng and pale! 'theu nn't.
. -
13 She incS1cat.e! 'that bat:we.n F.bruuy 28 and MUch 7. 'th. ocicNpaDu
,.
16 of ROOII 6 were d.aling drug. and when .he a".-p'te4 'to ~Wan't a
15 .1.1tor fro. going to the roo. aft.r 11:00 p.... he pullad a
16 knif. on ber and t:hre.'tenad .her with 'the Icn1fa. She 1ncS1catad
17 1:ha't t:b1. .ana eye. w.r. 411.'t.d and be had 'track. on hi. UlI8.
18 (n.edl. mark.) Sb. .tatad 'th.t &he 'told 'the Manager. Dan CboOng
19 Chong. ragucS1ng 'the drug eSealing. and b. .aid not 'to bo'ther 'the
20 peopl.. .Sb. incS1ca'ted 1:hat one vi.itor attaapta4 to run he~ over
21 witb bi. truck. Har d.claration i. .arked Exbib1t wDw and
22 incOrporated by t:b1. referanc..
23 1 cau..d a co.put.r run to be .ade of all call. for
26 ..rv1ce. to 'the 600 block of Nor'th WDW Street:. from the per1ed of
25 1/1/89 _ 2/28/90. Thi. lnforaa1:1on was compl1ed by Carl Falkel
26 of The Dat. PZ'OC...1ng D.Put:aant of tb. C1'ty of san .emucS1no.
27 Tb. computer run 1. Exbib11: wEw. Thi. comput.r run tall1.. al:
28
Ds:ag/br[C1V1cl.Dacl 6
~
.J.
.!I..
1
2
3
6
aa11a ~,. ~Cnc_ W ~ 600 block ot ~Q- -D- .=~. ws._ 'tba
~ ~~ j,Q ei~ . ~pon. ":E'eR. -.paR'" -
azz'~..~ 1:IIe ~bl_ ~l" ~ 1:be ~e. 1mrol~. In.a
one ~ period o~ t~. tile call. foZ' ..Z'Vic.. to the Civic
5 cct. 1401:.1 alena .wazoa 162. '1'haZ'a wazoa 79 o1:baZ' call. feZ' ~
6 600 block of tfOZ'th -D- SUMt. which includea botb .ide. of tM
7 .uMb.
8 '1'ba a.ial pIIoto which i. labibit -L- abon that ~~ azoa
9 .ight bu.in..... total in the 600 block of -D- StZ'a.t which
10 include. 1:be Civic Cantar Mot.l. Thaaa phOtOa &CCUZ'at.ly depict
11 1:be azoaa .. paZ'.onally ob.ar:va4 ~ _.
12 on Much 6. 1990. I cauaed a COIIPut.Z' Z'Uft to be .adeotb7 tM
. .~
13. CZ':I.IIa Analy.i. Saction of 1:be San BaZ'naZ'dinO Polic.. nap..' L ~'t of
...
.
14 Z'aponing Di.uict 207. Included in Z'apoZ'tiftg DiatZ'iR 207 i.
15 1:be 600 block of NoZ'tb -Dw Suaat. I COIIPiled a li.t of cd...
16 and aZ'Z'a.t. fzooa 1:be c:omputaZ' pZ'intout and a .~tazy fZ'Ola tM
17 City Attozonay'. Offic. paraonally .elacted 1:be CZ'iaa and A1Ta.t
18 .apoZ't. fZ'o. tha racord. .action of ~ San hrnaZ'dinO Polica
19 D.part::aant. '1'ba Sacratazy i. xo.u OUadZ'i. wbe'. daclazoation in
20 this regard i. enclo.ed .. Exhibit WOW. '1'ba tt.. fr... for ~
21 cr:l.lla. and arre.b u. fZ'Ola Januazy 1, 1989 - Fabruazy 28. 1990.
22 aaguding 1:be Civic Cenotar Mootel, tIlare wara 32 arre.t. ..de at
23 that location, 7 arra.t. for pro.titution, 7 arre.t. for drug..
26 and 2 aZ'Z'a.t. for .ala. of dZ'ug.. 'l'ha oth.r r..aining arrasa
25 ware for ai.cel1anaoua violations. 'l'hare wera 36 cri.. raport.
26 at t~at location for various offan.a. including 3 for child
27 abu.; 6 cri.a. for tha thaft of auoto.obila. which involved
28
DS:ag/br[Civicl.Dac] 7
4
. 0 -n
~a1:e8 WhG __ ~.j.lUag a. 1:M -'181. oa-e - s ;r;~.~
~.aDlI 2 o~ i:boae i.nai.daDU uwo1"..s "..:oai:j.a1:e8 ... -
n.l.~ .. 1:h. _'-.1. % p.r.ona11y r..1._4 a11 1:_ BH6
MDi:ioad npor1:a.
'l'her. v.r. 15 ai.c.Uaneoua ~ in i:be 600 bloc1c of
Nori:b .D. sueai:, 5 of which van fer nucoi:ica, 1:bere vera 34
alae.Uan.QUa cr~ r.porta fer .uioua off....... !be ~1M aa4
ArreR a.port. u. anelo.e4 .. bbibii: .S..
Th. nUllb.r of criae., ure... and call. fer ~c.. are
aub.1:an1:i.l .. i:be .&nagar had indic.i:e4 w .- i:hai: CD a.uq.
25 ~ . d.y u. r.ni:.d cui: .1i:boUgh i:bera are 41 rani:a1 ala
in i:be coaplaz.
-
.~;
. on Much 16, 1990, the Civic ceni:U Moi:.l v.. ~ by
':-. ..
ay..lf, Cod. .Enforc..ani: Officar Dany Nolfo, Pir. Inap.cwr
Ch.rloi:i:a a.ynolda, Pir. InapecWr Mik.l Parka, and .~~-. of
the San Bernudino Polic. Dapui:aeni:. The folloviftg i. . 11ft of
viol.i:ion. found by Pi~ Inapaci:= Charloi:i:. aaynolda (5.. i:ha
.i:i:acbed d.clu.i:ion auk.d bhibii: WI. and incorpor.i:a4 by t:he
r.f.rane..)
Nin.i:..n non vorking ..ok. d.1:.c1:or.. Tbj,rt.an 81..1zIg
..ok. d.i:.ci:or.. . Tvo d.ng.rou. c.rbon .onozid. producing
h.ai:.r.. Pifi:y-on. h..1:.r. n..d i:o b. 1n.p.ci:.d by i:ha G..
COapanyand/or . h..i:1ng coni:r.ci:or, .z..pl., noi: ..cur.d.
prop.rly, .nclo.ur.. part. al..lng, houa. k..p1zlg duai:, dlri:y,
vani:lng iapropar. on. b..i:u v.. u..d in an unlaprovad .ann.r
for cooking. All .zl.i: p....g. v.ye had inadaquai:. ligbi:ing,
bulb. raaovad, v..p. ne.", birda n..i:., ..ny cov.r. .i..ing.
DS:mg/br[Civicl.Dac] 8
-
1
2
3
. 0 -0.
one ~Lre ~8beZ' till noi: ~ .....-- .Lse, DD naw ~.
aa. ... ~.her.L..Lftg, 'three ~ra.h eDOlo.ure. Soft -
..~. dangerou. area. uDder coabu.~Lbl. pa~h~ o~ 8gr....
6 {"
,f.q Id.~ UftCl.an, doe. not: ...1: IILniaua code, requLn.
5 co...rcial hood and duc1: .7.1:e. and i.proved auto.atic
6 euppn..ion .-yet_. OVen u.ed a. barbecu.. stove. wer. red
7 tagged no1: 1:0 ue. Ez1t pu.age way frea unite 45, 46, 47, 48,
8 69 Ln 1:he upPer floor in dangeroue uneafe cond1 tion. 804y night
9 .tr....d .tructural material. Vnder8ide of upPer ez1t p...age
10 wa7 heading to north.a.1: .tairvell w.. .everall7 cracked and
11 concrete ai.81ng. One g.. dry.r red tagged, do noi: uee, dryen,
12 electrical part. and wirLng coy.red with duet and lLnt. Du8t an4
.
lLnt on wall and c.iling produced dangeroue cond1 1:1on.
~opu
13
16
Yeft1:Lng of ga. dryer to CClIb\l.tLble .1:Orag. an..
.
Pour 8torage
15 Z'OOlIII Ln need of hou.eke.ping. One having .1:Orage of tir... S1z
16 unit. w.re ..verely dirty with accumulation of tra.h, .1:orag.
17 and oth.r cQllbu.1:ible debri. which .ndang.r not only 1:heIUelft.
18 bu1: 1:he ~..a1n1ng tenan1:.. Sis un11:. _re cookLnV Ln 1:he rooma,
19 ezample ho1: plate., el.c1:rical frying pane and toa.1:er. OYerall
20 cond11:ion ob.erved hou.ekeeping and .aintenance poor. A Fire
21 Safe1:7 No1:ice w.. per.onally handed to 1:he manag.r. w.. Choong
22 CbOn9. (S.. a1:tached d.clara1:ion).
23 Code Bnforce.en1: Officer. Dany Nolfo. ob..rv.d and cited
26 for the following viola1:iona.
25 Twen1:y count.. of esce..ive espo.ed wiring in apartmentl
26 which inClude 1:he ki tch8n area out.id. lighting. Nina un1 ts a1
27 which _re dangeroue con4i1:ioftS, open/vacan1: Ln violation of Sill
28
DS:mg/br[Civicl.Dec] 9
.,....~.
-
1
2
3
,
5
6
. o. -n
Bernard~no Mun~c~pal CodelS.2..~O. Broken .~aov. aa4
'V"-' S. ftree ~a wblab ba4 defecUve .aar ol-a 1Iblc:b
,.-..
po..b....rou. cond~~~0D8 for 1:er.ft~. PoOl fence wblcb ...
wwecure4 w code for cb11dreft w ea~u. daDg.r0u8 for cb11dnD.
Infe.~at1on of bug. and cockroacb... .aY' r.quire fuaigat1On.
Block vall on 'nortb .1de top roll c081ng down (dang.rou.).
7 Inadequate .~tat~on 'traab 1ft ~aov-. s~al haaarda. decka
8 ce~l1ng. rao.. 19. 20. 21. " . '9. "aul't7...'tbar pzo't~on of
9 window. aa4 door.. HuudOUa and wwan1t&r7 Pn8i.... ltao-. 1-51
10 1ftC1u~ ofUce. 1111proper occupancy 7 to 9 tenant. ~n a08e
11 J:OOII8. upper eSeck. and va1k are.. need _jar nP&ir. .1:ruc'tura1
12 deIIIag.. In all 95 coeSe v101at1ona were pre.eat at 655 Nw.th -D-
13 Str.et. San BernareS1no. See Code Bnforce.ent Off1cer~ Daar
l' No1fo'.. eSeclarat10n Exhibit -1-1-.
15 During 'tbe cour.e of 'tbe 1napect1on. 1 0baen8d cocJcrosct-..
16 in nUllerou. rOOlll.. There va. .evere .tructural 4...g. due 'to a
17 leaky roof . from tbe r.c.nt rain.. There... vatu d...ge 'to
18 .a11.. floor. and carpeting fraa an overflow of a w~let frea an
19 adjacent apartment. on IUftJ' of 'tbe rOOlll ce1l1ng. 'tben v.. 1I01d
20 1~cating cSulpne.. and .at.r cSulage. NUllerou. patchwork repairs
21 to cSr7Wa11 .en ob.ervaeS in many of the ~t. particularly in ~a
22 bathroo.. ~n the area of the .ater ba.1n. 1neS1cat1ng faulty
23 p1W1b~. Mo.t of 'tbe .hover ~t. and 'tub. wer. fl1'tby froa IlOt
2' having been .crubbed prQPerly. Furnitur. .a. fl1thy 1nc1ucUng
25 the eSrapery. Mo.t of 'tbe carpet~ ... fl1'tby and worn. ThI
26 ~t. .hich have .uffereeS vater cSeaage and have v1.1bl. .1gne 01
27 1I01eS are conduCive to 'tbe pre.ance of bacteria.
28
Ds:mg/br[C1v1cl.Dec] 10
-
.
.
.
-
.1.
J
1 SaA ~na~d~AO p01~oe O~~~Oe&-CJbbe~ ..~e~, who ~a
2 ...t _ ... Vice, w_ a't 'tbe 1oca't~Oft aDd be obllu ..M ~ ~ un
3 ~_ lA.ide 'the .0'te1 ~~ 'fWO of 'tbe pzo8'tl1:u'ta.
.-.
. wen z.g1~ iA 'tbe ao'tel aDd one p=.U1:u1:e w_ 1:ben with a
5 -U'lcJc- '1:0 l'eA't a rooa. Af1:el' the lnepec:1:10ft. 1 1ft1:enlewed the
6 MaAagel', .ee.CbooAg Chong. He .1:ated 1:hat he ha. been the
7 aanager .lAce July 1988. He .1:atad 'that 1:hUa ware .8 I'OOU 1ft
8 'the .ctel but Oft an average 25 1'00.. a~e rented pel' day. He
9 .tated 'that half of the 1'0ClIU ara rented by 'the day and the other
10 half are ranted by the week. The .elfare I)e~ .....1: llakee chacka
11 out 41l'ectly to the motal for 8210.00 per..... Be .tatad tha1:
12 the Welfare people aV.l'age 3-. pel' IDOn1:h. However. wheA the
13 arrang".At. w.l'e lIade through 1:he Salva1:10ft ~ 1:0 relocate the
1. IIOtel r..ld.n1:.. 11: wa. a.cel'1:a1ned 'there ware a1: le_t 2i unit.
15 1:ha1: wel'. belng pl'ovlded for by Welfare 01' 80118 other type of
16 Sta1:e Ald. He .1:a1:ed tha1: 1:he lady 1:hey hll'ed to pel'forll
17 .ecurlty dutle. qu11: appl'Ox1llately a week ago and they pre..n1:1y
18 have a lady nailed IC1la who 1. the Securlty. Offlcel' Sp1n41el".
19 .ta1:...nt 1. Exh1bl1: -J- and lAcorpol'ated by th1. reference.
20 I have ob1:alned declara1:10n. fl'OIl SaA Bernal'dlno Pol1ce
21 Offlc.l'. concernlng al'l'e.t. and lnv..tlgatlon. a1: the Clvlc
22 Can1:.1' Motel. 1 have a1:tach.d the.. d.clal'atlon. hereto a.
23 Exh1blta -X-l thI'OUgh X-13-. Th.y elther d.tall ac1:ual arre.t.
2. at the Clvlc Cent.1' Motel 01' .ub.tantlate It. reputatlon a. a
25 plac. whel'. pro.tl1:utlon and drug deaUng OCC\ll'.
26 on Much 1.. 1990. I photographed lndivldual I'OOIIS and the
27 IIOtel 1ft g.nel'al located at 655 North -I)- Stl'e.t. San Bernardino.
28
I)S:II9/br[Clvlc1.o.c] 11
.
1
2
3
.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.
25
26
27
28
..
.' 'l'h.g pho~ogzoaph. azo. a~~a9.4 a. ..hj,hj,~' -..- a1l4'
~ ~" what: 1 ott..rve4' at: t:be t:i.IIe t:be phot:opoa__
"s.
__ ..... . Pho1:o. j,naj,cSe each zoo. follow 1:he ptIo1:ogz'apb of 1:he
1Wf"-" Oft 'the fZ'Oftt: daoZ' of each zoo..
In ad41 t:lon. a. pre"lou.l!' zoefezoJ:ed t:o. I cauaad HZ'lal
pho'togZ'a__ of -the -D- S=eet uee in 1:he 600 block t:o he taken
h!' the San Bezonardlno Pol1ce Depart.ent. All of the
afor..-ntj,onad photo. are heret:o ettacbed' BD1blta -L-.
Flnally. 1 have obtalned atate.enta fr08 three of the
former tenant. of the Civic Canter Motel:
One tenant. Martha Vallejo adalt. 'workiDg out of the
motel. implledly a. a proatltute. Tenant RoD Svuta lndicatea
there vere water leak8 ln hia zoo. fZ'Clll nut door.
TeII8Ilt Itia
.'
Farguaon 1nd1cataa that thara wa. proatltutlon. dZ'ug dealing. and
roacha.. III1ca and U.ca in the zoo. ahe ehuad vlth her ch11dran.
Me. Fargueon al.o 11.t. 6 roo.a ln whlch proatltuta and drug
deallng occurrad.
COpla. of the decluatlona of Mr. Vallejo. Mr. Swartz and
Me. Farvuaon are attachad hento aa Eah1blta -N-l throUgh N-3-.
inclualva and incorporatad by th1. raferanee.
1 hava nad tha foragolng declaratlon con.l.tlng of 12
page. and dacluad undar penalty of perjury that lt 1. trua and
correct.
Exacutad at San Barnardlno. Callfornia on March :Z,
.
1990.
~t~r:~~--~ '
. ID '1'10
DS:8g{br[Civlcl.Dac]
12
.
.._ -._____.0 _ ..
,
o -0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM '#
LOCATION
CASE CDP 198
HEARING DATE 5/8/90
1
- _.
, -
, "
t
r-"
:;,
. . ..
. - ~ ..
~ L
o
o
EXHIBIT 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
b. The stabling or pasturing of the animals shaII not
be within one hundred fifty feet of a buildin. or
structure used or intended to be used for human
occupancy or within fifty feet of any neighborin.
property line;
c. A letter from the county health officer indicates
that such use will not be a hazard to the public
health; and
d. There is compliance with all other applicable laws
of the City.
5. The Planning Director shaII revoke such approval of
temporary grazing whenever:
a. The user of the land has violated any law or condi-
tion with respect to the use of the land; or
b. He receives notification by the county health officer
that such use of land is a hazard to the public
health; or
c. He receives notification by the Mayor and Common
Council that the use should be terminated.
B. Such notice of termination shaII become effective, and
further use shaII cease forty-eight hours after notice has
been mailed to the user of the land by fmt-class mail at
the address shown on the plot plan.
(Ord. MC-134, 1982;Ord.3493(part),1975;Ord. 1991 A 28.8
(C), 1953.)
19.78.110 ReYoc:ation. modlfication and voicfina.
A. The CommiJIion may. and upon the direction of the
Council shaII, hold a public hearing to consider the revoca-
tion of a conditional use permit. Such permit can be
revoked if, from facts presented at the public hearinl or by
investigation, the Commission fmds anyone or more of the
followin. arounds:
I. The permit approval was obtained by fraud; or
2. The permit is being or has been exercised contrary to
the conditions of such permit or in violation of any
applicable licenses, permits, regulations, laws or ordi-
nances, or
3. The use for which the .permit approval was granted is
being or has been exercised so as to be detrimental to
the pUblic health or safety or to constitute a nuisance.
1224-3
(Sill Bernardino 5-83)
. '.-
..~ . .....
, . -. .
.
..... .
~..' . I
.
. .
. .
t,. .
r -....
..
- ...-:.:.-- ,'. .,,!,~-
II 0::-
- - r \\
, 0 0
\ .
~~ I
,
....
ZONING
B. Written notice of the date, time, place and purpose of such
public hearing shaI1 be served on the owners of the property
for which the permit was granted by registered mail, postage
prepaid, return receipt requested, not less than ten days
prior to the date of such hearing.
C. The Commission shall make its fmdings and decision within
forty days after the date of the hearing and shaI1 transmit a
copy thereof to the owner and the Common Council.
D. The Commission may modify the conditions of the permit
after the hearing if the grounds justifying a revocation can
be cured or corrected by the imposition of new, additional
or modified conditions.
E. Any person aggrieved or affected by the decision of the
Commission may appeal to the Common Council in accor-
dance with the provisiOns of Chapter 2.64.
F. A conditional use permit shaI1 become null and void if:
I. The use for which the permit was granted has ceased to
exist; or
2. The owner of the property for which the permit was
granted requests in writing that the permit be void and
the Commisaion approves such request.
(Ord. MC410, 9-17-84; Old. MC-134, 1982; Ord. 3535 (part),
1975; Old. 1991 A 28.9,8-10-53.)
19.78.120 Development agreements for surface mining.
The provisions of Article 2.5 (commencing with Section
65864) of Chapter 4 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the
State of California, as the same may now exist or hereafter be
amended, are adopted for and made applicable to surface
mining and land reclamation developments in the City of San
Bernardino. (Ord. MC-26I, 4-4-83.)
Chapter 19.79
SPECIFIC PLANS
Sections:
19.79.010 Purpose.
19.79.020 Authority.
19.79.030 Area of application.
19.79.040 Contents of the plan.
19.79.050 Application for approval - Fee.
19.79.060 Hearings on petition and notices thereof.
(San lImwdino 1-85)
12244
.
-. . ..-.
". ~ -. .
.
. . .'
..
. .
~ . .. . ,.
,.... :..
.
.
-"
.......:.-- -
- -
o
o
City of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1990
The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. in the council
Chambers, City Hall by Chairman Lindseth. The following
commissioners were present: Clemensen, Cole, Corona, Jordan,
Lindseth, Lopez and Stone. Absent: Sharp. Staff present:
Reed, Montgomery, Larson, Nahill, Gomez, Finn, Gubman,
Freiberg and Easley. Also present was Deputy city Attorney,
Henry Empeno and Senior Deputy city Attorney, John Wilson.
Commissioner Stone led the salute to the flag.
Ann Larson-perbix, senior Planner, asked all those who
intended to testify to stand and raise their right hand to be
sworn in. Ann Larson-Perbix administered the oath.
The Planning commission meeting minutes of December 12, 1989
and March 20, 1990 were approved by a motion from
commissioner Lopez and seconded by commissioner Corona and
carried unanimously. commissioner Corona abstained from
voting on the minutes of March 20th, as he was not present at
that meeting.
Plannina Director's Reoort
Larry Reed noted the Council's approval of the State College
Self storage request to put up a billboard sign along the
freeway. Mr. Reed also noted that the City had sent out
letters to building owners within the city regarding
unrein forced masonry buildings. He also noted a public
hearing scheduled whereby the owners of unreinforced masonry
buildings could present their comments and concerns.
* * *
Chairman Lindseth noted these items (Item Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, and 11) to be considered on the Consent Agenda. Senior
Planner, Ann Larson-Perbix, provided a brief description of
each item to be considered and noted staff's recommendations.
The consent agenda was approved for the recommendations of
staff by a motion from Commissioner Lopez seconded by
Commissioner Clemensen and unanimously carried.
* * *
The meeting was recessed from 9:20 - 9:25 p.m. Chairman
Lindseth left the meeting and Vice-Chairman Corona chaired
the remainder of the meeting.
rVUTDTT ~
CITY OF SAN BERN~NO PLANNING COMMISSION ~ING MINUTES
OF MAY 8, 1990
PAGE 2
ITEM NO.1
Revocation of Conditional DeveloDment Permit No. 198
Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately .86 acres having a frontage of
approximatelY 125 feet on the east side of "D" Street and
being located approximately 365 feet north of the centerline
of 6th street and further described as 665 N. "D" street. The
subject site is located in the CR-2, commercial Regional
Downtown, land use designation. The city proposes revocation
of Conditional Development permit No. 198 under authority of
Code Section(s) 19.78.110 (a)(2.)(3.), to revoke approvals
for a 50 unit motel.
Owner/Applicant:
Ward:
Exempt from CEQA (Class 21)
Staff Recommends Revocation of CDP No. 198
Lei & cindy Wang
1
Deputy city Attorney, John wilson, was present to provide
counsel to the planning commission. Deputy City Attorney,
Henry Empeno submitted documents referencing section
19.78.110 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code regarding
Revocation and voiding. Attorney Empeno also noted the staff
report of Conditional Development Permit 198 dated May 8,
1990 as being introduced into evidence as Exhibit "A". He
also noted several witnesses in the audience who intended to
testify in favor of the Revocation of Conditional Development
Permit 198.
The defense attorneys noted evidence into record as follows:
Exhibit A - Permittee's proposal For Permit Conditions of
permit operation In Lieu Of Revocation
Exhibit B - Letter From Joshua Kaplan to Larry E. Reed,
Director of Planning and Building Services
Department dated April 3, 1990
Exhibit C - Correction Notice served to the owners, Lei and
Cindy Wang of the civic Center Motel by Code
Enforcement Officer Danny Nolfo.
Exhibit D - Inspection record, also attached, is a list of
project owners responsibilities and building
permit issued to the owners of the civic Center
Motel dated March 26, 1990
The defense attorneys, Joshua Kaplan and Andrew Gunn,
representing the owners of the civic Center Motel, had
several objections to the procedures used in this proceeding.
They felt that this case should be continued until
statistical documents were received from the City Attorney's
Office as requested in letter dated April 3, 1990 from Joshua
Kaplan to Larry E. Reed, Director of Planning and Building
_ .1.
CITY OF SAN BERN~NO PLANNING COMMISSION ~ING MINUTES
OF MAY 8, 1990
PAGE 3
services Department. Deputy city Attorney, Empeno, stated
that he would provide defense counsel with crime statistic
information by the next meeting and recommended that the
planning Commission proceed with the hearing and allow
comments from the public. He noted that he had provided the
attorney's with all other requested information.
commissioner
commissioner
Lopez called
Commissioner
Cole motioned to continue with the hearing.
Clemensen seconded the motion. Commissioner
for question and the motion carried with all but
Stone's opposition.
Defense Attorneys objected to the prosecutor, investigator,
counsel and legal advisor all being from the City Attorney's
Office. After a lengthy discussion among the attorneys of
both parties, Commissioner Lopez moved to continue with the
public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Clemensen and carried with all but the opposition of
commissioner Stone.
Attorney Kaplan objected to the constitutionability of Code
Section 19.78.110 in that it is too vague and does not
provide guidelines. Commissioner Cole made a motion to
overrule the objection. The motion was seconded by
commissioner Lopez and carried with all but the opposition of
Commissioner stone.
Attorney Kaplan objected to use of Code Section 19.78.110.B,
stating that a precise accusatory document had not been
provided and, upon that basis, he requested dismissal of the
matter. Deputy city Attorney Empeno stated that Exhibit 1,
the staff report for revocation suffices for the due process
requirement to give notice of violations. commissioner
Clemensen made a motion to overrule the objection. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez and carried with
all but the opposition of commissioner Stone.
Attorney Kaplan objected to the receipt (by the Planning
commission) of the evidentiary matters submitted by Deputy
City Attorney Empeno as they are hearsay. Attorney Empeno
noted that this was not a formal court of law and evidence of
hearsay may be submitted and the weight of that evidence must
be determined. Commissioner Lopez made a motion to overrule
the objection. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Clemensen and carried with all but the opposition of
commissioner stone.
Attorney Kaplan motioned that the Planning commission review
all of the Deputy City Attorney Empeno's submissions and also
review the defense attorney's Exhibit A, which is a proposed
settlement document, and determine if it suffices to obviate.
Attorney Empeno noted that it was out of order for the
applicant to make a motion. Commissioner Clemensen made a
motion to overrule this request. The motion was seconded by
CITY OF SAN BERN~NO PLANNING COMMISSION ~ING MINUTES
OF MAY 8, 1990
PAGE 4
Commissioner Lopez and it carried unanimuously.
Attorney Kaplan submitted their Exhibit C - Correction Notice
dated March 23, 1990, and Exhibit 0 - Building permit dated
March 26, 1990. He felt that the proceedings should be
stopped based upon these Exhibits and requested dismissal of
the matter based upon the grounds of estoppal. He felt that
the owners of the motel should be given the opportunity to
make repairs. The Director of Planning and Building Services
confirmed that the owners of the motel did pull building
permits to make repairs. Commission Clemensen made a motion
to overrule the request. The motion was seconded by Commiss-
ioner Lopez and it carried with all but the opposition of
commissioner Stone.
Attorney Kaplan requested that the proceedings be removed to
the site at an appropriate hour.
Attorney Empeno suggested that the Planning Commission hear
witness testimony now and decide on having a field trip to
look at the motel at a later date. Commissioner Clemensen
moved that the Commission listen to the witnesses testimony
and schedule a field trip at a later date. Commissioner
Lopez seconded the motion and the motion carried with an
abstention from commissioner Stone and Commissioner Cole.
Testimonv in Favor of the
Develonment Permit No. 198
John Buckner, residing at 301 La Colina Drive, Redlands,
California, owner of Sierra Escrow Corporation at 805 North
"0" street, felt that the Civic Center Motel gave downtown
San Bernardino a very unattractive appearance. He also felt
the Planning Commission should really be concerned for the
beautification of downtown San Bernardino. Mr. Buckner
stated that, if conditions (to mitigate problems) could not
be imposed on the motel, he could not continue in business.
Revocation of Conditional
Dick steiler, of Standard Mortgage Company, which abuts the
site, at 375 W. 7th Street and 863 N. "0" Street, complained
of the huge crime rate in this area. Mr. Steiler noted
putting up an eight foot wall, and electric gate and
concertina wire to keep motel residents from coming onto his
property, but the fence doesn't help because the motel
residents jump over the fence and vandalize cars and rob
people. He stated that it was a daily occurrence to have
cars broken into. He also noted that his employees are
frightened to come to work because of being harassed by the
people living in the motel. Since the motel has been closed
Mr. Steiler has discovered that the car vandalism and
robberies have stopped.
Bill carey, owner of the auto agency just south of the civic
Center Motel at 645 North "0" Street, noted problems starting
.,."~~\;\
CITY OF SAN BERN~NO PLANNING COMMISSION ~ING MINUTES
OF MAY 8, 1990
PAGE 5
seven years ago. He noted that the motel owner stated he had
no control over the residents there. He also noted problems
such as those mentioned by Dick steiler. Attorney Gunn asked
if Mr. carey observed persons throwing rocks over the wall.
Mr. carey responded that he not only observed them but he
also caught them. He noted that 11 cars have been damaged by
rocks thrown over the wall and he had received reimbursement
once from the motel owners. After the closing of the motel,
Mr. carey noted being able to extend his business hours to
7:00 p.m. and that his night time sales tax had increased 40
percent.
Trinnie Morris, employed at Nina's Restaurant, 642 North "0"
street, mentioned customers refusing to stop because of the
bad crime rate in the area. Ms. Morris noted being escorted
to her car at night in fear of being attacked. She also
noted that since the closing of the civic Center Motel, she
feels a lot more safe and secure.
Randy Wade, Manager, Grand central, noted that they had hired
two security guards for their parking lot to protect cars
from being vandalized and to protect customers from being
robbed. He stated that they saw people jumping over walls,
robbing people and throwing things and the management of the
hotel does nothing, even though they saw one perpetrator run
into a room at the motel. Mr. Wade also noted getting little
or no support from the police Department. He stated that his
car's tires had been slashed four times.
Attorney Gunn asked, if there were more support from the
police Department, would this problem with vandalism of cars
and robberies be alleviated. Mr. Wade felt that police had
not been very supportive. Attorney Gunn also asked, if the
motel would provide their own security, would it help
eliminate problems of car vandalism and robberies. Mr. Wade
responded that he didn't feel it would alleviate these
problems. Mr. Wade also felt that putting up a wall and
having the area well lit would not help solve the problems.
In response to Attorney Kaplan, Mr. Wade stated that since
the motel was closed, they had let two security guards go and
had not had one problem. Mr. Wade further responded that,
even if licensed security guards were hired, he did not feel
it would be of benefit because there is no supervision from
the management of the motel and they don't care what happens
there.
Jerry Brown, owner of Grand Central, noted that several of
his customers have been raped shot at and had vehicles
vandalized. Mr. Brown felt that the motel should be closed.
He stated that he had watched people from the motel break
into his car and leave that lot and go back to the motel. He
also noted that his block wall had been knocked down by
customers of the motel. Mr. Brown noted that when he
CITY OF SAN BERN~INO pLANNING COMMISSION ~ING MINUTES
OF MAY 8, 1990
PAGE 6
confronted the owners of the motel about this incident, the
owners asked Mr. Brown to leave the premises.
Charlotte Reynolds, Assistant City Fire Marshall, noted the
motel being in violation of 101 counts of fire violations.
The meeting was briefly recessed from 11:00 to 11:15 so that
Commissioner stone could meet with Deputy City Attorney,
wilson. After the recess, Attorney Wilson stated that it was
determined that commissioner Stone did not have a conflict of
interest and the Commissioner could proceed with the hearing.
Ms. Reynolds also noted inspecting two motel units and
finding the outside vents of wall heaters wrapped in duct
tape. She noted that the manager of the motel stated that he
had taken tape and closed off the vents. Ms. Reynolds stated
that there was an overpowering smell of carbon monoxide in
those units and there were four adults and six children
there. When the fire officials went back to see if the wall
heater had been taken care of, the fire officials found the
room filled with flammable materials which could have caused
an explosion. She felt that by the Fire Department being
there, they eliminated a very serious life threatening
situation.
Attorney Gunn asked if this happened in one or two units. Ms.
Reynolds responded that it only happened in only two units.
Attorney Gunn also asked Reynolds if the whole building was
evacuated or just the two motel units where the flammable
materials were discovered. Ms. Reynolds responded that only
two motel units was evacuated and the direction to evacuate
the whole building was a direction of the Code Compliance
Division.
Attorney Gunn asked Reynolds when and if she told the motel
owners of what they were in violation of. Ms. Reynolds
responded that on March 14, 1990 she notified the owners of
the motel that they were in violation and indicated that they
would be back for reinspect ion on March 28, 1990. The
defense attorneys asked, if the owners of the motel complied
with Fire Department's requirements would the building then
be safe? Ms. Reynolds. noted that there are other
departments' requirements such as pOlice, and Code
Enforcement that must be complied with, and the motel would
not be safe unless repairs were made in conjuncion with all
other violations. Reynolds noted that there were problems
with the electrical, heating and structure.
Empeno suggested that the item be continued to a special
meeting on Tuesday, May 15, 1990.
CITY OF SAN BERNRINO
o
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 1990
Index
Page
Revocation of Conditional Development
permit No. 198 3
General Plan Amendment No. 90-2 22
General Plan Amendment No. 90-9 22
General Plan Amendment No. 90-10 23
General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 23
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-10 24
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-42 24
Tentative Tract No. 14193 25
EXHIBIT 5
o
o
city of San Bernardino
Planning commission Meeting Minutes
October 9, 1990
Chairman Lindseth called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in
the council Chambers, City Hall. The following
commissioners were present: Clemensen, Corona, Lindseth,
Lopez, Sharp (7:10), stone. Absent: Cole, Jordan. Staff
present: Reed, Finn, Taitague, Olivio-Gomez, Montgomery,
Woldruff, Bautista, Burke. Senior Assistant city Attorney
Dennis Barlow and Deputy city Attorney Henry Empeno were also
present.
The salute to the flag was led by Commissioner Lindseth.
John Montgomery, principal Planner asked all
intended to testify to stand and raise their right
sworn in; Mr. Montgomery administered the oath.
those who
hand to be
* * *
The approval of the minutes of the planning Commission
Meeting of September 11, 1990 were approved after the arrival
of commissioner Sharp by a motion from Commissioner stone,
seconded by commissioner Lopez and unanimously carried.
The approval of the minutes of the planning commission
Meeting of spetember 25, 1990 were postponed to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission, as there was not
a quorum of those commissioners present at that meeting.
* * *
Chairman Lindseth noted those items to be considered on the
Consent Agenda (Item Nos. 2, 6, 7, and 8). Mr. Montgomery
provided a brief description of each item and noted staff's
recommendations. Mr. Montgomery also noted modifications in
Item No. 8 conditions of Approval as:
Delete Condition No.5.
Revise Condition No. 28 to read:
28. The developer shall participate in any supplemental
fee program established by the City to help finance
new school off-site improvements or with the city
of San Bernardino community Facilities District No.
995 School Fee Mitigation Agreement.
Add Condition No. 29:
29. The single-family homes constructed on Lots 30, 45,
54, and 58 shall comply with the setback standards
specified by the Municipal Code in effect at the
time of Planning Department review and approval of
said homes.
Ci ty of San Berna9inO 0
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 2
commissioner Sharp arrived at 7:10 p.m.
commissioner Lopez made a motion
Calendar per the recommendations
seconded by Commissioner Clemensen
to approve the Consent
of staff. The motion was
and carried unanimously.
* * *
Chairman Lindseth asked if anyone in the audience would have
any problems with continuing Items 3, 4, and 5 to a future
Planning commission Meeting. He explained that Item No. 1
was a continued item that had priority and could run late
into the evening.
Al C. Ballard of representing Nick Tavaglione, owner, stated
Mr. Tavaglione would like a 30 day continuance on Item No.3.
Charles R. Metzger of 17511 Conte Lomas Verdes in poway
stated he had no problem with continuing Item No. 4 to the
next reqular meeting of October 23, 1990.
Ernest Riffenburgh representing Parkside Medical Services,
property owner, stated he had no problem with a continuance
on Item No.5.
Chairman Lindseth asked if anyone in the audience wished to
discuss these items further.
Bruno Sheryl
buyer, wanted
came from Los
of 1100 Grace Lane in Brentwood, Los Angeles,
Item No. 4 heard tonight if possible because he
Angeles.
Chairman
would be
o'clock.
Lindseth stated he could make no promises, but
automatically continued if Item No. 1 went to
it
11
Mr. Sheryl agreed to a continuance.
Bill Katona 1371 Walnut Street in San Bernardino wanted to
know why Item No. 3 was denied and what is Commercial General
designation and what the plans are for the property.
Mr. Reed stated if Mr. Katona's questions were general ones,
someone from staff could answer them for him on the side.
commissioner Clemensen motion to continue General Plan
Amendment No. 90-9 to November 6, 1990~ General Plan Amend-
ment No. 90-10 to October 23, 1990~ and General Plan Amend-
ment No. 90-7 to November 6, 1990. The motion was seconded
by commissioner Lopez and unanimously carried.
* * *
City of San serna9ino 0
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 3
ITEM NO.1
Revocation of Conditional Dav.lon.ant Permit No. 198
subject property is a rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately .86 acres having a frontage
of approximatelY 125 feet on the east side of "D" Street and
being located approximately 365 feet north of the centerline
of 6th Street and further described as 655 North "D" Street.
The subject site is located in the CR-2, Commercial Regional
Downtown, General Plan Land Use Desiqnation. The city
proposes revocation of Conditional Development Permit Number
198 under authority of Code section(s) 19.78.110 (A.) (2.)
(3.), to revoke approvals for a 50-unit motel.
Owners/Applicants: Lei & Cindy Wang
Ward: 1
Exempt from CEQA (Class 21)
Edalia Olivo-Gomez, Associate Planner, gave a brief presen-
tation of staff's report giving only planning issues and
violations of the Conditions of Approval of the Conditional
Use Permit.
Senior
record
matter
Assistant city
that he would
tonight.
Attorney Dennis Barlow stated for the
be advising the Commission on this
Deputy City Attorney Henry Empeno stated for the record his
name and title and that he would be assisting the Planning
Department in presenting this matter.
Attorney Empeno gave a recap of this case. He stated on May
8th the Planning commission began the hearing on this case at
that time four sets of documents were entered as Exhibits. He
reminded the Planning Commission that Exhibit No. 1 was the
staff report: Exhibit 2 is the Declaration of David
Stachowski, City Attorney Investigator, this document was
filed in the superior Court of the State of California County
of San Bernardino Case No. 255293: Exhibit No.3 was copies
of the San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.78.110: and
Exhibit No. 4 is Further Declaration of David Stachowski,
city Attorney Investigator, for same case. He also stated
that numerous witnesses have already testified in support of
the revocation which are recorded in the May 8, 1990 minutes.
Attorney Empeno stated to the Commission he would like to
provide them with three witnesses all together and make them
available for any questions by the Commission or the
Respondent. The witnesses were: David Stachowski, City
Attorney Investigator: Robert spindler, Detective with the
San Bernardino Police Department Vice Division: and Dany
Nolfo, Building Inspector with San Bernardino Planning and
Building services Department. Attorney Empeno stated that
the Exhibits were passed out at the May 8th meeting and that
he had copies with him tonight if anyone wished to refer to
o 0
city of San Bernardino
Planninq commission Meetinq Minutes of 10/9/90
paqe 4
them.
The witne.ses were asked to stand to be rec09Dized by the
commission and to answer any questions the Commission may
have. Attorney Empeno stated he did not have any specific
questions to ask them.
commissioner Lopez asked Attorney Empeno if all the documents
he referred to were made available to the applicant and the
attorneys for the applicant.
Attorney Empeno answered yes and stated copies were qiven to
the attorneys.
Attorney Empeno stated he would like to offer as evidence
these documents that are marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 to
be admitted as part of the Planninq Departments case.
Andrew Gunn, attorney for the owners, also present stated the
last time he appeared Josh Kaplan was with him but that he
would not be appearinq today and that Frank Wieser was
appearinq in his place. He further stated they objected to
the entry of the documents as evidence statinq they were
heresy and wanted to renew his request for rulinqs on the
motions made at the May 8th meetinq.
Chairman Lindseth asked Mr. Gunn to detail alleqations that
the documents were heresy.
Mr. Gunn stated they were comprised out of court statements
made by parties that were not present to cross examine. He
further stated it was a classic case of heresy made to be
used for the proof of the matter asserted. Mr. Gunn ques-
tioned the commission as to why Attorney Empeno advised the
Commission 20 minutes aqo if he was to cease advisinq the
commission.
Discussion ensued amonqest the attorneys as to was advisinq
the commission. It was resolved that Attorney Barlow was
advisinq the Commission on this matter.
Chairman Lindseth asked Attorney Barlow's concerns on the
points Mr. Gunn made that the documents were heresy.
Attorney Barlow suqqested he allow Attorney Empeno to arque
the matter of the documents beinq heresy. He further stated
that no rulinqs made at the previous hearinq were out-
standinq.
Attorney Empeno stated the documents, except for the
Municipal Codes and portions of the staff report, consisted
of sworn declarations siqned under the penalty of perjury.
Attorney Empeno arqued this was not a court of law that the
commission follows only quasijudicial procedural law heresy
is admissible to the Commission but the attorney for the
City of San BernaStino 0
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
page 5
respondent can only argue the weight that should be given to
heresy evidence. He stated that 3 of declarants are present
for cross examination and at the last meeting numerous
property owner. were present and available for cross
examination. The respondent also had the opportunity to
subpoena any witnesses he wished to bring forward that would
be helpful to his defense, including same declarants.
Chairman Lindseth asked Attorney Barlow if it was correct
that the purpose of the Commission was to listen to testimony
of both parties and make a sound and reasonable.judgment and
at that time the recommendation will go to the city council
for review.
Attorney Empeno stated San Bernardino
19.78.110 eel read that whichever decision
make a party may appeal to the Council.
Attorney Barlow stated there is a right of appeal but in
addition the findings are forwarded to the Council and it has
the opportunity to be aware of that but it's done directly by
appeal.
Municipal Code
the Commission may
Frank A. Wieser of 3460 wilshire Boulevard, Suite 903 in Los
Angeles, representing the owners, stated he just came in on
the case this week and has not had a chance to review the
file or see the testimony that is being brought in. He asked
if the City Attorney had set any guidelines or procedures as
to what could or could not be brought in as testimony. He
felt the objection Mr. Gunn made was well founded especially
to Mr. Stachowski's Declaration that is an ongoing court
matter that has not been finally aujudicated and that a judge
will make a decision as to what is heresy. He asked if Mr.
Empeno wanted this body to act in lieu of the judge. He
further stated the evidence that was being brought does not
necessarily go to the issues of planning they go to the
independent lawsuit for Redlight Abatement and Nuisance.
\
Attorney Empeno responded by saying that Mr. Wieser was not
familiar with the cases and the Commission was being asked to
rule on these documents for the purpose of this proceeding.
In the civil lawsuit the judge made no findings of inadmis-
sability and did take them into consideration. On the other
matter code Section 9.7.8110 list 2 provisions in which the
Commission can revoke this conditional development permit and
that these are the 2 provisions they are proceeding under
tonight. The provisions are as follows:
1) That the permit is being or has been exercised
contrary to the conditions of such permit or in
violation of any applicable licenses, permits,
regulations, laws or ordinances.
2) That the use for which permit approval was granted
is being or has been exercised so at to be deteri
city of San Berna9.ino 0
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 6
.ental to the public health or safety or to consti-
tute a nuisance.
He went on to list the issues before the commission tonight.
Attorney Barlow stated there was nothing in the code that
states the Commission is deprived of jurisdiction due to the
civil proceeding and that the objection be overruled and
receive into evidence the documents presented.
Mr. Wieser responded to Attorney Barlow's suggestion by
stating that he believed there was section in the 700 series
of the Civil Code specifically dealing with nuisances which
talks in the disjunctive or that a municipality or state or
whatever public body may pursue to abate a nuisance either by
way of the Redlight Abatement Act or by way of Penal Code
proceedings or by way of the civil code. He further stated
that the City Attorney was attempting to use these procee-
dings as a spring board for the proceedings that he initiated
in the civil action and because he could not get what he
wanted in the Civil action as quickly, or perhaps without the
finality that he can get with this board, he initiated these
proceedings.
Chairman Lindseth stated that by reviewing tapes and minutes
he sees no open or standing issues that have not been dis-
cussed. He further stated the commission is acting as a
administrative body and not a legal body and is not trying to
overrule a judicial action.
Attorney Barlow stated he
front of him but that
authority from proceedings
is not listed in that Code
did not have the Code section in
did not prohibit the appropriate
pursuant to somethings else that
Section.
commissioner Clemensen pointed out they have the power to
approve or revoke a conditional use permit within their
jurisdiction.
Chairman Lindseth decided to hear the issues, state that
outstanding business or motions were not acted upon be
rejected, and accept the evidence. There were no objections
from Commissioners.
Attorney Empeno stated other than the witnesses there maybe a
few other people that may want to make comments and asked the
Commission to hear them.
Chairman Lindseth agreed.
Mr. Gunn stated he did have questions for the witnesses
present and objected to the declarations being accepted
without cross examination which he said is standard procedure
in front of all judicial bodies.
o 0
city of San Bernardino
Planninq commission Meetinq Minutes of 10/9/90
Paqe 7
chairman Lindseth stated the people have a riqht to speak and
if he liked he could cross examine.
Mr. Gunn stated he was not disputinq that but felt acceptinq
the Declaration was inappropriate without cross examination.
Attorney Barlow stated opportunity for objection was qiven
and overruled the documents have already been admitted.
Chairman Lindseth stated to continue on.
Mr. Gunn asked if he would have an opportunity to cross
examine Dany Nolfo or Dave stachowski.
Attorney Barlow stated that he would have an opportunity to
examine them toniqht durinq this hearinq at some point.
Richard w. styler, resident owner of standard Mortqaqe
Company, Inc., at 375 West 7th Street in San Bernardino
stated they abut the property on the north side.
Attorney Empeno asked all the witnesses since the closure of
the Motel to the present, have you witnessed any chanqe in
circumstance from the conditions you described at the last
Planninq commission meetinq.
Mr. styler stated at the last meetinq prior to the closure
vandalism, aqqressive behavior (especially toward female
employees), and cars beinq broken into were a daily
occurrance sometimes twice a day almost everyday. Since the
closure, they have had no vandalism at all and that was a
siqnificant chanqe in his book.
Bill Carey, owner of Carey's Fine Automobiles at 645 "0"
Street just south of the motel, stated his business has had
no problems since the closure of the motel, no break-ins or
vandalism. He also wanted it noted the police were at the
motel at least once a day and now they are free to do their
job. He Felt it has been a drastic help to the entire city.
commissioner Clemensen asked if the closure of the motel has
made a difference in his business activities at this point.
Mr. carey stated yes that
40% and that he could
$2,000 a month.
his business improved approximately
receipt vandalism of approximately
Chairman Lindseth asked what type of vandalism he experienced
specifically.
Mr. Carey stated the most drastic damaqe
shields in a day, people runninq across
doqs killed by poison, and a $5 fuel pump
was 8 broken wind-
the roofs of cars,
stolen.
commissioner Clemensen questioned the poisoninq of the doqs.
1
..l
~
-
.
-
city of San eernaQino 0
planning commi.sion Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 8
Mr. carey stated he had 3 dogs poisoned.
Raymond Negrete, owner of Nena's Restaurant at 642 "0" Street
in San Bernardino stated they have had no break-ins in the
parking lot, no lewd remarks to the women in the restaurant
and business is better.
commissioner Clemensen asked if he was referring to day or
night time business.
Mr. Negrete stated both but the night was worse because they
would break windows and steal batteries.
Commissioner Lopez asked if he got any comments from custo-
mers or workers that it feels safer now.
Mr. Gunn Objected because he did not know who the customers
were.
chairman Lindseth overruled the objection
Mr. Negrete stated the girls feel a little better but are
still very leary and will not go out alone to their cars.
Chairman Lindseth asked how long he has been in business with
Nena's restaurant.
Mr. Negrete stated he has been in business for 25 years but
has been in the area since 1953.
Chairman
start to
cations.
Lindseth asked when he approximately did he first
experience problems of clientele having alter-
Mr. Negrete stated in the last 6 or 7 years it started
getting bad, but when they first started, everything was o.k.
Mr. Gunn asked if his building was broken into in the last 60
days and if the person was located in the empty Civic Center
Motel hiding.
Mr. Negrete stated his building was broken into but he did
not know where the person was found.
Mr. styler stated the fact that someone hid in the abandoned
building did not mean anything because the people who use to
live there were organized and hid in the building.
Attorney Empeno rested the Planning Commission's case. He
stated that if Mr. Gunn had any questions for the witnesses
that he ask them first so they could be excused.
Mr. Gunn called Oany Nolfo.
JIlL
JIL
-
.
!Ii
City of San BernaOinO
planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 9
o
10/9/90
Dany Nolfo stated he was a Code
city of San Bernardino and his
1038 in Cedarqlen.
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. Nolfo when was the last time he was on the
property, who he was with and why was he there.
Enforcement Officer with the
address as being P. O. Box
Mr. Nolfo answered he believed it
do a building inspection with
Inspector.
Mr. Gunn asked if they were there for final inspection and
was it signed off.
was in the last 2 weeks to
Buddy Gomes, a Building
Mr. Nolfo answered it was a call for
that everything was clear except for the
some other areas but the rehab permit
because that included heating and air.
Mr. Gunn asked if he knew who from the city went out to
inspect the heating and air and if he knew if the fire
Department went out to inspect the property.
final inspection
air and heating
was not signed
and
and
off
Mr. Nolfo stated he did not know he heard the Fire Department
went out but did not know the detailed report.
Mr. Gunn asked if Mr. Gomes was present tonight.
Mr. Nolfo stated he did not see him in the audience.
Mr Gunn asked who Mr. Gomes supervisor was.
Mr. Nolfo stated Dean Pagel.
Mr. Gunn asked if Dean Pagel was present at the inspection of
the property and who his supervisor was.
Mr Nolfo stated he was not present and Larry Reed was his
supervisor.
commissioner Stone asked if water was
if a putting green was there and if
repaired and replaced.
in the swimming pool,
the northwest wall was
Mr. Nolfo stated there was no water in the pool, no putting
green, but the wall was repaired and replaced.
commissioner Lopez asked if the store room was back to a
store room or was it still a kitchen.
Mr. Nolfo stated the stove were taken out but were right
outside the door and could be replaced in the room.
Chairman Lindseth excused Mr. Nolfo with the permission of
Attorney Empeno and Mr. Gunn.
~ .
-
.
city of San BernQino 0
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 10
David stachowski stated he was a city Attorney Investigator.
Mr. Gunn asked if he had done an investigation on a
individual named Armando viginelli.
Mr. Stachowski stated the only thing he did was check his
business to see if they had any problems with the clientele.
Mr. Gunn asked who asked him to go out and check and why.
Mr. Stachowski stated Mr. Penman because he believed the
gentleman was interested in purchasing the motel.
Attorney Barlow stated for the record Mr. Penman was the City
Attorney.
Mr. Gunn asked if he formed a conclusion that the operation
was not detrimental to the surrounding businesses.
Mr. Stachowski stated it seemed to be operating in a proper
manner.
Chairman Lindseth excused Mr. Stachowski with the permission
of Attorney Empeno and Mr. Gunn.
Mr. Gunn called Larry Reed.
Chairman Lindseth administered the oath to Mr. Reed.
Larry Reed, Director of Planning and Building Services,
residing at 5655 Stanton Avenue in San Bernardino.
Mr. Gunn asked several question of Mr. Reed regarding the
Rehab permit.
Mr. Reed answered the question to the best of his knowledge
but did state on several occasions he would have to refer to
file, which was not in front of him.
Mr Gunn stated for Mr. Reed to check the records.
Mr. Gunn asked on what date was the Notice sent to the owners
that they needed to correct problems on the building.
Mr. Reed stated he did not have the exact dates that Dany
Nolfo may be able to answer that question but he did know
that initial inspections were made and notices were issued
and based on the results the motel was ordered to be closed
and at that time documents were issued to the manager.
Mr. Gunn asked what specific violations fell within the realm
of his department and were these violations corrected.
Mr. Reed stated zoning standards, conditions of approval,
J[ 1
JJ
-
-
-
L.
City of San sernaQino
planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 11
o
10/9/90
building code and property nuisance violations fell under his
department. He stated he does not make the inspections
personally but relies on his staff to carry out their job and
if there are any problems they will bring them to his atten-
tion.
Mr. Gunn asked who was in charge of signing off final inspec-
tions.
Mr. Reed stated a combination of people including the Fire
Department, planning, the property Maintenance Inspector, and
once those are obtained the Code Enforcement Officer makes
the final decision.
Mr Gunn stated to Mr. Reed he believed he had not reviewed
the file to see what has been done and asked if the file was
available in the building and could be located within 10 to
15 minutes.
Mr. Reed stated he had not personally looked at the file and
it was in the building but there was no clerical staff
available to locate the file.
Mr. Gunn asked for a recess to locate the file.
Chairman Lindseth stated it was understood that the hearing
is conducted in the evening outside of normal hours and
sometimes necessary files are retained at the desk of various
clerical people and retained by managers, case workers and
supervisors and may be inaccessible at this time.
Attorney ElIIpeno stated the respondent's attorney had the
opportunity to issue a subpoena for any documents in the
City's possession, and if they had informed the city of
particular documents they wanted at this meeting tonight,
those documents could have been issued. He encouraged the
commission to move on.
,
Mr. Gunn stated he assumed that since he was the Director he
would have reviewed the file and be able to locate it.
Chairman Lindseth asked Mr. Reed if it was possible if
someone from staff could locate the file while they continued
on. He further stated to Mr. Gunn if he needs any documents
to please make his request known in advance.
Mr. Gunn requested the records be made available.
commissioner Lopez stated they gave Mr. Gunn 3 to 4
ances which he felt was amble time for him to have
any documents he needed and didn't feel they should
the pleasure of requesting the document.
Mr. Gunn stated he requested a continuance in May and several
continuances have been arranged between him and Attorney
continu-
requested
allow him
-
-
-
.
City of San BernQino 0
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 12
Empeno wblab were not necessarily at his request.
Mr. wi.s.r stated he did not have a chance to discuss the
case with Mr. Gunn or review the file. He was under the
impression it was to be continued to November 6 but that
there was a misunderstanding between Attorney Empeno and Mr.
Penman.
Attorney Empeno stated he did have a conversation with Mr.
wiser in conjunction with Roberts simmons yesterday and he
did request a continuance without mentioning his prior
conversations with Mr. Penman who told him that no
continuance would be granted. He encouraged the Commission
to move forward.
Mr. Wieser objected to any conversation between him and Mr.
Penman.
commissioner Clemensen stated the substitution of attorneys
is not the fault of the commission.
Mr. wieser stated it is not a substitution but co-counsel.
Attorney Barlow stated the point that the owner added new
counsel should not be relied upon for delays and if there was
a desire for a continuance, the appropriate time to present
that would have been at the beginning of the hearing but it's
in the discretion of the Commission to grant a continuance.
Chairman Lindseth stated the Commission has reviewed and
acquainted itself with the merits as presented by staff for 5
months and is prepared to conduct a hearing. He also stated
just because the owner/applicant has chosen to employ another
attorney is their concern not the Commissions and the fact
that owner/applicant were present they were goinq to proceed.
,.:::,~~,.-
-
-
..L
,
City of san BernaQino
planninq commission Meetinq Minutes of
Paqe 13
o
10/9/90
Mr. Reed answered it was February 26, 1990 that the Notice of
violation was issued for numerous violations of code, on
March 14, 1990 a citation or Notice to Appear was issued
after the owners failed to correct the violations of February
26th, on March 15, 1990 the City found the buildinq to be
danqerous and all the persons ordered to evacuate the
building at that time the owners were notified of the city's
intent to begin revocation, on March 26 the owners obtained a
building permit to rehab the motel. He further stated the
records in front of him only showed the Building Inspector
had siqned off on the building code violations.
Mr. Gunn asked on what date was written notice served to the
owners of the motel that the revocation hearing was qoinq to
commence.
Mr. Reed stated he believed the notice was qiven on March 23.
Mr. Gunn asked whos decision was it to proceed with the
revocation and who did this person consult with.
Mr. Reed stated it was his decision and that he consulted
with the Code enforcement officer, fire, planning and several
other people involved with the initial inspection.
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. Reed to list the names of people he
consulted with in each department.
Mr. Reed qave the names of the individuals he could remember.
Gunn could have
commissioner Clemensen asked if Mr.
subpoenaed all that information already.
Mr. Gunn stated the only way he could obtain this information
was to question the officials in charge because he believed
that not all the information could be obtained from the file.
given
if the
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. Reed how much time were the owners
to correct the violations, who wrote the notice, and
violations were corrected within 5 days.
Mr. Reed stated he did not specific knowledqe of that infor-
mation and the question may be better answered by a building
inspector.
Mr. Gunn asked what was the financial committment the city
based its fees upon.
Mr. Reed stated the evaluation on the permit was $77,000.
Mr. Gunn asked how often did he revoke conditional use
permits.
Mr. Reed stated this was the first time.
-
JI
1.
city of San Bern~ino 0
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 14
Mr. Gunn asked how long he has been director of the depart-
ment and how long has he been with the department.
Mr. Reed stated he has been Director and started in the
department in December 1989.
Mr. Gunn asked if Mr. Reed was instructed not to accept an
application for Certificate of occupancy. (
Mr. Reed stated he believed yes that they have to accept
application for certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Gunn asked
application for
property.
if he was
Certificate
aware staff refused to accept
of Occupancy on this particular
Mr. Reed stated he was not personally aware of that.
Mr. Gunn noticed that Mr. Nolfo was leaving the meeting and
asked the commission not let him leave.
Chairman Lindseth stated Mr. Nolfo was excused.
Mr. Gunn
questions
officers.
stated he assumed the department head could answer
which he has passed down to Code Enforcement
Chairman Lindseth stated Mr.
commission and it was his
leave.
Nolfo had been excused by the
own personal desire to stay or
Mr. Gunn asked the Commission to issue a subpoena to direct
Mr. Nolfo to stay.
Chairman Lindseth overruled the request.
Mr. Nolfo left the proceedings.
Mr. Gunn asked for a list of names of Code Enforcement
Officers that have been out to the motel.
Mr. Reed stated he could not remember the names from memory.
Mr. Gunn asked for a
Officers and Planning
the department.
list, from memory, of
Inspectors that have
Code Enforcment
been employed by
Mr. Reed listed names of individuals in the department.
Chairman Lindseth stated he did not see the relevancy of
these questions.
Mr. Gunn stated if the file would be made available he would
not have to go through these questions and that he stated by
city of San BernaQino 0
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 15
the way the hearing was proceeding they would be back and he
would subpoena appropriate parties at that time.
Chairman Lindseth asked Mr. Gunn if was trying to "run out
the clock" in order to prepare themselves more adequately.
Mr. Gunn stated he anticipated completing the hearing to-
night.
Mr. Gunn asked question regarding the automatic sprinklers
that were required.
Mr. Reed stated he needed to look at the records.
* * * * *
Chairman Lindseth called a 5
looked through the records.
p.m.
minute recess, while Mr.
The meeting reconvened at
Reed
9:30
* * * * *
Mr. Reed stated Municipal code Chapter 19.56.120 Title 19
requires that setback and paving lot planners be landscaped
and maintained and shall have operative automatic sprinklers
systems.
Chairman Lindseth stated substantial questions were not being
asked and wanted the see the hearing move on in a positive
manner.
Mr. Gunn stated it was relevant because
conditions that was stated in the staff
kept up.
it is
report
part of the
as not being
Chairman Lindseth stated they should talk about the specific
aspects as they pertain to the case that the size of the
staff is irrelevant and that the Commission will not tolerate
any further departures from the issues at hand.
commissioner Stone stated if he knows that was not a
condition just say so and to conduct a three hour quiz would
not help his case.
Mr. Gunn stated he reviewed the Conditional Development
Permit and the documents provided to his office and the
sprinkler were not needed.
Mr. Wieser stated he would like to ask questions of Mr. Reed.
Attorney Empeno stated Mr. Reed has
a few minutes and that there is no
about that permits the double team
the Commission should rule they be
asking the questions.
been testifying for quite
requirement that he knows
of attorneys and he felt
limited to one attorney
IJJ
city of San Berna~inO
planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 16
o
10/9/90
chairman Lindseth
marathon and one of
because they were
themselves.
stated he
them should
definitely
would not sponsor a tag team
ask the appropriate questions
going to converse amongest
Mr. Gunn stated he would formally represent Mr. Larry Wang as
one owner and Frank wieser would represent cindy Wang as one
owner for the duration of the proceeding.
Mr. Wieser stated he
earlier that he would
ments.
assumed since he presented his self
be able to address his self in arqu-
Attorney Empeno objected stating is was apparent that Mr.
Gunn represented the owners all along and change in represen-
tation was a method to undercut the discretion of the commis-
sion and that the Commission move forward.
Chairman Lindseth stated it is the desire or ruling of the
commission that one of them conduct their investigation.
All Commissioners concurred.
Mr. Gunn asked question of Mr. Reed regarding the Uniform
Transient Tax.
Mr. Reed stated he had no personal knowledge of it being paid
and it was two different types of issues.
commissioner Stone questioned the relevancy of the questions.
Mr. Wieser stated Revenue and Taxation Code 72.80 sets forth
a categorization in relation to a motel which the city of San
Bernardino has adopted.
Attorney Empeno stated if they have any question about motels
as transient use and de{ining motels those questions would be
relevant but that Mr. Reed has stated he does not know about
the tax.
Mr. Gunn asked several question regarding the business
license.
Mr. Reed stated he had no knowledge of that information.
Attorney Empeno objected stating there were no provisions in
the staff relating to any violation of a business license.
Mr. Gunn pointed out Page 6 the last paragraph "the motel has
been in violation of the business license,...." and stated he
assumed the Director reviewed the memo dated April 17, 1990
with his signature.
Attorney Empeno stated had Mr. Gunn read on and looked at
Ci ty o~ San BernaQino
Planning commission Meeting Minutes o~
Page 17
o
10/9/90
page 3 paraqraph
licenses and does
violation o~ that
3 of the same report
not believe there is
license.
it speaks to business
an actual present day
Mr. Gunn asked
was issued to
obtained.
where the information that a check for $210
the motel from the Welfare Department was
Mr. Reed stated that was what they heard from the occupants
of the motel.
Mr. Gunn asked the definition between permanent and transient
Mr. Reed stated motels are primarily desiqned
veling public what was found was a motel unit
families in unsanitary conditions.
Mr. Gunn asked if he was aware that welfare recipients have
temporary housing allowance not permanent.
for the tra-
occupied by
Mr. Reed stated he was not sure if he knew the Welfare's
Department distinction of temporary or permanent housing
allowance but that he knew some the people there could afford
to pay rent on a apartment with proper sanitary conditions.
Mr. Gunn asked if he was upset people on welfare could have
an apartment but instead lived in motels.
Mr. Reed stated he was not upset but concerned.
Mr. Reed was excused.
cindy Wang was administered the oath by Mr. Montgomery.
cindy wang owner of Civic Center Motel residing at 2132
Almada1e Avenue in Los Angeles.
Mr. Gunn asked several question of Mrs. Wang regarding the
Notice of correction.
Mrs. Wang stated her manager recieved the notice on February
26.
Attorney Empeno objected to questions leading the witness and
asked that they be in proper form.
Discussion ensued amongest the attorneys in regards to
leading the witness.
Chairman Lindseth asked Mr. Gunn to please rephrase his
questions.
Mrs. Wang stated she was never served with a
notice and did not know until March 14 that
concern over the motel. She stated she
copy of the
the City had
hired Donald
city of San BernaS\no 0
planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 18
Robinson, a contractor, 2 days after the tenants
to make the necessary corrections to the motel
Mr. Robinson obtained a permit.
Mr. Gunn asked Mrs. wang several questions
regarding the sale of the building which could
yes or no.
were evicted
on March 26,
of Mrs. Wang
be answered
Attorney Empeno objected several times stating the questions
were leading.
Chairman Lindseth asked Mr. Gunn to. be more specific in
questioning.
Mrs. Wang stated Mr. Penman told her they had investigated
Mr. vigninelli and was very satisfied with his operation of
his motel and would like him to buy her motel and he would
drop all charges.
Mr. Wang answered yes to the question was the final inspec-
tion signed off. She stated it was done on September 17 and
her contractor said it was Buddy Long who signed it off.
Mrs. wang stated she would like the Commission to allow her
to sell the motel to Mr. viginelli that she was an absentee
owner and did not know how to run it.
Chairman Lindseth stated the issue is whether or not to
revoke the conditional Use Permit the issues of transfer of
property was of no concern.
Attorney Empeno asked Mrs. Wang if she had an opportunity to
review Exhibit U and if she had any problems with it.
Mrs. Wang stated she believed she had skimmed through it.
Mr. Gunn objected.
Attorney Empeno asked who was in charge of running the motel
if her and her husband were absentee owners.
Mr. Gunn objected.
Mrs. Wang stated they hired managers and the last manager
they hired was Dan Chung.
Attorney Empeno asked if in January 1986 and March 1986 did
she receive a Notice of Correction.
Mr. Gunn Objected stating it was beyond the scope and the
documents were not on hand.
Mrs. Wang stated she did not remember that far back and that
whenever a Notice was served the manager would call her up
and let her know and he would correct it.
City of San BernaQino 0
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 19
Attorney Empeno asked if in June 1986 was a civil lawsuit
filed under the Redlight Abatement and Drug Abatement by the
San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office and did she
receive notice of that lawsuit.
Mrs. Wang stated yes she did receive notice of that lawsuit.
Attorney Empeno asked if she was aware the motel had been the
sight of 2 murders and 40 arrests.
Mr. Gunn and Mr. Wieser
and raising the issues
be done.
objected stating that was irrelevant
of Redlight Abatement did not have to
Attorney Barlow stated they had the two actions mixed up and
the one they are speaking of was in 1986.
Mrs. Wang stated she was aware of a fight in the parking lot
in which one person was stabbed but would not call that
murder and did not know anything about the 40 arrests.
Attorney Empeno asked if she was aware there were many
violations in 1986 for prostitution and narcotics.
Mr. Gunn objected saying it was heresy and not in evidence.
Commissioner Clemensen stated evidence was in the file.
Chairman Lindseth stated the questions were directly relevant
to the history of occurances at the motel.
Mr. Wieser objected stating the Commission has already come
to a decision based on the evidence submitted.
Chairman Lindseth stated he would grant him the opportunity
to retract his statement and apologize to the Commission for
his remark. He further stated the Commission has never nor
never will make a prejudicial statement or judgment on any
case that comes before it and that they base there decision
on the facts presented.
Mr. Wieser apologized to the Commission.
Chairman Lindseth stated he would not accept any more remarks
of that nature.
Mrs. Wang stated she became aware of it after she read the
City's report.
Mr. Gunn asked if she was aware that the Police commission
view the area as the highest crime rate area in the city of
San Bernardino.
Mrs. Wang stated no.
City of San serna9ino 0
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 20
Attorney Empeno stated he would like to call Mrs. Wang as a
witness in rebuttal.
Chairman Lindseth agreed.
Attorney Empeno asked if she felt the document marked Exhibit
1 is accurate and if there was anything in it she felt was
untruthful.
Mrs. Wang stated she did not compare her building with the
document and does not know if they were true.
Attorney Empeno asked if she reviewed Exhibit 2 and if she
recalled any facts being untruthful.
Mrs. Wang stated she
read the document and
she would not know if
didn't know if they were true she
since she was not operating the
they were true.
just
motel
Attorney Empeno asked if she read Exhibit 4.
Mrs. Wang asked to see the document.
It was handed to her.
Mr. Gunn pointed out the document is at least 50 pages long
and she be given time to review it.
Chairman Lindseth asked Mrs. Wang if she had seen this
document.
Mrs. Wang stated she had never seen this document before.
Attorney Empeno asked if she was ever given a copy to review.
Mrs. Wang stated she did not recall.
Attorney Empeno objected to Mr. Gunn's consulting with Mrs.
Wang during questioning.
Mr. Gunn stated he wanted to review the document
presented and believed he could confer with his client
time during the proceeding.
Chairman Lindseth asked Mr. Gunn if he had been provided a
copy of Exhibit 4.
being
at any
Mr. Gunn stated without looking at it he did not know.
Attorney Empeno stated at the May 8th meeting Mr. Gunn
acknowledged he received copies of the documents.
Discussion ensued amongest the attorneys as to whether Chair-
man Lindseth stated Mr. Gunn could not review the documents.
city of San Berna9inO 0
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 21
It was resolved Mr. Gunn could review the documents at a
distance but could not confer or coach his client.
Mr. Gunn objected to any further questioning until she had a
chance to review the document.
Chairman Lindseth stated he believed every party
copies of these documents and felt this was another
stall the hearing.
was given
tactic to
Discussion ensued amongest the attorneys and Commissioners as
to whether or not copies were provided to everyone, it was
resolved they were provided.
Attorney Barlow reminded the commission of the rule that
meetings do not go past 11 unless a vote is taken by 2/3's of
those present.
chairman Lindseth stated he would have to part and if they
are to continue past 11 they must have a motion.
commissioner Clemensen made a motion to try and complete the
issue tonight.
Commissioner lopez asked if there was a chance of closing the
hearing by midnight.
Attorney Barlow stated there maybe a chance.
commissioner Lopez seconded the motion.
Mr. Gunn stated he had 2 witnesses present and one on call
that could be there within 10 to 15 minutes and there is a
third that is out of town and he would be requesting a
continuance for additional witnesses and does not anticipate
finishing tonight.
commissioner Clemensen withdrew his motion.
Lopez withdrew his second.
commissioner
commissioner Lopez motioned to continue the hearing to
another date.
commissioner
hearing on a
meeting.
Commissioner Clemensen asked Attorney Barlow if they could be
assured they will not be questioning every document that has
been admitted.
stone asked if it would be possible to hold the
night that was not a reqular planning Commission
Chairman Lindseth stated they will go ahead and continue the
hearing to october 30, 1990 at 7:00 p.m in council Chambers.
* * * * *
OCi ty of San Bernardino 0
Planning commission Meeting Minutes
october 30, 1990
Chairman Lindseth called the meeting to order at 7:05- p.m. in
the council Chambers, city Hall. The following Commissioners
were present: Clemensen, Corona, Lindseth, Lopez, Sharp,
stone. Absent: Cole, Jordan. Staff present: Reed, Olivo-
Gomez, Taitague. Senior Assistant City Attorney Dennis
Barlow and Deputy city Attorney Henry Empeno were also pre-
sent.
The Salute to the Flag was led by Commissioner Lopez.
Edalia Olivo-Gomez, Associate Planner, asked all those who
intended to testify to stand and raise their right hand to be
sworn in; Mrs Olivo-Gomez administered the oath.
* * * * *
The approval of the
Meeting of October 9,
commissioner Corona,
unanimously carried.
minutes of the Planning Commission
1990 were approved by a motion from
seconded by commissioner Lopez and
* * * * *
ITEM NO.1
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 198
Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately .86 acres having a frontage of
approximately 125 feet on the east side of no" Street and
being located approximately 365 feet north of the centerline
of 6th Street and further described as 655 North "0" Street.
The subject site is locate in the CR-2, commercial Regional
Downtown, General Plan Land Use Designation. The city
proposes revocation of Conditional Development Permit Number
198 under authority of Code section(s) 19.78.110 (A.) (2.)
(3.), to revoke approvals for a 50-unit motel.
owners/Applicants Lei & Cindy Wang
Ward: 1
Environmental
Recommendation:
Staff
Recommendation:
Exempt from CEQA (Class 21)
Planner:
Edal!a
Revocation of Conditional
permit Number 198
Olivo-Gomez
Development
Chairman Lindseth reminded everyone present that Deputy city
Attorney Henry Empeno represented the Planning Department,
Senior Deputy city Attorney represented the commissioners,
and Andrew Gunn and Frank wieser represented the applicant.
Chairman Lindseth asked senior Deputy Attorney Dennis Barlow
where they should resume.
'-;t
-
~
-
~
Jl.
II
...
city of San Berna9ino 0
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 2
Attorney Barlow stated he believed the owners were presenting
their position and Attorney Empeno had rested.
Attorney Empeno asked everyone
Minutes of the planning commission
that Mrs. Wang was on the stand.
Wang to retake the stand.
to look at page 20 of the
of October 9, 1990 to see
Attorney Empeno asked Mrs.
Mr. Gunn stated he had not been provided a copy of the
Minutes and would like to have a copy available to him.
A copy of the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
October 9, 1990 were handed to Mr. Gunn.
Attorney Empeno stated that on Page 20 of the October 9, 1990
Minutes Mrs. Wang stated she had not seen Exhibit 4. Attor-
ney Empeno asked Mrs. Wang if she had a chance to review the
documents and if a copy was given to her by her attorney.
Mrs. wang stated no.
Mr. Gunn asked Mrs. Wang if she read every single page of
every single document.
Mrs. Wang stated she had not read every single page.
Chairman Lindseth excused Mrs. Wang.
Mr. Gunn called Armando Viginelli to the stand
Armando viginelli of 220 West Highland Avenue in Redlands.
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. viginelli if he owned a business in San
Bernardino, the name of the business, and for how long he has
owned it.
Mr. viginelli stated he owned the orvita Motel at 1363 North
"E" Street for 3 years.
Mr. Gunn asked was he currently in escrow to purchase the
Civic Center Motel, was anything currently holding up the
escrow and was that the reason he was here today.
Mr. viginelli stated yes he needed at license to to open.
Mr. Gunn asked if he had a meeting with the city Attorney, if
that meeting took place in Mr. Penman's office, and if Mr.
Penman said anything about an investigation of his business.
Mr. viginelli stated yes to all questions and that Mr. Penman
stated was satisfied with his operation of business.
Mr. Gunn asked if Mr. Penman had any concerns with his
running the civic Center Motel.
J::..
.
.
~
is!
-
..
City of San Berna~inO
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 3
o
10/30/90
Mr. viginelli stated he was concerned about the security of
the motel.
Mr. Gunn asked if items such
necessary and what other items he
of the motel.
Mr. viginelli stated yes and that he would run it like his
other motel.
as security cameras may be
would do for the security
Mr. Gunn asked by that statement, what would he do if there
was a problem renter, such as a prostitute.
Mr. Viginelli stated he would remove her within a few
minutes.
Mr. Gunn asked who would be there daily working at the motel.
Mr. viginelli stated his mother-in-law and brother-in-law.
Mr. Gunn asked if the orvita Motel was a family run business
Mr. viginelli stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. viginelli if he had
problems in past, like prostitution,
and bothering the neighbors.
Mr. viginelli stated he was told about the problems.
been informed of the
tenants selling drugs,
Mr. Gunn asked if he ran the motel, could he run it
problems and does he operate his existing business
problems to the surrounding businesses.
without
without
Mr. viginelli stated he would try and that he has no
problems.
Mr. Gunn asked if he would like the Commission to let the
Conditional Use Permit stand.
Attorney Empeno objected stating he was continually leading
the witness.
Mr. Gunn stated the law was clear that
extremely young, old, or otherwise has a
that creates a situation that is hard to
believed in cases like that the witness can
if a witness is
language problem
communicate, he
be lead.
Frank Wieser read Government Code Section l15l3(c) and stated
that Attorney Empeno's objection was not well founded in an
administrative hearing.
Attorney Barlow suggested the commission allow some leading
questions because of the difficulty in communication and that
.
III
~
.t.
.J
City of San Berna9ino 0
planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
page 4
Mr. Gunn be cautioned to do it as little as possible.
chairman Lindseth cautioned Mr. Gunn and Mr. Wieser not to
lead or coach the testimony of witnesses.
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. viginelli how he would operate the Civic
Center Motel.
Mr. viginelli stated the best he could.
been in the business for 4 years and has
South Africa, Canada and the united states
motel in New 3ersey and had no problems.
Mr. Gunn asked how long he has owned the motel in New 3ersey
and if he had any problems.
He stated
worked in
and that
he has
Europe,
he had a
Mr. viginelli
rooming house
few fights.
Mr. Gunn asked what did he do when he had a tenant that
fought with other tenants or surrounding neighbors.
stated from 1972 to 1986 but that it was a
and that he did have some code violations and a
Mr. viginelli stated he called the police if they went to far
but other wise tried to calm them down.
Attorney Empeno asked if the Conditional Development Permit
was revoked, what would happen to the escrow he has.
Mr. Viginelli stated it would not go through and that he
would not buy the motel.
Attorney Empeno asked if he had a financial incentive in not
having the permit revoked.
Mr. viginelli stated he would like to buy it.
Mr. Gunn asked if anyone payed him to come testify tonight.
Mr. viginelli stated no.
Commissioner Stone asked if he had actually opened an escrow
on the civic Center Motel and was a Conditional Use Permit a
condition of the sale.
Mr. viginelli stated yes and that he had opened escrow about
2 months ago.
Discussion ensued
neys at to whether
Development Permit.
amongest Chairman Lindseth and the attor-
Conditions Use Permit meant Conditional
It was resolved they were the same.
commissioner Clemensen asked prior to
tions, was he given any indication of
at the motel.
signing escrow instruc-
the problems occurring
~
~
~
-
J.
.
city of San Bern~no ~
planning commiss~Meeting Minutes of 10/30J!b
Page 5
Mr. viginelli stated no that Mrs. Wang told him she needed a
final inspection.
commissioner Clemensen asked was he aware of the thick file
of discrepancies and violations.
Mr. viginelli stated he knew they had a lot of violations.
commissioner Clemensen asked under those conditions he would
still proceed with the purchase.
Mr. viginelli stated it was Mr. wang's problem not his and
that he wants a license so he can buy the place.
commissioner Clemensen asked Attorney Barlow he heard the
term "rental" used and wanted to know if that was a fair word
to use referring to a motel because that was one of things
they have been disputing.
Attorney Barlow stated for these purposes it was alright.
commissioner Lopez asked how many units he had at his motel.
Mr. Viginelli stated 41 plus the apartment for the manager.
commissioner Stone asked without stating any amounts, did he
have any money placed in the escrow account.
Mr. Viginelli stated yes he gave a note on his motel in New
Jersey.
Attorney Empeno asked had he placed a deposit in escrow for
the purchase of the motel and what would happen if the escrow
was cancelled.
Mr. Viginelli stated no and that he would lose $5,000.00 for
the expenses of the escrow.
commissioner Clemensen asked if there was an earnest money
deposit regarding this property.
Mr. Gunn stated no current earnest money deposit.
commissioner Lopez asked if it was a motel or apartment he
owned on "E" Street.
Mr. viginelli stated a motel.
commissioner Lopez stated the motel has long term tenants.
Commissioner Sharp asked had he had any discussions with
Planning and/or the city Attorney under the conditions he is
to operate the motel, if the provisions were made clear, and
was there any give and take.
.~
-
-
~
o 0
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 6
Mr. viginelli stated not with planning gut with the city
Attorney and that he has had discussions with Mr. Penman.
Commissioner asked if he knew why they haven't geen dealing
with the planning Department.
Mr. viginelli stated he did not know.
Mr. Gunn asked if the planning Department revoked the permit
would he purchase the property.
Mr. viginelli stated no.
Mr. Gunn asked at the time he made an offer to purchase the
property, was he aware there were hearings going on with the
planning Commission.
Mr. viginelli stated no.
Mr. Gunn asked several question regarding the escrow instruc-
tions including whether or not conditions were put in regar-
ding the outcome of the planning Commission's decision and
Judge Kennedy's.
Mr. viginelli stated yes to all the question gut stated he
did not know anything agout Judge Kennedy.
Mr. Gunn asked if he was aware the court had to approve the
sale.
Mr. Viginelli stated yes.
Attorney Empeno asked when did he make an offer to purchase
the motel, if it was a written offer, and did he have a copy.
Mr. viginelli stated he gelieved it was ~out 2 months ago,
it was written, gut the copy was at home.
Attorney Empeno asked what month.
Mr. Gunn stated the escrow instruction showed the date of
July 19, 1990.
Commissioner Clemensen asked if a performance date was also
on the instructions.
Mr. Gunn stated yes and that it had come and gone.
Attorney Empeno asked if July 19, 1990 was dated he remem-
gered offering to purchase the motel.
Mr. Viginelli stated it was 2 weeks gefore they talked agout
price and conditions.
.LL
j
-
-
.
o
o
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 7
Attorney Bmpeno asked prior to making the offer he did not
know a revocation process was initiated.
Mr. vigine11i stated no
Mr. Gunn objected stating it was irrelevant.
Mr. wieser also objected stating he had answered questions
showing his knowledge.
Attorney Empeno stated it was highly relevant to the issue
and asked if he had known a revocation process had started,
would he still have made the offer to purchase the motel.
Mr. Vigine11i stated no
Mr. Wieser objected stating it was speculation.
Attorney Empeno asked if the owners told him the Superior
court had to approved the sale of the motel and who told him.
Mr. vigine11i stated yes Mr. wang told him.
Attorney Empeno asked if anyone else, including the attor-
neys, told him that.
Mr. vigine11i stated no.
Mr. Gunn objected.
Mr. Gunn asked if Mrs. Wang came to him and asked him to buy
the motel.
Mr. vigine11i stated a contractor that lived
working on the motel and told him that Mr.
rested in selling the motel.
Mr. Gunn asked if he approached them.
Mr. vigine11i stated yes he guessed so.
Mr. Gunn asked if one of the requirements that he get clear
title to the property.
in his motel was
wang was inte-
Mr. vigine11i stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked if he knew the term "Title Insurance" and was
that one of the terms of escrow.
Mr. vigine11i stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked he wants
concern was that he buys
it as a motel.
to operate it as a motel and his
it he owns it and be able to operate
-
.
o 0
City of San Bernardino
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 8
Mr. viginelli stated yes.
Mr. Gunn stated he like to submit a document for evidence.
Chairman Lindseth stated it was a copy of escrow instructions
dated July 19, 1990 marked Exhibit "A."
Mr. Gunn asked if Exhibit "A"
instructions for the motel and
escrow.
was a copy of
was it signed
the escrow
and left at
Mr. Viginelli stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked if on the 2nd page there was a stat_ent "the
closing of escrow is contingent upon the following:" and what
is the escrow contingent upon.
Mr. Viginelli stated yes a Certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Gunn asked on page 3 was there a condition for Certifi-
cate of occupancy.
Mr. Viginelli stated yes provided it passes inspection.
Mr. Gunn asked if in the beginning of document was there a
requirement that the property show title vested in his name
and his wife's.
Mr. Viginelli stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked if he was purchasing the property free from
liens.
Mr. Viginelli stated liens from the City but not other liens.
Mr. Gunn asked as far as he was concerned the escrow can
proceed as soon as the city permits the Certificate of
occupancy and the Judge clears whatever he needs to clear for
the title.
Mr. Viginelli stated anytime.he was ready.
Mr. Gunn asked did he know exactly what a Certificate of
occupancy means as far as the city is concerned.
Mr. Viginelli stated to obtain a Certificate of occupancy had
to pass inspections.
Chairman Lindseth excused Mr. viginelli.
commissioner Stone asked if a broker was involved in the
sale.
Mr. Gunn stated no his understanding was it was all done
between the parties.
o 0
city of San Bernardino
planning Commission Heeting Hinutes of 10/30/90
Page 9
* * * * *
Chairman Lindseth called a 5 minute recess.
reconvened at 8:00 p.m.
The meeting
* * * * *
Hr. Gunn asked Hrs. Wang to retake the stand.
Hr. Gunn offered into evidence as Exhibit liB" city of San
Bernardino Code Enforcement Division, Unit Inspection Report.
Hr. Gunn
was the
document
asked Mrs. Wang did she recognize
date on the document, and if
on the same date.
the document, what
she recieved the
Mrs. Wang stated yes to the questions and that the document
was dated March 23, 1990
Mr. Gunn asked did the documents give her directions as
owner and operator and what directions did it give.
Mr. Wang stated yes it has the checked the violations on her
property and at the end she has to secure vacate units F.H.
A. within 10 days and have to pull rehab permits within 10
days.
Mr. Gunn asked that the document be admitted in to evidence
as Exhibit "B."
Chairman Lindseth granted Exhibits "A" and liB" and excused
Mrs. Wang.
Mr. Gunn called Don Robinson.
Mrs. Olivo-Gomez administered the oath to Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Gunn asked his occupation how long he has been in the
business and was it within the area of San Bernardino.
Mr. Robinson stated he was a General contractor he has been
in business for about 20 years in the area.
Mr. Gunn asked if he met with Mrs. Wang during the month of
March 1990.
Mr. Robinson stated March 23, 1990.
Mr. Gunn asked were discussions had regarding the rehab of
the building and was he aware Mrs. Wang received a direction
from the city to rehab the building.
Attorney Empeno objected stating Mr. Gunn was leading the
witness.
-
o 0
city of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 10
Mr. Gunn asked did he see a document issued by the city of
San Bernardino directing Mrs. Wang to apply for a building
permit and did it have a time requirement.
Mr. Robinson stated yes it had a 10 days.
Mr. Gunn showed 3 documents marked Exhibit "e" from the
Department of Building and Safety.
Mr. Gunn asked several question regarding Exhibit "C" inclu-
ding when the cards were pulled and if final inspections were
made.
Mr. Robinson stated he pulled the cards on March 26, 1990.
Attorney Empeno objected to any testimony of the witness
without the laying of proper foundation stating there has
been no statement that the witness participated, witnessed,
or has been involved in any type of final inspection.
Mr. Gunn lead the witness through some foundational questions
aSking if he was present when inspections were made.
Mr. Robinson stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked during construction did a problem arise with
the roofing, did he re-roof the building, and did an inspec-
tion take place on April 20, 1990.
Mr. Robinson stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked if the city later came back and say to do it
again.
Attorney Empeno objected stating lack of foundation he also
objected to the witness being a qualified witness to speak on
a final inspection or any type of inspection made and that
the Respondent has had amble opportunity to question building
inspectors.
Mr. Gunn stated it's not the duty of the applicant to bring
forward witnesses for the city who would say they mayor may
not have done an inspection and if it passed. He further
stated the course of conduct by the city requires a jol:! card
be placed on the property and the signing off on the document
is in the city's regular course of business and under the
business record exception, that was sufficient evidence that
the act was done.
Attorney Empeno stated he was not questioning if he was
present but the objection was the legal conclusion that final
inspection was done.
Mr. Gunn stated the document speaks for its self and that he
o 0
City of San Bernardino
planninq commission Meetinq Minutes of 10/30/90
Paqe 11
is entitled to question the witness on it.
Chairman Lindseth stated Mr. Gunn could proceed.
Mr. Gunn repeated his question reqardinq the roof.
Mr. Robinson stated he had to redo the roof and they told him
the code book was wronq. He stated when he first applied for
permit he was told to nail 30 and mop it 90, he did that, it
was siqned off and within a week to 10 days they came back
and said it was no qood and had to put another 90 on the 90
that was already there and he did.
Mr. Gunn asked if there was an additional cost to do it aqain
and would it have been cheaper to do it all the first time
around.
Mr Robinson stated $10,000 and it would have been cheaper to
do it all at once.
Mr. Gunn asked how many job cards has he looked at in the
city of San Bernardino for the last 20 years.
Mr. Robinson stated hundreds.
Attorney Empeno objected statinq leadinq the witness with yes
or no questions.
Mr. Gunn asked if the inspector tell him if they authorized
to siqn the job card.
Mr. Robinson stated they have badqes and city cars so they
must be authorized.
Mr. Gunn asked had he ever applied for a Certificate of
occupancy for the motel.
Mr. Robinson stated no.
Attorney Empeno asked did he hold a state of california
Contractor's License, in what cateqory was the license, and
is that a General Contractors License.
Mr. Robinson stated yes in Cateqory "B."
Attorney Empeno asked did he hold a Roofers License.
Mr. Robinson Stated no.
Attorney Empeno asked for his Contractors License No.
Mr. Robinson stated 406309.
Attorney Empeno stated he referred to the "Code Book" and
asked if that was the Uniform Buildinq Code, did he have a
o 0
city o~ San Bernardino
planninq commission Meetinq Minutes of 10/30/90
paqe 12
copy, and did he consult it reqularly in his course of
business.
Mr. Robinson stated yes but he did not have a copy and if you
don't understand what they want you qo up and ask an ins-
pector.
Attorney Empeno asked did he apply for a roofinq permit and
what type of roof did he list on the permit.
Mr. Robinson stated yes but he was told just to .put on a new
roof.
Attorney Empeno asked was he familiar with the Uniform
Buildinq Code specifyinq a table for roof classes.
Mr. Gunn objected statinq facts not in evidence.
Attorney Empeno stated he felt he should be able to test his
knowledqe of the Uniform Buildinq Code.
Attorney Empeno asked was he aware of a table of roof classes
which depend on the type of occupancy and did he know based
on the occupancy a certain type of roof had to be put on.
Mr. Robinson stated yes.
Attorney Empeno asked several question reqardinq roof types.
Mr. Robinson stated he knew the difference between the types
of roofs and that a Class B roof was put on the motel.
~
-
city of San BernaO.no
planning Commission Meeting
Page 13
Minutes of 10/30~
Attorney Empeno asked did he consult with a roofing contrac-
tor prior to putting on the roof.
Mr. Robinson stated the roofing contractor put the roof on he
just smoothed it out.
Mr. Empeno asked the name of the roofing contractor.
Mr. Robinson stated he did not know off the top of his head.
Attorney Empeno asked was it true the roofing contractor did
not have a California contractors License in the roofing
profession.
Mr. Robinson stated he did.
Attorney Empeno asked was it
that had discussions with the
putting on the initial roof.
the roofing contractor or him
city of San Bernardino prior to
Mr. Robinson state it was him.
Attorney Empeno asked who did he have the first discussion
regarding the roof.
Mr. Robinson stated Ron Gaston.
Attorney Empeno asked the date of the conversation.
Mr. Robinson stated the first of April of last of March.
commissioner Lopez asked before he began to rehab the buil-
ding was he told or advised that a revocation was taking
place.
Mr. Gunn objected stating facts not in evidence.
Mr. Robinson stated no
commissioner Clemensen asked was a roofing certification
given to the city.
Mr. Robinson stated yes.
Commissioner
error in the
not the error
Sharp asked several questions
code book including who told him
was pointed out to him.
regarding the
and whether or
Mr. Robinson stated the inspector
time to look at the roof told him
size roof should have a 30lb felt,
a 15,000 sq. foot roof.
Chairman Lindseth excused Mr. Robinson.
that came out the second
about the error and that
a 40 hot and a 90 top for
~
city of San BernaJ:lno <:)
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 14
Mr. Gunn called John Lightburn to the stand.
Mr. Gunn asked what was his profession.
Mr. Lightburn stated
Bernardino specializing
and projects.
he is a consultant in the city of San
in land use and development problems
Mr. Gunn asked at some
the motel.
point did he work with the owners of
Mr. Lightburn stated yes
Mr. Gunn asked did he take a Certificate of Occupancy down to
the city in an attempt to file it and hand it to a clerk.
Attorney Empeno Objected stating leading the witness.
Arguments ensued amongest the attorneys as to proper ques-
tioning of witnesses.
Attorney Empeno asked the commission to consider the question
asked to each of the witnesses and determine that the res-
ponse is a yes or no response and that is highly indicative
of it being a leading question.
Mr. Lightburn stated he would just tell the story. He stated
about the time they believed there was a final inspection,
Mrs. Wang asked him to deliver an application for Certificate
of Occupancy and a check to the City. When he tried to
submit the certificate of Occupancy, he was told that the
City would not accept it. At that time, the Senior Code
Enforcement Officer, Mr. Empeno, Mr. Reed, and he believed
Mr. Nolfo came out. He was advised by Mr. Empeno that
attempting to do that would be a violation of a court order
and they could all go to jail and under no circumstances were
they going to violate a court order. He indicated that they
were simply submitting
the application and what they did with it was up to them, but
they did not accept it and it did not get filed.
Mr. Gunn stated if
refused to accept
pancy, he would be
Mr. Reed testified that the City
an application for a Certificate
incorrect.
had not
of Occu-
Mr. Lightburn stated that would be true.
Mr. Gunn directed the commissions attention the page 14 of
the October 9, 1990 minutes.
Attorney Barlow stated Mr. Gunn should direct the questions
to the witness and save any comments for the time of argu-
ment.
-
-
-
.
-
o 0
ci ty of San Bernardino
planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
pagelS
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. Lightburn to read page 14 of the October 9
minutes to his self. He then asked if Mr. Reed's testimony
was correct.
Attorney Empeno objected stating the question was highly
argumentative.
Mr. Gunn stated he would let the minutes speak for themselves
Attorney Empeno asked the date he went to the Planning
Department and could he remember the month.
Mr. Lightburn stated it was several days after the final
inspection he thought september.
Attorney Empeno asked was he aware a lawsuit was filed in the
Superior regarding the motel at the time he came in for the
certificate of Occupancy and was he aware a judge had issued
a preliminary injunction closing the motel.
Mr. Lightburn stated yes.
Attorney Empeno asked was it true he knew the judge ordered
that the motel no be reopened.
Mr. Lightburn stated he couldn't say yes or no to that
question that he knew the judge had jurisdiction over the
matter but did not think it would be any violation of any
court order for submitting an application. He stated it was
his understanding that in this matter when corrections and
notices were given and corrections were made, that building
permits and final inspections were made that the next step in
the process was to file a certificate of Occupancy and that's
what we did. He further stated the City could receive the
application and do absolutely nothing with it.
Attorney Empeno asked was it true that I said there was an
existing court order preventing the opening of the Motel.
Mr. Lightburn stated he referred to it.
Attorney Empeno asked did he recall him telling him that any
act or attempt to reopen the motel would be a violation of
that court order.
Mr. Gunn objected to the question.
Attorney Empeno stated had Mr. Gunn listened to the question,
he asked whether he recalled his statement saying a
particular fact. If Mr. Gunn disagrees with that premise
made in may statement, he can disapprove, argue, or provide
his interpretation of the court order or show the commission
a copy of the Court Order.
Chairman Lindseth stated to continue.
oil
-
.!J.
J.
o 0
city of San Bernardino
planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 16
Mr. Lightburn stated he believed that is what he stated.
Attorney Empeno asked did he not also tell him that any act
in violation of the Court Order could be held in contempt of
court and therefore, punishable by imprisonment or a fine.
Mr. Lightburn stated he believed those were his statements.
Mr. Gunn asked was Mr. Reed standing around when Mr. Empeno
made those statements about going to jail.
Mr. Lightburn stated he believed he had joined the group.
Mr. Gunn asked that was something that would make an
impression that an incident took place.
Mr. Lightburn stated he would think so..
Mr. Gunn asked what was the next step after the City issued a
Certificate of Occupancy that needed to be done before the
motel opened for business.
Mr. Lightburn stated none that he knew of.
Mr. Gunn asked would a there be a requirement to obtain an
approval by the court.
Attorney Empeno Objected stating leading the witness.
Mr. Lightburn stated in regards to this case the judge has
jurisdiction over it that is what Mr. Empeno said and that is
what he always believed.
Mr. Gunn asked did Mr. Empeno advise him that an attempt to
open the motel for business would have been a violation of
the Court Order.
Mr. Lightburn stated that's what he was lead to believe.
Mr. Gunn asked did he differentiate between the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy and the actual closing of the doors
for business.
Mr. Lightburn stated he did not believe so.
Mr. Gunn asked in his mind was that two different things.
Mr. Lightburn stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked did he have an understanding about the
prohibitions issued by the Court with regards to attempt to
own or actual opening and operating of the motel.
Mr. Lightburn stated no.
I
_:
J...
city of San BernaAno
planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 17
o
10/30/90
Mr. Gunn asked at the time you went to the city in addition
to code violations, were there more concerns of the city.
Mr. Lightburn stated none that were brought to his attention.
Mr. Gunn asked were there other concerns brought forth to the
Court other than just code violations.
Mr. Lightburn stated not to his knowledge.
Mr. Gunn asked was he aware of any other proceedings.
Mr. Lightburn stated he believed there was a proceeding still
pending before the police commission.
Mr. Gunn asked you were aware even after a certificate of
occupancy was issued there were still some police commission
concerns.
Mr. Lightburn stated correct.
Mr. Gunn asked in his mind was there a set agenda in the best
way to obtain the appropriate approvals by the agencies.
Mr. Lightburn stated the way he considered it that the judge
had overall and final juriSdiction regardless of whatever
actions might be taken.
commissioner Sharp asked was it his understanding that the
Court had jurisdiction over the Office of the city Attorney.
Mr. Lightburn stated not particularly.
Mr. Gunn asked did he ever speak with Mr. Penman with regards
of this motel.
Mr. Lightburn stated on several occasions.
Mr. Gunn asked did he give you directions as to a potential
sale of the motel.
Mr. Lightburn stated he had conversations with Mr. Penman on
occasions to discuss a qualified buyer, and by qualified one
not only the capacity to purchase but a good operator
somebody with a track record, something that could be
verified and in those conversations it was his understanding
that if a new buyer turned out based on his investigation
that he would be amenable to working out the sale and
reasonable conditions placed on the motel to protect the
neighborhood.
Mr. Gunn asked if such a person was located,
said as to what the city would do with regards
actions that were pending.
was anything
to or various
u
~
o
o
City of San Bernardino
planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 18
Mr. Lightburn stated it was his understanding that if this
person checked out as a good citizen and one whose record was
o.k., that the rest of the problems could be negotiated out
and the mess unraveled and life goes on.
Mr. Gunn asked on how many different occasions did he have
conversations directly with Mr. Penman regarding those speci-
fic issues.
Mr. Lightburn stated without being specific as to time and
date several in person at City Hall and 2 or 3 times on the
phone.
commissioner Clemensen asked you mentioned a good bonafide
sale, would you please give me an interpretation of what that
means to you.
Mr. Lightburn stated he did not say a good bonafide sale he
believed he said they would have a qualified buyer and by
that not only one that would have the money to make the
purchase by someone who is in the business of operating
motels, someone who had local experience that could be
verified such as Armando, and that was his understanding.
commissioner Clemensen asked did he know what type of
purchase it really was.
Mr. Lightburn stated it's one person wanting to buy a motel
from another.
commissioner Clemensen asked in his past expertise you do not
know what an AITD is.
Mr. Lightburn stated no.
commissioner Clemensen stated they should all review docu-
ments on page 2 Items 2 and 3.
commissioner stone stated he was confused with the sequence
of events and was not sure when the court Order was issued.
He stated apparently a lot of repairs and inspections made
and it seems some were done after the court Order. He
further stated it is normal procedure, if you are cited for
repairs you take out a permit or whatever is required and go
through the normal flow of event. He asked at what time did
the Court say action could be taken to opening the motel and
if Mr. Empeno is taking the position that anything they did
to repair the motel is also then in violation of the Court
Order.
Mr. Gunn stated the best way to answer that would be to
review the Court Order and see what it says as to repairs.
Attorney Empeno stated he did not believe it has ever been
L
~
o
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 19
o
10/30/90
the contention of city, the city Attorneys Office, the
planning Department that the motel owner are prohibited from
pulling building permits and expending money and making
repairs to the structure that is shown by the fact that there
has not been any protest by the city in terms of issuing
those permits, it is the city's contention that the owners
with full knowledge the city had an intent to revoke the
Conditional Development permit did choose to go ahead to take
out permits, make expenditures, and do repairs. He further
stated the date the court issued a temporary restraining
order closing down the motel was on March 26, 1990.
Mr. Gunn directed the commissioners attention to the specifiC
court Order and read paragraph 2) on page 2 stating the Order
is very clear the building is not to be rented or open for
business until after the repairs as set forth in the March 23
. notice and requested by the city to be performed were
actually performed.
Attorney Empeno stated Mr. Gunn was reading from the Tempo-
rary Restraining Order and asked him to read the wording on
the Preliminary Injunction which effectively closed the motel
until a trial in this matter or 1 year which ever comes
first.
Mr. Gunn stated the question was in the order of priorities
on March 23 a citation was done by the city to correct within
10 days, on March 26 the Court said don't operate the motel
until you make the corrections, on March 26 a permit was. sold
to his client to make the repairs as of that time there were
no prohibitions to make the repairs, if there is another
order that Mr. Empeno would like to read from, he ask that he
pull that Order and read from it.
Attorney Empeno stated he must make a clarification of a
gross inaccuracy in counsel's statements, as counsel would
know there has been a preliminary injunction issued by Judge
Kennedy in this case but he did not have it in front of him
but he believed he was fully aware of it which effectively
closes down the motel until the time of trial. The
injunction was issued after he issued the Temporary
Restraining Order. The owner taken at his cost and told
Judge Kennedy the cost that he went through, told him the
activity he went through, and even in the face of same
argument the Judge revised the Temporary Restraining Order
and issued an Order preventing any occupancy of the motel. He
stated he would bring a copy of the Order, he has a copy of
the transcript in his possession right there, which talks
about the Judge'S rational and statements in issuing that
Order. He further stated if Mr. Gunn stipulated, he would
stipulate that the commission could read a copy of that
transcript.
Mr. Gunn stated he did not stipulate that but he would read
for the commission the Order that was issued on May 15, 1990
.
-
J1
.
1.
o
o
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 20
after repairs had >>een underway for 3 weeks.
the Order.
commissioner stone stated he was still confused and it was
his understanding that the certificate of occupancy is the
end result of going through the >>uilding permit as opposed to
>>eing a act of opening for >>usiness.
Mr. Gunn read
Mr. Gunn stated that was correct.
Attorney Empeno stated they wanted to >>e sure the judge'S
order was complied with.
Mr. Gunn stated the Order is quite clear in saying do not
operate as a motel that there's a >>ig difference >>etween
o>>taining a certificate of occupancy and opening the doors
for >>usiness. He felt it would >>e ludicrous to assume that
he would advise their client to open for >>usiness.
commissioner stone stated his recollection of what the 2
versions of the court Orders they heard makes the city's
interpretation of the application for a certification of
occupancy a catch 22 situation.
Attorney Empeno stated if he listened to the court order as
read >>y Mr. Gunn, the first order issued March 26 >>asically
said that the motel could not >>e occupied until permits,
final inspections, and certificate of occupancy is o>>tained.
The second Order which superceded the first one, stated that
in direct terms that motel could not >>e reopened.
commissioner stone stated he did not see what that had to do
with the Certificate of occupancy.
Attorney Empeno stated the contention they were making is
that no certificate of occupancy should >>e issued >>y the city
because it would be used >>y the owners of the motel as an
argument that the city should >>e stopped from arguing that
the motel should >>e prohi>>ited from reopening.
Chairman Lindseth excused Mr. Light>>urn.
Mr. Gunn had no other witnesses at that time.
Attorney Empeno called Larry Reed to the stand.
Larry Reed, Director of planning and Building services.
Chairman Lindseth reminded Mr. Reed he was still under oath
from the previous hearing.
Attorney Empeno asked several questions regarding Mr. Ro>>in-
son's testimony and if it was accurate and complete.
Mr. Gunn objected stating lack of foundation.
~
-
-
o 0
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 21
Attorney Empeno asked were there any other documents besides
the ones offered into evidence by the owners of the motel
regarding the inspections performed.
Mr. Reed stated he had the 3 field job cards, city's copies
of the buildings permit, and a copy of the field correction
notice dated May 8, 1990 signed by Ron Gaston concerning the
roofing inspection.
Attorney Empeno asked him to summarize for the Commission his
education and experience in building and safety code matters
in particUlar the Uniform Building Code.
Mr. Reed stated by education he is a trained architect in the
state of Illinois, has been the building official for Urbana,
Illinois for approximately 7 years, was building office in
Eugene, Oregon for 10 years from 1979 to 1989, responsible
for all the building code interpretation, certified building
official in the STate of oregon, took the state exam which
covers plumbing electrical, mechanical and structural,
currently carries the title of Building Official for the City
of San Bernardino as Director. Also certified plans examiner
and building official and building inspector by Building
Official Code Administrators International out of Chicago,
Illinois. In terms of practitioner of the Code both in
Oregon and California used daily the California Building Code
Title 24, which is based upon the ICBO Uniform Building Code,
situated in Whittier, CA.
Attorney Empeno asked to state the applicability of the
Uniform Building Code of the city.
Mr. Reed stated the Uniform Building Code has been adopted by
the State as the california Building Code and they have
adopted the CA Building Code as the city's Building Code with
amendments.
Attorney Empeno asked that he look at the testimony of Mr.
Robinson provided regarding the roofing and asked was that
the process which was followed.
Mr. Gunn stated he assumed the witness was only looking at
Exhibit "C" and that he has not had a chance to review the
other documents in front of him.
Mr. Reed stated
inspection noted
a follow up date
1990.
looking at Exhibit "C" there
on April 20, 1990 signed by Ron
of approval of roof covering
was roofing
Gaston then
on July 17,
Attorney Empeno asked to explain the process to receive the
city's approval for re-roofing.
Mr. Reed stated the applicant, contractor, or owner needs to
.uJ
~
4lU.
!
City of San Berna2inO 0
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 22
come in and fill out an application. If they want a roofing
permit, they try to ask questions about the contractors
knowledge. The building code requires that for certain types
of buildings certain types of roof covering need to be
applied. The building code does not specify exactly how
roofing is to be applied it is up to the contractor to pick a
roofing system that meets one of the classifications for the
type of building and the occupancy. Then the contractor has
permission to start work. They make progress inspections and
if we determine it meets the requirements of the code, they
will sign off on it. If there is a question about the type
of roofing or contractor did not call for all the progress
inspections, sometimes we require the roof be cored to see if
the all material has been installed.
Attorney Empeno asked did he agree with Mr. Robinson's
testimony.
Mr. Gunn objected stating lack of foundation.
Attorney Empeno stated Mr. Reed, being the director, is not
the person who goes out and makes the inspection, but he is
the person who has overall responsibility for the department.
Mr. Gunn stated foundation must be laid before testimony is
given.
Attorney Barlow stated the witness can testify to his know-
ledge and understanding as director of the department, the
directions given to staff, interpretation of the documents,
he is not testifying to what he has seen out on site.
Mr. Reed stated it was his understanding that Ron Gaston had
reason to believe the contractor had not followed the
specifications required and he cam back talked with Senior
Inspector on how he could substantiate the roof to be cored
based on his beliefs. The senior Building Inspector told him
that was a option. When the roof was cored, part of the
building the contractor put on the correct roof but the other
half the contract did not install all the material based on
that the contractor was asked to go back and make right the
rest of the roof.
Mr. Gunn asked on what date did he go out an look at the
roof.
Mr. Reed stated he did not personally go out an look at the
roof.
Mr. Gunn asked on what date did he speak to Ron Gaston.
Mr. Reed stated he became generally aware of it sometime
around the end of April.
Mr. Gunn asked what date did Ron Gaston talk to the Senior
wr
-
~ .
~
o 0
City of San Bernardino
planninq commission Meetinq Minutes of 10/30/90
Paqe 23
Inspector.
Mr. Reed stated he was not sure.
Mr. Gunn asked the name of the senior Inspector.
Mr. Reed stated Joe Lease.
Mr. Gunn asked who told Ron Gaston that the roof was not up
to code.
Mr. Reed stated he had no personal knowledqe.
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. Reed to check the file for that infor-
mation.
commissioner stone asked the purpose of the questioninq.
Mr. Gunn stated he was testinq the foundation of why he was
makinq those conclusions.
Mr. Reed stated Ron spoke to Joe around April 20th but there
was no information in the file.
Mr. Gunn asked was it Bill carey who told Ron Gaston the roof
was not up to code.
Attorney Empeno objected statinq irrelevant.
Mr. Gunn asked if a core section was taken out of the
buildinq.
Mr. Reed stated that was his understandinq from readinq the
field notes that were done by the inspector.
Mr. Gunn asked did he have them present with him today and
did they exist in a City file somewhere.
Mr. Reed stated no it was not typical
information that they do not do the
usually have someone take the core and
them.
to keep the kind of
cores themselves they
verify the results to
Mr. Gunn asked who took the core and who verified the
results.
Mr. Reed stated he did not know.
Mr. Gunn asked was it true nobody verified the results.
Mr. Reed stated it is the job of the buildinq inspector to
verify the results.
Mr. Gunn asked the buildinq inspectors file he just looked
throuqh documents who verified the results.
-
~
-
c 0
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
page 24
Mr. Reed stated the inspector wrote the field correction
notice which explains what the results were.
Mr. Gunn asked is it the responsibility of the building
inspector to put in his notes who verified the results.
Mr. Reed stated in terms of like a police office does his
report - no.,
Mr. Gunn asked did he require that if a building inspector
has documentation verified they put something in the file
showing it was verified by the company.
Mr. Reed stated no it is the responsibility of the
contractor, if he believes the inspector made an error, there
is a procedure to raise that issue to the building official.
He would review the facts and if the contractor believes he
has erred, the City has a Construction Code Board of Appeals
they can appeal to.
Mr. Gunn asked does the field correction notice say who
verified the results.
Mr. Reed stated the contractor and the owner did not question
the results of that and that the building inspector specifies
the results of his inspection based upon after coring the
roof.
Mr. Gunn repeatedly asked who verified the results.
Mr. Reed stated they do not have the equipment to core the
roof that they have the roof cored either by contractor or by
an independent testing lab then a sample of that is delivered
to the inspector and he looks at the results of the core.
Mr. Gunn asked who took the core sample.
Mr. Reed stated he did not know that none of the documents he
had with him tonight showed that information.
Mr. Gunn asked was it standard procedure for the documents to
not indicate such important things.
Mr. Reed stated they do not have the room nor
system to keep such information and if no question
they only keep thing for a short period of time.
the filing
is raised,
Mr. Gunn asked the document does not have enough room to say
who did what.
Mr Reed stated there may be such a document but he did not
have that information.
Mr. Gunn asked several questions regarding a roofing and a
...
~
--
.
o 0
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 25
contractors license.
Discussion ensued amongest Commissioner stone and Mr. Gunn as
to the relevancy of the questioning.
Chairman Lindseth instructed Mr. Gunn to continue.
Mr. Gunn asked if roofing was the same in Illinois as in
california.
Mr. Reed stated yes.
Mr. Gunn stated no specific requirement it depends on the
system the contractor picks.
Mr. Reed stated some generic types of roof covering in
that maybe applicable determined by contractor not up to
to design a re-roofing system for the building owner.
code
city
commissioner
was a flaw
knowledge no
Sharp asked from his testimony he understands it
in the roof not a flaw in the code and from his
one told Mr. Robinson it was a flaw in the code.
Mr. reed stated not to this knowledge the code is
there was a flaw he would hope staff would bring
attention so he could bring it to the attention of
writers for a correction.
a code if
it to his
model code
commissioner Sharp asked what are we doing here that does not
fall under the Order of Judge Kennedy.
Attorney Empeno stated there was a substantial period of time
between when it started and the time it reconvened on October
9 at successive meeting between those dates there were
continuances of the hearing stipulated to by both attorneys
reason to explore all possible avenues short of revocation.
Explored possibilities of conveyance to Mr. viginelli or
other parties, change in project converting to senior citizen
complex, and change in use after exploring all of those
possibilities and discussing some with a variety of depart-
ments in the city, our office believed that the only real
solution to the problem was a revocation.
Mr. Gunn asked if the job card showed the roof passing
inspection.
Mr. Reed stated he believed it did on July 17, 1990.
14
.
_ u
city of San Bern51ino 0
planning commissione Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 26
Mr. Gunn asked if a final inspection took place on September
17, 1990 frolll reading the job card.
Mr. Reed stated a final construction inspection siqned off on
that day.
Chairman Lindseth excused Mr. Reed.
Attorney Empeno called Bob Spindler to the Stand.
Mrs. Olivo-GOlllez administered the oath to Mr. spindler.
Bob Spindler, Dectective with San Bernardino police Depart-
ment assigned to Vice Investigation unit for 17 years.
Attorney Empeno asked did he bring any particular documents
regarding calls for service at the lIIotel within the past
year.
Mr. Spindler stated yes.
Attorney Empeno stated he was passing out the document he
would like to have labeled as Exhibit "5."
Chairman Lindseth accepted it.
Mr. spindler described Exhibit "5" as being a printout
supplied by the crime Analysis Division at the police Depart-
ment. The information cOllies frolll the data processing divi-
sion supplied to the crillle Analysis Unit. It consists of
police calls for service in the 600 Block of North "0" street
with a tillle period of January 1990 through October 1990 each
page contained one lIIonth.
Attorney Empeno asked hilll to summarize the information in the
document in relation to the lIIotel.
Mr. spindler stated the first 3 lIIonths of 1990 there were 67
total reported calls for service of those 67 calls 42 were
related to the lIIotel. starting in April a drastic decrease
in calls through October: there 49 calls 10 for the lIIotel.
Attorney Empeno asked his opinion for the decrease in calls.
Mr. Spindler stated his opinion was based on his observations
of the City. Since the closure, he has noticed a significant
decrease in pedestrian traffic in the area of the lIIotel, hard
pressed for seeing a known prostitute in the area.
Mr. Gunn objected stating speculation without the
foundation stating they did not know who prepared
ments, what the basis was, the accuracy, how or why
prepared, and just call on pure speculation.
Attorney Empeno stated he felt it was highly appropriate the
lack of
the docu-
they were
4
. .~
J. __
o
o
city of San Bernardino
Planning Commissione Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 27
very issue is whether the use permit should be revoked and
should the structure be permitted to house any residents as a
motel and the information provided is relevant to that issue.
As far as the accuracy and authenticity, Mr. Gunn can acquire
from the witness on cross examination.
Chairman Lindseth stated he was also concerned about the
document as far as source of the date, how it was compiled or
manipulated or refined or reduced that nobody had that
information available.
Attorney Empeno asked may he inquire from Detective spindler
if he is aware of the process involved.
Chairman Lindseth stated that was acceptable.
Detective Spindler stated he could give a general impression
of how it is done.
Mr. Gunn objected stating either he knows or does not know.
Attorney Barlow stated he is not saying he is quessing he is
giving his general impression of his knowledge.
Mr. Wieser objected stating it did not meet to a foundational
question.
Chairman Lindseth stated to continue and state his knowledge
and insight in the preparation of the report.
Detective Spindler stated the police dispatch center is
computerized, calls recieved for service are entered at the
time received it goes into some type of data bank which is
then picked up by the city's Data Processing and stored there
and that's where we retrieve this type of information.
The city obtains the information directly from the police
Department.
Attorney Empeno asked him to review the first page and
identify the information in each column starting with the
second column.
Detective Spindler described each column giving the defini-
tions of the number and letters.
Attorney Empeno asked about calls regarding prostitution in
the downtown area.
Mr. Gunn and Mr. Wieser objected stating lack of foundation.
Detective Spindler stated prostitution has decreased in the
area.
Mr. Wieser asked
appear did those
under the location column *18 and
relate to room numbers that there are
#215
only
a
-
~
.~
o 0
city of San Bernardino
Planning Commissione Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 28
50 units in the motel and if '215 was called where did they
go stating it must be an error.
Detective spindler stated the number was just called in that
it did relate to room numbers.
Mr. Gunn asked several questions regarding Exhibit "5" and
the crime rate in the surrounding area.
Detective spindler stated yes and no to a majority of the
questions.
Discussion ensued amongest the attorneys as to the validity
of Exhibit "5". Exhibit 5 was entered as evidence.
chairman Lindseth asked if closing statements could be made
and finished by 11 o'clock, or should the item be continued.
commissioner Stone made
conditional oevelopment
1990. The motions was
unanimously carried.
Discussion ensued among est the attorneys and the Commis-
sioners as to whether or not each of the Respondents
attorneys could make closing statement. It was resolved only
one attorney could make the closing statement
a motion to continue Revocation of
permit Number 198 to November 13,
seconded by commissioner Lopez and
* * * * *
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned to
the next regular meeting of the Planning commission to be
held on Wednesday, November 7, 1990. 10:50 p.m.\\
-
4W
jj
4C)CitY of San Bernardino <:)
Planning commission Meeting Minutes
November 13, 1990
Chairman Lindseth called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in
the RDA Conference Room, 4th Floor, city Hall. The following
commissioners were present: Clemensen, Jordan, Lindseth,
LopeZ, Sharp, Stone. Absent: cole, Corona. Staff present:
Olivo-Gomez, Reed, Taitague. Senior Assistant city Attorney
Dennis Barlow and Deputy city Attorney Henry Empeno were also
present.
The Salute to the flag was led by Chairman Lindseth.
* * * * *
The approval of
Meeting of October
Commissioner Lopez,
unanimously carried.
the minutes
30, 1990
seconded
of the planning commission
were approved by a motion from
by Commissioner Clemensen and
* * * * *
ITEM NO.1
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 198
subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately .86 acres having a frontage of
approximately 125 feet on the east side of "D" Street and
being located approximately 365 feet north of the centerline
of 6th Street and further described as 655 North "D" Street.
The subject site is located in the CR-2, Commercial
Regional Downtown, General Plan Land Use Designation. The
City proposes revocation of Conditional Development Permit
Number 198 under authority of Code Section(s) 19.78.110 (A.)
(2.) (3.), to revoke approvals for a 50-unit motel.
Owners: Lei & cindy Wang
Applicant: City of San Bernardino
Ward: 1
Exempt from CEQA (Class 21); Staff recommends revocation
Conditional Development Permit Number 198
Chairman Lindseth
statement to limit
the city can use
remarks.
asked the person addressing the closing
their time to 30 minutes in of which time
a portion to rebut or respond to the
Senior Assistant City Attorney Dennis Barlow stated he
believed the City should go first.
Deputy city Attorney stated before he began he would like to
clarify for the record that with Exhibit 1, which was the
staff report dated April 17, 1990, were a series of documents
that were inclusive in the City's Planning Department file
with the exception of one document which was the actual plot
plan (located behind them on the post). This Plot Plan was
meant to be included as part of the exhibit and he would like
the record to reflect that the document be incorporated with
Exhibit 1. A reduced copy could be made so that that
~
.
-
.
city of San Berna~ino
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 2
o
11/13/90
original could stay with the planning Department with the
agreement of Mr. Gunn.
Andrew Gunn stated he had purchased copies of the documen-
tation at a cost to his client but has not been provided with
a copy of that map by way of any sort of discovery process
and objected. He stated it was made quite clear at the last
hearing that time for testimony and entry of exhibits was
over and it is too late now to go in and add documents. He
stated if they wanted to do that, he would most likely move
to reopen the public hearing and have several other witnesses
brought in and he did not want to go through that.
Attorney Empeno stated he believed that the map was brought
to the very first planning commission Meeting on May 8, 1990
and was referred to by staff in their opening remarks and has
also been referred to in the staff report, so it is not a new
document just a clarification for the record, and if Mr. Gunn
has a similar type of document that he wished to present to
the commission, he would have no objections.
Mr. Gunn stated the document was clearly not marked, has not
been marked as an exhibit, and is not an exhibit.
Chairman Lindseth stated this was an administrative hearing
not a formal court hearing and thought it was well understood
by all parties concerned that the plot map is the structure
they have been addressing for several meetings. He honestly
believed it was an omission from the record which had been
provided to everybody, was referred to and eluded to in every
shape and form possible every meeting numerous times and seen
no reason why it should not be included in the evidence.
Mr. Gunn stated it did have information on it that was not
testified to by any of the parties.
chairman Lindseth stated he did not think that had any
bearing on the information whatsoever.
Mr. Gunn stated if it had no bearing then it does not need to
be admitted in to the record.
Frank wieser, attorney, stated even though this is an admini-
strative hearing he thought case law clearly stated this is a
quasijudicial proceeding. So, even if there are relaxed
rules of evidence, it still has to proceed along some form of
formality and certainly one basic assumption is laying the
foundation for a document and admitting it into evidence.
Chairman Lindseth stated to let the commission
amongest itself.
decide
Chairman Lindseth asked if anybody on the commission opposed
to the inclusion of the plot plan as documented evidence.
There was no opposition and the document was included as
Ii
.
J
.
City of San Bernac:tino
planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 3
o
11/13/90
evidence.
* * * * *
Mr. Empeno's Closing statement:
Attorney Empeno stated in the three long evenings that the
Planning Commission had met on the Revocation there have been
a series of exhibits and a series of witnesses that have
brought the evidence supporting revocation to the Commis-
sion's attention. The five exhibits brought in to evidence
include: Exhibit 1 Staff Report dated April 17, 1990
inclusive of the exhibits in it: Exhibit 2 - Declaration of
David Stachowski, City Attorney Investigator, that was
submitted into evidence in the Superior Court case: Exhibit 3
_ copy of San Bernardino Municipal Code Ordinances Section
19.78.110: Exhibit 4 Further Declaration of David
Stachowski, city Attorney Investigator, that was submitted in
the Superior Court case and: Exhibit No. 5 A Computer
printout, testified to by Detective Bob Spindler showing the
calls for service received by the City from January 1, 1990
to October 17, 1990 showing the 600 block of North "0" Street
and more specifically the class for service for 655 North "0"
Street. Copies of all the exhibits have been furnished to
the commission on previous hearing dates and have been
provided to opposing counsel.
To summarize, there have been numerous witnesses that have
testified, various business owners, and employees of
businesses neighboring the motel. He stated they may recall
on the first evening of May 8, 1990 John Buckner, Dick
styler, Bill Carey, Trina Morris, Randy Waite, and Jerry
Brown testified. on that same evening Charles Reynolds,
assistant Fire Marshall testified.
On October 9, 1990 David Stachowski, city Attorney
Investigator, Detective Robert spindler of the San Bernardino
police Department, Building Inspector Dany Nolfo, in addition
to various business owners and employees of neighboring
businesses: Dick Styler, Bill Carey, Raymond Negrete.
In addition to those witnesses and their sworn testimony, he
had sworn declarations from a variety of people inclusive of
City staff. Some names that have been mentioned have been
included in Exhibits 2 and 4. Numerous declarations from
Building and Safety, Fire Department, and police Department
employees. There are also declarations from three former
tenants of the motel as well as a declaration from a former
employee testifying to the prostitution and drug dealing
problems most recently. Also in David Stachowski's
Declaration are copies of police Department records as well
as court records showing the records of 14 people who have
been arrested and convicted of a variety of prostitution and
drug charges related to the motel.
-
-
.U
City of San BernJClino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 4
o
11/13/90
Through all the evidence that was presented, through all the
testimony of witnesses, and the documents they have seen,
they are arguing that the Conditional Development Permit for
the motel should be revoked pursuant to section 19.78.110 of
the San Bernardino Municipal Code in particular Sections
(A.), (2.), and (3.). section (2.) being that the permit was
being exercised contrary to the Conditions of the permit in
violation of applicable licenses, permits, regUlation, laws
and ordinances of the city; and (3.) that use, for which
permit approval was granted, is being and has been exercised
as to be detrimental to the pUblic health and safety and
constituted a nuisance. To break that down for the
commission what they are saying is that the conditional
development permit, as exercised by the present owners, over
a long period of time not just for the last couple of months
or last two years but since 1983 have been exercised in
violation of the conditions of that permit.
There were numerous Building Code violations, Municipal Code
violations, a series of notices of correction had been issued
by the city, and a long history of crime problems related to
drugs and prostitution. The District Attorney's office in
1986 initiated civil lawsuits trying to close the motel
because of those problems. There are violations of
conditions, such as not maintaining the landscaping, parking
areas, sprinkler system, not complying with transient usage,
modifications of the building premises without approval, lack
of maintenance of the pool, removing the putting green that
was suppose to have been there since he initial approval of
the motel. Also, the number of units being permitted 50 and
currently having 52 units and various kitchen facilities and
equipment being used in violation of the transient use that
the motel was permitted for. with all that testimony and all
the evidence they ask that the commission revoke the
conditional Development Permit.
* * * * *
Discussion ensued among est the commission, staff, and the
attorneys as to whether one or both defending attorneys would
make closing statements. Commissioners Jordan, Sharp, and
stone stated it did not matter to them as long as they stayed
within the 30 minute time limit. commissioners Clemensen and
Lopez felt only one should speak.
A split vote was taken as to whether one or both attorneys
should make closing arguments. The votes was as follows:
ONE: Clemensen, Lopez, Lindseth
BOTH: Jordan, stone, Sharp
Attorney Barlow stated it was the Chair's decision in a split
vote.
Chairman Lindseth stated one attorney would have the pleasure
J.
~
1
.
city of San BernAClino ~
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 11/13~0
Page 5
of introducing closing comments.
* * * * *
Mr. Gunn's Clossing statement:
Mr. Gunn stated, the Commission needs to look at where the
case came from. First, do they have the power to do what
they are doing? The city Attorney's office has under the
civil Code a decision to elect the remedies. civil Code
section 3491 provides "the remedies against a public nuisance
are (1) an indictment or information; (2) a civil action; or
(3) an abatement."
What has the city done? They have 1) filed a criminal action
against Larry Wang; 2) filed a civil action; and, 3) they
have filed some sort of abatement. An abatement is defined
as a public nuisance that may be abated by any public body or
office authorized thereto by law. The Code is real clear.
You are allowed one of three remedies that is remedy number
1, 2 or 3 not all three. There is a clear violation of his
clients constitutional rights if the city is going to elect
all three remedies in direct controversion to the standard
civil Code which the board must rely upon. There was little
testimony, but the city Attorney's Office did file a criminal
action against the manager of the property as well as later
sUbstituting in the owner. Clearly all three are being
sought, and it is clear, at this point, this Chair, this
commission, does not have the authority to proceed because
there has been a previous election of remedies.
Our Health and Safety Code section of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code section 8030.010 adopts the civil
sections. It also has a section that deals with a
nuisance and the proper method for abating it.
commission meeting is not the proper method.
city
Code
public
This
There is, in addition to that,
meeting to suspend or revoke the
Motel. So, in addition to using
city is only allowed to use
additional one. The attacks on
they need to look at some of'the
a pending police Commission
city Business License of the
three of three in which the
one of three, they have an
his client are numerous and
factual issues.
He thought it was clear there was a point in time that people
were staying in the motel that mav have been causinq a
disturbance. If you want to take the time to go through the
police Reports, you will note out of the first 20 only 4
apply to the Motel. The vast majority deal with a drunk on
the bus stop and deals with other items that were not at all
attributed to the owners of the Motel. In fact, one of the
reports is where two men, who meet at the Grand Central
station Bar behind the motel, decide they want to share a
room. They climb over the fence, go in, and rent a room. One
the the men loans his cars keys and the car to his new
.
~
City of San Bern~ino
planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 6
o
11/13/90
friend, who hits the road and never comes back. Is that the
fault of the Motel? That is the documentation that is being
used to compile that mass of documents.
There were some arrests that took place at that location and
some crimes that took place. You will recall the last
witness from the police Department indicated anytime you take
50 families and put them into a small area, using a low
income area, in one of the highest crime rate areas in the
city, you are going to have problems. There are problems in
the area, but whether or not they are directly attributed to
the Motel, he supposed is up to the commission to decide.
They need to look at why they are here, how did they get
here. The City came out and said there were some problems.
They issued a correction notice in February and those items
were corrected on February 26. The city came back on March
23, 1990, they handed to the motel a notice prepared on March
15. There is a request in the document by the City, a
mandate, that says secure the vacant units within 10 days and
pull a rehab permit within 10 days. The city says you shall,
you must pay us money and pull a rehab permit. Less than
three days later on March 26 his client did that.
There's a representation inferred by the City authorizing a
permit, not really authorizing the correct term is to sell.
The city says they want their money, give us your money, we
will sell you a permit. The permit is sold on March 26 in
the early afternoon hours. Later in the afternoon, the city
runs in to Court and they say, Judge Kennedy, we want you to
not let the business operate. He stated they argued at the
last hearing over those orders and the Order said do not
operate the motel and they have complied 100%.
They continued on with the Rehab of that building pursuant to
the request of the City and he thinks the commission needs to
look at the Code Sections under Negligent Misrepresentation
or maybe more importantly, Intentional Misrepresentation. The
city made representations that if they pulled a permit they
would give them a final inspection, they would give them a
Certificate of occupancy and they want them to operate. Why
else would they say to pull a permit. That was the inference
led by that document. .
What did his client do, exactly what they were suppose to do,
pull a permit. They sank $100,000 into the property in order
to rehab, restore it and actually put in items that are above
and beyond the original requirements of the original permit.
Now, the city says, oh well, we lied, we misrepresented to
you, we don't want you open for business, we wanted you to
waste $100,000, we wanted to extract your fee for the rehab
permit, and now we are going to close you down. That is
exactly what has happened.
Mr. Empeno will probably argue, oh wait a minute, they knew
I..
-
...
city of San Bern~ino ~
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 11/13~O
Page 7
we were going to do this, we thought we might do this, we
thought we were going to try and close them down. That is
not what is important. What is important is what the
documentation said. Dany Nolfo on behalf of the city said,
pull a rehab permit.
There are some choices that the city has at this point. Some
choices the Commission has. They Can say maybe it's not fair
that we told those people to go out and sink money into that.
Maybe we might get sued being the city for negligent
representation. Maybe we might get sued for intentional
misrepresentation. Maybe what we ought to do is to do what
is reasonable.
This case came around back in 1986, and he realizes that. He
was active in those hearings and represented the owner and
there was a resolution that was perfectly acceptable to all
parties. The resolution was along the lines of not to rent a
room for more than once a day, so you can't have somebody
come and rent it for a short term rate, not have any short
term rates. The owner will go along with that. Increase the
security, they have. They have video cameras that will show
the entire parking lot area. There was a requirement that
every person in the room, not only just the registered guest,
show proof of identification and that was presumably so that
if you had a prostitute come, the prostitute won't run in and
rent a room if she has to run back out and get her John to
give the driver license to take in. It was presumed people
using prostitutes don't like to have there driver's license
name and information plastered where it is going to be
reviewed by City Personnel.
This commission should be in the business of keeping downtown
businesses running not destroying buildings, not committing
waste, not having a building sit empty that has 4 or 5 calls
(police calls) in the last one month reporting period to an
empty building, as you are going to have as the building gets
vandalized and the property value goes down. There is a way
for the city Planning commission to make some limitations if
they think it is necessary.
There was a concern over the way the business was being
operated. Mrs. Wang clearly testified she had her own job
going on in Los Angeles. Her and her husband were not
checking up on the business on a regular basis. The city
commission has heard from Armando, a buyer, who stands to
lose money if the transaction does not go through, although
there is no "cash in escrow." There is a legitimate escrow,
he wants to buy the property that would keep the property
open. Armando has been cleared by an investigation, of some
sort, by Mr. Penman. He is an existing business owner and
the commission has access to information as to whether or not
he's violating terms and creating problems to other
neighbors. This Commission could easily say let's think
about this. Let's let Armando purchase the property, let's
u
-
~
city of San BernAClino ~
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 11/13~0
Page 8
not revoke the permit.
Let's say the permit can proceed so long as Mr. and Mrs. Wang
do not operate the Motel. They will give him that one, they
don't want to operate it, they just want to be able to sell
it and save there savings, save there investment. We will
let somebody we know who can run it appropriately run it and
that is Armando. If the commission is all that concerned,
they could say why don't we have some sort of security guard
during the worst hours from 8:00 p.m. to midnight every night
for six months, for two months to make sure there is not a
problem. The Commission can review the matter in the future.
The commission also needs to look at the injunction that has
closed the motel issued by Judge Kennedy. That injunction
said that the motel is under his jurisdiction pending his
determination of how he can abate the nuisance. Judge
Kennedy can only abate the nuisance for one year. We are now
8 months into that. Judge Kennedy can permit that building
to open in four months pursuant to the existing law.
Nobody wants this motel shut down other than the city
Attorney's Office. They want to set a precedence to tell
other motel owners, see what we can do. We got you by the
neck. We got you right where we want you. I think that the
message has been clear Mr. Penman, or maybe he thinks he's
Judge Penman, with all of his statements to the newspaper we
will close them down, we will this we will that. Needs to
look at some realistic facts in the business world.
We are a city on the move somewhere. Are we moving
forward with progress or are moving just to shut down
existing businesses that create a revenue. If you look at 50
families in that motel. If each family has an income of
$1,000 a month each motel room, that's $50,000 a month in
lost revenue before it gets rolled over and over in our
community. $600,000 a year, and that is being extremely
conservative, on the amount of money that is spent in our
community. We can look at the sales tax loss, the loss to
the city, the loss to other businesses.
It will be interesting to see what Judge Kennedy has to say
when somebody from the city Attorney's Office has to go in
and say, oh by the way, you issued an Order that said do
nothing with this building until you come back to me it's
under my control, and we took it all away from you. He does
not believe we have the authority to close the building down
on that basis.
Larry Reed in his Commission recommendation, or at least one
that bears his name at the end that was prepared by somebody,
signed by Larry Reed, or signed by somebody purporting to be
Larry Reed, says that there were suppose to be automatic
sprinklers in that building. He bet that if they looked on
the plot plan, that Mr. Empeno wanted in today, they won't
.
~
~
city of San Bern~no ~
planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 11/13~
Page 9
find an automatic sprinkler system. What's happening is that
over the years, because this is an old one, we have now added
additional requirements to them.
One last comment, a motel is a permitted and conforming use
in that location. If that building burns down, a new one can
be put in. Let's go south one mile, Mr. Carey has a car lot
that is a non-conforming use. If that building burned down
tonight, he could never be rebuilt. So what you are doing is
letting non-conforming uses come in and control a conforming
use. Seems a little interesting to him that they are going
to, maybe run with the statements of a non-conforming use.
There is substantial non-conforming uses in the area in the
same block.
There should be a separation of powers. The city should not
be allowed to 1) run a planning Commission, 2) employee a
City's Attorneys office to advise planning Commission, 3)
employee somebody else from the City Attorney's office to
advise the Planning commission during half ofa meeting, Mr.
Empeno in the first meeting, and then say oh wait a minute, I
don't advise you anymore I'm going to switch hats. There
should be a separation of powers between the Planning
Commission and Judge Kennedy. There is a separation of
power. Clearly this is the sort of decision that ought to
rest in a court not in front of a commission. He thought the
simple way out for everybody's benefit was to sit down an
devise a set of regulations that permits the business to
remain open and to protect the community. That's what we all
want.
He stated he has a business one block away from there. He's
around the corner diagonally, less than a block away from
that business. He's been there four years in that location.
He's very sensitive to what is taking place in the area. He
thinks the businesses should stay open down there and he
thinks the Commission has an easy way to do it and that is
to devise a set of requirements that say we are concerned, we
are all concerned, let's see how it works. Let's put a
legitimate operator in there, Armando. Let's put down some
legitimate requirements and let's let the City derive
revenue. Let's let this City on the Move, move forward not
backwards.
Attorney Empeno's Rebuttal:
Attorney Empeno pointed out that the absence of any factual
arguments in Mr. Gunn's closing, and also throughout the
presentation of this case, he thinks supports the contention
of the City and their argument that there are no real factual
contentions here. They have a series of declarations and
numerous witnesses have testified. There really hasn't been
any contradiction in any of the documents or in any of
witnesses produced by Mr. Gunn. At most, Mr. Gunn has
provided what he calls legal arguments to the commission, and
-
-
-
city of San BernOino n
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 11/13~0
Page 10
he ask that the commission not be fooled by, the smoke screen
of those legal arguments.
Had there been any basis in case law or statutory law to any
of the legal arguments Mr. Gunn posed to them, he would be in
court today getting a temporary restraining order, preli-
minary injunction by the court, by Judge Kennedy prohibiting
this very meeting from taking place. The fact that he has
not, the fact that the court right now has jurisdiction on
the civil case, where he could have easily, if his argument
has any legal support, gone to Judge Kennedy and gotten the
temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction. He
could of done that.
It really amazed him to see a gross mis-statement of the law
and he felt there has not been any legal research by Mr. Gunn
on this issue. They are ludicrous legal arguments that he is
posing to them. He could cite to them a long history of
court cases, court of appeal decisions dating back to 1971
from Henry O'Hagen vs. The Board of zoning Adjustment of the
City of Santa Rosa and other cases since then that talked
about the numerous options available, which are nonexclusive
to any city or county in such a proceeding as before this
Commission.
The city has every right to proceed, under its own
administrative powers, in closing a business down as a public
nuisance, which we have done in this case. We have every
right to proceed in a civil lawsuit, as the city has done in
this case, in suing the motel and obtaining restraining
orders and preliminary injunctions closing that Motel down
for 1 year in the superior Court case, and the City has every
right to go before this commission, as well as to the
council, to request a revocation of a conditional use permit,
of a conditional development permit, as this one is, and ask
this commission to revoke it.
Had there been any exclusivity in civil code 3491, which
there isn't, Mr. Gunn could have easily had Judge Kennedy
order a stop to any of the city's proceedings other than that
one civil case and that was not done. Likewise his legal
arguments regarding some sort of misrepresentation of the
city and their telling the owners of the Motel that they have
correction notices, numerous Building Code violations, and at
the same time, in that same letter dated March 15, 1990, the
city had informed the owners that the city would be starting
proceedings for revoking the permit 1960-198, referring to
the year and the number of the permit for the Motel operation
at 655 North "0" Street. The owners of the Motel were not
misrepresented given this representation. They were notified
at the beginning and again had there been any legal authority
supporting such a theory, which there was not, Judge Kennedy
would have again not ordered a closure of that Motel. That
same argument was posed to him and he did not buy it and he
ask the Commission not to buy it either.
!
ci ty of San BernOino n
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 11/13~O
Page 11
Mr. viginel1i did testify to you as to his discussions with
the city Attorney's Office. He ask the commission to only
consider Mr. Vigine11i's financial interest in purchasing the
Motel as coloring his testimony. We are not disputing his
testimony that there were discussions with the City
Attorney's office and with the Planning Department regarding
a conveyance of that property for 5 months from the date of
the first hearing of May 8 to october 9, the second date of
hearing. Five months passed during which their Office as
well as the Planning Department discussed the matter with the
owners, their attorneys, their representatives, John
Lightburn, Council Members, and they discussed the matter
with Mr. Vigine11i. They looked at every conceivable
alternative short of revoking the permit for the motel and
looking at a possible conveyance of the property owners,
looking at other possible uses. They came to the conclusion
that a revocation of the permit was the only solution that
was viable.
Now, that does not mean to say that the structure can no
longer exist. That structure could be converted to be
consistent with what is designated in the General Plan. If
designated for a commercial use, it could be converted to a
number of other types of commercial uses. The structure
could easily be demolished and a new structure erected in its
place. Their position is that a motel is an improper use of
that location under this permit and that this permit has to
be revoked because of all the crime problems, the drugs,
prostitution, the Building Code violations, the violations of
the very conditions of this permit, and the most important
evidence supporting that conclusion, was the very testimony
of the property owners in the surrounding vicinity. I ask
the commission not to ignore the change in circumstance since
the closure of the motel.
Since the closure of the motel, there has been a
crime, resurgents of business in the surrounding
ask the commission to maintain that closure
Conditional Development Permit Number 198.
decrease in
area, and we
and revoke
* * * * *
Chairman Lindseth thanked them for their closing arguments.
Attorney Barlow outlined the possible decisions for the
Commission. He stated has he understood the City has brought
this action pursuant to Municipal Code Section
1978l10(A2) (A3). Attorney Barlow read that Municipal Code.
Chairman Lindseth stated as it stood before the Commission
right now, they could do 4 things. The could revoke the
permit, they could take the permit and place additional
conditions, or cause the permit to operate as is, or take the
matter into submission until a date in the future. It was up
to the Commission. He would like to emphasize that they
i!. ~
City of San Bern~ino r-\
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 11/13~0
Page 12
should be very careful not to let economic considerations
influence pragmatic judgment decisions based upon land usage
and development.
commissioner Lopez made a motion to revoke Conditional
Development Permit Number 198 as per staff's recommendation.
The motion was seconded by commissioner Clemensen.
commissioner Sharp asked if there was a document where the
defendant's were in effect presented with a choice of cor-
recting some conditions or closing up.
Attorney Empeno stated he believed the answer was in Exhibit
No.1. There is a document in about the middle, a copy of
the March 15, 1990 letter that Mr. Gunn referenced and he
also referenced. In the letter, it mentions and it is
addressed to Lee and cindy Wang, that the owners are ordered
to vacate the building. The building must remain vacant
until the proper permits are obtained and the structure is
brought up to Building Code standards. In addition, the city
will be starting procedures to revoke Conditional Development
Permit 1960-198 for their motel operation at 655 North "0"
Street and that staff would send additional information under
separate cover. There argument is that informs the Wangs that
the permit would be revoked pursuant to a revocation
procedure.
Attorney Empeno also stated they were also notified about the
corrections that needed to be taken. There was no statement
that they had a choice. It was a statement of fact that they
were proceeding under both ability. No statement of either
or that was going to be an alternative it was a statement
that they would be doing this. They would be revoking the
permit. Any correction would be done at their cost.
Mr. Gunn stated he did not believe that was the document
received by Mrs. wang.
commissioner Stone asked was another document furnished to
the Wangs after the date of the letter around March 26, such
as a Notice of Violation with a number of things that were to
be corrected.
Attorney Empeno stated in addition to the document he read as
part of Exhibit "1", is a copy of a letter dated March 23,
addressed to the Wangs regarding the Motel. The letter was
from Dany Nolfo talking about violations existing. Attached
to that was his report with a checklist of various Building
Code and Municipal Code violations and in the letter, it says
"that inspection by this Department by the structure located
therein revealed certain Building Code violations. It is
necessary that these conditions be corrected according to the
proper procedures and with valid permits from this Depart-
ment. Please contact this office within 10 calendar days
from the date of this notice to make arrangements to correct
-
.
City of San BernJ:lino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 13
o
11/13/90
those violations indicated in the letter.
Attorney Empeno also stated in addition to the correction
Notice, a Notice of Pendancy of Administrative Proceedings
regarding the above property is being filed with the County
Recorders Office to give public notice of pending action by
the City on this property." He believed that was the letter
he was referring to dated after the March 15 letter. That
letter did not state any either or choice of the applicant.
It notifies them of certain violations that need to be
corrected and the previous letter notifies them of the
revocation process.
commissioner Lopez stated he
make in his motion. He stated
proper use for this property.
Chairman Lindseth stated, granted it was not these individual
involved in the Planning commission at that time this permit
was issued; however, this is the body that grants Conditional
Use/Conditional Development permits and this is the body that
has the power to revoke.
had an addition he failed to
the Motel was no longer a
Commissioner Sharp asked while this
able or some other use, there is no
as a motel even we got overnight
monthly guest.
Attorney Empeno stated they gave that question a lot of
thought prior to instituting the revocation hearing process
and during the process and talking over the issues, the facts
with the Planning Department with our Office, we came to the
conclusion, jointly, that whatever conditions are imposed,
whatever ownership is behind the motel; that a motel use at
that location is an improper use and this permit should be
revoked. There are a variety of alternative uses available,
some which could use the rehabilitation of the structure,
others which may look into a demolish of the structure, but
there are other uses that can make the site economically
viable besides a motel.
place might
way it could
guest rather
be permiss-
be operated
weekly or
Chairman Lindseth called for the question.
The motion was carried with all but the opposition of
commissioner Sharp.
* * * * *
Attorney Empeno stated he would like to ask the commission
and also the City Attorney to refer to Section 19.78.110
specifically (c) regarding Findings and subsection (e) which
they have already spoken to regarding the appeal to the
Council. He would like to ask that the Commission, because
he had not prepared written Findings for the commission, that
he would like to outline specific Findings at the next
.
~
.
City of San Bern~ino
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 14
o
11/13/90
reqular meeting.
Mr. Gunn stated he felt it was improper for Mr. Empeno to be
the one making the Findings. The Commission is the proper
party to make the written Findings and they are required to
make the Findings.
Attorney Barlow stated Findings are required and it certainly
is not normal or expected for the commission itself to sit
down and write Findings. Mr. Empeno, has the prevailing
party, it is entirely appropriate for him to present Fin-
dings. The other alternative, of. course, is to have him
prepare the Findings and he would be happy to do that. It is
not inappropriate and he would recommend Mr. Empeno to
prepare Findings and then they can act on them. They can
change them or alter them at their pleasure.
Discussion ensued amongest Attorney Barlow and Mr. Wieser as
to whether the appeal period would be delayed until the
Findings were made. It was resolved that the appeal period
would be delayed until the Findings are adopted.
Chairman Lindseth stated the 15 day appeal period would be
effective on adoption of the Findings.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned to
the next regular Planning Commission meeting to be held on
Tuesday, November 20, 1990. 8:15 p.m.//
lat
MINUTES:PCll/13/90
-
. .
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
APPEAL OF
The Revocation of Conditional
Development Permint No. 198
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL BY The owners. Lei and Cindv Wan9
.
SUBJECT: Appeal of the revocation of Conditional Development WARD #-
Permit No. 198 1
( PROPERTY
LOCATION: 655 "0" Street
PROPOSAL: To revoke Conditional Development Permit No. 198 for the
operation of a motel.
PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH "0" ST~ T
SAN BERNARDINO, . CA. 92418
HEARING DATE AND TIME: Monday, February 4, 1991 2:00 p.m.
A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT CITY
HALL. IF YOU WOULD LIKE FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC
HEARING, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN PERSON OR BY PHONING
(714) 384-5057
THANK YOU.
)
J"" '.4 oar
EXHIBIT 8
~
.
o
o
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Common Council
FROM:
Dennis A. Barlow, Sr. Assistant City Attorney
DATE:
January 25, 1991
APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT NO. 198 (Civic Center Motel)
RE:
This is a brief response to the lagal issues raised by the
above appeal.
1. In reference to ground (1) and (3) each of the findings
adopted by the Planning Commission find ample support in the
record.
2. The due process rights of the Wangs were carefully
protected at all steps of the proceedings.
3. As explained to the Wang's counsel at the Planning
Commission hearing, there is no requirement, legal or otherwise,
which preCludes the City from following two remedies at the same
time.
The legal issues will be explained in more detail as they
arise at the Council meeting.
~
Sr. Assistant City Attorney
[DAB/dys/ccapl.mem]
EXHIBIT 9
o
o
,
Moyor ond Common Council
300 North 0 Street
San Bernordino, California, 92416
F ebruory 4, 1991
Subject: Appeal of Plonning Commission Reyocation of
Conditional Deyelopment Permit It 196, Civic Center Motel
Honoroble Moyor ond Council Members:
I am appearing on behalf of Armando Vignanelli. Mr. Vignanelli has
recently acquired the property located at 665 North D Street, known as the
Civic Center Motel. It is Mr. Vignanelli desire and objective to operate
this facility in order to provide shelter and transitional housing for low
and very low income persons who have been displaced or are in need of
housing opportunities. Mr. Vignanelli recognizes that there are state and
local laws that must be adhered to in order operate such a facility. Mr.
Vignonelli is committed to following the low ond co-operote with locol
officials in order to make this housing resource available to those
individuals who hove legitimate housing needs.
Mr. Vignanelli is keenly aware of the past problems associated with the
Civic Center Motel. He is confident that, with proper and reasonable
conditions, and with the co-operation of the City, he can operate this
facility in accordance with all local ordinances and the Uniform Building
Code. It shoul d be noted that, as a result of code enforcement actions
brought about by the City, the former owners invested over $70,000 in
extensive structural and site improvements to bring this facility up to
code. Mr. Vignanelli believes this facility is safe and suitable for human
occupotion.
If the City upholds the Plonning Commission oction to revoke the existing
conditional development permit, Mr. Vignanelli believes he will not be
able to meet the current and future development stondard contoined in the
existing code and the proposed Development Code soon to be adopted by the
City. If this occurs, the property will be rendered virtually undevelopable
and no doubt be subject to default. An unoccupied facility will be boarded
up and be subjected to blight and deterioration so commonly found in the
downtown area. To allow this to happen is not in the overall public
interest in that it will eliminate a valuable housing resource to legitimate
i ndi vi dua Is in need of housi ng resources.
Jt30
'2/:h1
1.
.
o
poge Two - Conditionol Development Permit "'198
o
)
In regards to the General Plan Housing Element we offer the following
comments and observations:
State law requires local jurisdictions to provide housing for all income
segments of the community. This housing requirement for very low income
people includes emergency shelters and transitionol housing. Very low
income people, specificoly single odults ore identified in the housing
element as a "speciol needs' catogory. According to the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment, published by the Southern California Association of
Governments, the five yeor projected housing need for very low income
people, as of 1989, is 1,159 housing units.
Regarding the City's special populations needs, the General Plan states
that, "The City will need to establish strotegies to provide shelters and
mitigate problems associated with the expanding homeless population."
(page 2-46) Furthermore, the Genreol Plan recognizes that, "The City's
single and unmarried couple population is increasing and, oS such, has
differing housing requirements thon the traditionol family. (poge 2-46)
The Generol PIon recognizes thot there is a serious need for single room
occup.oncy housing. The General PIon specificolly states, "Homeless single
odults often need very low cost single units such os those found in
residentiol hotels. There ore no progroms in the city to develop such
units." (page 2-37) The General Plan identifies the CR-2 zone in the
downtown area as an area where shelter and transitional housing may be
provided with conditional approvol.
The General Plan Housing Element goals, objectives and policy statements
are very clear os to the City's committment, responsibilty and obligotion
to assist ond provide housing opportunities for every resident and citizen
in the City, including low and very low income people.
In consideration of the above stotements, Mr. Vignllnelli request thot the
Council deny the appeal ond to modify Conditionlll Development Permit
#198 with reasonable conditions consistent with other similar facilities.
J n ightburn
Po ffi ce Box 1622
San Bernardino, Ca. 92402
714-381-2656