The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About26-Building & Safety Y; o .,-, ~ v ~W:' ,,'t... , /,,< ,. A. ."t ,~ ...' .. ...~ "... ':' " J'r '.Y/..-::'-.. '(:1' '';,'': "/~', '6' "": :-,!' o F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0 -{7 -":,) INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM (J 00 (, i , - ..' . . '." C I T Y TO: FROM: Larry E. Reed, Director Building & Safety Patricia Zimmermann, Deputy City Attorney August 3l, 1989 1040 1/2 1fBST BASBL:INB RBY:IBW OF 8BC F:IND:INGS DATE: RB: In response to your memo dated August 21, 1989 in the above captioned matter, other cities' in California have codes similar in language to San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.66.020 which have been held to be constitutional; San Bernardino's code per se has never been tested. To my knowledge the City has not surveyed or given notice to all building owners while Mr. Penman has been in office, however this code was adopted in 1953 and our office does not know what activities the Planning Department or Building and Safety Department took at that time. With regard to enforcement, I discussed the matter with John Wilson, who has been in the City Attorney's Office the longest period of time and he is ,unaware of any enforcement by the Planning Department, Building and Safety Department, or the Board of Building Commissioners. I concur with the positions in your memo that it is a close call whether the building was more than SOt destroyed and that there are questions about the 180 day period. However, San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.66.020 is fairly clear that this building as a residence has exceeded its useful life of twenty (20) years. It would appear that the building could be rehabilitated to meet present zoning\use requirements versus being demOlished. Therefore, the owner of the property could be a~lowed to submit plans to reconstruct the building in compliance with present zoning requirements as an alternative to demolition. Whil e I would have recommended going back to the Board of Building COmmissioners to resolve this matter, as you know the owners prefer appealing to the City Council immediately on the / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ~ .' o o Page Two August 31, 1989 RB: 1040 1/2 WEST BASELINE REVIEW OF BBC FINDINGS issue of reconstructing a residence not a commercial building at that location. - PZ/dys cc: James F. Penman, City Attorney W. R. Holcomb, Mayor Marshall Julian, City Administrator Va1.r:1.~p.-Lud1am, Councilwoman. , Henry Empefto, Jr., Deputy City Attorney Brad Ki1ger, Director of Planning . C I TO 0 P SAM' B B R M' A A INTEROPFICE MBIIORAM'DOJI 8908-2718 I M' 0 TO: J.... P. Pel'lllUUl, City Attorn.y c/o Pat Zi...rman, Deputy city Attorney FROM: Larry E. Reed, Director of Building and Saf.ty SUBJECT: 1040 1/2 West Bas.lin. Revi.w of BBC findings DATE: August 21, 1989 COPIES: Councilwoman Pope Ludl.., Brad Eilg.r, Director of Planning ------------------------------------------------------------- This memo is in response to Mrs. Ludl..'s requ.st to review the facts in the case conc.rning the own.r of 1040 1/2 West Baseline not being able to rebuild b.r house. The following is an outline of essential facts pertaining to the background. 1. The wood frame house was built in the 1930's 2. The property has b.en zoned cOllllercially since 1964. The property was zoned C-3 and. is currently CG 2. 3. Th. residence/house since 1964 bas been a non- conforming use, (meaning legally existed prior to being zoned under a cOllllercial designation.) 4. Municipal codes allow non-conforming uses to be continued except when specific incidents occur. The Ordinance lists three (3) specific instances. a. If the building is of a wood frame construction a non-conforming building may be continued for only 20 years (SSHC 19.66.020) b. Any use/building that 'is discontinued for over 180 days (SSHC 19.66.040) c. Any building destroyed more than 50t (SBMC 19.66.050) 5. For the purpose of discussion, I .. taking the issues listed above in revers. order. o 0 INTERoFFICE MEMORANDOK: 8908-2718 '1040 1/2 Weat eaaeline Review of BBC findinqa AUCJUSt 21, 1989 Paqe 2 . - c. DESTROYED MORE THAN 50': Section 19.66.050, atatea -wberein the coat of auch reconatruction. .. doea not exceed 50' of the reasonable replacement value ot the buildinq immediately prior to ita d...ge.- The bouae is approximately 1247 aq. tt. in floor area. Oainq the current Department coat ot $55.37, a reaaonable replacement value tor the bouse is $69,000. The coat ot repair .uat theretore exceed $34,500. The owner baa indicated reconatruction will coat around $20,000. It ia atatt'a eatimate that it will coat between $35,000. and $40,000. to reconatruct to current habitibility/code standards (structural, rewir- ing, partial plUllbinq work, new root, dry wall, paintinq, and retinishing floors anc:l/or carpet, new cabinets, etc.) It is a close judqement call? b. THE OSE AS A RESIDENCE HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED FOR OVER 180 DAYS: Building and Satety statt, at the time ot the tire, bad reason to believe that the bouse was not being used a. a residence because ot the large quantity ot business tOrJIS, receipts, and suppliea in the bou.e. The owner on August 14, 1989 provided a letter indicating Krs. Dulcinea Perea bas maintained ber primary residence at 1040 1/2 West easeline, tor the 20 years prior to the fire. A question which arises is was there also another residence. a. WOOD FRAME RESIDENCE ONDER SECTION 19.66.020 WERE TO HAVE BEEN DISCONTINUED BY THE END OF 1973. However, this section raises more questions than it answers. - Has this section ever been entorced? Did the City survey and give notice to all building owners? Is this section constitutional? - The ordinance doesn't clearly distinguisb between a non-contorming use and a non contorming building. Example: the use ot a residence could be discontinued, the building upgraded to meet commercial building code requirements and a cODlDlercial ottice or retail ~ ~' IRTEROFFICB MEMOQDUM: 8908-2718 0 1040 1/2 West saseline Revi_ of BBC finelinc;rs Auc;rust 21, 1989 pac;re 3 us. .stablished.. p.rai tted. and the conforming. Tbis ..ana the us. is building is no longer non My review of all the foregoing .ectiona, including the uniform Building Cod. ..... to indicate that the use of the building at 1040 1/2 cannot be rua~liahed a. a singl. family r..idenc.. How.ver, this doe. not Man that the building n.ed. to be deaolillhecl. Tb. lIonin9 ordinance and the Building Cod. would allOW the buildin9 to be upgraded. to _et ccmaercial standard. for the ..~liabaent of a legal us., eith.r a. a retail or an offic use. Please advise the Department of Building and Safety as to how it should proceed concerning the building at 1040 1/2 sa..- line Street. ~~~ Larry E. Reeel, Director Departm.nt of Building and Safety LER: nhm !iE:,' ~" . CITY OF SAN Q:RNARDINO - IQ:MORANDUM To CITY CLERK Su~ect OROER FROM BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF AIIGIIST 4. lqRq From BBC CLERK AUGUST 24, 1989 Date Approved Date ADDRESS:I040! W. Baseline Pursuant to Title 15.28, transmitted herewith are two (2) copies of Orde: No. 1305 of findings from the Board of Building Commissioners. . / -------' /' j[~ti.') :. .l"er2..d Larry~ed Clerk of The Board of Building Commissioners attachments PRier: J .~.." '-cr"-E~~ ~,\.;" ij 4 -r,\-". L;i'" .:;:,.:, -'J' ,".1 .,;, ;f);yjf! ~6 ~~. . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 2] 22 I' 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~OARD OF BUILDING CO~lISSIONER~ ORDER NO.1305 REPORT NO.3367 ORDER OF THE BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDIN AUTHORIZING THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Title 15, Chapter 15.28, the Building Official has posted a bui1ding(s) located at 1040t W Baseline , San Bernardino, California, and has notified person(s) having an interest in the above property that the bui1d- ing(s) or premises constitutes a public nuisance; WHEREAS, pursuant to San Bernardino Municipal Code, the Building Official has served a "Notice of Hearing Before the Board of Building COIIIT1issioners of the City of san Bernardino", relating to abatement of said nuisance, to the person(s) having an interest in the above property, and has prepared a declaration of mailing of the notice, a copy of which is on file in these proceedings; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held to receive and consider all relevant evidence objections or protests on August 4 ,l~; and WHEREAS, the Board of Building Commissioners heard the testimony and examined the evidence offered by the parties relative to the alleged public nui sance, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED BY THE BOARD OF BUILDING COHMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based upon the evidence submitted, it was found and deter- mined that the building(s) and/or premises located at 1040. W Baseline San Bernardino, California, constituted a public nuisance for the reasons set' I I I , ; forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference II as though fully set forth at length as the findings of fact of the Board. SECTION 2. Based upon the evidence submitted, it was determined that the City of San Bernardino was required to initiate abatement actions; that 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 \4 15 16 17 I 18 I I 19 20 2\ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o 0 the City incurred costs in the sum of $ 577.50 to abate the above property; and that these costs and any future costs to the City to abate the above property shall be the personal obligation of the owner(s) as well as a lien on the above property. SECTION 3. The owner(s) shall obtain a Demolition Permit and DEMOLISH THE BUILDING(S) located at 1040! W Baseline , San Bernardino, California within sixty (60) days from the posting of a copy of this order on on the above property. If the building(s) is not demolished within the prescribed period of time, the building(s) will be dmolished by the City and the costs shall be the personal obligation of the owner(s) as well as a lien on the above property. SECTION 4. Any person aggrieved by this order may, within fifteen (15) days after Auqust 24. 1989 . appeal to the Common Council by filing with the City Clerk a written statement of the order appealed from the specific grounds of appeal and the relief or action sought from the Common Council. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing order was duly adopted by the Board of Building Commissioners of the City of San Bernardino at a regular . 19~, by the meeti ng thereof. hel d on the 4th day of A"g"~t following vote. to wit: AYES: CommissionersMiller. Westwood. Ponder. Hunt. Gonzales and Flores. NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioners' Pollock. ~7 r' ,6tuf The foregoing order is hereby approve 19.8!L' Approved as to form and legal content: JAMES F. PENMAN. City Attorney ~'.'& By: ~ '.JA'./~Q.-~ -. ~