HomeMy WebLinkAbout19-Public Works
0
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CL (~u,\\ I s..'i<1
o
o
JANUARY 11, 1985
o
RECEIVED-CITY CLERK
'85 JAN 11 P2 :37
MEMBERS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL.
SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL,
300 NORTH '0' STREET,
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92418
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE UNLAWFUL CONDEMNATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
HOTEL BY THE BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS.
DEAR SIRS:
Section 4 of Resolution 993 provides 10 days from the date of mailing (in this
case from January 9, 1985) to "appeal to the common council by filing with the
city clerk a written statement of the order appealed from and the reasons for the
appeal". This letter is a response that section. As has been my custom I want to
move forewardas soon as possible and therefore, am filing this request more than
a week before the deadline of January 19, 1985.
On January 4, 1985 the Board of Building Commissioners met during their
regularly scheduled meeting held in the council chambers of the San Bernardino
City Hall. During that meeting they heard the testimony of the official
representative of the San Bernardino Department of Building and Safety, Mr.
James Clark. His presentation included, but was not limited to, the introduction of
many old photographs that were outdated and depicted conditions that no longer
existed on the subject property. He quoted code violations, most of which did not
pertain to the subject property in its existing status as a building not open to the
public or under condemnation. He described structural defects that were not
structural defects at all but simply test sites by the structural engineer and his
independant testing laboratory. The presentation was highly inaccurate and
misleading.
The board then heard my testimony and that of the project engineer, Mr. John
Kariotis of Pasadena, California (The man who wrote 99% of San Bernardino
Earthquake Ordinance MC-265). He told the board that the structure is of no
more a threat to the public safety than many of the other buildings in present use
in San Bernardino and other Southern California cities. He explained the test
procedure and subsequent results. He told them the subject structure was of
substantial strength and could be easily restored to usefulness by using the new
earthquake ordinance.
When questioned about "administrative and procedural issues," the board and their
council failed to answer questions about the "due process" of their proceeding.
The board also failed to reinspect the building after they were notified of the
corrections made pursuant to the inspection report. The board did indeed fail to
provide "due process of law" by failing to provide a fair and impartial tribunal and
failed to respond to questions requarding their prehearing conclusions.
"Due process of law" is of such a basisc right to all people within the boundries of
the United States that it is a constitutional right provided not only to natural
born and naturalized citizens but to both legal and illegal alians. Due process is so
inportant that it is not only granted in amendment 5 of the 'Bill of Rights' but
~oo io <ho 1'''' =,""~o,. -1- / '/.
0
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
After the board was notified of the legal ramifications of the "Affidavit of Land
Patent" filed on the property, thier jurisdiction was challenged, but they
proceeded to assume jurisdiction anyway, in direct violation of many case law
citations that were put before them in the form of "points and Authorities."
You must realize by now that the only reason we went through another
condemnation hearing was because of the documented "reversible error" associated
with the first hearing and the susbseequent administrative proceedures.
Mr. John C. Rosebraugh again commited perjury when on line 20 of page 1 of
B.B.C. Resolution No. 993 he stated "whereas, the Board of Building
Commissioners heard the testimony and examined the evidence offered by the
parties relative to such alleged public nuisance". The fact is, the Board failed to
conseder all the evidence' and made their judgment within a few minutes of
receiving 53 pages (copies on file with the city clerk) of "evidence offered by the
parties relative to such alleged public nuisance". On page 2 line 12 he did it again
whin he "certified that the foregoing resolution was 'duly' adopted by the Board
of Building Commissioners". "The word 'duly' means in a proper way, or regularly,
or according to law". Zechiel v. Firemans's Fund Ins. Co. C>C>A> Ind., 61 F> 2d
27,28.
The board committed so much "reversible error," and violated so many of my civil
and constitutional rights that they were working "beyond the scope of their
employment" and therefore lost any imunity they may have had.
Title 42 section 1983 and Title 18 section 241 were legislated and made part of
the laws of this land to address such abuses as this, and will be used, if
necessary, when I seek redress of this grievance in a court of proper jurisdiction.
I do hereby request an administrative hearing before the mayor and common
council to discuss the unlawful January 4, 1985 condemnation action by the
BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS.
This appeal is pursuant to the San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 15.28.090
entitled "Grievance of Final Order".
Four to five hours will be necessary to discuss the entire issue. I am therefore
requesting this public meeting to be scheduled on a day other than the regularly
scheduled meeting of the mayor and common council where many other issues are
to be presented, discussed and settled. I will not be "rushed to judgment" in this
matter and therefore demand a date that will afford me the time necessary to
adequately present this entire issue before your honorable appeal board in an
effort to exhaust my legal remedies at the administrative level before proceeding
into the higher courts on this new matter.
VER y TRULY YOURS,
6?~~d+
ROBERT E. SCHAEFER
13607 THIRD STREET
YUCAIPA, CA. 92399
-2-
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. , ,
o
o
o
ANSWER TO CONDEMNATION REPORT OF NOVEMBER 20, 1984
AND NOTICE AN DEMAND FOR DENIAL
GOOD MORNING MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF BUILDING
COMMISSIONERS
MY NAME IS ROBERT E. SCHAEFER.
MY ADDRESS IS 13607 THIRD STREET, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA.
FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD I APPEAR TOO A Y BEFORE THIS
HONORABLE BOARD "SPECIALLY" AND NOT "GENERALLY". THIS STATEMENT
HAS SUBSTANTIAL MEANING IN THE COURTS SHOULD I NEED IT IN THE,
FUTURE.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT, DUE TO THE MAGNiTUDE OF THIS MATTER,
EVERYTHING I SAY HERE IS IMPORTANT OR IT WOULD NOT BE SAID.
THEREFORE MY WORDS ARE CAREFULLY CHOSEN AND IN WRITING TO
ACCURA TEL Y SET THE RECORD.
IT SHOULD ALSO BE STATED AT THIS TIME THAT PURSUANT TO THE" RULES
OF THE COMMON LAW" AS REFURRED TO IN THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AS WELL AS THE GENERAL
RULES OF "NOTICE" I MUST INFORM YOU THAT WHAT YOU SAY AND DO
HERE TODAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF PROPER
JURISDICTION.
I TELL YOU THIS NOT AS A THREAT, BUT SO YOU WILL BE ON NOTICE AS TO
THE JEOPARDY YOU MAY BE IN.
I NOTICED THAT THE CONDEMNATION REPORT TO THIS BOARD TODAY HAD
BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL QUOTES OF LA WS AND CODES. IS IT THE OPINION
OF THIS HONORABLE BOARD THAT THIS HEARING IS A LEGAL HEARING
EQUAL TO A JUDICIAL PROCEDURE IN A COURT OF RECORD?
IF SO WHY WAS THERE NO SWORN OATH TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE
TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
YOU PROBABLY KNOW, THIS PROJECT IS ALREADY IN THE SAN BERNARDINO
SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL SYSTEM. IT IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN CASES
11213737 AND 11220549. THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO IS A DEFENDANT IN
THIS SECOND ACTION. I HAVE ALREADY PREVAILED IN THE FIRST CASE AND
HAVE BEEN GRANTED MY FIRST APPEAL IN THE" COURT OF APPEAL OF
THE STATE OF CALlFORINIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT;" DIVISION TWO"
IN THE OTHER CASE.
MY PURPOSE HERE TODAY IS NOT TO THREATEN ANYONE. I AM HERE ONLY
TO DEFEND MY PROPERTY. RANTING AND RAVING WILL NOT BE A PART OF
MY DEFENSE. I WILL STAY ON POINT AT ALL TIMES AND WILL STATE ONLY
FACTS AS I KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THEM.
ONE SUCH FACT YOU SHOULD KNOW AND UNDERSTAND IS THE FACT OF MY
UNENDING COMMITMENT TO THE RESTORATION OF THIS HISTORIC
LANDMARK, OR IF NEED BE, THE UNENDING COMMITMENT TO RIGHT A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. ".
o
o
o
WRONG, SHOULD THAT BE NECESSAR Y. WE MAYBE SEEING A LOT OF EACH
OTHER IN THE FUTURE SHOULD THE BUILDING BE DEMOLISHED.
THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS TO DEFEND THE STRUCtURE HERE TODAY. THE
BEST WAY I SEE AT THIS TIME IS TO ATTACK THE REPORT ITSELF. I WILL
NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN VERBAL ATTACKS OR ABUSES ON THE MEN WHO
MADE THE INSPECTION AND REPORT. I HAVE MET SEVERAL OF THEM AND I
AM SURE THEY ARE FINE MEN WHO HAVE YOUR CONFIDENCE.
MY TESTIMONY AND THAT OF MY PROJECT ENGINEER IS DESIGNED TO LOOK
AT THE REPORT AND ADDRESS THE DEFECTS OF THE REPORT ITSELF.
I CLAIM OWNERSHIP TO THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 524
NOR TH "E" STREET IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN
AS THE CALIFORNIA HOTEL.
MY CLAIM TO OWNERSHIP IS IMPORTANT IN THIS HEARING BECAUSE IT IS
BASED ON A DOCUMENT RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY RECORDER AS INSTRUMENT NO 82-116520. THIS DOCUMENT
REMOVES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE LOCAL JURISDICTION AND
PLACES IT IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUCH LIKE
THA T OF THE LOCAL MAIN OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES POST OFFICE
BUILDING.
THIS OWNERSHIP IS CONTESTED BY OTHERS, BUT THAT ISSUE IS NOT BEFORE
THIS BOARD TODAY.
BEFORE I START MY DEFENSE AGAINST THE REPORT OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY, I HAVE SOME
ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS THAT NEcD TO BE DISCUSSED.
MY FIRST QUESTION IS REGARDING THE TAPE RECORDING OF THIS MEETING.
THREE YEARS AGO, DURING THE CONDEMNATION HEARING OF THIS
PROPERTY, THE MEETING WAS RECORDED, BUT THE TAPE WAS DESTROYED
SHOR TL Y THEREAFTER. IS THIS MEETING BEING RECORDED AND WILL YOU
MAKE A SPECIAL EFFORT TO PRESERVE THE RECORDING FOR POSSIBLE
LATER USE?
FOR THE OFFICIAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, THE SAN BERNARDINO
MUNICIPAL CODE, AT SECTION 15.28.060 ENTITLED "HEARINGS" STATES, "THE
BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY SHALL PROCEED TO
HEAR THE TESTIMONY AND CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE OF THE BUILDING
OFFICIAL AND HIS REPRESENTATIVES AND ASSISTANTS AND OF THE OWNER
AND HIS REPRESENTATIVES AND OF "OTHER COM PET ANT PERSONS" WHO
MA Y BE PRESENT AND DESIRE TO TESTIFY RESPECTING THE CONDITION OF
THE BUILDING".
I NOT ONLY CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY BUT I CLAIM TO BE ONE
OF THOSE "OTHER COMPETENT PERSONS WHO DESIRE TO TESTIFY
RESPECTING THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING".
AFTER 3 YEARS AND AN INVESTMENT OF MORE THAN $190;000.00 WORTH OF
PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND MAINTENANCE I BELIEVE I HAVE "COMPETENT
TESTIMONY" IN THIS MATTER.
" .
o
o
o
THE FORM USED BY THIS BOARD FOR NOTICE OF CONDEMNATION SAYS ON
LINE 20 "WHEREAS, A HEARING WAS HELD TO RECEIVE AND CONSIDER ALL
RELEVANT EVIDENCE, OBJECTIONS OR PROTESTS ON (DATE).
I AM HERE TO PRESENT "ALL OF MY RELEVANT EVIDENCE, OBJECTIONS AND
PROTESTS".
THREE YEARS AGO, DURING A SIMULAR HEARING I WAS AN "INTERESTED
PERSON" WHO, ALONG WITH MY FATHER, WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE HEARD,
EVEN THOUGH WE HAD TIMELY SIGNED UP TO BE HEARD. THIS ACT WAS IN
DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CASE LAW CITED IN A CASE CALLED "CITY OF
CORAL GABLES VS CERTAIN LANDS UPON WHICH TAXES ARE DELINQUENT",
WHICH STATES, "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" REQUIRES THAT, BY APPROPRIATE
PROCEDURE DULY PRESCRIBED, FAIR NOTICE AND REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BE GIVEN TO INTERESTED PARTIES BEFORE
JUDGMENT IS RENDERED. THIS TIME I HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE HEARD
AND I HAVE MUCH TO SAY IN THE DEFENSE OF THIS PROPERTY. THIS
HEARING, IT SHOULD BE NOTED, DOES NOTHING TO REMEDY THE
PROCEDURAL ERROR STATED ABOVE WHICH IS ALSO PART OF THE
PREVIOUSLY STATED COURT CASE.
I KNOW THAT EACH ONE OF YOU BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES BECAUSE I HAVE A COPY OF EACH ONE OF YOUR "OATH OF
OFFICE" IN MY FILES.
IN THE OPINION OF THIS HONORABLE BOARD OR YOUR OFFICIAL LEGAL
COUNCIL, IS THIS HEARING A " LEGAL PROCEEDING" AND IS IT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF "DUE PROCESS. OF LAW" AS GUARANTEED
TO ME IN THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES?
IN A CASE CALLED REIF V. BARRETT, IT STATES, "TO CONSTITUTE DUE
PROCESS OF LA W IN CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, ORDERLY PROCEEDINGS
ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED RULES WHICH DO NOT VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS MUST BE OBSERVED".
DOES THIS BOARD HAVE ANY ESTABLISHED RULES TO GOVERN THE ORDER
OF THESE PROCEEDINGS SUCH AS AN "ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT"
OR EQUIVALENT PERSUANT TO THE ABOVE CITED CASE?
IN A CASE CALLED VINSON V. OKLAHOMA CITY, IT STATES "DUE PROCESS
OF LA W" MEANS ORDERLY PROCEEDING ADAPTED TO NATURE OF CASE
BEFORE TRIBUNAL HAVING JURISDICTION WHICH PROCEEDS ON NOTICE WITH
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD WITH FULL POWER TO GRANT RELIEF."
FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND PURSUANT TO TH"E ABOVE CITED
CASE, DOES THIS HONORABLE BOARD CLAIM TO HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS
MATTER, EVEN AFTER I GAVE NOTICE THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS
OUTSIDE OF ITS JURISDICTION AND IF SO, BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU
CLAIM SUCH JURISDICTION?
DO YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE POWER TO CONDEMN THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY AND DO YOU HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT RELIEF PERSUANT TO
THE ABOVE CITED CASE?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. I" "
o
o
o
HAS THIS BOARD EVER GRANTED RELIEF TO ANY OWNER OR INTERESTED
PERSON IN A HEARING SUCH AS THIS IN THE PAST?
ARE THE MEMBERS OF THIS HONORABLE BOARD EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO AND DO YOU RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR YOUR
SERVICES FROM THE CITY?
'DOES THIS HEARING SHIFT ANY RESPONSIBILITY A WAY FROM THE CITY
ONTO THE SHOULDERS OF THIS BOARD?
DOES THIS BOARD BELIEVE IT HAS ANY IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
FROM THEIR ACTIONS IN THIS OR ANY OTHER MATTER BRQUGHT BEFORE
THEM?
WAS THERE ANY PRE-HEARING MEETING OR MEETINGS HELD WITH ANY CITY
OFFICIAL OR OFFICIALS AND ANY BOARD MEMBER OR MEMBERS IN AN,
EX-PARTE MANNER REGARDING THE CALIFORNIA HOTEL TO WHICH I WAS
NOT INVITED TO DEFEND MY PROPERTY?
AS MEMBERS OF THE SAN BERNARDINO CITY GOVERNMENT AND AS PARTIES
TO THE ACTION MENTIONED EARLIER, IS IT LEG ALL Y POSSIBLE TO
CONDUCT THIS HEARING WITHOUT DISQUALIFYING YduR~ELVES AS PARTIES
TO A CURRENT LEGAL ACTION THAT COULD BE INT~RPRETED BY A COURT
OF APPEAL AS A PREJUDICIAL BODY. !
I
HOW MANY "INSPECTORS" INSPECTED THE SU~JECT PROPERTY IN
PREPARATION OF THE CONDEMNATION REPORT. t
FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, WHAT ARE TH IR NAMES AND WHAT
, ARE THEIR CREDENTIALS THAT QUALIFY THEM TO MAKE AN INSPECTION
AND REPORT OF A MAGNATUDE THAT COULD RESU T IN THE DEMOLITION
OF ONE OF SAN BERNARDINOS MAJOR LAND MARKS.
HOW MUCH TIME WAS ACTUALLY SPENT BY EACH OF THEM ON THE
PROPERTY?
GENTLEMEN, MY DEFENSE.
MY FATHER AND I HAVE SPENT MORE THAT THREE YEARS AND MORE THAN
$190,000.00 ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN; CLEAN-UP, SECURITY, REMOVAL
OF UNSAFE WATER DAMAGED PLASTERED CEILINGS, PLANNING,
ENGINEERING, TESTING AS WELL AS THE WORK AND EXPENSE THAT WENT
INTO QUALIFYING THE PROJECT FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC
PLACES IN WASHINGTON D.C. (1 PERSON ALL Y KNOW QF NO OTHER HISTORIC
SITE WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO THAT HAS BEEN QUALIFIED FOR
THAT HIGHEST OF HISTORIC RECOGNITION.
!
MY FATHER AND I SECURED THE PROPERTY. WE REPAIRED THE LISTED
PROBLEMS AS REQUIRED BY THE SAN BERNARDINO ciTY FIRE DEPARTMENT.
WE DRAINED AND COVERED THE SWIMMING POOL. W~ REPAIRED THE THREE
SMALL BURNED OUT HOLES IN THE THIRD FLOOR HALL. WE CLOSED THE
OPEN ELEVATOR SHAFTS. WE INSTALLED RAZOR WIRE AND BARBED WIRE
,
FENCEING ACROSS THE TOP OF THE COUR TY ARD WALLS AND AROUND THE
BASE OF THE FIRE ESCAPES. WE COATED THE INSIDE OF THE WINDOWS ON
THE STREET LEVEL STOKE FRONTS FOR A MORE ATTRACTIVE APPEARANCE
DURING OUR SET UP AND PLANING TIME. WE PAINTED THE BARE PLYWOOD
OVER THE WINDOWS AND DOORS FOR A MORE ATT~ACTIVE APPEARANCE.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
WE CLOSED ALL OPEN WINDOWS AND DOORS. WE PAINTED ALL OF THE
WINDOWS IN THE SOUTH WING BOTH INSIDE AND OUT AS PART OF OUR
PRESERVATION PROGRAM DURING THE PLANNING STAGES. WE REROOFED
THE SOUTH WING, THE ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND THE
CENTRAL ELEVATOR TOWER. WE REMOVED MORE THAN 100 TONS OF
TRASH, DEBRIS AND LOOSE CEILING PLASTER TO MAKE THE PLACE FIRE
SAFE AND A SAFER PLACE FOR THE WORKMEN ON THE PROJECT. WE HAD
THE STRUCTURAL STRENGTH TESTED IN 25 LOCATIONS TO GET A COMPLETE
PICTURE OF THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDINGS. WE CREATED
WORKING DRAWINGS TO REARRANGE THE SMALL ROOMS INTO MORE
EXPENSIVE SUITES THUS ELIMINATING THE CHEAP "FLOP HOUSE" ROOMS. WE
CREATED, ON PAPER, SIX SUITES IN THE END THREE SUITES OF THE SOUTH
WING FOR A BETTER USE OF THE SPACE OF THE THREE LARGE
APARTMENTS LOCATED THERE. WE HAVE COMPLETE ARCHITECTURAL
DRA WINGS PROVIDING FOR AUTOMATIC FIRE DOORS AND CODE APPROVED
CONVENTIONAL FIRE ESCAPES. WE CREATED FIRE PROTECTION PLANS FOR
A TOTALLY SPRINKELED BUILDING THAT PROTECTS EVERYTHING FROM THE
MANSARD ROOFS AND THE ATTIC SPACES IN ALL BUILDINGS AS WELL AS
THE HALL ATTIC SPACES. THE EXTERIOR STAIR WELLS, THE EXTERIOR
PORCHES AND THE BASEMENT ROOMS ARE SPRINKLED ALSO. THESE PLANS
ARE ALREADY APPROVED AND ARE ON FILE AT THE SAN BERNARDINO CITY
FIRE DEPARTMENT. WE WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN THIS CITYS' PREPARATION
AND ADOPTION OF THE NEW SAN BERNARDINO EARTHQUAKE CODE (KNOWN
AS ORDINANCE MC-265). WE HAD OUR FINANCING LINED UP AND WERE
WITHIN A FEW WEEKS OF SUBMITTING OUR PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK, WHEN A
FRAUDULANT FORECLOSURE PERPETRATED BY PAN AMERICAN BANK AND
ONE OF THEIR AGENTS OCCURED.
,
i
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
\
I
I
,
i
I
i
,
,
I
THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN IN FORECLOSURE BUT THE FORECLOSURE COULD
NOT BE COMPLETED DUE TO THE NOTORIOUS "WAYNE BURTON
BANKRUPTCY". THE INVESTMENT OF THE HOLDER OF THE THIRD TRUST DEED
WAS BEING PROTECTED BY THE PROCEEDINGS WHEN THEY WERE CONVINCED
BY AN AGENT OF THE BANK THAT THEY HAD TO REMOVE THEIR INTEREST
FROM THE BANKRUPTCY BEFORE THE SCHAEFERS COULD PAY THEM OFF.
THESE PEOPLE WERE MISLED AND RELIED ON THIS ADVISE AND HAVE LOST
THEIR ENTIRE INVESTMENT UNLESS WE CAN REMEDY THIS WRONG IN THE
COURTS.
PAN AMERICAN BANK NOW CLAIMS OWNERSHIP TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
AND THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE PENDING LITIGATION. THEY EVICTED THE
GUARD WHO WAS WILLING TO STAY ON JUST FOR A PLACE TO STAY. IT
WAS DUE TO HIS ABSENCE THAT THE PLACE WAS OVERRUN WITH VANDALS
AND VAGRANTS.
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
THE CITY HAS QUIETLY STOOD BY AND ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN WITHOUT
REQUIRING THE BANK TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY AND MAINTAIN THE
SECURITY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED OF US.
NOW LETS LOOK AT THE REPORT.
I DO HEREBY CHALLENGE AND OBJECT TO THE CONDEMNATION REPORT
PRESENTED TO YOU BY THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF
BUILDING AND SAFETY ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
I
I
i
I
;
.~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
'I "
o
o
o
A) THE REPORT DOES NOT ACCURA TEL Y DESCRIBE THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY AND THUS FAILS TO STATE A TRUE SITUATION THAT WOULD
REQUIRE AN ACTION OF THE MAGNITUDE THEREIN REQUESTED.
B. THE VALID PROBLEMS ON THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN CORRECTED
PURSUANT TO THE "CORRECTION NOTICE" SIGNED BY MR. JAMES CLARK
AND DATED DECEMBER 4, 1984 OF WHICH STATES, "THIS NOTICE SHALL
REQUIRE THE OWNER TO COMMENCE THE REQUIRED REPAIRS...WITHIN TEN
DA YS AND TO COMPLETE SUCH WORK WITHIN SIXTY DAYS FROM THE DATE
OF NOTICE BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. (SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE
15.28.030)
THE SUBJECT CONDEMNATION REPORT IS MADE OF 42 STATEMENTS. 41 ARE
NUMBERED AND THE 42 UNNUMBERED PARAGRAPH ALLEGES VARIOUS CODE
VIOLATIONS. THE REPORT COVERS FOUR BASIC AREAS OF INTEREST:
1) SECURITY
2) FIRE SAFETY.
3) HEALTH AND SANITATION.
4) STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY.
I WILL ADDRESS EACH AREA SEPERA TEL Y.
*** SECURITY ***
SINCE THE REPORT, SECURITY HAS BEEN ACHIEVED SUBSEQUENT TO TWO
SEPARATE EFFORTS.
1) THE ENTRANCES HAVE BEEN RESEALED AND THE RAZOR WIRE FENCING
HAS BEEN REPLACED.
2) THE CITY HAS POSTED THE PROPERTY AS UNSAFE FOR OCCUPANCY AND
VIOLATION OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO INHABIT THE
PLACE. (THIS SIGN COULD HAVE BEEN POSTED BY THE CITY MORE THAN A
YEAR AGO, BUT WASN'T.) ANYONE INSIDE THE FENCE NOW ARE ILLEGAL
TRESPASSERS AND SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION FOR BREAKING AND
ENTERING.
*** FIRE SAFETY ***
SINCE THE INSPECTION, THE ENTIRE PLACE HAS BEEN CLEANED AND MORE
THAN 3 TRUCK LOADS OF DEBRIS AND TRASH HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM
THE BUILDING. THE WIRES THAT WERE PLACED IN THE OLD BAR AREA BY
AN UNKNOWN VANDAL HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
*** HEALTH AND SANITATION ***
THE HUMAN WASTE AND REFUSE CONTAINERS HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND THE
PLACE CLEANED.
*** STRUCTURAL SAFETY ***
THE STRUCTURAL DEFECTS STATED IN THE REPORT ARE EITHER
MISEVAWATED OR ARE COVERED IN THE RESTORATION PLANS AND
ENGINEERING COVERED IN THE NEW EARTHQUAKE CODE MC-265
THE REPORT ITSELF IS GROSSLY MISLEADING.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
, ~," '
o
o
'~
A LARGE NUMBER OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE REPORT ARE MORE THAN
THREE YEARS OLD. YOU CAN SEE THAT AS THE PICTURES ARE DATED. WHY
THEY ARE IN THE LATEST REPORT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME.
TWO OF THE STATEMENTS IN THE REPORT (26 &. 29) TELL WHAT FLOOR THE
ELEVATORS ARE ON. I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT RELEVANCE THAT HAS
TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AT ISSUE HERE.
ONE STATEMENT (23) TELLS OF 3 TRANSIENTS WHO CAME IN THROUGH THE
OPENING MADE AND LEFT OPEN BY THE INSPECTORS. THAT TYPE OF
CARELESSNESS IS AN OPEN INVITATION TO TRANSIENTS THAT WAS CAUSED
BY THE INSPECTORS THEMSELVES.
TWO STATEMENTS TALK ABOUT TRASH, FECAL MATTER AND A WIRE
OBSTlCAL COURSE, IN THE BAR AREA. THESE WIRES WERE NOT PUT IN
PLACE BY THE SCHAEFERS BUT THEY AND ALL OTHER DEBRIS HAVE BEEN
REMOVED SINCE THE INSPECTION. SO THIS IS NO LONGER A PROBLEM.
TWO STATEMENTS (17 &. 24) REFER TO A FIRE LOCATION IN THE MAIN
HOTEL. A CLOSE INSPECTION WILL FIND THAT THE WOOD STRUCTURE IN
THAT AREA IS OF FULL THICK WOOD WHICH IS MUCH THICKER THAN
TODAYS CODE APPROVED WOOD WHICH IS ONE AND ONE HALF INCH
THICKNESS. IF A STRUCTURAL INSPECTION SHOWS THE WOOD TO BE LESS
THAN THAT OR UNSAFE IN ANY MANNOR IT WILL NOT BE A GREAT DEAL OF
TROUBLE TO REPLACE THOSE FIVE BOARDS. THUS THIS IS NOT A GREAT
PROBLEM.
FOUR STATEMENTS (10, 20, 21 &. 38) TALK ABOUT SIMPLE EXTERIOR
PLASTER CRACKS. ALL PLASTERED BUILDINGS HAVE EXTERIOR PLASTER
CRACKS. THEIR EXIST ANCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN STRUCTURAL
FAILURE. THEY WILL ALL BE REPAIRED ACCORDING TO CODE DURING
RESTORATION. SO THIS IS NOT A GREAT PROBLEM.
FOUR STATEMENTS (18, 20, 27 &. 39) MENTION LOOSE BRICKS SHORED UP
WITH MORTER. THESE AREAS ARE SIMPLY TEST SITES FOR MORTER
STRENGTH. THE MERE CITING OF THESE AREAS AS BIG PROBLEM AREAS
POINT OUT THE INEXPERIENCE OF THESE HONORABLE INSPECTORS. IN FACT
THEY COMPLETELY MISSED AND FAILED TO CITE TWENTY ONE OTHER TEST
SITES ON THE BUILDING. THESE TESTS DID NOT SHOW THAT THE BRICKS
WERE FALLING OUT AND HAD TO BE REPOINTED WITH NEW MORTER AS THE
REPORT STATED. THEY WERE TEST AREAS THAT HAD THE MORTER DRILLED
OUT, A BRICK WAS THEN REMOVED TO PROVIDE A CAVITY FOR A HYDROLlC
RAM TO BE INSERTED TO TEST THE BONDING STRENGTH OF THE NEXT
CLOSEST BRICK. THE BRICK WAS THEN REPLACED AND REPOINTED WITH
NEW MORTER. THE TESTS IN FACT FOUND THE OLD MORTER TO BE 3.7
TIMES STRONGER THAN THAT REQUIRED IN ORDINANCE MC-265 AT THE
WEAKEST LOCATION AND 13.7 TIMES STRONGER AT THE STRONGEST
LOCATION.
TWINING LABORA TOR Y OF LOS ANGELES DID THE TESTS AND STATED THE
JOINTS WERE SO STRONG BECAUSE THE OUTSIDE STUCCO WAS OF A
SUPERIOR QUALITY AND STRENGTH AND IT KEPT THE JOINT MORTER FROM
WEATHERING. IT WAS QUITE A CHORE TO BREAK LOOSE THE STUCCO JUST
TO GET TO THE MASONRY WORK SO THE TESTS COULD BE MADE.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
]2
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
, 'd
o
o
o
FIVE STATEMENTS (5, 13,21, 27 &: 32) TALK ABOUT WATER DAMAGE, LOOSE
PLASTER, OR DRY ROT AND AREAS OPEN TO THE ELEMENTS.
AS A MATER OF FACT:
A) THERE IS A NEW ROOF ON THE SOUTH WING TO PROTECT IT FROM THE
ELEMENTS.
B) THE SOUTH WING HAS NEW GLASS THROUGHOUT, WITH SPECIAL EXPENSIVE
"LEXON" GLASS ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR THAT CANNOT BE BROKEN BY
OBJECTS THROWN AT THE WINDOWS.
C) THE SOUTH WING HAS ALL NEW SASH BALANCES FOR EASY WINDOW
MOVEMENT.
D) THE SOUTH WING HAS TWELVE NEW DOORS ON THE SUITES THAT HAD
DOORS MISSSING. THEY WERE INSTALLED PRIMARILY FOR FIRE SAFETY AND'
TO KEEP THE PIGEONS OUT.
E) THE WINDOWS OF THE SOUTH WING HAVE ALL BEEN PAINTED INSIDE AND
OUT.
F) THE LOOSE PLASTER AROUND THE DOORS AND WINDOWS IN THE SOUTH
WING HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND THE WALLS ARE NOW READY FOR
REPLASTERING. THE EXPOSED BRICK UNDER THE KITCHEN WINDOWS ARE
SIMPL Y THE RESULT OF THE REMOVAL ,OF THE OLD KITCHEN SINKS UNDER
THE WINDOWS AND NOT TO CRUMBLING OLD MASONRY AS STATED IN THE
REPORT.
G) THE LOOSE CEILING PLASTER AS WELL AS ALL CEILING PLASTER HAS
BEEN REMOVED IN THE SOUTH WING AND IN THE MAIN HOTEL IN SOME SUITES
FOR SAFETY AS WELL AS FOR PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL PLANNING AND
RESTORATION. (MORE THAN 100 TONS OF DEBRIS AND OLD PLASTER HAVE
BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY.
H) THE UNDERSIDE OF THE ROOF IN THE SOUTH WING AS WELL AS ALL
CEILING JOISTS HAVE BEEN HIGH PRESURE WATER-WASHED TO REMOVE
PIGION DROPINGS, DUST AND OLD COB WEBS THAT HAD ACCUMULATED OVER
THE LAST 58 YEARS.
THERE IS VERY LITTLE DRY ROT IN THE ENTIRE BUILDING. NA TURALL Y
WHAT LITTLE DRY ROT IS THERE WILL BE REPLACED WITH FRESH NEW
WOOD DURING THE RESTORATION.
THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN RID OF INSECTS AND RODENTS FOR
MORE THAN TWO YEARS.
THERE IS LESS TERMITE DAMAGE ON THE PROPERTY THAN ONE WOULD FIND
IN A SMALL TWO BEDROOM HOME. THAT'S NOT BAD WHEN YOU CONSIDER
THE PROJECT IS THE SIZE OF 80 ONE THOUSAND-SQUARE-FOOT -HOMES.
THE RECENTL Y DISCOVERED JOBSITE BLUEPRINTS HAVE BEEN VERY
HELPFULL TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER IN HIS WORK. IT WAS DISCOVERED
THAT THE FOUNDATIONS, FOOTINGS, PADS, STAIR WELLS, ELEVATOR SHAFTS
AND BALCONY PORCH WALKWAYS WERE BUILT WITH REINFORCED
CONCRETE.
THE NEW EARTHQUAKE ORDINANCE CALLS FOR WALL ANCHORS AT A
MINIMUM OF 6 FEET 0 INCHES AT THE' CEILING, FLOOR AND ROOF LEVELS.
IT HAS BEEN DISCOVERED THAT THE HOTEL HAS WALL ANCHORS CALLED
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
, '"'
o
o
o
"GOVERNMENT TIES" AT THOSE LEVELS AND THAT ARE PLACED AT 5 FEET 4
INCHES APART WHICH IS WELL WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS. THE ORDINANCE
HAS A PROVISION FOR THESE ANCHORS TO BE TESTED WITH THE
POSSIBILITY OF THEM QUALIFYING AS THE WALL ANCHORS REQUIRED BY
THE ORDINANCE. OUR PLANS CALL FOR INSTALLING NEW ENGINEERED WALL
TIES COMPLETELY THROUGH THE WALLS AT LOCATIONS HALF WAY
BETWEEN THE EXISTING WALL ANCHORS.
THE STRUCTURE IS HONYCOMBED WITH ROOMS WHICH CREATE A MULTI-BOX
BRACE SYSTEM WITH SHEER WALLS AND DIAPHRAMS THROUGHOUT.
THE SUB FLOORS ARE MADE OF FULL THICK 1" LUMBER NAILED DIAGONALLY
FOR A GREATER STRUCTURAL DIAPHRAM.
THE SWIMMING. POOL HAS BEEN DRAINED AND COVERED AND IS SAFE.
THE ELEVATOR SHAFTS HAVE BEEN CLOSED.
SIX STATEMENTS (16, 20, 24, 31, 34 & 37) ALL DESCRIBE THE SAME PARKING
LOT CRACK AND A STEEL PLATE SOMEONE PUT IN PLACE YEARS AGO. MR.
KARIOTIS THE PROJECT ENGINEER WILL DISCUSS THAT SITUATION IN A FEW
MINUTES. THESE MAJOR STRUCTURAL CRACKS ARE NOT IN KEY LOCATIONS
AND CAN BE REPAIRED EASILY.
TWO STATEMENTS (1 & 35) DESCRIBE THE CRACK IN THE PARAPET WALL
ABOVE THE ENTRANCE ON THE SOUTH WALL OF THE NORTH WING. THIS WAS
CAUSED BY A HEAVY RADIO TRANSMITING TOWER TH.AT WAS LOCATED
THERE. THE TOWER WAS REMOVED MANY YEARS AGO BUT THE CRACK
STILL REMAINS TODAY. THE CRACK IS WHERE TWO TYPES OF WALLS COME
TOGETHER. A BRICK MASONRY WALL ON ONE SIDE AND A WOOD FRAME
WALL ON THE OTHER. THIS CRACK IS MORE THAN 30 YEARS OLD AND HAS
BEEN THERE SINCE BEFORE THE KFXM TOWER WAS REMOVED MANY YEARS
AGO.
THE SEVERAL HOLES IN THE WALLS WERE PUT THERE BY THE STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER TO LOCATE AND SIZE THE EXISTING STRUCTURAL COMPONANTS
FOR REENGINEERING PURPOSES..
THE LAST STATEMENT (42) AND UNNUMBERED ALEGES 20 CODE VIOLATIONS
OF WHICH MOST DO NOT APPLY TO THE PROJECT IN ITS PRESENT
UNOCCUPIED STATUS.
MOST OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS ARE FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS THAT ARE
OPEN FOR BUSINESS. THIS BUILDING IS NOT OPEN FOR BUISNESS TO THE
PUBLIC THUS THOSE CODES DO NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT AT THIS TIME.
AT SUCH TIME AS THE BUILDING IS OPENED TO THE PUBLIC THESE CODES
WILL NATURALLY BE MET.
TWO ALLEGED CODE VIOLATIONS PRET AIN TO STRUCTURES AFTER A FINAL
JUDGEMENT OF A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING. SINCE A FINAL JUDGMENT
OF CONDEMNATION WAS NOT IN EXISTANCE AT THE TIME OF THE
INSPECTION AND REPORT THIS CODE IS NOT A VIOLATION AND DOES NOT
PRETAIN TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II l
')"' "
o 0
o
SEVERAL OF THE ALLEGED CODE VIOLATIONS RELATE TO FEES AND
PERMITS WHICH ARE NOT DUE OR VALID UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT WORK IS
ABOUT TO BEGIN. THEREFORE THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THESE CODES AT
THIS TIME.
WE ARE NOT SO BLIND AS TO BELIEVE THE BUILDING HAS NO PROBLEMS.
ANY PROBLcMS THAT ARE LEGITIM A TE WILL BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE
STANDARDS OF THE NEW ORDINANCE MC-265 AT THE TIME OF
RESTOR A TION.
THIS REPORT THUS FAILS TO STATE A LEGITIMATE PRESENT DANGER TO
THE PUBLIC TO REQUIRE SUCH A DRASTIC ACTION AS DEMOLITION.
MR. JOHN KARIOTlS IS THE PROJECT ENGINEER. MR. KARIOTIS AND HIS
GROUP WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR WRITING THE LAST FOUR "UNIFORM
BUILDING CODES" THAT ARE USED BY CITIES ALL OVER AMERICA EVERY
DAY. HE IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ENGINEERING AND DRAFTING THE LOS
ANGELES EARTHQUAKE ORDINANCE ALSO KNOWN AS DIVISION 68. THE
ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR IN SAN FRANSISCO TOLD ME
SEVERAL MONTHS AGO THAT SAN FRANSISCO CITY AND COUNTY, WHICH
ARE KNOWN AS BEING EARTHQUAKE CONTRY, WERE ABOUT TO ADOPT THE
SAME ORDINANCE FOR THEIR JURISDICTION. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE
HERE THAT WHEN MR. KARIOTIS TOOK OVER THE WORK OF UPGRADING THE
UBC HE FOUND STRUCTURAL ERRORS IN THE PREVIOUS UBC. IT WAS THAT
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE THAT WAS USED IN THE PLANNING FOR THE SAN
BERNARDINO CITY HALL WE ARE IN TODAY, AS WELL AS THE VANIER
TOWER NEXT DOOR. MR KARIOTIS ALSO DISCOVERED THAT THE CITY DOES
NOT REQUIRE ALL RESTORATIONS IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO TO BE
BROUGHT UP TO THE 1979 UBC AS WAS CLAIMED. HE DISCOVERED THAT THE
PUSSY CAT THEATER RECONSTRUCTION FAILED TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS
OF EXTERIOR BRICKS FALLING ONTO THE STREETS DURING AN
EARTHQUAKE AND THUS DOES NOT MEET THE 1979 UBC.
DURING THE SPECIAL AD HOC MEETINGS MR. KARIOTIS ALSO POINTED OUT
THA T HIS STUDIES FOUND IN CITIES AROUND THE WORLD THAT THERE WERE
MORE LIVES LOST AND MORE INJURIES SUSTAINED DURING AN EARTHQUAKE
BY FALLING PARAPET WALLS AND ORNAMENTS THAN BY ANY SINGLE
STRUCTURE FAILURE. HE RECOMMENDED A NEW PARAPET WALL
ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY Of SAN BERNARDINO. THAT RECOMENDATION
WAS MADE MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO AND AS YET NO EFFORT HAS BEEN
MADE TO DRAFT SUCH AN ORDINANCE.
MR. KARIOTIS IS WELL KNOWN IN THE GOVERNMENTAL CIRCLES OF
HISTORIC RESTORATION. HE AND HIS ORGANIZATION WERE RECOMENDED
TO OS BY THE OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE ARCHITECT AS WELL AS
THE CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER. MANY OF HIS
PROJECTS ARE NOW LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC
PLACES IN WASHINGTON D.C.
MR. KARIOTIS WILL NOW SPEAK TO THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS STATED IN
THE REPORT.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
'1" " ,
o
o
o
SECTION 15.28.060 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO' MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED
HEARINGS STATES "UPON THE CONCLUSION OF TEHE HEARING, THE BOARD
OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS MAY CONTINUE THE PROCEEDINGS......"
DUE TO THE CLEAN-UP AND REPAIRS MADE TO THE PROPERTY SINCE THE
NOVEMBER 20, 1984 INSPECTION, I HEREB Y RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THIS
HONORABLE BOARD TO REINSPECT THE PROPERTY THEMSELVES IN THE
COMPANY OF MR. KARIOTlS SO THEY CAN MAKE A MORE JUSTIFIED
JUDGMENT REGARDING ALL ELEMENTS THE OF THIS ISSUE.
0
1
( 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
( 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
l 27
28
l..klt t. I
o 0
JANUARY 04, 1985
o
JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE.
TO THE SAN BERNARDINO BOARD OF BUIIDING CCMUSSIOOERS.
RE: THE CALIFORNIA HOTEL
Dear Sirs:
Notice is hereby given that I, Robert E. Schaefer, am the sole owner of that real
and personal property located at 524 North "E" Street, A. K.A. as the California
Hotel.
I do hereby deny and challenge your jurisdiction in this matter persuant to Hagens
vs. Lavine, 415, U.S. 533 note 3 which states that "Where Jurisdiction is
challenged, it must be proven."
JURISDICTION CAN BE CHALLENGED AT ANY TIME. Brady vs. Richardson, 18,
IND 1. Gillman vs. Gilman, 41 W2d 319.249 P2d 361; West vs. Martin, 47 W. 417,
92 P.334; Beauty Coli. vs. Huse, 195 W. 160, 80 P2d, 403. Bialac vs. Harsh 436
F2d, 1185, cert, den. 93 SCt 558 34 LEd 2d 512. Crater Lake vs. Oregon, 26 F
Supp. 363.
Once jurisdiction is challenged, the agency/court cannot proceed (Melo vs. US>
505 F2d 1026; Joyce vs. US 474 F2d 215.
Even collaterally (Torrey vs Brunner, 53 So. 337 F Supp 150 344 F Supp 929.
The phrase "Lack of Jurisdiction" may mean lack of power of court to act in a
particular manner.... In re Rowe's estate, 66 Cal. App. 2d 594, 152 P2d 765.770)
It may consist in courts total want of power to act at all or lack power to act in
particular case because conditions essential to exercise of jurisdiction have not
been complied with, or may consist of lack of jurisdiction over subject matter or
over person. (B lacks Fit th).
Jurisdiction once challenged cannot be assumed to exist, but must be proved
(Hagens vs. Lavine, 415 US 533 N.5; Monell vs N.Y., 436 US at 633; U.S. vs. More
3 Ct. 159 172).
Jurisdiction once challenged cannot be assumed and must be decided (Thiboutot vs.
USA 100 Sup Ct 2502, 1980).
The burden of proof being on the person (eg city/courts) asserting the jurisdiction
(Me Nutt vs. GMAC; 298 US 178; Thomson vs. Gaskeil, 83 LEd 111; Basso vs. UP,
495 F2d 906; Rosemond vs. Lambert, 469; Griffin vs. Matt., 310 F. Supp 341 affd.
432 F2d 272.
0
1
( 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
( 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24;
25
26
l 27
28
'" " ,
o
o
o
All acts of such forum or court in want of jurisdiction being completely void and
not just voidable (Sandness vs. Sheriff, 200 NY 9; Kossler vs. P.S. Dev., Cal. Ct
App., 4d, Div. 2, No Indio 23440 (14 Feb. 83F) 83 DJ DAR 405.
In 1980 the Supreme Court abolished mere "Good Faith" assertions of jurisdiction,
power and authority of municipalities, states, and the USA and agencies and
hirelings thereof. (Owen vs. City of Ind. 445 US 622) and sustained the "common
law," lawyer and Judge Gantering and Hot Air (Lex Flatulata) to the contrary
notwithstanding.
NOTICE:
"Actual Notice: embraces all degrees and grades of evidence from positive proof
to the slightest circumstances by which one is furnished means of knowledge,
which, pursued "diligently, will lead to knowledge of the ultimate fact, while
"Constructive NQtice" is a conclusive legal inference from fact, such as the notice
imported by the record of instruments. City of Dallas vs. Rutledge ex., 258 S. W.
534, 538.
Intrinsically there is no difference between actual and constructive notice. The
effect of each and both is to show that the person whom it is sought to charge
with notice had knowledge of a particular fact. When this notice is implied by
law, from certain conditions, it is called "constructive notice" and dispenses with
the necessity of proof of actual knowledge, whereas, to impute actual notice, the
proof must show that the party whom it is sought to charge with notice actually
knew of the existence of the fact or condition in question. Peterson vs. Harper,
78 S.E. 942, 944, 13 Ga. App. 112.
Demand is hereby made for Dismissal of this action for lack and want of
jurisdiction due to the "Land Patent" that was brought foreward into the name of
Plaintiff, Robert, E. Schaefer, and recorded on instrument no. 82-116520, recorded
in the office of the San Bernardino County Recorder, and is currently in the
official records of the County of San Bernardino as of June 15, 1982.
All questions of fact decided by the General Land Office are binding everywhere,
and injunctions and mandamus proceedings will not lie against it; Litchfield vs.
The Register, 9 Wall. (U.S.) 575, 19 L>ED. 681.
A grant is a public law standing on the statute books of the state, and is notice
to every subsequent purchaser under any conflicting sale made afterward;
Wineman vs. Gastrell, 54 FEDd, 819 4 C.C.A. 596, 2 U.S. APP 581
The Land Patent cannot come under collateral attack by federal, state, county or
city governments; Neff vs. U.S. 165 F. 263, 277, 91C, C.A. 241.
A land patent is conclusive evidence that the patent has complied with the act of
Congress as concerns improvements of the land, etc; Jenkins vs. Gibson, 3 LA,
ANN, 203.
62def&gJ~
0
1
( 2
:;
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
( 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
l 27
28
, h' ..
o
o
o
AFFIDA VIT
C.C.P. 2015.5
DECLARATION
I, ROBERT E. SCHAEFER, DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND
CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND IS SIGNED
UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.
THIS 4th day of JANUARY , 1985, in Loma Linda, California.
~( 'f', 2-
, ) iff.,..,&. _4 L/ ,n.rz-I____5l-\
ROBERT E. SCHAEFER, IN Pie> PER.
'",,'
o
(0
"
0'\
"',,'~,"
"\"J
and when recorded mail to:-
c>~HleI1-
.., ~'..
Space above this line for
recorder's use
DEPARnlENT OF BUlL.
OF TI IE CITY OF SAN BERNAl'.D I i,
AN;- SAFGTY
;Tj,"E OF CA.LII:Ci{ tf\
In the matter of the public
nuisance on property of
No. 1177
RELEASE OF
522 N. E St
.San Bernardino, ea 'f'/
Assessors No: 701 134 062 @
NOTICE OF PENDENCY
OF ADmNISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS
And DOES I through X, owners:
Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego
,
Notice pursuant to Ordinance No. 2291 of the City of San Bernardino, hwi' ,:
been recorded on the 7th day of January J 1977 J in Rook 908t>. Pa.ge lrl,
of Official Records of County of San Bernardino. State Of Cali fomia, per" ain""[i";" 'to
the real property therein described; and
The condition located on said real property no longer being in a ~t,,~ or
violation of any law._. and no longer existing as a public nuisance; and
there being no moneys owing and due to said City for abatement exp~~~cs, or
there being no cause for a tax and special assessment lien on -the real pr:1perf \
becau6e of proceedings giving rise to the execution and recording of the above mentio~ed
notice; now therefore
~
The ahove mentioned NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS is hereby
released and said document shall be of no further force or effect.
DATED February 1. '1978
R. Fred Burgess
Superintendent of Building and Safety
City of San Bernardino
State of California
City of San Bernardino 5.S.
By {l /:/;;4(b~~t;t,
On this / day o~~4w",,,,~_'
19 ~Before mc. the 6ndcrsig d. a
Notary Public in and~;;~t}l:~.~~
California appeared ~ .(".,1/1
kr.c:.7', to me to be the :!esign:ltccl city ~
official and the person whos.c name is sub-
scribed to the wi thin instrument and
acknowl'rdge that he executed S:\1l1c.'on behalf
of R. Fred Burgess. Superintendent of
Building and Safety. City of San Bernardino,
California.
-~""'/~"^'4f/'O
:_' ,
lorllc,::..... $I/I.~I
SHAUNA l. HOGGI~-:S
HOI^RY PUBliC _ CAllForUlI.\ !
'"
,....~.-r'~"':v--;,-.----..-T -
.D.
-
111'
o
o
o
o
~ 3~}tif:s~~~
:::lTY OF SAN 'BERNARDINO
.,~.~;~~;; :;::~:;~/,~\~.~K;.~l
"~'__'_, ,:'>7
~~~;;~~~t~~'
(
(
EX Ll., '? :.,..
" .".)"
0":;
I
~
300 NOATH "0" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92418
September 18. 1981
W.R. "B08" HOLCOMB
Mayor
Members of the Common Council
.bllr't A. Cnt"n.a. . . . . . . . . . First Wald
e.Il,R'lIIy. .. . .. .. .. . .. .s.c:ond Wucf
Ilph .....rnanclel . . . . . . . . . . . Third Ward
".Ann8on, ........... "ourthW.lld
OMI E. Hudson. .......... FlflhW;ara
.hnO.Hobb'........... .SlalhW..d
ek Strick I,. . . . .. . . . . . . . .s."enlh Ward
Re: 502 North "E" St. (Cali forni a Hotel)
San Bernardino, CA
Assessors No. 701 134 0';2 c11l/2.
W/O #1365
Report/Project No. 1177
Alan C Mosk (Trustee)
1901 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
In answer to a complaint, an Inspection was made of the above premises.
It was' found' to be immediately hazardous to public safety and ordered
abated by the Building Inspector pursuant to provisions of the San
Bernardino Municipal Code. Title 15, Certain costs were accrued In the
abatement of this condition. The total costs accrued are $69.52
These costs are now due and payable.
An appeal may be made within ten (10) days to the Common Council. The
costs incurred shall become a lien upon the real property unless paid to
the City Cl~rk within thirty (30) days of the mailing of this notice.
Jack C. Rosebraugh, Superintendent
Department of Building and Safety
bY:~~
B 09 nspect.or ~
cc: Finance Department
City Clerk
City Attorney
. 1f~P'\
~~:)'~{
.!,.;".~
'"'" "
o
o
o
o
=;"':H-'~Ir
.... "
J ..
. . I
CITY Of SAN" dERNARDINO
.
-( ,1IlE'\~t;i;!\j\j[UM
Subject
Date
IH KEL J. PARK
FIRE DEPARTf1Efn
IIDVENBER 3, 1981
To
JACK RDSEBRAUGH - SUPERINTENDENT
BUILDING & SAFETY
CALIFORNIA HOTEL - 524 NORTH "E"
From
Approved
Date
After a complete inspection of the subject property, it has been
determined that the building known as the California Hotel is a
public nuisance and an immedi~t. ,hazard to adjacent property, and
the safety of the general public. The hazard is due to open
shafts, large holes in the floors of rooms and halls, 'open doors
and windows, vagrants sleeping in the building, and combustible
materials and trash throughout. This hazard is existing and ~
onlv be corrected by clean-up and securing of the building ~ re-
moval of the structure. Acceptable clean-up would consist of re-
muval of all combustibl~ materials from the inside of the building.
Securing would consist of seali'ng-up all openings.
,-)d"
.,Battal ion Ch:ief
MJD:rk
C' 'IV 0 TJ!J ., Df IE =r.HPJ,'jJ;
..,
o
o
o
o
'cITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - ( .\/lE~_qORANDUM"
-,
Date
MIKEL J. PARK
FIRE DEPARTMENT
NOVEMBER 19, 19B1
To JACK ROSEBRAUGH - SUPERINTENDENT
Subject CALIFORNIA HOTEL - 500 NORTH "E"
From
Approved
Ex /+1131 1'"
0:';-
Date
After a complete fnspectlon of the property at 500 North "E"
Street7 known as the California Hotel, this rrepartment declares
the structure to be unsafe and dangerous to human life.
As per Secti,on 2.201, of the Uniform Fire Code, the structure"
Is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be abated.
The condition of the structure at this time, presents a fire
hazard to the general publfc. In the event of a fire, this struc-
ture would be a lffe hazard event, to Firefighters. The open
shafts, vertfcal openings and open walls make the structure
prime for a major fire. The structure has no fire protection
integrity at this point and should be abated.
Considering the damage that has been done to the structure, I
find It difficult to percefve any action other than demolition.
1jJ(./1/t'L
MIKEL J. PARK
Fire Marshal
r
I II I I "I, If;1 I.
I"
o
~-
.
r
.~ECOR'.OIl~G REQUESTED BY 0
l;.-:v:: ;-.. I :-~ .'"-:-
y, 0 82-248771
o
"~~D WHIi:N IIECORDED M..."IL THIS DIi:ItD AND. UNLESS OTH[R
WI.1i: SHOWN E1E;\.OW. "''''11.. TAX STATEMENTS TO:
hc":tJr.I':C: ii'l
~-I':::' "It" ~ - ~ F
N...OIII:'
I
::Z DEe Il, A:I 9 42
CITY .
aT""',",
ZIPL
ROBERT A, SCHAEFER
13607 THIRD STREET
YUCAIPA, CA. 92399
GO.. C,\UP.
~
~
I
~
...
Gt<
ADD."..
rille Order Ko.
Escrow 1'\0.
~[1E]
"il:'.; 8C:,:":'U,;-\i.~; .,."
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
AS~ES50ilS Pi\RC~l NO. J 3'1-0'"2..-/2..
C;;lpumtiGn Grunt Dt~d
-,
.....1
\>-
The under~lp,ed (l~c1nres thai the ';oeumenlar~ .tansler !.::lX is $......N!:t...T'AX....D.1A.e..............
o COmJlUleU on Ihe full '"lllue of Ih~ inlerest ur prorer1y com'eyed. or is
o computed 011 the full yalue le:>s the value of liens or encumhrancell remaining: thereon at the time of sale. The land.
tenemenls or realty is located in
o unincorporated area [XI city 0(..us.AN.:.alBN8Rp.J.~9....:.........
m..' and is
m._ and
FOR A VALUAllLE CO:\SIDERATlO:\'. receipt of whieh is herehy 4cknowledj!ed, CAl I FORN IA HOTEL
DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. $1.00 (One dollar)
a corporation or~aniied under the laws of the State of CALIFORNIA.
h...by GRA~'T(Sf t~ ROBERT A. SCHAEFER AND ROBERT E. SCHAEFER,
the following described real property in the
Coontyof SAN BERNARDINO
, !itate of California:
3EItlG PARCEL I AND PARCEL 2 OF SCHEDULE "A" HERETO ATTACHED AND
I~jCCnrOrJ,T[D tlEr-EIN ~y r.[rCRE::CL
Dated
December 13, 1982
Cf$~LOPME(20.' INC.
'.U :A......; ..o./l.4J
E. . L1CKINGER. PRESIDENT
S1 A TF. OF CALIFORNIA
1
r 55.
5. >f C..
S.L. COURTNEY.
~~
SEC TARY .
COUNTY OF
On hdore me.
____ Ihe ul~d,,~~i~r1ed~:a _~(I~~L~I!~=-"-J for ~:l~~i-Ol~~t! :'~~.~lll~.'_
N
:i:t
t a
,.
~
"
~
"
t)
n
t)
COUNTY OF San Berna rdi no J
On this 1he13.tb dayof--1lecembpr 19..82.. belore
me, the undersigned Notary Public. in ~ lor said Counly and Stale
personally appeared .__
~~__E. _G. ,Eli c~J.!lge~
proved 10 me on tn. basis 01 salistactol'y evidence to be the _
PreSident. and_~_
__5., L. ,Courtnel'___
proved 10 me on the basis of satisfactory evidence lobe _...-the._
Secretary of the corporatiOn thaI execuled the within inslrument on behaff
of the corporation lherein named. and acknowledged to me IhaI: such
corporation eK8Culed the within in~l~ment pursuant to its by-laws or a
resolulionof4il'Sboa 'directors..-
S, &~
~,u L~ ue Allen .
BAFiCD
FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP
.-
. SUE ALLEN
NOTARY PUBLIC
,.-.; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CALIfORNIA
My Commiss"", Expires April I!. 1983
""" T'V ~T~Tr-"~"~c: "'" ................... .__,,~
o
..'
}'.,
..,
o
o
o
--=-
LEGAL UESCRIPTION
PARCEL NO !.
That portion of an un-numbered Block lying West of Block 36, (said ul1-nUl1Ibel'ed
Block commonly known as Block 37. San Bernardino Ci ty) as shown on r<lap of the
City of San Bernardino. in the City of San Bernardino. in the County of San
Bernardino. State of California. as per Hap recorded in Book 7 of f~aps. Page 1
in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, describeJ as follows:
COMMENCING at the Southeast corner of said Block, thence North along the West
line of Salt Lake Street. as designated of said Map but now called "E" Street
224.235 feet. more or less, to the Southeast corner of the land conveyed by <:;D
Thaddeus Arnat. Bishop of the 0; Dcesses of Monterey and Los Ange 1 es. to the City N
of San Bernardino, by Deed dated November 3D, 1872, Jnd recorded in Book "L", I
page 305 of Deeds; thence West along the South line of the land so conveyed to ~
to the City of San Bernardino by said Deed 149.3 feet; thence South parallel With~
the West line of "E" Street 224.35 feet, more or less. to the North line ()f Fifth i
Street; thence East along the North line of Fifth Street 149.3 feet to the ptlint 1
of beginning. ;:;..
PARCEL NO 2.
That portion of an un-nunbered Block lying West of Block 36, (said un-numbered
Block commonly known as Block 37, San Bernardino City) as sho...m of t~ap of the
City of San Bernardino, in the City of San Bernardino. County of San Bernal"dino,
State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 7 of Maps. Page 1. in the {lffh.e
of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Southeast corner of said Block 37. thence Westerly along the
Southerly line of said Block, a distance of 149'.13to the True point of Beginning:
Thence Northerly along a line that is parallel with the Easterly line of said Block"
a distance of 224.2 feet, more or less, to the Northerly line of thJt par~el
deeded by the County of San Bernardino to Thaddius Amat, Bishop of Monterey and
Los Angeles, an Ecclesiastical Corporation. by that document recorded December
24,1872. in Book "L". of Deeds. page 308'; thence Westerely along said Northerly
line a distance of 19.70 feet; thence Southel'ly along a line parallel witll the
Easterly line of said Block 37. a distance of 3.00 feet; thence Westerly and
parallel with the Southerly line of said Block, a distance of 27.3 feet. more or
less to a line that is a distance of 196.3 feet Westerly of and parallel with
the Easterly line of said Block 37, said line being the Easterly line of that
parcel Deeded as Parcel No. 14, by the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego. a
Corporation sole, to the Diocese of San Diego Education and Welfare Corporation
by that document recorded February 27. 1953, as Instrument No. 386, Officii'll
Records; thence Southerly along said Easterly line a distance of 221.5 feet to
the Southeast Corner of said Parcel; thence Easterly along the Southerly 1 ine
of said Block 37, a distance of 47,0 feet to the Point of Beginning,
c
0"
o
o
--==-
CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY FORM-197J
SCHEDULE A
POLICY NO,' 818901B
EFFECTIVE DATE' DECEMBER 14, 1982 AT 8'00 A.M,
AMOUNT OF INSURANCE $250,000,00
PRENIUM' $8J5,OO
1, NAME OF INSURED' ROBERT A, SCHAEFER AND ROBERT E, SCHAEFER
2, THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND DESCRIBED HEREIN AND I,JHICH
IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS A FEE,
J, THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY
VESTED IN,
ROBERT A, SCHAEFER AND ROBERT E, SCHAEFER
o
_I.II'L
c
o
o
o
--
82-116520
i.'AIL TO:
ROBERT EU~~NE SCHAEFER
P.O. nr.'{ 1500
Lot-At\ UtIL:'\, r.A. 92354
I ,;.~,; I
I I' :
L_,.,...
,1,E\.>: : I.:-:'!; I::
-.::rl'
:,- ~~ ill: 1 \ r;
.'] \1]: 5.;
AFFIOI
OF
LAND PATC,'lT
Cl... i.:;'.
cc
~
I
\-"
\-"
0":
c.,
~.,;
e
(THE TITLE DE~O BY THE GOVERNMENT)
PATENT # 4B1
I, Robert Eugene Schaefer, bring up this land Patent in my name. This is the legal
description of the property under the above referenced Patent Number:
The following parcels of real property situated in the State of California, County
of San Bernardino. and City of San Bernardino, described as follows:
PARCEL NO 1.
That portion of an un-numbered Block lying West of Block 36. (said un-numbered Block
commonly known as Block 37, San Bernardino City) as shown on Map of the City of San
Oernardino, in the City of San Bernardino. in the County of San Bernardino, State of
California, as per Ma~ recorded in Book 7 of Maps, Page 1 in the Office of the County
Recorder of said County, described as follows:
COMMENCING at the South east corner of said Block, thence North along the West line of
Salt Lake Street. as designated of said Map but now called "E" Street 224,235 feet,
more or less. to the Southeast corner of the land conveyed by Thaddeus Amat. Bishop
of the Diocesses of Monterey and Los Angeles, to the City of San Bernardino. by Deed
dated November 30. 1872, and recorded on Book liLli, page 305 of Deeds; thence West along
the South line of the land so conveyed to the City I1f San Bernardino by said Ceed
JAg. J teet; thence South para 11 e 1 with the Wes t 1 i ne of liE n St reet 224.35 feet. more
or less, to the North 1ine of Fifth Street; thence East along the North line of Fifth
Street 149.3 feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL NO 2,
That portion of an un-numbered Block lying West of Block 36, (said un-numbered Block
commonly known as Block 37, San Bernardino City) as shown of Map of the City of San
Bernardino, in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California,
a!. per Map recorded in -Book 7 of Maps, Page 1, in the Office of the County Recorder of
said County, described as follol,o/s:
COt-rMENCING at the Southeast corner of said Block 37, thence Westerly alon9 the South-
erly line of said Block, a distance of 149.3 to the True point of Beginning; thence
Northerly along a line that is parallel with the Easterly line of said Block, a distance
of 224.2 feet, more or less, to the Northerly line of that parcel deeded by the County
of San Bernardino to Thaddius Amat. Bishop of Monterey and Los Angeles, an Ecclesiastical
Corporation. by that document recorded December 24, 1872, in Book "V', of Deeds, page 308;
thence Westerely along said Northerly line a distance of 19.70 feet; thence Southerly
along a line parallel with the Easterly line of said Block 37, a distance of 3.00 feet;
thence Westerly and parallel with the Souther.ly line of said Block, a distance of 27.3
feet, more or less, to a line that is a distance of 196.3 feet Westerly of and parallel
with the Easterly line of said Block 37, said line being the Easterly line of that parcel
Deeded as Parcel No. 14, by the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego. a Corporation sole,
to the Diocese of San Diego Education and Welfare Corporation by that document recorded
February 27, 1953, as Instrument No. 386, Official Records; thence Southerly along said
Easterly line a distance of 221.5 feet to the Southeast Corner of said Parcel; thence
Easterly along the Southerly line of said Block 37, a distance of 47.0 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
NOTE: Said land herein above described is also known as Parcel No J of Parcel.Map
No. 4603, as per Map filed for record September 17, 1979, in Book 50, page 21 of Parcel
Maps, recordes of said County.
As it is the only way a perfect title can be had in my name, Wilcox vs. Jackson, 13
PET. (U.S.) 498, 19 L.EO. 264; all questions of fact decided by the General Land Office
are bindin9-.~verywhere, and injunctions and mandamus proceedings will not lie against
it: Litchfield V5'; The Register, g Wall. (U.S,.) 575, 19 L.EO. 681.
page 1 of 2.
..,
o
o
o
--
o
page 2
,
NOTICE AND EFFECT OF A LAND PATENT
A grant of land is a public law standing on the statute books of the State, and is
notice to every subsequent purchaser under any conflicting sale made afterward;
Win:!'l:vl '," r-.~":"""Cll "4 'C"I:"I), '3'1"1. 'l r r" '\91;,? 11, llPD "~l
A patent alone passes title to the Grantee; Wilcox vs Jackson. 13 PET. (U.S.' 4?8.
10 L.ED. 264,
Where the United States has parted with title by a patent legally issuec ,,"d ullon
surveys legally made by itself and approved by the proper department, tne title so
granted cannot be impaired by any subsequent survey made by the government for its
own purposes; Cage vs. Danks, 13, LA. ANN, 128.
This land patent cannot come under collateral attack by federal. state, county. or
city 90vernments; Neff vs. U.S. 165 F,263, 277, 91C, C.A. 241.
ex
N
I
.....
>-"
--
....
c,,'1
~
..-
If this land patent is not challenged within sixty days (60), in a court of law by -
someone, or by the government, it then becomes my property, as no one has followed the
proper steps to get legal title, the final certificate or receipt acknowledging the
payment in full by a homesteader or pre-empter is not in legal effect a conveyance of
land; U.S. vs Steenerson, 50 FED 504. I.C.C.A. 552, 4 U.S. APP. 332.
A land patent is conclusive evidence that the patent has complied with the act of
Congress as concerns improvements on the land, etc.; Jenkins vs. Gibson. 3 LA, ANN.
203.
LAND TITLE AND TRANSFER
Dated June IS 1982
r)?r,-1><-< j- 6r~----rc;Y:v(.A~~'
ROBERT EUGENE SCHAEFER, CLAIMANT6F LAND PATE~T
AFFADAVlT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
On this 15th day of June 1982. Before me personally appeared ROBERT EUGENE SCHAEFER
to me personally known, who being duly sworn of oath, desposes and says as follows:
I, ROBERT EUGE~E SCHAEFER, do state that the above citings are true to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
Dated June IS, 19B2
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 15th day of June 1982.
J.u~/e, j,J
SIGNAT RE
. OFFICIAL SEAL
t"'-' Pll'mMll
. . .. tICIIIIfIr "'kle. eAUtORN1A
SA118EIINAIID1HOaxJN1't
., -. ... OCT 3, 1913
..,
o
""- ". ..-. .~.
~L-:":;""
~"O
,:;....,
o
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
WESTERN REGION
450 GOLDEN GATE AVEI-;UE, BOX 36063
SAN fRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
IS REPl.Y REFER TO:
(WR-RCN)
September 29, 1982
Mr. Robert A. Schaefer
13607 Third Street
Yucaipa, California 92399
Re: California Hotel (main hotel bldg. and adjoining commercial bldg.),
524 N. 'E' St., San Bernardino (San Bernardino Co.), CA.
Project No. 0208-0209-82-CA.
Dear Mr. Schaefer:
The Office of Cultural Resources has made a preliminary determination that the
abov~ property appears to be eligible for individual listing in the National
Rer,ister of Histol'ic Places. If the property is subject to depreciation under
~t"ct,i(m 167 of t,h<" Tntt"I'naJ. Revenue Code of 19511 and if 'lctually listed in the
~3t ional Register. then It will qualify as a "certified historic structure"
for purposes of the provisions contained in section 2124 of the Tax Reform Act
of 1976, sections 701(f) and 315 of the Revenue Act of 1978, and sections 212
and 2111 of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Obtaining "certified
historic structure" status is the first step toward qualifying for tax
incentives to encourage the rehabilitation of historic structures. These
incentives apply only to structures that can be certified as meeting the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Please refer to the
enclosed material for information on the new 1981 tax provisions.
If you have not yet completed Part 2 of the Historic Preservation
Certification Application, describing your rehabilitation plans, the enclosed
copy should be completed and mailed to your State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) for preliminary review prior to review at the Federal level.
Instructions for filling out the application are on the form itself. Enclosed
are the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation. Specific questions
concerning documentation required to certify rehabilitation work should be
addressed to your SHPO. '
Sincerely,
Enclosures (3)
cc:
WASO-NR. w/o enc
SHPO-CA, w/o enc
..-...-4>..-.-
""
o
Q", , 'r-
\.::;~,,\ U, (;,. 1 .
..,0
--.
o
:-~.\TE OF CAlIfO'lNIA--THE RESOURCES AGENCY
EDMUND G. BROWN H!. Go...,..:--
OEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
~
I'~_-l.iic'
~
.. V BOX 13'0
~ ~...:qA~ENTO 9.5811
(916) 445-8006
MAY 20 i9JL
Mr. Robert Schaefer
Schaefer Construction Company
13607 Third Street
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Dear Mr. Schaefer:
The California Hotel, San Bernardino
On the basis of our on-site investigation of May 13 and the historic
documentation furnished by yourself, the State Office of Historic Preservation
has made a preliminary determination that the above property appears to be
eligible for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
As such, it is afforded such protections as federal and stat~ law provide, and
is eligible fOl' rehabilitation under the State Historic Building Code with the
concurrence of tile City of San Bernardino. Forms for both National
Registration and Certified Rehabilitation are available through this Office.
If you have any questions, please contact Robert Mackensen, Preservation
Architect, (916) 322-8597.
Sincerely,
J<.jv1~
Dr. Knox Menon
State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of Historic Preservation
J-0689H
,..'
o
o 0
Richard K. Faulkner
Consulting Appraiser
Real Estate lit Business Enterprises
24982 Sausallto Street
Laguna Hills. Califomla 92653
(714) 831-8309
o
April 29, 1983
l:;;'\~1 ,?oJ T
) t ~
": f')
Mr. Robert G. ClaytOn
R & R Clayton Consu1tants
P.O. Box 8385
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Mr. Clayton:
In accordance with your request, I have made an investigation and
appraisal of the real property known as:
California Hotel
524 North "E" Street
San Bernardino, California
After completing Il\Y investigation and appraisal, f.t is Il\Y opinion that
the F~ir Market Value of this property, in its present condition, prior to
the granting of a building facade preservation-conservation easement which
would restrict the development rights on the property, as of April 18, 1983,
is in the amount of:
ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($1,700,000)
Following the granting of a historical building facade preservation-
conservation'easement to an appropriate historical preservation society, it
is my opinion that the Fair Market Value of this property, for continuation
of its designed use as retail space and apartments or a hotel use, as of
April 18, 1983, is in the amount of:
THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($350.000)
The value of the building facade preservation-conservation easement has
been estimated to be approximately:
ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($1,350,000)
... .~.:~::;;..
. ...
o
o
o
o
Mr. Robert G. Clayton
R & R Clayton Consultants
Page 2
April 29, 1983
Calculated as follows:
Fair Market Value - before easement
Value of the easement
$1,700.000
350,000
$1,350.000
Fair Market Value - after easement
Descriptions of the appraised property and explanations of appraisal
procedures are contained in this report. The field notes and a copy of this
report are retained in my files and are available for your reference if
requi red.
I certify that my employment and fee in this matter is in no way con-
tingent upon my estimates of value, and that I have no present or contemplated
interest in this property.
Respectfully submitted,
~/~/Ljl )( (:11~
Richard K. Faulkner, A.S.A.
RKF:sf
Richard K. Faulkner
COIIIUIIIng ~
l.. laguna HIIII, Call1omla
----...
...
o~~~ 0
I ' '\ TwininD LabDratories 0{ ~""outf.~'U1 c..li.fO'U1ia, [I"".
-/~'~ ~
3310 Alrpol'1 Way I Mailing Addr." P.O. 80.47 I Long huh. CA 90801 1(213) 428.3355 I f2131 836.2388 I (714'828-1432
BRANCH OFfICE 1514.0 HOI'th HI',... SIf", I Slnll An.. CA 12103/17141554-21<15
. ",". r,' I ....1"'\.
."" #.;'" '~ ;...",. '.1
o
, TESTING
May 9, 1983
Project No. 83-7076
Mr. Robert Schaefer
13607 Third Street
Yucaipa, CA ,92399
Subject:
In-Place Shear Tests
Callfo1.nlJ. B()l~l
San Bernardino, CA
Dear Mr. Schaefer:
In-place shear tests were performed on the unreinforced masonry walls of the
subject building by personnel of Twining Laboratories of Southern California,
Inc on May 6, 1983. Tests were made at 25 locations selected by the structural
engineer. Test locations and elevations were recorded on working drawings by
John Kariotis, Jr. These drawings to be used for calculations.
The tests were conducted using the criteria of Division 68 of the Los Angeles
Building Code. In this test, one brick and the surrounding mortar are removed
from an outer wythe as well as the mortar from the opposite head joint of the
brick to be tested. Load is applied with a calibrated hydraulic ram and gauge
until brick translation is first observed. Shear stress is based on the shear
area of both bed joints.
Test results are shown in Table I.
Very truly yours,
TWINING LABORATORIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
;Z...a-.C..r9 ~#~
Fred G. Lafferty
Manager, In-Place Shear Testing
FGL/pbd
cc: Mr. Robert Schaefer
John Kariotis & Associates/Hong Tam - 3
....l A(POAT! ARE SUB"'ITTED ACj THE' CONFIDfNTlAl PA(,PfATY 0." Clt.NTS AUfI1QAllAT'ON fOR PUBLIcaTION or OUA REPORTS CONCLUSIONS OR !luaCT$ FRO'" OR
..r.AMO''''G h,tM IS AI'~fA....tro "'NO'IOH.. OUA hAt"'''' .U'PIU"lvAI ^'"' A MilIlUI'l rnot! 1":"0'" tn Cl ,rNf!i TMr l'UQlIC ANn OU""lL"I:S
, "" '
o
OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR
Ol'.~,.~,.'.....
"" ,.......';
.:;-0
o
',-. "
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
.~~'~~JE~i.-:~.~:;:_:::: .~-::\,'7,-~~._:' ~C_~:.--:-', :::.~:'::;,~::':~~. ~::: F::.::;~~:"",:7:~~~-:~~'.::-:?"'~7;r~~,f~" _-;:':~,~':::~.: \~ :~_; ":"". '1.'"
Hall of Records' 172 West Third St.. San Bernardino, CA 92415' (714) 383-2717 "-"-"-';.'
. ..~~':;:7;1:'t~:-:'2'~',::,,~,~~~,..- _
....:
R, GORDON YOUNG
Assessor
June 14, 1983
Robert A. Schaefer
Robert E. Schaefer
13607 Third Street
Yucaipa, CA 92399
RE: APN 134 062 12
In checking a ccpy of .
Corporation Grant Deed
recorded
December 14, 1982 #82-248771
, we have changed our records
for assessment purposes.
PROPERTY NOW ASSESSED TO SCHAEFER, ROBERI' A & ROBERT E
However, there may be a question of clear title, for the re.scn
indicated below:
(refer to your title policy)
Refer back to your title company, escrow service or the party who
prepared your document if you need assistance.
nTLE CO. Title Insurance & Trust Carq:lany NO. 818901
Very truly yours,
R. GORDON YOUNG, COUNTY ASSESSOR
Supervi s or
Property Transfers
Telephone (714) 383-1584
or 383-1684
jec
..,
o
o
o
o
..";;.......'...:., Y1 , ~,......
-,..,. t;,;.:.
~A
I S.2S.0liO He3rings.
At the time fixed in the notice or at the time of the
continued hearing, the b9,~rd..9f..94ilding comr,nissionm. of the
city shall' proceed: .t(Cl),ea~~he, t.c:stimo~' and consider the
evidence of the building official and his representatives and
assistants and "of thC"o\y'ft~i':an.d ,his representatives ,and of other1
competent persOns: who may, be present and desire to testif~
respecting the conditiori,QOhe.buildil1gf the estimated cost of
its reconstruction, repair, or removal, and any other matter
which the board of building commissioners may deem pertinent
thereto. Upon.the,:coHglusjo~ofthi: hearing: the..bqard",ot;.
bu!l~li!lg.~Ol)l[lL~~l'?I1~~)l!~y.. continue the proceedings or may
by resolution declare [ts findings and conclusions and, in the
event it so concludes, it may d~S~\~J.ll~.Q\lll,r.l;.ngJo ~.e a.pup.Jic"
.II !l}s.~!!S~.i!l)(,t.!))1!XJ!ir.l:.c.wl!,e }~\yXI~r_ t<1, c01TI1)1ence abatement ,of,
tl:L~.aIT!.e....Wit..I}J!W.m~~,~J.~."aJ!~.ti!.~~tli\,t~.~Q-Lposting .,Q)1 ,the.
rrero.is~s.~~,-~\,;j~~..gf",.l!l~..l1aSsage .\lf~t!l~. r~,S.91ution.al1d" to.
con,ll'leJ!l_t1~e.a~~I,tem~.~UJli~!n..~i~.ty. ~1'1>:.:!.,~I\e.!:ejl.(teI by 11:lvln!!J
~" same, Propl;rl~,'s:econstructedorlli'l1~.,b)'~..\1.
razed or removed and may notify the owner that if the nuisance
is not abated, the building will be razed, demolished, and
removed by the city or by person or persons authorized by the
building orticial and the expense thereof made a lien on the lot
or parcel of land upon which the building is located. The board
may further declare that the owner, occupant, lessee, or other
person in possession must vacate the building or structure, q!:..
U!jl.W'....IIJ1Uelllilin..in.P.Q.\lS.cssion,while repairs ,a,Ie being .mad~
(Ord. 30S0 (part), 1970: Ord. 2291 ~ 4 (part), 1960.)
o
.............""
.;. ,<..,:~;~~-:'~: ':,
'-~ -., .'- ,-:--.,
.. '
,"
., "
"
:...~.
"'I L.' I
o
q
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 456 NO, MT VIEW AVENUE' SAN BERNARDINO, (AL"O''''" 0,40'
" ,
':~,:ti."-'~(;"-~' :.. .,:.
'-. "';"'i.:-;"
,. ---" ~
,.. r 1_'-'
E'."\.~':.::.I. _
FIRE DEPARTMENT / FIRE PREVENTION OIVISION
(714) 383.5286 (714) 383-5388
.,*,
"~~"'l"", -'
-'#,,J
TO: BOB SCHAEFER
SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA HOTEL
This is to confirm our conversation on February 8, 1982,
that you have met the Fire Department r'~quirements that
were requested as of to date.
1,_<7
f#~/~
MIKEL J. PARK
Fire Marshal
MJP:rk
, ""
GQERAL
CONTRACTOR
'" ~'. ;.' t ;' 'l :0'
~. '-"
QNSE
NO, 299100
Robert A. Schaefer Construction Co.
CHURCHES . RESIDENTIAL . COMMERCIAL
13607 THIRD STREET · YUCAIPA. CALIFORNIA 92399 · (714) 795-5881
May 10, 1982
City of San Bernardino
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino CA. 92401
Re: The appeal to restore the California Hotel.
Dear Mayor Holcomb and the Members of the Common Council:
While I was in San Francisco this past March attending the "Economic Revitalization
of old Buildings" seminar, I contacted the San Francisco Bureau_of~Building
Inspection. I wanted to find out just exactly what a major California city \,/ith
a history of a maximum earthquake as well as having a maximum earthquake potential
was doing about their old unreinforced masonry buildings.
I also wanted to find out what San Francisco thought about the Los Angeles
Ordinance. I had been told by Mr Jack Rosebraugh that the L A Ordinance was not
good enough for San Bernardino because Los Angeles was only expecting a 6.5
earthquake and San Bernardino was expection an 8.5 earthquake like San Francisco.
I contacted Mr McHoy Choy, Deputy Superintendent, Bureau of Building Inspection.
As I described the California Hotel to him he stated that if it was in San Francisco
they would consider it a "low rise" building since it is only four stories high.
He asked me if we were planing to use the building for the same purpose as its
original use. I told him yes. He asked me how I knew what its original use was.
I said that it is obviously a hotel. He said that if the building was in his city
his inspectors would check that out for themselves.
He then said that if the structure was to be used for the same use as original
we would only have to make it habitable before they would allow us to use it again.
I asked if he could make that statement even if the property had been vacant for
more than six months. Hi s answer was "yes".
He then went on to tell me that the City of San Francisco had a committee called
"The Seismec Investigation and Hazard Survey Advisory Commettee. He Said the
committee was studying the Los Angeles Ordinance and thought that they would
adopt a simular ordinance sometime in 1983. He was quite sure that it wouldn't
be done this year.
When I returned home these facts were confirmed by our structural engineer Mr Per Ron
of Johnson and Nielsen associates. He had attended the convention of the "Structural
Engineers Association of California" (SEAOC) That convention was held in Coronado
on September 10 - 12, 1981. One of the many convention speakers was Mr. Robert C.
Levy, Superintendent of Building Inspection and Property Conservation, City of
San Francisco, California.
'll"
o
o
o
o
page 2
Attachment A is the part of his speech that addressed the problems of old
unreinforced masonry buildings in San Francisco and what his office is doing
about them.
I would especially like you to notice in his speech that he lists only six items
that would trigger the upgrading of these buildings. They are:
1) SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS to 30% of the above ground area of the
building since its construction.
2) When two-thirds of the buildings walls, ceilings AND partitions have been
ARCHITECTUALLY ALTERED.
3) ANY VERTICAL ADDITIONS.
4) HORIZONTAL ADDITIONS when the above ground addition is more than 30% of the
original building:
5) CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY which involves EITHER increased floor load OR increased
occupant load.
6) CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY to a public assemblage with an occupant load in access
of 300 persons.
NOT! CEo
VACANCY PERIOD IS NOT A FACTOR.
You will also notice that the City of San Francisco's Seismec Investigation and
,Hazard Survey Advisory Committee heard from Mr Earl Swartz of the City of Los Angeles
Building Department. This same committee, according to Mr Levy, later recommended
that their NEW ordinance be patterned after the L.A. Ordinance and the ATC
recommendations. They also specifically recommended that AFTER their new
ordinance is adopted the IMPORTANT buildings and the HIGH OCCUPANT buildings be
looked at first and that rehab should generally be keyed AT THAT TIME to the
1975 San Francisco City Code which is based of the 1973 Uniform Building Code.
A survey of other speeches given at the SEAOC convention shows the UBC that other
California cities are using on their old unreinforced masonry buildings.
Long Beach uses the 1970 UBC. Santa Rosa uses the 1955 UBC. San Diego uses the
1949 UBC. and Los Angeles uses the 1970 UBC.
Attachment B is a list of sources that can be contacted to verify the statements
made in this letter
Very truly yours,
Robert E. Schaefer
cc to everybody.
..
.
c:> ATTACHMENT A
o
o
o
COMPARISON OF LOCAL ORDINANCES FOR THE ABATEMENT
OF HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS - SAN FRANCISCO
By Robert C. Levy, Superintendent of Building Inspection and Property Conservation,
San Francisco, Ca.
SEPTEMBER 1981
At the present time San Francisco does not have an ordinance for the abatement
or correction of seismically unsafe buildings. We only have the usual substandard
building ordinance which generally is interpreted to regulate structural hazards
from dilapidation and insufficient resistance to vertical loading, and are now taking
the first real steps towards a serious consideration of an ordinance to require the
seismic upgrading of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings.
San Francisco does have a rather unusual code provision regarding the rehabil-
itation of existing buildings, which requires substantial seismic upgrading of
buildings irrespective of type or age, in addition to the improvement of exits and
other life safety features, for certain types of rehabilitation projects or certain
changes of occupancy.
The rehabilitation program and the improvement of URM buildings is the subject
of this paper.
REHABILITATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS
For the last 6 years since the adoption of the 1975 San Francisco Building
Code, it has been required that buildings which meet certain criteria be capable
of resisting seismic forces of that code. This would be approximately .the same as
the force provisions of the 1973 Uniform Building Code. For those of you who have
done work in San Francisco this is known as the "Section 104.F" provision. The
following types of rehabil itation 'or changes of occupancy will trigger the imposition
of increased seismic resistance requirements (Section 104.F) to the entire bllilding:
a. When more than 30% cumulatively since the building was constructed of the
above ground area is involved in substantial structural alteration work.
b. When architectural alteration work invOlves extensive changes to elements
such as walls, partitions, ceilings etc. in two-thirds or more of the
floors of the building, i.e. when the building is being "gutted" then it
is relatively easy to upgrade it seismically. Usually this is the item
that triggers the seismic upgrading.
c. Vertical additions.
d. Horizontal additions when tied to the original building, and the above
ground floor area of the addition is 30% of the similuar floor area of the
original building.
e. Change of occupancy which involves either an increased floor load or an
increased occupant load.
f. Change of occupancy to public assemblage with an occupant load on excess
of 300 persons.
""
o
o
o
o
UNREINFORCEO MASONRY BUILDINGS
Since San Francisco is an old city as compared to other western cities, the
proportion of URM buildings is probably greater than in other California cities.
Although there has never been a good census, there are probably in excess of 4000
URM buildings of which approximately 1400 are residential with maybe 35000 dwelling
units. Most of these are in the core portion of the city and we believe there are
a substantial number of URM residential hotels, populated to a large extent with
the less affluent of the community. A large proportion of Chinatown is of unrein-
forced masonry construction.
A couple of years ago, an investigative reporter for a San Francisco newspaper
published a series of articles on seismic safety (or the lack of it) in San Francisco
and naturally focused on URM buildings. As a result, the Board of Supervisors
reconstituted the then dormant Seismic Investigation and Hazards Survey Advisory
Committee (SISHAC), an inter-disciplinary committee consisting of structural
engineers, geologist, soils engineers, seismologist, architects, fire protection
engineer and an electrical engineer. In addition, the Supervisors added a rehab-
ilitation contractor, a person versed in real estate loans, and one in housing
relocation. City personal are ex-officio members without vote. Members of our
Association who are in SISHAC are Peter Kaldveer, H.S. "Pete" Kellem, Robert Preece,
and Don Shapiro.
After many meetings, including an update and briefing from Earl Schwartz or the
City of Los Angeles Building Department on the Los Angeles Ordinance, SISHAC
completed a report to the Board of Supervisors in April regarding URM buildings.
They recommended that the ordinance be patterned generally after the ATC Recom-
mendations and upon the Los Angeles City Ordinance. Specifically they recommended
that:
1.
that
Priority be given to those buildings ~ith a high occupant load or of great
importance to the City in the event of a major earthquake.
2. The level of rehabilitation should in general be keyed to the 1975
San Francisco Code for the buildings of importance and high occupant
load, with consideration for modification for the rest of the buildings
after determination of the unique needs of the City, including economic,
social and historic considerations.
3. Establish an optional two-stage approach with the first stage a positive
connection between walls and roof and floors. The second stage with a
longer time allowed would be completion of the mandatory requirements.
In order to develop the ordinance, the Committee stated it will be necessary
the Board of Supervisors authorize and fund the following:
1. An accurate census of all URM buildings.
2. Cost estimates for seismic rehabilitation based upon San Francisco type
buil dings.
In depth analysis of the socio-economic impact.
Drafting of an ordinance.
Implementation of the ordinance.
Public awareness program.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hearings before a committee of the Board
held in August, and a further meeting will be
census in the approximate amount of $125,000.
upon a good data base.
of Supervisors on the report were
held soon to consider funding of the
The remainder of the tasks hinge
, flu L I
o
o
o
o
ATTACHMENT B
Mr Marvin Hopewell
City of Long Beach
333 West Ocian Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90R02
Phone (213) 590-6108
Mr William E. Myers
City of Santa Rosa
100 Santa Rosa Ave.
Santa Rosa, CA.
Phone (707) 576-5201
~1r G. Will i am Curti s Phone (714) 236-5540
City of San Diego
1222 First Street
San Diego, CA
Al Asakura Phone (213) 485-6177
City of Los Angeles
200 Nurth Main Street Room 960
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Mr McHoy Choy Phone (415) 558-3051
City of San Francisco
450 McAllister Street Room 202
San Francisco, CA 94102
I'"
000
't,'''''''pn, -".:"'''\,'..(. ""'" ll'~,'::' ~," .".".,~, "~ --~ - 0<."'':\ ~Il 'J """10
, ~ H _ '~, ~.I.,.1 CCr:~t~~~;:':~~'" -
o
~\fJEw10RAN!Dlm;;
To
('o)-don Ol1i~l ._.._&.-.--4-....;........~~',.........,r-' -.):.~
1 . _.... _" _.
CtJunc.1. lman, Fifth Hard
P2\r~(inrJ n.cguireinent.~-;, CCl.l i forni;"'l
TIOl.:..e 1
From Ralph H. Prince
City Attorney
Date July 27, 1982
SUJjcct
Approved
Date 700.2, 13.106
-. .--.,.....-...-
He have been asked to determine parking requirements
applicable to the California Hotel. Please note that our
analysis is based on an assumption of certain facts, and if
the facts ."re o.the"C1,o/ise than have been represented, a
di~ferent conclusion night result.
':':-te Cal i Eornia H01:cl '~as buil,t in 1929 or ,thereabouts, and
i:~""l.e usr~s established include com.rn:'~r.ci:ll retail and hotel
use:3. Property on \.Jhich t.h~ four'-story hotel st=uctur~ a~d
i~s adjoining si~gl=-3tory retail structures are locac2d is
z:...>nec1 C-4, Central 3usiness DIstrict. Use of the r:1-3.i~
structure as a l!otel was discontinued in recent yea=s, but
conmercial shop.? have ramaine.d occupied. The hotel property
is '""ithin the par~,ing district. Present or pros:J2'::tive
. O.J/nei.""S have plans to upgrade and r8furbish the hot.el t.o l,ts
original use.
.\. ~.plication of Parking District Regulations.
l:ie have concluded that toe park.i:1g requirements wi"':.hin the
9~lrking di3t~ict do not apply.
St.:-uctures \.;ithin t11.e par~<ing district constructed prior to
F~bruary 26, 1979, ara governed by the parking regulations,
if any, in effect at the time of their const.ruction. ~e are
not awara of any record that parking requirements were in
effect a't the ,time the hotel was originally constructed.
Section 19.5a.210 also provides that if such a'strilcture is
enlarged or an addition is built, then the current parking
district ordinance will apply to the addition or enlargement.
However, the proposal is not to enlarge or add to the hotel,
but to bring it into compliar!ce with appropriate earthquake
standards and to restore.
Parking district regulations
within the parking di3trict.
requicements would not apply
are controlling for any property
Therefore, the general ?arking
to this property.
n. Regulation as a Nonconforming Use.
Another avenue by \~hich curren't requirements might be applied
to existing uses is if a building occupied by a nc~conforming
_ .. _ -- -... ..... "..... ---.-.---=-
"'"
o
o
o
o
Gordon Quiel
July 27, 1982
Pagc 2
use which has been discontinued for a periol1 of six months or
more is subsequently used. The question is ;1hether the hotel
use WQS nonconforming at the time it ...,as discontinued. It
should be remembered that there are many inst.ances \~here
conforming uscs will he discontinucd for economic reasons,
then reoccupiccl.
Regulations for the C-4 Central Business District \~ere
enacted in present form in 1.953. \'Ie assume t:-,a'" the hotel'
use '.-vas di3C~)ntinued subsequent to 1953-. Notals and motor
hotels arc, conditionally pernitted uses in the C-4 zone.
C. A Condltionall~rmitted Use is not a ncmconfor:ning Use.
l'Initially, we observe that a conQi~ional use
~ermit, unlike a non=onfor1ning use, allo~s a use
permitted rat.her than proscribed by t11e zoning
regulations but ~ecause of the possibil i ty t11il t
the parmitted. use could be iL1compatible in so~ne
respects \>/ith the applicable zoning, a special
pcr:;1i:: is req,~ired. (Cit. )" County of I:c'"erial
v. McDougal (1977) 19 Cal.3d 505, 138 Cal.Rptr.
472,4"75;--- ,
In thi:3 case, "the California Supreme CQurt:. ,:'l"ecided that a
conditional use is not a nonconforming use <lnd that the
r~qllirernent :for a condi,tional use oermit does not aooly where
the permitted use is already devel~ped. ..
CONCLUSION
The California Hotel is not a nonconforming use, and the only
applicable parking regulations are those which existed at the
time the hotel was established.
/C~H02,<~
RALPH H. PRINCE
City Attorney
RHP:lr
cc Councilman Jack Reilly
Councilman Jack Strickler
Planning Director
Superintendent of auilding and Safety
.,,, ,
o
t='Q1 \5: 1-
-'. ~'O
"".. '-
_L....' ~.-:;.
o
CALIFORNIA HOTEL - 500-524 NORTH "E" STREET -
CO~1ITTEE REPORT - CONTI~UED FROM AUGUST 2, 1982
This is the time and place continued to for a report
the ad hoc committee concerning the California Hotel.
from
(10)
Council Member Quiel, Chairman of the California Hotel Ad
Hoc Committee, presented a report on the Committee's meeting of
August 12, 1982, where Mr. John Kariotis, Structural Engineer,
explained his belief that the velocity of earthquake tremor
activity in San Bernardino would be no greater than that exper-
ienced in the Los Angeles basin. He further stated that Division
68 of the Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles contained
sufficient safegliards to allow its applicability within the City
of San Bernardino.
After discussion, Council Member Quiel made a motion, seconded
by Council Member Castaneda, that the appeal of the Board of
Building Commissioners Order of Condemnation on Project Number
1177, filed by ~obert A. Schaefer Construction Company, be granted
and that the City Attorney be directed to prepare an ordinance
similar in nature to that contained in Division 68 of the Los
Angeles Municipal Code.
The Council discussed the applicability of Division 68 of
the Los Angeles Municipal Code to unreinforced masonry buildings.
Mayor Holcomb suggested that the engine~rs who testified be-
fore the California Hotel Ad Hoc Committee be requested to put
their professional opinions in writing.
Council Member Hernandez made a motion that this matter be
continued to September 7, 1982.
The motion died for lack of a second.
- 4 -
8/16/82
.Th7 motion granting the appeal of the Board of Building
C~mm1ss10ners Order of Condemnation on Project Number 1177,
f11ed. by Robert A,. Schaefer Construction Company and directing
the C1ty Attorney to prepare an ordinance similar in nature to
that contained in Division 68 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code
ca:ried bY,the fol~owing vote: Ayes: Council Members Castaneda,
Re1l1y, QU1el, Str1ckler. Noes: Council Member Hernandez.
Absent: Council Member Hobbs.
Council Member Quiel made a motion, seconded by Council Mem-
ber ~astaneda and unanimously carried, that the City Administrator
be d1rect~d,tonegotiate on the development of the hotel according
to the or1g1nal plans and that the City Attorney be directed to
prepare a disposition and development agreement with Robert A.
Schaefer Construction Company for the renovation and improvement
of the California HotP-l.
-...
'"
o
O,~;I r..;1 ?J 0 I
o
~.._._-~----, ~ -_..........
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUSTOFFIC[ BOX 131B,SAN ~ERNARDI'Jl) :.\Llil'"~"\"
SHAUNA CLARK
CITY CLERK
. .-- August 18, 1982
Mr. Robert A. Schaefer
Robert A. Schaefer Construction Co.
13607 Third Street
Yucaipa, California 92399
Dear Mr. Schaefer:
At the Council Meeting held on August 16, 1982, the
report from the ad hoc committee concerning rehabilitation
of the California Hotel, located at 500-524 North "S"
Street, was heard.
The Common Council granted your appeal of the Board
of Building Commissioners Order of Condew~ation on ?roject
Number 1177 (the California Hotell, and the City Attorney
was directed to prepare an ordinance similar in nature to
that contained in Division 68 of the Los Angeles Municipal
Code, pertaining to building codes.
Sincerely,
/. t';;7'1/.
,./:/'."' , ,'/J ,.I ;:l
.~;;..:",(/~../.), ..;~.:y
. SHAUNA CLARK
"City Clerk
SC:pa
cc: Mayor Holcomb
Councilman Quiel, Chairman,
California Hotel Ad Hoc Committee
City Attorney
Building and Safety Superintendent
11lO NOI1T1l "I)"' !;lll' I T. ~^N I1rItN^,lIJ1NO, ('^III OI1NI^ f)'Jllln
l'lltlll! I/HIIIIII,lIo.'rlllll.llI.'
, U' "
o
O:2'?:Pl::'" O~
o
July 20, 1983
Mayor W.R. Holcomb
Members of the Common Council and
all department heads
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Dear Sirs:
On December 4, 1981, the Board of Building Commissioners "condemned" the old
California Hotel and ordered it to be demolished within 60 days. As new option
holders, who had no previous dealings with the City of San Bernardino on this
project, we appealed the condemnation to the Common Council, within the ten day
period, on December '10, 1981.
After many months of letter writing, group inspectiol]s, and ad hoc committee
meetings with all pertinant city department heads, the Representatives of the
State Office of Historic Preservation and the Office of the 'State Architect, our
appeal was granted and the condemnation was reversed on August 16, 1982.
Notification of this action was from the City Clerk in her letter dated August 18,
1982.
During the August 16, 1982 meeting of the Common Council, the City Attorney
"was directed to prepare an ordinance similar in nature to that contained in
Division 68 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, pertraining to building codes."
Nine months later, on May 5, 1983, after much stalling, the new San Bernardino
earthquake ordinance II MC 265 went into affect.
On December 21, 1982, and several
information from the planning director
this date we still have heard nothing.
Rosebraugh to John Metzer he stated,
not received any plans for remodeling.
from their engineer or architect."
times thereafter, we tried to obtain
reguarding a Conditional Use Permit. To
In a January 12, 1983 memo from Jack
"The Building and Safety Department has
or repair of the building or any inquiries
As you know, we felt that we needed some kind of assurances that we would get
a permit at such time as we spent the money for such plans. All -along we have
had conflicting statements from different city officials. Some said, "Don't spend
the money" and others said, "We can do no more until we see your plans." Both
groups state they "don't have .any authority to 'bind the city'."
To move this situation foreward and because we will need the plans anyway, we
have prepared the plans at a cost of more than $ .50,000,0.::'. They are submitted
with the San Bernardino Department of Building and Safety at this time. These
plans have been prepared by licensed professionals and bear their signatures. You
are hereby asked to see these plans for ~~urselves.
'" ,
o
o
o
o
Fire sprinklers
Plans have been prepared by Daart Engineering. All rooms will be sprinklered
using the latest code, including all bathrooms, kitchenetts, concrete stairwells,
attics, mansard roof spaces and basements. It will be considered a "totally
sprinkle red building." These plans have already been approved by the San
Bernardino City Fire Department.
Structural engineering.
Plans were prepared by Mr. John Kariotis and associates, using the new
earthquake code. Hjs organization participated in the writing of the Los Angeles
Earthquake Ordinance, Division 68, as well as the last four Uniform Building
Codes. The masonry tests came out exceptionally well (in some cases more than
six times greater than the minimum requirements). The existing "government ties"
wi II remain undisturbed and used as a "backup system" to the new code-approved
wall ties that will be placed between the existing steel anchors.
Plumbing engineering
Plans were prepared. by TMAD and Associates using the latest code. An entirely
new SOLAR-ASSISTED hot water system will be installed throughout. All drain
traps will be replaced and a new drain line to the street will be installed with a
back-flow preventer.
Electrical engineering
Plans were prepared by TMAD and Associates using the latest code. The entire
hotel will be rewired; Every old wire will be removed by pulling in the new wires
with the old. The existing 600 amp panel will be replaced with two 800 amp
panels. Many sub panels will be placed throughout the structure as required.
Heating and air conditioning
Plans were prepared by TMAD and Associates. The old system will be removed and
the new SOLAR-ASSISTED "Hydro Heat Pump System" installed. Each room and
.suite will have its own quiet unit that may be controlled either from the room by
-the occupant or from the main desk thorugh the new telephone system. This
system will cost double the standard system, but will pay for itself within five
years with energy savings. It will also, be hidden in the small attic area over the
door to each room. There will be no loud units in the windows or through the
exterior walls. The historic integrity of the hotel will be retained.
Telephone system
The latest design in electronic communications will be purchased for the hotel.
Direct dialing, wake-up service and many other features will be incorporated in
this system.
Cable TV
The hotel will be hooked up to all the local Cable TV channels and will have its
own satelite dish receiver for total coverage of the media.
,.,
o
o
o
o
Fire escapes
Plans were prepared by Terry Hadon, AlA, Architect. The two interior stairwells
with their beautiful Honduras Mahogany railings will be brought up to the latest
fire codes with the use of "hidden emergency fire doors." These code-approved
doors will be totally out of sight until they are needed. They will allow the
historic integrity of the interior to be retained and still meet the latest fire
codes. Two new stairwells will be installed to provide additional safety and
access. In time, when the fire chute system receives all of its approvals, they will
be installed as a secondary backup system over and above the present code
requirements.
Solar energy system
The California Hotel will have the latest design in solar collectors placed on the
roof of the south wing. The hot water collected by this system will be used in
both the hot water system and the heating and air conditioning system. There will
be NO gas appliances within the living areas of the hotel.
When complete, the fully restored hotel will have 611 single rooms, 36 one bedroom
suites, five two bedroom suites and one three bedroom, two bath "Presidential
Suite." It will also have three kitchens, three resturants, two banquet and seminar
rooms, a complete health room and more than 20 commercial spaces. The two
elevators will be restored to their original 1927 beauty with their fancy Honduras
Mahogany cabs, but will be brought up to the latest safety and earthquake codes.
The landscaping and night lighting will be in total harmony with the hotel's
beautiful Spanish architecture. The largest American flag will fly 24 hours-a-day
over the central tower.
The central tower and flag will be illuminated by powerful flood lights all ~t,
long. The Grand Entrance will be highlighted with arches, canopies, fountains and
a bridge over a reflection pool. Valets and bellboys will be stationed at the curb
to greet each guest. The shops and resturants will be reached through two
recessed secondary archways to leave the grand entrance to the guests of, the,
hotel and dining rooms. All personnel will have Security and Emergency Medical
Assistant training certificates.
To date we have spent a little more than $102,000 to get the project this far and
are prepared to do whatever is necessary to finish the job. We are looking
foreward to the completion of the hotel to "its original use" as a downtown hote~
We are also looking foreward to bringing this historic old complex back into the
useful mainstream of the San Bernardino economy.
Very truly yours,
Robert A. Schaefer, owner
'.. "
GQERAl
" CONTRACTOR
~~, ,-, "
~-'1_ ':
z~o
gNSE
NO,2991CO
Robert A. Schaefer Construction Co.
CHURCHES . RESIDENTIAL . COMMERCIAL
13607 THIRD STREET. YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA 92399 · (714) 795-5881
~lay 5. 1982
City of San Bernardino
300 North 'D' Street
San Bernardino, CA. 92401
Re: The appeal to restore the California Hotel,
Dear Mayor Holcomb and Members of the Common Council:
Liquifaction seems to be a new problem that the city is concerned about. With
that in mind I went to see Mr Gary S Rasmussen,a prominent San Bernardino
Geologi st.
He told me that for liqujfaction to be a problem a total of FIVE factors had to
exi st and these fi ve factors had to be present AT THE SAME TH<lE. Any four of the
five no matter how severe could not present the elements of liqui.faction. These
factors are: 1) Soil grain size. 2) Grain distriblltion (the ratio between the
grain sizes) 3) High water table. (ground water less than 32 feet) 4) The
degree and repeated cycles of the shock waves and 5) The density of the materials
(loose relative compaction).
He also told me that the weight of a very heavy building would help to hold the
soil particles together. This would reduce the probability of liquifaction in
marginal situations.
"',." ""..~ - .
I then
United
asked him about the realities of the problem. Has liquifaction :in the
States EVER been related to the cause of death of ANYONE? His 'answer to
"To the best of my knowl edge without doing any research, no."
me was.
He then told me that when liquifaction does OCCUI" it usually causes a building to
sink on one side. When this happens to a "lowrise" building,the building will
simply 'tilt. He told me that when a building has a high center of gravity such
as that which exists on a "highrise" building the building could actually tip so
much it could tip over.
"11''' ""
o
o
o
o
page 2
There were some "highrise" buildings in China a few years ago that tipped over
but the loss of life there was largely due to sliding interior objects such as
furniture. The buildings themselves did not fail structurally and were tipped
back up on better foundations and put back in use.
Liquifaction therefore on a "lowrise" building such as the California Hotel that
is long and 'L' shaped would not be considered a life threatening situation.
Very truly yours,
Q '-( ."," ,
" ("(,,, J C-,',//:~r':"I:-'l
v J.~ - -~ ../." ,/
Robert E Schaefer.
cc. Gary S Rasmussen, Joseph E Bonadiman, C. Glenn Wilson, Jack Rosebraugh.
Marshall Julian.
, II' ,
>,
o
Ql~' C!.~ :':',: 0
o
THE HISTORIC RESEARCH OF
THE CALiFORNIA HOTEL
DOWNTOWN SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
. -.-..-,-_'P'.,.-.....,..... .~,,,..;.--.,.;.;:,-.~,,~;,;..,.....-----
-;.'.""
"The State Office of Historic Preservation has made a
preliminary determination that the above property appears
to be eligible for individual listing in the National Register of
Historic Places."
Robert E. Mackensen
Preservation Architect
Office of Historic Preservation
State of California
Department of Parks and Recreation
,....!"':.1..I......tl:i....f.:..-. '..
o
o
, 'I!"
o
o
Foreword
The story or t\llleri~a has been. throughout. a
Slory of accelerating growth and change, Securely
settled into a tmdition of taking, moving on. and
not looking. ttack. Americans since 1900 have been
faced increasingly wi'lh the prospect of virtually
destroying their natural and hislorical birthright in
th~ name of progrc!\s. .
The prohlem was recognized early by small groups
of devoted conservationists. Ihrough whose efforts
much landmark legisl:ation has heen passed, Of
primary sig.nificance in the preservatiun of our
historic past have bcen the Antiquities Act of 1906.
which e,tcndcd protection over antiquities on
Federal pn.>rerty and empowered the President to
~t~1 asiuc pl,rtiuns of Iht.:' puhlil.: thlllWin ""i National
i\lnnul11('nts: the Org.anic Act of IlJI6 c..:reating the
N;ltional Park Service: the Hislnric Sites Act uf
1')~5. which pruvided for hi~turkal units of the
NatillOal Park Sy"tClll and authorized a prugram
I'llI' iltcntil"ying and marking National Historic
I.andmarks: and the Niltilllwl Historic Preserva-
tion Act of 1 W,f1, which extendcd the policy of
historic preservation to every Federal agency and
acknowledged Federal concern fur historical values
iml"ortant to the Slates and communities of the
Nation.
On l\l;ly D. 1971. in ;In executive uction without
.
.' ,
precedent, President Nixon issued Executive Order
11593. which further emphasized the Federal role
in preserving. restoring. and maintaining the
historicul und cultural environment of the Nution,
This pronouncement, stressing the responsibilities
uttaehed to Federul stewurdship of hislorie prop-
erties. calls upon all Federul ugeneies to partici-
pate uetively in the preservation of the Nation's
putrimony, It recognizes that the American people
will hold their government uccountable for this
stewurdshlp in terms of how effectively that govern-
menl has directed its policies. plans. and progra.."
toward the enjoyment by future generations of
those historic properties it now holds in Irust.
The muchinery hus been sel up hy which Americans
can identify those reminders of Ihe past worth
saving, and Ihe weapons have heen forged by which
they can he defended against destruction without
due process. The successful utilization of this
machinery and these weapons is dependent on the
continuing devolion of the American pcople to lhe -
cause of hisloric preservation,
~&f~~
Secretary of the Interior
,
i
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 1972
--_.~
:.".1 "'.I
o
LICENSE
NO. 299100
Robert A. Schaefer Construction Co.. INC.
Q
GENERAL
CONTRACTOR
"II" "
o
o
CHURCHES . RESIDENTIAL . COMMERCIAL
13607 THIRD STREET · YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA 92399 · (714) 795.5881
PROLOGUE
Is the old California Hotel an historic building? Let's take a look.
The statement has been made that no one in the local historical societies or city
government places any historical value on the "old California Hotel", and further-
more no famous people ever stayed there. Not only was this statement made, but it was
made to the California State Historical Preservation Officer.
When local contractors Robert A. Schaefer and his son Robert E. Schaefer, who are
trying to restore the structure through provisions of the State ~istorical Building
Code, heard this they immediately proceded to document the history they knew was
there. While many principals have passed on there are many who are still with us.
Many of these have retained their sharp memories, photographs and artifacts from the
bygone days of the California Hotel when it was the main meeting place for San
Ber~ardino.
The following people or organizations were invaluable to the compilation of this stor;'.
Whether they contributed a little or a lot each one who participated is considered a
very important part of this research.
Ma ry McNa lly
Listed basically in the order of the time frame of their information they are:
Honsi gnor Bradley
Ana t.la rga rett
Frances Ross
Lenna Mea Roberts
Everett H. Swing
Mr. C. Ray Poppett
...il.Ir.!Io&..______~--........ "._i.... _~._
Attended Saint Catherines Catholic School, the school that
occupied the property before the hotel was built. She can
describe the entire neighborhood as it was during the eight
years from 1908 to 1916 when she went to school there.
Provided the information on the transition between the use
of the property from the school to the hotel.
Assistant archivest, Catholic Diocese Pastoral Center.
Youngest daughter of Frank Solt, builder of the hotel. As a
teenager she worked in every area of the hotel. Her mother,
who was the manager after it was built, insisted that Frances
learn the business from the ground up.
Hotel Beauty Shop operator from 1930 to 1949. She knew many of
the hotel's guests and full-time residents. She was known as
Tommy Thompson at the time.
Prominent San Bernardino attorney who lived in the California
Hotel when it was only ~ few years old. He is a former President
of the National Orange Show and the son of Senator Ralph Swing,
who called the Californla Hotel his home for almost 40 years.
Close friend of Dale Gentry and Steven Rehwald, who worked at
Platt Building during construction of California Hotel. Toured
the country with Dale Gentry.
, 111'
c:JLOGUE Continued
Page 2
Bill Cozzo Former President of the National Orange Show and was nominated
by Dale Gentry, was "M.C." at many of Gentry's functions.
o
o
o
Lucille "Tobie" Tobin A friend of both Frank Solt and Dale Gentry. She and her son
lived in the hotel for 15 years from 1933 to 1948. She moved
into Suite 21-A after they moved the bar downstairs next to the
dining room in 1940. Suite 21-A had been the hotel's "Blind Pig"
(Private bar) during Prohibition.
Charlotte Arth Dale Gentry's personal secretary and companion during the last
20 years of his life. She knows the inside information of his
partnerships, businesses and legal involvements. He trusted '
her because she was independently wealthy ~nd wasn't after his
money.
Bill Leonard, Sr. An old friend of Dale Gentry. He is also a past President of
the National Orange Show and the father of Assemblyman Bill Leonard.
He says "Everybody who was anybody stayed at the Cal ifornia Hotel
when they were in town.
Niece of Dale Gentry. Her mother and aunt were Dale Gentry's
sisters. They received a good portion of his estate and personal
belongings after his death.
Lee Pheriot
Alberta Stewart
Sister of Dale Gentry.
James K. Guthrie
Orchestra leader and former owner of the Sun newspaper. He was
a friend of Dale Gentry and says "The hote'l was the ONLY place to
stay" .
Bud Halderman
Retired San Bernardino Police Detective and old friend of Gentry.
Ed Tappan
Donald Van Luven
Retired San Bernardino Police Detective and old friend of Gentry.
San Bernardino "Police Judge" from 1927 to 1951. He became the
only President of the National Orange Show who didn't have a show.
At the same time, the Army took over the California Hotel for
their San Bernardino headauarters and took over the National
Orange Show grounds as a staging area.
He and his wife Carolyn operated "Henry's Flowers", the hotel's
florist shop for 23 years from 1947 to 1970.
Henry Kazarian
Mrs. A 1 verado
Widow of the hotel barber.
barber shop for 43 years.
and full-time residents.
Larry Alverado cut hair in the hotel
Larry knew many of the hotel guests
Al Anthony
Assistant to the president of radio station KFXM, located in the
California Hotel for 34 years: Mr. Anthony has been with KFXM
for more than 25 years.
San Bernardino's senior woman realtor who had the real estate
office across the street from the California Hotel for 23 years
from 1932 to 1955. She came to San Bernardino in 1922.
Mary Stephens
- Melville D. Harris
Former owner of the Harris Company department stores.
, His mother lived at the California Hotel.
L" "
~OLOGUE Continued
'-'ge 3
Jan Roddick
o
o
o
Sun reporter since 1941 who covered famous people at the
National Orange Show was a childhood friend of Tennessee
Ernie Ford's wife.
Bob Roddi ck
Chuck Palmer
Former Sun reporter and former National Orange Show advertizing
agent.
Sun columnist and announcer at radio sta+ion KFXM from 1946 to
1949. Tennessee Ernie Ford, another KFXM announcer, sang at ~is
wedding.
Retired Sun columnist worked at the Sun for 33 years.
The wife of the hotel's third owner. After the hotel went into
bankruptcy in 1972 ~he and her son stayed on as the caretaker<
of the property. During this time she also took care of the two
invalid former hotel owners, Mr. Dale Gentry and her husband,
Stephen Rehwa1d until their deaths in 1974. She continued on as
caretaker of the hotel until August of 1976.
Stephen P. Rehwa1d, Jr. Son of the hotel's third owner. He grew up in the hotel.
Jack Blue
Wynona G. Rehwa1d
Ted Rehwa 1 d Loca 1 cont ractor and nephew of the hotel' s thi rd owner.
Lawrence Jones Hotel accountant for Mr. Rehwa1d.
Thelma Press San Bernardino Historian for the City of San Bernardino.
Arda Haensze1 Local San Bernardino Historian for the County Museum.
Dr. Gerry Smith Director of the San Bernardino County Museum.
Ed Hei1, Jr. Local San Bernardino Historian.
Jack LaPort Hotel maintenance man for many years. He was the last caretaker
of the hotel and lived on the third floor until October of 1981
when he left because of blindness.
Charles Rollins United States Army recruiter who contacted the U.S. Army Historian'
at the Army library in the Pentagon Building, Washington, D.C.
Tom Smith Ca1-trans Historian.
Adolfo "Chico" Porras Chief Appraiser, office of the San Bernardino County Appraiser.
Perris Hill Park Practice field for the Pittsburgh Pirates, who stayed in the hotel.
Dan Rodrigues San Bernardino City Parks and Recreation Superintendent.
John Garrity Former San Bernardino City Parks and Recreation Superintendent.
Also San Bernardino City Library, A.K. Smiley Library in Red1ands, The Sun newspaper,
the Santa Fe Railway, and Steele's Photography, 100 year old photo studio.
''<'
O :-'~h."___~... ,tlo..~ 'I/ff':/..l.,_....,....~<>---""-._,--~ l .-~.4 _JI'I\._..~_.~.._.
..._..~~___1'ofII'....__~__..........--~.:.r....._"'7':..._~~_
GENERAL ,C.,'-".' '-;~'''':','''..;'';'C-:,''.''C1.;.o.''';''''<-''',,"2:;-~; '. ;'.. ':).-........,,"',-"
CONTRACTOR
o
~oh~r.t;:.A~1:S~liwe~t~6i~~lfuction CO.;' 'Irle: ,.--
CHURCHES . RESIDENTIAL. . COMMERCIAL
13607 THIRD STREET · YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA 92399 · (714) 795.5881
.~.. ." -'..'."""'-.'.l_' .............______-~~_ ...... __T....~
UCENSE
NO, 299100
HISTORY
The history of the old Ca1i~~i~~1-goes back to the pre-depression Boom Days of
1925. Mr. Roy Durb1n,~~n~.~jd~fe~~y~tiTlt one California Hotel in Orange County,
wanted to bui 1 d another ..one...in-'-San.~llerna.rdino County.
, ,-,';,. '''-''.-'
~,hile looking at different locations he found that the City of San Bernardino had a
population of nearly 25,OOOalld 'was located at the crossroads of five major highways
and three maj or ra i 1 roads, The Southern Pacifi c Ra il road and Hi ghway 60, 70 and 99
callie into the valley from the [Janning PilSS to the east. While the Santa Fe and Union
Pacific Railroads, Highway 395 and famous old "Route 66" came into the valley from Cajon
Pass to the north.
San Bernardino had few hotels and rooming houses. It also had the world famOus Arrowhead
Sp'ings Hotel located in the foothills of the San Bernardino mountains, with natural hot
s~t'ings, a beautiful view and a location seven miles from downtown San Bernardino. The
Arrowhead Springs Hotel was more of a resort hotel than a true traveler's hotel. As
Mr. Durbin saw it, San Bernardino was ready for a real first-class traveler's hotel.
Downtown San Bernardino extended on "E" Street from 2nd Street on the south end to the
City Park at 6th Street on the north end of town. The town had two major crossroads.
They were 3rd Street and 5th Street. Fifth Street was part of old "Route 66".
While searching for a good location Mr. Durbin found that the best <orner in town could
be leased for 99 years from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Oiego. The price was
51,000.00 per month, plus taxes. The site had been used for 45 years for Saint
Catherine's Convent and Girls School. It had been named after Catherine Quinn, who donated
the property to the church in 1880 after the death of her husband, Dr. Quinn.
The corner was the north-west corner of 5th and "E" Streets. It was next to the new
Municipal Auditorium and overlooked the City Park with it's beautifully manicured lawns,
stately trees, and monuments. The' park with the San Bernardino mountains in the back-
ground would provide a perfect built-in view for the new hotel dining room.
Mr. Durbin leased the property and proceeded to have the plans drawn for his beautiful
new hotel. The hotel would have 99 single guest rooms, each with it's own bath, 12 one-
bedroom suites and six two-bedroom suites~ It would also have two kitchens, two dini~~
rooms, two conference rooms, three V.I.P. or salesman display suites and 20 commercial
stores.
When the plans were
Mr. Frank J. Solt.
many years earlier,
the hote 1 .
finished he approached Los Angeles architect ana builder,
Mr. Solt, who had operated a cattle ranch for the governor of Mexico
appreciated the beautiful Spanish architecture and agreed to builu
Ground was broken for the hotel in 1926. With his many years experience of building in
"earthquake country" his first task was to build what he called a "rocking foundation".
,."" ." ,
QTORY
Page 2
He also used this foundation design on his next projects, the St. Bernardine Hospital
on Highland Avenue and the California Theater on Fourth Street. These foundations were
designed to give with the movements of the earth during an earthquake. On March 11, 1933,
his design was put to the supreme test. The earthquake known as the Long Beach Earthquake
did no damage to his structures even though the area had a very high water table of approx-
imately 12 feet. Frank's youngest daughter, Frances, when asked if she saw her Dad use
any steel in the construction of the hotel exclaimed, "Oh yes, Poppa was a first-class
builder. I remember seeing steel sticking up allover the place while he was pouring
concrete. "
Continued
o
o
o
By mid-1927 when the hotel was nearing completion Roy Durbin, the owner who liked to
weekend in Mexico, was killed in an automobile accident while returning to San Bernardino.
The death of Mr. Durbin made Mr. Solt the majority owner as well as the builder. He
organized a stock company and sold stocks to old Doctor Bill Savage and his investor
friends. Frank then paid off the loans and put his wife to work running the hotel.
Mrs. Hiram Barton, of Barton Road fame, was his interior decorator and went to Los Angeles
to pi ck out the furniture. The enti re hotel was furni shed wi th "Rock Maple" furni ture
purchased from the Barker Brothers store in Los Angeles.
One day the Lee Brothers, Cliff and Gene from Oklahoma, came into the hotel to talk to the
Solts about starting a radio station in San Bernardino. It was a new venture but soon it
was agreed that the California Hotel would be the home of San Bernardino's first commercial
radio station. Soon two towers were constructed on the roof of the hotel. These two
towers were placed about 100 feet apart and supported a wire mesh radiator. This radiator
was the radio station's transmitter and looked much like a lone narrow wire hammock. The
brothers also built a transmitter building on the roof and a broadcasting studio in the
hotel. It was quite a project.
They finally got their broadcasting license and in 1929 at 1240 on the radio dial KFXM
went on the air. The first entertainers performed free just for the exposure they received.
During a wind storm the two towers blew down. Fortunately, no one was injured and the
towers were rebuilt.
Ten years later the Lee Brothers built a new modern transmitting tower on Colton Aven~=
(now Inland Center Drive). They broadcasted from the new tOWer through telephone lines
that ran back to their studios in the California Hotel. The two towers on the roof were
no longer needed and were dismantled.
KFXM maintained studios and offices in the California Hotel for 34 years. During those
34 years KFXM and the California Hotel participated to a great degree in the entertainment
life of San Bernardino residents. Before the days of television, going to town, window
shopping and meeting friends was the standard Saturday night activity. Everyone could do
that because it was free. Many of them would go on up to the California Hotel for dining,
dancing and a stop off at the KFXM radio studio to see their favorite entertainers.
Roy Rogers, The Sons of the Pioneers, Tennessee Ernie Ford and others performed live right
there in front of the studio audience. Tennessee Ernie Ford and his San Bernardino bride
were married right there in the hotel.
In 1930 a pretty little red haired beautician named "Tommy Thompson" moved into the hotel
beauty shop. She had worked at the new Harris Company store down the street since it was
new just three years earlier. The Harris brothers' mother continued to have Tommy do her
hair over at her new Shop for many years. During the 20 years that Tommy owned and oper-
ated the hotel's beauty shop she met many of the famous people who stayed or lived there,
and in 1939 her youngest daughter, Dorothy Thompson became a celebrity herself. She be-
came Miss Morman and Miss San Bernardino as well as the California Association of Realtors
Queen and the 1939 National Orange Show Queen.
~.,-
"-. 'l6.........'o...:.- __ "_
"I" "
o
~TORY Continued
~ge 3
During the early years of the hotel, Hollywood celebrities regarded San Bernardino as an
adventurous outpost and liked to weekend at both the California Hotel and the Arrowhead
Springs Hotel. The California Hotel had it's own "Blind Pig", which is what a private
bar and gambling room was called during prohibition. This room was located in the suite
just above the lobby and was called the Gold Room. It had access from the south outside
elevator and stairwell as well as from the main elevator and inside stairs. It served
the best imported Canadian liquor to compete with the "cheap Moonshine" that was being
offered on the side by some of the bellboys. In 1932 when prohibition ended, Mr. Solt
threw a big party complete with ice carvings. When Mr. Solt found out about the "Call
Girl Service" someone had in the hotel, he threw them out. Later, in the late 30's aM
early 40's, an Irishman named Jimmie operated as a bookie on the top floor in the end suite
of the south wing. His dining room had a revolving wall panel with a hidden passage.'
o
o
Frank Solt owned a Cadillac seven-passenger limo and a Lincoln convertible. The converti-
ble had a siren and was used in parades to drive state governors around. He became known
as the governor's escort.
Many Municipal Auditorium speakers and Orange Show and Ca1 ifornia Theater entertainers
and artists, as well as the movie stars who came out from Hollywood to attend their Movie
Premiere at the l~est Coast,Theater across the street, stayed at the California Hotel,
A 1 ist of the famous guests that stayed at the hotel would include:
Jim Backus
Joan Blondel
Clard Bow
Rohe,.t Calli 11 0
Leo Carillo
Chat'lie Chaplin
Jack i e Coogan
Betty Davis
Reginald Denny
Death Valley
Scotty
Billy DeWolf
Cass Ell iott
Earl Gillmore
Betty Grab Ie
Gorgeous George
Hilo Hattie
Phil Harris
Bob Hope
Hedda Hopper
John Justin
Buster Keaton
Howa rd Kee 1
Harry Lauder
Dorothy Lamour
T. V. actor
Movi e act ress
Early movie actress
Singe r
Actor
Comedian/actor
Child actor
Movie actress
British actor
Pros pee to r
British comedian
Singer
Gillmore Oil president
Movie actress
Wrestl er
Singer
Orchestra leader
Comedian/actor
LA columnist
Movie star
Comedian/actor
Broadway singer
Scott i sh singer
Movie actress
June Lockhart
Connie Mack
John Marideth
Merrideth McCrae
!iiselle McKenzie
Ogden Nash
[Job Nolan
Richard Paladin
and sons
Korla Pandit
Roy Roge rs
Wi 11 Roge rs
Sons of the
Pi oneers
Tennessee
Erni e Ford
Mi ckey Rooney
Rubonoff
Char1 ie Russell
Ned Sparks
Gloria Swanson
Elizabeth Taylor
John Wayne
Mae West
Jane Withers
Jack Stone
T. V. actress
Baseball mogul/
Philadelphia Athletics
Movie star
Entertai ner
Singer
Poet/philosopher
Composer/s i nger
Movie star
Organist/pianist
Singer/movie star
Columnist/actor
Western singers
Singer/comedian
& enti re cast of "Skippy"
Violinist
Artist
Dead-pan actor
Movie actress
Movie actress
Movie star
Early movie actress
Ch il d act ress
Baseball player
'I"
~TORY Continued
Page 4
Political, government and religious leaders who stayed at the California Hotel were:
o
o
o
Amy Sempel McPherson, who arrived at the hotel with a police escort.
Senator and Mrs. Ralph Swing, who lived there for many years.
Senator Garner
Jessie Unruh
Jimmy Roosevelt.
Sam Yorty
Congressman Harry Sheppard and his wife.
Congl'essman Jerry Pettis, \~ho had his local office in the south courtyard.
Governor Edmond G. "Pat" Brown
Bill Knowland
Goodwin "Goodie" Knight
Frank Mariam
Earl \,arren, who crowned the National Orange Show queen for many years.
James Ralph. SI',
GencI'al Geol'ge Patton
Genel'al Stilll~ell
Vice-President Richard Nixon
Adlaid Stevenson, Politician
Onk.nizations and Clubs that used the California Hotel were:
The Pittsburgh Pirates, while they practiced at the Perris Hill Park in the late 30's.
The St. Louis Browns, while they practiced at the Perris Hill Park in the late 40's,
Amelia Earhart and the "PoI-IdeI' Puff Derby"
Personnel of the National Orange Show
Casts of the Civic Light Opera, playing at the California Theater.
The San Bernardino Board of Realtors
The San Bernardino Business and Professional Women's Club
The Argonauts Breakfast Club, who arranged public debates between Congressman
Harry Sheppard, Democrat and Dale Gentry, Republican.
The Chamber of Commerce
The Rota ry Club
The Exchange Club
The 20-30 Club
The United States Air Force
The United States Army
People who lived in the hotel as their home for awhile were:
California Senator and Mrs Ralph Swing
Prominent San Bernardino Attorney, Everett H. Swing
Lyman Rich, past president of the National Orange Show
Ruth Langford, former owner of the Antlers Hotel
Robert Harbi son, former owner of the Sun newspaper
Mrs. Philip Harris, step-mother of former Harris' department stores owner Melville Harris
Dr. Garcelon, physician for the Arrowhead Springs Hotel
Rosco Lyda, head of the local welfare department
Bob and Amy Lacy, owners of the Big Bear Hotel
Dr. and Mrs. Whorton, prominant San Bernardino dentist and his wife
Dr. and Mrs. Bateman, San Be rna rdi no County vetari nari an and hi s wife
Dr. and Mrs. Grisel
Dr. Scholl, foot doctor of San Bernardino and Palm Springs
.",
OTI:it,\
rage 5
C.m11Iltlt.(j .
. ~"..' '- "- .
.,0.-........'.""......0
",," .,"-_..-' ,. ~
o
People \'Iho lived in the hotel as their, home for awhile continued:
_ ". ....,,--.... ....___............_._........__~.._._..._....H_'"
Dr. Prince
Ned Sparks, dead-pan comedian
Ca1 ifornia Senator Gamet' and his beautiful wife Ima Jean
~'r. Towne, owner of the Towne Ford Agency
Frank Whitelock, of the Whitelock Mortgage Company (also had his office in the hotel).
Mr. Nicho1is, the manaqer of Sears Department Store
Charlie Adams, the owner of Adams 'lumber Company
Jack Drummond, one of the owners of the Hanford Iron Works
Mr, Pike, one of the owners of the Hanford Iron Works
Regular guests, who had rooms rented all the time, were out of town salesmen and
moonshiners.
As the Great Depression worsened, Mr. Solt would set up tables in the parking lot behind
the hotel to feed the hungry. He would get on the phone and call the Salvation Army to
tell them how many the hotel could feed.
As the Depression continued people stopped traveling as much as before and the hotel
business dropped off. Some nights Mrs. Solt would have only four or five guests. Sur-
vival became harder and harder for the Solts. They worked and worked to save their
hotel. Mrs. Solt would work in the sewing room after managing the hotel all day, but
by 1937 with the hotel overhead and payments running up to $5,000.00 behind every month
the hotel went into bankruptcy.
In 1939 Mr. Dale Gentry, San Bernardino's first Ford dealer, bought the hotel and all of
the Solts' los Angeles real estate including their home and an airport near San Bernardino
fOl' $39.000.00 (about JOe on the dollar). The oldest Solt girl was so upset with him at
the sale that she hit him over the head with her umbrella using both hands.
Mr, Gentry had operated his Ford dealership from 1911 to 1929 on Fourth Street, just a
block south of the hotel. He was a left-handed Republican "teetotaler" who never mar-
ried. With only a third grade education he became a very successful and wealthy man,
even through the Great Depression years. He installed a large walk-in safe in his office
to protect his diamond and coin collection, It was full of bags with 901d and silver
coins. He especially liked to give diamonds to his lady friends.
On the evening of December 7, 1941, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, General George Patton
of the United States Arn~ entered the hotel. Under his powers of marshal law. he took
over the entire hotel for. his headquarters. His communications truck was parked in the
west parking lot next to the building and was soon wired into the hotel's telephone
s\~itchboard. By Monday morning, December'S, 1941, the Anny started moving out the hotel
guests and full-time residents. The top floor of the south wing became military offices
and the main hotel was used for Army personnel, Soon General Stillwell took charge at the
hotel and General Patton set up a training camp in the low desert between Indio and Blythe.
Desert training was necessary because the Army thought the next major hot spot would be in
the African Desert. General Stillwell's occupation of the hotel lasted almost a year.
Gentry later installed a swimming pool in the "E" Street courtyard of the hotel. He was
a BIG man and his new pool was affectionately called "Gentry's Foot Bath".
He loved trains and was an engineer in his youth. In his later years, he owned his own
railway system, "the Cottonwood and Southern Railroad", which was located on his huge
l'anch on the high desert. He knew and entertained many of the presidents of the American
railroads. He once said "wouldn't it be em~arrassing if someone asked you if you owned a
QSTCRY 'Cont in~~-ct;'~::"-'::""~~;:~~,~",,:~.~:,-':"'~o-:O~~~~;?:~:~~:, "~'. ._- -.0 -~--
Page 6
train and VOll had to ~av:'no'.nF4!-wOuld!live lifetime frp.e passes on his three mile
train to p'residenfs'''oriiiifi6ii-ari'aTfi'oaas-wiEli'''fhe' statement that he thought it was only
fair that they reciprocate.
o
One time a group of friends tried to get Gentry to run for state senator. They had the
posters printed without his knowledge and they stated that he would run on the basis of
his being a man who was "reasonably honest".
He was a man who wouldn't get'mad-jllstget even. He bought 1 bank once just so he could
fire a loan officer who refused him a loan earlier.
His wealth caused him to have many friends and many enemies. He once said of himself,
"When I grow 01 d they may say, 'There goes that old SOB', but they won't say 'There goes
that POOR old SOB'." '
Mr. Gentry owned and operated the California Hotel successfully f1r 23 years. On
June 30, 1966, he 9ave the hotel in trust to Lama Linda University in return for a lif'
estate at the hotel including meals and medical care for the rest of his life. The next
day, as planned. the University sold the hotel for $300,000.00 to Mr. Stephen P. Rehwald.
Mr, Rehwald was a successful San Bernardino businessman and an old friend of Dale Gentry.
Loma Linda University used the money to build the $300,000.00 "Dale Gentry Gymnasium".
On July 1,1966, Stephen Rehwald took over the hotel and it's 80 employees. "The hotpl
\Vas a happy place", says Mrs. Rehwald. "Everyone came to work on time. No one called
in sick. In fact two of the chefs had worked there for more than 30 years." T'tlo-and-
a-half years later, on January 1, 1969, Mr. Rehwald announced plans to build a 1,5
million 1o11ar, seven-story, 100-1'0010 annex in the area in front of the hotel where the
con111erci,.1 stores' are located. But by early in 1972 the plans for the annex as well as
for the sale of the Ill'operty to a Pasadena investment company had both failed to material-
ize.
By ,July of 1972, Mr. Rehwald was confined to a whe,~lchair, due to a stroke, and was
unable to conduct his business. He laid off most of his 52 employees and on July 7, 1972
he fil~d bankruptcy and closed the hotel, Although the hotel was Officially closed on
Ju ly 7th it took three months for a 11 of the elderly residents to move out. They di dn' t
want to leave, and held "war meetings" in the lobby.
The hotel had an 80"" occupancy rate until "downtown San Bernardino" was killed in the
early 1970's.
During the summer of 1974 Dale Gentry died at the age of 90. He had told his friends that
if he was younger he would have bought the hotel back and restored it. There was more
than $1,300,000.00 in his NON-interest-bearing checking account. Later on in that year,
on Christmas Eve, Stephen Rehwa1d passed away too.
On January 6, 1972, a group of investors acquired title to the hotel and kept Mrs. Rehwald
and her son young Steve Jr. on as caretakers. They stayed there in-that big old empty
place until June of 1976, when they left for a safer home.
Since the Rehwalds left the beautiful old hotel has been misused to the maximum. It's
no wonder the City of San Berna rdi no wants to get ri d of the thi ng. The hotel has been
sold, borrowed against and transferred among investors so many times that the ownership
has become confusing even to the title companies. During this period of time the hotel
was used for storage. It was used as a tax write-off. All of the furniture has dis-
appeared. The copper refrigeration lines and the stainless steel kitchen appliances were
-...- _.._-~---~
.~ ~. - . ....~:'!!
'1"
QII'.IUI<Y I.llfltilllll1d
P,}!)" /
o
o
o
cut up and sold for scrap. Vagrants and vandals roamed the p,'operty smashing glass.
kicking in doors, setting fires and opening high pressure water valves on the tOD floor
flooding the hotel from top to bottom. The only thing that one might say was good that
happened during these eight years is that someone terminated the ground lease and bougnt
the ground. The hotel and the ground are now under the same ownership.
On December 1, 1981, the San Bernardino Sun printed an editorial regarding the Califo!'r,~a
Hotel. The editorial was entitled "A tarnished jewel". "There are fe\v structures in ~re
city that are as valuable as the hotel in terms of historic symbolism. If it slips
through the fingers of preservationists, there will be 1 ittle practical hope that the "e-
maining physical reminders of San Bernardino history can be saved from disinti()l"ation,
It would be a great misfortune if the community proves to be that indiffe,'ent to it' 5
heritage. "
It was this editorial in THE SUN that brought the Schaefer family into the pictl:!'e:
Robert A, Schaefer, a generill contractor in the San Bernat'c1ino Valley since H42. an';
his son, Robert E, Schaefer, also a general contractor and ,'eal estilte investol'. ne
Schaefers moved to San Bernardino in 1936 and remember well the Califol'nia Hotel ane :"e
place it held in the life of San Bernilrdino,
At the condemnation hearing the Schilefers found that the City 8uilding Depal'tme:'t !lac
little sympathy for the owners who had allowed the hotel to be ruined over the )ears,
f.~ter the hearing the Schaefers contacted the owners and obtained an option to ,'lil'C;1,~5e
the hotel and proceeded' to ilppeal the condemnation,
The Schaefers produced new hope for the hotel. They had a reputation for gettinc thir2S
done and getting them done right. At the Appeal hearing the City Co~ncil extend~d tne'
hearing for 30 days ',n order to give the Schaefers time to obtain a 5100,000.00 ,'e!'fo!'-
mance bond and formulate plans for restoration. The Mayor, the building and the fit'e
officials gave them a list of items to do if they were really serious about the projec:,
By that night an armed guard and guard dog was on duty. By the n~xt night an automatic
lighting system was installed and clean up was started. Three weeks later the swinninc
pool had been drained of it's dirty water and covered with a new plywood and plastic
structure. The open elevator shaft was closed. All of the broken windows were covered.
Smoke detectors were installed. Two dry fire standpipes were in place. The leaks in the
roof were fixed and truck load after truck load of debris was hauled away.
By the next City Council meeting the Council gave the Schaefers another 12 days to put
all of their plans in writing.
A team of men who the Schaefers had worked with for years converged on the scene: restol'-
ation architects, structural engineers, heating and air conditioning engineers, electrical
engineers, glass and glazing men, carpet and floor covering men, drapery men, roofing con-
tractors, painting contractors, plumbing contractors and exterminators.
The prel iminary plans were completed and submitted just minutes b~fore the deadl ine. ~!ore
than 5150,000.00 worth of structural upgrading was planned, The plans called for a
beautifully restored hotel and business center just like it was when it was built.