HomeMy WebLinkAbout21-Planning
R'rc:HARD D. ANDRE\VS
A TTOHNEY AT LA W
150 WEST FIFTH STHEET, SUITE 102
SAN REHNAHDlNO, CALIFORNIA 9240 I
17(4) ~~~.~4ooREC" "
'85
r""-
1(') P" '("]
! ".!
September 16, 1985
Mayor and Members of the Common Council
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ACTION OF THE
BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council:
DAVID HATFIELD, 5055 David Way, San Bernardino,
California, hereby appeals from that certain action taken by the
Board of Building Commissioners at a hearing on September 6,
1985. The action appealed from is described on the written
summary attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
A hearing on this matter is requested before the Mayor
and Members of the Common Council at which time argument will be
made as to the justification for and the benefits to be derived
from reversing the said action.
Very truly yours,
,,) .
. '/~ ~c"/'-(."c<.. '- ;;" -t'./......" l-::;>'
Richard D. Andrews
Attorney for David Hatfield
RDA:la
cc: David Hatfield
c2/:
...."
.....--"",-
, ,
:~
~
,
i
t
"
BBC HEARING, SEPTEMBER 6, 1985
The Clerk presented Item No, 2, Report/Project No. 2133, construction of a structure
without approved plans or permits, located at 5055 David Way and owned by David
Hatfield. Mr. Clark reported on the .deficiencies and admitted the report into evi-
dence as Exhibit A and the photographs of the property as Exhibit B. There was no
fire report. Mr. Richard Andrews, an attorney representing Mr. Hatfield, appeared
and stated that Mr. Hatfield is an architect licensed by the State of California, and
is questioning the rights of an individual vs. government. He said that Mr. Hatfield's
building is experimental, he is developing a new type of housing and is attempting to
keep it secret. He is trying to get a patent on the design and method of construction.
Mr. Andrews further stated that Mr. Hatfield does not resist applying for a permit and
did offer plans to the Building and Safety Department providing they would be kept
sealed. He asked if Building and Safety could accept application for permit and
restrict access to plans and the construction site. Mr. Rosebrau~h said he did not
refuse to accept plans, but he informed Mr. Hatfield plans would 5ecome public record
as soon as they were approved. Mr. Hatfield did not submit plans under those condi-
tions.
Mr. Hatfield appeared and stated that he objects to the action taken by the Building
and Safety Department and that he answered the City's allegations at the hearing that
was held in 1982. He did not agree to changes. He offered to submit plans to Building
and Safety on June 30, 1983, providing they would be kept sealed. Building and Safety
would not accept them under those conditions. He then took them to the City Attorney's
office, they were not accepted. He said he has given no consent for access to the
property or for pictures to be taken. The property was posted with "no trespassing"
signs. Mr. Perbix said the pictures were taken in plain view, and not inside occupied
premises.
COffiQissioner Pollock made a motion, seconded by Conlmissioner Sheehe, that the nuisance
is to be abated, by demolition, within a period of 60 days. If a permit for demolition
is not issued and work commenced within 10 days of the postin9 of the Resolution for
Abatement, the structure is to be demolished at the end of this 10 day period. Costs
incurred to date are to become a lien upon the property. The motion carried.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Commissioner Miller, Pollock, Senas, Ortega, Sheehe
Noes: Commissioner Gomez
Absent: Commissioner Hei1, Hunt, Marshall
E)(/'dJl' of A