HomeMy WebLinkAbout36-Planning
C~TPOF SAN BERNARDIN9 - RE&l.EST FOR COUNCIL ~TION
r-Ym.
~Pt:
Larry E. Reed, Director
Subject: Appeal of August 3, 1990 Board of
Building Commissioner's finding
concerning the building located
at 276 East Commercial Road
Planning & Building Services
DMe: September 6, 1990
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None.
Recommended motion:
o
Uphol~ the B~ard of ~uilding ~ommissioner's decision that the Building
Code 1SSUes 1n QUeSt10n relat1ve to the building located at 276 East
Commercial Road are without merit; that the structure meets Building
Code standards and is safe as defined by the Building Code and that the
appeal be denied.
~
~ ,&~/
Signature
Contact person: Jack Masters. Sr. Building In..p.."toT Phone:
'in71
SupponingdBtaettached: Staff ReDort. ADpeal with
Attachments
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.! N / A
IAcct.DescriDtionl N/A
Ward:
,
Finance:
oncil Notes:
75.0262
Agenda Item No
36
c.TAF SAN BERNARDINc9. REcQEST FOR COUNCIL aTION
o
o
c
75-0264
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
Appeal of Board of Building Commissioner's decision
of August 3, 1990, concerning Building Code
compliance and safety issues of the building
located at 276 East Commercial.
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
September 17, 1990
REOUEST
The applicant is appealing the Board of Building
Commissioners decision concerning eight (8) Building Code
issues raised in a letter dated June 29, 1990. The
applicant, in the appeal, raises more questions than were
heard by the Board of Building Commissioners. Although not a
part of this appeal, the Report addresses most of those
issues in the Background section.
BACKGROUND
On April 2, 1990, the applicant submitted an application to
the Planning Department for Review of Plans (ROP) No. 90-13.
The ROP application was filed in order to approve a 43,470
square foot concrete tilt-up building that had been erected
on the 2.38 acre site at the northwest corner of Commercial
Road and Waterman Avenue without City Planning and Building
Code approval. The ROP application was scheduled for
numerous Environmental Review Committee (ERC) meetings to
resolve the potential environmental impacts of the project.
The Initial Study prepared for the April 10, 1990, ERC
meeting evolved through the subsequent months as the
applicant provided additional information to the ERC body.
The ERC found that the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, however, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation
measures have been established and a mitigation
Reporting/Monitoring Program has been prepared to reduce the
impacts. The ERC recommended a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for this project.
The four major impacts of concern, liquefaction, traffic,
noise and aesthetics were evaluated during the ERC process
and addressed in the mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program.
Liquefaction, as determined by the Mayor and Common council,
is an impact that can be addressed at the grading permit
stage after the project has been approved. The Public
Works/Engineering Department determined that the information
provided for the subject site was adequate.
Traffic and circulation was evaluated by the City Traffic
Engineer and determined that the information provided was
sufficient to warrant mitigation measures and no further
o
o
Mayor and Common Council
Appeal of BBC Decision
276 East Commercial Road
Page 2
o
Agenda
o
Item
o
studies based upon cumulative impacts.
Noise was addressed in a report prepared by George E.
Leighton on April 9, 1990. The mitigation Reporting/Monitor-
ing Program requires additional testing to be performed prior
to the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy.
The ERC was satisfied with the steps that the applicant was
proposing to lessen the visual impacts of the project to the
adjacent residential uses.
o
The ERC approved the project on June 21, 1990, subject to the
Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program, the Conditions of
Approval and the Standard Requirements provided by the
various departments. Prior to receiving a Certificate of
Occupancy, all outstanding issues will have to be resolved
and complied with to the satisfaction of the City.
ANALYSIS
The building located at 276 East Commercial Road is of "Tilt-
Up" wall construction, vertical concrete wall panels
constructed while laying horizontal to the ground, allowed to
cure and then hoisted into vertical position with a crane.
The majority of industrial type buildings in the City of San
Bernardino (along with most other cities in Southern
California) are being built the same way.
c
Because of the nature of construction, "Special Inspections"
are required by Section 306 of the California Building Code.
This Special Inspection is usually done by an engineering
company and hired by the developer to ensure that
construction is done according to the City approved plans.
The Special Inspector submits copies of his daily reports to
a certified testing laboratory for review by a licensed
engineer. After tests are made for concrete strengths, and
all reports are reviewed by the laboratory, copies are then
sent to the City Building department for review.
The Building was built without city Planning and Building
Code approval; however, there were no inspections waived nor
were there any inspections left off the reports that would
lead the City of San Bernardino Building Division to believe
that the structure was not built in accordance with City
approved plans, nor anything that indicates that the Building
is unsafe. Although the plans were not approved at the time
of construction, the project in question was done in the same
manner as any other building of this type. The difference
being that the Developer used private Special Inspectors to
also do the inspections, which are normally done by City
Inspectors. Once the City of San ~rnardino plan checked and
approved the plans, the Building Division checked the Special
Inspection Reports against the City approved plans to
determine if the building was in compliance.
o
o
c
o
-
o
Mayor and Common Council
Appeal of BBC Decision
276 East Commercial Road
Page 3
o
Agenda Item
o
The one issue (item No. 8 of Mr. Gonzales' letter) which
could have been of concern was carefully reviewed. The
structural engineer that designed the wall panels presented a
letter with his Engineering stamp and testified at the Board
of Building Commissioners (BBC) meeting of August 3, 1990,
that the one structural change in question was done with his
knowledge and approval, which he considers designed to be
structurally safe.
The Staff Report (attached) presented to the Board of
Building Commissioners on August 3, 1990, addresses all
issues concerned, as well as explains the Uniform Codes and
Special Inspection Reports.
The Board of Building Commissioners, at the August 3rd
meeting, were hesitant about making a decision due to the
public attention this project has created. The
Commissioner's hesitancy should not be construed as an
incompetent decision.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
The Mayor and Council may deny the appeal of the Board of
Building Commissioner's decision (upholds Staff's position),
or uphold the appeal, specific items not in compliance with
the Building Code and/or accepted Engineering principals
(overturns Staff's position), or continue the item for 30
days and direct Staff to hire a third party Building Code
Plan Check/Engineering firm to review the eight (8) Building
Code issues.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council deny the appeal, based upon the
Board of Building Commissioners decision that the appeal is
without merit.
Prepared by:
Jack Masters,
Senior Building Inspector
and Patti Nahill,
Associate Planner
for Larry E. Reed,
Director of Planning , Building Services
A - Appeal to Board of Building commissioners
B - Board of Building Commissioners Case
Material
Exhibits:
C - Appeal to Council
o
o
o.
~~o
(j
o
June 29, 1990
Michael Lindseth, Chairperson
Planning Gommision
City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, California 92401
Re: project no.90-13
Dear Mr. Lindseth
.0.
I wish to file this appeal on the project known as 9Q-13
(Rodgers Bindery Bldg ) on the Development Review Committee and
Environmental Review Committee of June 21, 1990.
The facts are stated in the attached letter from Richard
Gonzalez. These are a few of the items I am concerned about, but
not necessarily all that I have.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions relating to this
matter.
o Sincerey---
c
ris Saldecke
1155 Harris Street
San Bernardino, California 92411
(714)888-9880
encl.
,~
7.3
ATTACHMENT "A"
.
o
o
c
.
o
o
_.
o
o
June 21, 1"0
Michael Lin~e1:b, Cha1l:pU'.o~
Planning commi.sion
city or San Barnardino
300 N. "0" Street
San Bernardino, california 92401
Dear Mr. Lindseth'
I wish to appeal the approval by the Development and Bnvironmental
Review Committee ot items 90-13 on JUne 21, 1990. The qrounds tor
the appeal are based on serious violations of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code reqarding building construction. No member of the
Building and Satety Department was pre.ent at the June 21st
meeting. The chairman, Mr. Montqomery, indicated the committee was
not interested in buildinq-safety issues at that time.
As you know, no testimony was allowed at any ot the prior planninq
commi.sion meetinqs ot May 24, June 5, nor June 19 of 1990.
Consequently, no testimony regarding buildinq and safety matters
has be.n heard at any of the noticed hearings. Furthermore, the
committee totally iqnored its own voluminous report. which
recommended a tlat denial of both items 90-5 and 90-13
For the record, I would like to inform you I am a Certitied
Building Inspector (lCBO #11725), a Certified Building Official
(CABO #973) and a licensed General Building Contractor #524325.
I inspeoted the building on April 15, April 20, April 28, 1990.
I also took pictures beginning with the April. 20th visit. The
building is within eyesight of my home and I was merely curious at
tirst about the construction.
When it became obvious to me that the local Sun Newspaper was
m18sing part. to the whole story, I personally purchased the
Superior Court documents of April 9, 1990, and the Planning
Department Staff reports on items 90-5 and 90-13. I also
interviewed various members of City statt.
I personally examined the "approved" structural plans on May 29,
1990 at the Building Department. These plans were "approvad" by
Willdan and Assooiatas on March 23, 1990. I submit my fineUnqs to
you in the hope that the City does not adopt any liability to
itself nor establish a pattern of peraittinq unsafe or illegal
construction in our ar.a.
o
o
c
o
o
o
o
Hr. Li~e1::b
Papa
. The app~ecS pla..r
1.
"Waive footing ancS foundation inspections." The Uniforlll
Building Code Ig81, Seotion 305(e), requires founda~ion
inspeo~ion and does not permit any waiver.
The plans lacked a structural wet stamp trolll the
s~ructural Engineers - STB.
The plans lacked any plUlllbing, lIIechanical.or electrical
speoitications or drawings.
The plans were "approved" Karch 23, but by this time all
the structural concrete had been poured. We canno~ know
it the special inspectors supplied by the builder saw the
same set at plans.
The Unitorm Buildinq COde, Table 5-A, prohibits any
openings tor this type of building l..s than tive feet
frolll any property line, ie: A door on Waterman Avenue
is not permitted.
There is no report ot roof sheathing nailinq inspeotion
in any of the docUlllents. This is one of the 1II0S~ crucial
required inspections .s the roof diaphra9111 holds up the
concrete panels.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. The plUlllbinq syste. uses plastic sewer drain and roof
drain lIIaterial. Thi. in no lonqer permitted under
california PIUlllbing Code. a. of l,gO.
I. On Karch 5, U'O, the special in.pector noted that "the
chord bar i. 2 feet below the roof ledger and we have no
reinforcing at the ledger-. This appear. to be ~he 1II0.t
serious flaw in the building. The s1:rUo~ural detail. in
the plan. oall for very exaot poai.t:ioning of reinforcing
steel vi.-a-vis anebor bolts, and the roof ledger staole.
A .ediUIII .ized quake will in all likelihood damage the
shear value of the concrete wall panel.. This would
result in a roof oollapse at the perillleter.
A. you Jcnow, thi. p8Z'llit proe... i. eOlllpl1!Xted becau.e the builder
started without approved plan. and pez'IIit.. The City cannot ea.ily
let: a building perjU.t: be issued now a. it would ac:c:rqe many un.een
liabilitie.. % would like very Deb to pre.ent an outline which
will permit the City to over.ee e legal prooe. which will en.ure
that: this building is made .~e. % would 91adly do this in .pite
o
o
c
o 10\"'. Lin48eth
Page 3
o
o
o
that: tM.. wlldinCJ' i. made ..f.. . I would gladly do thia in .pite
of any navativ. thougbt. I lIay bave about: the appearance, u.., or
looation.ofthe wildin;. The pUblic inter..t and .afety can only
be a..urad if we undaratand thi. wUding need8 TLC frOll Engineer.,
Planner. and Cratt.llen and le.. pre..ure from political sources.
Richard Gonzalez
2!519 York Court
San Bernardino, CA.
,
. .
.
o
00
'"
9
-
iil
.
:0
'"
II
:0
.
iiL
;;
"
w
..
!::
o
00
'"
-
r
b
o
(laS' ::
.. ~ .. .
_. N
8::!;I!lO
aS~cti
!.="':so
= a-'" 0
5." .. e.rr
"..~~,!
~:;t:s fit ~
n g .. =- R.
o..=!.
"0 -. '< - c
'<<10g''''
00" =
"'=a-lea
~i"~~~.
=- (DCl.-
= ~ 3:'8c :
o 1:::l ~
~ .. ...
n" 0 Q,.::S ~
C't"'~Q:I~
-,8 - =.
. Q:I eo"
c.=::-n
c -. en::Z
-=00
'<":1=
a =; _. "-I
Q:I Q:I (') (I
=: n- n a
n n a"_.
c:>.::l.'< ~
.. -on n
"O::JoQ..
OO::!._
=,Cl._.=-
., _:In
OQ<Dn'"
G'i"c..?
o
o
_-8~M::S:S8-'-"~--OQ _
o n~no :sa(ln=-~ft ~
w"'~8cn_~"",~no""a .
... Q.;;;::l nH-o;:l C to.)
~.~c- ~~~a~ao[i~~
~~""'c .. <".~_ "0
::l.n1:~a~g1:~~~o=~~=~
~ NP- c"o" ~C'/j a n ~... ! So., '< =
_w-c.....=~::s ., 00 a-Z
~Pi=='8~o&E=o.oo~ao
O~ ~~=-- noE~...3a"~=
- -.... =".e: ...::s- n=--.n
.:.... ~ S1. .... o.::s n 'CO 0 (I ,<. ; _. nO::l CD
<i"(t;:s2E~"';-''' ne.:sOCto
~~ -n'~~1n~~~~E~~
W..a=-.......c:>. c:>...=..
w' :S"Q g fo4!. = (J n 0 =:s:=' ~
Oc:>.E.o" [S.=~o 3 0 ~elOQ n 2 g
........ .."'=-=o,.=- -... ~
~'O C'I ~ = C ;0" =;:J (t . ~ . ~ .
"OQ..... Ii" ....-aiCl'll GDe""
wa ~ 0 !,.;,!!.fo'g -.fl...!i c..(Z 0
""<.g a-.. c:>.><... = n Ie ~ _...~ 0
~ (I IY (I 0 _~ (I I>> n e. =: ::J;;"
c:>.__< _ 0= :0<'="=
-a-;;t ~ a'< c:>. "'c:>.;'o=" = 2.0'~
"''< "~~"!l .. c:>.= C.
! .... is's. ii~ e g .. ~ ~.a so 6.
'-"'=--c... -;:JoO ...-.
.. (t _.~n g-""a5"o.c 0 S f€J-
'0 a- 3 0 ~ =: a ~ il'i E.;I 3 0 l? 0
....c'" ::l.;c:>.3" -"liI.~....--a-
v.=a::r 5;" :Son -._00
'.;'<1 !l.a-OQ ;.c:>.....c:>.= ~ii= c
S?- a ;. 5: !a, CD ~ :;. fa ~ 8 Co V; D
Coon"Co:JCoMn"On n. ~
. """ a ::I S. n ..., !. CI a R' ~..cD
w::l. c:>." ir~::S a-;;t '" n.
No..,::I :-(1 Q.5. ;.., a ~Co
\O!..~oo_o""5:o!..:s_o~
-. (I...... """..... 0 I ... _'< 0... f
.-. ~ >- -
o . 0 '"
flo=-> 0 mg';1 Sil
w ="'<n .
",,10 0"><" 0
oolt a-a-~ ~ a- ~
-..c.. "'c
.-.. =:n g-;.=:o l"I1
'" ilS:~ -... c:>....M
I!! =c:>.~c:>.:;-=I!!
;;;.a'12 _.o"C:l
~. .=:s 1.-
-. . 011 0 :J
-c:>... ...."..
:sgil~~"'Waf
v.- =.G_.. =
.. S.. OQ ct :I.!.
0~2~~c8.0 0
a= O$l_...... ....
. "o~cc:n
w-c........;. i'
....!!... n:so -.
~""nc Co -
~1:"~~aQ ~
_~o..",n,<~ ..
::;:....(;'10= 111
~5=:iio::l.3.r;. I
"0 ...... o.:S !..
.....-.:sOQ- 2:
::l.=-=- a-.. 0
::--..."';.el>< e.
n=c..-." n
-~..a-"'~3 ..
10,< _. =: (I _. _
0\. :lnO :I ..._
C IJQ ..... n
.:..- 'fEa 0 '"
~ ij.-g ~ a
:I :I'" A:l I
-.nS" c :s
O<..'!c:>. Ie a
n ~ ~ ~
~~rn~g!:=g~~g~"'ar~~~;r;l ~
~ ~ =: ~ ~ :i '< 5:l!!. ~ S.'!!.::l. =:. <1 n a=:.. 0
:;S:3"~..S:~ "~5~s~~=g:;-S:0 ~
=-0=02. ..=..;'=..n.. o=-ri.=~
.. ~ " = i!t "'".... :;o!. "wan go" = =-..,
g~~n ~nog!.ga"o;'oo :<10~=~
"_'on -~" "~;.a-=- 3 ~c
f~~si ~~!#;~:=~a:~~i~~3
a-;'3~ a-!~is~~22c;5:0-. ~
'< .. .. [S. i' o. 3 = = c:>. 2 a. l? ~ <:r c:>. c:>. g;: 0
Sa-'<=o a-=. "c:>...n C E.5"2 - 1I!
35:12~ !Gioa.~=&~3~~.~g'~ ~
ac:>.-a. .~~G==-~ -N-~g " ~
OS~ ! =;~~.~;r.~i.-.o ~
fi.:;'~Clo g&'<.~c:>.;;5:g202~"': 0
i="=: ~~!il;,:::;,:;-"P3~~I~ ·
;'2~!5:g i.Clo;'G~~..~~!a~i i
G .. c:>. - ill l! .. a-", .. n", - !! e
:z ~t,ff &: r~ il:g ~ ~;l"'I~~ii :I
~3anc:>. -~5"a-aa-8~ ..Clo t
g.c:>.ao. ~!!".."'<",_n i i=~
l2Ga- aiig"-~~l=a=.._g.. ~
~aa; 1=;.&iii-OE.g...... i
~g~[~ IG~~~~;!~g~i"&:5" I
*- o~ =g5"!.~~n~~;=R2. ~
S ;0 a- oe....I=~.l"i'.. C~a- ..
~a a" '<~l5ag~~....agro,'< r
....- ... ~- ~-..::l=-=-~o==..~
:::=. 0= =-0'0=--."" "=-=nn~=- 0
~~ ...a. o........a~~a..=nMClCI~CI ~
-
o
...
!"-~."
w-.c
~~!Z
~s.n.
,...."=
",_c
.. :; =.
... 0 ii
~:S=
~ M.n
__.ft
~g<r
~.'<
.... ., c.
0="
... c:>. 3
p..~ 0
~~ s.:
~n -.
~c:>.o
-c=
-a~
.
':-~a
-..3
~ao
010 <
p~!.
......
--;'li"8;:= 0 ~a-.! a!!!'"
~w..-=-0~2..-n-...
010.... 1: .. n ~:i .. '" 0 c:>..g
.:..-&;r;;t"'=....l?c:>.!:a.a.
w=:o ;:;.c:;:~ 5i!;-;;t..1:: c:>.
.... e::s g is. g ... n ; 0 ~ 0 :.
o:lncn-o_.7i'" ....n
..." -=..... _._:1 .....-.......-c
Co - :s:rc- .-
. ~a'<;. "0~:o<':o<'~3
- _.....:rO:l==-
~~.i=!.~~'g 2.~ ~ ~'" g
QDC;r-:r tI n:i~on
- ~ .'. E ~ 2 g 5.': g ~ iJ '2/
I-a z~!== I!!"_O....O:s ""I
00. "'=-~=-~ ..
~-1;;I~ 5." 0 G ;=~
::-'n- ~_"O:Jf3" ct
"nn"=-"a.aa-..
-GtrJoeJ"Cl3 ....-s.~;-
\O~ "Oc .g~c:cs:oQ.
~ ~ 0-1'< - il'i ~ .. =- 5 _::l.'
",0 E_"'CoO":S._
.. g' > ~:;- e; 3 i!o g, ~ =-:
S?c >=."o<'n 1" c:>.;;;J::!Q,..
c:>.::S 0.. 3n_. n
. ..-1=30-.....81!tn""a=-
!;.fIlO;:;...~::I' . IT ..
~!' ~d;.!t. ~ co ~;.::a ~
10- c:" ..~~ nil';''' ....= =-
-Sj>-2"::r ::r-...==~'"
-Clo~~."'=fa-.Oli"CI
N;..~:I.:=::ll? E.8!on ~
.... n::l - (I; -. -"0 Q. 0 ::s
6' t;') fIlllO ! II g ~ s:,< a a .
I!!W =::''2 S:&.i [S.1::1l:
;;;'NOOO ::'Iili.. = 0.... = =-
~... :Jo..._=,<..=g,<o
o
:;-
l'i
~
..
=
n
..
o
>
z
C'l
m
~
S;
=
c:
F
o
Z
C'l
en
~
C'l
fIl
~
S;
=
c:
-
l"'"
o
-
z
C'l
en
o
o
o
o
o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92418
JAMES F. PENMAN
CITY ATTORNEY
17141384-6355
July 10; 1990 \~
~Chris Saldecke
1155 HarriB Street
San Bernardino, California 92411
Richard Gonzalez
2519 York Court
San Bernardino, California 92408
RE: Appeal of Development Review Committee/Environmental
Review Committee Approval of Review of Plans 90-13
Dear Mr. Saldecke & Mr. Gonzalez:
o
This letter is to inform you that your appeal of the above-
referenced project has been rejected by the City of San
Bernardino because it does not raise issues which are relevant to
an appeal of the DRC/ERC's decision on June 21, 1990. On that
date, the DRC/ERC approved Review of Plans 90-13 and adopted a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Reporting/Monitoring Program pursuant to the California
Environment Quality Act.
Resolution 84-91, states that:
"The review of plans shall determine whether
the plans and proposals comply with the
affected departments' specifications and
requirements, and development standards
prescribed in the San Bernardino Municipal
Code, the provisions of this and other
resolutions of the Mayor and Common Council,
and standard procedures established by the
Planning Department with the approval of the
Mayor and Common Council."
Resolution 83-48, Section 3 outlines the intent and purpose of a
Review of Plans. That section describes the Review of Plans as:
c
HE:mg\89-13plan.ltr
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
"a visual, factual document which may be used
to determine and control the proposed
physical layout, design, and use of a lot or
parcel of land, buildings or structures...."
Your appeal of Review of Plans 90-13 raises issues of whether the
building has been constructed in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code and the Uniform Plumbing Code. These issues do not
involve the project's design and development plans and the City's
development standards.
The Director of Planning & Building Services will place on the
agenda of the Board of Building Commissioners for their August
3, 1990 meeting, your letter of appeal raising issues regarding
the construction of the building. Because these issues must be
resolved before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for this
building, the Board of Building Commissioners has jurisdiction
over these matters.
I have. requested the PI,annincJ"" Bg,~~~S.ervic~.D~Ilt;"~,Cf;;
process and returnjlt.refund ofyoUrl;.~!.k:f.e. ..;;~"'!', .0.,.;"'.... ';,sp-_
, :'....~...--
Please contact me if you have any questions.
V~'~
HENRY EMPENO, JR.
Deputy City Attorney
HE:mg
cc: James F. Penman, City Attorney
Mayor Holcomb & City Council
Michael Lindseth, Planning Commission Chairman
Larry Reed, Director of Planning & Building Services
HE:mg\89-13plan.ltr
2
--.
o
o
c
o
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
1.
h-
~GBNDA 0
FOR RBGULAR HBBTING OF
TO CITY OF SU BB1UIARDINO
BOARl) OF BUILDING COMHIS8Ionas .
AUGUST 3, 1990
9:00 A.M.
CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH '0' STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418
CALL TO ORDER AT
.
-'-
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF DATE
4. SWEARING IN OF THOSE GIVING TESTIMONY
5. AUDIENCE: PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA
ITEMS. (Note: Please limit items to five minutes per
speaker)
o
PLANNING , BUILDING SERVICES
ITEM NO.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
REPORT/PROJECT NO. 90-3687~
LOCATION: 307 NORTH MACY
OWNER(S): JOSEPH FIORENZA
PLANNING , BUILDING SBRVICBS
ITEM NO.
7.
8.
lIE. BUSInSS
REPORT/PROJECT NO. 90-3748 '.
LOCATION: 2607 NORTH 'I' STREET
OWNER(S): ROOSEVELT MILLER JR.
REPORT/PROJECT NO. 89-3357"...
LOCATION: 598 SOUTH GIFFORD
OWNER(S): MOUNIR RISHA
PAGE -1-
ATTACHMENT nB"
o
BOARD. OJ' BUILDQ COHKIQONBRS
AUGUST 3, 1l1l10
AGBNDA
o
o PLANNING , BUILDING SBRVICBS
HBW BUSINESS
ITEM NO.
9.
=,~NO"R&PO~~K~ ~~, ';_,
LOC14~ 27_6~~i.CClI -'~_IIC.~',
Owftt~~8~ITZ .
". ... .
10.
ATTACHMENT 'A' - ABATEMENT COSTS:
ABATEMENT COSTS: COST ASSESSMENTS FOR
OWNERS/PARCELS, AS LISTED ON PLANNING
& BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
NUISANCE ABATEMENT ATTACHMENT 'A'
PUBLIC SBRVICBS
WEBD ABATEMENT
ITEM NO.
1.
o
2.
3.
APN# 281-081-02 & 281-081-03
OWNER(S): ROBERT C. NEWMAN II
APN# 136-072-26
OWNER(S): LUIS T. GONZALES
APN!# 139-032-35
OWNER(S): ENOCH LEE
APN!# 138-033-18 & 138-034-08
OWNER(S): ROSCOE SAPP
APN# 143-361-24
OWNER(S): SETRAK M. OAOERIAN
4.
5.
6.
EXHIBIT 'A' - WEED ABATEMENT COST
ASSESSMENTS FOR OWNER/PARCELS AS
LISTED ON PUBLIC SERVICES EXHIBIT 'A'
PAGE -2-
o
-
-
,0
BOARD OF
BUILDING QMMISSIQRS
NEW BUSINESS
AUGUST 3, 1990
o
AGENDA ITEM
o
ITEM NO. 9
NO REPORT/PROJECT NUMBER
LOCATION: 276 E. COMMERCIAL RD.
CURRENT ZONING: IL
OWNER: MERV SIMCHOWITZ
CONTRACTOR: ICON GENERAL CONTRACTORS
APPELLANT: CHRIS SALDECKE
BACKGROUND:
This project was started without building permits, causing much public
discussion and many newspaper articles.
The first step in the City approval process was to obtain approval from
the City'S Development Review Committee. (D.R.C.)
An appeal to D.R.C. further review the project along with a list of
construction deficiencies was submitted on June 29, 1990. The Building
Official and City Attorney denied ,the appeal on grounds technical
building code issues must be heard by BBC. The items at issue were
analyzed by building code staff and found to be without merit. Based on
this finding the plans were approved and a permit was issued by the City
Planning & Building Services Department on July 13, 1990.
<:) The appealant(s) are appealing the staff findings to the BBC.
STAFF FINDING:
Each construction deficiency was researched by building code staff in
accordance with attached construction inspection reports, along with the
approved plans. The findings were that each issue was invalid, and that
the construction was in accordance with the engineer's design and the
requirements of the Uniform Codes.
Mr. Gonzales may not have had all the information that was needed prior
to listing his concerns.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To deny the appeal based on the findings.
BBC/276 E. Commercial Rd.
o
o
o
o
o
o 0
o
o
o
c
-
. .0' Df'l'EROFFICE MEMORANDUM: t"\107-43ot"'\ 0
. Bui1dinq Code Issues RaiM. concel9f'inq Buildinq at Commercial
street
July 9, 1990
paqe 2
4. J:88UBI The Plans were approved on March 29, 1990, but
by this time the structural concrete had been poured.
.
J'DmnrGI As of July 3, 1990, the Buildinq Department
has not, as indicated above, issued pel'lllits: therefore,
no plans have been approved. However, all the private
buildinq inspection reports app_r to correspond with
the plans submitted to the City (Wildan Enqineerinq) for
plans checkinq.
5. J:8SUBI Unifol'lll Buildinq Code Table 5A prOhibits any
openinq for this type of buildinq less than five feet
from a property line.
J'IRDIJrGI The access door on Watel'lllan Avenue is
closer to ten (10) feet from the property line; however,
Section 504 (a) of the Unifol'lll Buildinq Code states a
Centerline of the adjoininq street (public way) shall be
considered to be the property line (see attachment "C").
The centerline exceeds ten (10) feet.
ISSUBI There is no report of roof sheathinq nailinq
inspection in any of the documents.
I.
7.
J'IRDIJrG: Roof sheathinq was inspected by a private
buildinq aqency (see Attachment "0").
J:SSUB: The p1umbinq system uses plastic sewer drain
and roof drain material.
J'DmI.G: Plastic roof drain material is acceptable for
use in a combustible co_ercial construction and in
residential construction not more than two (2) stories
in heiqht (see attachment "E"). For further information
please call Mr. Jack Kerin, Department of Housinq and
Co..unity oeveloplaent Division of Code and Standards,
P.O. Box 1407, Sacramento california, "95812-1407, (906)
445-9471 or the california State Buildinq Standards'
eo.mission (916) 323-6363.
e. J:SSUBI The Chord bar is two feet below the roof ledqer
and there is no reinforcinq at the ledqer.
J'DIDJ:BGI Accordinq to William R. Bloom, President of
STB Structural Enqine.rs, Inc., the chord bars beinq
low.red "does not compris. the structural adequacy of
th. buildinq." (se. Attachment "1"") .
o
o
o
:. 0 :IJf'1'EROF1"J:CE MEMORANDOK: ('\,.,7-43010 0
. Buildinq Code :Issue. Rai.X- conceminq Buildinq at Commercial
Street
July 9, 1990
paqe 3
Based upon lIlY tindinqs, I believe the builcUnq was built in
substantial coapliance with the City ot San Bernardino
Buildinq t:ode and is structurally sate, per the desiqn
standards ot the City ot San Bernardino Buildinq Code. I am
available to an_er any additional questions which may be
raised concerninq this buildinq.
.
cZuL
ex MASTERS,
Senior Building Inspector
/lIItb
.
.D: iRVINE '~CNS~TING ~ TEL NQ:7149517S69
o ~ClOUNTY
- ,"::;~~=:..-'
A-
1M .:~:
-~IlITI"
....::rIliF'Ax...__
IIUND .......
,. ClIlUlII,.. U11I.III1IM
_A-,CA_'.-
I7l4Ir1411 All crMl__
COI/IlIlNG WOIlIC ~1l-"ClRMID .
WHICH REQUIIlID~AL IV
THE Il'ECO'L .......CTOtI ~
.1lIIN~ COHCIlITI
C I'QIT.TIHIIONIO COIiiCIlITI
C ....Nl'OllCIO lot"lOHR'f
C ITIIUCT. ITUL .Im
~ STIlUCr.ITEEL. ~
o
. ~:..
REPORTING REQUIREMINTS: Only - _ /lCI. rellOltecl lie' IIlMl. I_Illy \Wle 01--. IIeIll , 1I*lIIc.... ~ecI t1Io<<.
grtCIIlnft, IIC.I: IClenllly" joInle _n In--.g _11llCI-'; Icllllllly _P1IC1/rej1C1IC1_ bv 1I11ll1llCl1OlCillc 1ocI11an;_reI
IilJobIllOlllIIlllIllCl DISCUSSIONSwIIIleontrectOr.An:1lIt1Cl, InOln_~_.lllOumollll.llliallllHld.nd_lIlIllallen:wnll
ClllIIIealton 0' --. re'lrenclng IlIlIIiecl _. 1_1lIca1lOnl, IllCI ~ 1IlaN atfdIor 1Ilo1l drawmga.
--....-..-
..
o
UI:-IIa .a~;... UJay I
:. III
;L.];-~ "j
.1?.J.""f IAI'U
Lt" .,P ~...
I
A-..,IMl~
I
~
o
........ -...... aD..... _~ 10 llII...- PIMI and .~ .llnoa_ _ .l1li'...... _ _..., . II
~
CIl.I .....
-.
~
---
c
o
o
-
-
-
-
_-09-'90 ,"",'1" 11.J:u,VINlO. ~Tl/'6 GR TEl- NJ:7149517'369
~19 p~(
UIIDI~
-~"<<.....
.... llA_
..._,_ ~ .111_
tNl.MD __
'-~~UlI.
(Nt ~__
-,
.-,
o...J.o. CClUlln'
rn::=~rJ..
~
..- t":\ICG
~ int:Orpo1r1Jl!d
SPECIAL INSPECTOR'S REPORT
-
'-
COYIIIING ~ IlIIU'OlIMID
_ICM IIIQUlIllD ~AL IV
THlll'lClo\L INII'ICTCHI OF
C IlIINl'OIlCID coNCllm
8 POIT.TINIlOHIDCONCI'm
. IlIINFOIlCIO MAlON""
C snlUCT. 1TIIL.1m
C ~~,1ltOP
C 1M .,
....
-
REPORnNG REQUIREMENTS: Only _ """" no. rellOrlecllMlr .h.... '""lily type 01 -"- II.... a Il*llflc ._ ~ ,.,.
grtcllln... .tc.); idtInlily ..1/0ln1l_1lIIIIICIIn9 w...na DelIla; ldenllfy _lIIld1rljlCtlCl_ by llem _ ...... '-IIDlI:-.I
.11 1011 DrObl.m.ana DISCUSSIONSwtlhConl..ctor.AnlhillCl, Ena'_.tc.;__IOl....lIn.. ,*CICI.naNlllPlH_ _
cenlllcltion 01 -"- re,...ncinglDplllCl cocII.lIMICiliCIllonl, and '11-" pI.n. .rw4l0t .nop drawlllp.
. OAT.
~
~ _~._"""_._":"'A____"".___. '_
~ ? .3./-~" . ~~t1~ LLt!4..-
...... 0Mrt..... ~ __
. . --
- --f,..
IOM04
UNIFORM BUILDING COOE
WIll ia dIo1 story and no single opening shall hue 1ft..... pealer dIan 120 square
feeL
All opeaia.. ia floors forming a "three-hour rll'O-resistive occupancy sepora_
lion" sbaJJ be prntKllOd by venieaJ enclosures extending above and below such
openinp. The WIlls of such vertical enclosures shall be of DO( less dIan two-hour
lire-nsislive conslnlCtion and all openinp lbereia shall be prntKflOd by a rll'O
IIIIlDIbIy havinea one and one-half-hour rll'O-JllllfC'lion raliDe.
3. A "two-hour rue-resistive occupancy 5epIrIlion - shall be of DO( Ie.. than
lWOohour rll'O-resislive COIISU'IIClion. AU opeaiap ia such separation shall be
prnteOlod by a rue ....mbly having a one and one-half-hour rue-prnIeClion
raIiDc.
4. A ......hour rue-resislive occupancy 5epIrIlion" shall be of 1IOI1e.. than
one-hour rue-resistive con5lrUCtion. All opeaiap in such seporation shall be
proIeCllOd by a rue ....mbly havinea one-hour rue-pnlIedion mine.
(d) fin Rallnp for Occup,oDC1 Separal...... Occupancy separations shall be
provided between lhe vorious groups and divisions of occupanc:ies IS sel fordl in
nb1e No. '-I.
EXCEPTIONS: I. A--bour____maybe__.
Group A. Division lor. Group I Oc:cuJllllCY 1IId. Group B. Division I Oc:cuJllllCY
_nclusi..ly forrheparl:in.or_oIpri_or........-type__
aod provided no repair or foelin. is clone. A -OCCUJllllCY........... may be
..... -... Group A. Division 2. 2.1. 3ar4ar E Oc:cupoocy Illd. Group B.
DiYisiaa 1 Oc:cupoocylhalisUJCd...lusiwlyforrheportli..or_ofpri_ar
pIoasoue-lype - >ehieles and provided......... or foeU.. is clone.
2. Ua1ess roqujnd by Saelioa 702 I.,. die __boor CICCUJlIlICY sepanIioa
-. Group R. Division I Oc:cupoocy 1IId. Group B. DiYisiaa I Oc:cupoocy
..... oaly far rhe JlIIl<inI or __.. of pri_ ar pIeasuno-oypc ...... vdlieles_
lIO.......arfueUqmaybe_..IWO-.. Such__ioa maybe
-_..one hour _rhe _01_ Group B. Division I Oc:cupoocy
--_3000__.
3. In rhe _OCCU_ __ _. Group R. Divisioa 3111d M
0.......-.,. .... sepanIioa may be limited..dIe ....._ 01_""'-
for__rue-misli.._... dIe_ sidellld.scJf..losiDI.Ii...._
r-._ __I'Ioinebosin_willbepamillOd inlieuof.___
1InI_y. rue dampen.- _ be _ ia air _ pili'" _p rhe
...u.1Ioor ar..mo........... Gnlup R. Division J 0...""""" from. Group M
- I -i. provided such _ wilhin rheOnlup M Oc:cupoocy "'_01
_bavia..Ihie__.........O.OI'iodlINo. 26pl_......pu..,and
-1IO~ioIOrheOroupM~
La lkInon Property
See.'" (a)~. luildiap sbaJJ adjoiloorhave_llIapublic way or
yont.. -.... diu one side. RequiRd y.- sbaU be perIIIIIIeIIlIy ....i...;....,
S' Farlllo purpcIIe of IbiI seclion. lIIo _Iiae of 1ft adjoiniac public way shaU
l.. be '., fM an adi-ol poapeny line.
ea- _nquised windcni.s shaU be 1IO(....1han 30 inches f'nlm.... side and
-JIIlIPIftY u-. For.._. see Seelion 1710.
M
-
-
~a-
SPECIAL INSPECTOR'S REPORT
COVERING WORK PIIU'OIlMED
WHICH REQUIIIED APPIIOYAL IY
THE lII'ECIAL I~ OF
~f1i lID
AP~ ?,.5 199Q
'1:-._. D
. . i- ::;:.~".liCmfAADIHO
.RElNI'ORCID'llO~_HQ' C STRUCT. STEEL. SITE
C PO$T.TENSlONBr. ICES C ~uct ~. ~
C REINfORCED MASON C AA~ /""'1
~':"
IAIl DlE~NTY
__ 1CII
..... DIlDO. .
",,,_1IC11 FAX.",_,.
.LAIlD .....
---lMI.lUIIIlII
-. "HlII. CA..,.
(7l~mcrz FAXC7MI__
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: Only one permit no. reponed per .....t Identify type 01 -'<. ilem , IIleCIfic area ~ec1 (_.
grldllne.. etc.); idenllfy alljoinla when inapec\lng _Ida and IIolIa; idenllfy accePledlrejKled _rt< lly ilem and apeciIIc IOcaIIon; r_
alljob problema and DISCUSSIONS willi Conlraclor. Arellite\. Engin..ral~ record amount 01 materiel placectancl.....1lIU taken; ....t.
c.nlflcllllon 01 -'<. ref.rencing allQll.d code. _lIicallon.. and allll_ plana ancllor ahop drawinga.
INSP. !lATE /
o
-. all_ conforma to ..........- plane _ apeclllca_ ancl_''ca'" _ _ ....._
"orO:J LL t',o
"_~A?t:J
-..-
c..
-
.-
.
-
/:1//<':' ,'7.1";'&/./7-
o DRAINO SYSTEMS
--1
--"..,;
37
.
CHAPTER 4
DIlAlNAGE SYSTEMS
...",. Mtft u./tc. ChIIplrIr 4:
[Otwsss]
Adopt Mil,. U.RC. CMptw '" WftJt .,.,. -1t1men,.:
[SSC, HCDI1, HCD4, OSHPD. DHS]
NOTE: .. MMrbc Adoption ApP<</dfJt
SectIon 401-M11Nri8la
(a) DI8inage piping shall be CUI iron, 9alvInizecllleel, galvanizecl
WIQUgIIt Iron, lead, COpper, brus. ASS, pve, extra lIlIwngth vilriflecl day
pipe, 01' 0lI1er lIpproyecI matellaJa having a IIIlClOlh ancI unlfonn bot8,
~lrIat:
(1) No gaNan;zecl wrought Iron 01' galvanized IlMl pipe IIlalI be leecl
unclerglOllllcl ancIlIlall be kept at least six (6) Inches (152.4 mm) above
ground.
f (2) ASS 01' PVC InatalIaaon. -1irnII8CI to IWk1entiIII CCII7aIrucIian, not ~
_111M lito (2) mzn.. in height. ~
(3) No VfIlffIed day pipe 01' fIIIfnga IIlaII be U8Id Iboww ll1'OUnd or Where
PIWIWIzed by a pUmp 01' ejeem They IIlaII be kepc at....1WeIw (12)
lnc:Iles (.3m) below ground.
(b) Drainage Iltt/ngs shall be 01 cast Iron, malleable iron, lead,
bras, COpper, ASS, pve, vltrlflecl clay, or other Bppro..,d materials
having a Smooth interior wat_ay 01 the same diameter as the pip.
Ing SerY8Cland all such lilllngs shall conlorm to the type 01 pipe Used.
(1) FillingS on screwecl pipe shall be 01 the ~secl drainage
type. Burr8CI ends shall be ream8CI to the lull bot8 01 the pipe.
(2) The threads 01 drainage IilllngS shall be tapped so as to allow
one lourth (%) inch per loot 120.9 mm/m) grille.
In...... 402-FIxtunl Unit EqulvalMte
The unit equivalent 01 Plumbing lixtures shown In Table 4-1 shall be
buecI on the size 01 the trap requir8CI. and the unit equivalent of fix.
tures and devices not Shown in Table 4-1 shall be bas8CI on the rated
d/8CIlarge capacity in gpm (gallons per minute) (II... per MCOndI in
acconIance with Table 4-2.
Maximum trap loadIngs lor sizes up to lour (4) inches (101.6 mml
are as follows:
-
.
e
e
e
1 '~". (31.8 mm)- 1 unit
1 Va" - (38.1 mml-3 units
2" . (50.8 mm)_4 units
3" . (76.2 mml-8 units
4" . (101.8 mml-8 units
&c.pt'on on "'f-servlce laUndries.
'nllwt 403-_ of Dra...... PIpIng
(aI The minimum 11_ of vertlcat andlol hor......1a/ drainage pip.
Ing ...., be det_n8C1 from the tm.. of alllixtura unite CDnnectecl
"*-to, and additional, in the _ of vertlcat dra/nage pipes. In .0.
COfdance with their length. _
-'-"'''''' ........""c:;
f, the alterae' in SUCh system shall con-
O~l"is ClId
All parts of PlumIlIng systems of any
.t Is ~ from one fOUndation to another;
'IlOther, shall be complet.,y tested as p,.
section for new WOftc, except that w.,'s or
III during SUCh teat when other equlvalent
~ to the Administrative Authority ...
;~nSP8CtIOn shall be required whera a
th.reof, is set up for .xlllbltlon purposas
h a watar or dralnag. systam~ . .
as wh.ra It WOUld be Impractlca' to pro-
.t.r or air tasts, or for minor installations
tive Authority, at his dlscr.tlon, may maka
ms advlsabl. in Ord.r to assura himself
formed in aCCOrdanc. with tha Intant of
'Ptors-Showar recaptors shall be t.sted
19 with watar to the leve' of tha rough
II be so plaCed that both upper and under
subjected to the t.st at the pOint whera it
Olpe-Inspectlon and repair shall con-
MO Installation Standard IS 13, listed in
ga systam of any pramlsas under tha
Illva Authority shall be malntainad In a
:ondltlon by the owner Or his agant.
ructlon
Jhall be deemed to require a changa In
or drainage syst.m or any other work
n an .xistlng bUilding or lot whan SUCh
ltalned in acCOrdanca with law In affect
S Code, except when any SUCh Plumbing
'rk regulated by this Code Is determined
Iy to be in fact dangerous, un..f., in-
nenace to lIta, heelth or Prclll8lty.
ty
a~' Provisions of this eoaa fails to
I, r any other dang.rous or In-
i health or "faty hazards, the
Jta such adcIltlonal PlUmbing and
<a such rapalra or altaratlons as may
.. Authority.
:lde, or the application thereof to any
Invalid, the remalllller of the Code, or
n to other P8rSona or clrCUmetances,
~
'erance is made to an aPll8lldlx, the
lOt apply un.... specificallY adopted.
U....AINAI>E SYSTEMS
o 0
037
CHAPTER 4
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
Slalfo.oJ 401-Materlala
(a) Dra/naga piping shall be cast Iron, galvanized st..I, galvanizect
wrought iron, lead, COpper, bra... ASS, PVC, axtra strangth Vitrified
clay p/pe, or other approved materials haVing a smooth and uniform
bore, axcapt that:
(1) No galvanized Wrought Iron or galvanized steel pipe shall be us-
ed underground and shell be kept at la..t six (8) Inches (152.4 mm)
above ground.
2. (2) ASS and PVC DWV piping Installations shall be limited to
those structur.. where combustible construction Is allOWed.
(3) No vitrified clay pipe or fittings shall be USed above ground or I
whare praaauriZed by a pump or ajector. They shall be kapt at least I
twel". (12) Inches (.3m) below ground.
(b) Drainage fittings shall be of caSI Iron, malleabla Iron, lead,
brass, copper, ASS, PVC, vitrified Clay, or Olher apProY8d malarials
haVing a Smooth Inlarlor watarway of tha sama diameter .. the pi~
Ing sarved Snd all such fittings shall conform to lhe Iype of pipe used.
(1) Fittings on screwed pipe Shall be of lhe rec...., drainage
type. Burred ands shall be reamed to lhe full bora of the pipe.
(2) Tha Ihreads of dralnaga fittings shall be lapPed so as to allow
ona fourth (%) inch per fOOl 120.9 mmlm) grada.
Section 402-F1xture Unit EqUivalents
Tha unit equivalanl of Plumbing flxtur.s shown in Tabl....1 shall be
baaed on the siza of lhe Irap required, and Iha unit equivalent of fix.
tures and devlc.. not sllown in Table...1 shall be baaed on the rated
dlacharge capecity in gpm (gallons per minuta) (liters per seconct) In
aCCOrdance with Tabla "'2.
Maxlmuni trap loadings for sizea up 10 four (4) inches (101.8 mm)
..... follows:
I
,
1%". (31.8mm)_1 unit
1 Yo" . (38.1 mml-3 units
2" . (SO.8 mm)-4 units
3" . (78.2 mm)-8 units
4" . (101.8 mm)-8 units
Exception on self.serVice laUndries.
SectIon 403-SIze of Drainage Piping
(a) The minimum sizea of vertical and/or horlzonlal drainage pl~
Ing Shall be determined from the lotal of all flxlure units connected
"*-to. 8Ild acldltlonaJ, In the _ of vertical drainage p/pes, In ac-
COrdance wilh lheir length.
(b) Table 4-3 shows lhe maximum number of flxlure units allowacl
o
.
.
e
.
e
e
e
MA'oADOPTlON APPeNDIX
UCUCUG"Jcucucucu<u<uCU<UCUCU
-I
I:
i
= I II I I 1 I I I I I 1
I I 11111111111
I I 111111 I 1111
. I 11111111111
II I 1 I I>c I I >c>c I 1
II 11111111111
I I I1111111111
I I >c I I>c 1 I I I I I I
12 I >c1>c1I11I111
i~ I I I II I I II I I I
1U1>c I I II I I II I I I
II 1>c1I11I11I1
1-1 >c>c I I I I I I I 1 I
~ I >c1>C\IIIIJIII
II >c L I>c I >c>c>c I >c>c
. . . . . . . . . . .
., .. . . . . . . . . .
. ...........
. ...........
lilli' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
., ..........
. . . . . . . . . .
:l:l ..........
. . . . . . . . . .
It ..........
. ... . . . . . .
. .. . . . . . . .
. ON . . . . . . .
"I ~j!: 1!:a ~ 1!:i
i-i---.........
, -------
...........
:')
ucucucuc
lJ I
II
. I
>c>c
>c>c
II
II
>c>c
>c>c
>c>c
.,. .
~~I' ~
~~ .
It ~
"I.
o
o
.0
I
I
I
'0
cSr:-, 0
STB STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS INC.
o
~
MAIUNCI ADDfIIES.: ".0. 1I0X 10.2.
NEWP'ORT BEACH. CALI'ORNIA .2.15~2.
TELEPHONE: ('71 ~I 7158.125.
'AX: 171.175.'571
PRINCIPALS
WILLIAM R. BLOOM
DOUGLAS S. THOMPSON
DAVID R. NELSON
PAUL G. PITCHER
51! 2273
SE 2157.
5E 25153
SE 2158 I
August 3, 1990
ASSOCIATE
JOHN W. LAWSON
SE 3270
City of San Bernardino
Building & Safety Department
300 N. "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92404
Attn: Mr. Dean Pagel
Subject: Roger's Binding & Mailing
San Bernardino, CA
STB Job No. 90-019
Dear Mr. Pagel:
The precast concrete wall panel reinforcing for this project has
been questioned again. In particular, the chord reinforcing bars
were requested to be located below the roof ledger. This change
was reviewed by us at the time. This is structurally acceptible
and does not compromise the structural adequacy of the building.
The roof ledger is adequately anchored to the precast walls. The
walls are in turn adequately reinforced at the ledger and through-
out the wall panel to provide the necessary tie between the ledger
and the chord.
INC.
00 ro fii:l r2 n \1'7 f" i:l
o t~ I~ L~ ~. \1, i?' ! r (
ru AU6 0 6 1390 L:0
CITY O~ 0$.-\;.. .:,:.;",,\,..;~;'..'. j
DEfi.':'.!'''iMEN":- c~:; ':!~:. ~NIf~~ ~
e:.i!:.omG :;,,;'i ~ ,...i::;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
AUGUST 13, 1990
,........
; ,
, I
! ;
'- '-.
AUG 1 7 1990
.~ S
J .
,..' '
f; n r:? :'-~
~
I" I
Iii I
I:J)
., ", .,'
~ ~-' ----:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
300 NORTH D STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92401
r . .. ....... :7/\"~ :-iU:~~~i;...;: ;0
r.~.. ,~ '; ~..: '_:: eC'~NNli4G &
.....:.,...:. :.;.,i\:;:;;::S
RE: APPEAL OF PROJECT RP90-13
BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS
AUGUST 3, 1990 ITEM #9
I wish to appeal the decision of the Board of Building
Commissioners of August 3, 1990, item #9 on their agenda known as
RP90-13.
The handling and presentation of this project was a disgrace and
discredit to the Board Members as well as the residents who took
time to be there. Although this was my first Meeting of The Board
of Building Commissioners, it was the worst handling of a case I have
ever seen. Those in the audience were better prepared than the Board
Members.
The Commissioners were given no staff report (see agenda) or file
to adequately prepare to make a decision regarding this project.
All they were given were the letters of appeal from Chris Saldecke
and Richard Gonzales. They asked for a five minutes recess so they
could read the letters. I knew on July 12th this project was going
before the Board of Building Commissioners. Why didn't staff make
a report and give it to the board members to research and study?
Every other item had a report and a project number except item
number 9 on their agenda. Every other meeting that takes place at
the City has back-up or a staff report. So why weren't the
Building Commissioners given the same respect?
Their decision to approve this project was made on Jack Master's,
Senior Building Inspector, verbal testimony that the building was
structurally safe. Mr. Masters stated for the record that he had
never been inside the building. How can he make a statement that
it is structurally safe when he has never been inside of the
building to inspect it. This is another rubber stamp project.
("APPEARS TO MEET CODE, BUT NEVER INSPECTED"). I thought the City
had discontinued use of that stamp. Everyone is going on someone
else's guarantee that the building is structurally safe.
ATTACHMENT "C"
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
PAGE 2
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
APPEAL RP90-13
Refering to the July 9, 1990 inter-office memorandum from Jack
Masters, Senior Building Inspector, to Larry E. Reed, Planning
& Building Services Director, addressing the building code issues
raised, concerning the bUilding at 258 Commercial Drive. It is
clear that Mr. Masters may very well have been inspecting the
wrong building. RP90-13 is located at 276 E.Commercial Road,
( not only wrong address but wrong street ).
I feel that the City has continually gone out of its way to
circumvent the planning process. At each meeting of DRC and ERC
we attended, our concerns were never addressed or answered.
There are still many environmental issues that remain unmitigated.
This project was on the agendas for the Planning Commission
Meetings the evenings of May 24, June 5 and June 19. There
were people in the audience who wished to voice their concerns
about this project, but were never able too, because it was always
continued or pulled from the agenda.
The staff report prepared for the Planning Commission Meeting of
June 5, 1990, addresses several concerns. That Commission
determined that the noise and traffic studies were inadequate for
the project. What happened to the future noise and circulation
studies that were going to be required? The Traffic Report used
for this project is the same report prepared for The Club Develop-
ment by C.G.Engineering in December 1987. This report analyzes
the traffic volumes and impact of the proposed development on the
surrounding streets and adjacent intersections. However, since
1987 substantial changes including new, significant major
development projects have occured or been approved.
This report mentions one residential development adjacent to the
street, and that current traffic volumes on the street are minimal.
In fact, the traffic is horrendous in the mornings and afternoons
because of all the new homes built in the last three years. The
traffic will be even worse after the 400 apartments across the
street, south of the building, are built. The cumulative impact of
this project has been and continues to be overlooked by the city.
This traffic report is outdated and inconsistent with the
development alan, Commercial Road. It has not been developed
as their master plan called for. Streets and intersections are
all referred to, as under capacity, or near capacity. If you have
driven down there lately, you know all the streets are over capacity
and the freeways are deadlocked in both directions during early
morning, afternoon and during and after the lunch hour. It takes
fifteen minutes to get off the 1-10 Off-Ramp at the Redlands
Boulevard Stop Sign, ( Waterman South ) which is refered to as
"NEAR CAPACITY" in this traffic report.
o
o
c
o
o
o
o
PAGE 3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
APPEAL RP90-13
This building is located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study
Zone, with high liquefaction susceptibility. The reports used
to substantiate the "approval" of this project are inadequate and
outdated. The Geotechnical report is dated 1980, the Soil Engineering
and geological control of rough grading is 1981, and the Subsurface
Engineering geology investigation is 1980. All these reports seem to
be on different parcels in the area, but none address this particular
parcel.
Staff from the City of San Bernardino's Planning Department have
found several of the environmental impacts inadequately addressed.
But still you continue to push this project thru. There are too
many unanswered questions, and too many meetings that have taken
place without public notice. It is not fair that the City has two
ttifferent policies. One for the residents of San Bernardino
and another for the Developers. Its time that everyone is treated
equally.
Perhaps in the future there may be litigation or liability
regarding this project. Because of substantial public interest
and concerns regarding this project and the way it has been
handled, the final decision should be made by the Mayor and Common
Council. This project has made San Bernardino the laughing stock
of the Inland Empire. Build now, worry about the permits later, if
and when you get caught.
Section 2.64.030 FILING NOTICE OF APPEAL (page 95) of the San
Bernardino Municipal Code states:
Any person aggrieved by, or dissatisfied
with the decision made by the commission,
may file a written notice of appeal with
the City Clerk, directed to the Common Council.
As a resident and a registered voter of San Bernardino
please accept this as my appeal, on the grounds the Board of
Building Commissioners could not make a competent decision based
on the information that was given them by Senior Building Inspector,
Jack Masters, and our environmental concerns have not been
addressed adequately. Should my appeal be rejected. I will
assume that I have exhausted my administrative remedies and may
proceed with a judicial action.
On July 10, 1990 we received a letter from Henry Empeno, Jr.
Deputy City Attorney, stating he was requesting the Planning &
Building Department to process and return a refund of our appeal
fee because our appeal was rejected. After several calls to that
department, no one knows about the refund, and no one has returned
my calls. It is well over 30 days and I wish to use $75.00 out
o
o
o
-
-
o
o
o
PAGE 4
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
APPEAL RP90-13
of that $100.00 refund as the fee for this appeal.
If you have any questions please contact me at 714 888-7859.
Very truly yours, . ;',
l1t::'toJ(~'j /~;.(Jhf
BARBARA L. SKY
CONCERNED CITIZEN
cc: MARGUERITE P. BATTERSBY,
BRUNICK, ALVAREZ & BATTERSBY
o
(
-,
lJ[}{]~ SUNSET @~@QJJ[P
September 14, 1990
, ~.
Mrs. Shauna Edwins
City Administrator
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
-''-'1
r.
RE: CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9/17/90
Appeal of Review of Plans
Dear Shauna:
This letter serves as our formal request that the above item be
continued until the October 1, 1990, meeting due to the fact that
we have never been notified by the Planning Department of the
appeal and/or the scheduling of this item for Monday's meeting.
The continuance is necessary in order for us to prepare our facts
to present to the council.
Sincerely,
/
'-
/-.:...(" .....'l._...__c .,-.........-.
Patricia Green
vice President
THE SUNSET GROUP
PG:rg
cc: Mayor Bob Holcomb
Larry Reid
The Sunset Group
225 West Hospitality Lane, Suite 100
San Bernardino, California 92408
714.381.4381 /FAX 714.888.1940
.3(,
.."
c
o
()
~
"""'\
SEPTEMBER 15, 1990
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SEPTEMBER 17, 1990
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ITEM #36
RE: APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS
BUILDING AT 276 EAST COMMERCIAL ROAD
AUGUST 3, 1990 ITEM #9
I'm requesting a continuance of the hearing of my appeal on
the basis that I have to take my mother out of town and will
be unable to attend the appeal hearing. The notice given of
this hearing was inadequate to allow me to make other plans or
arrangements.
I have been involved since the beginning of this project and
participated at all the ERC and DRC meetings. I was at all
the planning commission meetings where this project was always
continued or pulled from the agenda. This project was never
heard at any of the planning commission meetings, and the public
present were never able to voice their concerns. The planning
commission meetings are the only time people are able to attend,
because they have to work all day.
Our appeals were filed to have this project go before the
planning commissioners. We were very surprised when we were told
it was being sent to the Board of Building Commissioners. At the
hearing before the board of Building Commissioners they voted on
two motions, one of which was for the letter from the Structural
Engineer to be addressed to the City of San Bernardino. They felt
this letter would relieve the City from all liabilty. I'm not sure
this is true, as the letter doesn't say anything about relieving
the City of any responsibility. The second motion that was voted
on was staff's recommendation that the building was structurally safe
and built to code. Two of the Building Commissioners, Ponders and
Hunt, voted against this motion, leaving only three Commissioners
voting in favor of it, ( Miller, Gonzales and Pensiero). This in
itself shows there are still concerns about the structural
adequacy of the building. Yes, the Building Commissioners were
hesitant about making a decision on this project. They felt the Mayor
and Council should make the final decision.
The four major impacts of concern, liquefaction, traffic, noise
and aestetics were not evaluated during the ERC process. The staff
report dated June 5, 1990, addresses several concerns that the
traffic and noise studies were inadequate for the project. The
traffic report is outdated and inconsistent with the development
along Commercial road. ERC found that the proposed project could
-:G~ ~~
, .'
o
o
n
.........
)
.
Page 2
Appeal
have a significant effect on the environment; however, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation
measures have been established and a mitigation Report/Monitoring
Program has been prepared to reduce the impacts. Who oversees
this Mitigation Report/Monitoring Program?????? And who enforces
them?????
Staff claims liquefaction is addressed at the grading permit stage
after the project has been approved. This project didn't bother
to get grading permits or any other permits, so when do you intend
to address the liquefaction issue?? At what stage did the Public
Works/Engineer Department make it's decision that the information
provided for this project was adequate???
Why is it that prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy, all
outstanding issues will have to be resolved and complied with to
the satisfaction of the City. Why weren't these resolved before
the city gave them their building permit???
This building is of Tilt-Up Construction, it is of the same type
as the building that collapsed at Cal State Long Beach. The Special
Inspector did raise concern on March 5, 1990 that the cord bar
was not in the right place. Could this result in a roof collapse
like Long Beach? We think it could... Are we willing to take a
chance???
Mr. Jack Masters, Senior Building Inspector of San Bernardino
would like you to believe that the Building was built to code and no
inspections were waived nor were any inspections left off the
reports that would lead the City of San Bernardino Building Division
to believe that the structure was not build in accordance with
City approved plans, nor anything that indicates that the
Building is unsafe. Yet Mr. Dean Pagel, Building Inspection
Supervisor for the City of San Bernardino, in his Interoffice
Memorandum #9004-4701 of April 9, 1990 states "I have no
indication on any of the reports that the building pad was
inspected by Inspection and Testing Services. It must of
been inspected by others." Do we know if the building pad
were ever inspected by anyone???
Mr. Masters states on his Interoffice Memorandum #9007-4301
that as of July 29, 1990 the plans for this building had not been
approved yet. All inspections were made using unapproved plans.
Mr. Masters still has not explained how he determined this
building to be structurally safe, when he was never in the building
and evaluated a building at another address. Do we know for
sure, he was evaluating the right building????
The real issue of this project is that the applicant never
applied to the City for approvals, nor went through a process
which would better ensure that it is approperate for the site or
.'
o
o
r-,
\. ./
.
')
'- ./
Page 3
adequately designed or constructed. A project which is
conditioned and inspected after it is built raises so many issues
that not all of them will ever be adequately addressed.
I have several concerns with the handling of this project, and I
would very much like to address them. I believe others
(appellants and applicants) have been granted the courtesy of
advance notice of when their items would be agendized, or
their matters were continued if they had made other commitments
and hadn't received notice in time to make other arrangements so
they could attend the hearings. If you won't grant a continuance,
please take the 3rd option and continue the item for 30 days and
direct staff to hire a third party Building Code Plan Check/
Engineering firm to review the project.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
m&;dtlu, ~ -4
BARBARA L. SKY
CONCERNED CITIZEN
cc: Marguerite P. Battersby, Brunick, Alvarez & Battersby