HomeMy WebLinkAbout60-Planning and Buildingl.
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Common Council
FROM:
Dennis A. Barlow, Sr. Assistant City Attorney
DATE:
January 25, 1991
APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT NO. 198 (Civic Center Motel.)
RE:
This is a brief response to the legal issues raised by the
above appeal.
1. In reference to ground (1) and (3) each of the findings
adopted by the Planning Commission find ample support in the
record.
2. The due process rights of the Wangs were carefully
protected at all steps of the proceedings.
3. As explained to the Wang I s counsel at the Planning
Commission hearing, there is no requirement, legal or otherwise,
which precludes the City from following two remedies at the same
time.
The legal issues will be explained in more detail as they
arise at the Council meeting.
~
Sr. Assistant City Attorney
[DAB/dys/ccapl.mem]
EXHIBIT 9
en
CITY bF SAN BER~DINO - REQUEST OR COUNCIL ACTION
From:
Larry E. Reed, Director
Planning and Building Services
-,~. --,
. - ,'SU'bject:"iAPpeal of Revocation of Conditional
Development Permit No. 198 (Civic Center
Mote 1)
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
February 4, 1991, 2:00 p.m.
Dept:
Date:
January 7, 1991
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On December II, 1990, the Plannin9 Commission adopted Findings in support of
revocation of Conditional Development Permit No. 198. The vote was. 4 ayes,
1 nay, 1 abstention with 2 absent.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be denied; and, that Conditional
Development Permit No. 198 be denied based on Findings contained in Exhibit 2.
(Supports Staff recommendation and Planning Commission's action.)
OR
That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be upheld, and, that Conditional Develop-
ment Permit No. 198 hot be revoked. (Supports Owner's request.)
OR
The the hearing be closed, that the appeal be partially upheld; and, that Conditional
Development Permit No. 198 not be revoked; but that the followin9 conditions be added.
(Note: These additional conditions may be developed by the Mayor and Common Council
or referred to staff for preparation.)
i
I
i
i
i
I
I Contact person:
~~
E I'Reed Signature
Director
Larry E. Reed
Phone:
384-5057
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
^.............I... 1+.........,. 1\11"\
<DO
CITV bF SAN BERARDINO - REQUEST OR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
subject: Appeal of Revocation of
Conditional Development Permit No. 198
Civic Center Motel
Mayor and council Meeting of
February 4, 1991, 2:00 p.m.
REOUEST
To overturn the decision for revocation of Conditional
Development Permit No. 198 made by the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
Conditional Development Permit (COP) No. 198, for the con-
struction and operation of a 50-unit motel at 655 "0" street,
was approved by the Mayor and Common Council on May 13, 1960.
The approved site plan consisted of 50 units with 51 parking
spaces, a perimeter wall, a putting green and a swimming
pool. Landscaping was to be provided throughout on the site.
After a long history of code violations and criminal acti-
vity, the Director of Planning and Building Services initi-
ated COP revocation proceedings before the Planning Commis-
sion, with the first hearing scheduled for April 3, 1990.
(See Exhibit "3" - April 17, 1990 planning Commission staff
report). The chronology of subsequent hearings was as
follows:
~
April 3, 1990
April 17, 1990
May 8, 1990*
May 15, 1990
June 15, 1990
July 24, 1990
August 21, 1990
september 25, 1990
October 9, 1990*
October 30, 1990*
November 13, 1990*
Event/Result
hearing
April 17,
Planning Commission
scheduled/Rescheduled to
1990
continued to May 8, 1990
First planning Commission hearing
held and continued to May 15, 1990
continued to June 15, 1990
Continued to July 24, 1990
continued to August 21, 1990
continued to september 25, 1990
continued to October 9, 1990
Second planning Commission hearing
held and continued to October 30,
1990
Third planning commission hearing
held and continued to November 13,
1990
Fourth planning Commission hearing
held, motion was adopted to revoke
COP No. 198, but the need for the
preparation of formal Findings
delayed final Planning Commission
action until November 20, 1990
~-
.i Appeal of COP NP198 - Civic Center Motel 0
Mayor and Common council Meeting of
February 4, 1991
Page 2
December 11, 1990
December 21, 1990
December 11, 1990
Findings adopted for revocation
Appeal to Council filed
Note:
All continuances were agreed to by the owner and
the city.
The Planning commission minutes of the four hearings on the
revocation are attached for review. (These are indicated
above by an asterisk next to the appropriate dates, Exhibits
"4", "5", "6", and "7").
The statement of Official Planning commission Action (Exhibit
"2") contains the formal Findings for the revocation of COP
No. 198. The Planning commission voted 4 ayes, 1 nay, 1
abstention, and 1 absent. The owner's legal representative
is appealing the Planning Commission's decision based on
various legal issues. The city Attorney's Office has pre-
pared a response to those issues as contained in Exhibit "9".
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
The Mayor and Council may
1. Deny the appeal and revoke COP No. 198:
2. Partially uphold the appeal and not revoke COP No.
198, but add additional conditions: or,
3. Uphold the appeal and not revoke COP No. 198.
RECOMMENDATION
staff recommends concurrence with the Planning commission
action to revoke COP No. 198.
prepared by:
John E. Montgomery, AICP
Principal Planner
For Larry E. Reed, Director
Planning and Building Services
~APpeal of COP NOC;>198 - Civic Center Motel c:>
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
February 4, 1991
Page 3
"
Exhibits: 1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
9 -
lat
SRCOP198
Letter of Appeal to the Mayor and council
statement of Official Planning commission
Action
April 17, 1990 Planning commission Staff
Report
May 8, 1990 Planning commission Meeting
Minutes
October 9, 1990 planning commission Meeting
Minutes
October 30, 1990 Planning commission Meeting
Minutes
November 13, 1990 planning commission Meeting
Minutes
Public Hearing Notice
city Attorney's Office Response Memo to Legal
Issues Raised in Appeal
.
~
o
o
LAW OFFICES
E. SOBEL
OF COUNSEL
FRANK A. ~~~ER-r
A LAW CORPORATION"
3460 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. SUITE 903
LOS ANGELES. CALlFO~!jIA~Ol~6 "':':: \
December 26, 1990
TELEPHONE
(213) 384-6964
REFER TO FILE NO.
DET.TVERED BY HAND
The Honorable Mayor.W.R. Holcomb
common Council
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North "Oil street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re:
Planning commission Revocation of
Conditional Development Permit
No. 198\Civic Center Motel\665 N.
"0" street\owners~ Lei & Cindy
wang\Date of Findings and Statement ~
of Decision:December 11. 1990
\~
;::;
_....i
...,.,
~"
,,-,
c"'
Dear Mayor Holcomb:
~
'",
-'
"
I represent the above referenced owners, ..,
Lei and Cindy Wang("WANG") ~ owners of the civic Center Motel
located at 665 N. "0" street, San Bernardino, california.
~
On December 11, 1990, the Planning
commission of the city of San Bernardino ("PLANNING
COMMISSION") revoked Conditional Development Permit Number
198 which in effect does not allow the wang's to operate the
property as a motel.
Planning
following
My
Commision's
grounds:
cliemt's would like
ruling of December
to
11,
appeal the
1990 on the
(1). Findings numbered 2, 3, 4 and 5 were
incorrect as they were not properly
established either by the necessary
quantum of proof required nor by the
procedural requirements for such a
hearing~
(2). There was an violation of the Wang's
right to process of law in the manner
and conduct of the hearings~
(3). Finding number 5 was clearly
established to the contrary by the
Wang's since the property was under a
"'UI'TnT'T
)
-J.
o
o
The Honorable Mayor W.R. Holcomb
common Council
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Re: Conditional Development Permit No. 198\
Appeal of Revocation of Permit on 12/11/90
December 26, 1990
page 2
prior court order to cure any of the
alleged conditions supporting the
hearing and there was a willing and
able buyer who would independently
cure such conditions:
(4). The commission had no jurisdiction
to conduct the hearing since the
City of San Bernardino had made a
prior election to remedy the alleged
conditions by instituting a court
proceeding against the property and
obtaining a court order to close it
prior to instituting the hearing
procedure.
Council an
December 11,
The Wang's would be seeking from the City
overturning of the Statement of Decision of
1990 and the Findings of December 11, 1990.
We appreciate the earliest possible date to
have this matter heard as it's urgency cannot be overly
emphasized.
Sincerely,
~~0--~...:/lJ' -
FRANK A. WEISER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
cc: Lei & cindy Wang
Mr. Henry Empeno,
Deputy City Attorney
,
>
o
. f . 0
c~ty 0 San Bernard~no
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number: Conditional Development Permit Number 198
Applicant: city of San Bernardino
owner: Lei and Cindy Wang
Meeting Date: December 11, 1990
x
Revoked on November 13, 1990.
Findings in support of Revocation.
Adopted
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Lopez, Lindseth, stone, Clemensen
Sharp
Cole
Corona, Jordan
I, hereby, certify that this statement of Official Action
accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning
c_'".~ the;: z;rn.rd';~ IJ /f'O
Signat e Dat4
Larrv E. Reed. Director of Plannina & Buildina Services
Name and Title
cc: Project Property Owner
project Applicant
Building Division
Engineering Division
Case File
PCAGENDA:
PCACTION
EXHIBIT 2
.
"'
1
2
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
o
o
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
In the matter of the Hearing
on the Revocation of
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENT OF DECISION;
NOTICE OF TIME LIMITS
FOR APPEAL
5
6
7
8
9
CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 198, THE CIVIC CENTER MOTEL,
665 North "D" street,
Owners: Lei Wang and Cindy Wang
The above-captioned matter concerning the revocation of
Conditional Development Permit No. 198 came for public hearing
before the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino on
May 8, October 9, October 30, November 13, and December 11, 1990
at 300 North "D" street, San Bernardino, California 92418,
pursuant to San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.78.110.
Cindy Wang was present and Ms. wang and Lei wang were also
represented at various times by attorneys Joshua Kaplan, Andrew
Gunn, and Frank Weiser.
The Planning and Building Services
16
Department was represented by Deputy City Attorney, Henry Empe~o,
17
Jr.
18
The Planning Commission was advised by Sr. Deputy City
Attorney John Wilson and Sr. Assistant City Attorney Dennis
19
20
Barlow. A quorum of the Planning Commission members were present
21
throughout the public hearing. The Planning Commission received
22
23
24
the testimony and documentary evidence offered by the parties,
and the cause was submitted for decision.
The Planning Commission, based upon the facts, testimony
25
and documentary evidence presented at the public hearing, makes
26
its Findings and Statement of Decision as follows:
27
/ / / /
28
1
HE/dys/ccm.fdg
December 11, 1990
,
~
o
o
1
FINDINGS
2
1.
Written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose
3 of the public hearing was served on Lei Wang and Cindy wang, the
4 owners of the Civic Center Motel, by registered mail, postage
5 prepaid, return receipt requested, not less than ten (10) days
6 prior to the date of the public hearing. (San Bernardino
7 Municipal Code Section 19.78.ll0(B))
8
2.
Conditional Development Permit No. 198 has been
9 exercised contrary to the conditions of the permit.
10 (San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.78.ll0(A)(2))
11
3.
Conditional Development Permit No. 198 has been
12 exercised in violation of applicable regulations, laws and
13
ordinances.
(San Bernardino Municipal Code Section
14 19.78.ll0(A)(2))
15
4.
The use for which Conditional Development Permit No.
16 198 was granted has been exercised so as to be detrimental to the
17 public health and safety and to constitute a nuisance.
18 (San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.78.ll0(A)(3))
19
5.
The grounds justifying a revocation of Conditional
20 Development Permit No. 198 cannot be cured or corrected by the
21 imposition of new, additional, or modified conditions.
22 (San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.78.ll0(D))
23 STATEMENT OF DECISION
24 Based upon the facts, testimony, and documentary evidence
25 presented at the public hearing, and based upon the above-
26 mentioned Findings, the planning Commission hereby revokes
27 Conditional Development Permit no. 198, pursuant to
28
2
HE/dys/ccm.fdg
December 11, 1990
.
.
o
o
1 San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.78.110.
2 NOTICE OF TIME LIMITS FOR APPEAL
3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 19.78.110(e)
4 and Chapter 2.64 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, any person
5 aggrieved or affected by the decision of the Planning Commission
6 regarding the revocation of Conditional Development Permit
7 No. 198, may appeal to the Common Council by filing a written
8 notice of appeal with the City Clerk, directed to the Common
9 Council, within fifteen (15) days after the date the Planning
10 Commission adopts these Findings and Statement of Decision. The
11 notice of appeal shall be in writing and shall set forth (a) the
12 specific action appealed from, (b) the specific grounds of
13 appeal, and (c) the relief or action sought from the Common
14 Council.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
23 / / / /
24 / / / /
25 / / / /
26 / / / /
27 / / / /
28
3
HE/dys/ccm.fdg
December 11, 1990
.
.
o
o
1 CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19B, THE CIVIC CENTER MOTEL
Revocation Hearing: December 11, 1990
2
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Findings of Fact and
4 statement of Decision were duly adopted by the Planning
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ReQular
Commission of the City of San Bernardino at a
X (ahsent)
i- "-\ . \
,I ...., f \ V. '- ~,. \ - " ,
I;~ \..:..........'- '-._. ~ \ n, .:\. '.
Planning Commission Secretary
The foregoing Findings of Fact and stateme~,'of Decision
were adopted this 11 th day of 90.
meeting thereof, held on the 11th
7 the following vote, to wit:
B
9
Commission Members:
AYES
LOPEZ
-L
CORONA
LINDSETH
--L
--L
STONE
COLE
SHARP
CLEMENSEN
J-
JORDAN
lB
19
20
21
22
23 Approved as to
form and legal content:
24
25
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
BY:~)
./ -
26
27
2B
HE/dys/ccm.fdg
December 11, 1990
, 1990, by
day of December
NAYS
ABSTAIN
X (absent)
x
-L
- ./ ..->
/L_~.
4
.
CITY OF. SAIOBERNARDINO -onEMORANDUM
To
Planning' Commission
Revocation of Conditional Use
Permit No. 198
From
Larry E. Reed, Director
Planning' and Building'
Services
April 17, 1990
Subject
Date
App~ Agenda Item No.1
Om
CERTIFIED MAIL NO. P 197475 551
owner:
city of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Lei & Cindy Wang'
2132 Almadale Avenue
Los Ang'ele., CA 90032
Applicant:
Reauest
The director of Planning' and Building' Services has initiated
this request for the Planning' Commission to consider revoking'
Conditional Development Permit (COP) No. 198 under the
authority of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.78.110
(A 2 & 3). The COP authorized the operation of a. motel at
655 North "0" street. The motel is known as the Civic Center
Motel.
Bac::karound
on May 3, 1960, Conditional Development Permit No. 198, to
construct a 50 unit motel was re~ended for approval by the
Planning' cOIIIIIlission. on May 13, 1960. COP. No. 198 was
approved by the Mayor and Comaon Council as per the plot plan
submitted (See Atta..lI-ent A - letter of approval). City code
enforcement activities date back to AUlJUllt 29, 1983. At this
time the inspector reco.mended _jor repair to correct the
numerous Buildinq and Pire Code violations. A correction
Notice was issued and on Sept8llber 7, 1983, a buildinq perait
was taken out for coaplete 9eneral repairs. (See Attachment
B).
In February 1985, the code violations had all been corrected
and a Rel.... of Notice of Pendency of Administrative
Proc:eedinq was issued.
on March 15, 1985, Council~ Robert castaneda sent a
...orandUII to the Police, Fire and Building and Safety
Departaants. The.-o indicated that he had received
complaints reqardinq. prostitution, dru9S, Fire Code
violations, noise, juvenile delinCJuency and littering- in and
aroUDC! the civic canter lIotsl. In the.-o 1Ir. castaneda
reque.ted a cab1ned effort to abets the aforeaantioned
EXHIBIT 3
.
"
o --
CONDl:Tl:ONAL DEVEIDPMEN'l' PERJaQO. 198
REVOCATl:ON OF
, APJu:L 6, 1990
PAGE 2
activities and to cite all quilty parties (See Attachment C).
on April 10,'1985 another correction Notice was issued
indicatinq nu.erous Buildinq and Fire Code violations (See
Attachment D). Many of the violation were corrected. However
by August 15, 1985 an inspection revealed several violations
had not been corrected. Another correction notice was issued
on Auqust 22, 1985 (See Attacbllent E). All violation were
corrected by September 3, 1985.
on January 30, 1986 another correction Notice was issued.
Once' aqain, there were numerous Buildinq and Fire Code
violations (See Attachment F). On February 17, 1986 a
buildinq permit was issued for qeneral rehabilitation of the
motel. On, February 26, 1986, after reinspection, a
Correction Notice was issued (see Attachment G). On March
11, 1986, after a third reinspection, a correction Notice was
issued for one remaininq code violation (See Attachment H).
Two of the six (6) correction notices warned the owners that
under the requirements of their business license and certifi-
cate of occupancy, they are to maintain the property and
structures to the proper Code for their use. The notice went
on to indicate that failure to properly maintain the property
could result in the closure of the complex and the
cancellation of the business license and certificate of
occupancy.
l:n June of 1986, the County District Attorney filed a civil
lawsuit under the red liqht abatement and druq abatement
state laws, to close the Civic Center Motel. The court
ordered the motel to undertake more strict security measur_.
By this time the motel was the site of two lIlurders and 40
arrests, most of them for prostitution and narcotic
violations.
on February 26, 1990 a Notice of Violation was issued for
numerous violations of the Municipal code. on March 14, 1990
a Notice of Appear wes issued after the owners failed to ,
correct the violations (See Atta..lI-9nt 1:). on March 15,
1990, the city found the building to be danqerous and all
persons were ordered to vacate the buildinq. At this time,
the owners were notified, of the City'S intent to beqin
revocation of COP No. 198 (See Attachment J).
on March 23, 1990, . seventh Correction Notice was issued
(See Attaob".nt It).
REVOCAT:ION OF
APlUL 6, 1990
PAGE 3
o -
COND:IT:IONAL OEVEIDPMENT PERMI:~O.
198
.
An inspection conducted on March 14, 1990 rev_led a total of
95 MUnicipal Code violations includinq:
_ 22 counts of exposed wirinq
_ 20 counts of .substandard housinq
4 counts of 1Illintaininq a danqerous buildinq
_ 51 counts of various housekeepinq violations (walls,
carpets, drapes, etc.)
9 units posted as danqerous
on . March 26, 1990, a buildinq permit was issued to correct
these violations. .~he owners took out the buildinq permit
after beinq notified of the City's intent to revoke the COP.
Therefore,.they have chosen to assume the risk of havinq the
COP revoked after expendinq money to correct the code
violations. To date, the owners of the motel are workinq
toward correctinq the code violations. On March 26, 1990
the Court issued a temporary restraininq order to close down
the motel.
:In aid-April, 1990, the City Attorney's Office has a hearinq
in court to determine whether the closure will be extended
because of the code violations and the red liqht &bat_ent
laws.
A computer search of all calls for service at the Civic
Center Motel has indicated that the police have responded to
various calls includinq druq sales and use, prostitution,
burqlary and hOllicide 162 times in the last year alone. In
addition there were 79 calls for the 600 block of North wOw
street, which includes both sides of the streets.
lhwiroft'lll_ntal OAtermination
Revocations are exempt from the provisions of CEQA under
Class 21.
Analv.i.
The subject site is located on the _st side of wOw street,
approximately 191 f_t south of the centerline of 7th St~t
and further descril:led as 655 North wDw S~. The General
Plan land use desic;naticin is CR-2, commercial Reqional
(Downtown) . A motel a a permitted use in this desiqnation
upon approval of a conditional Use Permit.
Surroundin9 land use consists of vacant fields to the north,
COIIII4Jrcial to the south, and professional offices to the ..st
and west. The entire ares surroundinq the motel a
.
.
coQI:'1'I:ONAL DEVELOPMEN'l' PERMJ:00. 198
REVOCA'1'I:ON OF
APRI:L 6, 1990
PAGE 4
designated CR-2 by the General Plan.
'!'be subject .~tel was ljJX'anted a Conditional Developaent
Permit in 1960. ('!'be term -conditional Development Permit-
was chanqed to -Condi1:ional Use Permit- in 1982). '!'be plot
plan approved indicates 50 units with 5.1 parkinq spaces. '!'be
site plan that was approved also proposed a putting- qreen and
pool. A ten-foot-wide planter area with landacape was
proposed alonq -D- street, with nuaerous smaller planter
areas provided throuqhout the interior of the site. ('!'be
approved plot Plan is available in the planninq Department
for review). .
currently, and in the past, the site has not been maintained
as approved . All of the planter areas are overqrown with
weeds or are void of any veqetation. '!'be puttinq qreen no
lonqer exists, and the pool is _pty. '!'be pool equip.ent
roOlll has been converted without permits, to a kitchen. '!'be
office has been converted to an additional unit and one of
the units on the second floor was subdivided. A total of 52
units currently exist. A storaqe area was also constructed
and part of the perimeter block wall was r_oved behind the
structure located at the northwest corner of the site. All
of the above described modifications were done without
permits. As .indicated in the attached Correction Notices,
the Motel has been in a nearly conatant state of disrepair
since 1983.
Municipal Code Section 19.56.120 (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) requires
that setbacks and parking- lot planters be landscaped and
maintained and shall have operative autOlll&tic sprinkler
syst__. Section 19.56.300 of the Municipal Code require the
off-street parkinq areas to be maintained in a clean and safe
condition. '!'be drive aisles and parking- areas currently are
not maintained and larqe holes exist in the asphalt.
'!'berefore, both of these Municipal Code requir_ents have
been violated.
Section 19.04.430 defines -aOtels- as a buildinq or qroup of
two or aore detached, seai-detached or attached building-s
containinq quest rocma or dwell1nq units with autOlllobile
.torage .pace.provided in connection there with, which
bUild1nq or qroup i. designed, intended or used primarily for
the ac~tion of autollObile travel.re, includinq group.
designed as auto cabins, aotor courts, aotel. and sillilar
d..iqnation.
.
.
o r-\
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMi!II'NO. 198
APRIl. 6, 1990
PAGE 5
The Civic center Motel was designed and built for tranaient
ue. None of. the units, except the ..naqer's unit were
approved with kitchena or kitchenettes. cookinq in the
rooms, ia strictly p~ohibited in this particular .ote1.
Because the rOOll8were not designed to accOlllllodate cookinq,
and the rooaa are equipped with saoke detectors, when cookinq
occurs, the aaoke a1aras sound. This sound can be very loud
and annoyinq, so the tenants either brake or r..ove the ..oke
detectors. Apparently cookinq occurs becaue tenants are
residinq at the .ote1 and are not transient visitors.
Becau.e the tenants are peraanent residents aany prob1_s
occur. There is not adequate storaqe to accOlllllodate the
necessities for noraan livinq. Therefore, clothes, food and
debris beqin to accumulate and caue fire and health safety'
violations. Because the .otel was designed for transient use
and is not beinq used as such, the units incur excessive use
and abuse. The city's code enforc..ent officer found 7 to 9
tenants residinq in soae roOll8.
The Welfare Departaent aakes checks out directly to the .otel
for $210.00 per week. Approxiaately 21 units were beinq
rented for Welfare recipients or recipients of other state
Aid.
Coaplaints of criainal activity in and around the .ote1 has
been raapant since 1983 and continues to be a aajor prob1..,
(See Attachaent L - Declaration of David Stachowski, City
Attorney Investiqation).
The location of the .ote1 on -D- Street does not lend itself
to hiqh visibility and is not located near any ..jor office
bui1dinqs. Staff assuaes that the owners have resorted to
rentinq the roo.. to 10nq tena residents becaue of the lack
of transient tenants in the area.
t!onelu.ion
The Civic Center Motel has had a 10nq history of probleas
coap1yinq with City Cod_. on six separate occasiona datinq
back to 1983, the owners have been qiven correction Notices
for nuaerou Fire and Buildlnq Code vio1ationa. In aost
cases, the ownera, have corrected the Code violationa only to
rapeat the .... scenario over aqain. Staff believ_ that at
one tille, years aqo, the aote1 ..y have been a succeasfu1
operation. However, over tiae, that. particular area bee...
less viable for transient tenants. The owners have therefora
relied on peDIlUlent tenants. The aote1 was not duigned or
bullt to accOllaO'S&te 10nq-tera residents. '!'benfon, the
. -
.
. 0 A
REVOCA'1'I:ON OF CONDI:'1'I:ONAL DEVELOPMEN'l' PERMI:~O. 198
APRI:L to, 1990
PAGE to
ao~el bas repea~edly required renova~ion ~o correct the abu.e
i~ bas received.
'l'be en~i~l...n~ ~o u.e the property a. a .o~el should be
revoked on the qroun4. tha~ the permi~ is beinq exerci.ed
conuary ~ the cond"i~ions of the approval in ~~ the .o~el
i. no~ beinq used a. llO~el and the approved plo~ plan ba.
been no~ified' ~~ the .o~el ba. been in viola~ion of the
business licen.e, certifica~e of occupancy, Ci~y requla~ions,
laws and ordinance.: and tha~ the .o~el is beinq opera~ed in
sucb a manner .0 a. ~o be deu1menul to the public bealth,
safety and welfare, and con.titu~e. a nuisance. With the
proper approval. or permi u, the buildinq could be reused
for another type of commercial use that is permitted in the
CR-2 desiqnation.
ReCODl1llendation
staff recommends that the Planninq Commi.sion revoke
Conditional Develop.ent Permit No. 198 qrounds stated above.
-:&J
. Reed
Director of planninq and
Buildinq Service.
~~-fJ~
Ann Larson-Perbix
Senior Planner
/ke
A~uc:b1DenU
cc: Henry Empano, Depu~y Ciq A~~orney
Robert Simaons, Depuq City Attorney
David Sucbowski, I:nv_tiqa~ion
Andrew Gunn, Attorney a~ Law - Hand Delivered
PCAGENDA:
CDPNO.198
~.. .
.
. "
.:
:t
:~
<.
t
;
.,
~i
.~.
:r:
~:
'::~
...
;,
.:
.~
...
:..:
.;i..
;::.
,
..
.'.
.~,
.,
,
o
0'"
May 6. 1960
Tho May. and Coaaon Councl1
Condltional DevalepMnt POI'll1\ No. 198 -- To oZ'oct a
~-Uftl' .tal on tho ...t I1de .f -D- SUo.' bot..on 6th
aDd 7th stroots -- Gordon '1.1ds
.
.
Jill j"
.:
.;
,
;
.~
;
.
.. .
;
i
;
~
,.
...
,.
;.>
.~
..
..
o
o
., .
May 3, 1960
WARD -1
~ONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ~ERMIT NO. 198 -- To erect a ~O-unit motel
on the east side. of RDR Street, between 6th and 7th Streets --
Gordon Fields
The request is to erect a ~O-unit motel. The filing fee has been paid
and the case properly posted.
The subject l2~ x 300 foot parcel is proposed to have a ~O-unit
motel with ~l parking spaces. The area is all C-4 Central Business
District. There is a 10 foot set back from -DR Street for the
proposed building. The use appears reasonable.
Recommend: Approval of Conditional Development Permit No. 198, as
~er plot plan attached to the case file.
.
.
:.f "
, ,if}
~ : : ... .'.:'
.\ :~r~
. ''f'
. .. ~. .
.~ . ~~:;
. .,
~ ?":
k'
".::' ~
'1.-
3.~ .....
)-::':',
..., .';..
:; .:.
.:~:~:~
, ..
-.,.
:r':
...-'
,: ..~
.~.
.
t
..it:
':!' ",
;~..
." '"
. ,".;
,:.:.:.
.'
~:~ f
.. r
{"f.i
....~
'=";:"
r
r
-~
"
F.
:.~ . ~
},..
.....n
,
.,
..::!
'0.'
,
,\;"
,"r
i
,-.
.
.~.;..:;.
......
..,
~
o
<:)
PI.\II:1IH:J c:ag.1ISSI0Il /lCI'IOiI
~tftatIAL MW'......... PIIIIIT 110. 1_
0'
Dated thLD MIl_del' ", --.Mey-----' 19__ -60---
TO TIlE UO:~1l' J: ;;A!OJ III1D cl'X !iDI1 COUllCll.,
The ~t>tition in tlle ..bo.... """Hatton CM". for h..ulaq.on the
~4
After eon.i~er~tlon of aald
d", cf _Me . }')-........ .
., .....,.....-
Pot,\Uon it 1. hereby n~~.Jed that nid hUUon btI
_........4
Gnd lhat .aid property be cl...."ed fTOa Zone 10.
to
~"O'Jlo.
.
City P1anniaq C...l...lon
1',
lift-Fltler,.
D.:.TE lJ:rERK}:!l to ~1ll rlllll crx::l311IO:: _
Am PlmED
i)/,Tt or IIEAi1Ilt
CD'1:J39IOIl iiCtIo:I
CllI::J;lCn. terra!
4/l1(6ll
4"'"
.."..
.,..,.
~~-_.
T.. ..rr-&....
4>. . - . ~I
,
oj:....::....
J~/~} ~;- .
.
'.
,
.'
~ ....
.
-.-
..... ~ . ...... :::'\
o
o
. .
crr:Y.OF s4N .BERNARDINO
.: .-";:-: .;.....:.~..~./
. .....~..:-. ,. -x;);
........,...,:--:;-,~
.......~..-o~.:...
... '"." "";~ ~...:.:.: ..
3llO NORTH -0'" STREET, $AN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 124IB
August 29. 1983
W.R. "'8OB" HOLCOMB
......
........ fJI.. Comman c.ncu
___A.~.- 1lIIII.........lI'IrIIw..
............. ........................ .....w...
.....-..-........................ ..,..,.....
............................... ..,..rlftW'"
..................;......"........... 1'1.'"
..... D........ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... w...
........... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ......'" w...
.Re: 655 North D Street
San IlernBrdino. CA
Motel complex (50 units)
. Assessors No: 135 011 16
Report/Project No. 2475 .
Jackson Chen
c/o Civic Center Motel
655 North D Street
San Bernardino;' CA 92401
THIS CORRECTION NOTICE is being directed to your attention as owner of the property
listed above.' .
An .inspection. by this department. of the structure(s) located thereon revealed .
certain building code violations. It is therefore necessal')' that these condition(s)
.be repaired in accordance with proper procedures and penaits from this department.
Please contact this office within ten (10) calendar days fl"O\ll thiS date to make
arrangements to correct those violations indicated in this letter.
In addition to this CORRECTION NOTICE. a .Notice of Pendency of Administrative.
proceedings. is being filed as to the above property with the County Recorders
office to ensure CORRECTION of the violations and give recorded. public notice
of pending action by the City on this property.
City Building Official
Department of Bunding and Safety
.
by:
"
.-.
. '
Attached hereto and incorporated therein by reference is a list of .SOlllB of the
ajor defects of the structure(s) as detemhed by our .inspecj;ion:
(.-.cc: . Hong Chen
d$
.
.. .' ... .'"'"
.0..
"
. "
,"
.
-'2475 c:>
CORRECTION NOTICE
Page -2-
MAJOR DEFECTS:
o
1. Broken doors and windows.
2. UlIDllintained pool. fence . ~ate.
3. Inadequate sanitation.
4. structural hazards~
S. Nuisance.
6. Hazardous wiring.
7. Hazardous. mechanical equipment.
8. Faulty weather protection.
9. Fire hazard.
10. .Faulty materials of construction.
11. . Hazardous and insanitary premises.
12.. Inadequate maintenance.
13. Improper.occupancy
ClJIPLEX IN GENERAl:
1. An upper. decks and walk areas need repair.
2. All access .panels: to plumbing need to be replaced.
3. Nllllbers.i ss i ng off doors.
4.. Repair an paved parking areas.
5. Cut bushes back fl"Cllll all windows and access panels and vents.
6. Clean out and cover access openings.
.7. -Broken doors and windows.
8. Trash in back by bin.
9. All.outside plugs need weather proof covers.
10. An stoTage roams. clean out and remove an trash and debris.
.
ll~ Roofs in a state of deterioration.
POOL AREA:
1. Pool gates and fencing need repairs.
2. Pipe sticking out of pool deck unsafe condition.
3. Sterage area. remove an junk. trash. and debris.
<
--;..'
~
.
. .
. ..
_. .
....
.r. .
.
.'
..
-.
-.
..'
"-:"
.
055 North 0 Street
August 29. 1983
Page -3- ,
'SPECIALTY ROOMS:
MECHANICAL ROOM:
o
o
1. Holes in ceiling and walls.
2. No permit to install new water heater.
3. No clIIIIbustion air for water heater rolllll
ELECTRICAL PANEL'ROOM: 1. RoOll full of dirt.
2.. Ceiling leaking.
3. Cover missing frCllll timer boxes.
GENERAL PROBLEMS. ALL R0CJ4S:
All bathrooms are in need of SClllle form of repairs. from replacing missing tiles to
clIIIIpletely rebuilding bathroom.
OFFICE & APT: No door on shower stall.
Apt 11: O.K.
Apt 12: Bathrolllll ceiling. front door jamb.
Apt 13: O.K.
Apt 14: O. K.
Apt 15: Bathroom ceiling.
Apt 16: O.K.
Apt 17: Bathrolllll wall and faucets.
Apt IB: O.K.
Apt 19: Water leaking through wall. bathroCllll walls. replace front door.
Apt 110: Bathrolllll walls
Apt 111 through Apt 115: BathroCllll walls.
Apt 116: Bathrolllll walls, bugs. bad plugs.
Apt 117: BathroCllll ceiling, glass in back door.
Apt 118: Bathroom walls.
Apt 119:. ·
Apt 120: O.K.
. Apt 121: Bathrolllll walls and door.
Apt 122: Glass in shower door.
Apt 123: Lights missing.
Apt 124: Cat _ss, fire hazard.
Apt 125: BathroOll _lls and electrical.
Apt 126: O.K.
Apt 127: Front door.
Apt 128: Front door.
Apt 129: Bathr'OClll _l1s and ce111ng.
Apt '30:. ·
"
.. -
.
fi55 North D Street 0
lIugust 29. 1983
.. Page -4-
o
.,
Apt 131: O.K.
Apt 132: O.K.
Apt 133: Glass in shower door.
Apt 134: Glass in, ~hcNer door.
Apt 135: O.K.
Apt 136: BathroCllll walls.. .
Apt 137: BathroClll window.
Apt 138: BathroClll window and walls.
Apt 139: BathroClll door and windows.
Apt 140: Holes in outside walls and in bathroom walls.
Apt 141: O. K.
Apt 142: BathrOOlll walls.
Apt '43: O.K.
Apt 144: O.K.
Apt 145: BathroCllll walls.
Apt 146: Glass in shower door.
Apt 147: O. K.
Apt 148: O.K.
Apt '49: Glass in shower door and bathroDlD walls.
Apt '50: BathrGOlll walls and glass in shower door. Deck in front Apt '50 old bedding Ir
IIIllttreSS.
SEE ATTACHED .F1RE DEPARTMENT REPORT.
Failure to respond will result in the filing of a -Notice of NoncClllPltance- of sub-
standard rentals to the State -Franchise Tax Board-.
Please be advised that if we do not receive properly substantiated infol'lllltion within
ten (10) days indicating that these violations have been corrected. we will not be
reluctant to take whatever action .1s necessary to guarantee cClllPl1ance with the
Ordinance through court proceedings.
We would appreciate your cooperation in this IIIlltter.
"
INSPECTORS REClJt\ENDATIONS: MAJOR REPAIR.
., -
.,
. <;,ITY OF ~Ah .JeHNAHUINU - 6..U:MUnAI~LlUIVl
To JAMES ClARK _ BUILDING INSPECTOR - BUILDING . SAFETY From KEN FRYE
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Subja CIVIC CENTER MOTEL _ 655 NORTH NDH STREET Date AUGUST 25. 1983
Date
Appravad
The following violations were observed at the above occupancy:
Uniform Fire Code. Section 3.101 - Unlawful continuance. of a fire hazard.
(1) Remove all trash. debris. scrap materials
and old mattress from all storage areas. and
storage rooms.
(2) Remove dry. dead palm branches from all palm
trees.
Uniform Fire Code. Section 10.301
(1) Install "four 2A l08fC fire extinguishers on
the south side of the main building. They
shall be evenly spaced~ two upstairs and two
downstairs. To prevent theft. they shall be
placed in metal cabinets with glass breakout
covers.
(2) Service the existing fire extinguisher by a
licensed. certified fire extinguisher company
Uniform Fire Code. Section 10.307 (1) Install an approved automatic fire alarm
system.
Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Departme
for approval and shall conform to the standar
set forth in Uniform Fire Code.
~Fi'7~pector
San Bernardino City Fire Deaprtlllent
lCf:rk
c.ry .N r".....
,
C IOr
-
OP SAR BBRRA"'IRO
IftEROPPICB KBMOlWlDur'
8503-70'
.
~a Chief Ben Gonzale., police nepartlUDt
Cbief Gerald Revcolllbe, pire Departaent
Mr. ~ack ao.ebraugb, Supt., Building' Safety Dept.
PROMa Council OffIce, Ward one
SUBJBC'la Code ColIPl1ance
DAHa
Marcb 15, 1985
(6284)
COPIISa Mayor and City aAmini.trator
-----
-------
J>- . ---
We have received continuing complain~ regarding prosti-
tute., drugs, fire code violation. (cooking), noi.e, juvenile
delinquency, and littering in and around tbe Civic Center
Motel, 655 Rortb -D- street. Plea.e _ke an 1IIIIIlediate, max-
imum colllbined effort to abate tbe afor...ntioned activities
and cite all guilty partie. .. nece..ary.
Ple..e respond witb a~tion to be taken.
-;FJ"u .
IIOBUl A. CAftARBDA
Councilun, Pir.t Ward
RACajv
jl
.
.
.
.
.-- -- -_.-- --- .
.
I
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
3llO NORTH '"0'" STREET. SAN BeRNARDINO. CALIFORNIA -"
. April 10. 1985
W.R. "BOIN HOLCOMB
--
........... ConuII." C.....I
......A.t.,.. -_......... ...........
J8III"". . . . . . . . . . . . . ........w..
..... J....-*1_ . . . . . . . . . . ."..,. W...
__..............._ftw....
__...............,ttllw....
_.._..............._w....
_._...........~w...
Re: 655 North D Street
San Bernardino. CA
Motel complex (50 units)
Assessors No: 135 011 16
ReportiProject No. 2475
&4nt..........
JaCkSOn~hen
c/o Civic Center Motel
655 North D Street
San Bernardino. CA 92401
THIS CORRECTION NOTICE is being directed to your attention as owner of the property.
listed abOve. .
An inspection. by this department. of the structure(s) located thereon revealed
certiin. building and fire code violations. It is therefore necessary that these
condition(s) be repaired in accordance with proper procedures and permits from
this department.
All work is to be performed by qualified persons for each type of repair.
Please contact this office within ten (10) calendar days from this date to make
arrang8l8ftts to correct those violations indicated in this letter.
All work to be cOlllJlleted within 120 days from the date of this letter.
City Building Offici.l
Departlllent of Building .nd Safety
by:
s .r
ilding Inspector
Phone: 714/383 5373
Hours: 7:30 N 8:30.... or 1:00 - 1:30 p...
Attached hereto .nd incorporated therein by reference is . list of s.. of the
_jor defects of the structure(s) .s detenl'lned by our inspection.
cc: Mayor Ho1c:CllIIb
City Attorney
Council..n Castaneda
City AdIIinistr.tor
.City Fire Chief
Chief of polic:e
.
tJA(;K.~Un ""IU:~II
6P5 North D Street 0
Page 2
o
PREMISES:
1. Pool house has broken windows and trash inside and out.
2. Pool has dirty water and trash in it.
3. Block wall on ncirth side. top row. cOllling off.
4. Center of back east wall has section missing.
5. Old car being dismantled in back.
6. Old car parts laying in back.
7. All paved areas need repair.
8. South side of property has trash.
9. Gate on south side to be closed and locked.
10. In front. on D Street on south side. old battery under bushes.
11. In front, on D Street on south side, unsafe and exposed electrical light fixtures.
12. First floor water heaterroCllll has vent covers on door missing or dllllllged.
13. All walking deck areas need IIIlljor repairs.
14. Roof over car entry has holes in it allowing water to enter enclosed structural
areas.
15. First floor storage roOlll, excessive storage and. trash.
16. Second floor electrical panel roCllll has storage in it.
17. Second floor electrical panel roCllll. panel boxes have missing covers with exposed
wiring.
18. . Second floor next to stairs, open garbage cans, remove and have tenants place .
garbage in trash bins in back.
19. In back and outside of IIIllnager's office. excessive storage, trash and cCllllbustible
IIIterial s.
20. Pool equipment has storage on and around it.
21. Missing fire extinguishers.
22. Trash cans under stairs at apartment no. 24 to be removed and have tenants take
trash to bins in back.
MANAGER'S OFFICE AND APARTMENT:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Broken window in laundry I'OCIII.
Unsafe electrical wiring to coke ..chine.
Storage in and around water heater.
Old ..ttresses in storage area. .
Old ..ttresses in upstair in storage. fire hazard.
Water damage to south wall of bedl'OClll upstairs.
Water damage.to bathroal walls upstairs.
Hole in wall upstairs on south wall of bedroom at air conditioning unit.
Shower door glass broken upstairs.
Holes in walls upstairs.
Excessive storage in apartllent downstairs and upstairs.
Electrical light and switch notwrking for stairs.
ALL APARTMENTS/BASIC DEFICIENCIES:
(Most of the apartments have one or IKlre of t.. following items wrong with theal)
1. Missing _ke alanas.
2. Missing tub drain service covers.
3. Broken windows or missing windows in bathrooms.
.
~ackson Chen 0
655 North 0 Street
Page 3
o
4. Water daIIIge to bathr'OOlll walls and ceilings.
5. Trash or excessive storage.
6. Carpets in an unsanitary condition which may be required to replace.
7. Water daIllage to .walls outside bathroCIIII.
8. Screens missing on back doors.
9. Holes in walls in back of.entry doors.
10. EntrY doors damaged. .
11. Infestation of bugs and cockroaches, may require flllligation.
12. Holes on inside doors.
13. Overloaded electrical circuits in rooms and bathMlCllllS, to be upgraded.
14. Broken shower doors or glass.
15. No cooking in rOCllll5.
16. No refrigerators in rooms for food storage.
17. Bathr'OOlll walls and ceilings are loosing their water proofing, windows are to be
left open for venting or power vents are to be installed to help remove steam.
No smoke alana, broken light switch.
No smoke alarm, broken front door, broken shower door.
Over crowded with storage and furniture, no refrigerator allowed for food.
storage, broken window in sliding glass door.
No smoke alarm.
No smoke alann, hole in ceiling in closet.
Broken window in bathroom, roCIIII needs clearnng.
No smoke alarm.
No smoke alarm, hole in wall in back of entry door, broken window in
bathrocn.
Apt. '9: BathroCIIII. walls deteriorating.
Apt. '10: Trash outside of back door.
Apt. '11: No smoke alarm, broken wondow in bathrDOll.
Apt. '12: Bathr'OOlll walls deteriorating, broken window in bathroom.
No a~rtment '13.
Apt. '14: No smoke a lann.
Apt. '15: Water claalaVe to wall in closet.
Apt. '16 & 17 (1 unit): No smoke alann, tub drain service cover l115s1ng, excessive
storage. r'OOIII needs cleaning.
Apt. '1:
Apt. '2:
Apt. 13:
Apt. '4:
.Apt."'5:
Apt. '6:
Apt. '7:
Apt. '8:
Apt. '18:
Apt. '19:
Apt. '20:
Apt. '21:
Apt. '22:
Apt. '23:
Apt. '24:
Apt. '25:
Apt. '26:
Apt. '27:
Apt. '28:
O.K.
Bathr'OOlll wall deteriorating. tub drain service cover m15sing. holes in
doors. no SIIOke a lann.
Needs n.-ber on door. Sh0w8r wall needs tne repaired. shower door broken.
No smoke alana. air conditioning unit needs weather stripping around sides.
broken window in bathrDCIIII.
No smoke alann. bathrDCIIII ceiling deteriorating. bathrocn window broken.
Ho smoke alana. bad _lls in roCIIII.
Air conditioning unit needs weather stripping around sides. remove
newspapers fl'Olll heater.
No smoke ala....
No smoke alana. hole in outside deck,. hole in wall back of entry door.
tub drain service cover lIissing.
No smoke alana. shower door broken. wall deteriorating next to air conditioning
unit. hole in wall back of entry door:
No smoke alann. entry light not writing. toilet paper fixture lIissing. excessiv
storage outside. unsafe electrical plug at air conditioning unit. missing
glass' for window in bathroCIIII. .
.
o,loc,,:.un ..0110
65~ North D Street C
Page 4
o
Apt. '29: No SIIOke alana, hol. in bathl'OOll door.
Apt. '30: Air conditioning nHels weather stripping around sides. hole in bathroOlll
door, unsafe electrical switch~ .
Apt. '31: No IIIOke ala"., hole in bathroOlll door, tub drain service cover lIissing.
Apt. '32: No SIIIOke ala"., tub dra'n service cover lIissing, broken window in bathroOlll.
. Apt. '33: Badly infested with bugs, hole in bathroOlll door, unsafe electrical wire.
. fr'Olll light fixtur.e em back deck to light on roof.
Apt. '34: No SIIIOke alana, hole in wall back of entry door. .
Apt. '35: No smoke alana, bathroOll walls deteriorating, air concidioning needs weather
stripping on sides, repair decking in back under railing.
Apt. '36: No SIIIlke alana, bathroOlD walls deteriorating. .
Apt. '37: Broken window in bathroOll, trash on deck.
Apt. '38: No smoke alana, back deck surface failing, repair decking in back under
railing.
Apt. '39: No smoke alann, tub drain service cover missing, hole in wall, hole in
_ bathroOlD door.
Apt. '40: No smoke alann, broken closet door.
Apt. '41: Pass thru door to next apartment has holes, bathroom door broken. bathroom
walls deteriorating, unsafe electrical plug (cover lIissing), broken glass
in sliding door. .. .
Apt. '42: No SIIOke alana, roOIll completely unsanitary, hole in bathroOlll door.
Apt..'43: No smoke' alana, air conditioning unit needs weather stripping on.sides.
Apt. 144: Broken window, broken window in bathroOlll.
Apt. '45: Broken window, broken window in bathroom, excessive trash.
Apt. '46: Shower walls deteriorating, hole in bathro_ door.
Apt. '47~ Bathroom window lIissing, shower walls deteriorating.
Apt. '48: Wall in back of toilet deteriorating.
Apt. '49: Broken front window, excessive storage, air conditioning unit needs weather
stripping on sides. .
-.... ..
.
JAMES CLARK ~UILOING & SAFETY
To
Subject
o From
CIVIC CENTER ~OTEL - 655 NORTH MOM STREET
Date
MIKEL J. PARK
FIRE OEPART'lfENT
APRIL 10, 1985
. .. ,.
Apprond
Oete
Notice has been issued on subject facility. with reins~ection
for compliance on April 23. 1985.
Cooy of notice attached.
MIKEL J. PARK
. Fire Marshal
MJP:rk
attachllent
C'r'y o. r'..."",.
.".!~
~
o
SO"=ETY NOTICE
_PIT--
1M IIIlNMDINO. CAU'OlIIl1A -
A F 1M PREVENTION INSPECTION WAS IIAOE
OF THE 'REMISES LOCATED AT:
x[1A. ADDRESS LISTED BELOW
De. THE MAILING ADDRESS
II'.a. OIMIITIIDT
'7..' 5aS-U..
r CHEN JACKSON
655 NORTH "0"
IT"" .......
I , SAN BERNARDINO. CA
L-- an I,,&n
........ .......
. ---,
CIVIC CENTER MOTEL
N155 NORTH NO" STREET
-
STREET
92401
I"Hrr ......
SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA
&I" ...... ".
...._._ ~ ern
...
~
_--1111
DATE .'ERSuANT TO SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE 15.".020 YOU ARE REOUESTED TO COMPLY .
CLEARED WITH THI! FOLLOWING.
Upon inspection of your facility known at 655 North "0" Street.
Civic Center Hotel. the following conditions exist that need
immediate corrections to secure the "ife saf-tov nf vo"" ....-..+..
and property.
,
'1- Immediatelv and saf-lv r-nlllt:1" .....to 10... +.. ..1..+ha.. "....a..
.
. Clean all lint' and' dust that has accumulated behind washer
and dryer.
.0 2. The smoke detectors b~ r~n111"." 11ft" 4..
in all rooms shall
. '. workinG order. Smok~ d-" .~ ..h..11 +.. ..h;' ..a..,,4..._
... . ments of the Uniform Building Code. Section 1210(a). Also,
. the detectors must be State Fire Marshal
listed/annroved.
3. The combustibl~ ~~nrlln~ '" toft h. Ir.n+ 4.. .
occupied rOOIlS, and kept in neat and orderlv manner.
. -Next Page-
. "'i.
A IIIJNSPECTION WILL IE MADE ON OR AIlOUT ~.J
~ &; ,~'
DATE '" OTICE ~ ..~
aY ~./;f v~ ...' TITLEFb.l ~q,JI~"J7r;
1
"0 IDS ,WHITE' C)CCUPllNT
. I.t.s: TO CHECK FOR COMPLIANCE.
..,.'
...~~_......
-----...
.....-..--
_.__.0_.. ..... -.--.--......
. ...-
.
o
saFETY NOTICE
_ PIT _ STIIIIT
aM ._D"'D. CALIFlIllIl'& ...
0.. TIC PIIIMISES
A ..1111 PREVENTION INSPECTION WAS MADE
LOCATEO AT:
0... ADDRESS USTED BELOW
Os. THE IlAIUNG AllOIIESS
,
.... .....,...NT
17..J .as-a..
-
CHEN JACKSON
Page 2
---,
.-
r
....n ."10
1.,811T ......
La,.
.....
"'
~
II" .utI
..4 _.... .... [J:JJ
II'
_ .-rTTT
DATE PERSUANT TO SAN BERNAROINO MUNICIPAL CODE 15....020 YOU ARE REQUESTED TO CDMPU' .
Q.EAREO WITH THI FOLLOWING.
4. Storage in motel storage rooms need to be kept in a neat
and orderlY manner. and accessability oroyided to all
areas of storage room.
5. Electrical Panel Rooms shall have not storage of any kind.
and a minimum of 3-feet clearance in front of any panel s.
will be maintained at all times.
6. All walls and doors shall be properly repaired and/or
.replaced when damaged. and brought back to its original
construction. .
7. Maintenance of the fire alarm system. and protable extin-
guishers shall be maintained in an operative condition at
all times. and shall be replaced or repaired where defective.
. -Next Page-.
. .",... .......
A REINSPECTION WLL BE MAllE ON 011 ABOUT 1/.,1.r . J'.s: TO CHECK I"OIl COMPLIANCE.
DATE 01" 'ffICE~ ~~ · --. /J
BY ~'7JI.' ...~ TITLE -rL1c. -....vA<1J "..~. .
"PO IDS WHITE' occuPllNT ..,.,
.
o
rana::.
S2=ETY NOTICE
,... DEMIIT...NT
17'.' S.3-.~..
A , IRE PREVENTION INSPECTION WAS MADE
0' THE PREMISES LOCATIO AT: -
. 0.. ADORESS LISTED BELOW
De. THE MAILING ADDRESS
_ PIT _ INUT
.... _1'1lO, CAU"",_ -
-
CHEN JACKSON
-,
r
-
Patu, 3
"auf ......
L..y"
".en ........
".
~
...
.".n
IIn 8"'.'
-A _,... .- c:r::t:J
. --- I
DATE PERSUANT TO SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE 15.16.020 YOU ARE REQUESTED TO COMPLY
CLEARED WITH THE FOLLOWING.
8. Under the provisions of the Health and Safetv Code. Ser:ti""
17921.1. cooking shall be prohibited in a motel room.
9. Good housekeepina shall be maintained at 'all timlts- !:D II":
minimum. .
. to keep the fire load to a
.
10. IMMEDIATEL Y. discontinue running electrical wires under
carpets in front office.
.
.
W.U.I.. ....111
A REINSPECTION WLL II IWlE ON OR ABOUT. i d '3 . ..,[S TO CHECK FOR COMPLIANCE.
DATE OIF /'oy;r ~/lS --.' . /:
BY '7_"j~/" -- IAd.-. TITLE~V.A~~
,po IGS
WHITE . OCCI ""lIlT
...,11
&')0....&')0_................... ...
.
, . '.. ~ .!. I ':
'..':". -.. :-:,
. .. ~.:.~ ,...
..... -
.' : ~~"': :...
o
o
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO _NOIITH"D"STREET.SANIEIlNARDlNO.CALlFOllNIAlI24l1
August 22. 1985
-.
--
. ....-... .
....lI....
. .
;.::~,. .
.
........... ell'" CJ III K. c..-.
EVLYN WILCOX
--
........................ ~--
... .................. ..........
.......HenY.n.... ......... .~w....
........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............
........................ ..........
0....,............ ........ .......w..
_._..........._WoM
Re: 655 North D Street -
San Bernardino. CA
Motel CllIIIPlex (50 units}
Assessors No: 135 011 16
Report/Project No. 2475
Jackson Chen
c/o Civic Center Motel
655 North D Street
San Bernardino. CA-9240l
THIS CORRECTION NOTICE is being directed to your attention as owner of the property
listed abOve. -
An inspection. by this departlllent. of the structurels} located thereon revHled
certain building and fire code violations. It is therefore necessary that these
condition(s) be repaired in accordance with proper procedures and permits frclll
this department.
All wrk is to be performed by- qualified persons for each t;ype of repair.
Please contact this office within ten (10) calendar days from this date to ..ke
arrangements to correct those violations indicated in this letter.
All wrk to be cCIIPleted within 120 clays froll the date of this letter.
City Building Official
Depart:lllent of Building and
....
By:
J Clark
Building Inspector
Phone: (714) 383-5373
Hours: 7:30-8:30 a... and 1 :~1:3O p...
Attached hereto and incorporated therein by ref.rence is a list of SClllle of the
1II.10r d.fects of the structure(s) u determined. by our inspection.
cc: Mayor Wilcox
City At~
Council Mellber Estrada
Ci~ Administrator
Ci~ Fire Chief
Chief of Polic.
Inspector Cald..... Fire Dept.
. Jackson Chen 0
655 NorthD Street
Page 2
o
PREMISES:
1. Block wall on north side. top row. caming off. (working)
2. All paved areas need repair. . (working)
3. Roof over car entry has holes in it allowing water to enter enclosed structural
areas. (working)
4. Unsafe electrical wiring tb coke machine. (working)
5. Screens II1ssing on back doors.
6. Infestation of bugs and cockroaches. may require fUIDigation. (working)
7. Overloaded electrical circuits in roams and bathroams. to ba upgraded.
Apt. 13: No SlIIOke alarm.
Apt. IS: Hole in bath wall.
Apt. 111: No SIDOke alal'll.
Apt. 115: No smoke alal'll.
Apt. 116 & 17 (1 unit): No SIIIOke alann. tub drain service cover missing. excessive
storage. room needs cleaning.
Apt. 119: Holes in doors.
Apt. 129: No SlIOke alal'll.
Apt. 132: Cooking in roam.
Apt. 133: Unsafe electrical wire fram light fixture on back deck to li.ght on roof.
Apt. 136: Weatherstrip around A/C.
.
o
A'1''1'ACmmN'1' "F"
o
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 3lDNOII'IM"lrSTIIRT.SAN_IlNA11IllNO.CALI-" _'1
EVLYN WILCOX January 30. 1986
...,.,
........~., _ Ca 111 III In eeu-I
-_.............--
-_.............._-
............n II............~...
...................... . III........
_..101............. """'-
_~_............. ._w..
__...........-"w..
Re: 655 North 0 Street
San Bemardino. CA .
Motel Complex (50 units)
Assessors No: 135 011 16
ReportlProject No. 2475
Lei Wang & Cindy L Wang
& XI! Quan & Xiang-Lin Mao
21D-Almadale Avenue
Los Angel es. CI 90012
THIS CORRECTION NOTICE is being directed to your attention as owners of- the property
listed above. 0 .
During a followp inspection by this department of the property and structurels
located thereon. revoled certain bunding and fire code violat~ons. It is therefore
necess.ry that these condition/s be corrected .nd/or repaired in .ccord.nce with
proper procedures .nd permits fT'Oll this departlllent.
All lIlOrk is to be perfonned by qu.lified persons for e.ch type of repair.
Please contact this office within five (5) calendar d.ys fT'Olll this date to make
.rranglllllllts to correct those viol.tions indic.ted in this letter.
All work is to be clllllPleted within two (Z) weeks frolll the d.te of this letter.
City Building Offici.l
L~ding .nd Safety
~.rk
Building Inspector
Phone: 714/383 5373
Hours: 7:30-8:30.... or 1:00-1:30 p...
Attached heretO and incorporated therein by reference is . list of SOIII of the
lIIjor defects of the structurels .s detenl1ned by our inspection.
01
.
_.
.
Lei, Wang. et al
. January 30. 1986
Page 2
PREMISES:
Pool full of df~ green water.
Pool gate broken and not locked.
Pool pump area fflled wftb excessfve storage.
Pool roOlll is being unci for storage.
. Blue and bro... pick up trucks abandoned.
Barbed wfre on toP of walls to be removed.
Fire extinguisbers mtssfng. .
Stairs-hand rails need addftfonal railing.
Pfpe sticking out of slab fn front of apartment '20.
o
o
MANAGERS OFFICE AND APARTMENT:
Air conditfoning unit through fire wall - remove and repair wall.
Smoke alarm not lIlOrking.
Storage in beclroOlllS upstairs.
No smoke alarms for upstairs.
Excessive exposed wiring in apartment frOlll video hookup.
ALL APARTMENTS/BASIC DEFICIENCIES:
Apt 11: Smoke aiarm missing
Apt '2: O.K." ..
Apt 13: Smoke ala"! missing.
Apt 14: Smoke alarm workfng/hole in wall at front door.
Apt '5: Shower ceiling deteriorating.
Apt 16: Cooking/smoke alarm not lIlOrkfng.
Apt '7: Cooking/smoke alarm.missfng/apartment needs house cleaning.
Apt 18: Smoke alarm not lIlOrkfng/hole in wall at front door.
Apt '9: Smoke alarm missing/broken window.
Apt 110: Cooking/smoke alarm not lIlOrkfng/hole in wall at front door.
Apt ',1: Bathroaa walls and ceilfng deteriorating.
Apt ,,2: Cooking/dogs/excessive storage/bathroom ceiling deteriorating/smoke alarm
not working.
Apt ',3: No Apt.
Apt ,,4: Hole in wall at front door.
Apt 115: O.K.
Apt ',6: Smoke alarm .issing.
Apt 117: SlIoke alarm not lIlOrking.
Apt ',8: SiKlIca alal'll .issing.
Apt 119: Fire in wall plug/front door needS repairs.
Apt '20: Cooking/SIIIOke alal'll not working.
Apt '21: Wir1ngto air conditioning unit unsafe.
Apt ,ZZ: Bathroom walls deteriorating.
Apt '23: Broken window/smoke alarm not working/bathroOll wall deteriorating.
Apt '24: SiKlke alal'll not working.
Apt '25: . O. K.
Apt '26: Cooking/smoke alarm missing/hol. in wall at front door.
Apt '27: Cooking/dog/smoke alal'll .issing/hol. in wall at front door.
Apt fZ8: Cooking/smoke" alii'll not working.
Apt '29: Cook1ng/Smokl 1111'11 .issing.
Apt '30: Cooking/smok. 1111'11 .issing/hol. in wall at front'door.
Apt '31: Door on closet missing/SIIIOkI alii'll not working.
~i Wang._ et al
January 30. 1986
Page 3
o
-
o
-,
Apt 132: Sallee alanll not lIIOrking/tub leaking.
Apt 133: Cooking/SlDIee ala,.. not working.
Apt 134: Cooking/water leaking in sinklSllOke alana not lIIOrking.
Apt 135: Hol. in wall at front door.
Apt 136: COoking/SlIOke alana not lIIOrking.
Apt 137: COoking/SlIOIee ala". missing.
Apt 138: Cooking/SlIOIee alana missing/bathroCllll .55
Apt 139: Smolee alam not lIIOrUng.
Apt 140: COoking/SlIOIee alar'lll not working.
Apt 141: SIok. alam missing/bathroCllll walls deteriorating.
Apt 142: Smoke ..lam not working.
Apt 142: Cooking/door missing on closet.
Apt 144: Cooking/broken windows/toilet running/excessive storage.
Apt 145: Smoke alana not lIIOrking. .
Apt 146: - Broleen windows/SlIIOke alarm not lIIOrking.
Apt 147: Cooking/SlIOke ala,.. not working.
Apt 148: O.K.
Apt 149: Smoke alarm not working/air conditioning unit not weather stripped.
Apt 150: No smoke alarm.
In addition to the above listed items. many of the apartments which have had their
air conditioning units replaced. were replaced with smaller units than the originals
and are not properly weather stripped.
.. Although each bathro~ has a window. it is not being used to allow the moisture
and steam out fl"Olll showers and baths. It is recommended that bathroom exhaust
fans be installed to stop any further deterioration to walls and ceilings in all
ba throOlllS.
Since the pool is no longer being used. it is again recOlllllllnded that the pool be
filled with sand or completely removed.
Your business license and certificate of occupancy are for a motel use only and not
for full ti_ living or cooking type of apartlllents.
These violations and probleils have been an on going itell sinee 1982. It appears
that the owners try and correct the probl-.s but only t..porarily.
\)Ider the requireaents of your business license and certificate of occupancy. you
are to ..intain the property .and structure/s to the proper code for their us..
Failure to properly ..intain sllch. could result in the closure of the clllDplex and the
cancellation of your busin.ss lic.ns. and certificate of occupancy.
Unl.ss you c...-nc. illlllediately and within the ti_ frame given, to correct and
lIIintain tile above listed itllllS, further legal action may result.
We ~ld appreciate your cooperation-in this matter.
If you have any questions, pl.ase do not hesita~e to call.
cc: Mayor Wil cox
City Attorney
City Administrator
City Fire Chi.f
Chief of Police
CouncilWOllln Estrada
.
C~TY OF SAb BERNARDINO - OMEMUHANUUM
.
Subj.cc
erne ........._ MOTEL - 655 NORm "D" S'rlD'f .
From FUD LADS
DIte JAlIUAU 30. 1986
To
JAIIBS cun - BUILDDlG . SAR'l!' DEl'ADKERt
AppnMcI
D.te
,
.. pc ~~ ~aqIlUt, tia fo1.lclriAl clUc~epuc1.. are DOtl4 wb1ch war. foUSlll
OIl the fAapeCt:loll cOIl4lIctl4 OIl Juuary 29, 1986, at lIUbject locatiOll:
1. Bat platel are beiDa _14 &y two o~ IIO~' peopl.. ,'!:bey an placed. m-
_ cllac~~tely SA the R_..adU. a bum to tbe OCCUpatl.
Bealtb' Saf.ty.eocl..17921.1'c,'cl;..
2. Ther. are 110 ItO~'" cabSAetI fo~ foocl o~ cl1lh... Bealth' Saf.ty
Cocl. 17921 i .
3. 'lIIe ~iDa pool ar_ 11 UIIAC1aecl, ad cOIltaml stqD&ta vatar.
4. SIYarel 1IIli.tl COIltaml4 _ CNU abo....I."e. of coabultibl.. vII1ch m .,
opmiOll 11 c~_tiDa a Un hum.
5. Hally of the \IIl1ts aed. _ka cl.t'CtO~1 mstel1l4, o~ ~epaul4.
It 11 ., opmiOll that thU llatel 11 beeo-."I obsol.t. due to lack of aaiD-
t_', ad cou1cllu4 to au:llnW coulI(l&cc",
nJ~~
CI.,,,, ON .,.. ---.....
.
o
o
\
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO _NOIlTH"lT'mUT.SAN_IINAIIOINO.c.wFOllN1A ~1I
EVLYN WILCOX FetlI:'UBI:Y 26, 1986
May..
lal 655 Nccth D SL.....6t
S8D~, CA
Hotel ~,- (50 units)
Aa..T........ NoI 135 OU 16
~L/PrOjec:t No. 2475
2nd~, Feb. 25, 1986
.....l1MlIl.. ,..~ ceuMlI
-_............. ~--
-_............. .-...-
..............- frr...........T1U......
s..................... .~........w...
.......Qu................ ~lftftW'"
0................ 0"..... .SI........
.a.ck .t,..... . . . . . . . . . . . .......... w...
Lei Wang , cm1y L Wang
, XU Quell , XiaDg-IJn MIlO
2132 AlmIIlml.e Avenue
x.o. Angeles, CA 90012
'DiIS UJ!UCIlI-~""" tmICE a being ~ to 'yr:Mr ~ fill CllIIWrS of tba
~ listed abcIv8."
During a foJ,lQwup inaplic:t1co by t!Us ~I;.....t of tba 'prcpeJ:tY - lI't:%'UCtI:8/a
~ ~, W\--,..... cctaiD ....~ ".4"9 _ f1l:a cada v1olat"i""lll. It a
~ lWCrW"Y that tbue <X7""4til:lft/a be ........_tC alar ~ in ...........:4-
lIDC8 with i"'.....c ~o .......... _ pm:mita fraD t!Us ~L-&.t.
AU 1IICIrk :UI to be ~........4 by ~iC ~ac:ila far each type of repW:.
AU 1IICIrk :UI to be ~,.ted within bIO (2) -.lea fraD tba date of t!Us letter.
City ...41..4..g Off.icial
~ Cfl3;n"4~ safety
J.- Clark .
....,...,,"9 ~
l'blxlal 714/383 5373
Itlm:SI 7130-8130 a.m. ar 1100-1130 p.m.
Att~ bemtO _ >>-_",1Ad tbaniD by ~ :UI a u..t of SCIIl8 of the
JlBjar defects of tba stxUCtUI:'e/a .. ~...M_ by our i.Dapecticn.
.
, Lej, wang, at al O.
~25, 1986
P8ga 2
-
o
PREMISES.
Pool P\Dp _ fn,... with _ --1w st..... ~.
BEbed wn. CD top of -u. to be .._...s.
sta.:i.;J:'8-~ DM4 e:I4i~"f'W'Ul1 P"'''"g-
.
MNWZRS OFFICE AND APARJ!oIEN'l'.
Saoka almm DOt warJdng. .
!b saJca .,...... far~.
ALL APARlMENl'S/BASIC OInCIEH:J:ES.
Apt 13. Saoka almm miuing.
Apt .5. ""-1r~;1 i~ deteriarating.
Apt Ill. BathI:caII-u. _ ~;H"9 deteri.oz:a'ting. Cooldng
Apt 119. rue .in wl.l p1ug/frODt daar Deeds :epe1n.
Apt 123. BathI:caII wl.l da1:ciarIIt.ing. ·
Apt 1t41. BathI:caII walla deteriarat.ing.
Apt 1t43. COoIc.ing
Apt 1t44. CooIdng/brOlCllD wiD:IawII/toilat runn.ing/ClCf li1l8 starlIge.
Apt 1t49. Air CIOIIditicning unit not _at"""'" stripped.
In e:l4itiOD to the above lisUd it..., DIlDY of the _~ whicb baV8 Md
tb8jr air CIOIIdit;...i"9 units mp'''-, __ rep7-- with -uer units than
the arig:i-'. lIIll1 are DOt ...........-rly wat!lar stripped.
Alt-JI3b eecb bathroan Ms . w1D:Iow, it ~ not being UMd to alJ.clw the am.t-
1:8 lIIll1 IItelD out frcIlI lIboliES lIIll1 batha. It ~ ~"....,...... tbIIt blIl:broaD
--t f_ be imtaJ.led to atop f!IllY f1:Irtbar daterial:at1OD to walla - ceil-
in~ .in all bathz:oanI.
tl1der the ~ of JQ: ~:lr--- 11- lIIll1 0E'tif.icate of ~l"""'CY,
yea are to aa.intain the ...._Lz _ at:I:UCtUI:a/. to the ....~ c:cda far thai:
u.. Fai.ll:e to ~~ly JIII.inta.in 8UCh ccW4 n8U1.t .in the ~ of the
~,_ lIIll1 the car-,,_itWI of JQ: ~;---. H_ lIIll1 OE'tificate of occu-
pmlCY. .
we 1ICUld _r"i-. yr:Nr cc~..d.Jca .in thi8 1IBttC.
If yea baVlI f!IllY ~icIn8, p'--- do DOt bHitate to call.
eel MIlJCIC Vol',.,.,.
City At.........y
City~
City n:c. au..f
au..f of P'cI11ca
~,- EatrIlda
.
o
o
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 3DONClIlTH "O"'STllEEUAN IIIlNAllOlNO.CAUFOIlNIA 12411
.
EVLYN WILCOX
....
HEcb 11, 1986
RI. 655 M:th -D- Stmet
S8Il~, CA
MotaJ. t'~1_ (SO tJa1ts)
....'HI_. No. 135 011 16
........ L/P%Oject No. 2475
3m~, MIa:ch 11, 1986
........ .,.. cemM'" c:euMII
..--............. --
--"'.............._-
........... _.... . . . . . . . . . . . TIMrtI..,.
........................ ..........w....
Cl.-Qu................ tl'lftIIW...
_...... ........... ..._w_
__..........._w_
Lei WaDg , Cindy L Wang
. ~ Ja1 ~ ,- Xian9-IJn MIlo
2132 A1IIB!ale Awnue
Loll ~1.., CA 90012
THIS ~.&:J.~ N:I1'ICE is being d1nc:ted to ~ IIl:'teDticD as CIlIIDe:t1I of tbe
property listed abova.
Durmg II fo~ inspection by ~ d..-t.-d. It tba i"'_Lz mil! structuz:a/s
locIlt:ecl thEwm. ~--1'" osi:taiD ....H..~"I4jJ mil! fin COlia vi.ol.ati.cIls. It is
ttIm:8fara -sary that tbue CXlIIditica/s be __1:eC! mIl!/ar ~ in ........4-
ance w1tb i"'_ i'" .......... mil! pc:mits frail ~ ~t.....t..
AU 1IlEk is to be perfcml8d by cr_H~~'" ~:ICXl8 far -= type of mpair.
AU 1IlEk is to be c:a1pletsd within ttG (2) -a fz:an tbe date of ~ letter.
C1t:y .....,"'..WOV Off",.....'
:g:;~/".'9 ......
"- Clark
III'" , "'''"'''9 T"',..a..("tQr
P!xlna. 714/383 5373 .
HoI:s. 7.30-8.30 &.IL ar 1.00-1.30 p.m.
Att-- bm:eto mil! .i.-_.at.d t:bEeiD by ~ is II list of _ of tba
_jar ciefects of tba ~/s as det..'nl- by oar 1IIspecti.oD.
.
. Lei Wllng. at al. 0
MEcIlll. 1986
hge 2
ALL APAlmlENl'SJUSIC P1t~1
o
.
.
Apt 1441 OOOIdnsrl"" -y<lw .1.--.,6.
In ~tia1 to tt. ~ l1a1:8lS ~. IlIIDY of tba _t-4ts whid1!1aw M1
thair air ~..Hp<l...<I~ ua1ts "p'''-. WW ~,-- with ..-"'" ua1t. tblm
tba ~ 8D4 ... ~ .properly -~ stripped.
,., p_q. eadl bIIttmxID ... a w1Dklw. it is DOt be1ng 1.-d to aJ.law the 1IDist-
1.:. 8D4 ~ out !mD stIClIl In 8D4 batm.. It is r-...- ...... tbat bIIttmxID
_wi: f_ be iD8taJ.ler1 to lItop aayfurtbBr ~ of WIlla 8D4 oail-
iDgII in all ba1:bI:'ocIS.
We woW.d _ .-1- yr>>r c:ccperaticD in this 1IIltter.
If you have my questic:las. p'-- do DOt t.sitate to call.
.--
CCI Mayor Wi1.cxIx
City Attamey
City ~ar
City Fin 0Uef
0Uef of Pollca
~~"'~ Ea1:rIIda
.
-. -_.. --..........""'........11.11. ~I.'.
coo. INI'Clllc.MEvr IIMIION ftSB NO ).J I) 2 61
' MOnCE TO AF'PEAIW* L.
"~/1~~9()1::~~ w-;.- I 1&;00-
..............-...~
""'~~ C~~L ~,;.,,./ ~ . ,..~ ,,-,J::::*
~~ .J,. ..~..
grr - ,.
"
,
'"----
IOLAnoNISI SECTION I." U..._ eo. ~ u'l!~m...........
-,~--
~1II.f!. /.)'"::Zif,vvu P~~_r'l A1~J~;T
tf:::~..( 1~~_)1~~~3'~~ ;~<
_f;(I~j_J;.----/_1'/ (?hUhh;';" itJ-z..
~- -- AT .
UJ1l.f1 ='~ ~. C/O ~~ JlitU.....~..
S.6/11.(. 7 -"lID a'- l;1Lt5'/rIk.
.s..8 /I). !~. I'S ~ /"J/?J 1)p"1'r%)..Il~"
~~AH2:lLr7~,t~~~~o (/.II;-,n y
.:,/q,,"~ :iJ/~~. ~~ ~ ~::;
~~lIrs. DJ- ~f,.__~_.__.._ ( 1____
- DO NOT ACCEPT BAIL
~AI /)" .
-~"z1JZ~ . ("~
'''''lJZ . () j i~ t..
\110,)1.....''''''' .."~III"'~ I "__\0 ,;ACAfIOlrrtOA:..
I .
WITHOUT AOMlmNG GUll T. ~PRO"ISE TO A"EAR AT THE TIME
':0 P.lACE CHEClCED 'El~ II _
\:1"".""... ~~.
BEFORE A OR A - OF THE IAUNIClPAl COURT
:-:-JlItToQ:llkOG z'.;;-.oo-
:""~A:..I .t......~
~. - ql)
... .:....f~.....
_.'-t
*.-
f:lol"QIII~1'1 .~
I lJJ ~.;J I i,.. ~tj. ..
;". .r ,_ ...,
...... De :r.........,.,...
) SAFETY
o
:EKEN'1'
?Oll'r
CITATION NO.
SIGNED
Zone:
~()TIC~TY~!,~~TIO'lt(;o"
IUILD1I11l1 MD _ITYDIPNITM~ ~'84 ...4 V"
CDDIIIVClfICIIIINT DIYI_ .... ~ -, .
.. NClImt "D" '"'lit -'
IAN llMAIIDINO. CA 1M"
pate: ..2- ~b - 90
,
,
La II "I ,.,.. . I ,./" I' ..~. J.
-ca -on: ~'2.2...!Y _ z.,
Tenant I r;/ iZ. c.( "( {:j D
Addu...: (p ~~ AI' "7)" 51-
Owner: I t::r J .1/ rls/) \ J I f fa 119
,
AddIu," ..2/3 :1 41 MA Il .. I~ .4 1/
, ,(os. HM'fe/~S J c.,:;.. 9co1.3
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED OF THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS OF THE
SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE c;..,,{",Lt.. J !=-rh,;J:.ll'''O ll.JJi--/.u1...
~ aI J:::-j/') \ ~~h:~~ /~ / ~ ~ ~?-~ ;~~:J::Z::5;~~.
111 . " ..~~ ,1' /.. z,'" Jic."j
.,v.w,'~ "..,..7;.,;/, _ .x,y,u,o ;:V'Y /I./;....d~hl -Ii '~",""<7;" \~...,,- 19
P,zvJUd. ~~'61? W1~! /~~ 0:(' b:;p:' '/
Thisvlolallonmuatbecorrededby 1l1tl1tP. 9. /79,) . Falhlretocorrect
thla violation may I'HUIt In co... being Incurred orthla matter being
referrecI.to the CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE for appropriate action.
PIea8e nottiy the Code ComplIance 0fIIcer when the correction is made. If you have any
questions, pIeaIe call the Code Enforcement DIvision (714) 384-5205.
NOTES: MAI..':/ "~~4 k ,'J.(~...I- 6~~4/";;.-'-;,;;;-t,(
..:; ,'~~~~l. ~ I ,,~.#..u"
)< 2"" ct. . /:']'14l{,/ .l /1 /Lf"u
o..tT~-i .- ~,~~ ~Mn_tJr
..~..... may lit punIahed by a line of up to $500 or by ImprIaorunent In
;ounty JaIl for. period of .lIIOI..... or by both line and Imprl8Ol1mant.
.atora may be paraonaIly liable for d colla of .........
. .. c,c-
.
.-....-
.'
, :
... ".
'''"
\
.
.) "G'~:-;- '. 0 o.
~:\. --... .
- ''';..,:-..'.
"'-. -,. .. .
,1-/ -:"- .....
'::-. ,._"" .::. C I"' yO'
1-,.:....... ....-.,.-
\.~1~~~. '~::' ~: ~an ]::t -rnardl'n' 0
v ~:...-;:' ../ U'C
.......: .--:".
.....,..., 0' ......... .... I.'LO'.. ".WIC..
LARR y E
= I III leT 0 .
R E E D.
M.rch 15, 1990
Lei .nd cindy w.ng
2132 Almad.l. Av.nu.
Lo. Ang.l.., CA 90023
R.: 655 North "0" str..t
Dear Lei and Cindy wang:
Pl.as. b. advis.d th.t,
tion w.s mad. at 655 North
listed as being the owner of
on March 14,
"0" stre.t,
record.
1990, .n inv.stig.-
of which you .r.
It was found to be a d.ng.rou. building .. d.fined in
S.n Bern.rdino Municipal Cod. S.ction 15.28.150.. Thus the
own.r(s), l.s..(s) .nd/or oth.r such person. .r. ord.r.d to
vacate the building. Th. building must r.main v.c.nt until
the prop.r p.rmits .r. obtained .nd the structur. is brought
up to Building Cod. st.ndards. In .ddition, the City will b.
starting proc.dur.s for r.voking Conditional U.. p.rmit (CUP)
1960-198 for your .ot.l op.r.tion .t 655 North "0" Str..t.
St.ff will ..nd you additional information und.r s.par.t.
cov.r.
If you h.v. .ny qu.stions r.g.rding this, pl.... fe.l
free to cont.ct my offic. .t 384-5205.
Sinc.r.1Y4
4~~
Larry E. R.ed, Dir.ctor
Department of planning . .nd
Building S.rvic..
DUlLER: nhIII
cc:
.
a.O ..OIllT" O. ".IIT. I.N .......OINO.
C A L I '.0 . III I A . I . . . .. o. ole' t .) .1....' t "" 7
.
o ,
,
."........ .....,.,. ......,...,
March 23. 1990
Re: 655 North D St.
San Bernardino. CA
Dangerous Motel
Assessors No: 135 011 16
Report/Project No. 2475
Lej & Cindy Wang
2132 Almadale Avenue
Los Angeles. CA 90023
THIS CORRECTION NOTICE is hereby served on you as owner(s) of the
property referred to above.
An inspection. by this department. of the structure(s) located thereon
revealed certain building code violations. It is necessary that these
conditions be corrected in accordance with the proper procedures and
wi th valid pennits from this department. .
Please contact this office within ten (10) calendar days from the
date of this notice to make arrangements to correct those violations
indicated in this letter.
In addition to the CORRECTION NOTICE. a .Notice of .Pendency of Admin-
istrative Proceedings. regarding the above property is being filed
with the County Recorder's Office to give public notice of pending
action by the City on this property.
Director/Building Official
. Department of Building and Safety
by: Jo'''~I~ L! ~~
~ce Officer
Phone:. 714/384 5205
Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is a list of the
lIIIjor defects found in the structure(s) by our inspection.
oJ': -.;0.-. ~ '-.11- ,,,.. .......: -.';.
. . . .. a eo ~ ,.: & . t .... , . . , I . . .. . . , ,
.:'.::i:! .-, .-
~... .t
. .:\. .0
.....~.,.,
^ CITY 01' SAJI BEJUWtDIlIO
tIIl'.AJmIElI'f 01' BUI1.DIlIG. AlID SO~
300 NOll'rB -D- sTJtZZT
SAJI BV'IfAJIPDlO, c:A 92411
CODE EIII'OR~ DIVISION
UNIT IlIsnCUON UJIOR'1'
n. auilcSinv ancS Saf.ty Departa.nt has i~P.ct.cS the cS.scribecS
_ propertY. '1'h. ~,.ction r.v.alecS that the it... ..r)CecS cSo not confora
.. to the provisio~ of the San aernareSino Municipal Co4. (SBMC). u.a-
..rltecS vi th a DOUBLE c:HE~ .aust ),e repairecS or con.ctecS vi ~in ~
cS&ys. U",,~ it... ..t ),e r.pairecS of _ cRn.CUd - 'd-thJ.n e::;, cSays.
"unITS UQUIJtZD ", YES NO~' ~
p.raiU are requir.d to rep.i.r or correct ..ny of the it.... For a
consultation revarcSinv this report, ..si.tance in s.CIU'inv a perait, or
.checSulinv a reinsp.cti.on. pl.... call th. offic. and schecSul. your
requ.st .vith ~. in.pector vho.e nail. .pp..r. on this report.
OFnCE BOUJtS AU BE'l'WEElI 7:30-8:30 a.a. AND 3:30";4:30 p.a.MONDAY
THROUGH FRIDAY - PHONE NO. (714) 384-5205
~'
i-
.'11 .
LOCATION
ASSESSOR'S NO.
TYPE/BLDG
VIOLATION
DATE PREP~
~/'
.,1
7
2.
3.
f}If../ 4.
5.
6.
7.
~./.. . I.
t.
10.
_ 11.
", 12 .
t/'" 13.
714.
15.
\
,
I
~.....,.
:..
:~~;~U~~Ol--(A.\ D~"! Y'rYOM
Lac)C of or impropar v.ter clo.et, lavatory, !)athtub or
.bover in cSvellinq. UBC 1205
Lac)C of or improper )Citchen .inIC or drai~oarcS in cSvall-
inq. USC 1205
tac)C of hot and cold runninq vater in cSv.llinq.
use 1205
tac)C of acSequata'h.atinq facilitie.. use 1211, ORC
701
tac)C of or iaproper operation of requirecS vantilatinq
equipment. use 1205, ORC 504
tac)C of ainima gount. of natural liqht and v.ntila-
tion. UBC 1205, WC 504 .
ReOll and .pace cSime~ion. le.. than r.quiracS !)y co4..
UBC 1207, ORC 503 .
Lac)C of raquirecS el.ctrical liqbtinq. NZC 210-70
. oaapn.ss of huitul. rooa. use 104 (d) , UBC 1707
Inf.station of i~.cts, v.rmin or ro4.nts. ORC 1001(B)
Gen.ral cSilapicS&tion or imProper ..intenanc.. UBC 104 (cS)
Lac)C of conn.ct1.on_1OO r.quirU _.vav. dispo.al syst...
Upe: 1101 ~'P'a OA/,n- &;r .
Lac)C of ..intenance of ,s.ptic syst-. UP<: 31t
Lac)C of acSequate Varbav. and rubbish .-tOrav. ancS r..oval
faciliti... SBMC 1.21.040 ~1'f4"
. lna4.qII&te housekeePiD9 ~ trash, Varbave,. etc.
SBMC 1.18.010 ' ..
f'l'RU......ml1L 1O.~a..ns time,
.......SC'1'O. SIGJIA'l'OU
- ''!''" -
. .. ;"C'..w--.... - . ,,- ..~
. ---
.. a~. acio by . a~. a pa~ 0
Ienucl1no Municipal COlle ,SMC 15.04.020).
'fIlII DIRC'nOll IIZJIOJl'l WAI GIVD TO. . .' , .
L- A p~opefty 0VIl.~ . .
. ....-
C t.DI"~
D by bud dellv.Z'Y
I nplu ..11
y r oeztitied ..il
, March 23 l' 90
-
~/ .
1.
" 2.
3.
4.
5.
_.
7.
I.
,.
10.
11.
LI.:
1.
on
ope~ vacant. SMC 15.21.140 ',-1.17, ~'t
'1~""" .tnctur.. SMC 15-" 240, UBC See. 203
aro doo~. and vinclOVa. SIlIIC "'ll.140, VPC 12.101
UJIOR1' JfO.
%11e9&1 aclcl1t1on (bOOUeq) UBC See. 301, ORC 301
~......u vut:bezo p~t1on (not leaJca, etc.)
VIe 203, U8C 2501
%aacl....t. foundation. UBC 'fule 2'1.. UBC 2'07
.a99189 t1oo_. UBC 203, UBC 2501
Inadequate _t-p~f1"". UBC SEC. 3205,251&
ChJilney .tructure unaound. UIe Sec. 3703, 3704
T.naUe d"'"., UIe 203, UBC 104
Structural 1nt~ity que.tionu.l.. UBC 203
PTnM1InlC (UPCI CH.c;./( ovT
Wat.~ heate~ ille"ally in.talled in bath o~ bed~ooa. UPC
130'
Wat.~ h.at.~ ha. no 'f' P valve o~..ei..ic tie down..
UPC 1007. ONC 504
I.eaJc1n"/bnlt.n;plu",,ed ..v.~ clnin.. UPC 31'
I.eaJcin" anci/o~ I:Irolten pipe.. UPC 31'
Cro.. cOMected plullbi"". UPC 1002
YareS .prinkler. au.t bav. vacuan br.aa. UPC 1003 (h)
M!:~YeAL (UMCI c:11~'" cvT
Ille"al .,a. heater or applianc.. ONC 202
Improperly v.nted vater b.at.r. ape 1312
Inadequate or mi..in" .,as shut ott valve. UPC 1213. 1214
Coabustibl.. stored too near h.atin" appliance..
I:LE~YeAL (NECI c..rtt!'c.oC. ~'T
overtu.in" - branch circuit. not to exceed 15 ..p. to~
li.,ht. and 20 amp. tor rec.ptacl... NEC 210-23
Ki..in" elect~ical covers or tixtu~... NEC 370-15
Inadequate outlet.. NIC 210-52, UHC 701(b)
Ile~ical service entrance is inad.quat.. NEC ~icle
23~
~Z::~U;~~c~lle"al widn". NEC 202
Pool. - sta"nant wat.r
inadequat. "ate
2-'024, SIKC 2431
Not to be occupi.d until conecUon. .a~e ude. UHC 303,
UIC 305 .
ce~iticat. of occupancy ~equir.d. UIC 307
Imp~ope~ OCcupancy. UIe Sec. 502
NUi.anc.. UIe Sec. 203
Po..ible "1~e Ha.areS. UBC Sec. 203
SaGIte Detecto_ R.quired. UBC 1210
~.. requi~ecl on all bulldiftlJ. ancl/o~ apa~enu. UFC
10.201
lupp
inad.quate fence
. Title 24,
.
th. San
4t!1~
--
- ~-
.... -..--~-
.
o
o
.
_ ~ "0" STRIIT.SAN II_DING. CAUI'OlINIA _11
March 23. 1990
Re: 655 North D St.
. San Bernardino. CA
APN 1351011 16l RaDort-P-roject No. 2475
Southern Ca lfOrnla Einson company
New Business Desk
287 Tennessee Street
Redlands. CA 92373 . ,I. ~ ,_ ".. _ - ~l
~:/~P~~y~~~:~:1n:twlS'i~~C~' on ~_~ ~ y. in t~
The following conditions Wlrrant ablteme.nt y t . Buflding Official
as defined in the San Bernardino Municipal Code Title 15.28.150.
':::>cL.....~c~O....s ~"'9.s,1\ E:...le~""4.I;"'1I I
.
",",hu.h.
?a!... d ~^""~IZ~ ""a ~1I!!!!.~..fIlllt.~&
The Building Official hereby orders the electrical to be discontinued
immediately by the authority of the Administrative Code. Chapter 2.
Section 202-F. as adopted by the Sin Bernardino Municipal Code.
Titl. 15.04.020. Pleas. disconnect power by:
~ Shut off only
[ ] Meter Removal
[ ] Disconnect at power pole
If there are any questions about this action. please call 714/384-5071.
~ An electrical inspection will be required before restoration of power.
byr ~~~.I1-R. f"'\Y.t.,...
Code Compliance Officer/Building Inspector
cc: Lei & Cin~ Wing
RlvilWCl ~nd approved by:
Bundt
I
;
,
i
I
.
o
o
CITY OP
. San Bernardino
.VILD... . a.'.'! .'~A.l'.'.'
March 23. 1990
Re: 655 North D St.
San Bernardino. CA
APN 135 011 16
Report/Project NO. 2475
Southern California Gas Company
Customer Service Department
1981 Lugonia
Redlands. CA. 92373-0306 ,I
The property located at ~5'~)J.~" t' in the
City of San Bernardino 'wir1nspectecl on - -..Sl!!
The conditions werrant abat_nt by the ng ficial as d;fined
in the San Bernardino fllnicipal Code Title 15.28.150.
The Building Official hereby orders electrical and gas utilities to
be discontinued illlllecliately by the authority of the Administrative
. CoeIe, Chapter 2, Section 202-F, as adopted by the San Bernardino
fllnicipal CoeIe, Title 15.04.020.
If there are any questions about this action, please call 714/384 5205.
Director/Building Official
bY~ e~
. anee f1cer/ III nspector
cc: Lei & Cindy Wang
I" '14 M.N;-I-.s
,.. ..0.'. D ".'IT ..... ........0...0
c....I'O...A II." oe.. ".,......"
~~~I
~
,.~n 'I;
.
-.
o
o
@
.
_. .__._ _.. Le-; A~a...1!.A.~ IUAB#
_.~. ..._ . .... ..__._~/3..~___.~I.,;UJ..~ /~_P!Ve-__
_. _ . ..o__.~dS.--~?~~~._rk.~._tf.~t?-;"3
.-. - ... ....- -..---..----.
.... .--..--.------ ..-
. ... ....:.._..._,ee:.._.t~._t/~.~-_. ..-----..-.. .
_... .. .._. ._.__.__t9.-~.e/:_13~-~~1I.~./~__.---- -.-.---.-._ o.
__._._ __._0.__ ___. R~P-_o~r:/RflJ.)~~t:.__2.'i.ZS--- .--------.. . -.
...:_.._ ....P.h.~~!~~~~_.~--~/;;_.. ..~--
. ~__ au&~-e~ . ---. -. .. -... . .--..
.-..
. ,1)41,.", z ;::.,e~I'~a JI ~ (d,~~it/
.~..IJ.., a14A. bpt~L. au .u~.2,.h~t'44:2 . (U~
.. UjJ A ~L-_, J;zI.J~ .C~~~--~n:ztt.l..-t-~~
_ ...~_~#~~~.~;1~-.._~-'~~.a,~~
n.___~-- -- -...
__.. ._._. _. _ ~Uf1.L~ :: JJ~-t:&.1<<4h- ~4{W:J4~(l'JG~~ ?~4.
/~ ~.~~.J ~ ~_ ....~A. AA~ d~4.t~ ~t!..q~
~~_b:1-~A A ~~ .A~~ /tft,,(}-2'~..
- , . V -.:;1-
~H- ,.J'L ~I~J</ h"fJ~-N ;t~'; ~(J~
, ...
Fb.J;;;~~/ Cf-~
-~(~ ~~~~~~~~,~~
;t:~~.-::.~ ::;~~~ ~1
~4,-~1I I'~~U"'~~ 4_r.~ d'-t..~.~....~"
"fkt.z,-
.-...---
---
G:/
.0.. 0 0
. ~""1f. 6 ~ ~t;~ b~.J ~~~~ ~"'~~<A'
. j A.... . ~. ~~~.-
..___U/,U4a . ~ ~- t4'ft; I~~ ~_._.-
_.-____~.,.A. F~~,,:(~e.~ /i.,i.~ .~_ 4._~.1?t.",~
'" s - 7l7. . .. A.. ~- *. . ~
~ ..0 _.._.fi()7l" --:.... (~:.~J.<<IJ'dUI'- ,<~('_~,~Ij,//~
~.-I,,~n.~ aAtL:I M4.1. 1't"JaMJ-~_n'_"-"'f... I ~.,,~
. ZT; . 'J /1_. A. 0
...---,l ;~ b.-<.':64ptuAd_.d~_~_~~". ae<<).~~U_.
_ _ ..-r'""'~~~...hu:l ia.J.<ot~.6:bw.----
___ ~ .. ..~_~fJ/.YId .!U'1'WO_~---.-
._u_o .. ...V'~~.~~ ,.a-ko.~.~~.
_. .__... ~...~_~__p-'_~,.~n1.~tPJL:.__.__....
... pAr. TO et ~ ~ tV~~ ,on4.- ~~~!4A~
_ ..~~?~i;1. J O/Y.td ~,,(. ~ A.yO/V
... 4t! . 'HIH! :i;1:;~~~~~ .
...~~_~~V):~. . .0... .. . - ---.......
_.._.. RcIJh1 /IJ ~.tutlAV _.(./tv"~1c:t_.a;{ fiJ1." -~.~~~{:
~ ~g_~_ A ~:~~__~_(X(."plJV)N(
..o_,R(J~~ II ::.___e.~~_~~~o~.~~Yl.:Y.
~~~ u__~_ rJllJ~.-1~ '-M.&~t. ~~.
p~ o~ ~_-'AI~ /YI~'ltrl~~i'_
Rn:...:. ~,..:, &1J.~.AiI_ ~.J~/:"'..../AlJ!/t. . ~ ~~
c..n7() ~.n;",A.At/L
/5;:
,
,.
.
~ Um-'k- ". .
. '1A'(~~~ ~r ~..(I dM/,~'
. ~ ~~
C/os:p <, _ '#1#1 I" -=- .,h_ :..: ~ ...J.f~
~w ~<<4/ #~~~+-~-:tZ~J ---
A73
--- -.
._-
-.. --
~
. .'
.
.'. 0
o
......._... ~m .17.~_~!\J1-tL. rktT~~:.~ /.(~(<3.~W1.~"; .~
_.. _ ..__~~1$t~-?-.J'_"_.t4..~-,,_~~eLr.l~~'-~
. ....~~~~.~~/~__~--~-,Io-~ ----
~ -,.Je,.o, ~ ;~ .
.- ~1/i1IIIr"~'7 .-... .-.. .--.-..... . -_..~.__:- .-.-- ~ -~~~..-
u ...._ Ro~M../$~_'_P~._h,J~~~~'-dl()!~.~~::.::-e.~.,
...4/~ ~~L~~......~el~~ /~~;..,- .t'~
./ - .
_'," '. ._a..~~ .~, ......-. -...------..--. .'- .. ..... ...-.,..
..;}/(;:'CD '.. ... If..~&""_~f:;,.. .. . ~..~~ ~..~tt_..
?,N.<111 J I ~ ·
..._c.l~~r7:" /C~~,~'- Jt/~ _I'~ ~--C~..q .
... K.~;t~. ~ ,u~~<No/t:, :du<J A'l~~ A(~~~<J -..
'. a mlL-~ ~ fi.tI.#'?A ~~~ ,J~
",.'a,4 .Q/~~~ ~~J M~'. ~..~I'
. ~ U~h~l.{.tC> abJ<J ;tk.. . WaA
. ~.. I
... T~/~-'~'?~ . .. . .. .. ..... ...
.._ RODM U:::. ~ps1uJ-.._~~~~u~.1 ~,~l(.:t
. ~~/~ ,~(;!.JiL$S ~w~
....__._.R~". ~. .~4Jt~-"D~_..AI1(t4-l.-.~(~~
___..._._ . _ -~~tJtHJ ,b'~_'. .. '-4!a~rE'Jd-11L
..______1~()mJ.l-.. {;Ju~~~'" ~.-dUM2cC~ -
_~~~JU~--~-~a-
_ ,e(J.~ 1"1:.. ~~ ~._~~ ~~
~ ~ ~~ ~.JM AA~~~_r.~ A/~
~....~ -'A ~ACd /.A'I,-L'II(Jb,o 1J.&t-^~7 ~ ~~"<t
_ 4- ...~~ ~tv.o tu..6N A~~_
___ _ ~ ~ ~l- ;~.I4M,'. .
.__~ ____-J!p.L!.!.!-~- ~ &~6",,-' ~.-
()~,D ____mrlrz..()x.~-~~a"..P..M~ ~.~~_.--
3-:"'.~....._~..tfin~-;;./J~.-P~ .
~
.. 0 -
. 0
_~_R~hl :J7~ ~- il..-~~-#.t.~1 ~~~~-~
_... J!!'iz~r,D,f~:.l"", ~~~ ~~ ~/~ ~~-~.'-
.
~ .. ..
CID(CO' --tF"':,:,~ . - ----
~~,4t11 ....If'tJDA1.~s.;-~~ /L_~._~W~....
_._~ ~.~~~ ...~ ~ tk6L '~I~~
_ ...~ ~.~.#~o.~k':~ ~.~LI'.~.~__,.._._ .
_...f!;~__w.~._(,l~._-~/~ ....~t.~..___._
- .. __'t4('M~-i;U#K~~----%~{"'!
...... ...4V1.-..~ ~:~~~~_._...
_ . ._._..__.,qOt;)~._.z,tf_~_.~._W~---~_a~.~-.-
.' )1)~~ tv/u'Ut..-~t.e~~~ 41"~~ .
.~.~~
.... ;PU~ ~ ~. fJfHY'I, J1..~, 4b'~t"-a.. M.~
.......a#(J() .~~.y~r .~_~a-L .~~..:
__. ... W~ A'?'(a~1' ~ AIK1~ rf .A '?-~. :;4..01..
_..~. ~L~.. .. U"U ,.__ _.__ -. ... ..-.. .. ...- . - ..--.......--.. ..-- .
.__ _.__ .___...R~~.l-=--~.~~.$..~-(.,;'7-~---.--u
__. ~_. . __..../l.A9.I.~'-=--_.w~-~~~._~~.-..
~___ fl ~ ~tI.~, a~~(,(La.<J
. ./1~Ju.tJ ~ fA'" /)~""f.. I .
~ ~ ~::.. J'i1'1M. ~-"~<.A1 hL/A~
)-1 L t vud , ,.o~ ,..o.-M~~~'~~. ht(J.IA~~4J"_
J!J~~)1.. .~~~h'~A pA~ ~ e~n! ~
. ~~;;,~~t p::;/~1r~
':~ --4..~J~
:! l2.e..w. 3'1 =_~~- Plv~e~
..___.. ....~ 4.J.<-/~.-4;,;M 4v~._..--._..-
. t:J.~ .
.
.'. 0 0
__. __RQ(J.NL-_35:~__..PHtJLP~-",_P~..}iWA... ---
__'''.__ )lwf,t~-~~~~-In~~...;c~~.-
_ __ _~~~~ ~_A4~""~ J ~. - - -
~- - - _.~A . _ti:{.. ~.. 1-- ~;~'i. -'.
_ ___._I?&cf~. 3.,_ -. __ P~._IJ".H4_k . ~_-l__._
.'- ----.- 12~~.-. --.- . '.--
___ .. __ _ af)O~ -a.7~ &qJ~4W_.t!~t"A.e.~ ~
--- ...~~~./~-I.~,@~....
___. __. _. ~a..<u .~.J?/'.d. Cl/f-L ~1C- /JH4. ~4?~ 4'k.
_._._ _'" /(g"n.38.:: ~.A~~Z:47 ~
. ~ ~~. tJ--z...:/' J P;M, .t}~~t.)C..Q(?l~
~~. ..(/1'1-.-' /,;.,CS;?<- I ~ ~-/A.
.. ~~~~ "'3t9:. t}y~~l e&~bA.~~ tu.NA~
.~. /'])..b~<--y~ E6~u-;".I ~~.I
. ___... ... jJ~ /)'h:U-Y'.,bJ~U;l.. .J,.11.LL~~-.e~
_.. . .._~ C'd%-'~, . .... .
_ _._._. ..._.._ _I<~~~_./f~~.. f}y~__w~~ .. ----.--....-.. -.-
.___.l2.o.42~_ '7'- ~_~~--~ -~...;..,.-_.
.' /LIZ.'''~:.~~~_atYtd-_&~,-~,~-,..~.. --
~:~~ .. --_..~-
~41~1.. k_~~_c1d'fi~-.-~.
_A~ r LE-~~ ~.,~/ ~~ h1~
. ~-Liie4~--L'a~AIP.I- ~ ~
12DIJ'" lJ3~ .~. (J~ ~,dl~/
u~ ~~~~ .
_ ..A, J./",;~~' tJ~-~-'fH_C~
._._.~~.~~~..;L~--f'J&d-.
. .
--.--. ... -~'-~_.
<.::;..;/
.
. P9 ~
.
, .
.'.
o
ve/
o
.
, _.J/~ &p.~A,L ~-,"A~t'ALh~"~1:L.;
. ._...~~ 4'lYA#-v._.~-A. ~~-~.
.___ _'_ ... R01t:,,_~,,- --= .~-r.wA ~11~._~~~_
. u. .._.~.;e~~~(~4J__.w~--r~Ud_"_'~-'-"
._ . ~~ .tk:,.{.- ~d L/_J. " I'2~J .
_.. .__R~J~fi. "'?~ ~;~:.~ ~._.
R8h'''-u._Jl'~_~_41~/'t"iO- ~_..<9~.:-_
_ .__.~-r'~'~r.~ :"'fl;I..~.,.e~-_-_-
. . .... R~/)"... _ J:lq ~.()pI;;'t. I.__.v~..;(-..~ ~~:.t:l.
____ _. ..~f.,-.~l~~--,.:~-dH~.-,-~
...dv.:t ck"A~l.4-L~~..t""--
,. ..,.,.' v.
_. .. K~, a-to...D a?t~.- W,.UI,L C
.. ~~~.~_ ~ AU"'<-'" ~ . ~-.,
...~.. ~ ~d~ c;/Ld-~~r
. . 'u .;t/:.bU-. W~_,. ~ .,L~. tv./~~L
_. ...fJl14.l..d- d.a-?!-"r-1... Jt:u_.(h1~U. w~
_.. ...~._~._3-1, ..~~~.~._41",~.-r,L~1 --..
. .
----.-=fi~~--~~. .~~A~ (74_71tL~tf ~ ..- -..
. ~-Il/-9o . '--
- . ~>:jy IE~
-- -. - ....- - --.....-...--- --..-... - .----- ..
\
. 1
2
3
~
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
1~
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
25
26
21
28
.:rJU18S .,. G....u.. CJ.~ At~ 0
....., 10. aD'IONS. Depu~ CJ.~ A~~
300 1- I -D- acee't. Iloa. 661
.... ~. C&1U~8 92411
(71~ ""-'-53511
Atwmqa for CIft OF SAN BDHAIlDINO
. .
SUPEJtIOIl COUIlT OF 'l'D STAR OF CALIrOIlNIA
FOil '1'HB COUM'l'Y OF SAN BIIINAIlDINO
'1'HB PEOPLB OF '1'HS STATB 0.,
CALIFOItNIA.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.:
Plaintiff.
DBct-QATION OF
DAVID STACIIOWSItI;"
CIft A'ft'OIlNBY
INVBSTIGATOIl
va.
LEI WANG: CINDY L. WANG. and DOBS
1 througb 60. Inclu.1va.
DafanClant..
I. DAVID STACHOWSItI. C11:y Attorney Inva.t1gator. declare
tbat I a.. at 811 t1_. _nt1onad bera1n v... a C11:y Attorney
Inva.t1gator for tbe City of San Bernardino. angagad in the
parforaanca of official dut1e..
I bava been an Inve.t1gator for tha C11:y Attorney'. Office
for five aon1:ba. I.. a rat1rad Lo. Angala. Police Off1car with
1:ven1:y-1:hZ'aa yaar. of .erv1ce v1th that departaant retiring as a
Datact1ve Sergeant. I bave e1gbteen yaar. experience as an
Inva.t1gator. two year. a. a Vice and Narcotic Inva.t1gator and
bava bad axper1ence in various type. of 1nva.t1gat1on8 1nclud1ng
/ 1"/
DS:ag/br[C1v1cl.Dec] 1
, 1
2
3
~
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1~
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
25
26
27
28
'ten yeu8Q. a Ho-tcide ~Uga~.QIl adlU.~, 1 --- ~q.
80=1_ ....~i.lla. a. a p~pa~ ill.~alla. adju.~.~ alld a.
t td,'tb baaude aNI lJ.~,gaa aauaa4 ~ wa~~. f1~. aftlS ~
'!:
.1...-b.
Oil 'F.b~ua~y. 23. 1990. aD 1nv..~iga~ioll wa. 1n1~1a~.d
~~ ~ .C1."1c Can~~ Mot.l loca~ad a~ 655 Nortb -D- S=-~
in ~ C1.~ and COUnq. of San~. 'fbe 1mra.Ugat1on...
1ft1~ia~.d due ~o nuaa~ ~1a11l~. of bu.in.....n and th.1r
..ploy... 1n .dd1~10n to polic. offic.r. .bou~ ~h. d~ug,
p~.~1~t1on and cr1m. .c~1v1~ 1n ~h. v1c11l1~ of ~h. Civic
Cant.r Mot.l and the num.rou. arr..~. for var10ua v101a~s.oaa 1ft
add1~ion ~o the volum1nou. UIOUft~ of call.d for .U'V1c... ~ the
,
Pol1c. D.p~8ft~.
I h.". obtain.d c.~~1f1.d cop1.. of ~h. d..d. for the
p~~ and bul1d1n;. locat.d a~ 655 North -D- suaa~ froe F1nt
AIl.~1can T1~1. Company. The.. de.da con~a1n the nama. of all.
p~1.. wh1ch a~. 1n"..t.d 1n~.~..t 1n the prop.rty. Th...
docWDant. ahov L.1 Wan; , C1nd7 L. Wan; of 2132 At_dal. Avenu.,
Lo. Ang.l.., Cal1forn1a .. ovn.~. of the p~op.~ty. Th...
docum.nt. .~. att.ch.d ..t fo~th .. Exh1b1t -A- .nd A-l
r..p.ct1vely.
I have o~a1ftad bu.1ne.. tax and pa~1 t 1ftfo~.t1on from
~ C1.~ Cl.rk'. Off1c. wh1ch ~fl.ct. an act1ve account 1ft the
na.. of L.1 w.ng , C1ndy L. W.ng. Cert1f1ed cop1e. of the..
document. .r. .et fo~th a. Exhibit -8-1- th~ough -8-4-.
1Ilc~u.1v., to .th1. d.clarat1on. wh1ch axh1b1t. ar. h.r.by
1ftCOrpora~.d h.~.1n.
DS:mg/br[C1,,1c1.DaC] 2
.. 1
2
3
.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
a
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.
25
26
27
28
Oft Q~azy 23, 1990, I ~~ = . ao.plai1* ta. _.
.j,11~ eU-r. ot C~'. PUW Aut: l'DU.. l00a~ .~ MS ...u.
or;-
-D- ...~. San~. - ~ 1ft4i.c.~ad ~1: CD Pe!maazy
21. 1990. wben he c... = hi. buaUW.. = opeD 1~ Up. he obaenad
~~ nuiaaroua vehicl.. on hi. uead car lot had bean o:t...ged. I
ob..~ 4....g..to .pp=z1IIat.ly 8-10 vehicle.. one ot wh1cb v..
. 1957 CheVrOlet vhich . euepec1: had v.lkad on 1:M ~f of 1ft Ul
.pparant .ttaapt to e.c.pe the gu.rd dog. '!'he vehicle. vere
p.rked ln .uch . ..nner th.t the d...g. v.. ln are.. whlch!
indic.ted th.t num.roue plece. of uphalt ware 'thEoWD fro. tbe
.djolning property that belng 1:M Cj,v1c Cant.r Motel. M&'. Carey
rel.ted th.t there h.. been ongolng probl'" for 1:M put ...._&1
. 'i:
y~ar. vl th ree1dent. of the Motel. JU.. daclar.t1CD and tile ...,
,.
regarding hi. .1ntervlew are part of Ezhiblt -C-l-.
After h.vlng lntervlewed M&'. carey. I want 1:0 1:M Cj,vlc
canter Motel and intervlewad 1:M Man.g.r, ... CboonlI Chong, who
ldentlfled hl..elf a. D.n Chong. H. .t.ted he h.d bean 1:M
.....g.r for ovar . year and . helf. I lnfoned Mr. Cbon9 of 1:M
nu.erou. probl... th.t wara ......tlng f1"Olll hi. IIOtel lncludlng
the eS_.g. to the vehicl.. of Carey'. F1na AutollOblle. aneS the
ongolng pro.tltutlon .neS eSrug proble.. .t the Motal. I
8Ugg..tad 1:0 Mr. Chong that he immedi.taly hire an &Z'III.eS Securlty
Gu.rd to .11avl.ta the.. probl.... on S.turcSay, February 24,
1990, I chackeeS tha locatlon and dieS not .e. . Sacurlty GuareS at
1:30 ln the .fternoon.
I dld .p.ak to Mr. Chong the followlng w..k and r_arkad
that I dieS not ... . securlty GuareS on S.turcSay and he r.pl1.~
DS:mg/br[Clvlcl.D.C] 3
1:ba1:
1:be CloUd1:7 au.n -na 1:be laQ ~ &lid _17 ~
bG_...,~: .. ~oa1:ed 1:ba1: 1:be gua~1I va. no1: a a_ell .eo~~1:7
-.
-
GD---.t ~1: v_ a f..a1e vbo be ball uaecS on a pr1Oz' ooo..~..
hi. aeo=1i:7. He 1D\S1oai:e4 on the pd.~ ooo_ion be ball traded.
f~ ~en1: f~ .ezovic.. r.rA.~ - . securii:7 QuarlS.
.
Mr. Wil11.. Carey ..t. for1:b in hi. ISeolara1:1on tbat' hi. I
ou.1:o..r. have be.n h.r....1I b7 pro81:11:ut.. and drug dealers.
.. baa suff.r.d lIany ac1:a of vandall. and thefa 1:0 hi. fthicl..
on hi. u.ed car lot. Hi. guarlS daga have been poi8OlW1l aeveral
t1lle.. He ha. .poken to 1:he own.r. .nll ..nag.r of tb. aot.l
..v.ral t1llle. regarding 1:ba probl... 1:0 ftO avail.
Monic. M. Sm11:h i. an emplOJW& of th. Bullg.t ..n'.l C.r
10cat.1I at 601 Nortb -n- Str..t anll h.r lIeclaration GQtl~.
having be.n acco.t.d .aver.l tllH. and bar_.ed nuaeI'OU8 t1... b7
individu.l. who .be knoW8 have llv.d .t the Civic C.nt.r Mo1:&l.
Theil' car. have been vandali..d in addition to rock., bottl..
and tra.b havlng been 1:hrovn on1:o 1:he proper1:7 b7 occupana of
1:he IIIOtal. See blUblt -C-2- a1:1:ached ber.1:o and lncorporat.d by
1:balr referenc..
aaYllond & M.gd.l.na N.gr.t. ar. th. ovner. of N.na.
Mexlc.n ...t.ur.nt .t 642 North -D- Stra.t. San Bernardlno.
Tbeir decl.ratlon lndicate. 1:bat 1:h.y have no bualne.. in the
~ t1lle due 1:0 bar.....nt and act. ofvl01.nc. froll tbe
t.nant. of tbe Clvlc C.nt.r Mot.l. Tb.lr cu.tOIl.r.' and
emplOY...' vehicl.. have been vandall..d and brokan lnto. v.~
r.c.ntly, on. of thelr CU8~.r. va. .cco.t.d by an lndivldual
wearing . _* who ~anded aaoney but v.. .ub.equently fright.nee
Ds:aag/br[CiVlcl.nec) 4
.
. .
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
28
: 0 . - '.
-&7. TM ~luaUon of ~__ ~1:e U a~.""-. bu:6to ..
IbIbi-JI_.-C-3- and j,ncoq"....1:e4 ~1:M. ~farena..
.... Gua Ma~ of Ma~ lound 17ft... 10C1a~e4 a~ 633 Mo..I:h
... .
.D. S1%e.~. San sarnardiftO w.. Ui~eJ:V1~. H. baa been a~ ~~
locaUon for ~ yaaZ'8. 1ft 'the p~.1s y&aZ'8. he baa Iutpt
M. fZ'Oft~ and rau doon locked dur1ng bWlUle..~. Be ha.
bad daaaga w M. veMcl.. puked Oft M. prope~. He locka M.
door. .. h. ha. had peopl. en~er M. buaUle.. who are ~ ob91oua
w.1ne.. peopla w~ who he bel1.... n.1de a~ ~ lIOt:a1 Uld have
en~and ~h. "u.1n... in' an a~~..p~ ~o a.carta1n if ~heZ'. 1.
pZ'Ope~ ~ara ~~ could be .~olen. . 81. ~luaUon 1. at1:acbe4
.. Exh1b1~ .C-4" and 1ncoZ'JjlOZ'a~.d ~ ~. raferenca.
.!.
Mr. S~ava Max.on ha. "a.n Ui buaUia.. .Ulce 1982! a~ 600
~ .D. sua.~. San .arnucS1nO. He baa a Mo1:orCyCl. Repair Uld
Acca..ory ShOp. Hi. "ua1n... baa baen ~ v1c~1a of nuaarCNa
'thefu from 'the veMcla. pukad on hi. lo~ and a~1wta. 8011& of
~h. ~haft. ~o ~h. ra.1d.n~. of ~ha Civic C.n~ar Mo~a1. 81.
dac1ua~1on 1. mukad Exh1b1~ .C-S. and 1ncorpora~ad by ~h1.
r.far.nca. .
Mr. Richard S~a11ar. 1. ~ha Pra.1dan~ of ~h. S~andareS
Mortgag. COlapany loca~ad a~ 375 Wa.~ 7~h straat. San sarnucS1no.
At~.chad 1. a daclara~1on of R1chareS S~a11ar which 1.
1ncorpora~.d a. Exhibit .C-6. anumarat1ng numarou. act. of
vandal 1_ and crima. which have been ancountarad by ~a employea.
of that a.~ab11.hmant.
on Much 13. 1990. Inve.t1gaton Dava 'Stachowak1 ~ Robart
Jani... Uitarv1a..d ona Anto1natta Tata who ha. actad in the
DS:mg/t)r[C1Vicl.Dac] 5
. .
. . 1
2
3
.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.
25
26
27
28
c.p.oj.~ Q . Saoud.q GuU4 j.n ~~ UI4 ~tll' R 1:M
~.u.r1:a~ Motal. bowa"a~. .ba i.. not a li.oa_ad .ao~i.q
oeei.~. 1M ~U'e1: ~ a1: 1:ba1: looa1:i.on ~-- S~..".. 15.
1988 _ ~~ 15. 1989 UI4 wadce4 appz'OUM1:a17 f__ 11:00 p...
to 5:00 ..... Sha 1nd1cag4 1:ba1: dudng 1:ba1: Uaa 1:110 f.-ala. 1n
ReO""- 8 UI4 9. bad baeft conduC1:1ng p=.1:11:U1:10n 1n tho.a roo..
du~1ng 1:hat pa~i.od of 1:1.a. Sha waa ~acant17 a.played f__
Patmauy 28. 1990 - Much 7. 1990 .nd 1nd1cat.. tha .... two
fa..la. ara .t111 conduct1ng pro.1:11:Ut10n 1n tho.. roo...
Ant~tta T.ta 1ndic.ta.. 1:bat .ha told tba Man.ga~ DB Cboong
ChOng. regar41ng tha .c1:1v1ty and ha told ~ not to botbK 1:M
f...la. .. th.t w.. bow thay ..de . 11ving and paid theu rant.
She 1ndic.tad th.t l:latveen Pal:lruuy 28 and March 7. the ocicupanta
,.
of 1tooa 6 _ra da.ling drug. and wben .ha .tt-slted to ~.nn1: a
.1.1tor fro. going to tba roo. .ftar 11:00 p.... he pulled a
kn1fa on bar and thra.tened .her w1tb the kn1f.. Sba 1ndJ,catad
that tb1. __ aya. _ra 411.tad and ha bad tracka on hi. ana.
(_adla aark.) Sha .tatad 1:bat Ga told tha Manager. Dan CboOn9
ChOng. regud1ng the drug da.l1ng. and ba .aid not to bOther the
peopla. .Sba 1ndJ,c.tad 1:bat ~ via1tor .tt_ptad to run her ovar
with bi. truck. Har dacl.ration i. .arkad Exb1l:lit -0- .nd
1ncOrpor.tad l:ly tb1. rafaranca.
I cau.ad . co.putar run to l:la .ada of .11 call. for
.arv1ca. to the 600 l:llook of North -0- straat. froa the period of
1/1/89 _ 2/28/90. 'rb1. infonaa1:1on wa. CCllDPl1.d l:ly Carl Falkaz:
of The Dat. Proca..1ng oaputaant of the C1 ty of San Barnardino.
Tha CCllDPutar run 1. Exh1l:l1 ~ -.-. Thi. coaputax- run tall1a. al]
DS:ag/l:lr[C1v1cl.Dac] 6
,
. , 1
2
3
6
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
25
26
27
28
Gall. ~OZ'G-~C_ _ 1:ba 600 bloc1c 00--- -D- .tlI:~, ws._ t:Ile
~ ~~ iD ei~ e ~~=rt, ~, -van.... _
~i...-~ 1:ba pz'Obl_ ft801". bi" 1:be ~- 1mro1ged. 1ft.e
one ~ peeled of ~, .. call. for ..rv~c.. ~o ~h. C1.~c
c.~. Mot:al aloaa"vera 162. 'fhaE'a vera 79 otbar call. for tIIa
600 blook of tfOZ'tb -U- su..~, wb1cb 1ncluda. both .1dea of tIIa
~..u.
The a.1al pbow wb1cb 1. bb1b1t -L- abcNa that than are
.1ght bu.1n..... ~o~al in th. 600 block of -U- Su..t which
1nclucSa. 1:ba Civic c.~.r Mo~.l. 'I'lw.. pbotoa accurately dap1~
1:ba area a. par8Oft&11y oba.rvad bf _.
on March 6, 1990, I ceuad a COlIPU~. run w be .1Id-.r.bf tIIa
. .~
cr:l.lla Analy.1. S.c~1on of 1:ba San ~ PoUc. Da~"' vt of
. . .
. .
r.pon1ng U1.u1c~ 207. Included 1ft raport1ng Ui~101: 207 1.
1:ba 600 block of No~ -U- Su..t. I C:0'941ad a U.t of =~.
and arr..t. froaa 1:ba cOllPU~. pr1ft_u~ and a ..cr.tary froe tIIa
C1~ Atwrn.y'. Off1c. par8Oft&11y ..l.c~.d 1:ba crime and Ar1'..~
a.port. fro. ~h. r.cord. .~1on of 1:ba San Barnard1no Pol1c.
U.p~~. The S.=.~ary 1. Jto.ar ouad1'1, who'. declaration 1ft
~. regard 1. anolo.ad .. Bxb1b1~ -0-. The ~ime fr... for tIIa
cr:l.lla. and arre.t. are froe January 1, 1989 - F.bruary 28, 1990.
aegard1ng 1:be C~.ic C.nt.r Mo~.l, tbere wera 32 arre.t. _4& .~
tba~ loca~1on, 7 arr..t. for pro.~11:ut1on, 7 arr..t. for drug.,
and 2 arr..~. for .al.. of drug.. Th. o.er r..a1n1ng erra.a
war. for a1.c.llanaoua v101a~ions. Th.r. w.r. 36 cr1aa r.port.
a~ ~~a~ 10ca~1on for var1ou. off.n... including 3 for child
abu.; 6 cr1... for ~h. ~h.f~ of au~0.obi1.. which 1nvolv.d
US:ag/br[C1v1cl.uac) 7
,
.
,
1
2
3
6
~t:uSl wbo weze zoe..idiDg .i: i:baOt.l. ~.... 3 ~'.Q'
~...... 2 of ~ 1_1" U .imralv.d .,..:--Ut:uu. wIlD we.
~a4W! .~ i:h. lIOi:el. 1 p.r.on.lly r.v.i...4 .11 i:1Ie atI:.6
MDUaMII zoeporU.
5 'fher. ..r. is .i.c.ll....oua ure8't8 ill i:ba 100 bloc1c of
6 ....l;h -D- Su-i:, 5 of which weze for ft8Z'ClO1:1ce, tMre were 36
7 u8C.11U'TDU8 criae zoeporU for veriDU8 off..-... 'l'be Cr~ UI4
8 Arr..i: a.p0ri:8 azoe .nclo.ed .. Bxhibi~ -.-.
9 'fhe nUllb.r of criae., 8Z'Z'e8U aNI call. for eenice. are
10 8Ub.~Ultial" the lIU\8g.r had indicated 1:0 .- t:ha~ CD averag.
11 25 Z'OClU a day ar. r.ntad ou~ a11:tlOugh thezoe are 61 Z'U\'ta1 1ID1ta
12 ill the complex.
13 . Oft Much 16, 1990, the Civiccanur Motel... iftIIpillte4 by
":'. ..
-
.~~
16 1117.alf, Code .Bnforce.ant Offic.r DUlY Nolfo, Pir. IIl8Pec~or .
15 Charlott. a.ynolde, ps.zoe tnapac1:Or Mik.l PuIc8, aNI ...lrn of
16 the SUl B.rnarcU.no Polic. Depertaeftt. 'fhe followiDg i. a 11n of
17 vS.olation. found by Fizoe tnapector CharlOtte aeynolde (See the
18 attached declaration IIUked Ezhibit -I- aNI incOrporatad by the
19 refezoence. )
20
Nineteen non .orking ..oke detector.. Thirtaan ai..1D/J
21 ..oke detector.. . 'fwo d.ngerou. carbon aonoxida producing
22 h..ter.. Pifty-one he.ter. na.d to be in.pected by the C..
23 co.pany and/or . heating contractor, .x..pl., not .ecur.d
26 properly, .nclo.ure. part. ai..ing, houee kaeping duat, cU.rty,
25 venting iJDproper. Ofte h.at.r ... uead ill Ul uniIIproY8d .anner
26 for cooking. All .xi.t p....g. ..y. had s.nacSaquate lightin;',
27 bulb. rucwed, .eep. ne.t., birde ne.t., ..ny covar. .s...ing.
28
Ds:ag/br[Civicl.Dec) 8
.
. . 1
2
3
6
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
25
26
27
28
a " .
on. fj.Z'. ~8beZ' tilt aDt: ~ '-J.....,. .j.-. DO na1:e ~.
oa. ~ ~h.Z'.j...j.ng. ~.. ~Z'..h .nolo.UZ'.. j.n DOn
.~ dang.Z'ou. .Z'... uftd.Z' o08bu.~j.bl. p.~h~ of agr.... .
_.
e: ,t.q 1d.1:chaD uncl.an. lSoae not ...~ UD.tIIUII coc!a. Z'aquj,raa
oo...~ci.l hood .nd duct .y.t.. .nd i.prov.d .uto..tj.c
auppra..iOft 8781:_. Ov.n u..d .. barbecu.. stov.. w.r. rad
tagged not to ue.. Bzj,t paa.... way f:rG8 unite 65. 66. 67. 68.
69 Ui the uppal' floor in dang.roua unaaf. CODdi tion. Body weight
.tr....d .tructural mat.rial. Und4tni~ of upper azit p...ap
way heading to north.a.t .tairw.ll wa. ..v.rally crack.d and
COftCr.t. lIIi.aing. On. ga. dryer red tagged. do not ue.. dzyen.
.l.ctrical part. and wiring covar.d with duet and lUit. Du8t &lid
.
lUit on wall and c.iling produc.d dangaroua CODdition.
lIIplo.,.r
vafttUlg of ga. dzy.r to CCIIDbuatj.bl. .tor.g. are..
.
Pour atoZ'ap
Z'OO88 Ui ne.d of hou..k..ping. One having atoZ'ag. of tir... Siz
unit. war. ..v.r.ly dirty with accumulation of tra.h. .toraga
and oth.r cOllbu.tibl. d.bri. which .ndang.r not only thama.l_s
but the r..aUling t.nants. SU unit. war. cooking Ui the Z'OOIU.
&Sampl. hot plat... .1.ctZ'j.cal fryj.ng pane and to..t.r. Overall
condition ob..rv.d hous.k..ping and maint.nanc. poor. A Fire
Saf.ty Notic. w.. personally handed to the manag.r, W.. Choong
Chong. (s.. attachad d.claration).
Cod. Enforce..nt Officer, Dany Holfo, ob..rved and citad
for the fOllowing viol.tions.
Tw.nty counts of exce..iv. .xpo..d wiring in apartaenb
which incl\l~ the kitchen ar.a outside lighting. Nin. units a1
which war. dang.roue conditiona, open/v.cant Ui violation of Sar
Ds:mg/br[Civicl.D.C] 9
" ,
-,
1
2
3
6
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
25
26
27
28
8.rn.rd~0 Mun~c~p.l Cod. 15.2~50.
Broun .iDAo.. aDd
._-. _ I. 'fbz'ee UftiU wbiab ba4 _f~ve _ur clo..ta wbich
,_. .
po..C;-."..roua cond~~iana for ~."1:.. PoOl fenoe whiab ...
Uft8~ W code for chl1dz'eft w an~. daDgaroue for cb11dnD.
Infa.tation of bu.. and cockroacha.. .a7 raquire fuai.at1oD.
810ck .al1 on "north .ida top rOll coain. down (dangarou.).
1ftadequ.ta .aftit.Uon ttaab 1ft rcn,..... s1:rUCltural buarde. dKIca
c.~l1ng. rec... 19. 20. 21. 68 . ". 1'au1~...tMr protaClUon of
.~ft4owa and dcIor.. Huudou. and unaaD1tary pnai.... .OO'W 1-51
~nelud1ng off~c.. Improp.r occupancy 7 to 9 t.nant. in .08.
:rooaa. Upp.r d.cka and .alk ara.. need ..jor repair. .1:Z'Uctun1
d...... In.ll 95 cod. violati0ft8 _ra pr..ant at 655 Noeth -D-
stra.t. S.n 8.rn.rdino. S.. Coda .nforca.ant Officar~ DID!
Nolfo'.. daclar.tion Exbibit -1-1-.
Dur~ng ~ cour.. of ~ inapaCt~on. I 0baU'Vad cockroacb8a
1ft nuaar0u8 rOOll8. Thera ... .evera .ttuc~al ......a dua to a
laaky roof. froa the r.c.nt r.~n.. Ther.... ..tar damage to
..11.. floon and carpat~ng froe an overflOW of . to~lat froe 1ft
.dj.c.n~ .partlDant. on II&ny of ~ rOO8 ca~l~. ~r. ... 11014
~~c.t~ng daapn... and ..tar damag.. NwD.rou. p.tchwork r.pairs
to cSryw.ll .are ob..rvad ~ aaany of ~ unit. particularly ~ th.
b.tbroo.. in tha .r.. of tha .at.r b..in. indicating faulty
plW1bing. Mo.t of ~ .how.r unit. and tub. ..r. f11 thy fZ'OlD not
h.ving b.an .crubbad properly. Furn1~.." filthy inclu4ing
the dr.p.ry. Mo.t of the carpat~ ... filthy and worn. The
un1t. .hich h.va .uff.red ..tar damag. and h.ve vi.ibl. .igne of
1I01d ara conduciva to the pra.anea of b.ct.ri..
DS:../br[Civicl.D.C] 10
< .
, 1
2
3
~
5
6
7
8
II
10
11
12
13
1~
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
s.J:Iernard~no pol~ce O~~~C~.Obe~ .p~ler..bo ~.
.....~ to Vice. ._ .~ 'tbe loca~Oft and .. ob..necl 'tbrM '- 1m
~.. in.id. ~h. .ohl. ground8~ 'fwO o~ 'tbe FOII'U1:u~e.
.~.
~ ~ in 'tbe .,~.l and oa. pro.~t:u~a ... then .i~ a
-uicle-'~ ren~ a~. Af~.r 'tbe in8pec:Uon. I in~eni~ the
Manag.r. ....C~ong Chong. H. .~a~.d ~ha~ h. ha. b.an ~h.
.....gar .inC. July 1988. H. .~a~ecI ~~ ~ war. 48 ft)OII8 in
'tbe IIOhl bu~ on an avuaga 25 &'00.. ar. ran~ed p.r day. He
.~a~ad ~~ half of tbe rOCllU u. ran~ad bY tbe day and the other
half u. ren~ed bY tha waek. The ..lfa&'e Dapa.. L-.-t ._J._ chacka
ou~ ~re~ly to ~a IIOt.l for $210.00 per Wale. Be .~a~ tha~
~. .alfu. people avarage 3-~ par .on~h. How...r. wb.n tha
a&'rang_an~. wera .ada ~hrough the. Salva~ion AnIy ~ ralooah the
1IO~.1 .r..ident.. it wa. a.cartained then van a~ l._t 2i UD1ta
~ha~ wara baing provided for bY .elfua or ao.a other ~ of
S~a~. Aid. H. .tat.d ~hat the lady ~h.y hired ~o p.rfor.
.acuri~ du~ia. qu1~ app&'Oxiaately a wa.k ago and ~ pre.antly
hava a lady n...d IC1a who i. the Sacuri~. Offic.r Spindler'.
.~a~...nt i. Bxh1bi~ -J- and incorporated bY ~. rafaranee.
I have ob~ained decluation. fro. San Bernardino police
Officar. concarning arre.~. and inva.tigation. at the Civic
can~.r Mo~.l. I hava attachad the.e declaration. hereto a.
Bxh1bi~. -Jt-l ~gh Jt-13-. They either detail actual arrest.
a~the Civic Can~er Motel or .ub.tantiate it. reputation a. a
place whare p&'O.~i1:u~ion and drug daaling occur.
on Much U, 1990, I photographad i~vidual rClOlllS and the
lIO~al in general loc.~ed a~ 655 North -n- S~reet, San Barnar~no.
ns:-v/br[CivlCl.necl 11
< 4
.. 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
28
~JCI. pho~og~.ph. .~. .~~ft.4 .. ..b~b~. -.- .D4
au_;.,,:, '1~ ~~ wba~ 1 ob..~.~ ~be u.. ~. pho~~.pb8
.'~
........ ~ UI8~de .aoh ~ follow ~ pbotogz'apb of ~
mP"'- Oft ~ fZ'Oft~ door of aaoh ~.
In a4d1~1on, a. p~av1oualy ~af~ to, I cume4 ~1a1
pbotograph8 of 'tba -D- S~a~ uaa 1ft ~ 600 bloclc to be taJcaft
by ~ba San 8a~na~d1no POl1ca Dapa~t.ant. All of the
af=_.n~1onad photo. ~ ba~ato attacb'ld. bb1b1t. -L-.
Finally, I hava obta1nad .tata..nt. f~OII thraa of tha
fo~~ tenant8 of ~. av1c centu Motal:
Ona tanant, Ma~tha Vallajo adll1t. .wo~k1ng out of tha
motal, impl1adly a. a p~.t1tuta. Tanant Ron Svazts 1nd1cata.
the~. ..~a wata~ laaka in M. ~ f%Oll nut ~.
Taaant It1II
..
.
Faquaon 1Dd1cata. that the~a wa. p~.t1tut1Oft, dJ:ug dea11Dg, and
~ache., II1ca and l1ca 1ft the ~ .ha ~ w1~ bu children.
Me. pargu.on al80 11.t. 6 ~oo.. in which p~o.t1 tuta anddng
dealing oc~ad.
COp1a. of the decluat10na of Mr. Vallajo, Mr. Sw~a and
Me. parguaon ~ attached ba~ato a. Eah1b1ta -N-l t=ougb N-3-,
1nclu.1va and lnco~~atad by th1. rafa~anca.
I have ~ad tha fo~ago1ng dacla~at1on con.1.t1ng of 12
pag.. and 4acluad undar penalty of p.rj~ ~at it 1. tn. and
CORact.
Exacutad at San 8a~na~d1no, California on March .2'
.
1990.
DS:a;!br[Civ1cl.Dacl 12
.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM #:
LOCATION
CASE COP 198
HEARING DATE 5/8/90
1
..~
~
-
...~u C
~ I.U '___00_.
.- 0
, ~
, , .
, ,
.
1-
~
~
.
. .:
o EXHIBIT 3
;..
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
b. The stabling or puturing of the animals shall not
be within one hundred fifty feet of a buildina or
structure used or intended to be used for human
occupancy or within fifty feet of any neighborinc
property line;
c. A letter from the county health officer indicates
that such use will not be a hazard to the public
health; and
d. There is compliance with all other applicable laws
of the City.
5. The P1anninC Director shall revoke such approval of
temporary grazing wheneYe1':
a. The user of the land hu violated any law or condi-
tion with respect to the use of the land; or
b. He receives notification by the county health officer
that such use of land is a hazard to the public
health; or
c. He receives notification by the Mayor and Common
Council that the use should be terminated.
B. Such notice of termination shall become effective, and
further use shall ceue forty-eight hours after notice hu
been mailed to the user of the land by first-class mail at
the address shown on the plot plan.
(Ord. MC-134, 1982; Ord. 3493 (part), 1975; Ord. 1991 A 28.8
(C), 1953.)
19.78.110 ReYocation, modification IIId voidina-
A. The CommiIIion may, and upon the direction of the
Council shall, hold a public hearing to consider the revoca-
tion of a conditional use permit. Such permit can be
revoked if, from facts presented at the public hearinc or by
investigation, the Commission fmds anyone or more of the
followinC grounds:
I. The permit approval wu obtained by fraud; or
2. The permit is being or hu been exercised contrary to
the conditions of such permit or in violation of any
applicable licenses, permits, regulations, laws or ordi-
nances, or
3. The use for which the permit approval was granted is
being or hu been exercised so u to be detrimental to
the pUblic health or safety or to constitute a nuisance.
- .-:~:.-- '"- .,"!,~'
1224-3
(San BemudlJIo 5-83)
'-
," .
, ~ -. .
r
--
-"
.
"a .-./
.
. .
"., ..
- .-
,
. <
. \ ,
o
o
ZONING
B. Written notice of the date, time. place and purpose of such
public hearina shall be served on the ownel'l of the property
for which the permit was sranted by relistered mail. postal'
prepaid. return receipt requested. not less than ten days
prior to the date of such hearing.
C. The Commission shall make its fmdings and deciaion within
forty days after the date of the hearina and shall transmit a
copy thereof to the owner and the Common Council.
D. The Commission may modify the conditions of the permit
after the hearing if the grounds justifyina a revocation can
be cured or corrected by the imposition of new. IUlditional
or modified conditions.
E. Any person aggrieved or affected by the decision of the
Commission may appeal to the Common Council in accor-
dance with the provisions of Chapter 2.64.
F. A conditional use permit shall become null and void if:
I. The use for which the permit was IlI'&nted has ceased to
exist; or
2. The owner of the property for which the permit was
IlI'&nted requests in writinJ that the permit be void and
the Commission approves such request.
(Ord. MC410. 9-17-84; Old. MC-134. 1982; Ord. 3535 (part).
1975; Ord. 1991 028.9.8-10-53.)
19.78.120 Development apeements for surface mining.
The provisions of Article 2.5 (commencina with Section
65864) of Chapter 4 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the
State of California. as the same may now exist or hereafter be
amended. are adopted for and made applicable to surface
mining and land reclamation developments in the City of San
Bernardino. (Ord. MC-261. 4-4-83.)
Chapter 19.79
SPECIFIC PLANS
Sections:
19.79.010 Purpoee.
19.79.020 Authority.
19.79.030 Area of application.
19.79.040 Contents of the plan.
19.79.050 Application forapproval- Fee.
19.79.060 Hearings on petition and notices thereof.
(SIII_01-8S)
12244
'-
.. .
.;...... .
'-.
.
. .
. .
_ ... J'
, '.. :..
~
,
,
.
.
-"
....
...6,0':'_- _
(
o
o
.
city of San Bernardino
Planning commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1990
The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, City Hall by Chairman Lindseth. The following
Commissioners were present: Clemensen, cole, Corona, Jordan,
Lindseth, Lopez and Stone. Absent: Sharp. Staff present:
Reed, Montgomery, Larson, Nahill, Gomez, Finn, Gubman,
Freiberg and Easley. Also present was Deputy city Attorney,
Henry Empeno and Senior oeputy city Attorney, John Wilson.
Commissioner Stone led the salute to the flag.
Ann Larson-Perbix, Senior Planner, asked all those who
intended to testify to stand and raise their right hand to be
sworn in. Ann Larson-perbix administered the oath.
The Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 12, 1989
and March 20, 1990 were approved by a motion from
commissioner Lopez and seconded by commissioner Corona and
carried unanimously. commissioner Corona abstained from
voting on the minutes of March 20th, as he was not present at
that meeting.
Plannina Director's Renort
Larry Reed noted the Council's approval of the State College
Self Storage request to put up a billboard sign along the
freeway. Mr. Reed also noted that the city had sent out
letters to building owners within the city regarding
unreinforced masonry buildings. He also noted a public
hearing scheduled whereby the owners of unrein forced masonry
buildings could present their comments and concerns.
* * *
Chairman Lindseth noted these items (Item Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, and 11) to be considered on the Consent Agenda. Senior
Planner, Ann Larson-Perbix, provided a brief description of
each item to be considered and noted staff's recommendations.
The consent agenda was approved for the recommendations of
staff by a motion from commissioner Lopez seconded by
commissioner Clemensen and unanimously carried.
* * *
The meeting was recessed from 9:20 - 9:25 p.m. Chairman
Lindseth left the meeting and Vice-Chairman Corona chaired
the remainder of the meeting.
LVUTOTT A
.
CITY OF SAN BE~DINO PLANNING COMMISSION<:)ETING MINUTES
OF MAY 8, 1990
PAGE 2
ITEM NO.1
Revocation of Conditional Develonment Permit No. 198
Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately .86 acres having a frontage of
approximately 125 feet on the east side of "D" street and
being located approximately 365 feet north of the centerline
of 6th street and further described as 665 N. "D" street. The
subject site is located in the CR-2, Commercial Regional
Downtown, land use designation. The City proposes revocation
of Conditional Development permit No. 198 under authority of
Code Section(s) 19.78.110 (a)(2.)(J.), to revoke approvals
for a 50 unit motel.
Owner/Applicant:
Ward:
Exempt from CEQA (Class 21)
Staff Recommends Revocation of CDP No. 198
Lei & Cindy Wang
1
Deputy city Attorney, John wilson, was present to provide
counsel to the Planning commission. Deputy city Attorney,
Henry Empeno submitted documents referencing Section
19.78.110 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code regarding
Revocation and voiding. Attorney Empeno also noted the staff
report of Conditional Development Permit 198 dated May 8,
1990 as being introduced into evidence as Exhibit "A". He
also noted several witnesses in the audience who intended to
testify in favor of the Revocation of Conditional Development
Permit 198.
The defense attorneys noted evidence into record as follows:
Exhibit A - Permittee's Proposal For Permit Conditions of
permit Operation In Lieu Of Revocation
Exhibit B - Letter From Joshua Kaplan to Larry E. Reed,
Director of Planning and Building Services
Department dated April 3, 1990
Exhibit C - Correction Notice served to the owners, Lei and
cindy Wang of the civic Center Motel by Code
Enforcement Officer Danny Nolfo.
Exhibit D - Inspection record, also attached, is a list of
project owners responsibilities and building
permit issued to the owners of the Civic Center
Motel dated March 26, 1990
The defense attorneys, Joshua Kaplan and Andrew Gunn,
representing the owners of the civic Center Motel, had
several objections to the procedures used in this proceeding.
They felt that this case should be continued until
statistical documents were received from the City Attorney's
Office as requested in letter dated April 3, 1990 from Joshua
Kaplan to Larry E. Reed, Director of Planning and Building
.
CITY OF SAN BE~DINO PLANNING COMMISSION~TING MINUTES
OF MAY 8, 1990
PAGE 3
services Department. Deputy city Attorney, Empeno, stated
that he would provide defense counsel with crime statistic
information by the next meeting and recommended that the
Planning commission proceed with the hearing and allow
comments from the public. He noted that he had provided the
attorney's with all other requested information.
commissioner
commissioner
Lopez called
commissioner
Cole motioned to continue with the hearing.
Clemensen seconded the motion. commissioner
for question and the motion carried with all but
Stone's opposition.
Defense Attorneys objected to the prosecutor, investigator,
counsel and legal advisor all being from the city Attorney's
Office. After a lengthy discussion among the attorneys of
both parties, commissioner Lopez moved to continue with the
public hearing. The motion was seconded by commissioner
Clemensen and carried with all but the opposition of
commissioner stone.
Attorney Kaplan objected to the constitutionability of
section 19.78.110 in that it is too vague and does
provide guidelines. Commissioner cole made a motion
overrule the objection. The motion was seconded
commissioner Lopez and carried with all but the opposition
commissioner Stone.
Code
not
to
by
of
Attorney Kaplan objected to use of Code section 19.78.110.B,
stating that a precise accusatory document had not been
provided and, upon that basis, he requested dismissal of the
matter. Deputy city Attorney Empeno stated that Exhibit 1,
the staff report for revocation suffices for the due process
requirement to give notice of violations. commissioner
Clemensen made a motion to overrule the objection. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez and carried with
all but the opposition of commissioner Stone.
Attorney Kaplan objected to the receipt (by the Planning
commission) of the evidentiary matters submitted by Deputy
city Attorney Empeno as they are hearsay. Attorney Empeno
noted that this was not a formal court of law and evidence of
hearsay may be submitted and the weight of that evidence must
be determined. Commissioner Lopez made a motion to overrule
the objection. The motion was seconded by commissioner
Clemensen and carried with all but the opposition of
commissioner Stone.
Attorney Kaplan motioned that the Planning commission review
all of the Deputy city Attorney Empeno's submissions and also
review the defense attorney's Exhibit A, which is a proposed
settlement document, and determine if it suffices to obviate.
Attorney Empeno noted that it was out of order for the
applicant to make a motion. Commissioner Clemensen made a
motion to overrule this request. The motion was seconded by
.
. ~ITY OF SAN BE~OINO PLANNING COMMISSION<:)ETING MINUTES
OF MAY 8, 1990
PAGE 4
commissioner Lopez and it carried unanimuously.
Attorney Kaplan submitted their Exhibit C - correction Notice
dated March 23, 1990, and Exhibit 0 - Building permit dated
March 26, 1990. He felt that the proceedings should be
stopped based upon these Exhibits and requested dismissal of
the matter based upon the grounds of estoppal. He felt that
the owners of the motel should be given the opportunity to
make repairs. The Director of Planning and Building Services
confirmed that the owners of the motel did pull building
permits to make repairs. commission Clemensen made a motion
to overrule the request. The motion was seconded by Commiss-
ioner Lopez and it carried with all but the opposition of
Commissioner Stone.
Attorney Kaplan requested that the proceedings be removed to
the site at an appropriate hour.
Attorney Empeno suggested that the planning Commission hear
witness testimony now and decide on having a field trip to
look at the motel at a later date. commissioner Clemensen
moved that the commission listen to the witnesses testimony
and schedule a field trip at a later date. commissioner
Lopez seconded the motion and the motion carried with an
abstention from Commissioner Stone and commissioner Cole.
Testimonv in Favor of the
OeveloDment Permit No. 198
John Buckner, residing at 301 La Colina Drive, Redlands,
California, owner of Sierra Escrow Corporation at 805 North
"0" street, felt that the Civic Center Motel gave downtown
San Bernardino a very unattractive appearance. He also felt
the Planning Commission should really be concerned for the
beautification of downtown San Bernardino. Mr. Buckner
stated that, if conditions (to mitigate problems) could not
be imposed on the motel, he could not continue in business.
Revocation of Conditional
Dick Steiler, of Standard Mortgage company, which abuts the
site, at 375 W. 7th Street and 863 N. "0" Street, complained
of the huge crime rate in this area. Mr. Steiler noted
putting up an eight foot wall, and electric gate and
concertina wire to keep motel residents from coming onto his
property, but the fence doesn't help because the motel
residents jump over the fence and vandalize cars and rob
people. He stated that it was a daily occurrence to have
cars broken into. He also noted that his employees are
frightened to come to work because of being harassed by the
people living in the motel. Since the motel has been closed
Mr. steiler has discovered that the car vandalism and
robberies have stopped.
Bill carey, owner of the auto agency just south of the civic
Center Motel at 645 North "0" Street, noted problems starting
.
~ITY OF SAN BE~DINO PLANNING COMMISSION~ETING MINUTES
OF MAY 8, 1990
PAGE 5
.
seven years ago. He noted that the motel owner stated he had
no control over the residents there. He also noted problems
such as those mentioned by Dick Steiler. Attorney Gunn asked
if Mr. carey observed persons throwing rocks over the wall.
Mr. carey responded that he not only observed them but he
also caught them. He noted that 11 cars have been damaged by
rocks thrown over the wall and he had received reimbursement
once from the motel owners. After the closing of the motel,
Mr. carey noted being able to extend his business hours to
7:00 p.m. and that his night time sales tax had increased 40
percent.
Trinnie Morris, employed at Nina's Restaurant, 642 North "D"
street, mentioned customers refusing to stop because of the
bad crime rate in the area. Ms. Morris noted being escorted
to her car at night in fear of being attacked. She also
noted that since the closing of the civic Center Motel, she
feels a lot more safe and secure.
Randy Wade, Manager, Grand Central, noted that they had hired
two security guards for their parking lot to protect cars
from being vandalized and to protect customers from being
robbed. He stated that they saw people jumping over walls,
robbing people and throwing things and the management of the
hotel does nothing, even though they saw one perpetrator run
into a room at the motel. Mr. Wade also noted getting little
or no support from the police Department. He stated that his
car's tires had been slashed four times.
Attorney Gunn asked, if there were more support from the
police Department, would this problem with vandalism of cars
and robberies be alleviated. Mr. Wade felt that police had
not been very supportive. Attorney Gunn also asked, if the
motel would provide their own security, would it help
eliminate problems of car vandalism and robberies. Mr. Wade
responded that he didn't feel it would alleviate these
problems. Mr. Wade also felt that putting up a wall and
having the area well lit would not help solve the problems.
In response to Attorney Kaplan, Mr. Wade stated that since
the motel was closed, they had let two security guards go and
had not had one problem. Mr. Wade further responded that,
even if licensed security guards were hired, he did not feel
it would be of benefit because there is no supervision from
the management of the motel and they don't care what happens
there.
Jerry Brown, owner of Grand Central, noted that several of
his customers have been raped shot at and had vehicles
vandalized. Mr. Brown felt that the motel should be closed.
He stated that he had watched people from the motel break
into his car and leave that lot and go back to the motel. He
also noted that his block wall had been knocked down by
customers of the motel. Mr. Brown noted that when he
.
~ITY OF SAN BE~DINO PLANNING COMMISSION~ETING MINUTES
OF MAY 8, 1990
PAGE 6
confronted the owners of the motel about this incident, the
owners asked Mr. Brown to leave the premises.
Charlotte Reynolds, Assistant City Fire Marshall, noted the
motel being in violation of 101 counts of fire violations.
The meeting was briefly recessed from 11:00 to 11:15 so that
Commissioner Stone could meet with Deputy city Attorney,
wilson. After the recess, Attorney Wilson stated that it was
determined that Commissioner Stone did not have a conflict of
interest and the Commissioner could proceed with the hearing.
Ms. Reynolds also noted inspecting two motel units and
finding the outside vents of wall heaters wrapped in duct
tape. She noted that the manager of the motel stated that he
had taken tape and closed off the vents. Ms. Reynolds stated
that there was an overpowering smell of carbon monoxide in
those units and there were four adults and six children
there. When the fire officials went back to see if the wall
heater had been taken care of, the fire officials found the
room filled with flammable materials which could have caused
an explosion. She felt that by the Fire Department being
there, they eliminated a very serious life threatening
situation.
Attorney Gunn asked if this happened in one or two units. Ms.
Reynolds responded that it only happened in only two units.
Attorney Gunn also asked Reynolds if the whole building was
evacuated or just the two motel units where the flammable
materials were discovered. Ms. Reynolds responded that only
two motel units was evacuated and the direction to evacuate
the whole building was a direction of the Code Compliance
Division.
Attorney Gunn asked Reynolds when and if she told the motel
owners of what they were in violation of. Ms. Reynolds
responded that on March 14, 1990 she notified the owners of
the motel that they were in violation and indicated that they
would be back for reinspection on March 28, 1990. The
defense attorneys asked, if the owners of the motel complied
with Fire Department's requirements would the building then
be safe? Ms. Reynolds noted that there are other
departments' requirements such as police, and Code
Enforcement that must be complied with, and the motel would
not be safe unless repairs were made in conjuncion with all
other violations. Reynolds noted that there were problems
with the electrical, heating and structure.
Empeno suggested that the item be continued to a special
meeting on Tuesday, May 15, 1990.
.
CITY OF SAN B~INO
o
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 1990
Index
Page
Revocation of Conditional Development
permit No. 198 3
General Plan Amendment No. 90-2 22
General Plan Amendment No. 90-9 22
General Plan Amendment No. 90-10 23
General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 23
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-10 24
Conditional Use Permit No. 90-42 24
Tentative Tract No. 14193 25
EXHIBIT 5
.
{
o
o
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes
October 9, 1990
chairman Lindseth called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in
the council Chambers, city Hall. The following
commissioners were present: Clemensen, Corona, Lindseth,
Lopez, Sharp (7:10), stone. Absent: Cole, Jordan. Staff
present: Reed, Finn, Taitague, Olivio-Gomez, Montgomery,
Woldruff, Bautista, Burke. Senior Assistant city Attorney
Dennis Barlow and Deputy city Attorney Henry Empeno were also
present.
The salute to the flag was led by commissioner Lindseth.
John Montgomery, Principal Planner asked all those who
intended to testify to stand and raise their right hand to be
sworn inl Mr. Montgomery administered the oath.
* * *
The approval of the minutes of the Planning commission
Meeting of september 11, 1990 were approved after the arrival
. of commissioner Sharp by a motion from commissioner stone,
seconded by commissioner Lopez and unanimously carried.
The approval of the minutes of the planning commission
Meeting of spetember 25, 1990 were postponed to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission, as there was not
a quorum of those commissioners present at that meeting.
* * *
Chairman Lindseth noted those items to be considered on the
Consent Agenda (Item Nos. 2, 6, 7, and 8). Mr. Montgomery
provided a brief description of each item and noted staff's
recommendations. Mr. Montgomery also noted modifications in
Item No. 8 Conditions of Approval as:
Delete Condition No.5.
Revise Condition No. 28 to read:
28. The developer shall participate in any supplemental
fee program established by the city to help finance
new school off-site improvements or with the city
of San Bernardino community Facilities District No.
995 School Fee Mitigation Agreement.
Add Condition No. 29:
29. The single-family homes constructed on Lots 30, 45,
54, and 58 shall comply with the setback standards
specified by the Municipal Code in effect at the
time of Planning Department review and approval of
said homes.
.
'City ot San aeQrdino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 2
o
10/9/90
.
commissioner Sharp arrived at 7:10 p.m.
commissioner Lopez made a motion
Calendar per the recommendations
seconded by commissioner Clemensen
to approve the Consent
of staff. The motion was
and carried unanimously.
* * *
chairman Lindseth asked if anyone in the audience would have
any problems with continuing Items 3, 4, and 5 to a future
Planning commission Meeting. He explained that Item No. 1
was a continued item that had priority and could run late
into the evening.
Al C. Ballard of representing Nick Tavaglione, owner, stated
Mr. Tavaglione would like a 30 day continuance on Item No.3.
Charles R. Metzger of 17511 Conte Lomas Verdes in poway
stated he had no problem with continuing Item No. 4 to the
next reqular meeting of October 23, 1990.
Ernest Riffenburgh representing
property owner, stated he had no
on Item No.5.
Parkside Medical Services,
problem with a continuance
Chairman Lindseth asked if anyone in the audience wished to
discuss these items further.
Bruno Sheryl
buyer, wanted
came from Los
of 1100 Grace Lane in Brentwood, Los Angeles,
Item No. 4 heard tonight if possible because he
Angeles.
Chairman
would be
o'clock.
Lindseth stated he could make no promises, but
automatically continued if Item No. 1 went to
it
11
Mr. Sheryl agreed to a continuance.
Bill Katona 1371 Walnut street in San Bernardino wanted to
know why Item No. 3 was denied and what is Commercial General
desiqnation and what the plans are for the property.
Mr. Reed stated if Mr. Katona's questions were general ones,
someone from staff could answer them for him on the side.
commissioner Clemensen motion to continue General Plan
Amendment No. 90-9 to November 6, 19901 General Plan Amend-
ment No. 90-10 to October 23, 19901 and General Plan Amend-
ment No. 90-7 to November 6, 1990. The motion was seconded
by commissioner Lopez and unanimously carried.
* * *
. 0 0
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 3
ITEM NO.1
Revocation of Conditional D8velonment Permit No. 198
subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately .86 acres having a frontage
of approximately 125 feet on the east side of "0" Street and
being located approximately 365 feet north of the centerline
of 6th street and further described. as 655 North "0" Street.
The subject site is located. in the CR-2, Commercial Regional
Downtown, General Plan Land. Use Designation. The City
proposes revocation of Cond.itional Development Permit Number
198 und.er authority of Cod.e section(s) 19.78.110 (A.) (2.)
(3.), to revoke approvals for a 50-unit motel.
OWners/Applicants: Lei & Cind.y Wang
Ward: 1
Exempt from CEQA (Class 21)
Ed.alia Olivo-Gomez, Associate Planner, gave a brief presen-
tation of staff's report giving only planning issues and
violations of the Conditions of Approval of the Cond.itional
Use Permit.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Dennis Barlow stated. for the
record. that he would. be advising the Commission on this
matter tonight.
Deputy City Attorney Henry Empeno stated. for the record. his
name and. title and. that he would. be assisting the Planning
Department in presenting this matter.
Attorney Empeno gave a recap of this case. He stated. on May
8th the Planning commission began the hearing on this case at
that time four sets of d.ocuments were entered. as Exhibits. He
remind.ed. the Planning Commission that Exhibit No. 1 was the
staff report: Exhibit 2 is the Declaration of David
Stachowski, city Attorney Investigator, this d.ocument was
filed. in the Superior Court of the State of California County
of San Bernard.ino Case No. 255293: Exhibit No. 3 was copies
of the San Bernard.ino Municipal Cocle section 19.78.110: and
Exhibit No. 4 is Further Declaration of David Stachowski,
City Attorney Investigator, for same case. He also stated.
that numerous witnesses have alread.y testified. in support of
the revocation which are recorded. in the May 8, 1990 minutes.
Attorney Empeno stated to the Commission he would. like to
provid.e them with three witnesses all together and. make them
available for any questions by the commission or the
Respond.ent. The witnesses were: David. Stachowski, City
Attorney Investigator: Robert Spind.ler, Detective with the
San Bernard.ino police Department vice Division: and. Dany
Nolfo, Build.ing Inspector with San Bernard.ino Planning and.
Build.ing Services Department. Attorney Empeno stated. that
the Exhibits were passed. out at the May 8th meeting and. that
he had. copies with him tonight if anyone wished. to refer to
.
o 0
tity of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 4
them.
The witnesses were asked to stand to be recoqnized by the
commission and to answer any questions the Commission may
have. Attorney Empeno stated he did not have any specific
questions to ask them.
commissioner Lopez asked Attorney Empeno if all the documents
he referred to were made available to the applicant and the
attorneys for the applicant.
Attorney Empeno answered yes and stated copies were given to
the attorneys.
Attorney Empeno stated he would like to offer as evidence
these documents that are marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 to
be admitted as part of the Planning Departments case.
Andrew Gunn, attorney for the owners, also present stated the
last time he appeared Josh Kaplan was with him but that he
would not be appearing today and that Frank Wieser was
appearing in his place. He further stated they objected to
the entry of the documents as evidence stating they were
heresy and wanted to renew his request for rulings on the
motions made at the May 8th meeting.
Chairman Lindseth asked Mr. Gunn to detail allegations that
the documents were heresy.
Mr. Gunn stated they were comprised out of court statements
made by parties that were not present to cross examine. He
further stated it was a classic case of heresy made to be
used for the proof of the matter asserted. Mr. Gunn ques-
tioned the Commission as to why Attorney Empeno advised the
commission 20 minutes ago if he was to cease advising the
Commission.
Discussion ensued among.st the attorneys as to was advising
the Commission. It was resolved that Attorney Barlow was
advising the commission on this matter.
Chairman Lindseth asked Attorney Barlow's concerns on the
points Mr. Gunn made that the documents were heresy.
Attorney Barlow suggested he allow Attorney Empeno to argue
the matter of the documents being heresy. He further stated
that no rulings made at the previous hearing were out-
standing.
Attorney Empeno stated the documents, except for the
Municipal Codes and portions of the staff report, consisted
of sworn declarations signed under the penalty of perjury.
Attorney Empeno argued this was not a court of law that the
Commission follows only quasijudicial procedural law heresy
is admissible to the commission but the attorney for the
.
. 0 i O.
city or San Bernard no
planninq commission Meetinq Minutes or 10/9/90
paqe 5
.
respondent can only arque the weiqht that should be given to
heresy evidence. He stated that 3 or declarants are present
ror cross examination and at the last meetinq numerous
property owners were present and available for cross
examination. The respondent also had the opportunity to
subpoena any witnesses he wished to bring forward that would
be helpful to his defense, includinq same declarants.
Chairman Lindseth a!lked Attorney Barlow if it
that the purpose or the commission was to listen
of both parties and make a sound and reasonable
at that time the recommendation will go to the
for review.
was correct
to testimony
judqment and
city council
Attorney Empeno stated San Bernardino
19.78.110 <e) read that whichever decision
make a party may appeal to the Council.
Attorney Barlow stated there is a right of appeal but in
addition the findinqs are forwarded to the council and it has
the opportunity to be aware of that but it's done directly by
appeal.
Municipal Code
the Commission may
Frank A. Wieser of 3460 Wilshire Boulevard, suite 903 in Los
Angeles, representing the owners, stated he just came in on
the case this week and has not had a chance to review the
file or see the testimony that is being brought in. He asked
if the City Attorney had set any quidelines or procedures as
to what could or could not be brought in as testimony. He
felt the objection Mr. Gunn made was well founded especially
to Mr. Stachowski's Declaration that is an ongoing court
matter that has not been finally aujudicated and that a judqe
will make a decision as to what is heresy. He asked if Mr.
Empeno wanted this body to act in lieu of the judge. He
further stated the evidence that was being brought does not
necessarily go to the issues of planning they go to the
independent lawsuit for Redlight Abatement and Nuisance.
,
Attorney Empeno responded by saying that Mr. Wieser was not
familiar with the cases and the Commission was being asked to
rule on these documents for the purpose of this proceeding.
In the civil lawsuit the judge made no findings of inadmis-
sability and did take them into consideration. On the other
matter Code Section 9.7.8110 list 2 provisions in which the
commission can revoke this conditional development permit and
that these are the 2 provisions they are proceeding under
tonight. The provisions are as follows:
1) That the permit is being or has been exercised
contrary to the conditions of such permit or in
violation of any applicable licenses, permits,
requlations, laws or ordinances.
2) That the use for which permit approval was granted
is being or has been exercised so at to be deteri
.
o 0
'city of San Bernardino
Planninq Commission Meetinq Minutes of 10/9/90
paqe 6
.
mental to the public health or safety or to consti-
tute a nuisance.
He went on to list the issues before the commission toniqht.
Attorney Barlow stated there was nothinq in the code that
states the Commission is deprived of jurisdiction due to the
civil proceedinq and that the objection be overruled and
receive into evidence the docU1llents presented.
Mr. Wieser responded to Attorney Barlow's suqqestion by
statinq that he believed there was section in the 700 series
of the Civil Code specifically dealinq with nuisances which
talks in the disjunctive or that a municipality or state or
whatever public body may pursue to abate a nuisance either by
way of the Redliqht Abatement Act or by way of Penal Code
proceedinqs or by way of the civil Code. He further stated
that the city Attorney was attemptinq to use these procee-
dinqs as a sprinq board for the proceedinqs that he initiated
in the Civil action and because he could not qet what he
wanted in the Civil action as quickly, or perhaps without the
finality that he can qet with this board, he initiated these
proceedinqs.
Chairman Lindseth stated that by reviewinq tapes and minutes
he sees no open or standinq issues that have not been dis-
cussed. He further stated the commission is actinq as a
administrative body and not a leqal body and is not tryinq to
overrule a judicial action.
Attorney Barlow stated he
front of him but that
authority from proceedinqs
is not listed in that Code
did not have the Code section in
did not prohibit the appropriate
pursuant to somethinqs else that
Section.
Commissioner Clemensen pointed out they have the power to
approve or revoke a conditional use permit within their
jurisdiction.
Chairman Lindseth decided to hear the issues, state that
outstandinq business or motions were not acted upon be
rejected, and accept the evidence. There were no objections
from commissioners.
Attorney Empeno stated other than the witnesses there maybe a
few other people that may want to make comments and asked the
commission to hear them.
Chairman Lindseth aqreed.
Mr. Gunn stated he did have questions for the witnesses
present and objected to the declarations beinq accepted
without cross examination which he said is standard procedure
in front of all judicial bodies.
.
. 0 0
City of san Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 7
Chairman Lindseth stated the people have a right to speak and
if he liked he could cross examine.
Mr. Gunn stated he was not disputing that but felt accepting
the Declaration was inappropriate without cross examination.
Attorney Barlow stated opportunity for objection was given
and overruled the documents have already been admitted.
Chairman Lindseth stated to continue on.
Mr. Gunn asked if he would have an opportunity to cross
examine Dany Nolfo or Dave stachowski.
Attorney Barlow stated that he would have an opportunity to
examine them tonight during this hearing at some point.
Richard w. styler, resident owner of standard Mortgage
Company, Inc., at 375 West 7th street in San Bernardino
stated they abut the property on the north side.
Attorney Empeno asked all the witnesses since the closure of
the Motel to the present, have you witnessed any change in
circumstance from the conditions you described at the last
planning commission meeting.
Mr. styler stated at the last meeting prior to the closure
vandalism, aggressive behavior (especially toward female
employees), and cars being broken into were a daily
occurrance sometimes twice a day almost everyday. Since the
closure, they have had no vandalism at all and that was a
significant change in his book.
Bill carey, owner of Carey's Fine Automobiles at 645 "0"
street just south of the motel, stated his business has had
no problems since the closure of the motel, no break-ins or
vandalism. He also wanted it noted the police were at the
motel at least once a day and now they are free to do their
job. He Felt it has been a drastic help to the entire city.
commissioner Clemensen asked if the closure of the motel has
made a difference in his business activities at this point.
Mr. Carey stated yes that
40% and that he could
$2,000 a month.
his business improved approximately
receipt vandalism of approximately
Chairman Lindseth asked what type of vandalism he experienced
specificallY.
Mr. carey stated the most drastic damage
shields in a day, people running across
dogs killed by poison, and a $5 fuel pump
was 8 broken
the roofs of
stolen.
wind-
cars,
commissioner Clemensen questioned the poisoning of the dogs.
.
',0 0
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 8
.
Mr. carey stated he had 3 dogs poisoned.
RaYlllond Negrete, owner of Rena's Restaurant at 642 "0" Street
in San Bernardino stated they have had no break-ins in the
parking lot, no lewd remarks to the women in the restaurant
and business is better.
commissioner Clemensen asked if he was referring to day or
night time business.
Mr. Negrete stated both but the night was worse because they
would break windows and steal batteries.
commissioner Lopez asked if he got any comments from custo-
mers or workers that it feels safer now.
Mr. Gunn Obj ected because he did not know who the customers
were.
Chairman Lindseth overruled the objection
Mr. Negrete stated the girls feel a little better but are
still very leary and will not go out alone to their cars.
Chairman Lindseth asked how long he has been in business with
Rena's restaurant.
Mr. Negrete stated he has been in business for 25 years but
has been in the area since 1953.
Chairman
start to
cations.
Lindseth asked when he approximately did he first
experience problems of clientele having alter-
Mr. Negrete stated in the last 6 or 7 years it started
getting bad, but when they first started, everything was o.k.
Mr. Gunn asked if his building was broken into in the last 60
days and if the person was located in the empty Civic Center
Motel hiding.
Mr. Negrete stated his building was broken into but he did
not know where the person was found.
Mr. styler stated the fact that someone hid in the abandoned
building did not mean anything because the people who use to
live there were organized and hid in the building.
Attorney Empeno rested the Planning Commission's case. He
stated that if Mr. Gunn had any questions for the witnesses
that he ask them first so they could be excused.
Mr. Gunn called Dany Nolfo.
.
.oci ty of San BeRrdinO 0
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 9
Dany Nolfo stated he was a Code
city of San Bernardino and his
1038 in Cedarglen.
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. Nolfo when was the last time he was on the
property, who he was with and why was he there.
Enforcement Officer with the
address as being P.O. Box
Mr. Nolfo answered he believed it
do a building inspection with
Inspector.
Mr. Gunn asked if they were there for final inspection and
was it signed off.
was in the last 2 weeks to
Buddy Gomes, a Building
Mr. Nolfo answered it was a call for final inspection and
that everything was clear except for the air and heating and
some other areas but the rehab permit was not siqned off
because that included heating and air.
Mr. Gunn asked if he knew who from the city went out to
inspect the heating and air and if he knew if the fire
Department went out to inspect the property.
Mr. Nolfo stated he did not know he heard the Fire Department
went out but did not know the de "'tailed report.
Mr. Gunn asked if Mr. Gomes was present tonight.
Mr. Nolfo stated he did not see him in the audience.
Mr Gunn asked who Mr. Gomes supervisor was.
Mr. Nolfo stated Dean Pagel.
Mr. Gunn asked if Dean Pagel was present at the inspection of
the property and who his supervisor was.
Mr Nolfo stated he was not present and Larry Reed was his
supervisor.
commissioner Stone asked if water was
if a putting green was there and if
repaired and replaced.
Mr. Nolfo stated there was no water in the pool, no putting
green, but the wall was repaired and replaced.
in the swimming pool,
the northwest wall was
commissioner Lopez asked if the store room was back to a
store room or was it still a kitchen.
Mr. Nolfo stated the stove were taken out but were right
outside the door and could be replaced in the room.
Chairman Lindseth excused Mr. Nolfo with the permission of
Attorney Empeno and Mr. Gunn.
.
~Ci ty of San seRrdino 0 .
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 10
.
David Stachowski stated he was a City Attorney Investigator.
Mr. Gunn asked if he had done an investigation on a
individual named Armando Viginelli.
Mr. Stachowski stated the only thing he did was check his
business to see if they had any problems with the clientele.
Mr. Gunn asked who asked him to go out and check and why.
Mr. Stachowski stated Mr. Penman because he believed the
gentleman was interested in purchasing the motel.
Attorney Barlow stated for the record Mr. Penman was the city
Attorney.
Mr. Gunn asked if he formed a conclusion that the operation
was not detrimental to the surrounding businesses.
Mr. Stachowski stated it seemed to be operating in a proper
manner.
Chairman Lindseth excused Mr. Stachowski with the permission
of Attorney Empeno and Mr. Gunn.
Mr. Gunn called Larry Reed.
Chairman Lindseth administered the oath to Mr. Reed.
Larry Reed, Director of Planning and Building Services,
residing at 5655 Stanton Avenue in San Bernardino.
Mr. Gunn asked several question of Mr. Reed regarding the
Rehab Permit.
Mr. Reed answered the question to the best of his knowledge
but did state on several occasions he would have to refer to
file, which was not in front of him.
Mr Gunn stated for Mr. Reed to check the records.
Mr. Gunn asked on what date was the Notice sent to the owners
that they needed to correct problems on the building.
Mr. Reed stated he did not have the exact dates that Dany
Nolfo may be able to answer that question but he did know
that initial inspections were made and notices were issued
and based on the results the motel was ordered to be closed
and at that time documents were issued to the manager.
Mr. Gunn asked what specific violations fell within the realm
of his department and were these violations corrected.
Mr. Reed stated zoning standards, conditions of approval,
.
o 0
t:i ty of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 11
building cod.e and property nuisance violations fell under his
department. He stated he does not make the inspections
personally but relies on his staff to carry out their job and
if there are any probl_s they will bring th_ to his atten-
tion.
Mr. Gunn asked who was in charge of signing off final inspec-
tions.
Mr. Reed stated a combination of people including the Fire
Department, Planning, the Property Maintenance Inspector, and
once those are obtained the Code Enforc_ent Officer makes
the final decision.
Mr Gunn stated to Mr. Reed he believed he had not reviewed
the file to see what has been done and asked if the file was
available in the building and could be located within 10 to
15 minutes.
Mr. Reed stated he had not personally looked at the file and
it was in the building but there was no clerical staff
available to locate the file.
Mr. Gunn asked for a recess to locate the file.
Chairman Lindseth stated it was understood that the hearing
is conducted in the evening outside of normal hours and
sometimes necessary files are retained at the desk of various
clerical people and retained by managers, case workers and
supervisors and may be inaccessible at this time.
Attorney Empeno stated the respondent's attorney had the
opportunity to issue a subpoena for any documents in the
City's possession, and if they had informed the city of
particular documents they wanted at this meeting tonight,
those documents could have been issued. He encouraged the
Commission to move on.
,
Mr. Gunn stated he assumed that since he was the Director he
would have reviewed the file and be able to locate it.
Chairman Lindseth asked Mr. Reed if it was possible if
someone from staff could locate the file while they continued
on. He further stated to Mr. Gunn if he needs any documents
to please make his request known in advance.
Mr. Gunn requested the records be made available.
Commissioner Lopez stated they gave Mr. Gunn 3 to 4
ances which he felt was amble time for him to have
any documents he needed and didn't feel they should
the pleasure of requesting the document.
Mr. Gunn stated he requested a continuance in May and several
continuances have been arranged between him and Attorney
continu-
requested
allow him
.
· City of San Bern9dinO 0
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
page 12
Empeno wbtab were not necessarily at his request.
Mr. Wi..er .tated he did not have a chance to discuss the
case with Mr. Gunn or review the file. He was under the
impression it was to be continued to November 6 but that
there was a misunderstanding between Attorney Empeno and Mr.
Penman.
Attorney Empeno stated he did have a conversation with Mr.
Wiser in conjunction with Roberts siDlDlons yesterday and he
did request a continuance without mentioning his prior
conversations with Mr. Penman who told him that no
continuance would be granted. He encouraged the cODlDlission
to move forward.
Mr. Wieser objected to any conversation between him and Mr.
Penman.
cODlDlissioner Clemensen stated the substitution of attorneys
is not the fault of the CODlDlission.
Mr. Wieser stated it is not a substitution but co-counsel.
Attorney Barlow stated the point that the owner added new
counsel should not be relied upon for delays and if there was
a desire for a continuance, the appropriate time to present
that would have been at the beginning of the hearing but it's
in the discretion of the cODlDlission to grant a continuance.
Chairman Lindseth stated the commission has reviewed and
acquainted itself with the merits as presented by staff for 5
months and is prepared to conduct a hearing. He also stated
just because the owner/applicant has chosen to employ another
attorney is their concern not the cODlDlissions and the fact
that owner/applicant were present they were going to proceed.
,
. 'ci ty of San BeAdinO
planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 13
o
10/9/90
.
Mr. Reed answered it was February 26, 1990 that the Notice of
violation was issued for numerous violations of code, on
March 14, 1990 a citation or Notice to Appear was issued
after the owners failed to correct the violations of February
26th, on March 15, 1990 the City found the building to be
dangerous and all the persons ordered to evacuate the
building at that time the owners were notified of the city's
intent to begin revocation, on March 26 the owners obtained a
building permit to rehab the motel. He further stated the
records in front of him only showed the Building Inspector
had signed off on the building code violations.
Mr. Gunn asked on what date was written notice served to the
owners of the motel that the revocation hearing was going to
commence.
Mr. Reed stated he believed the notice was given on Marcb 23.
Mr. Gunn asked whos decision was it to proceed with the
revocation and who did this person consult with.
Mr. Reed stated it was his decision and that he consulted
with the Code enforcement officer, fire, planning and several
other people involved with the initial inspection.
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. Reed to list the names of people he
consulted with in each department.
Mr. Reed gave the names of the individuals he could remember.
commissioner Clemensen asked if Mr.
subpoenaed all tbat information already.
Mr. Gunn stated tbe only way be could obtain tbis information
was to question the officials in charge because be believed
that not all the information could be obtained from the file.
Gunn could bave
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. Reed bow mucb time were the owners given
to correct the violations, who wrote the notice, and if the
violations were corrected within 5 days.
Mr. Reed stated he did not specific knowledge of that infor-
mation and the question may be better answered by a building
inspector.
Mr. Gunn asked what was the financial committment the City
based its fees upon.
Mr. Reed stated tbe evaluation on the permit was $77,000.
Mr. Gunn asked how often did be revoke conditional use
permits.
Mr. Reed stated this was the first time.
.
. 'city of San BeRrdinO
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 14
o
10/9/90
.
Mr. Gunn asked how long he has been director of the depart-
ment and how long has he been with the department.
Mr. Reed stated he has been Director and started in the
department in December 1989.
Mr. Gunn asked if Mr. Reed was instructed not to accept an
application for Certificate of Occupancy. (
Mr. Reed stated he believed yes that they have to accept
application for Certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Gunn asked if he was
application for certificate
property.
aware staff refused to accept
of occupancy on this particular
Mr. Reed stated he was not personally aware of that.
Mr. Gunn noticed that Mr. Nolfo was leaving the meeting and
asked the Commission not let him leave.
chairman Lindseth stated Mr. Nolfo was excused.
Mr. Gunn
questions
officers.
stated he assumed the department head could answer
which he has passed down to Code Enforcement
Chairman Lindseth stated Mr.
commission and it was his
leave.
Nolfo had been excused by the
own personal desire to stay or
Mr. Gunn asked the Commission to issue a subpoena to direct
Mr. Nolfo to stay.
Chairman Lindseth overruled the request.
Mr. Nolfo left the proceedings.
Mr. Gunn asked for a list of names of Code Enforcement
Officers that have been out to the motel.
Mr. Reed stated he could not remember the names from memory.
Mr. Gunn asked for a list, from memory, of
Officers and Planning Inspectors that have
the department.
Code Enforcment
been employed by
Mr. Reed listed names of individuals in the department.
Chairman Lindseth stated he did not see the relevancy of
these questions.
Mr. Gunn stated if the file would be made available he would
not have to go through these questions and that he stated by
.
· 'City of San BeRrdinO
planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 15
o
10/9/90
.
the way the hearing was proceeding they would be back and he
would subpoena appropriate parties at that time.
chairman Lindseth asked Mr. Gunn if was trying to "run out
the clock" in order to prepare themselves more adequately.
Mr. Gunn stated he anticipated completing the hearing to-
night.
Mr. Gunn asked question regarding the automatic sprinklers
that were required.
Mr. Reed stated he needed to look at the records.
* * * * *
Chairman Lindseth called a 5
looked through the records.
p.m.
minute recess, while Mr.
The meeting reconvened at
Reed
9:30
* * * * *
Mr. Reed stated Municipal Code Chapter 19.56.120 Title 19
requires that setback and paving lot planners be landscaped
and maintained and shall have operative automatic sprinklers
systems.
Chairman Lindseth stated substantial questions were not being
asked and wanted the see the hearing move on in a positive
manner.
Mr. Gunn stated it was relevant because it is
conditions that was stated in the staff report
kept up.
part of the
as not being
Chairman Lindseth stated they should talk about the specific
aspects as they pertain to the case that the size of the
staff is irrelevant and that the Commission will not tolerate
any further departures from the issues at hand.
commissioner Stone stated if he knows that was not a
condition just say so and to conduct a three hour quiz would
not help his case.
Mr. Gunn stated he reviewed the Conditional Development
Permit and the documents provided to his office and the
sprinkler were not needed.
Mr. Wieser stated he would like to ask questions of Mr. Reed.
Attorney Empeno stated Mr. Reed has
a few minutes and that there is no
about that permits the double team
the Commission should rule they be
asking the questions.
been testifying for quite
requirement that he knows
of attorneys and he felt
limited to one attorney
.
.
.
o
City of San Bernardino
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 16
o
10/9/90
Chairman Lindseth
marathon and one of
because they were
themselves.
stated he
them should
definitely
would not sponsor a tag team
ask the appropriate questions
going to converse amongest
Mr. Gunn stated he would formally represent Mr. Larry Wang as
one owner and Frank Wieser would represent Cindy Wang as one
owner for the duration of the proceeding.
Mr. Wieser stated he
earlier that he would
ments.
assumed since he presented his self
be able to address his self in arqu-
Attorney Empeno objected stating is was apparent that Mr.
Gunn represented the owners all along and change in represen-
tation was a method to undercut the discretion of the commis-
sion and that the commission move forward.
Chairman Lindseth stated it is the desire or ruling of the
commission that one of them conduct their investigation.
All Commissioners concurred.
Mr. Gunn asked question of Mr. Reed regarding the uniform
Transient Tax.
Mr. Reed stated he had no personal knowledge of it being paid
and it was two different types of issues.
commissioner Stone questioned the relevancy of the questions.
Mr. Wieser stated Revenue and Taxation Code 72.80 sets forth
a categorization in relation to a motel which the City of San
Bernardino has adopted.
Attorney Empeno stated if they have any question about motels
as transient use and defining motels those questions would be
relevant but that Mr. Reed has stated he does not know about
the tax.
Mr. Gunn asked several question regarding the business
license.
Mr. Reed stated he had no knowledge of that information.
Attorney Empeno objected stating there were no prov1s1ons in
the staff relating to any violation of a business license.
Mr. Gunn pointed out Page 6 the last paragraph "the motel has
been in violation of the business license,...." and stated he
assumed the Director reviewed the memo dated April 17, 1990
with his signature.
Attorney Empeno stated had Mr. Gunn read on and looked at
.
~'City of San Be~rdinO
planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 17
o
10/9/90
.
page 3 paragraph
licenses and does
violation of that
3 of the sue report
not Delieve there is
license.
it speaks to Dusiness
an actual present day
Mr. Gunn asked where the information that a check for $210
was issued to the motel from the Welfare Department was
ODtained.
Mr. Reed stated that was what they heard from the occupants
of the motel.
Mr. Gunn asked the definition Detween permanent and transient
Mr. Reed stated motels are primarilY designed
veling puDlic what was found was a motel unit
fuilies in unsanitary conditions.
Mr. Gunn asked if he was aware that welfare recipients have
temporary housing allowance not permanent.
for the tra-
occupied DY
Mr. Reed stated he was not sure if he knew the Welfare's
Department distinction of temporary or permanent housing
allowance Dut that he knew some the people there could afford
to pay rent on a apartment with proper sanitary conditions.
Mr. Gunn asked if he was upset people on welfare could have
an apartment Dut instead lived in motels.
Mr. Reed stated he was not upset Dut concerned.
Mr. Reed was excused.
cindy Wang was administered the oath DY Mr. Montgomery.
cindy wang owner of Civic Center Motel residing at 2132
Almadale Avenue in Los Angeles.
Mr. Gunn asked several question of Mrs. Wang regarding the
Notice of Correction.
Mrs. wang stated her manager recieved the notice on FeDruary
26.
Attorney Empeno oDjected to questions leading the witness and
asked that they De in proper form.
Discussion ensued amongest the attorneys in regards to
leading the witness.
Chairman Lindseth asked Mr. Gunn to please rephrase his
questions.
Mrs. Wang stated she was
notice and did not know
concern over the motel.
never served with a
until March 14 that
She stated she
copy of the
the city had
hired Donald
..
.. ~i ty of San eerSldino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
page 18
o
10/9/90
Robinson, a contractor, 2 days after the tenants
to make the necessary corrections to the motel
Mr. Robinson obtained a permit.
were evicted
on March 26,
Mr. Gunn asked Mrs. wang several questions
regarding the sale of the building which could
yes or no.
of Mrs. wang
be answered
Attorney Empeno objected several times stating the questions
were leading.
Chairman Lindseth asked Mr. Gunn to' be more specific in
questioning.
Mrs. Wang stated Mr. Penman
Mr. vigninelli and was very
his motel and would like him
drop all charges.
Mr. Wang answered yes to the question was the final inspec-
tion signed off. She stated it was done on September 17 and
her contractor said it was Buddy Long who signed it off.
told her they had investigated
satisfied with his operation of
to buy her motel and he would
Mrs. Wang stated she would like the Commission to allow her
to sell the motel to Mr. viginelli that she was an absentee
owner and did not know how to run it.
Chairman Lindseth stated the issue is whether or not to
revoke the conditional Use Permit the issues of transfer of
property was of no concern.
Attorney Empeno asked Mrs. Wang if she had an opportunity to
review Exhibit #1 and if she had any problems with it.
Mrs. Wang stated she believed she had skimmed through it.
Mr. Gunn objected.
Attorney Empeno asked who was in charge of running the motel
if her and her husband were absentee owners.
Mr. Gunn Objected.
Mrs. Wang stated they hired managers and the last manager
they hired was Dan Chung.
Attorney Empeno asked if in January 1986 and March 1986 did
she receive a Notice of Correction.
Mr. Gunn Objected stating it was beyond the scope and the
documents were not on hand.
Mrs. Wang stated she did not remember that far
whenever a Notice was served the manager would
and let her know and he would correct it.
back and that
call her up
.
- City of San Be~rdinO <:)
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/9/90
Page 19
>>
Attorney Empeno asked if in June 1986 was a civil lawsuit
filed under the Redlight Abatement and Drug Abatement by the
San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office and did she
receive notice of that lawsuit.
Mrs. Wang stated yes she did receive notice of that lawsuit.
Attorney Empeno asked if she was aware the motel had been the
sight of 2 murders and 40 arrests.
Mr. Gunn and Mr. Wieser
and raising the issues
be done.
objected stating that was irrelevant
of Redlight Abatement did not have to
Attorney Barlow stated they had the two actions mixed up and
the one they are speaking of was in 1986.
Mrs. Wang stated she was aware of a fight in
in which one person was stabbed but would
murder and did not know anything about the 40
the parking lot
not call that
arrests.
Attorney Empeno asked if she was aware there were many
violations in 1986 for prostitution and narcotics.
Mr. Gunn objected saying it was heresy and not in evidence.
commissioner Clemensen stated evidence was in the file.
Chairman Lindseth stated the questions were directly relevant
to the history of occurances at the motel.
Mr. Wieser objected stating the Commission has already come
to a decision based on the evidence submitted.
Chairman Lindseth stated he would grant him the opportunity
to retract his statement and apologize to the commission for
his remark. He further stated the commission has never nor
never will make a prejUdicial statement or judgment on any
case that comes before it and that they base there decision
on the facts presented.
Mr. Wieser apologized to the commission.
Chairman Lindseth stated he would not accept any more remarks
of that nature.
Mrs. Wang stated she became aware of it after she read the
City's report.
Mr. Gunn asked if she was aware that the police commission
view the area as the highest crime rate area in the City of
San Bernardino.
Mrs. Wang stated no.
.
. 'City of San BeRdinO 0 .
Planning Commission Heeting Hinutes of 10/9/90
Page 20
.
Attorney Empeno stated he would like to call Hrs. Wang as a
witness in rebuttal.
Chairman Lindseth agreed.
Attorney Empeno asked if she felt the document marked Exhibit
1 is accurate and if there was anything in it she felt was
untruthful.
Hrs. Wang stated she did not compare her building with the
document and does not know if they were true.
Attorney Empeno asked if she reviewed Exhibit 2 and if she
recalled any facts being untruthful.
Hrs. wang stated she
read the document and
she would not know if
didn't know if they were true she
since she was not operating the
they were true.
just
motel
Attorney Empeno asked if she read Exhibit 4.
Hrs. Wang asked to see the document.
It was handed to her.
Hr. Gunn pointed out the document is at least 50 pages long
and she be given time to review it.
Chairman Lindseth asked Hrs. wang if she had seen this
document.
Hrs. Wang stated she had never seen this document before.
Attorney Empeno asked if she was ever given a copy to review.
Hrs. wang stated she did not recall.
Attorney Empeno objected to Hr. Gunn's consulting with Hrs.
Wang during questioning.
Hr. Gunn stated he wanted to review the document
presented and believed he could confer with his client
time during the proceeding.
Chairman Lindseth asked Hr. Gunn if he had been provided a
copy of Exhibit 4.
being
at any
Hr. Gunn stated without looking at it he did not know.
Attorney Empeno stated at the Hay 8th meeting Hr. Gunn
acknowledged he received copies of the documents.
Discussion ensued amongest the attorneys as to whether Chair-
man Lindseth stated Hr. Gunn could not review the documents.
.
. 'City of San Berti\dino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 21
o
10/9/90
.
It was resolved Mr. Gunn could review the documents at a
distance but could not confer or coach his client.
Mr. Gunn objected to any further questioning until she had a
chance to review the document.
Chairman Lindseth stated he believed every party
copies of these documents and felt this was another
stall the hearing.
Discussion ensued amongest the attorneys and commissioners as
to whether or not copies were provided to everyone, it was
resolved they were provided.
was given
tactic to
Attorney Barlow reminded the commission of the rule that
meetings do not go past 11 unless a vote is taken by 2/3'S of
those present.
Chairman Lindseth stated he would have to part and if they
are to continue past 11 they must have a motion.
commissioner Clemensen made a motion to try and complete the
issue tonight.
commissioner lopez asked if there was a chance of closing the
hearing by midnight.
Attorney Barlow stated there maybe a chance.
commissioner Lopez seconded the motion.
Mr. Gunn stated he had 2 witnesses present and one on call
that could be there within 10 to 15 minutes and there is a
third that is out of town and he would be requesting a
continuance for additional witnesses and does not anticipate
finishing tonight.
commissioner Clemensen withdrew his motion.
Lopez withdrew his second.
Commissioner Lopez motioned to continue the hearing to
another date.
Commissioner
commissioner
hearing on a
meeting.
commissioner Clemensen asked Attorney Barlow if they could be
assured they will not be questioning every document that has
been admitted.
Stone asked if it would be possible to hold the
night that was not a regular Planning Commission
Chairman Lindseth stated they will go ahead and continue the
hearing to October 30, 1990 at 7:00 p.m in council Chambers.
* * * * *
.
.
.
o City of San Bernardino 0
Planning commission Meeting Minutes
October 30, 1990
Chairman Lindseth called the meeting to order at 7:05" p.m. in
the Council Chambers, city Hall. The following Commissioners
were present: Clemensen, Corona, Lindseth, Lopez, Sharp,
stone. Absent: cole, Jordan. Staff present: Reed, Olivo-
Gomez, Taitague. senior Assistant City Attorney Dennis
Barlow and Deputy City Attorney Henry Empeno were also pre-
sent.
The Salute to the Flag was led by commissioner Lopez.
Edalia Olivo-Gomez, Associate Planner, asked all those who
intended to testify to stand and raise their right hand to be
sworn in; Mrs Olivo-Gomez administered the oath.
* * * * *
The approval of the
Meeting of october 9,
commissioner Corona,
unanimously carried.
minutes of the planning Commission
1990 were approved by a motion from
seconded by Commissioner Lopez and
* * * * *
ITEM NO.1
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 198
subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximatelY .86 acres having a frontage of
approximately 125 feet on the east side of nD" street and
being located approximately 365 feet north of the centerline
of 6th Street and further described as 655 North nD" street.
The subject site is locate in the CR-2, Commercial Regional
Downtown, General Plan Land Use Designation. The City
proposes revocation of Conditional Development Permit Number
198 under authority of Code Section(s) 19.78.110 (A.) (2.)
(3.), to revoke approvals for a 50-unit motel.
owners/Applicants Lei & cindy Wang
Ward: 1
Environmental
Recommendation:
Staff
Recommendation:
Exempt from CEQA (Class 21)
Planner:
Edalia
Revocation of Conditional
Permit Number 198
Olivo-Gomez
Development
Chairman Lindseth reminded everyone present that Deputy City
Attorney Henry Empeno represented the planning Department,
Senior Deputy city Attorney represented the commissioners,
and Andrew Gunn and Frank wieser represented the applicant.
Chairman Lindseth asked Senior Deputy Attorney Dennis BarlOW
where they should resume.
_u................. r
.
.
.
o
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes
page 2
o
of 10/30/90
Attorney Barlow .tated he believed the owners were presenting
their position and Attorney Empeno had rested.
to look at page 20 of the
of October 9, 1990 to see
Attorney Empeno asked Mrs.
Attorney Empeno asked everyone
Minutes of the planning commission
that Mrs. Wang was on the stand.
Wang to retake the stand.
Mr. Gunn stated he had not been provided a copy of the
Minutes and would like to have a copy available to him.
A copy of the Minutes of the Planning commission Meeting of
October 9, 1990 were handed to Mr. Gunn.
Attorney Empeno stated that on page 20 of the October 9, 1990
Minutes Mrs. Wang stated she had not seen Exhibit 4. Attor-
ney Empeno asked Mrs. Wang if she had a chance to review the
documents and if a copy was given to her by her attorney.
Mrs. Wang stated no.
Mr. Gunn asked Mrs. Wang if she read every single page of
every single document.
Mrs. Wang stated she had not read every single page.
chairman Lindseth excused Mrs. wang.
Mr. Gunn called Armando viginelli to the stand
Armando viginelli of 220 West Highland Avenue in Redlands.
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. viginelli if he owned a business in San
Bernardino, the name of the business, and for how long he has
owned it.
Mr. viginelli stated he owned the orvita Motel at 1363 North
"E" Street for 3 years.
Mr. Gunn asked was he currently in escrow to purchase the
civic' Center Motel, was anything currently holding up the
escrow and was that the reason he was here today.
Mr. viginelli stated yes he needed at license to to open.
Mr. Gunn asked if he had a meeting with the city Attorney, if
that meeting took place in Mr. penman's office, and if Mr.
Penman said anything about an investigation of his business.
Mr. viginelli stated yes to all questions and that Mr. Penman
stated was satisfied with his operation of business.
Mr. Gunn asked if Mr. Penman had any concerns with his
running the Civic Center Motel.
+
. . city of San Be~dinO
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 3
o
10/30/90
.
Mr. Viginelli stated he was concerned about the security of
the motel.
Mr. Gunn asked if items such
necessary and what other items he
of the motel.
Mr. viginelli stated yes and that he would run it like his
other motel.
as security cameras may be
would do for the security
Mr. Gunn asked by that statement, what would he do if there
was a problem renter, such as a prostitute.
Mr. viginelli stated he would remove her within a few
minutes.
Mr. Gunn asked who would be there daily working at the motel.
Mr. viginelli stated his mother-in-law and brother-in-law.
Mr. Gunn asked if the orvita Motel was a family run business
Mr. viginelli stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. viginelli if he had been informed of the
problems in past, like prostitution, tenants selling drugs,
and bothering the neighbors.
Mr. Viginelli stated he was told about the problems.
Mr. Gunn asked if he ran the motel, could he run it without
problems and does he operate his existing business without
problems to the surrounding businesses.
Mr. Viginelli stated he would try and that he has no
problems.
Mr. Gunn asked if he would like the Commission to let the
Conditional Use Permit stand.
Attorney Empeno objected stating he was continually leading
the witness.
Mr. Gunn stated the law was clear that
extremely young, old, or otherwise has a
that creates a situation that is hard to
believed in cases like that the witness can
if a witness is
language problem
communicate, he
be lead.
Frank Wieser read Government Code Section ll513(c) and stated
that Attorney Empeno's objection was not well founded in an
administrative hearing.
Attorney Barlow suggested the commission allow some leading
questions because of the difficulty in communication and that
+
. city of San Be~rdino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 4
O'
10/30/90
.
Mr. Gunn De cautioned to do it as little as possiDle.
Chairman Lindseth cautioned Mr. Gunn and Mr. Wieser not to
lead or coach the testimony of witnesses.
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. viginelli how he would operate the civic
Center Motel.
Mr. viginelli stated the Dest he could.
been in the Dusiness for 4 years and has
South Africa, Canada and the United states
motel in New Jersey and had no proDlems.
Mr. Gunn asked how long he has owned the motel in New Jersey
and if he had any problems.
He stated he has
worked in Europe,
and that he had a
Mr. viginelli
rooming house
few fights.
Mr. Gunn asked what did he do when he had a tenant that
fought with other tenants or surrounding neighbors.
stated from 1972 to 1986 DUt that it was a
and that he did have some code violations and a
Mr. viginelli stated he called the police if they went to far
but other wise tried to calm them down.
Attorney Empeno asked if the Conditional Development permit
was revoked, what would happen to the escrow he has.
Mr. viginelli stated it would not go through and that he
would not buy the motel.
Attorney Empeno asked if he had a financial incentive in not
having the permit revoked.
Mr. viginelli stated he would like to DUY it.
Mr. Gunn asked if anyone payed him to come testify tonight.
Mr. viginelli stated no.
Commissioner
on the civic
condition of
Stone asked
Center Motel
the sale.
if he had actually opened an escrow
and was a Conditional Use Permit a
Mr. viginelli stated yes and that he had opened escrow about
2 months ago.
Discussion ensued amongest Chairman Lindseth and the attor-
neys at to whether Conditions Use Permit meant Conditional
Development permit. It was resolved they were the same.
Commissioner Clemensen asked prior to
tions, was he given any indication of
at the motel.
signing escrow instruc-
the problems occurring
.
.. ;2
.city of San Be dino
Planning commiss on Meeting
page 5
Minutes of 10/~90
.
Mr. viginelli stated no that Mrs. Wang told him she needed a
final inspection.
commissioner Clemensen asked was he aware of the thick file
of discrepancies and violations.
Mr. viginelli stated he knew they had a lot of violations.
commissioner Clemensen asked under those conditions he would
still proceed with the purchase.
Mr. viginelli stated it was Mr. Wang's problem not his and
that he wants a license so he can buy the place.
commissioner Clemensen asked
term "rental" used and wanted
to use referring to a motel
they have been disputing.
Attorney Barlow stated for these purposes it was alright.
Attorney Barlow he heard the
to know if that was a fair word
because that was one of things
commissioner Lopez asked how many units he had at his motel.
Mr. viginelli stated 41 plus the apartment for the manager.
Commissioner stone asked without stating any amounts, did he
have any money placed in the escrow account.
Mr. viginelli stated yes he gave a note on his motel in New
Jersey.
Attorney Empeno asked had he placed a deposit in escrow for
the purchase of the motel and what would happen if the escrow
was cancelled.
Mr. viginelli stated no and that he would lose $5,000.00 for
the expenses of the escrow.
commissioner Clemensen asked if there was an earnest money
deposit regarding this property.
Mr. Gunn stated no current earnest money deposit.
Commissioner Lopez asked if it was a motel or apartment he
owned on "E" street.
Mr. viginelli stated a motel.
commissioner Lopez stated the motel has long term tenants.
commissioner Sharp asked had he had any discussions with
Planning and/or the city Attorney under the conditions he is
to operate the motel, if the provisions were made clear, and
was there any give and take.
.
.
..
o
city of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
page 6
o
10/30/90
.
Mr. viginelli stated not with Planning but with the city
Attorney and that he has had discussions with Mr. Penman.
commissioner asked if he knew why they haven't been dealing
with the planning Department.
Mr. viginelli stated he did not know.
Mr. Gunn asked if the planning Department revoked the permit
would he purchase the property.
Mr. viginelli stated no.
Mr. Gunn asked at the time he made an offer to purchase the
property, was he aware there were hearings going on with the
planning Commission.
Mr. viginelli stated no.
Mr. Gunn asked several question regarding the escrow instruc-
tions including whether or not conditions were put in regar-
ding the outcome of the Planning commission's decision and
Judge Kennedy's.
Mr. viginelli stated yes to all the question but stated he
did not know anything about Judge Kennedy.
Mr. Gunn asked if he was aware the court had to approve the
sale.
Mr. viginelli stated yes.
Attorney Empeno asked when did he make an offer to purchase
the motel, if it was a written offer, and did he have a copy.
Mr. viginelli stated he believed it was about 2 months ago,
it was written, but the copy was at home.
Attorney Empeno asked what month.
Mr. Gunn stated the escrow instruction showed the date of
July 19, 1990.
commissioner Clemensen asked if a performance date was also
on the instructions.
Mr. Gunn stated yes and that it had come and gone.
Attorney Empeno asked if July 19, 1990 was dated he remem-
bered offering to purchase the motel.
Mr. viginelli stated it was 2 weeks before they talked about
price and conditions.
.
.
..
o
o
.
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 7
Attorney Impeno asked prior to making the offer he did not
know a revocation process was initiated.
Mr. viginelli stated no
Mr. Gunn objected stating it was irrelevant.
Mr. Wieser also objected stating he had answered questions
showing his knowledge.
Attorney Empeno stated it was highly relevant to the issue
and asked if he had known a revocation process had started,
would he still have made the offer to purchase the motel.
Mr. viginelli stated no
Mr. Wieser objected stating it was speculation.
Attorney Empeno asked if the owners told him the superior
Court had to approved the sale of the motel and who told him.
Mr. viginelli stated yes Mr. Wang told him.
Attorney Empeno asked if anyone else, including the attor-
neys, told him that.
Mr. viginelli stated no.
Mr. Gunn objected.
Mr. Gunn asked if Mrs. Wang came to him and asked him to buy
the motel.
in his motel was
Wang was inte-
Mr. viginelli stated a contractor that lived
working on the motel and told him that Mr.
rested in selling the motel.
Mr. Gunn asked if he approached them.
Mr. viginelli stated yes he guessed so.
Mr. Gunn asked if one of the requirements that he get clear
title to the property.
Mr. viginelli stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked if he knew the term "Title Insurance" and was
that one of the terms of escrow.
Mr. Viginelli stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked he wants
concern was that he buys
it as a motel.
to operate it as a motel and his
it he owns it and be able to operate
.
.
..
o
city of San Bernardino
Planning commission Meeting
Page 8
Minutes of 10/30/90
.
o
Mr. viginelli stated yes.
Mr. Gunn stated he like to submit a document for evidence.
Chairman Lindseth stated it was a copy of escrow instructions
dated July 19, 1990 marked Exhibit "A."
Mr. Gunn asked if Exhibit "A"
instructions for the motel and
escrow.
was a copy of
was it signed
the escrow
and left at
Mr. Vigine11i stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked if on the 2nd page there was a statement "the
closing of escrow is contingent upon the following:" and what
is the escrow contingent upon.
Mr. Vigine11i stated yes a certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Gunn asked on page 3 was there a condition for Certifi-
cate of Occupancy.
Mr. Vigine11i stated yes provided it passes inspection.
Mr. Gunn asked if in the beginning of document was there a
requirement that the property show title vested in his name
and his wife's.
Mr. vigine11i stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked if he was purchasing the property free from
liens.
Mr. vigine11i stated liens from the city but not other liens.
Mr. Gunn asked
proceed as soon
Occupancy and the
the title.
as far as he was concerned the escrow
as the city permits the certificate
Judge clears whatever he needs to clear
can
of
for
Mr. vigine1li stated anytime he was ready.
Mr. Gunn asked did he know exactly what a Certificate of
occupancy means as far as the city is concerned.
Mr. vigine11i stated to obtain a certificate of occupancy had
to pass inspections.
Chairman Lindseth excused Mr. vigine11i.
commissioner stone asked if a broker was involved in the
sale.
Mr. Gunn stated no his understanding was it was all done
between the parties.
.
.. 0 0
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
page 9
.
* * * * *
Chairman Lindseth called a 5 minute recess.
reconvened at 8:00 p.m.
The meeting
* * * * *
Mr. Gunn asked Mrs. wang to retake the stand.
Mr. Gunn offered into evidence as Exhibit "B" city of San
Bernardino Code Enforcement Division, unit Inspection Report.
Mr. Gunn
was the
document
asked Mrs. wang did she recognize
date on the document, and if
on the same date.
the document, what
she recieved the
Mrs. wang stated yes to the questions and that the document
was dated March 23, 1990
Mr. Gunn asked did the documents give her directions as
owner and operator and what directions did it give.
Mr. Wang stated yes it has the checked the violations on her
property and at the end she has to secure vacate units F.H.
A. within 10 days and have to pull rehab permits within 10
days.
Mr. Gunn asked that the document be admitted in to evidence
as Exhibit "B."
Chairman Lindseth granted Exhibits "A" and "B" and excused
Mrs. wang.
Mr. Gunn called Don Robinson.
Mrs. Olivo-Gomez administered the oath to Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Gunn asked his occupation how long he has been in the
business and was it within the area of San Bernardino.
Mr. Robinson stated he was a General Contractor he has been
in business for about 20 years in the area.
Mr. Gunn asked if he met with Mrs. wang during the month of
March 1990.
Mr. Robinson stated March 23, 1990.
Mr. Gunn asked were discussions had regarding the rehab of
the building and was he aware Mrs. Wang received a direction
from the city to rehab the building.
Attorney Empeno objected stating Mr. Gunn was leading the
witness.
.
'>
...
.
o
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting
page 10
Minutes of 10/30/90
o
Mr. Gunn asked did he see a document issued by the city of
San Bernardino directing Mrs. Wang to apply for a building
permit and did it have a time requirement.
Mr. Robinson stated yes it had a 10 days.
Mr. Gunn showed 3 documents marked Exhibit "C" from the
Department of Building and Safety.
Mr. Gunn asked several question regarding Exhibit "C" inclu-
ding when the cards were pulled and if final inspections were
made.
Mr. Robinson stated he pulled the cards on March 26, 1990.
Attorney Empeno objected to any testimony of the witness
without the laying of proper foundation stating there has
been no statement that the witness participated, witnessed,
or has been involved in any type of final inspection.
Mr. Gunn lead the witness through some foundational questions
asking if he was present when inspections were made.
Mr. Robinson stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked during construction did a problem arise with
the roofing, did he re-roof the building, and did an inspec-
tion take place on April 20, 1990.
Mr. Robinson stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked if the city later came back and say to do it
again.
Attorney Empeno objected stating lack of foundation he also
objected to the witness being a qualified witness to speak on
a final inspection or any type of inspection made and that
the Respondent has had amble opportunity to question building
inspectors.
Mr. Gunn stated it's not the duty of the applicant to bring
forward witnesses for the city who would say they mayor may
not have done an inspection and if it passed. He further
stated the course of conduct by the city requires a job card
be placed on the property and the signing off on the document
is in the city's regular course of business and under the
business record exception, that was sufficient evidence that
the act was done.
Attorney Empeno stated
present but the objection
inspection was done.
he was not questioning if he was
was the legal conclusion that final
Mr. Gunn stated the document speaks for its self and that he
.
o
City of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting
Page 11
o
.
\
...
Minutes of 10/30/90
is entitled to question the witness on it.
Chairman Lindseth stated Mr. Gunn could proceed.
Mr. Gunn repeated his question regarding the roof.
Mr. Robinson stated he had to redo the roof and they told him
the code book was wrong. He stated when he first applied for
permit he was told to nail 30 and mop it 90, he did that, it
was signed off and within a week to 10 days they came back
and said it was no good and had to put another 90 on the 90
that was already there and he did.
Mr. Gunn asked if there
and would it have been
around.
was an additional cost to do it again
cheaper to do it all the first time
Mr Robinson stated $10,000 and it would have been cheaper to
do it all at once.
Mr. Gunn asked how many job cards has he looked at in the
city of San Bernardino for the last 20 years.
Mr. Robinson stated hundreds.
Attorney Empeno objected stating leading the witness with yes
or no questions.
Mr. Gunn asked if the inspector tell him if they authorized
to sign the job card.
Mr. Robinson stated they have badges and city cars so they
must be authorized.
Mr. Gunn asked had he ever applied for a certificate of
occupancy for the motel.
Mr. Robinson stated no.
Attorney Empeno asked did he hold a State of California
contractor's License, in what category was the license, and
is that a General Contractors License.
Mr. Robinson stated yes in category "B."
Attorney Empeno asked did he hold a Roofers License.
Mr. Robinson stated no.
Attorney Empeno asked for his contractors License No.
Mr. Robinson stated 406309.
Attorney Empeno stated he referred to the "Code Book" and
asked if that was the Uniform Building Code, did he have a
.
..
...
.
o
City of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting
page 12
o
Minutes of 10/30/90
copy, and did he consult it regularly in his course of
business.
Mr. Robinson stated yes but he did not have a copy and if you
don't understand what they want you go up and ask an ins-
pector.
Attorney Empeno asked did he apply for a roofing permit and
what type of roof did he list on the permit.
Mr. Robinson stated yes but he was told just to put on a new
roof.
Attorney Empeno asked was he familiar with the Uniform
Building Code specifying a table for roof classes.
Mr. Gunn objected stating facts not in evidence.
Attorney Empeno stated he felt he should be able to test his
knowledge of the Uniform Building Code.
Attorney Empeno asked was he aware of a table of roof classes
which depend on the type of occupancy and did he know based
on the occupancy a certain type of roof had to be put on.
Mr. Robinson stated yes.
Attorney Empeno asked several question regarding roof types.
Mr. Robinson stated he knew the difference between the types
of roofs and that a Class B roof was put on the motel.
J ~ ""City of San serOdino n
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/~90
Page 13
Attorney Bmpeno asked did he consult with a roofing contrac-
tor prior to putting on the roof.
Mr. Robinson stated the roofing contractor put the roof on he
just smoothed it out.
Mr. Empeno asked the name of the roofing contractor.
Mr. Robinson stated he did not know off the top of his head.
Attorney Empeno asked was it true the roofing contractor did
not have a California contractors License in the roofing
profession.
Mr. Robinson stated he did.
Attorney Empeno asked was it
that had discussions with the
putting on the initial roof.
Mr. Robinson state it was him.
the roofing contractor or him
city of San Bernardino prior to
Attorney Empeno asked who did he have the first discussion
regarding the roof.
Mr. Robinson stated Ron Gaston.
Attorney Empeno asked the date of the conversation.
Mr. Robinson stated the first of April of last of March.
commissioner Lopez asked before he began to rehab the buil-
ding was he told or advised that a revocation was taking
place.
Mr. Gunn objected stating facts not in evidence.
Mr. Robinson stated no
commissioner Clemensen asked was a roofing certification
given to the city.
Mr. Robinson stated yes.
commissioner
error in the
not the error
Sharp asked several questions
code book including who told him
was pointed out to him.
regarding the
and whether or
Mr. Robinson stated the inspector
time to look at the roof told him
size roof should have a 30lb felt,
a 15,000 sq. foot roof.
Chairman Lindseth excused Mr. Robinson.
that came out the second
about the error and that
a 40 hot and a 90 top for
,
,
\City of San Ber2.dino
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 14
o
10/30/90
Mr. Gunn called John Lightburn to the stand.
Mr. Gunn asked what was his profession.
Mr. Lightburn stated
Bernardino specializing
and projects.
he is a consultant in the city of San
in land use and development problems
Mr. Gunn asked at some
the motel.
point did he work with the owners of
Mr. Lightburn stated yes
Mr. Gunn asked did he take a certificate of occupancy down to
the City in an attempt to file it and hand it to a clerk.
Attorney Empeno Objected stating leading the witness.
Arguments ensued among est the attorneys as to proper ques-
tioning of witnesses.
Attorney Empeno asked the commission to consider the question
asked to each of the witnesses and determine that the res-
ponse is a yes or no response and that is highly indicative
of it being a leading question.
Mr. Lightburn stated he would just tell the story. He stated
about the time they believed there was a final inspection,
Mrs. Wang asked him to deliver an application for Certificate
of Occupancy and a check to the City. When he tried to
submit the Certificate of Occupancy, he was told that the
city would not accept it. At that time, the Senior Code
Enforcement Officer, Mr. Empeno, Mr. Reed, and he believed
Mr. Nolfo came out. He was advised by Mr. Empeno that
attempting to do that would be a violation of a court order
and they could all go to jail and under no circumstances were
they going to violate a court order. He indicated that they
were simply submitting
the application and what they did with it was up to them, but
they did not accept it and it did not get filed.
Mr. Gunn stated if
refused to accept
pancy, he would be
Mr. Reed testified
an application for
incorrect.
that the city had not
a Certificate of Occu-
Mr. Lightburn stated that would be true.
Mr. Gunn directed the commissions attention the page 14 of
the October 9, 1990 minutes.
Attorney Barlow stated Mr. Gunn should direct the questions
to the witness and save any comments for the time of argu-
ment.
l
<;
o
city of San Bernardino
planning Commission Meeting
page 15
4
.
o
Minutes of 10/30/90
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. Lightburn to read page 14 of the October 9
minutes to his self. He then asked if Mr. Reed's testimony
was correct.
Attorney Empeno objected stating the question was highly
argumentative.
Mr. Gunn stated he would let the minutes speak for themselves
Attorney Empeno asked the date he went to the Planning
Department and could he remember the month.
Mr. Lightburn stated it was several days after the final
inspection he thought september.
Attorney Empeno asked was he aware a lawsuit was filed in the
Superior regarding the motel at the time he came in for the
certificate of occupancy and was he aware a judge had issued
a preliminary injunction closing the motel.
Mr. Lightburn stated yes.
Attorney Empeno asked was it true he knew the judge ordered
that the motel no be reopened.
Mr. Lightburn stated he couldn't say yes or no to that
question that he knew the judge had jurisdiction over the
matter but did not think it would be any violation of any
court order for submitting an application. He stated it was
his understanding that in this matter when corrections and
notices were given and corrections were made, that building
permits and final inspections were made that the next step in
the process was to file a certificate of occupancy and that's
what we did. He further stated the City could receive the
application and do absolutely nothing with it.
Attorney Empeno asked was it true that I said there was an
existing court order preventing the opening of the Motel.
Mr. Lightburn stated he referred to it.
Attorney Empeno asked did he recall him telling him that any
act or attempt to reopen the motel would be a violation of
that court order.
Mr. Gunn objected to the question.
Attorney Empeno stated had Mr. Gunn listened to the question,
he asked whether he recalled his statement saying a
particular fact. If Mr. Gunn disagrees with that premise
made in may statement, he can disapprove, argue, or provide
his interpretation of the court order or show the Commission
a copy of the Court Order.
Chairman Lindseth stated to continue.
.
~
.
.
o
City of San Bernardino
planning Commission Meeting
page 16
o
Minutes of 10/30/90
Mr. Lightburn stated he believed that is what he stated.
Attorney Empeno asked did he not also tell him that any act
in violation of the Court Order could be held in contempt of
court and therefore, punishable by imprisonment or a fine.
Mr. Lightburn stated he believed those were his statements.
Mr. Gunn asked was Mr. Reed standing around when Mr. Empeno
made those statements about going to jail.
Mr. Lightburn stated he believed he had joined the group.
Mr. Gunn asked that was something that would make an
impression that an incident took place.
Mr. Lightburn stated he would think so.
Mr. Gunn asked what was the next step after the City issued a
certificate of occupancy that needed to be done before the
motel opened for business.
Mr. Lightburn stated none that he knew of.
Mr. Gunn asked would a there be a requirement to obtain an
approval by the court.
Attorney Empeno Objected stating leading the witness.
Mr. Lightburn stated in regards to this case the judge has
jurisdiction over it that is what Mr. Empeno said and that is
what he always believed.
Mr. Gunn asked did Mr. Empeno advise him that an attempt to
open the motel for business would have been a violation of
the Court Order.
Mr. Lightburn stated that's what he was lead to believe.
Mr. Gunn asked did he differentiate between the issuance of a
certificate of Occupancy and the actual closing of the doors
for business.
Mr. Lightburn stated he did not believe so.
Mr. Gunn asked in his mind was that two different things.
Mr. Lightburn stated yes.
Mr. Gunn asked did he have an understanding about the
prohibitions issued by the Court with regards to attempt to
own or actual opening and operating of the motel.
Mr. Lightburn stated no.
· .. t 'city of San BerG-cuno n
planning Commission Meeting Minutes of lO/Jei90
Page 17
Mr. Gunn asked at the time you went to the city in addition
to code violations, were there more concerns of the city.
Mr. Lightburn stated none that were brought to his attention.
Mr. Gunn asked were there other concerns brought forth to the
Court other than just code violations.
Mr. Lightburn stated not to his knowledge.
Mr. Gunn asked was he aware of any other proceedings.
Mr. Lightburn stated he believed there was a proceeding still
pending before the police commission.
Mr. Gunn asked you were aware even after a certificate of
Occupancy was issued there were still some pOlice commission
concerns.
Mr. Lightburn stated correct.
Mr. Gunn asked in his mind was there a set agenda in the best
way to obtain the appropriate approvals by the agencies.
Mr. Lightburn stated the way he considered it that the judge
had overall and final juriSdiction regardless of whatever
actions might be taken.
Commissioner sharp asked was it his understanding that the
Court had jurisdiction over the Office of the City Attorney.
Mr. Lightburn stated not particularly.
Mr. Gunn asked did he ever speak with Mr. Penman with regards
of this motel.
Mr. Lightburn stated on several occasions.
Mr. Gunn asked did he give you directions as to a potential
sale of the motel.
Mr. Lightburn stated he had conversations with Mr. Penman on
occasions to discuss a qualified buyer, and by qualified one
not only the capacity to purchase but a good operator
somebody with a track record, something that could be
verified and in those conversations it was his understanding
that if a new buyer turned out based on his investigation
that he would be amenable to working out the sale and
reasonable conditions placed on the motel to protect the
neighborhood.
Mr. Gunn asked if such a person was located,
said as to what the city would do with regards
actions that were pending.
was anything
to or various
.
1
.
<<
o
city of San Bernardino
planning Commission Meeting
Page 18
o
Minutes of 10/30/90
Mr. LightbUrn stated it was his understanding that if this
person checked out as a good citizen and one whose record was
o.k., that the rest of the probl_s could be negotiated out
and the mess unraveled and life goes on.
Mr. Gunn asked on how many different occasions did he have
conversations directly with Mr. Penman regarding those speci-
fic issues.
Mr. Lightburn stated without being specific as to time and
date several in person at city Hall and 2 or 3 times on the
phone.
commissioner Clemensen asked you mentioned a good bonafide
sale, would you please give me an interpretation of what that
means to you.
Mr. Lightburn stated he did not say a good bonafide sale he
believed he said they would have a qualified buyer and by
that not only one that would have the money to make the
purchase by someone who is in the business of operating
motels, someone who had local experience that could be
verified such as Armando, and that was his understanding.
commissioner Cl_ensen asked did he know what type of
purchase it really was.
Mr. Lightburn stated it's one person wanting to buy a motel
from another.
Commissioner Cl_ensen asked in his past expertise you do not
know what an AITD is.
Mr. Lightburn stated no.
commissioner Clemensen stated they should all review docu-
ments on page 2 Items 2 and 3.
commissioner Stone stated he was confused with the sequence
of events and was not sure when the Court Order was issued.
He stated apparently a lot of repairs and inspections made
and it seems some were done after the Court Order. He
further stated it is normal procedure, if you are cited for
repairs you take out a permit or whatever is required and go
through the normal flow of event. He asked at what time did
the Court say action could be taken to opening the motel and
if Mr. Empeno is taking the position that anything they did
to repair the motel is also then in violation of the Court
Order.
Mr. Gunn stated the best way to answer that would be to
review the Court Order and see what it says as to repairs.
Attorney Empeno stated he did not believe it has ever been
II
.
~
.
o
city of San Bernardino
Planning commission Meeting
Page 19
o
Minutes of 10/30/90
the contention of City, the city Attorneys Office, the
planning Department that the 1II0tel owner are prohibited frolll
pulling building permits and expending 1II0ney and lIIaking
repairs to the structure that is shown by the fact that there
has not been any protest by the city in terms of issuing
those permits, it is the city's contention that the owners
with full knowledge the city had an intent to revoke the
Conditional Development Permit did choose to go ahead to take
out permits, lIIake expenditures, and do repairs. He further
stated the date the court issued a temporary restraining
order closing down the 1II0tel was on March 26, 1990.
Mr. Gunn directed the COllllllissioners attention to the specific
Court Order and read paragraph 2) on page 2 stating the Order
is very clear the building is not to be rented or open for
business until after the repairs as set forth in the March 23
notice and requested by the city to be performed were
actually performed.
Attorney Empeno stated Mr. Gunn was reading frolll the Tempo-
rary Restraining Order and asked hilll to read the wording on
the Prelilllinary Injunction which effectively closed the 1II0tel
until a trial in this lIIatter or 1 year which ever cOllies
first.
Mr. Gunn stated the question was in the order of priorities
on March 23 a citation was done by the city to correct within
10 days, on March 26 the Court said don't operate the 1II0tel
until you lIIake the corrections, on March 26 a permit was sold
to his client to lIIake the repairs as of that tillle there were
no prohibitions to lIIake the repairs, if there is another
order that Mr. Elllpeno would like to read frolll, he ask that he
pull that Order and read frolll it.
Attorney Empeno stated he IIIUSt lIIake a clarification of a
gross inaccuracy in counsel's statements, as counsel would
know there has been a prelilllinary injunction issued by Judge
Kennedy in this case but he did not have it in front of hilll
but he believed he was fully aware of it which effectively
closes down the 1II0tel until the tillle of trial. The
injunction was issued after he issued the Telllporary
Restraining Order. The owner taken at his cost and told
Judge Kennedy the cost that he went through, told hilll the
activity he went through, and even in the face of sallie
argument the Judge revised the Telllporary Restraining Order
and issued an Order preventing any occupancy of the 1II0tel. He
stated he would bring a copy of the Order, he has a copy of
the transcript in his possession right there, which talks
about the Judge'S rational and statements in issuing that
Order. He further stated if Mr. Gunn stipulated, he would
stipulate that the cOllllllission could read a copy of that
transcript.
Mr. Gunn stated he did not stipulate that but he would read
for the COllllllission the Order that was issued on May 15, 1990
,.
~
~
,.
o
o
city of San Bernardino
planninq commission Meetinq Minutes of 10/30/90
paqe 20
after repairs had been underway for 3 weeks.
the Order.
Mr. Gunn read
commissioner stone stated he was still confused and it was
his understandinq that the certificate of occupancy is the
end result of qoing through the building permit as opposed to
being a act of opening for business.
Mr. Gunn stated that was correct.
Attorney Empeno stated they wanted to be sure the judge's
Order was complied with.
Mr. Gunn stated the Order is quite clear in sayinq do not
operate as a motel that there's a big difference between
obtaining a certificate of occupancy and opening the doors
for business. He felt it would be ludicrous to assume that
he would advise their client to open for business.
commissioner stone stated his recollection of what the 2
versions of the court Orders they heard makes the city's
interpretation of the application for a certification of
occupancy a catch 22 situation.
Attorney Empeno stated if he listened to the court Order as
read by Mr. Gunn, the first Order issued March 26 basically
said that the motel could not be occupied until permits,
final inspections, and Certificate of occupancy is obtained.
The second Order which superceded the first one, stated that
in direct terms that motel could not be reopened.
commissioner stone stated he did not see what that had to do
with the certificate of occupancy.
Attorney Empeno stated the contention they were making is
that no Certificate of occupancy should be issued by the city
because it would be used by the owners of the motel as an
arqument that the city should be stopped from arguing that
the motel should be prohibited from reopeninq.
Chairman Lindseth excused Mr. Liqhtburn.
Mr. Gunn had no other witnesses at that time.
Attorney Empeno called Larry Reed to the stand.
Larry Reed, Director of planning and Buildinq Services.
Chairman Lindseth reminded Mr. Reed he was still under oath
from the previous hearing.
Attorney Empeno asked several questions regarding Mr. Robin-
son's testimony and if it was accurate and complete.
Mr. Gunn objected stating lack of foundation.
"
~
.
..
o
o
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 21
Attorney Eapeno asked were there any other documents besides
the ones offered into evidence by the owners of the motel
regarding the inspections performed.
Mr. Reed stated he had the 3 field job cards, city's copies
of the buildings permit, and a copy of the field correction
notice dated May 8, 1990 signed by Ron Gaston concerning the
roofing inspection.
Attorney Empeno asked him to summarize for the Commission his
education and experience in building and safety code matters
in particular the Uniform Building Code.
Mr. Reed stated by education he is a trained architect in the
State of Illinois, has been the building official for Urbana,
Illinois for approximatelY 7 years, was building office in
Eugene, oregon for 10 years from 1979 to 1989, responsible
for all the building code interpretation, certified building
official in the STate of Oregon, took the state exam which
covers plumbing electrical, mechanical and structural,
currently carries the title of Building Official for the city
of San Bernardino as Director. Also certified plans examiner
and building official and building inspector by Building
Official Code Administrators International out of Chicago,
Illinois. In terms of practitioner of the Code both in
oregon and California used daily the California Building Code
Title 24, which is based upon the ICBO Uniform Building Code,
situated in Whittier, CA.
Attorney Empeno asked to state the applicability of the
Uniform Building Code of the city.
Mr. Reed stated the Uniform Building Code has been adopted by
the State as the California Building Code and they have
adopted the CA Building code as the city's Building Code with
amendments.
Attorney Empeno asked that he look at the testimony of Mr.
Robinson provided regarding the roofing and asked was that
the process which was followed.
Mr. Gunn stated he assumed the witness was only looking at
Exhibit "c" and that he has not had a chance to review the
other documents in front of him.
Mr. Reed stated
inspection noted
a follow up date
1990.
looking at Exhibit "C" there
on April 20, 1990 signed by Ron
of approval of roof covering
was roofing
Gaston then
on July 17,
Attorney Empeno asked to explain the process to receive the
City's approval for re-roofing.
Mr. Reed stated the applicant, contractor, or owner needs to
~
'l
..City of San Be~rdino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 22
o
10/30/90
come in and fill out an application. If they want a roofing
permit, they try to ask questions Gout the contractors
knowledge. The ):)uilding code requires that for certain types
of ):)uildings certain types of roof covering need to ]:)a
applied. The ):)uilding code does not specify exactly how
roofing is to ):)e applied it is up to the contractor to pick a
roofing system that meets one of the classifications for the
type of ):)uilding and the occupancy. Then the contractor has
permission to start work. They make progress inspections and
if we determine it meets the requirements of the code, they
will sign off on it. If there is a question Gout the type
of roofing or contractor did not call for all the progress
inspections, sometimes we require the roof ):)e cored to see if
the all material has ):)een installed.
Attorney Empeno asked did he agree with Mr. Robinson's
testimony.
Mr. Gunn objected stating lack of foundation.
Attorney Empeno stated Mr. Reed, ):)eing the director, is not
the person who goes out and makes the inspection, but he is
the person who has overall responsi):)ility for the department.
Mr. Gunn stated foundation must be laid before testimony is
given.
Attorney Barlow stated the witness can testify to his know-
ledge and understanding as director of the department, the
directions given to staff, interpretation of the documents,
he is not testifying to what he has seen out on site.
Mr. Reed stated it was his understanding that Ron Gaston had
reason to ):)elieve the contractor had not followed the
specifications required and he cam back talked with Senior
Inspector on how he could substantiate the roof to):)e cored
based on his beliefs. The Senior Building Inspector told him
that was a option. When the roof was cored, part of the
building the contractor put on the correct roof but the other
half the contract did not install all the material based on
that the contractor was asked to go ):)ack and make right the
rest of the roof.
Mr. Gunn asked on what date did he go out an look at the
roof.
Mr. Reed stated he did not personally go out an look at the
roof.
Mr. Gunn asked on what date did he speak to Ron Gaston.
Mr. Reed stated he became generally aware of it sometime
around the end of April.
Mr. Gunn asked what date did Ron Gaston talk to the Senior
~
~
.
~
o
o
city of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 23
Inspector.
Mr. Reed stated he was not sure.
Mr. Gunn asked the name of the Senior Inspector.
Mr. Reed stated Joe Lease.
Mr. Gunn asked who told Ron Gaston that the roof was not up
to code.
Mr. Reed stated he had no personal knowledge.
Mr. Gunn asked Mr. Reed to check the file for that infor-
mation.
commissioner Stone asked the purpose of the questioning.
Mr. Gunn stated he was testing the foundation of why he was
making those conclusions.
Mr. Reed stated Ron spoke to Joe around April 20th but there
was no information in the file.
Mr. Gunn asked was it Bill carey who told Ron Gaston the roof
was not up to code.
Attorney Empeno objected stating irrelevant.
Mr. Gunn asked if a core section was taken out of the
building.
Mr. Reed stated that was his understanding from reading the
field notes that were done by the inspector.
Mr. Gunn asked did he have them present with him today and
did they exist in a City file somewhere.
Mr. Reed stated no it was not typical to keep the kind of
information that they do not do the cores themselves they
usually have someone take the core and verify the results to
them.
Mr. Gunn asked who took the core and who verified the
results.
Mr. Reed stated he did not know.
Mr. Gunn asked was it true nobody verified the results.
Mr. Reed stated it is the job of the building inspector to
verify the results.
Mr. Gunn asked the building inspectors file he just looked
through documents who verified the results.
~
11
.
I.
Ci ty of San Bernardino
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 24
o
O.
Mr. Reed stated the inspector wrote the field correction
notice which explains what the results were.
Mr. Gunn asked is it the responsibility of the building
inspector to put in his notes who verified the results.
Mr. Reed stated in terms of like a police office does his
report - no.,
Mr. Gunn asked did he require that if a building inspector
has documentation verified they put something in the file
showing it was verified by the company.
Mr. Reed stated no it is the responsibility of the
contractor, if he believes the inspector made an error, there
is a procedure to raise that issue to the building official.
He would review the facts and if the contractor believes he
has erred, the City has a construction Code Board of Appeals
they can appeal to.
Mr. Gunn asked does the field correction notice say who
verified the results.
Mr. Reed stated the contractor and the owner did not question
the results of that and that the building inspector specifies
the results of his inspection based upon after coring the
roof.
Mr. Gunn repeatedly asked who verified the results.
Mr. Reed stated they do not have the equipment to core the
roof that they have the roof cored either by contractor or by .
an independent testing lab then a sample of that is delivered
to the inspector and he looks at the results of the core.
Mr. Gunn asked who took the core sample.
Mr. Reed stated he did not know that none of the documents he
had with him tonight showed that information.
Mr. Gunn asked was it standard procedure for the documents to
not indicate such important things.
Mr. Reed stated they do not have the room nor
system to keep such information and if no question
they only keep thing for a short period of time.
the filing
is raised,
Mr. Gunn asked the document does not have enough room to say
who did what.
Mr Reed stated there may be such a document but he did not
have that information.
Mr. Gunn asked several questions regarding a roofing and a
l
l:
., 0
city of San Bernardino <:)
planning commission Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 25
contractors license.
Discussion ensued amongest Commissioner Stone and Mr. Gunn as
to the relevancy of the questioning.
Chairman Lindseth instructed Mr. Gunn to continue.
Mr. Gunn asked if roofing was the same in Illinois as in
california.
Mr. Reed stated yes.
Mr. Gunn stated no specific requirement it depends on the
system the contractor picks.
Mr. Reed stated some generic types of roof covering in
that maybe applicable determined by contractor not up to
to design a re-roofing system for the building owner.
code
city
commissioner
was a flaw
knowledge no
Sharp asked from his testimony he understands it
in the roof not a flaw in the code and from his
one told Mr. Robinson it was a flaw in the code.
Mr. reed stated not to this knowledge the code is
there was a flaw he would hope staff would bring
attention so he could bring it to the attention of
writers for a correction.
a code if
it to his
model code
commissioner Sharp asked what are we doing here that does not
fall under the Order of Judge Kennedy.
Attorney Empeno stated there was a substantial period of time
between when it started and the time it reconvened on October
9 at successive meeting between those dates there were
continuances of the hearing stipulated to by both attorneys
reason to explore all possible avenues short of revocation.
Explored possibilities of conveyance to Mr. viginelli or
other parties, change in project converting to senior citizen
complex, and change in use after exploring all of those
possibilities and discussing some with a variety of depart-
ments in the city, our office believed that the only real
solution to the problem was a revocation.
Mr. Gunn asked if the job card showed the roof passing
inspection.
Mr. Reed stated he believed it did on July 17, 1990.
~
~
l'City of San Be~rdinO
planninq commissione Meetinq Minutes of
paqe 26
o
10/30/90
Mr. Gunn asked if a final inspection took place on September
17, 1990 from readinq the job card.
Mr. Reed stated a final construction inspection siqned off on
that day.
Chairman Lindseth excused Mr. Reed.
Attorney Empeno called Bob Spindler to the stand.
Mrs. Olivo-Gomez administered the oath to Mr. Spindler.
Bob spindler, oectective with San Bernardino police Depart-
ment assiqned to vice Investiqation unit for 17 years.
Attorney Empeno asked did he brinq any particular documents
reqardinq calls for service at the motel within the past
year.
Mr. spindler stated yes.
Attorney Empeno stated he was passinq out the document he
would like to have labeled as Exhibit "5."
chairman Lindseth accepted it.
Mr. spindler described Exhibit "5" as beinq a printout
supplied by the Crime Analysis Division at the police Depart-
ment. The information comes from the data processinq divi-
sion supplied to the Crime Analysis unit. It consists of
police calls for service in the 600 Block of North "0" street
with a time period of January 1990 throuqh October 1990 each
paqe contained one month.
Attorney Empeno asked him to summarize the information in the
document in relation to the motel.
Mr. Spindler stated the first 3 months of 1990 there were 67
total reported calls for service of those 67 calls 42 were
related to the motel. startinq in April a drastic decrease
in calls throuqh October. there 49 calls 10 for the motel.
Attorney Empeno asked his opinion for the decrease in calls.
Mr. Spindler stated his opinion was based on his observations
of the City. Since the closure, he has noticed a siqnificant
decrease in pedestrian traffic in the area of the motel, hard
pressed for seeinq a known prostitute in the area.
Mr. Gunn objected statinq speculation without the
foundation statinq they did not know who prepared
ments, what the basis was, the accuracy, how or why
prepared, and just call on pure speculation.
lack of
the docu-
they were
Attorney Empeno stated he felt it was hiqhly appropriate the
<l-
t
.
(
o
o
city of San Bernardino
Planning commissione Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 27
very issue is whether the use permit should be revoked and
should the structure be permitted to house any residents as a
motel and the information provided is relevant to that issue.
As far as the accuracy and authenticity, Mr. Gunn can acquire
from the witness on cross examination.
Chairman Lindseth stated he was also concerned about the
document as far as source of the date, how it was compiled or
manipulated or refined or reduced that nobody had that
information available.
Attorney Empeno asked may he inquire from Detective spindler
if he is aware of the process involved.
Chairman Lindseth stated that was acceptable.
Detective spindler stated he could give a general impression
of how it is done.
Mr. Gunn objected stating either he knows or does not know.
Attorney Barlow stated he is not saying he is guessing he is
giving his general impression of his knowledge.
Mr. Wieser objected stating it did not meet to a foundational
question.
Chairman Lindseth stated to continue and state his knowledge
and insight in the preparation of the report.
Detective Spindler stated the police dispatch center is
computerized, calls recieved for service are entered at the
time received it goes into some type of data bank which is
then picked up by the city's Data processing and stored there
and that's where we retrieve this type of information.
The City obtains the information directly from the police
Department.
Attorney Empeno asked him to review the first page and
identify the information in each column starting with the
second column.
Detective Spindler described each column giving the defini-
tions of the number and letters.
Attorney Empeno asked about calls regarding prostitution in
the downtown area.
Mr. Gunn and Mr. wieser objected stating lack of foundation.
Detective Spindler stated prostitution has decreased in the
area.
Mr. Wieser asked
appear did those
under the location column #18 and
relate to room numbers that there are
#215
only
\ ~ 0 0
city of San Bernardino
Planning commissione Meeting Minutes of 10/30/90
Page 28
50 units in the motel and if 1215 was called where did they
go stating it must be an error.
Detective spindler stated the number was just called in that
it did relate to room numbers.
Mr. Gunn asked several questions regarding Exhibit "5" and
the crime rate in the surrounding area.
Detective spindler stated yes and no to a majority of the
questions.
Discussion ensued amongest the attorneys as to the validity
of Exhibit "5". Exhibit 5 was entered as evidence.
Chairman Lindseth asked if closing statements could be made
and finished by 11 o'clock, or should the item be continued.
commissioner Stone made
Conditional Development
1990. The motions was
unanimously carried.
a motion to continue Revocation of
permit Number 198 to November 13,
seconded by Commissioner Lopez and
Discussion ensued amongest the attorneys and the Commis-
sioners as to whether or not each of the Respondents
attorneys could make closing statement. It was resolved only
one attorney could make the closing statement
* * * * *
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned to
the next regular meeting of the Planning commission to be
held on Wednesday, November 7, 1990. 10:50 p.m.\\
~
.
~
.f
c:> City of San Bernardino <:)
Planning commission Meeting Minutes
November 13, 1990
Chairman Lindseth called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in
the RDA Conference Room, 4th Floor, city Hall. The following
Commissioners were present: Clemensen, Jordan, Lindseth,
Lopez, Sharp, stone. Absent: Cole, Corona. Staff present:
Olivo-Gomez, Reed, Taitague. Senior Assistant city Attorney
Dennis Barlow and Deputy city Attorney Henry Empeno were also
present.
The Salute to the flag was led by Chairman Lindseth.
* * * * *
The approval of
Meeting of October
commissioner Lopez,
unanimously carried.
the minutes of the Planning Commission
30, 1990 were approved by a motion from
seconded by Commissioner Clemensen and
* * * * *
ITEM NO.1
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 198
subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately .86 acres having a frontage of
approximately 125 feet on the east side of "D" Street and
being located approximatelY 365 feet north of the centerline
of 6th Street and further described as 655 North "D" Street.
The subject site is located in the CR-2, Commercial
Regional Downtown, General Plan Land Use Designation. The
city proposes revocation of Conditional Development Permit
Number 198 under authority of Code Section(s) 19.78.110 (A.)
(2.) (3.), to revoke approvals for a 50-unit motel.
Owners: Lei & Cindy Wang
Applicant: City of San Bernardino
Ward: 1
Exempt from CEQA (Class 21); Staff recommends revocation
Conditional Development Permit Number 198
Chairman Lindseth
statement to limit
the City can use
remarks.
asked the person addressing the closing
their time to 30 minutes in of which time
a portion to rebut or respond to the
Senior Assistant City Attorney Dennis Barlow stated he
believed the City should go first.
Deputy city Attorney stated before he began he would like to
clarify for the record that with Exhibit 1, which was the
staff report dated April 17, 1990, were a series of documents
that were inclusive in the City's Planning Department file
with the exception of one document which was the actual plot
plan (located behind them on the post). This Plot Plan was
meant to be included as part of the exhibit and he would like
the record to reflect that the document be incorporated with
Exhibit 1. A reduced copy could be made so that that
~~ ~~ity of San Ber~dino ~
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 11/~90
Page 2
original could stay with the planning Department with the
agreement of Mr. Gunn.
Andrew Gunn stated he had purchased copies of the documen-
tation at a cost to his client but has not been provided with
a copy of that map by way of any sort of discovery process
and objected. He stated it was made quite clear at the last
hearing that time for testimony and entry of exhibits was
over and it is too late now to go in and add documents. He
stated if they wanted to do that, he would most likely move
to reopen the public hearing and have several other witnesses
brought in and he did not want to go through that.
Attorney Empeno stated he believed that the map was brought
to the very first Planning commission Meeting on May 8, 1990
and was referred to by staff in their opening remarks and has
also been referred to in the staff report, so it is not a new
document just a clarification for the record, and if Mr. Gunn
has a similar type of document that he wished to present to
the Commission, he would have no objections.
Mr. Gunn stated the document was clearly not marked, has not
been marked as an exhibit, and is not an exhibit.
chairman Lindseth stated this was an administrative hearing
not a formal court hearing and thought it was well understood
by all parties concerned that the plot map is the structure
they have been addressing for several meetings. He honestly
believed it was an omission from the record which had been
provided to everybody, was referred to and eluded to in every
shape and form possible every meeting numerous times and seen
no reason why it should not be included in the evidence.
Mr. Gunn stated it did have information on it that was not
testified to by any of the parties.
Chairman Lindseth stated he did not think that had any
bearing on the information whatsoever.
Mr. Gunn stated if it had no bearing then it does not need to
be admitted in to the record.
Frank Wieser, attorney, stated even though this is an admini-
strative hearing he thought case law clearly stated this is a
quasijudicial proceeding. so, even if there are relaxed
rules of evidence, it still has to proceed along some form of
formality and certainly one basic assumption is laying the
foundation for a document and admitting it into evidence.
Chairman Lindseth stated to let the Commission
amongest itself.
decide
Chairman Lindseth asked if anybody on the commission opposed
to the inclusion of the plot plan as documented evidence.
There was no opposition and the document was included as
.. . '~i ty of San BerQdino t"'\
, Planning commission Meeting Minutes of 11/~90
Page 3 .
evidence.
* * * * *
Mr. Empeno's Closing statement:
Attorney Empeno stated in the three long evenings that the
Planning commission had met on the Revocation there have been
a series of exhibits and a series of witnesses that have
brought the evidence supporting revocation to the Commis-
sion's attention. The five exhibits brought in to evidence
include: Exhibit 1 Staff Report dated April 17, 1990
inclusive of the exhibits in it: Exhibit 2 - Declaration of
David Stachowski, city Attorney Investigator, that was
submitted into evidence in the Superior Court case: Exhibit 3
_ copy of San Bernardino Municipal code Ordinances Section
19.78.110: Exhibit 4 Further Declaration of David
Stachowski, City Attorney Investigator, that was submitted in
the Superior Court case and: Exhibit No. 5 A Computer
printout, testified to by Detective Bob Spindler showing the
calls for service received by the city from January 1, 1990
to October 17, 1990 showing the 600 block of North "0" Street
and more specifically the class for service for 655 North "0"
Street. Copies of all the exhibits have been furnished to
the Commission on previous hearing dates and have been
provided to opposing counsel.
To summarize, there have been numerous witnesses that have
testified, various business owners, and employees of
businesses neighboring the motel. He stated they may recall
on the first evening of May 8, 1990 John Buckner, Dick
Styler, Bill carey, Trina Morris, Randy waite, and Jerry
Brown testified. on that same evening Charles Reynolds,
assistant Fire Marshall testified.
On October 9, 1990 David Stachowski, City Attorney
Investigator, Detective Robert Spindler of the San Bernardino
police Department, Building Inspector Dany Nolfo, in addition
to various business owners and employees of neighboring
businesses: Dick styler, Bill carey, Raymond Negrete.
In addition to those witnesses and their sworn testimony, he
had sworn declarations from a variety of people inclusive of
City staff. Some names that have been mentioned have been
included in Exhibits 2 and 4. Numerous declarations from
Building and safety, Fire Department, and police Department
employees. There are also declarations from three former
tenants of the motel as well as a declaration from a former
employee testifying to the prostitution and drug dealing
problems most recently. Also in David Stachowski's
Declaration are copies of police Department records as well
as court records showing the records of 14 people who have
been arrested and convicted of a variety of prostitution and
drug charges related to the motel.
;.
.
. ^.
ieity of San Be~d~no
. Planning Commission Meeting
, Page 4
Minutes of 11/~90
Through all the evidence that was presented, through all the
testimony of witnesses, and the documents they have seen,
they are arguing that the Conditional Development Permit for
the motel should be revoked pursuant to Section 19.78.110 of
the San Bernardino Municipal Code in particular Sections
(A.), (2.), and (3.). section (2.) being that the permit was
being exercised contrary to the Conditions of the permit in
violation of applicable licenses, permits, regulation, laws
and ordinances of the city; and (3.) that use, for which
permit approval was granted, is being and has been exercised
as to be detrimental to the public health and safety and
constituted a nuisance. To break that down for the
commission what they are saying is that the conditional
development permit, as exercised by the present owners, over
a long period of time not just for the last couple of months
or last two years but since 1983 have been exercised in
violation of the conditions of that permit.
There were numerous Building Code violations, Municipal Code
violations, a series of notices of correction had been issued
by the city, and a long history of crime problems related to
drugs and prostitution. The District Attorney's office in
1986 initiated civil lawsuits trying to close the motel
because of those problems. There are violations of
conditions, such as not maintaining the landscaping, parking
areas, sprinkler system, not complying with transient usage,
modifications of the building premises without approval, lack
of maintenance of the pool, removing the putting green that
was suppose to have been there since he initial approval of
the motel. Also, the number of units being permitted 50 and
currently having 52 units and various kitchen facilities and
equipment being used in violation of the transient use that
the motel was permitted for. with all that testimony and all
the evidence they ask that the Commission revoke the
Conditional Development Permit.
* * * * *
Discussion ensued amongest the Commission, staff, and the
attorneys as to whether one or both defending attorneys would
make closing statements. commissioners Jordan, Sharp, and
stone stated it did not matter to them as long as they stayed
within the 30 minute time limit. commissioners Clemensen and
Lopez felt only one should speak.
A split vote was taken as to whether one or both attorneys
should make closing arguments. The votes was as follows:
ONE: Clemensen, Lopez, Lindseth
BOTH: Jordan, stone, Sharp
Attorney Barlow stated it was the Chair's decision in a split
vote.
chairman Lindseth stated one attorney would have the pleasure
)
\-
~ 0 ."'-do
}C1ty of San Be~ 1no
~Planning Commiss10n Meeting
. Page 5
Minutes of 11/~90
of introducing closing comments.
* * * * *
Mr. Gunn's Clossing Statement:
Mr. Gunn stated, the Commission needs to look at where the
case came from. First, do they have the power to do what
they are doing? The city Attorney's office has under the
civil Code a decision to elect the remedies. Civil Code
Section 3491 provides lithe remedies against a public nuisance
are (l) an indictment or information; (2) a civil action; or
(3) an abatement."
What has the city done? They have l} filed a criminal action
against Larry Wang; 2} filed a civil action; and, 3} they
have filed some sort of abatement. An abatement is defined
as a public nuisance that may be abated by any pUblic body or
office authorized thereto by law. The Code is real clear.
You are allowed one of three remedies that is remedy number
1, 2 or 3 not all three. There is a clear violation of his
clients constitutional rights if the City is going to elect
all three remedies in direct controversion to the standard
Civil Code which the board must rely upon. There was little
testimony, but the city Attorney's Office did file a criminal
action against the manager of the property as well as later
substituting in the owner. Clearly all three are being
sought, and it is clear, at this point, this Chair, this
Commission, does not have the authority to proceed because
there has been a previous election of remedies.
Our Health and Safety Code section of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code section 8030.010 adopts the civil
sections. It also has a section that deals with a
nuisance and the proper method for abating it.
commission meeting is not the proper method.
City
Code
public
This
There is, in addition to that,
meeting to suspend or revoke the
Motel. So, in addition to using
City is only allowed to use
additional one. The attacks on
they need to look at some of the
a pending police Commission
City Business License of the
three of three in which the
one of three, they have an
his client are numerous and
factual issues.
He thought it was clear there was a point in time that people
were staying in the motel that mav have been causinq a
disturbance. If you want to take the time to go through the
police Reports, you will note out of the first 20 only 4
apply to the Motel. The vast majority deal with a drunk on
the bus stop and deals with other items that were not at all
attributed to the owners of the Motel. In fact, one of the
reports is where two men, who meet at the Grand Central
Station Bar behind the motel, decide they want to share a
room. They climb over the fence, go in, and rent a room. One
the the men loans his cars keys and the car to his new
.
~
~rcity of San Be~dino ~
~Planning commission Meeting Minutes of 11/~90
Page 6
friend, who hits the road and never comes back. Is that the
fault of the Motel? That is the documentation that is being
used to compile that mass of documents.
There were some arrests that took place at that location and
some crimes that took place. You will recall the last
witness from the police Department indicated anytime you take
50 families and put them into a small area, using a low
income area, in one of the highest crime rate areas in the
city, you are going to have problems. There are problems in
the area, but whether or not they are directly attributed to
the Motel, he supposed is up to the commission to decide.
They need to look at why they are here, how did they get
here. The city came out and said there were some problems.
They issued a correction notice in February and those items
were corrected on February 26. The City came back on March
23, 1990, they handed to the motel a notice prepared on March
15. There is a request in the document by the City, a
mandate, that says secure the vacant units within 10 days and
pull a rehab permit within 10 days. The city says you shall,
you must pay us money and pull a rehab permit. Less than
three days later on March 26 his client did that.
There's a representation inferred by the city authorizing a
permit, not really authorizing the correct term is to sell.
The City says they want their money, give us your money, we
will sell you a permit. The permit is sold on March 26 in
the early afternoon hours. Later in the afternoon, the City
runs in to Court and they say, Judge Kennedy, we want you to
not let the business operate. He stated they argued at the
last hearing over those orders and the Order said do not
operate the motel and they have complied 100%.
They continued on with the Rehab of that building pursuant to
the request of the city and he thinks the commission needs to
look at the Code sections under Negligent Misrepresentation
or maybe more importantly, Intentional Misrepresentation. The
City made representations that if they pulled a permit they
would give them a final inspection, they would give them a
Certificate of Occupancy and they want them to operate. Why
else would they say to pull a permit. That was the inference
led by that document.
What did his client do, exactly what they were suppose to do,
pull a permit. They sank $100,000 into the property in order
to rehab, restore it and actually put in items that are above
and beyond the original requirements of the original permit.
Now, the city says, oh well, we lied, we misrepresented to
you, we don't want you open for business, we wanted you to
waste $100,000, we wanted to extract your fee for the rehab
permit, and now we are going to close you down. That is
exactly what has happened.
Mr. Empeno will probably argue, oh wait a minute, they knew
,
.
~
~ity of San BerAC)bino ,..
3Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 11/1~O
. Page 7
we were going to do this, we thought we might do this, we
thought we were going to try and close them down. That is
not what is important. What is important is what the
documentation said. Dany Nolfo on behalf of the city said,
pull a rehab permit.
There are some choices that the city has at this point. Some
choices the commission has. They Can say maybe it's not fair
that we told those people to go out and sink money into that.
Maybe we might get sued being the city for negligent
representation. Maybe we might get sued for intentional
misrepresentation. Maybe what we ought to do is to do what
is reasonable.
This case came around back in 1986, and he realizes that. He
was active in those hearings and represented the owner and
there was a resolution that was perfectly acceptable to all
parties. The resolution was along the lines of not to rent a
room for more than once a day, so you can't have somebody
come and rent it for a short term rate, not have any short
term rates. The owner will go along with that. Increase the
security, they have. They have video cameras that will show
the entire parking lot area. There was a requirement that
every person in the room, not only just the registered guest,
show proof of identification and that was presumably so that
if you had a prostitute come, the prostitute won't run in and
rent a room if she has to run back out and get her John to
give the driver license to take in. It was presumed people
using prostitutes don't like to have there driver's license
name and information plastered where it is going to be
reviewed by city Personnel.
This Commission should be in the business of keeping downtown
businesses running not destroying buildings, not committing
waste, not having a building sit empty that has 4 or 5 calls
(police calls) in the last one month reporting period to an
empty building, as you are going to have as the building gets
vandalized and the property value goes down. There is a way
for the city Planning Commission to make some limitations if
they think it is necessary.
There was a concern over the way the business was being
operated. Mrs. Wang clearly testified she had her own job
going on in Los Angeles. Her and her husband were not
checking up on the business on a regular basis. The city
Commission has heard from Armando, a buyer, who stands to
lose money if the transaction does not go through, although
there is no "cash in escrow." There is a legitimate escrow,
he wants to buy the property that would keep the property
open. Armando has been cleared by an investigation, of some
sort, by Mr. Penman. He is an existing business owner and
the Commission has access to information as to whether or not
he's violating terms and creating problems to other
neighbors. This Commission could easily say let's think
about this. Let's let Armando purchase the property, let's
\
'~~ity of San Be~dino ~
Planning commiss~on Meeting Minutes of 11/~90
Page 8
not revoke the permit.
Let's say the permit can proceed so long as Mr. and Mrs. wang
do not operate the Motel. They will give him that one, they
don't want to operate it, they just want to be able to sell
it and save there savings, save there investment. We will
let somebody we know who can run it appropriately run it and
that is Armando. If the Commission is all that concerned,
they could say why don't we have some sort of security guard
during the worst hours from 8:00 p.m. to midnight every night
for six months, for two months to make sure there is not a
problem. The Commission can review the matter in the future.
The commission also needs to look at the injunction that has
closed the motel issued by Judge Kennedy. That injunction
said that the motel is under his jurisdiction pending his
determination of how he can abate the nuisance. Judge
Kennedy can only abate the nuisance for one year. We are now
8 months into that. Judge Kennedy can permit that building
to open in four months pursuant to the existing law.
Nobody wants this motel shut down other than the City
Attorney's Office. They want to set a precedence to tell
other motel owners, see what we can do. We got you by the
neck. We got you right where we want you. I think that the
message has been clear Mr. Penman, or maybe he thinks he's
Judge Penman, with all of his statements to the newspaper we
will close them down, we will this we will that. Needs to
look at some realistic facts in the business world.
We are a city on the move somewhere. Are we moving
forward with progress or are moving just to shut down
existing businesses that create a revenue. If you look at 50
families in that motel. If each family has an income of
$1,000 a month each motel room, that's $50,000 a month in
lost revenue before it gets rolled over and over in our
community. $600,000 a year, and that is being extremely
conservative, on the amount of money that is spent in our
community. We can look at the sales tax loss, the loss to
the City, the loss to other businesses.
It will be interesting to see what Judge Kennedy has to say
when somebody from the City Attorney's Office has to go in
and say, oh by the way, you issued an Order that said do
nothing with this building until you come back to me it's
under my control, and we took it all away from you. He does
not believe we have the authority to close the building down
on that basis.
Larry Reed in his Commission recommendation, or at least one
that bears his name at the end that was prepared by somebody,
signed by Larry Reed, or signed by somebody purporting to be
Larry Reed, says that there were suppose to be automatic
sprinklers in that building. He bet that if they looked on
the plot plan, that Mr. Empeno wanted in today, they won't
} 1,eity of San Be~dino ~
,. Planning CommisS1on Meeting Minutes of 11/~90
Page 9
find an automatic sprinkler system. What's happening is that
over the years, because this is an old one, we have now added
additional requirements to them.
One last comment, a motel is a permitted and conforming use
in that location. If that building burns down, a new one can
be put in. Let's go south one mile, Mr. carey has a car lot
that is a non-conforming use. If that building burned down
tonight, he could never be rebuilt. So what you are doing is
letting non-conforming uses come in and control a conforming
use. Seems a little interesting to him that they are going
to, maybe run with the statements of a non-conforming use.
There is substantial non-conforming uses in the area in the
same block.
There should be a separation of powers. The city should not
be allowed to 1) run a Planning Commission, 2) employee a
city's Attorneys office to advise planning Commission, 3)
employee somebody else from the city Attorney's office to
advise the Planning Commission during half of a meeting, Mr.
Empeno in the first meeting, and then say oh wait a minute, I
don't advise you anymore I'm going to switch hats. There
should be a separation of powers between the planning
commission and Judge Kennedy. There is a separation of
power. Clearly this is the sort of decision that ought to
rest in a court not in front of a commission. He thought the
simple way out for everybody's benefit was to sit down an
devise a set of regulations that permits the business to
remain open and to protect the community. That's what we all
want.
He stated he has a business one block away from there. He's
around the corner diagonally, less than a block away from
that business. He's been there four years in that location.
He's very sensitive to what is taking place in the area. He
thinks the businesses should stay open down there and he
thinks the Commission has an easy way to do it and that is
to devise a set of requirements that say we are concerned, we
are all concerned, let's see how it works. Let's put a
legitimate operator in there, Armando. Let's put down some
legitimate requirements and let's let the City derive
revenue. Let's let this city on the Move, move forward not
backwards.
Attorney Empeno's Rebuttal:
Attorney Empeno pointed out that the absence of any factual
arguments in Mr. Gunn's closing, and also throughout the
presentation of this case, he thinks supports the contention
of the city and their argument that there are no real factual
contentions here. They have a series of declarations and
numerous witnesses have testified. There really hasn't been
any contradiction in any of the documents or in any of
witnesses produced by Mr. Gunn. At most, Mr. Gunn has
provided what he calls legal arguments to the Commission, and
)
-,.
l,city of San BerOdino n
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of 11/~90
Page 10
he ask that the commission not be fooled by the smoke screen
of those legal arguments.
Had there been any basis in case law or statutory law to any
of the legal arguments Mr. Gunn posed to them, he would be in
court today getting a temporary restraining order, preli-
minary injunction by the court, by Judge Kennedy prohibiting
this very meeting from taking place. The fact that he has
not, the fact that the court right now has jurisdiction on
the civil case, where he could have easily, if his argument
has any legal support, gone to Judge Kennedy and gotten the
temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction. He
could of done that.
It really amazed him to see a gross mis-statement of the law
and he felt there has not been any legal research by Mr. Gunn
on this issue. They are ludicrous legal arguments that he is
posing to them. He could cite to them a long history of
court cases, court of appeal decisions dating back to 1971
from Henry O'Hagen vs. The Board of Zoning Adjustment of the
city of Santa Rosa and other cases since then that talked
about the numerous options available, which are nonexclusive
to any city or county in such a proceeding as before this
Commission.
The city has every right to proceed, under its own
administrative powers, in closing a business down as a public
nuisance, which we have done in this case. We have every
right to proceed in a civil lawsuit, as the City has done in
this case, in suing the motel and obtaining restraining
orders and preliminary injunctions closing that Motel down
for 1 year in the superior Court case, and the city has every
right to go before this commission, as well as to the
council, to request a revocation of a conditional use permit,
of a conditional development permit, as this one is, and ask
this Commission to revoke it.
Had there been any exclusivity in Civil Code 3491, which
there isn't, Mr. Gunn could have easily had Judge Kennedy
order a stop to any of the city's proceedings other than that
one civil case and that was not done. Likewise his legal
arguments regarding some sort of misrepresentation of the
City and their telling the owners of the Motel that they have
correction notices, numerous Building Code violations, and at
the same time, in that same letter dated March 15, 1990, the
City had informed the owners that the City would be starting
proceedings for revoking the permit 1960-198, referring to
the year and the number of the permit for the Motel operation
at 655 North "0" Street. The owners of the Motel were not
misrepresented given this representation. They were notified
at the beginning and again had there been any legal authority
supporting such a theory, which there was not, Judge Kennedy
would have again not ordered a closure of that Motel. That
same argument was posed to him and he did not buy it and he
ask the Commission not to buy it either.
1
~
1,City of San Be~dino ~
Planning Commiss1on Meeting Minutes of 11/'-'90
Page 11
Mr. viginelli did testify to you as to his discussions with
the city Attorney's Office. He ask the commission to only
consider Mr. viginelli's financial interest in purchasing the
Motel as coloring his testimony. We are not disputing his
testimony that there were discussions with the city
Attorney's office and with the planning Department regarding
a conveyance of that property for 5 months from the date of
the first hearing of May 8 to October 9, the second date of
hearing. Five months passed during which their Office as
well as the planning Department discussed the matter with the
owners, their attorneys, their representatives, John
Lightburn, council Members, and they discussed the matter
with Mr. viginelli. They looked at every conceivable
alternative short of revoking the permit for the motel and
looking at a possible conveyance of the property owners,
looking at other possible uses. They came to the conclusion
that a revocation of the permit was the only solution that
was viable.
Now, that does not mean to say that the structure can no
longer exist. That structure could be converted to be
consistent with what is designated in the General Plan. If
designated for a commercial use, it could be converted to a
number of other types of commercial uses. The structure
could easily be demolished and a new structure erected in its
place. Their position is that a motel is an improper use of
that location under this permit and that this permit has to
be revoked because of all the crime problems, the drugs,
prostitution, the Building Code violations, the violations of
the very conditions of this permit, and the most important
evidence supporting that conclusion, was the very testimony
of the property owners in the surrounding vicinity. I ask
the Commission not to ignore the change in circumstance since
the closure of the motel.
Since the closure of the motel, there has been a decrease in
crime, resurgents of business in the surrounding area, and we
ask the commission to maintain that closure and revoke
Conditional Development Permit Number 198.
* * * * *
Chairman Lindseth thanked them for their closing arguments.
Attorney Barlow outlined the possible decisions for the
Commission. He stated has he understood the city has brought
this action pursuant to Municipal Code Section
1978110(A2) (A3). Attorney Barlow read that Municipal Code.
Chairman Lindseth stated as it stood before the Commission
right now, they could do 4 things. The could revoke the
permit, they could take the permit and place additional
conditions, or cause the permit to operate as is, or take the
matter into submission until a date in the future. It was up
to the Commission. He would like to emphasize that they
11-
'~ity of San Ber~ino ~
planning Commiss1on Meeting Minutes of 11/1~O
Page 12
should be very careful not to let economic considerations
influence pragmatic judgment decisions based upon land usage
and development.
Commissioner Lopez made a motion to revoke Conditional
Development Permit Number 198 as per staff's recommendation.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clemensen.
commissioner Sharp asked if there was a document where the
defendant's were in effect presented with a choice of cor-
recting some conditions or closing up.
Attorney Empeno stated he believed the answer was in Exhibit
No.1. There is a document in about the middle, a copy of
the March 15, 1990 letter that Mr. Gunn referenced and he
also referenced. In the letter, it mentions and it is
addressed to Lee and cindy Wang, that the owners are ordered
to vacate the building. The building must remain vacant
until the proper permits are obtained and the structure is
brought up to Building Code standards. In addition, the city
will be starting procedures to revoke Conditional Development
permit 1960-198 for their motel operation at 655 North "D"
Street and that staff would send additional information under
separate cover. There argument is that informs the Wangs that
the permit would be revoked pursuant to a revocation
procedure.
Attorney Empeno also stated they were also notified about the
corrections that needed to be taken. There was no statement
that they had a choice. It was a statement of fact that they
were proceeding under both ability. No statement of either
or that was going to be an alternative it was a statement
that they would be doing this. They would be revoking the
permit. Any correction would be done at their cost.
Mr. Gunn stated he did not believe that was the document
received by Mrs. Wang.
commissioner Stone asked was another document furnished to
the Wangs after the date of the letter around March 26, such
as a Notice of violation with a number of things that were to
be corrected.
Attorney Empeno stated in addition to the document he read as
part of Exhibit "1", is a copy of a letter dated March 23,
addressed to the wangs regarding the Motel. The letter was
from Dany Nolfo talking about violations existing. Attached
to that was his report with a checklist of various Building
Code and Municipal Code violations and in the letter, it says
"that inspection by this Department by the structure located
therein revealed certain Building Code violations. It is
necessary that these conditions be corrected according to the
proper procedures and with valid permits from this Depart-
ment. Please contact this office within 10 calendar days
from the date of this notice to make arrangements to correct
~ '.City of San Ber~dino ~
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 11/~90
Page 13
those violations indicated in the letter.
Attorney Empeno also stated in addition to the Correction
Notice, a Notice of pendancy of Administrative Proceedings
regarding the above property is being filed with the County
Recorders Office to give public notice of pending action by
the city on this property." He believed that was the letter
he was referring to dated after the March 15 letter. That
letter did not state any either or choice of the applicant.
It notifies them of certain violations that need to be
corrected and the previous letter notifies them of the
revocation process.
commissioner Lopez stated he
make in his motion. He stated
proper use for this property.
had an addition he failed to
the Motel was no longer a
Chairman Lindseth stated, granted it was not these individual
involved in the Planning Commission at that time this permit
was issued: however, this is the body that grants conditional
use/Conditional Development Permits and this is the body that
has the power to revoke.
Commissioner Sharp asked while this
able or some other use, there is no
as a motel even we got overnight
monthly guest.
Attorney Empeno stated they gave that question a lot of
thought prior to instituting the revocation hearing process
and during the process and talking over the issues, the facts
with the Planning Department with our Office, we came to the
conclusion, jointly, that whatever conditions are imposed,
whatever ownership is behind the motel; that a motel use at
that location is an improper use and this permit should be
revoked. There are a variety of alternative uses available,
some which could use the rehabilitation of the structure,
others which may look into a demolish of the structure, but
there are other uses that can make the site economically
viable besides a motel.
place might
way it could
guest rather
be permiss-
be operated
weekly or
Chairman Lindseth called for the question.
The motion was carried with all but the opposition of
Commissioner Sharp.
* * * * *
Attorney Empeno stated he would like to ask the Commission
and also the City Attorney to refer to Section 19.78.110
specifically (cl regarding Findings and subsection (el which
they have already spoken to regarding the appeal to the
council. He would like to ask that the Commission, because
he had not prepared written Findings for the Commission, that
he would like to outline specific Findings at the next
l
~
'~ity of San Ber~dino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
Page 14
o
11/13/90
regular meeting.
Mr. Gunn stated he felt it was improper for Mr. Empeno to be
the one making the Findings. The commission is the proper
party to make the written Findings and they are required to
make the Findings.
Attorney Barlow stated Findings are required and it certainly
is not normal or expected for the Commission itself to sit
down and write Findings. Mr. Empeno, has the prevailing
party, it is entirely appropriate for him to present Fin-
dings. The other alternative, of course, is to have him
prepare the Findings and he would be happy to do that. It is
not inappropriate and he would recommend Mr. Empeno to
prepare Findings and then they can act on them. They can
change them or alter them at their pleasure.
Discussion ensued amongest Attorney Barlow and Mr. Wieser as
to whether the appeal period would be delayed until the
Findings were made. It was resolved that the appeal period
would be delayed until the Findings are adopted.
Chairman Lindseth stated the 15 day appeal period would be
effective on adoption of the Findings.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned to
the next regular Planning Commission meeting to be held on
Tuesday, November 20, 1990. 8:15 p.m.//
lat
MINUTES:PC11/13/90
1 ,
~ ,.
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
APPEAL OF
The Revocation of Conditional
Development Permint No. 198
,.
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL BY The owners. Lei and Cindv Wane
r
SUBJECT: Appeal of the revocation of Conditional Development WARD =#
Permit No. 198 1
)
r
PROPERTY
LOCATION: 655 "0" Street
\.
PROPOSAL: To revoke Conditional Development Permit No. 198 for the
operation of a motel.
r
PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH "0" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92418
\.
r
HEARING DATE AND TIME: Monday, February 4, 1991 2:00 p.m.
\.
A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT CITY
HALL. IF YOU WOULD LIKE FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC
HEARING, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN PERSON OR BY PHONING
(714) 384-5057
THANK YOU.
'\. .J
Ill, ,- '"
EXHIBIT 8