HomeMy WebLinkAbout40-Planning and Buiding
!
CITY OF SAN BERNADINO - REQUEST FOt COUNCIL ACTION
From: Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director
- Subject: Appeal of Building Commissioners
Findings and Action of 9-6-91 for property
located. at 3618 Hemlock.
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Date:
October 10, 1991
Mayor & Common Council Meeting of 10-21-91
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
No previous Council Action
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council uphold the findings
Commissioners requiring soils and engineering reports
thirty (30) days, and allow City Inspectors access to
within ten (10) days.
of the Board of Building
and all permits within
the property for inspection
~
~~/
Signature
Contact person: Larry E. Reed
Phone:
(714) 384-51S7
Supporting data attached: Appeal, Staff Report, BBC Order
Chapter 70 of UnifOrm Builing Code
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:
Ward:
4
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
. ___~_ .___ .._ 1..jf)
lNll"ri'C"."."';
ClTY OF SAN BERNODINO - REQUEST FOI COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subiect:
Appeal of the Findings of the Board of Building Commissioners
to require soils and engineering reports and obtain all
building permits within thirty (30) days, and to allow city
Inspectors on to the property to do inspections within ten
(10) days.
Reauest:
The appellant, Janet Summerfield, requests through her legal
advisor, Darlene F. Phillips, that the Mayor and Common
Council waive certain requirements that they believe to be
arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and without any reason-
able foundation.
Backaround:
7-22-91
7-31-91
9-6-91
9-20-91
Analvsis:
Inspection made by the Engineering Division after
receiving a citizen complaint about conditions at
3618 Hemlock. complainant stated that various
construction was being conducted on the property.
Engineering then contacted Code Compliance Division
and requested that they inspect the property also.
Code Compliance Personnel observed a retaining wall
under construction on the North side of the
property, and a large amount of dirt being moved to
the West side to extend beyond the property's pad.
A Ten Day Notice to Abate Nuisance was sent to the
owner requesting that City permits be obtained, and
access on to the property to inspoect any
construction being conducted without building
permits.
A letter was received appealing the Ten Day Notice.
Case heard before the Board of Building commission-
ers at which time staff recommendation was adopted.
The owner filed an appeal to the Mayor and Common
Council.
Based on the amount of
ing Code requires soils
70 under Excavation and
excavation on the hillside the Build-
reports and permits. See ABC Chapter
Grading, Sec. 7003. (See attachment)
Mavor and Council ODtions:
Uphold the findings of the Board of Building commissioners
and require the owner to obtain soils and engineering reports
75.0264
'Appeal of the Fin~gs of the BBC for 3618 H~Ck
Mayor and Common Council Meetin~ of October 21, 1991
Page 2
and all building permits within thirty (30) days, and
Building Inspectors access to the property to do
building inspections within ten (10) days.
allow
routing
OR
Identify those violations that would be required to correct
and waive those items that are believed to be arbitrary and
excessive.
Recommendation:
That the Board of Building Commissioners motion to order the
owner to obtain all soils and engineering reports within
thirty (30) days, and all proper building permits within
thirty (30) days, and allow City Building Inspectors access
to the property within ten (10) days for the purpose of
inspection be upheld.
Prt!.Dared bv:
Debra L. Daniel for
Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director
Planning & Building Services
Attachments:
A. Letter of Appeal
B. Order of the Board of Building Commissioners Meeting
of 9-6-91
C. Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code
DLD:bss
-- _" b -
. .
o
HILL, FARRER &
o
BURRILL
A PAATNEASIol'~ INCLUDING ""OI"DS10NAL CORPO"ATION5
OFltANGE COUNTY
TII!:LEIDMONII!: l7'4' e41-ee015
ATTOANEYS AT LAW
THIRTY_FIFTH FLOOR-UNION BANK SQUARE
445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES. CALIFOANIA St0071.ISee
A.,J 101 I LI". 11881-'953)
WM. M. ,....RREA Cl894-lg7l)
STANl..EY 5 8URRILL 0902-'957)
L.OS ANGELES COUNTY
TI!:I..EPMONE 1213) e20-0"80
TEI..ECOl'"IER
12131 824-.840
WRITEI'fS OiRECT DIAL. NUlol8ER
(213) 621-0845
September 20, 1991
Mayor & Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 No. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410-0001
\Ci
-
:0
,."
.-
..,..,
Attention:
City Clerk
Appeal from Order of Board of Building
commissioners - Sectember 6. 1991
-,
Re:
,,.,
'71
-:J
N
W
"
-'~"""
-'
Dear Mayor Holcomb and Members of the Council:
':""1
\0
This firm and the undersigned represent Janet
Summerfield ("Appellant") who is the owner of a single family
residence located at 3618 Hemlock, San Bernardino (the
"Property"). Appellant hereby appeals the Order of the Board of
Building Commissioners rendered September 6, 1991.
That order, of which we have received no written notice
as required by City procedures, appears to require that Appellant
(1) obtain "all" (unspecified) grading, soils, and "retaining"
permits within thirty daysl (2) allow the City permission within
ten days to enter the property to do an "evaluation"l (3) and
stop "all work" on the property until "such permits" are
obtained.
This appeal is based upon, but not limited to, the
following:
1. Permits
There is no reliable evidence to support the City's
position that permits are required for any activities which are
taking, or have taken, place on the Property. The City's demands
are not based upon the actual condition of the Property or any
existing code requirements. In addition, a number of the
-,'" ,
"
. .
o
o
Mayor & Common Council
September 20, 1991
Page 2
allegations made by City employees involve property not owned by
Appellant.
2. Ent~ on ProDer~y
The City has furnished no valid reason for requiring
entry onto this private property. Allegations in a Notice of
Abatement dated July 22, 1991, which refer to "possible
construction" inside and "evidence of leakage" in roof are based
totally upon speculation and conjecture.
The demands for entry onto the Property by City
employees have been undertaken without regard to Appellant's
rights of privacy and/or due process. The demands have been
unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious and have not been based
upon evidence of any imminent danger to either the public or the
inhabitants of the structure.
3. Violations of Due Process
a. The Building Commission based its conclusions on
unsupported statements of code enforcement personnel and
unreliable hearsay evidence of other property owners.
b. city code enforcement personnel have been
illegally trespassing on the Property.
c. city code enforcement personnel have subjected
Appellant to harassment ["I can make you paint your house"] and
threats ["Give us consent to enter or I'll get a warrant and
break your door down"] based upon "anonymous" calls without any
provocation.
d. City code enforcement personnel have placed
unreasonable demands on reasonable requests for extensions of
time by Appellant to obtain reports from her engineer and
architect: any extension was made conditional upon allowing
inspection of the inside of the residence I
e. Appellant did not receive notice of the Building
Commission hearing until August 27, 1991, and that notice was by
way of an announcement taped to a fence on the property.
f. The City's interpretations of its codes has been
arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and without any reasonable
foundation.
. .
"
o
o
Mayor & Common Council
September 20, 1991
Page 3
This Appeal will be based upon this notice, all
documents served by the City upon Appellant, and any other
evidence presented at the hearing before the Common Council.
Very truly yours,
~~.,
DARLENE FIsclHER ~
OF
HILL, FARRER & BURRILL
DFP:reb
F:\USERS\DFP\SUftNER.APP
D~AkU Du~~Dl~G CUak~DO~~ft~KO
ORDER Q TO BOARD OP BUILDING COQSSIOllBRS
TO CITY OP SU BBRNARDINO AUTHORIZING TO
ABATEMENT OP A PUBLIC WISUCB
OP
ORDBR NO. 1580
REPORT NO. 3618 Hemlock
WHEREAS, pursuant to the San Bernardino Municipal Code,
Title 15, Chapter 15.28, the Building Official has posted a
building(s) located at
3618 Hemlock
, San Ber-
nardino, California, with a "Notice to Abate Nuisance" and
has notified the person(s) having an interest in said
property that the said building(s) or premises constitute a
public nuisance and has prepared a declaration of posting and
mailing of the notice, a copy of which is on file in these
proceedings 1 and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said San Bernardino Municipal Code,
the Building Official has served a "Notice of Hearing Before
the Board of Building Commissioners of the City of San
Bernardino", relating to abatement of said nuisance, to the
person(s) having an interest in said property, and has
prepared a declaration of mailing of the notice, a copy of
which is on file in these proceedings1 and
WHEREAS, a hearing was held to receive and consider all
relevant evidence, objections or protests on Seotember 6, 19911
and
WHEREAS, The Board of Building Commissioners heard the
testimony and examined the evidence offered by the parties
relative to such alleged public nuisance,
NOW, TOREPORE, BB IT RESOLVED BY TO BOARD OP BUILDING
COJDlISSIOllBRS OP TO CITY OJ' SU BERNARDINO AS POLLOWS:
- 1 -
II
R."1i.CC
BOAP.D OP B .DING COMMISSIONERS
ORDER OP ~BOARD OP BUILDING COMKIS~NERS .
ORDER NO. 1~ REPORT NO. 3618 HemMk
SECTION 1. Based upon the evidence which was submitted,
. .
it is found and determined that the building(s) or premises
located at 3618 Hemlock
San Bernardino,
California, constitute a public nuisance;
SECTION 2. The owner is hereby directed to complete the
abatement of the public nuisance by allowing Building Of-
ficials on the property within ten (10) days. owner shall
obtain all soils and engineering reports within thirty (30)
days.
Owner shall stop all work immediately.
Owner to
obtain all proper permits within thirty (30) days, which was
the recommendation given by the Board of Building
Commissioners.
SECTION 3.
In the event the pUblic nuisance is not
abated within the prescribed period of time, the City or
person(s) authorized by the Building Official, will initiate
action to abate the nuisance, and the costs thereof made a
lien on the lot or parcel of land upon which the public
nuisance exists.
Such costs may be added to any existing
costs, made a personal obligation of the property owner and
Subject to immediate recovery by commencement of court
proceedings against said party.
SECTION 4.
Any person aggrieved by this order may
within fifteen (15) days after SeDtember 6. 1991, appeal to the
Common Council by filing with the City Clerk a written
statement of the order appealed from, the specific ground of
appeal and the relief of action sought from Common Council.
- 2 -
II
----. -
-
. .
~ OP BUILDING COMMISSIO~
ORDBR NO. 1580
REPORT NO. 3618 Hemlock
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing order was duly adopted
by the Board of Building Commissioners of the City of San
Bernardino at a reRular
meeting ~hereof, held on the 6th
day of Selltember
, 19-11-, by the following vote, to wit:
COMMISSIONERS:
UI
JIM
ABSTAIN
ABSERT
Chairman-Herb Pollock
...lL
Dan Westwood
...lL
Pete Cortez
--"'-
Jack Hunt
.....L...
Benjamin Gonzales
Manuel Flores
.....L...
.....L...
Gene pensiero
...JL
Thomas Chandler
...JL
~~. -L.~~~.JL
CLERK, BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS
The foregoing
September, 1991.
order
is hereby approved this
~, ~LDING
13th day of
COMMISSIONERS
Approved as to form and legal content:
JAMES F., PENMAN, Pfty Attorney
By:. (/-~ ~
IIII
IIII
CEIBBC
-<-'...<
. '
1918 EDITION
APPENDIX
Chapter 70
EXCAVATION AND GRADING
PuFJlC*
Sec. 7001. The purpose of this appendix is to safeguard life. limb. property and
the public welfano by regulating grading on private propeny.
Scope
Sec. 7002. This appendix sets fom rules and regulations to control excava-
tion. grading and eanhwork construction, including fills and embankments;
eslablisheS the administrative procedure for issuance of permits; and provides for
approval of plans and inspection of grading construction.
Permlta Required
Sec. 7003. No person shall do any grading without first having obtained a
grading pennit from the building official except for the following:
I. Grading in an isolated. self-contained anoa if there is no danger apparent to
private or public propeny,
2. An excavation below finished grade for basements and footings of a build-
ing, retaining wall or other structure authorized by a valid building permit. This
shall not exempt any fill made with the material from such excavation nor exempt
any excavation having an unsupported height greater than 5 feet after the comple-
tion of such suucture.
3. Cemetery graves.
4. Refuse disposal sites controlled by other regulations.
5. Excavations for wells or tunnels or utilities.
6. Mining. quarrying, excavating, processing, stockpiling of rock. sand.
gravel, aggregate or clay where established and provided for by law. provided
such operations do not affect the lateral suppon or increase the stresses in or
pressure upon any adjacent or contiguous propeny.
7. Exploratory excavations under the direction of soil engineers orengineering
geologists.
8. An excavation which (a) is less than 2 feet in depth. or (b) which does not
create a cut slope greater than 5 feet in height and sleeper than one and one-half
horizontal to one vertical.
9, A fill less than 1 foot in depth and placed on natural terrain wllh a ,lope
flatter than five horizontal lOone vertical. or less than 3 feet in depth. not int~nded
to suppan structures, which does not exceed SO cubic yards on anyone lot and
does not obstruC1 a drainage course.
H8urda
Sec. 7004. Whenever the building official determines that any existing exca-
vation or embankment or fill on privatepropeny has become a hazard 10 life and
limb. or endangers propeny. or adversely affects Ihe safety, use or stabilllY of a
public way or drainage channel. the owner of the propeny upon which the
excavation or fill is located. or other person or agent in control of said property.
- -
871
v.~
. .
j
JL
o
o
APPENDIX
UNIFORM BUILDING CODe
upon receipt ofnotice in writing hom tile building official. shall within tile period
specified tIlerein repair or eliminate such excavation or embankment SO as to
" eliminate tile hazard and be in conformance with tile requirements of this code.
n Definitions
Sec. 7005. For the purposes of this appendix the definitions listed hereunder
shall be conslrUCd as specified in this section.
Ji. APPROVAL shall mean the proposed work or completed work conforms to
er this chapter in the opinion of the building official.
AS.GRADED is tile extent of surface conditions on completion of grading.
BEDROCK is in-place solid rock.
BENCH is a relatively levelslep excavated into earth material on which fill is
to be placed.
BORROW is earth material acquired from an off-site location for use in
grading on a site.
CIVIL ENGINEER is a professional engineer registered in tile state to prac-
tice in the field of civil works.
th CIVIL ENGINEERING is the application of tile knowledge of tile forces of
fn nature. principles of mechatlics and tile properties of materials In tile evaluation.
lit design and constrUction of civil works for tile beneficial uses of mankind.
COMPACTION is tile densification of a fill by mechatlical means.
an EARTH MATERIAL is any rock. natUral soil or fill and/or any combination
vo thereuf.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST is a geologist experienced and knowledge-
able in engineering geology.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY is the application of geologic knowledge and
principles in tile investigation and evaluation of naturally occurring rock and soil
for use in the design of civil works.
EROSION is tile wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the
movement of wind. water and/or ice.
EXCAVATION is the mechanical removal of earth material.
FILL is a deposit of earth material placed by artificial means.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. See Soils Engineer.
GRADE is tile vertical location of the ground surface.
Existing Grade is tile grade prior to grading.
Rough Grade is tile stage at which the grade approximately conforms to tile
approved plan.
flniah Grade is tile final grade of the site which confonns In tile approved
plan.
GRADING is any excavating or filling or combination thereof.
KEY is adesigned compacted fill placed in a trench excavated in earth material
beneath thelOe of a proposed fill slope.
pi
de
te:
su
G
aPi
sl"
en)
sig
I
ul"
nat
lot
tiOI
oar
1
I
2
!err
3
grat
4
binl
pro)
runc
872
m
v.~
-
c
r
. .
o
o
1888 EDITION
APPENDIX
SITE is any 101 or parcel of land or contipous combinllion .". f nde
hi "- grad' . ~ . .~...., . u rthe
same owners p. w..... mg IS penOrmecl or permitted.
SLOPE is an inclined ground surface: the inclination of which is expressed as a
ratio of honzonw distance to venlcal distance.
SOIL is naturally occutring superficial deposits overlying bed rock.
SOILS ENGINEER (GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER) is anengineere.pe.
rieneed and knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering (geotechnical)
engineering.
SOILS ENGINEERING (GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING) is the ap-
plicalion of the principles of soils mechanics in the investigation. evaluation and
design of civil works involving the use of earth materials and the inspection and/or
testing of the construction thereof.
TERRACE is a relatively level step conslnlCled in the face of a graded slope
surface for drainage and maintenance porposes.
,
Grading Permit Requlrement8
Sec. 7806. (a) PermIts Required. E<cepl as e.empted in Section 7003 of
this code. no person shall do any grading without firsl obtaining a grading permit
from the building official. A separate permit shall be required for each site. and
may cover both e.cavations and fills.
(b) Application. The provisions of Section 302 (a) are applicable to grading
and in addition the application shall state the estimated quantities of work in-
volved.
(c) PIaas aad Spedflcatloas. When required by the boilding official. each
application for a grading permil shall be accompanied by two sets of plans and
specifications. and supporting data consisting of a soils engineering report and
engineering geology report. The plans and specifICations shall be prepared and
signed by a civilengiaeer wben required by the building official.
(d) Jalormatlonoa PIaas ad In SpecIfIcations. Plans shall be drawn 10 scale
upon substantial paper or cloth and shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the
nature and e.tent of the work proposed and show in detail that they will conform
to the provisions of this code and all relevant laws. otdinances. lUles and regula-
lions. The fU'S1 sheet of each set of plans shall give the location of the work and the
name and address of the owner and the person by whom they were prepared.
The plans shall include the following information:
I. General vicinity of the proposed site.
2. Property limits and accurate contours of e.isting ground and details of
terrain and area drainage.
3. Limiling dimensions. elevations or finish contours to be achieved by the
grading. and proposed drainage channels and rellled consnuction.
4. Detailed plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices. walls. crib-
bing. dams and other protective devices to be consuucted with. or as a part of. the
proposed walk together with a map showing the drainage area and the estimated
lUnoff of the area served by any drains.
173
G'.
. .
o
o
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
APPENDIX
S Location of any buildings or str\lCllllCs on the propertY whole the work is to
be ~rfonncd and the locatiOll of any buildings or str\lCllllCS on land of adjacenl
owners whicb are within IS feel of the property or which may be affected by the
proposed gradiDg operations. . . . .
specifications shall contain informauOII covenng conslIUCUOD and matenal
requirements.
(e) SoIIa EqIneeriDI Report. ~ soils engiMering !"porI tequired by Sub-
section (c) shall include data reganlmg the nature. dislnbuuon and suength of
e.isling soils. conclusiOllS and recommendations for grading procedures and
design criteria for correcuve measures. mcluding bu\tteSS fills. when necessary.
and opinions and recommendations covering adequacy of sile5to be developed by
the proposed grading. including the stability of slopes.
Recommendations included in the report and approved by the building official
sball be incorporated in the grading plans or specifications.
(l) EqInHriDI GeoIoIY Report. The engineering geology report tequired
by Subsec:lion (c) shall include an adequate description of the geology of the site.
conclusions and recommendatiOll5 regarding the effecl of geologic conditions on
the proposed developmenl. and opiniOll5 and recommendations covering the
adequacy of sile5to be developed by the proposed grading.
Recommendations included in the report and approved by the building official
sball be iJIcOrPOraIed in the grading plans or specifications.
(g) ___. The provisions of Section 303 are applicable 10 grading per- .
milS. The building officia1 may tequile that grading operations and project
designs be modified if delays occur which incur weather-generated problems not
considered at the time the permil was issued.
Gr8d1ng F_
Sec. 7f//If7. (a) GeDa'U. F_ sball be assessed in accordance with the provi- ~
sions of this section or shall be as sel forth in the fee schedule adopted by the WI
jurisdiction.
(b)..... ReY\eW F_. When a plan or other data are tequiled to be submilled. a
plan review fee shall be paid at the lime of submitting plans and specifications for
review. Said plan review fee shall be as set forth in 1able No. 70-A. Separate plan
review f_ sha1I apply 10 retaining walls or major drainage slIUcwres as tequired
elsewhele in this code. For excavalion and fill on the same site. the fee shall be
based on the volume of excavation or fill. whichever is greater.
(e) GnodIDI PermIt F_. A fee for each grading permil shall be paid to the
building official as set forth in 1ableNo. 70-B. Sepatare permilS and fees sball
apply 10 retaining walls or major drainage slIUcwres as tequired elsewhole in this
code. There shall be no separate charge for standard rerrace drains and similar
facilities.
I~ r. for . Pint permit auchoriziDl additional work to IhaI under I valid permit shall be the
diffclalte beIwoeD the: fee pUd for me orilinal permit and me ree sbowll for the CtItire project.
:.ol'lhc toW boudy costtotbejurisdictioo. whicbevcr is me pc.leSt. ThisCOSl sMlI iDelude supervision.
overhead. equipmcn1. hourly wapi and frinp benefits ohhc employees involved.
875
. .
Jc
as
II>
h&
wi
SlL
CI
so
pi'
, Wi
in
0'
sl
st.
t<
f
s
,
o
o
1988 EDITION
APPl!NDlX
IF
TABLE NO. 7G-A-GIlADlNG PLAN Ill!V1EW FEES'
SO cubic yards or less .................... .............~ofee
51 to iOOcubic:yards ... ............................... .......515.00
101 EO 1000 cubic: yards ....................................... 22.S0
100110 10.000 cubic yards ... . .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . 30.00
10,00110 100,000 cubic yards-530.00 for the tint 10,000 cubic yards, plus 515.00 for
eacb additional 10.000 yards or fraction thereof.
100.00110 200.000 cubic yards-S 165.00 for the first 100.000 cuble yards. plus $9.00 for
each additional 10.000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
'100.001 cubic yardsormore-S2SS.00 forme first 200.000c:ubic yards. plus S4.S0 for each
additional 10.000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
Olber Fees:
Additional plan review required by changes. additions
orrevisionstoapproved.plans ................................. S30.00pcrhour*
(minimum clwSe-<>ne.balfbourl
.Ortbe toW hourly cost to the jurisdiction. whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include
supervision. overhead. equipmem, bourIy wages and fringe benefits of the employees
involved.
TABLE NO. 7G-a-GRADlNG PEIl. FEES'
5Ocubicyardsor1ess ................................................ $15.00
5110 100 cubic yards ................................................ 22.50
10110 looocubicyullt-S22.5O for the rusllOOcubic yards p1us510.5O for each additioaal
100 cubic yards or fnctiOlllhaeof.
100110 10.000 cubic yud>-5117.00 for tile r.... 1.000 cubic yards. plus 59.00 for each
Idditioaa1I.ooo cubic yards or fnctiOlllhaeof.
10.00110 100,000 cubic yud>-5198.00 for tile r.... 10,000 cubic yards. plus $40.50 for
each additiolllllO.ooo cubic yards or fnctioa ........f.
100,001 cubic yards or _5562.50 for tile fin. 100,000 cubic yards. plus 522.50 for
..... odditioaallO,ooo cubic yards or __.
OlIIer"', Hb.... Feel:
1. IIIspectioas outside of nornW business houn ................. 530.00 per hour'
(ftlinilllllm cbup--two boun)
2. ReilIIpection fees _ under provisioas of
Secti0ll305 (I) ........................................ 530.00 per hour'
3. Inspections for which no fee is speciflCal1y iDdicated . . . . . . . . . . . 530.00 per hour'
(minimum charse--<>ne.balfbourl
'The fee for . padina: permit authorizing additional work 10 thai: under . valid permit shall be the
dit'fmnce between the fee paid for the original permil and the fee shown for Ihc em.ire pro;ca.
20r the IOIaI bourty COlt 10 Ibc jurisdiction. whichever is the putest. This COIl shall include supervision.
overhald. eqWpmenI. hourly wqcs and fringe benerilS of the employees involved.
875
. .
o
o
'PPENDlX
UNIFORM BUILDING COOE
I
I
I Iond.
I Sec. 7008. The building official may require bonds in sucb form and amounts
15 mav be deemed necessary to assure that the work. if not completed in accord-
lance ;"'ith the approved plans and specifications. will be corrected to eliminate
hazardous conditions.
I In lieu of a sure\)' bond lIIe applicanl may file a casb bond or instrumenl of c",dil
I with tile building official in an amounl equal 10 thai whicb would be "'quired in lIIe
surety bond.
,
Cub
Sec. 7009. la) General. Unless otherwise n:commended in the approved
soils engineering and/or engineering geology "'porI. culS sball conform 10 the
provisions of this section.
In the absence of an approved soils engineering "'port. these provisions may be
waived for minor CUIS nOl intended 10 support StruClureS.
(b) Slope. The slope of CUI surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for lbe
intended use and sball be no steeper than 2 borizontallo I venical unless the
owner furnisbes a soils engineering or an engineering geology report. or both.
Slating thai the site has been invesligated and giving an opinion thai a CUI at a
Sleeper slope will be stable and not create a hazard 10 public or private propeny.
Ic) DraIaIe ucI 1irne\DI. Drainage and terracing sball be provided as .
"'quired by Section 7012.
,
J
FlII.
Sec. 7010. (a) Genenl. Unless otherwise n:commended in the approved .
soils engineering ",pan. fills shall conform 10 the provisions of this section.
In the absence of an approved soils engineering report these provisions may be
waived for minor fills not intended 10 supporl sU1lC\lll'Os.
(b) FlU LocatioD. Fill slopes shall nol be construCted on natural slopes steeper
than twO to ODe.
(c) rnpentiOD of Ground. The ground surface shall be prepared 10 n:ceive
fill by removing vegetation. noncomplying fill. topSOil and other unsuitable
malerials scarifying 10 provide a bond wilh the new fill and. where slopes are
steeper than five 10 one and the heighl is greater than 5 feel. by benching inlO
sound bedrock or other competenl material as determined by the soils engineer.
The benCh under the toe of a fill on a slope steeper than five 10 one shall be alleasl
10 feet wide. The area beyond the toe offill sball be sloped for sheel overflow or a
paved drain sball be provided. When fill is 10 be placed over a cuI. the bench under
the toe of fill sball be al""IIO feet wide bul the cutsball be made before placing
the fill and acceptance by the soils engineer or engineering geologisl or bolh as a
suitable foundalion for fill.
(d) FlU Material. Detrimental amounls of organic material shall nol be per-
mitted in fills. Except as permitted by the building official. no rock or similar
. .
o
o
APPENDIX
- ------ ~
~
oraln8g8.nd T.rnclnll
Sec. 7011. (8) GeDeral. Unless otherwise indicated. on the 8"""""'ved ad'
~_: "I" and ' rr'- gr Ing
plan. w..nage lac,llues terraclng sball conform to the provisions of lb
section for cut or flU slopes steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 venical. IS
(b) JerrKe. Terraces at least 6 feet in width shall be establi.hed al not more
than :JQ.foot vertical interval. on all cut or fill .lope. to control sunace drainage
and debris except that where only one terrace is required. it .hall be at midheighl.
For cut or fill slopes greaterthan 60 feet and up to 120 feet in vertical height. one
terrace at approximately midheight .hall be 12 feet in width. Terrace width. and
.pacing for cut and fill slopeS greater than 120 feet in height shall be designed by
the civil engineer and approved by the building official. Suitable acce.. .hall be
provided to permit proper cleaning and maintenance.
Swales or ditches on terraces shall hove a minimum gradient of 5 percent and
must be paved with reinforced concrete not Ie.. than 3 inches in thickness or an
approved equal paving. They shall hove a minimum depth at the deepest point of I
foot and a minimum paved width of 5 feet.
A single run of swale or ditch .hall not collect Nnoff f~m a tributary area
exceeding 13.500 square feet (projected) without discharging into a down drain.
(c) Snbsurfan J)nInqe. Cut and fill slopes shall be provided with subsur-
face drainage as necessary for stability.
(d) DIspnIIII. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry waterS to the .
nearest practicable drainage way approved by the building official and/or other
appropriate jurisdiction as a safe.place to depositsucb waters. Ero.ion of ground
in the area of discharge shall be prevented by installation of nonerosive
downdrains or other devices.
Building pads shall hove a drainage gradient of 2 percent toward approved .
drainage facilities. unle.. waived by the building offICial.
EXCEPrJON: '!'be lfIdienl from the buildiD& pad may be I percenl if all of the
follow... conditions exislWoughoUlthe permil area:
A. No ptoposccI fdls ate ",-Ihan 10 feel in maximum deplh.
B. No ptoposccI fulish CUI or fill slope faces have. vertical heighl in excess of 10
f....
C. No..istinIllope faceS. which have aslope face 'leeperthan 10 horizontally 10
I vertically. have . vertical heillu in excess of 10 f....
(e) IDterceplOI'DniDs. Paved interceptOr drains shall be installed along the
top of all cut slopes wbere the tribllWY drainage area abuve slopes towards the cut
and has a drainage path greater than 40 feet measured horizontally. Inloreeplor
drains sball be paved with a minimum of 3 inches of concrete or gunite and
reinforced. They shall hove a minimum depth of 12 inches and a minimum paved
widlhof30 incbes measured horizontally across the drain. The slope of drain sball
be approved by the building official.
Eroalon eontrOI
See. 7013. (a) SIopea. The faces of cut and fill slopes shall be prepared and
maintained to control against erosion. This conU'll1 may consist of effective
878
. .
~
o
o
,
itfeducible material with a maximum dimension greater than \ 2 inches shan be
bUried or placed in fills.
EX~PT.ION: 1be builclin.1 official may permit placement of lUBer toek when
the sods enlmeer properly devises a meIhod of placement. continuously lRSpects i.ts
placement and approves die fill stability. The followina conditions shall also apply:
A. Prior to issuance of the grading permit. potential roc:k disposal areas shaU be
dcl_a:d on the grodinl plan.
B. Rock. sizes greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be 10 feet or
more below grade. measured vcnic:ally.
C. Rocks shall be placed so as to assure fillinl of all voids with fines.
(e) comp8dlon. All fills shall he eompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of
maximum density as determined by U.B.C. Standard No. 70-1. In-place density
shall he determined in accordance with U.B.C. Standard No. 70-2.70-3. 70-4 or
70-5.
(0 Slope. The slope of fill sutfaces shall he no steeper than is safe for the
intended use. Fill slopes shall he no steeper than twO horizontal to one vertical.
(g) J)raiDaIe and Terndng. Drainage and terracing shall he provided and the
area above fill slopes and the sutfaces of terraces shall he graded and paved as
required by Section 7012.
SelI*ltS
Sec. 7011. (a) General. Cut and ftll slopes shall he set back from site bounda-
ries in accordance with this section. Setback dimensions shall he horizontal
distaDCC5 measured perpendicular to the site bouodary. Setback dimensions shall
he a shown in Figwe No. 70-1.
(b) 1bp orCal Slope. The top of cut slopes shall he made not n.....r to a site
boundarY line than one fifth of the vertical height of cut with a minimum of 2 feet
and a maximum of 10 feet. The setback may need to he increased for any required
interceptor drains.
(c) 'llJe or FIB Slope. The toe of fill slope shall he made not nearer to the site
boundarY line than one.halfthe height of the slope with a minimum of2 feet and a
maximum of 20 feet. Where a fill slope is to he located near the site boundary and
the adjacent off-site property is developed. special precautions shall he incorpo-
rated in the work as the building official deems necessary to protect the adjoining
properly from damage as a result of such grading. These precautions may include
but are not limited to:
1. Additionalsetbaeks.
2. Provision for retaining or slough walls.
3. Mechanical or chemical treatment of the fill slope sutface to minimize
erosion.
4. Provisions for the conuol of surface waterS.
(d) ModIftcatlon or Slope Location. The building official may approve alter-
nate setbacks. The building official may require an investigation and recomrDCn-
dation by a qualified engineer or engineering geologislto demonstrate that the
intent of this section has heen satisfied.
877
i
. .
~
o
o
pl~tinl. ~ proteCtion for the slopes shall be installed as soon as practicable and.
pnor to c~hnl f~ final approval. Where cut slopct. are not subjec:t to erosion due
W theefOSlOD-reslSWlt character aflhe materials. such prolCCtion may be omiucd.
(b) ()tber DevIces. When: nec.ssary. check dams. cribbing. riprop or olber
devic.s or melbods shall be .mploy.d to control.rosion and provide safety.
Or8dlng Inspection
See. 7014. (a) General. All grading operations forwhicb a pennit is required
sban be subject to inspection by th. builcling official. When required by th.
buiJcling official. special inspection of grading operations and special tesring sbal1
be perfOrmed in accordanc. with the provisions of Section 306 and Subsection
1014 (cl.
(b) Gracllnl Deslptatlon. All grading in .xc.ss of SOOO cubic yanls sball be
performecl in accordance with the approved grading plan prepared by a civil
.ngi...... and sball be designated as ".ngineered grading." Grading involving
I.ss tb8Il 5000 cubic yanls shall be designated "regular grading" unless the
permittee. with th. approval of the building official. chooses to have th. grading
performed as ".ngineered grading."
(c) EqiMend Gradlnl Require_is. For .ngineered grading. itsball be
the responsibility of the civil.ngineer who prepares the approved grading plan to
~ all recommendations from th. soils .ngineering and .ngineering
geology reports into the grading plan. H. also sbal1 be responsible for the
prof.ssional inspection and approval of the grading within his area of teChnical
specialty. lbis mponsibility shall include. but need not be limited to. inspection
and approval as to the .stablishment of line. grade and drainage of the dev.lop-
ment area. The civil engineer shall act as the coordinating agent in the .vent the
need arises for liaison between the other prof.ssionals. the contractor and th.
building official. The civil engineer also sball be mponsibl. for the preparation
of revised planS and the submission of as-gracIecI grading plans upon completion
of the work. The grading conlrllClOr sball submit in a form prescribed by the
building offtcia1a statement of compliance to saiel as-built plan.
Soils engineering and engin..ring geology reports sball be required as speci-
fied in Section 1006. During grading all nec.ssary reports. compaction data aud
soil engineering and engineering g.ology recommendations shall be submined to
the civil engineer and the building official by th. soils .ngineer and the .ngineer-
ing geologist.
The soilsengineer's area of responsibility sball include. but neecl not be limited
to. the professional inspection aud approval concerning th. preparation of grouncl
to receive fills. testing for required compaction. slability of all finish slopes and
the design of buttress fills. wh.re requirecl. incorporating data supplied by th.
engineering geologist.
The engineering geologist's area of responsibility shall include. but need not be
limited to. prof.ssional inspection anclapproval ofth. adequacy of natural ground
for receiving fills and th. slability of cut slopes with respect to geological matters
and th. need for subdrains or oth.r grounclwater drainage devic.s. H. sball repan
his findings to the soils .ngineer ancl th. civil.ngineer for .ngineering aualysis.
871
. .
~
o
o
-.....~
--..~--
In. ........llIU:Inlu-COOI.
~ buildiJlg offICial shall !DSpea the projea at the '9'lrious s&ales of the work
req~1 approval to determme that adequate control is beina uercised. by the
professionoJ COllSUltanls.
(d) IIep/ar GnodIaa Reqalremea... The buildinl official may Mquire in-
spectionllld testiDl by an approved teslinl agency.
The teslina agency's ...sponsibmty shall include, but need not be limited to,
approval concemitll!be inspection of cleared areas and benches to m:eive fill,
IlId !be COIlIpIdion of fills.
When !be buildinl offICial has cause to believe that JOOIOJic factors may be
involved !be podinl operation will be required to conform to ....giDeered
padinl" requirements.
(e) NolIfblIaa ofNOIICOIDpIIaac:e, If, in lite course offulfiJlinl his ...sponsi-
bmty IIlIder this chapter, !be civil "Iineer, lite soils "81_, !be ..Jineerinl
JOOloJist or !be teslina BJency finds that the work is DOl beinl done in conform-
ance with this chapter or !be approved padinl plans. !be discrepancies shall be
...ported immediaIely in wrilinlto the persotI in cbarJe of !be JrIIdinI work and to
!be buiIdinJ offICial. Recommeodalions for C~ve measlftS, if necessary,
sIIaII be submitted.
(I) 'Iruofer of _...-ability 'or Approval. If !be civil "Jineer, the soils
..~ !be enJineerinl JOOloJist or the testiDl agency of nocord is chan....
durinl!be coone of !be work, !be work shall be slOpped until !be "'Placement has
apeed to accept !be mpoasibUity within !be..... ofhis technical cnmpelODCC for .
approval upon complelion of !be work.
Complellon of v.b'k
See. 7015. (a) FIIIlII1leporta, Upon completion of !be mulh padiol work
IlId at !be fmal completion of !be work !be buildinl offICial may require !be
followiDl"'POJ'ls IlId drawinp aad supplements Ibe..,to; ~
I. AD u-paded JrIIdinJ plaD prepated by lite civilenJineer iDcludiDJ oriJiDa1 .,
Jl"OUDd surface eIevatioas. u-paded Jl"OUDd swface elevations, lot drainaJe
palteIllS IlId locations IlId elevations of all swface IlId subswf... drainage
f""mties. He shall Slate that to the best of his know1edse !be work was done in
accordance with !be fmal approved lradinl plan.
2. A soils-JrIIdinJ report ~ by the soils ..~ includiDllocations
IlId e1evatioas of field density tests, summaries offield and laboratory tests and
other substoftliolinl data IlId comments on any chan... made durinl padiol aad
their effect on !be recommetIdation made in !be soils "Jineerinl inveslilation
report. He shaJJ render afiDdiDJ as to !be adeq"""Y of the site for !be intended use.
3. A JOOIOJic padinl report ~ by lite enJineerinI JOOIOJisl, includiDl
a fmal description of the JOOIOJY of lite site and any new information disclosed
durinl the JrIIdinI aad the effect of same On ....ommendalions incorporated in the
approved JrIIdinJ plaD. He shaJJ reader a findinllS to the adequ""y of lite site for
!be iDICItded use IS affected by JOOIOlic factors.
(b) NoCIIblIoD of C..,IetIoa. The permiaee or his ....1 shall notify lite
boUdinl official when the padinl operation is ...my for final inspection. Final
approval sIIaII DOl be Jiv.. until all work, includinl installation of all dninale
110
ft.i;"U_
J..
o
o
. .
facilities aDd their procective devices. and all crosion-conuol measures have been.
complered in 10_ with lhc final approved l"'Iina plan and the Rquiled
reporu have been submiaed.
PA'
I
.
Hl2ba1Z'...
....20.....
To.
.....
~
NIIuraJ or Fiftish Grade
. ,.,..iI Am IoundarJ
..... No. 70-1
.1
...,.
II
-
II
.....
'....
.
"
o
o
Hill, FARRER & BURRill
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORF'ORATlONS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
TELEPHONE (213) 620-0460
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A. J. HILL 1188H9S3}
WM. M. F"ARRER 11894-1971)
STANLEY S. BURRILL 0902-1957)
ORANGE: COUNTY
TELEPHONE (714) 641-6605
TH1RTY.FIFTH FLOOR-UNION BANK SQUARE
445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1666
f'2'l:j') C''ti2 OWO'4'8'O'
TELE:COPIER
(213) 1524.4840
October 21, 1991
Mayor & Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 No. "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92410-0001
Attention: city Clerk
Re: Appeal from Order of Board of Building
Commissioners Dated SeDtember 13. 1991
Dear Mayor Holcomb and Members of the Council:
This written submission constitutes a part of the
presentation made on behalf of Janet Summerfield ("Appellant")
who is the owner of a single family residence located at 3618
Hemlock, San Bernardino. Appellant is appealing the Order of the
Board of Building Commissioners ("BBC") approved September 13,
1991. This submission includes, and incorporates by reference as
though set forth in full, the letter from this office dated
September 20, 1991, appealing the BBC's Order.
In addition to the issues asserted in the oral
presentation which Appellant anticipates presenting to the
Council this date, Appellant raises the following objections to
the City's unlawful procedures which have resulted in this
proceeding, the erroneous purported "evidence" which has been
used to sustain the misguided decision of the BBC, and the lack
of any basis for the decisions which have been rendered in the
matter to date.
Unlawful And Unconstitutional Procedures
::Tc./"f'
This matter all began &eFt~mR.r 1', 1991, when
Appellant received a threatening, belligerent phone call from
code enforcement officer Dan Nolfo who stated, among other
things, that he had obtained an "anonymous" phone call, that it
"looks like your roof leaks," that he was not like a regular
inspector, but could make Appellant paint her house, that he
"suspected" there was construction going on inside the house,
that he wanted permission to come inside and inspect or he would
"get a warrant and break the door in"!
~,., _ _ ~ n J
IF -'10
.
-
-
o
o
October 21, 1991
Page 2
At a meeting with Appellant and Mr. Nolfo on September
30, 1991, Mr. Nolfo refused to grant a 30-day extension to allow
her to obtain soils and engineering reports unless she allowed
him to inspect inside her house. (It should be noted that at the
meeting of the BBC on September 6, 1991, Mr. Nolfo misrepresented
this fact and said he did not deny the continuance.) Appellant
was accompanied to this meeting by Richard Andrews, Esq. who,
following the meeting, just coincidentally happened to received a
Notice to Abate Nuisance on h1a property!
At the meeting with Mr. Nolfo and at the BBC hearing,
Mr. Nolfo has made references to and questioned conditions on
Appellant's property which could only be made after first-hand
observation. Although he has insisted that he has not been on
the property, this is clearly not the case.
The following activity of Mr. Nolfo has been observed
in and around 3618 Hemlock:
11:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon: 6 drive-bysr parked
on center line blocking entry to drivewayr
9/4 10:00 a.m.: drive-byr blocked drivewayr
8/14
9/5 2:02 p.m.: drive-byr
9/10 10:00 a.m.: pulled into driveway at 3618 and
blocked entryr later parked in street and walked
around house on corner of Hemlock and Willowr took
picturesr
7/15 - 8/22: Mr. Leo Wood, owner of property at corner of
Hemlock and Willow, reported seeing Mr. Nolfo
drive past 3618 "numerous times."
Moreover, according to the owner of the property across
the street from Appellant, Mr. Leo Wood, Mr. Nolfo has been
observed walking around and taking pictures on his property,
again without permission and without a proper warrant.
These entries are clearly unconstitutional as the
Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applies to entries onto
private land to search for and abate suspected and even known
nuisances!
o
o
October 21, 1991
Page 3
Unsunnorted "Evidence" Used To sustain the BBC's Decision
The BBC arrived at its decision based upon incomplete,
misleading, and plainly erroneous information. For example, Mr.
Morales testified that he saw some cuts which were fourteen to
twenty feet high: in fact, the attached report of Mr. Jonathan
Rossi, licensed engineering geologist, states that the cut in
question averages nine to ten feet in height. Mr. Nolfo states,
based purely on speculation, that there is construction going on
inside the house. The attached report of Mr. David Hatfield,
licensed architect, states that there is no construction going on
inside the house, the roof does not leak, and the structure is
sound.
Moreover, the photographs used by staff at the BBC
hearing were totally misleading, showing primarily adjacent
properties, not that of the Appellant. Appellant objected to
this at the hearing, and subsequently requested the photos used.
Eighteen photos were provided. When counsel wrote to Mr. Empeno,
deputy city attorney, complaining that these were not the photos
used at the hearing, twelve more photos magically appeared.
Significantly, those twelve photos do not include many of the
photos used at the BBC hearing! The last twelve were taken
August 5, 1991: seventeen of the first eighteen were taken on
August 13, 1991. curiously, one was dated August 12, 1991. It
is difficult to believe that a code enforcement official went out
on that date and only took ~ photograph.
It is important to note that the motion made by the BBC
on September 6, 1991, did not require entering the house to
perform an inspection: however, the BBC decision prepared and
distributed by your staff does include such a demand. In other
words, the decision does not reflect BBC members intent or
action, but rather staff recommendation. It should further be
noted that when the BBC decision was sent to Appellant, it
referenced certain costs which were purportedly attached, but no
such costs were, in fact, attached.
The notices and orders which have been served upon
Appellant in connection with these proceedings have, from the
beginning, been vague and ambiguous, providing no direction on
what specific actions are required or why they are being
required. Notices have been consistently served late (e.g., in
regard to this appeal, counsel received the notice October 16,
1991), and they have been carelessly delivered (e.g., taped to
gate post and/or stuck on mailbox).
Even though the original Notice To Abate Nuisance
indic;lted that "landscapinq" was required, even a casual observer,
could note the enormous alllount of planting which has taken place, "
'in re.:ent weeks. H~stof the followinq had beenpla~ted ,or'-;?X:.' ' ,
purehilsed for plant1nq when Dan Nolfo called on i~~a- lf," . "'.."
19911 250 hemerocallls: 106 nerium oleander: 27 plumbago: 16
camelUa: 13 jacaranda milllosifolia: 9 aza.lea: 6 eucalyptus; 5
POPUlllS; S achefflera actilllophylla; 5 lantana; 4 milllosa; 3
-,.albiz:La julibrissinl 2 lagerstroemia; 2 Il'lelaleuca; 2 verbena: 1
. cacia ~1 tic:us. , . ,_
".:..- ,.."......, '}"'::-';iC~~""":' "-<<:-:,i.:":;:-,:":",,.'
-, .~. ~. - .'
:fhe Dec;W.ons Rendered to - Dat.e Are wi -chout Anv Foundation
>~~ -:-~':;r~,-::,:~!-' -':~:(::R.:i';~;~: x:;_.;.:;.~~~:.;(:~.::....;'1~:'\J':";:?:~4:.::-;:!'" ;'i~;:'~'>;'~: ::.' -:; -,;:~-:;~:j:,'&~;f*~':~~~;}.~::f:".'.':: _:::'_", -',:-":-
Co,,'''.' .,---'''~;,c;,.:, There are 'numerous errors' in 'the staff reportiriclUded,,:;=;c~"-F,,:C;,'
in YOllr agenda package for this .item. There is no retainingwa.ll~:"'!""
which code cOlllp1i~nce personnel -allege to ha'Veobserved.'!i:';i#~;~:'i".~j'C;ii.
Horeo..er,H~;.;Dan1el stat.esthat. "based on -che I!lmountof~f4;;;i;1t~",,;: - .
excavi!tions .-;;;;'.,~,.reports and. permits are required.\:JAt. no time -,4J-';J.
-,,;:}-;: does'thestatf - establish the amount of dirt which hasbeenmoved.?~\
Furt~~rlIlore. there is no basis for the 'allegation that the dirt
is be.ing used to "extend beyond the property's pad.",;'The dirt
which was previously located on the west side of the 'property is
now l':lcated in a self-contained area on the east side of the
. prope:n:y whElre there is no risk of danger to private or public
prope:t:'ty. It appears that code enforcemElnt are searching' for new
"tact:s" when the ones they originally alleged could not be
suppo:rted. '
!~i;,. .:.
..>"...-~...
~':f;l:f;X
.. ^
. ""'~~"Z;:.;',~,:"::-:~"~~:,,,:~~,:,:
o
"..,..' .,,'
'--'~':--,::i;!iif
,-~,.::..,,:~
/
Octobl~r 21, 1991
Page "
W41 ncotein passing that just prior to the institution
of all of these charges, a lllan who identified himself as a .
,_.,... ."hou&el~uest (If.Kayor Holcomb stopped while Appellant was working
,-~- in he:r yard and inquired if she were relllodeling. Horeover ,'since ~~::=.,
Appellant WelS involved in legal action against the City a couple
of ye.lrs agc), one must wonder if the action being directed at her
is re'taliatory in nature.
Thefaots which will be presented at the hearing and
which are contained in the three reports attached hereto . ,'-',n ,c-;;!,:;;,;,""
demon:Btrate,that "the staff' s.p.~lations "are totally without i;';".,.c~lk.'{.:~;
"foundiltion .;.:Mr ; "Jonathan Rossi ,'I\based upon on-site ob.ervation;},//;;<;:<,
"and El't:udies of aerial photographs concludes that where the ,nine.>N)~;~~,<S;:'t
,X: to te:1\ foot cut. has been lIIade, the - slope is stable and not in,'~,~::~'i ,-I . .' ,
'c. ,,;,., dange:!.' ot slidinq ,!;evenunder hell.vyrains ....This Ob..rvationJs,;,:";'.i,.-'.,
t>\;iiiT3tLconfi:t:'lIl.ed by ,the report of the.oils engineer,'Holoy Gupta.-_'rt''-::"m,
;" ':,,/\'inaUy , "th'l.report ot'al'chiteat David Hatfield confirms'ther.,1
.... ':':~:'.i'!': "~~0~~~tl;~~;n~~r~f'i~1i~0~~~~~~i5~t";-1~,,~,:.,.,':"e~:~~~.s;~l~;"i"'~;j';'
:.~,.. ... "
~
..~
_"_ ._.___.__._ . .....- -. . ,. '-.C-
~__ _n....__ -
o
, ,
/
October 21, 1991
PageS
no constrtlc't:ion going inside the residenr:e, the roof does not
leak, and the house is structurally sound.
W'll would like to believe that the Fourth AlDenaent is
still alive in San Bernardino and that citizens are, indeed,
secure in their homes and free of unreasonable search... The
type of har;:lssment which Appellant has ~cperienced, without any
probable calolse, must be stopped. Appellant has incurred to date
expenses in the amount of $3,650. She has had to retain three
experts and an attorney, even though the City had absolutelY no
tlasis for lII;:lking the delllands it has lIIade. Appellant has lost a
minimum of 53 hours of productive work time (I $150./hr) and her
fundamental riqhts as a property owner to the quiet enjoyment and
possession of her property have been Wrongfully violated.
WIll trust that these events will not tie repeated and
that the del::ision of the BBC will be overturned.
Very truly yours I
~l~~
DARLENE FISCHER PHILLIPS
OF
HILL, FARRER " BURRILL
.
o
September 5, 1991
Board of Building Commissioners
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Gentlemen:
EXHIBIT A
*
I am a Registered Architect with the State of California. My license,
number 3685, was issued in 1963 after I graduated from University of
California, Berkeley. I have been a life-long resident of San Bernardino
and have based.my architecture practice here. In addition to my ful1-.
time practice, I taught Architecture at San Bernardino Valley College
for many years. During that time I served as Department Head for the
Architecture and Engineering Departments. In 1982 I was awarded the title
of "Full Professor" for outstanding teaching ability. I have lectured
at many U.S. and foreign universities and have served as consultant to
the United States Government on housing matters.
I have inspected the property at 3618 Hemlock Drive, San Bernardino,
and have noted the following:
- no evidence of roof leakage;
- no evidence of construction inside;
- the structure is in sound condition.
Very truly YOL1'~ _ _ 1\
1.~~
David Hatfield
5055 Davi d Way
San Bernardino, CA 92404
.
Ii
o
o
, .
. .
SOILS SOUTHWEST, INC.
CONSULTING FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS
897 VIA LATA, SUITE J . COLTON, CA 92324. (714) 370-0474. FAX (714) 370-3156
October 18, 1991
Project No. 9lll40pn
Mr. , Mrs. Summerfield
3618 Hemlock Drive
San Bernardino, California
Subject:
Results of Laboratory Testings and
Opinion Regarding Existing cut Slope
3618 Hemlock Drive
San Bernardino
Dear Mr. , Mrs. Summerfield:
As requested laboratory testings on soil sampled from the
existing cut slope at the north were made, the results of which
are presented below. The soil exposed primarily consists of very
dense, massive and cemented Older Alluvium of silty, fine to
coarse gravelly sand. No definite bedding planes or jointings are
noted. Attempts were made to obtain undisturbed samples for
testings, but due to the dry gravelly nature, such samplings were
not feasible. Consequently, our testings were conducted on soil
samples remolded to 90 percent of the maximum dry density at
increased moisture conditions.
Sample Test Cohesion Friction
No. Condition (psf) (deg)
1 remolded to 90% 150 29
of maxm. dry density
2 . 200 27
Soil Type: silty, fine to coarse gravelly sand, cemented.
Laboratory determined Maximum Dry Density & Optimum Moisture
content (ASTM D1557-78):
119 pcf e 9.8%
1
o
o
Summerfield/Hemlock
911140pn.
Comments: Based on the geologic report for the site, dated
September 19, 1991, prepared by John Rossi, CEG, it is understood
that other existing cut slopes in the general area, with
inclinations as steep as 0 to 1 (vertical) "did not show any
indication of slope failure, or appear to be in imminent' danger
of failure".
Being beyond our scope of work, no actual slope stability
analysis on the site soils were made. However, using the attached
stability charts and the laboratory test results described above,
the following maximum slope heights may be considerd 'stable' for
the various slope inclinations stated below:
Slope
Ratio*
For Factor of
Safety (F.S)
Maxm. Allowable
Slope Heights
8 ft.
12 ft
22 ft.
1/2: 1 1.5
1: 1 1.5
1-1/2: 1 1.5
(* horizontal to vertical)
The existing cut slope appears to be stable for the purpose
intended, however adequate ground coverings are recommended to
prevent slope surface erosion.
Respectfully submitted,
Soils Southwest, Inc.
M ~
Moloy dU~, r.~. /
RCE 31708
page 2
October 18, 1991
SSI
.--0
o
.~
0.6
BASED ON TAYLOR'S CHARTS
SAME CRITICAL
SURFACE LINES
1
GIVEN c AND ~ OF SOIL AND Y AND H
OF THE SLOPE PLOT POINT clyH. ~
AND READ FACTOR OF SAFETY.
I
FS.=2.5
0.5
0.1
o
o
10
20 30
<P, DEGREES
40
50
J:
>--
..... 0.3
u
,--.
,
0.2
From: Singh, Awtar. "Shear Strength and Stability of Man-Made Slopes"
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE
No. 51-16, November 1970, pp. 1879-1892
c:: 1"S0 .f~1
L./r.j.\ ::. 0"7,
c::p.s 9.7 to,
-(':A 1\ 0 1='4-.
-tt.:. g-hi-.
fJ.J\Tt: . I
I'~
J: .
)>..
'- 0.3
u
o
o
0'.6
0.5
fi
I
0.2
SAME CRITICAL
SURFACE LINES
0.4
GIVEN c AND cp OF SOIL AND rAND H
OF THE SLOPE PLOT POINT c/yH, cp
AND READ FACTOR OF SAFETY.
0.1
o
o
10
20 30
cp, DEGREES
40
50
FIG.. lO.-F-CONTOURS FOR SLOPE 1:1
C J lSO ~4, 'roO '-10 I r(:. Uopq..
L./m ::: 0-11) ~ .: 19.~_
6']..14 Tl1 '2.
o
o
V.b
0.5
~
1.5
0.1
0.4
GIVEN c AND; OF SOIL AND '1 AND H
OF THE SLOPE PLOT POINT c/'1H, ;
AND READ FACTOR OF SAFETY.
:x:
)00.
....... 0.3
u
r
'--
SAME CRITICAL
SURFACE LINES
0.2
o
o
10
20 30
;. DE~REES
40
50
.-.--....--....
-.--.-.-.---..----.--------.--- ..--.
From: Singh, Awtar, "Shear Strength and Stability of Man-Made Slopes"
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division. ASCE
No. SM6. November 1970. pp. 1879-1892
c.:: \.sO ~~) 1>.a 270) -(" lIo~+'
~/-(Ir :!. CJ,OrQ) +t:l 9~~#-.
fl....rri:.-3.
..----
0...
m..u.a.._..
i
JONATHAN L. ROSSI
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
October 19. 1991
IN: 0910013.03
TO: Mr. & Mrs. Summerfield
3618 Hemlock Drive
San Bernardino. California 92404
ATTENTION: Mr. & Mrs. Summerfield - Property Owner
SUBJECT: Letter Report of Findings. Aerial Photograph Stereo
Pair Review & Interpretation. Property Located at 3618
Hemlock Drive. City of San Bernardino. San Bernardino
County. California.
INTRODUCTION
On September 25. 1991 Jonathan L. . Rossi. Consulting
Geologist IJLR) was retained by Mrs. Summerfield to research
and review appropriate aerial photographs applicable to the
subject site from the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District files. and the a flight obtained by you from the
files of Pictorial Sciences. Inc.. San Bernardino. Ca. On
September 26. 1991 JLR reviewed all o~' the flights at SBCFCD
and listed such. On October 03. 1991 JLR and Mr.
Summerfield reviewed each flight for its ~pplicability 'to
the site. and selected those flight frames to be reproduced
for later interpretation. This letter is based on the review
of aerial photograph flights County C-8.l964 ,Frames /I 5 & 6:
Pictori,~l' Flight IREDEV.X4l2 1991. Frames F-36 & G-45.
REVIEW OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
1964 County Flight C-8.-
County Flight C-8 was flown on June 25. 1964. Shadows of
larger man-made ground features indicate the flight was
taken in the morning. possibly 10:00 to 11:00 am. Lighting
is from the east on a clear. sunny day. Scale is listed at
the County as 1" = 1000'.
A review of the stereo pair through an 8x magnifier
photograph viewer indicated that some of the features seen
as graded slopes in the photographs are present today with
little of no change. New man-made cut slopes seen on the
1964 photos are present on Juniper Drive. west of Hemlock.
and on Hemlock Drive. The slopes appear to be greater than
1: 1 inclination on the aerial photos. Resolution and. the
stereo effect is poor. however the presence of the cut
slopes is verifiable. One.of the major steep cut slope
which has remained intact for 27+-years is located directly
above the entrance to the subject site. Other slopes in the
area which are existing in the field are present on the 1964
.
photos.
P.O. BOX 4018, BIG BEAR LAKE, CALIFORNIA 92315. (714)866-5183
--c,',.;;"......_.
..
.
o
o
';
-2-
IN: 0910013.03
1991 pictorial Sciences Flight X4l2 -
This flight was flown at a ~igher altitude, scale is
estimated at 1"=2000'. The flight was flown January 19,
1991, on a clear sunny day. Approximate time of flight was
12:00 noon to 1:00pm, shadows 'are due north.
Due to the altitude of the photos the ability to pick out
individual small steep cut slopes is limited. However,
several of the steep slopes located on Juniper Drive and
present in the 1964 flight appear to be present in the 1991
photos. The most striking steep slope present on the
property '1964 & 1991 photos) is located at the east edge,of
the pad, above the driveway entrance, facing Hemlock Drive.
This slope appears to be a combination of natural slope and
man-made cut slope. It appears to have remained intact,
without failure for the past 27 years. Other similar slopes
are present at the entrance to adjacent lots on both sides
of Hemlock Drive.
, CLOSURE
.,
The findings contained is this report;: are based on limi ted
aerial photo analysis of the above listed photograph pairs
by Jonathan L. Rossi, Consulting Geologist. The work
performed by Jonathan L. Rossi, Consulting Geologist has
been completed in accordance with the professional practices
currently, accept~d in the Geotechnical Consulting, Industry
today. '.No warranty is either expressed of implied.
Should you have any questions concerning this report please
do not hesitate ,to contact me at my Big Bear Lake office
(619) 248-2344, or through Soils Southwest at (714) 370-
0474.
Jo than L. Rossi, Consulting Geologist
Certified Engineering Geologist # 1460
cc: Moloy Gupta, RCE,Soils Engineer
Soils Southwest, Inc.
.
JONATHAN L. ROSSI,CONSULTlNG GEOLOGIST. P.O. BOX 4018,BIG BEARLAKE,CALlFORNIA 92315 · (714)866-5183
.
.
J.
.,
o
o.
.-'
~
JONATHAN L. ROSSI
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
September 19. 1991
IN: 0910013.01
...;
".". '\
TO: Mr. & Mrs.. Summerfield
3618 Hemlock Drive
San Bernardino, California 92324
ATTENTION: Mr. & Mrs. Summerfield - Property Owner
SUBJECT
Letter Report of Findings Concerning Geologic
Conditions of Existing Cut Slope Located at the Rear of
Property Located at 3618 Hemlock Drive, City of San
Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California.
INTRODUCTION-
On September 17, 1991 Jonathan L. Rossi, Con~ulting
Geologist (JLRl was retained by Mrs. Summerfield to observe
a recently excavated cut slope on the subject site, and
comment on the existing geologic iconditions at . and.
immediately around the cut slope. Oni:September 18, 1991,
JLR visited the site and met with Mr;& Mrs.. Summerfield.
This letter is based on the observations made at that time.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS - GENERAL
The subii,ect site 'is situated at the top of a low northeast-
southwest trendihg' ridge located in the foothills of the
Western San Bernardino Mountains, on the northeast side of
the San Bernardino Valley, .and the City of San Bernardino,
California. .
This region of Southern California is characterized by a
band of low rounded hills, ridges, and steep sided canyons
bordering the high mountain front directly to the northeast,
and the sloping valley floor to the southwest. The foothill
area is approximately one to two miles in width and contains.
a collection of active earthquake faults belonging to the
San Andreas Fault System. The subject site is located
within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone for the San
Andreas Fault, South Branch. No active or potentially active
fault traces have been mapped at the site of the existing
cut slope.
The NE-SW .trending ridges in the area of the subject site
.consist of Older Alluvium elevated along the mountain front
by uplift along the San Andreas Fault system. Several
thousand feet to the NE is sedimentary' and .'. metamorphic
bedrock. Depth to bedrock on the subject site-is not known.
.
P.O. BOX 4018, BIG BEAR LAKE, CALIFORNIA. 92315- (714)866-5183
'.' .
-
.lJL,
II L
o
o
-2-
IN: 0910013.01
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS - CUT SLOPE
A south facing cut has been made; into the rear yard slope of
the sUbject property. The cut slope is. a vertical cut
averaging 9 ft. to 10 ft. across its length, with a measured
maximum height of 11.5 ft. near the center. The slope is
approximately 130 ft. in length, measured along its radius.
The slope curves along an .inverse radius, away from the
existing residential structure and garage located . on the
subject site. An existing home is located at the top of the
slope (thought to be a natural. slope) into which the cut was
made. The adjacent home appears to be approximately 25 feet
horizontal distance from the subject cut slope. . The
existing slope between the cut and the upper residence is
between. a 1:1 and a 1 1/2:1 inclination (horizontal to
vertica!J.
The slope is cut into, and exposes, massive Older Alluvium
consisting of a light brown to brown silty sand with a few
fine to coarse gravel scattered throughout. The Older
Alluvium is slightly mineral cemented! There is little or
no' depositional structure, no bedding, "no jointing, or other
mappable geologic features. A. soil weathering zone
approximately two feet in thickness ispresElnt at the top of
the cut slope. This soil zone is disturbed by plant roots,
animal burrows, and a few soil desiccation fractures;-
The site pad gra~is essentially level, with a slight slope
for drainage. Approximately two feet away from the cut face
a block wall foundation has been cut into the natural earth
materials (Older A11uvium\ set with reinforcing steel, and
poured at some time within'the past few months. . The subject
site property line is located approximately two feet up the
slope from the top of the cut (data from owners).
No evidence of faulting or 1ands1iding was observed in the
cut slope exposures, across the subject site, or adjacent to
it. There was no evidence of active or inactive springs or
groundwater seeps.
Additional information as to the geotechnical aspects
slope, shear strength, soils slope stability,
performance will be provided by the Soils Engineer.
of the
slope
.
.
JONATHAN L. ROSSI,CONSULTING GEOLOGIST · P,O. BOX 4018,BIG BEARLAKE,CALlFORNIA 92315 · (714)866-5183
,
o
o
-3-
IN: 0910013.01
AREA OBSBRVATIONS
Several natural and man made cut slopes are present in the
area for observation. Some of the road cuts to the west
were made for access in the late 1950's, and during. limited
grading in the 1960's. At the entrance to the subject.
property a steep hillside (thought to .be natural) is
standing since the time of tract construction, or before (if
natural). A near vertical man made cut with retaining wall
is pr~sent on the hillside below the subject property. A
vertical cut in an almost identical situation to that on the
subject'property is present at a residential site located on
Juniper Drive, west of Hemlock Drive.
All of the slopes observed were either steep man made cuts
or steep natural slopes. All of the observed slopes appear
'to expose Older Alluvium.., None of the observed man made cut
slopes have been cut to the inclinations of 1 1/2:1 or 2:1
common in the 1980.s and 1990.s, but are either vertical or
near vertical (60 to 70 degrees). None 'of the slopes show
indication of slope failure, or appear to be in 'imminent'
danger of failure*. ,j
"
The existing driveway cut observed on JUniper Drive has a
row of Cypress trees growing directly in front of the
vertical cut slope. The trees are large, indicating an
extended time since their planting. Based on the presence
of the trees, it1appears the vertical cut has been there for
at leaS't ten years.( estimate based on size of trees may need
confirmation by tree expert). The slope shows no signs of
distress. .
, .,
As a final comment concerning the performance of the
existing slopes observed in the area, it should be noted
that all of these slopes have survived periods of heavy
rainfall. The older slopes having survived more wet periods
than the more recent ones. The periods of heavy rainfall
whichJLR has personally experienced occurred .in 1969
1971, 1979 - 1981, and 1984 - 1986. Other wet seasons have
occurred, and . can be reviewed by examination of San.
Bernardino County Flood Control Hydrolo~y rainfall records.
The earth materials exposed in the area slopes appear to
hold up well even under wet conditions.
* 'imminent' .def.: about to take place1 impending. menaci.ng,
threatening,. alarming, ominous, sinister.
Merria~-Webster Dictionary, & Thesaurus.
.
JONATHAN L. ROSSI,CONSULTING GEOLOGIST · P.O. BOX 4018,BIG BEARLAKE,CAUFORNIA 92315. (714)866-5183
.
o
o
.
-4-
IN: 0910013.01
CONCLUSIONS
Several natural and man made cut slopes in the area appear
to. be capable of sustained ex~stence 11964 to 1991. 27
years) without significant failure. . It should be noted that
some of the undisturbed (intact) man-made cut slopes
observed in the neighborhood were located directly beneath.
human occupancy structures in a similar situation as the
subject slope. Should the property owner decide to provide
additional support to the vertical cut slope as it now
exists. several possible engineering solutions can be
recommended by the Soils Engineer. and designed by the Soils
and Structural Engineer.
CLOSURE
The findings contained is this report are based on limited
field observations by Jonathan L. Rossi. Consulting
Geologist. This work is limited to tQe rear yard. north.
vertical cut slope existing on September 18, 1991. and does
not apply to other portions of the subject property. The
work performed by Jonathan L. Rossi, .Consulting Geologist
has been completed in accordance with the professional
practices currently accepted in the Geotechnical Consulting
Industry today. No warranty is either expressed of
implied.
'.
Should you have any questions concerning this report please
. .
do not hesitate to contact me at my Big Bear Lake office
(619) 248-2344. 'or through Soils Southwest at (714) 370-
0474.
Jo than L. Rossi. Consulting Geologist
C rtified Engineering Geologist # 1460
cc: Moloy Gupta, ReE, Soils Engineer
.
JONATHAN L. ROSSI,CONSULTING GEOLOGIST. P.O. BOX 4018.BIG BEARLAKE,CALlFORNIA 92315 · (714)866-5183
-
. tJllJ.~
-
~
~~
o
o
HILL, FARRER & BURRILL
... PARTNIERSHIP INCLUDING PROF~SIONAl... CORPORATIONS
ORANGE COUNTY
Tl!:LEPl-lONE 171....1 641~660!5
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THIRTY-FIFTH FLOOR-UNION BANK SOUARE:
445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STRE:ET
A. oJ, HILL 11881-195.3)
WM. M. FARRER 11894-19711
STANLEY S. BURRILL {1902-19571
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
TEL.EPHONE (2131 620-0....150
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1666
TELECOPIER
l2131 152....-4840
('n~" 0"6'2 O~4'6'6'
October 21, 1991
Mayor & Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 No. "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92410-0001
Attention: City Clerk
Re: Appeal from Order of Board of Building
Commissioners Dated Sentember 13. 1991
Dear Mayor Holcomb and Members of the Council:
This written submission constitutes a part of the
presentation made on behalf of Janet Summerfield ("Appellant")
who is the owner of a single family residence located at 3618
Hemlock, San Bernardino. Appellant is appealing the Order of the
Board of Building Commissioners ("BBC") approved September 13,
1991. This submission includes, and incorporates by reference as
though set forth in full, the letter from this office dated
September 20, 1991, appealing the BBC's Order.
In addition to the issues asserted in the oral
presentation which Appellant anticipates presenting to the
Council this date, Appellant raises the following objections to
the City'S unlawful procedures which have resulted in this
proceeding, the erroneous purported "evidence" which has been
used to sustain the misguided decision of the BBC, and the lack
of any basis for the decisions which have been rendered in the
matter to date.
Unlawful And Unconstitutional Procedures
::T../.,
This matter all began &9Ft9mpar 1', 1991, when
Appellant received a threatening, belligerent phone call from
code enforcement officer Dan Nolfo who stated, among other
things, that he had obtained an "anonymous" phone call, that it
"looks like your roof leaks," that he was not like a regular
inspector, but could make Appellant paint her house, that he
"suspected" there was construction going on inside the house,
that he wanted permission to come inside and inspect or he would
"get a warrant and break the door in"!
IF .if 0
o
o
October 21, 1991
Page 2
At a meeting with Appellant and Mr. Nolfo on September
30, 1991, Mr. Nolfo refused to grant a 30-day extension to allow
her to obtain soils and engineering reports unless she allowed
him to inspect inside her house. (It should be noted that at the
meeting of the BBC on September 6, 1991, Mr. Nolfo misrepresented
this fact and said he did not deny the continuance.) Appellant
was accompanied to this meeting by Richard Andrews, Esq. who,
following the meeting, just coincidentally happened to received a
Notice to Abate Nuisance on bia propertyl
At the meeting with Mr. Nolfo and at the BBC hearing,
Mr. Nolfo has made references to and questioned conditions on
Appellant's property which could only be made after first-hand
observation. Although he has insisted that he has not been on
the property, this is clearly not the case.
The following activity of Mr. Nolfo has been observed
in and around 3618 Hemlock:
11:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon: 6 drive-bys; parked
on center line blocking entry to driveway;
9/4 10:00 a.m.: drive-by; blocked driveway;
8/14
9/5 2:02 p.m.: drive-by;
9/10 10:00 a.m.: pulled into driveway at 3618 and
blocked entry; later parked in street and walked
around house on corner of Hemlock and Willow; took
pictures;
7/15 - 8/22: Mr. Leo Wood, owner of property at corner of
Hemlock and Willow, reported seeing Mr. Nolfo
drive past 3618 "numerous times."
Moreover, according to the owner of the property across
the street from Appellant, Mr. Leo Wood, Mr. Nolfo has been
observed walking around and taking pictures on his property,
again without permission and without a proper warrant.
These entries are clearly unconstitutional as the
Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applies to entries onto
private land to search for and abate suspected and even known
nuisances I
,
o
o
October 21, 1991
Page 3
Unsunnorted "Evidence" Used To sustain the BBC's Decision
The BBC arrived at its decision based upon incomplete,
misleading, and plainly erroneous information. For example, Mr.
Morales testified that he saw some cuts which were fourteen to
twenty feet high; in fact, the attached report of Mr. Jonathan
Rossi, licensed engineering geologist, states that the cut in
question averages nine to ten feet in height. Mr. Nolfo states,
based purely on speculation, that there is construction going on
inside the house. The attached report of Mr. David Hatfield,
licensed architect, states that there is no construction going on
inside the house, the roof does not leak, and the structure is
sound.
Moreover, the photographs used by staff at the BBC
hearing were totally misleading, showing primarily adjacent
properties, not that of the Appellant. Appellant objected to
this at the hearing, and subsequently requested the photos used.
Eighteen photos were provided. When counsel wrote to Mr. Empeno,
deputy City attorney, complaining that these were not the photos
used at the hearing, twelve more photos magically appeared.
Significantly, those twelve photos do not include many of the
photos used at the BBC hearing I The last twelve were taken
August 5, 1991; seventeen of the first eighteen were taken on
August 13, 1991. curiously, one was dated August 12, 1991. It
is difficult to believe that a code enforcement official went out
on that date and only took ~ photograph.
It is important to note that the motion made by the BBC
on September 6, 1991, did not require entering the house to
perform an inspection; however, the BBC decision prepared and
distributed by your staff does include such a demand. In other
words, the decision does not reflect BBC members intent or
action, but rather staff recommendation. It should further be
noted that when the BBC decision was sent to Appellant, it
referenced certain costs which were purportedly attached, but no
such costs were, in fact, attached.
The notices and orders which have been served upon
Appellant in connection with these proceedings have, from the
beginning, been vague and ambiguous, providing no direction on
what specific actions are required or why they are being
required. Notices have been consistently served late (e.g., in
regard to this appeal, counsel received the notice October 16,
1991), and they have been carelessly delivered (e.g., taped to
gate post and/or stuck on mailbox).
~
0-- -
o
/
octobl=r 21, 1991
page .1
Even though the original Notice To Abate Nuisance
indic;~te:1 that "landscaping" was requireCl, even a casual observer,
could note the enormous hOunt of plantlnq which has taken place
in re.:ent w_ks. Host of the followinq bad been ~ted or'
purc:h;lsed tor plantlntjJ when Dan Nolto called on i ~a"t' 19, ,
19911 250 hemerocallis; 106 nerium oleander; 27 plumbago; 16
camellia: 13 jacaranda mimositolla; 9 an.lea, 5 eucalyptus; 5
POPUll;1S1 5 schetflera actimophylla; 5 lantana; 4 mimosa; 3
albiz:La julibrissin; 2 lagerstroemla; 2 I'llelaleuca: 2 verbena: 1
cacia: 1 fic."US.
'rhe De(~igions Re!'ldered 'to. Dat:e Are Wi1:hou~ AllV Foundat.ion
d'_ --, Tllere are numerous errors in the staff report inCluded
in YOl;lr agencla pac:kaqe for this item. Tllere is no retaining wall
which cocle compliance personnel allege to have observed.
Horeo'"er, ~I. Daniel states that "based on the amount: of ,
excavl~tions. ; . It reports and permits are required. ,At no time
does 'dle staff establish the amount of dirt which has been moved.
Furth,armore, there is no basis for the alleqat.ion that: the dirt
is being used to "extend beyond the property I s pad. II Tlle cUrt
which was previously located on the west side, of the property is
now l,)cated in a self.contained area on the east side of the
prope:ety where there is no risk of danger to private or public
prope:ety. It appears that cocle enforcement are searching for new
"fact:s" whell the ones they originally alleged could not be
suppo:rted. '
We note in passing that just prior to the institut.ion
of aU of these charqe., a 1llan who identified himself as a
_ house'~est of, Mayor Holcomb stopped while Appellant was working
" in he:r yard and inquired if she were remodeling. Horeover, , since ---- ,
Appellant was involved in legal action against the city a couple
of ye,~rs ago, one must wonder if the action being directed at her
is re't:aliatory in nature.
The facts which will be presented at the hearing and
which are contained in the three reports attached hereto
demcn:Rtrate that the ataff I a speculations are totally without
foundiltion. Mr.' Jonathan Rossi," based upon on-site observation
and s-cudies of aerial photographs concludes that where the nine
to te::! foot cut has been made, the.lope is stable and not in
dange:r of slidin9. ,even under heavy rains. This observation i.
"confi:rmed by the report of the soils en9ineer, Moloy Gupta.:;~:",;j
Finally, ~~e,:r:-eport of architect David ~tfield confirms there is
0- -~.,._-.t,,-,.". ~_ ',:~~'I:'-';':":":-/:'::"-:--"_'~'_" ,_
>
... ~ -.-0.--- ---
o
, .
.'
october 21, 1991
Page 5
no construction going inside the residenr:e, the roof does not
leak, and the house is structurally sound.
We would like to believe that the Fourth Amendment is
still alive in San Bernardino and that citizens are, indeed,
secure in their homes and fr~e of unr.a.~nable search... The
typo of harassnent which Appellant has e:cperienced, without any
probable c:a1Jse, must be stopped. Appellant has incurred to date
expenses in the amount of $3,650. She has had to retain three
experts and an attorney, even though the City had absolutely no
1:Iasls for lII;!lkinq the demands it has lIIade. Appellant has lost a
lIIinimum of 53 hours of productive work time (8 $150./hr) and her
fundamental rights as a property owner to the quiet enjoyment and
possession of her property have been wrongfully violated.
WI. trust that these events will not be repeated and
that the del::ision of the BBC will be overturned.
Very truly yours,
~lr?~
DAltLENE FISCHER PHILLIPS
OF
HILL, FARRER " BURRILL
,
o
EXHIBIT A
September 5, 1991
Board of Building Commissioners
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0. Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Gent1 emen:
I am a Registered Architect with the State of California. My license,
number 3685, was issued in 1963 after I graduated from University of
California, Berkeley. I have been a life-long resident of San Bernardino
and have based my architecture practice here. In addition to my fu11-
time practice, I taught Architecture at San Bernardino Valley College
for many years. During that time I served as Department Head for the
Architecture and Engineering Departments. In 1982 I was awarded the title
of "Full Professor" for outstanding teaching ability. I have lectured
at many U.S. and foreign universities and have served as consultant to
the United States Government on housing matters.
I have inspected the property at 3618 Hemlock Drive, San Bernardino,
and have noted the following:
- no evidence of roof leakage;
- no evidence of construction inside;
- the structure is in sound condition.
Very truly YOLJ'~ _ _ 1\
b.o':JQ.J ~
David Hatfield
5055 David Way
San Bernardino, CA 92404
.
II
o
o
SOilS SOUTHWEST, INC.
CONSULTING FOUNDATION ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS
897 VIA LATA, SUITE J . COLTON, CA 92324. (714) 370-0474. FAX (714) 370-3156
October 18, 1991
Project No. 9lll40pn
Mr. & Mrs. Summerfield
3618 Hemlock Drive
San Bernardino, California
Subject:
Results of Laboratory Testings and
Opinion Regarding Existing cut Slope
3618 Hemlock Drive
San Bernardino
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Summerfield:
As requested laboratory testings on soil sampled from the
existing cut slope at the north were made, the results of which
are presented below. The soil exposed primarily consists of very
dense, massive and cemented Older Alluvium of silty, fine to
coarse gravelly sand. No definite bedding planes or jointings are
noted. Attempts were made to obtain undisturbed samples for
testings, but due to the dry gravelly nature, such samplings were
not feasible. Consequently, our testings were conducted on soil
samples remolded to 90 percent of the maximum dry density at
increased moisture conditions.
Sample Test Cohesion Friction
No. Condition Cpsf) Cdeg)
1 remolded to 90% 150 29
of maxm. dry density
2 . 200 27
Soil Type: silty, fine to coarse gravelly sand, cemented.
Laboratory determined Maximum Dry Density & Optimum Moisture
content CASTM D1557-78):
119 pcf 0 9.8%
1
,
o
o
Summerfield/Hemlock
9l1140pn.
Comments: Based on the geologic report for the site, dated
September 19, 1991, prepared by John Rossi, CEG, it is understood
that other existing cut slopes in the general area, with
inclinations as steep as 0 to 1 (vertical) "did not show any
indication of slope failure, or appear to be in imminent' danger
of failure".
Being beyond our scope of work, no actual slope stability
analysis on the. site soils were made. However, using the attached
stability charts and the laboratory test results described above,
the following maximum slope heights may be considerd 'stable' for
the various slope inclinations stated below:
Slope
Ratio*
For Factor of
Safety (F. S)
Maxm. Allowable
Slope Heights
8 ft.
12 ft
22 ft.
1/2: 1 1.5
1: 1 1.5
1-1/2: 1 1.5
(* horizontal to vertical)
The existing cut slope appears to be stable for the purpose
intended, however adequate ground coverings are recommended to
prevent slope surface erosion.
Respectfully submitted,
Soils Southwest, Inc.
Maloy eM, E.J:i.
RCE 31708
~
./
page 2
October 18, 1991
5SI
.
>
.-----0
o
-~
0.6
BASED ON TAYLOR'S CHARTS
SAME CRITICAL
SURFACE LINES
J
GIVEN c AND rp OF SOIL AND Y AND H
OF THE SLOPE PLOT POINT c/yH, rp
AND READ FACTOR OF SAFETY.
I
FS:2.5
0.5
0.4
J:
>--
...... 0.3
u
r-.
,
0.2
0.1
o
o
10
20 30
t/J. DEGREES
40
50
From: Singh, Awtar, "Shear Strength and Stability of Man-Made Slopes"
",Lourna1 of the Soil ~lechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE
No. ~~. November 1970, pp. 1879-1892
c, 1'50 .f~1
7'rH :. 0'17 I
~.& t).7 to)
-(' ~ IIlJ 'P4-.
0\+;:. Q~.
-fJ./l1~ ~ I
-
>
o
o
/':':'"
0'.6
0.1
SAME CRITICAL
SURFACE LINES
fi
I
0.5
0.4
GIVEN e AND 4> OF SOIL AND rAND H
OF THE SLOPE PLOT POINT e/yH. 4>
AND READ FACTOR OF SAFETY.
:I: .
)0..
..... 0.3
u
0.2
o
o
10
20 30
4>. DEGREES
40
50
FIG.. lO.-F-CONTOURS FOR SLOPE 1:1
C J l50 ~4, '?.. "10 I r(:. lIopq..
~/n\- ~ 0-11) ~ .: 19.~.
6'J..lOTl1 '2.
>
o
o
V.b
0.5
~
1.5
0.4
GIVEN c AND ~ OF SOIL AND '1 AND H
OF THE SLOPE PLOT POINT c/rH, ~
AND READ FACTOR OF SAFETY.
:x:
)0..
" 0.3
u
r
'--
SAME CRITICAL
SURFACE LINES
0.2
0.1
o
o
10
20 30
~. DE~REES
40
50
-- ----..--.-"
-.-----...-----..---------- ---- . -."
From: Singh, Awtar, "Shear Strength and Stability of Man-Made Slopes"
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE
No. .2ot6, November 1970, pp. 1879-1892
c.::: \J5C ~sf) ~s '.ll 0) 1'::. lIo~+-
~/-(Ir ::!. CJ'OtQ) t\: ~~~~.
eL.I81't..-3.
--.---- .
0-.
o.
JONATHAN L. ROSSI
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
October 19. 1991
IN: 0910013.03
TO: Mr. & Mrs. Summerfield
3618 Hemlock Drive
San Bernardino. California 92404
ATTENTION: Mr. & Mrs. Summerfield - Property Owner
SUBJECT: Letter Report of Findings. Aerial Photograph Stereo
Pair Review & Interpretation. Property Located at 3618
Hemlock Drive. City of San Bernardino. San Bernardino
County. California.
INTRODUCTION
On September 25. 1991 Jonathan L. Rossi. Consulting
Geologist IJLR) was retained by Mrs. Summerfield to research
and review appropriate aerial photographs applicable to the
subject site from the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District files. and the a flight obtained by you from the
files of pictorial Sciences. Inc.. San Bernardino. Ca. On
September 26. 1991 JLR reviewed all o~ the flights at SBCFCO
and listed such. On October 03. 1991 JLR and Mr.
Summerfield reviewed each flight for its ~pplicability .to
the site. and selected those flight frames to be reproduced
for later interpretation. This letter is based on the review
of aerial photograph flights County C-8.1964 Frames t 5 & 6:
Pictori,~l' Flight IREDEV.X412 1991. Frames F-36 & G-45.
REVIEW OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
1964 County Flight C-8.-
County Flight C-8 was flown on June 25. 1964.
larger man-made ground features indicate the
taken in the morning. possibly 10:00 to 11:00 am.
is from the east on a clear. sunny day. Scale is
the County as 1" - 1000'.
A review of the stereo pair through an 8x magnifier
photograph viewer indicated that some of the features seen
as graded slopes in the photographs are present today with
little of no change. New man-made cut slopes seen on the
1964 photos are present on Juniper Drive. west of Hemlock.
and on Hemlock Drive. The slopes appear to be greater than
1:1 inclination on the aerial photos. Resolution and the
stereo effect is poor. however the presence of the cut
slopes is verifiable. One.of the major steep cut slope
which has remained intact for 27+-years is located directly
above the entrance to the subject site. Other slopes in the
area which are existing in the field are present on the 1964
.
photos.
P.O. BOX 4018, BIG BEAR LAKE, CALIFORNIA 92315 · (714)866-5183
Shadows of
flight was
Lighting
listed at
~
.
o
o
-2-
IN: 0910013.03
1991 Pictorial Sciences Flight X4l2 -
This flight was flown at a ~igher altitude, scale is
estimated at 1"=2000'. The flight was flown January 19,
1991, on a clear sunny day. Approximate time of flight was
12:00 noon to 1:00pm, shadows 'are due north.
Due to the altitude of the photos the ability to pick out
individual small steep cut slopes is limited. However,
several of the steep slopes located on Juniper Drive and
present in the 1964 flight appear to be present in the 1991
photos. The most striking steep slope present on the
property '1964 lie 1991 photos) is located at the east edge of
the pad, above the driveway entrance, facing Hemlock Drive.
This slope appears to be a combination of natural slope and
man-made cut slope. It appears to have remained intact,
without failure for the past 27 years. Other similar slopes
are present at the entrance to adjacent lots on both sides
of Hemlock Drive.
. CLOSURE
.,
The findings contained is this reporti'are based on limited
aerial photo analysis of the above listed photograph pairs
by Jonathan L. Rossi, Consulting Geologist. The work
performed by Jonathan L. Rossi, Consulting Geologist has
been completed in accordance with the professional practices
currently. accepted in the Geotechnical Consulting. Industry
today. '. No warrahty is either expressed of implied.
Should you have any questions concerning this report please
do not hesitate .to contact me at my Big Bear Lake office
(619) 248-2344, or through Soils Southwest at (714) 370-.
0474.
Jo ~than L. Rossi, Consulting Geologist
Certified Engineering Geologist # 1460
cc: Moloy Gupta. RCE, Soils Engineer
Soils Southwest, Inc.
.
JONATHAN L. ROSSI,CONSULTlNG GEOLOGIST · P.O. BOX 4018,BIG BEARLAKE,CALlFORNIA 92315 · (714)866-5183
-
,
o
o
JONATHAN L. ROSSI
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
September 19. 1991
IN: 0910013.01
.,
TO: Mr. & Mrs. Summerfield
3618 Hemlock Drive
San Bernardino, California 92324
ATTENTION: Mr. & Mrs. Summerfield - Property Owner
SUBJECT
Letter Report of Findings Concerning Geologic
Conditions of Existing Cut Slope Located at the Rear of
Property Located at 3618 Hemlock Drive, City of San
Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California.
INTRODUCTION-
On September 17, 1991 Jonathan L. Rossi, Consulting
Geologist (JLRl was retained by Mrs. Summerfield to observe
a recently excavated cut slope on the subject site, and
comment on the existing geologic iconditions at . and.
immediately around the cut slope. On;: September 18, 1991,
JLR visited the site and met with Mr~& Mrs. Summerfield.
This letter is based on the observations made at that time.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS - GENERAL
The subj~ct site ~s situated at the top of a low northeast-
southwest trending' ridge located in the foothills of the
Western San Bernardino Mountains, on the northeast side of
the San Bernardino Valley,.and the City of San Bernardino,
California. .
This region of Southern California is characterized by a
band of low rounded hills, ridges, and steep sided canyons
bordering the high mountain front directly to the northeast,
and the sloping valley floor to the southwest. The foothill
area is approximately one to two miles in width and contains
a collection of active earthquake faults belonging to the
San Andreas Fault System. The SUbject site is located
within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone for the San
Andreas Fault, South Branch. No active or potentially active
fault traces have been mapped at the site of the existing
cut slope.
The NE-SW .trending ridges in the area of the subject site
consist of Older Alluvium elevated along the mountain front
by uplift along the San Andreas Fault system. Several'
thousand feet to the NE is sedimentary' and metamorphic
bedrock. Depth to bedrock on the subject site is not known.
.
P.O. BOX 4018, BIG BEAR LAKE,CALlFORNIA 92315. (714)866-5183
'.'
-
j
~
o
o
-2-
IN: 0910013.01
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS - CUT SLOPE
A south facing cut has been madejinto the rear yard slope of
the subject property. The cut slope is a vertical cut
averaging 9 ft. to 10 ft. across its length, with a measured
maximum height of 11.5 ft. near the center. The slope is
approximately 130 ft. in length, measured along its radius.
The slope curves along an .inverse radius, away from the
existing residential structure and garage located . on the
subject site. An existing home is located at the top of the
slope (thought to be a natural. slope) into which the cut was
made. The adjacent home appears to be approximately 25 feet
horizontal distance from the subject cut slope. _ The
existing slope between the cut and the upper residence is
between a 1:1 and a 1 1/2:1 inclination (horizontal to
vertica!.) .
The slope is cut into, and exposes, massive Older Alluvium
consisting of a light brown to brown silty sand with a few
fine to coarse gravel scattered throughout. The Older
Alluvium is slightly mineral cemented! There is little or
no depositional structure, no bedding, .;no jointing, or other
mappable geologic features. A. soil weathering zone
approximately two feet in thickness is'presElOt at the top of
the cut slope. This soil zone is disturbed by plant roots,
animal burrows, and a few soil desiccation fractures;
The site pad grad~ is essentially level, with a slight slope
for drainage. Approximately two feet away from the cut face
a block wall foundation has been cut into the natural earth
materials (Older Alluvium) set with reinforcing steel, and
poured at some time within' the past few months. The subject
site property line is located approximately two feet up the
slope from the top of the cut (data from owners).
No evidence of faulting or landsliding was observed in the
cut slope exposures, across the subject site, or adjacent to
it. There was no evidence of active or inactive springs or
groundwater seeps.
Additional information as to the geotechnical aspects
slope, shear strength, soils slope stability,
performance will be provided by the Soils Engineer.
of the
slope
.
.
JONATHAN L. ROSSI,CONSULTING GEOLOGIST. P,O. BOX 4018,BIG BEARLAKE,CALlFORNIA 92315. (714)866-5183
]
>
o
o
-3-
IN: 0910013.01
AREA OBSERVATIONS
Several natural and man made cut slopes are present in the
area for observation. Some of the road cuts to the west
were made for access in the late 1950's, and during limited
grading in the 1960's. At the entrance to the subject'
property a steep hillside (thought to 'be natural) is
standing since the time of tract construction, or before (if
natural). A near vertical man made cut with retaining wall
is pr~sent on the hillside below the subject property. A
vertical cut in an almost identical situation to that on the
subject property is present at a residential site located on
Juniper Drive, west of Hemlock Drive.
All of the slopes observed were either steep man made cuts
or steep natural slopes. All of the observed slopes appear
'to expose Older Alluvium." None of the observed man made cut
slopes have been cut to the inclinations of 1 1/2:1 or 2:1
common in the 1980,s and 1990,s, but are either vertical or
near vertical (60 to 70 degrees). None 'of the slopes show
indication of slope failure, or appear to be in 'imminent'
danger of failure.. "
;i
The existing driveway cut observed on Juniper Drive has a
row of Cypress trees growing directly in front of the
vertical cut slope. The trees are large, indicating an
extended time since their planting. Based on the presence
of the trees, itjappears the vertical cut has been there for
at leaS'u ten years ,f estimate based on size of trees may need
confirmation by tree expert). The slope shows no signs of
distress. '
As a final comment concerning the performance of the
existing slopes observed in the area, it should be noted
that all of these slopes have survived periods of heavy
rainfall. The older slopes having survived more wet periods
than the more recent ones. The periods of heavy rainfall
whichJLR has personally experienced occurred ,in 1969
1971, 1979 - 1981, and 1984 - 1986. Other wet seasons have
occurred, and can be reviewed by examination of San
Bernardino County Flood Control Hydrolo~y rainfall records.
The earth materials exposed in the area slopes appear to
hold up well even under wet conditions.
* 'imminent',def.: about to take place1 impending. menacing,
threatening" alarming, ominous, sinister.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, & Thesaurus.
.
JONATHAN L. ROSSI,CONSULTING GEOLOGIST · P.O. BOX 4018,BIG BEARLAKE,CAUFORNIA 92315 · (714)866-5183
-
-
.
J
~
o
o
-4-
IN: 0910013.01
CONCLUSIONS
Several natural and man made cut slopes in the area appear
to' be capable of sustained ex~stence 11964 to 1991, 27
years) without significant failure. . It should be noted that
some of the undisturbed (intact) man-made cut slopes
observed in the neighborhood were located directly beneath'
human occupancy structures in a similar situation as the
subject slope. Should the property owner decide to provide
additional support to the vertical cut slope as it now
exists, several possible engineering solutions can be
recommended by the Soils Engineer, and designed by the Soils
and Structural Engineer.
.
CLOSURE
The findings contained is this report are based on limited
field observations by Jonathan L. Rossi, Consulting
Geologist. This work is limited to t~e rear yard, north,
vertical cut slope existing on September 18, 1991, and does
not apply to other portions of the subject property. The
work performed by Jonathan L. Rossi, 'Consulting Geologist
has been completed in accordance with the professional
practices currently accepted in the Geotechnical Consulting
Industry today. No warranty is either expressed of
implied.
"
Should you have any questions concerning this report please
do not hesitate to contact me at my Big Bear Lake office
(619) 248-2344, 'or through Soils Southwest at 1714) 370-
0474.
Jo than L. Rossi, Consulting Geologist
C rtified Engineering Geologist # 1460
cc: Moloy Gupta, RCE, Soils Engineer
.
JONATHAN L. ROSSI,CONSULTING GEOLOGIST · P.O. BOX 4018,BIG BEARLAKE,CALlFORNIA 92315. (714)866-5183
~
..
Jl1I
"r
.
.
...
"
.*
o
o
Hill, FARRER & BURRill
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
TELEPHONE t2t31 620-0460
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THIRTY-FIFTH FLOOR-UNION BANK SOUARE
44S SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1666
A. J_ HILI. 0881-1953)
WM. M. FARRER (I89+1971l
STANLEY 5. BURRILL (l902-1957)
ORANGE COUNTY
TELEPHONE (714) 641-6605
TELECOPIER
(213) 62<4-4840
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
September 20, 1991
Mayor & Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 No. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410-0001
Attention: City Clerk
Re: Appeal from Order of Board of Building
Commissioners - September 6. 1991
Dear Mayor Holcomb and Members of the Council:
\0
This firm and the undersigned represent Janet
Summerfield ("Appellant") who is the owner of a single family
residence located at 3618 Hemlock, San Bernardino (the
"Property"). Appellant hereby appeals the Order of the Board
Building Commissioners rendered September 6, 1991.
(213) 621-0845
\Cl
-
::0
m
o
C!:!
<
T,
'=>
,
,:,-)
C/}
!ij
N
\.oj
."
....
--<
'~J
,
en
TJ
-x:
-
of
That order, of which we have received no written notice
as required by City procedures, appears to require that Appellant
(1) obtain "all" (unspecified) grading, soils, and "retaining"
permits within thirty days; (2) allow the City permission within
ten days to enter the property to do an "evaluation"; (3) and
stop "all work" on the property until "such permits" are
obtained.
This appeal is based upon, but not limited to, the
following:
1. Permits
There is no reliable evidence to support the City's
position that permits are required for any activities which are
taking, or have taken, place on the Property. The City'S demands
are not based upon the actual condition of the Property or any
existing code requirements. In addition, a number of the
.# ///J
//)-~-9/
,4
4.
~
~
..
.'
o
o
Mayor & Common Council
September 20, 1991
Page 2
allegations made by City employees involve property not owned by
Appellant.
2. Entry on Property
The City has furnished no valid reason for requ~r~ng
entry onto this private property. Allegations in a Notice of
Abatement dated July 22, 1991, which refer to "possible
construction" inside and "evidence of leakage" in roof are based
totally upon speculation and conjecture.
The demands for entry onto the Property by City
employees have been undertaken without regard to Appellant's
rights of privacy and/or due process. The demands have been
unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious and have not been based
upon evidence of any imminent danger to either the public or the
inhabitants of the structure.
3. Violations of Due Process
a. The Building Commission based its conclusions on
unsupported statements of code enforcement personnel and
unreliable hearsay evidence of other property owners.
b. City code enforcement personnel have been
illegally trespassing on the Property.
c. City code enforcement personnel have subjected
Appellant to harassment ["I can make you paint your house"] and
threats ["Give us consent to enter or I'll get a warrant and
break your door down"] based upon "anonymous" calls without any
provocation.
d. City code enforcement personnel have placed
unreasonable demands on reasonable requests for extensions of
time by Appellant to obtain reports from her engineer and
architect: any extension was made conditional upon allowing
inspection of the inside of the residencel
e. Appellant did not receive notice of the Building
Commission hearing until August 27, 1991, and that notice was by
way of an announcement taped to a fence on the property.
f. The City's interpretations of its codes has been
arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and without any reasonable
foundation.
-
-
-
-
.
o
o
Mayor & Common Council
September 20, 1991
Page 3
This Appeal will be based upon this notice, all
documents served by the City upon Appellant, and any other
evidence presented at the hearing before the Common Council.
Very truly yours,
~S~E~~
OF
HILL, FARRER & BURRILL
DFP:reb
F:\USERS\DFP\SUHHER.APP
~
J;;..
..-
..
~
L II .J..
I~O
-
-~
.' ,~
"
,'" SEP' 2: '9: 11:39 HILL,-FQER&BURPILL
Il,\ r
/ ' ,i
I'
P.3
.
HILL, FARRER & BURRILL
... PAR1j\jeJl$~IP INCl.JJOINC 1'IROI"1:5SlQNAI,. eQAPOAATIONS
LQ$ .ANGELES C:::Oj"lN'tY
Tl!:U::I"HQNe Cil~l t:iZO~04EiO
ORANG!!: COl.)NTV
n::LE:PHQNe. 1'714) 04H5605
T~I..CCO"11::1i!
'-<:1$1 e::.........40
~j
rJ;lr
(
('
~~ J ,
ATYOIllilNEYS AT LAW
THJFfTY.F'lnH FI.OOR-UNIQN i5ANK S~UA.RE:
445 SOUTH F'IGYE;ROA STRtXT
LoOB ANG.E;;L.E:5. CAL.IFORNIA aQ071.'668
1*., oJ. HILL (le~I.'We;aJ
WM. M. '...RRER IlaGl4-197r)
S'J'ANLEY S. EliJRRll..L \1~O.a.18e.7)
WR("&I!I"~ DIRECT 01.4111. NUMSEliI
(213) 621-0845
September 20, 1991
Mayor & Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 No. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410-0001
Attention:
City Clerk
~
-0
~
:::0
fT'1
"
en
-<
'-n
;~::::J
;
"~
-0
-
Re: Appeal from Order of Board of Building;:::
Commissioners - September 6. 19~1 ~
-.I
-<
n
e-
rn
-n
'-"-.
~ear Mayor 8olcomb and Members of the Council:
This firm and the undersigned represent Janet
Summerfield ("Appellant") who is the owner of a single family
residence located at 3618 Hemlock, San Bernardino (the
"Property"). Appellant hereby appeals the Order of the Board of
Building Commissioners rendered September 6, 1991.
That order, of which we have received no written notice
as required by City procedures, appears to require that Appellant
(1) obtain "all" (unspecified) grading, soils, and "retaining"
permits within thirty days; (2) allow the City permission within
ten days to enter the property to do an "evaluation"; (3) and
stop "all work" on the property until "such permits" a.re
obtained.
This appeal is based upon, but not limited to, the
following:
1. Permits
There is no reliable evidence to support the City'S
position that permits are required for any activities which are
taking, or have taken, place on the Property. The City'S demands
are not based upon the actual condition of the Property or any
existing code requirements. In addition, a number of the
-
.., ..
- .
o
P.4
~
o
SEP 20 '91 11:40 HILL,_FARRER&BURRILL
,
Mayor & Common Council
September 20, 1991
Page 2
allegations made by City employees involve property not owned by
Appellant.
2. Ent~ on Proper~v
The City has furnished no valid reason for requ~r~ng
entry onto this private property. Allegations in a Notice of
Abatement dated July 22, 1991, which refer to "possible
construction" inside and "evidence of leakage" in roof are based
totally upon speculation and conjecture.
The demands for entry onto the Property by City
employees have been undertaken without regard to Appellant's
rights of privacy andlor due process. The demands have been
unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious and have not been based
upon evidence of any imminent danger to either the pUblic or the
inhabitants of the structure.
3. Violation. of Due ProoASS
a. The Building Commission based its conclusions on
unsupported statements of code enforcement personnel and
unreliable hearsay evidence of other property owners.
b. City code enforcement personnel have been
illegally trespassing on the Property.
c, City code enforcement personnel have subjected
Appellant to harassment ["I can make you paint your house"] and
threats ["Give us consent to enter or I'll get a warrant and
break your door down"] based upon "anonymous" calls without any
provocation.
d. city code enforcement personnel have placed
unreasonable demands on reasonable requests for extensions of
time by Appellant to obtain reports from her engineer and
architect: any extension was made conditional upon allowing
inspection of the inside of the residence I
e. Appellant did not receive notice of the Building
Commission hearing until August 27, 1991, and that notice was by
way of an announoement taped to a fence on the property.
f. The City's interpretations of its codes has been
arbitrary, oapricious, disoriminatory and without any reasonable
foundation.
.
o
SEP 20 '91 11:41 HILL,_FARRER&BURRILL
o
P.5
Mayor & Common Council
September 20, 1991
Page 3
This Appeal will be based upon this notice, all
documents served by the City upon Appellant, and any other
evidence presented at the hearing before the Common Council.
Very truly yours,
A,l. ..,jv?kllLjv
b~~SCHER PHI IPS
OF
HILL, FARRER & BURRILL
DFP:reb
F:\USeRS\DfP\SUM~R.APP
. .
o
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
N~ 339698
The Sum of Dollars " tJ 0 Cents
For ,LJjh/cr;/)r:" t'2.h~.G./-"J~
~/1~JV <~ /7~.u'/?~
,~&/~ #""./WL/c~ a
/-
Department
6-1
By
o
ACCOUNT NO.
AMOUNT
TOTAL
DISTRIBUT N: White - Customer; Canary - Cashier; Pin - Department! Goldenrod - Dept. Numeric Control
.
-
7S: aD /
.'
c
o /0 -Z/-9/ ~~
f
~~~ ~
~; ~ ~A_~tf
~?i.~r~r~~~
~~~~~~.~
d 36hf ~ ~/ <;&IU/~A.,';r-.
::2/ &cf /99/
~ fL;, /"/ ~ A/ ~ ~ ~k r:n.L
~ ~~;t ~ ed'7 d ~7~ ~d
~~7~,t~ ~~~~~
tvdt ~ ~ ~ /0-// ,tWd ~ .t:;~. hi ~
~,/d~.~~~h/~~
.!~yd.d. ~~~~ AI-'p/~ ~ a-n/
,~ IO-/~~~~~~~~
II'
r- ~/ cJl~.___ /:>-/J'~~k..t.
Iltf~ ~ ~ r#~' 44ZUjkk ~
'/~~~~~~7~.
I ~~/ ~tn~?7(~r
I
r- ~~ wd-) 4?V.~ /;2tJ f4 7 ~
~ L ~~ . ~ ' ~
. n-rrr t1 i-..L~h1A-~~O ~1)/.l1,1
? .'~. ..~ '...._~ -". "._, ;.:.-......L-......1l.,""'_~,.... "" -, "..- ~., ,~ ~ " h ....... ~ ,"",,", ;, ", ., ".' ..;..;... , ... ..............
o
o
;).
~/ (~r/, 4k ~~~~/7
~7 ~~ Mv~ //--.:;~~ ~#
~ ~df ~ ~ /f'-G~
;:'1 d ~ r~ ~ r IUM/ vi .56/1
, ,
i~ ~~d.t~. a ~ d.dd
]]1
,I
i~~pL~~~~~;d~
!ll
III
II
II' L./ ~ L
I, fU~ CUU4-/ ~~~~.
'I
I.
': ~~7-.~~ry~~~
'I
'~fd ~.
II
: I
I.
,
I ~nv702J'~~7~~~~
kh-~~r~+'~~
Ii
~~ 1~ td~/?ZUj:t~~
~~~~~~~
~p,
.!llA~
i!l/
'I
I
I
i
,I
M~
.56/7 ~ ~.
,
id
i'i
ii'
,
]1
,'I
'" ~ ~'_'''''''-'';~ '!j, ;;"..;.,Al._.~' ,,-", ~~."..............."'"......... ......... _~ '" .. ... '. '..... ,. ;t II.. .,"'_-",-,," .4 " ;,... '. " '"'' II'; A.... .'.' "-~ _ol ,_~O-.._ )., ~__'" ,~. ..-, ',. ~ ~"... .".... "'.,.' ""~~-.' ._~
/() - eX /- ? /
ff 'Yc:J
l..AW DI'"FlCES
HILL, FA~~ER & BURRILL
"__"'INCUlDItlG~CORl"OAO.TIONS
DARLENE FISCHER PHILLIPS
A. PROFESSIONAl.. CORPORATION
ATTORNEY AT I.AW
ARItA COD~ 213
TEI..EIOt-lONE U~O
THIRTY-I'"II'"TH "1..00"
44!; SOUTH FIGUEROA STREE:T
1..05 ANGEI..I[S. CALII"ORN'A 80071
/tJ-,?1-9/
/Ie