HomeMy WebLinkAbout36-Planning and Building
CITY" OF SAN BERNJAblNO - REQUEST FQc COUNCIL ACTION
From: Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director
Subject: Appeal of Board of Building Commissioners
Findings and Action of 8-16-91 for prop-
erty located at 1095 W. Spruce
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Date:
October 10, 1991
Mayor & Common Council Meeting of 10-21-91
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
10/7/91 -- Item continued to October 21, 1991 Council Meeting.
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council uphold the findings of the Board of Building Commission-
ers and require the owner to correct the Health and Safety violations and rehabilitate
the structures to meet all Building and Safety Codes.
d7/~
~/
//
J
?
~ //'
'.', Y
t...A.p
Signature
Contact person: Larry E. Reed
Supporting data attached: Appeal, Staff Report. BBC Order
Phone:
(714) 384-5357
Ward:
1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
$440.50
Source: IAcct, No.!
001-000-41733
(Acct. DescriDtionl
II
Finance: 1)/ L.:/
Council Notes:
Anpnrt;::t Itp.m Nn.
l~~
CITY-OF SAN BERNIlCDINO - REQUEST FcO COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
Appeal of the Findings of the Board of Building Commissioners to require the
subject property to meet required Health and Safety Standards, and to rehab-
ilitate the structure(s) to meet all Building and Safety Codes.
Request:
The appelant, Mr. Maurice Peters requests that the Mayor and Common Council
waive certain requirements that he believes to be arbitrary and capricious.
Mr. Peters believes that he should not have to bring the structure(s) up to
current Building and Safety Codes, that the vehicles should be disposed of in
an orderly and decent manner, and that all administrative costs should not be
assessed. Mr. Peters also requests that all Certificates of Occupancy and
business licenses be issued immediately.
Background:
5-31-91 Inspection made by the Code Compliance Division. At the time of inspection
abandoned vehicles, large amounts of junk, trash and debris were located on
the property. Inspection of the structure revealed substandard conditions
and hazardous electrical wiring.
7-1-91 Reinspection was made by the Code Compliance Division. At the time of in-
spection violations observed on the original inspection still existed. A
Ten Day Notice to Abate Nuisance was mailed to the owner with no response.
7-11-91 A follow up inspection made by the Code Compliance Division found that the
violations still existed and had not been corrected, therefore, the case was
presented before the Board of Building Commissioners meeting of 8-16-91
8-16-91 Mr. Peters appeared before the BBC and was ordered to correct the violations
and abate the nuisances at 1095 W. Spruce.
8-30-91 Appealed to the Mayor and Common Council.
Analysis:
Mr. Peters appeal is interesting but is not appropriate for justifying continued
violations of City Code. The Structure is in need of maintenance and major repair.
The pictures of the building will reinforce the condition of the property.
Mayor and Council Options:
Uphold the findings of the Board of Building Commissioners and require owner to correct
Health and Safety violations and to rehabilitate the structure(s) to meet Building and
Safety Codes.
Or
75-0264
Identify those violations that would require correction and waive those that are believed
to be arbitrary and capricious.
..
Appeal of
Mayor and
Page 2
o
Findings of t.." BBC for 1095 W. Spruce
Common Council Meeting October 7, 1991
o
(Continued to October 21, 1991 meeting)
Recommendation:
That the Board of Building Commissioners motion to order the owner to vacate the
structure(s) and remove all inoperable and abandoned cars, junk and debris be
upheld. Also uphold the order that the owner shall obtain all proper business
licenses and Certificates of Occupancy, obtain all proper permits to rehabilitate
the structure(s) to meet all current Building and Safety Codes. Uphold the order for
the owner to begin to make corrections within ten (10) days, or the City will be al-
lowed to remove the electrical meters. Uphold the order for the owner to pay $440.50
of costs incurred by the City or place a lien on the property and file a personal
obligation on the owner.
Prepared by: Debra L. Daniel for
Larry E. Reed, Assisstant Director
Planning and Building Services
Attachments: A.
B.
Letter of Appeal to Mayor and Common Council
Order of the Board of Building Commissioners Meeting of 8-16-91
LER.:bss
-"'4;:"'="'.::O;CC"_',__~"..
...
o
o
_______________________POR OPPICE USB QRLY-----------------------
Dep
ents
.
Copies:
Date/Time Stamp:
RECElVED.-''''! y '~'.EF~
.
OriginaA.~nt to)7t1.u~
l'
'91 fill 30 P 3 :55
p~ent I~7ation:
~.>'-t? 63'1"'" of
------------------------------------------------------
CI'.I!Y O!' SAIl BBRJWU)IRQ
NOTICB OP APPBAL
**********************IKPOR~ ~IOR*********************
'rBBRB IS All APPEAL PEB OF $75.00 FOR ALL BmLDIRG, WBBD AltO
VEHICLE ABA'r1SlllUl"J;' APPEALS DDB TO '!'lIB C()IIII()1II C01DlCIL AltO A
$106.00 APPEAL PEE FOR ALL PLUDIDIG APPEALS DDB TO '!'lIB ~
COURCIL.
****************************************************************
please Comnlete Paaes one And Two
Appeal Piling Date:
Name of Appellant:
u~~.
In. j(.
~ 19Q;',
jl~rc.-d 5
Address of Appellant:
I CJ 9 B {//.,fJ:!:2. Sf
cI /h.J /:L-k!/v A-f2D 111../ 0 I' ~
Contact Person
and Phone Number:
work number:
tf1 cj 'UJ J3
home number:
Type of Appeal (please check one of the following):
Planning Appeal
Building Abatement Appeal
Weed Abatement Appeal
Vehicle Abatement Appeal
Other:
5~.1~~
1
..
o
o
A VALID APPEAL JIOS'r IHCLUDE '.rBE FOLLOWDlG IHl'01UIA~IOH:
I. Affected Property: /09 J (!f7l(u<us:
II. State the specific action appealed and the date of that
action:
aa ~~ ~~
III. State the specific grounds of the appeal:
/U.-L o...-I-k- ~/.::::r-
IV. State the action(s) sought from the Common Council
(Committee or Commission):
~ aA'-a J/!-..<_...~
.>-h- vtcJ~ a4t~.A .: J_L-<J , U?74 -
~ ~tpv~~.J-(~J~1 /' ~~~
{/ t/
Attachments or exhibits if any:
Signature:
{~
I
{ ,{
!/o....-A
/! Il
\1i./~
2
. . - . --. ---- - .--------- ._-- . . ----- ---------
- ...:-- -.
-.~
~-' . :.
o
o
fJ . . RECEIVEO-C\i'( ClEH
~. 6././'A..vr/'~'0 \ fI\lG--3Q P3'Sli !iv-r 3~, 1'191
n'~~'I'''J.~.\....- 7/~~._;.U_. 'i
(,Q....{;~. , ~
jd ~ti ~ t TZ2'
~'~1 ~. '. (,v ~ ,;[. ~
~c.<J ,~ ~Fd /1'-L ~. It/1991
~ '7{1.', ~~ "'v
1 '
:tC 1/- 3t:tz.o ~
~ .~
4 - -'tL
~ ~ ~/~, A~. ~~d
;~fL~~pVV
(pJ :!At.- ,r7L.L.
~v<- I~l.(.,~ cA.../' ~ ~ ~
~d~-I-.t..--y.~ /7./1....L ' i ~jU.A:'::I- ~ / ~.
f) ./ '7 -.L ~
_~~ ~ ~ ..(CLC--Z-
IJ
(5.J r~ ~ J~~.J ~~
/1~P'!gAd>? ~rd<<-,0?vJ!, ~ -
~.L pd:<~<-v>V ~ /}J_ ~.r- ..
--N<j--~.:/'-->7r~- ~~ L~.L.~c'..
.______ L __ _
(tJ ~ /AL- d/>~~-,0 .o/~ -d-
~ ~ WVLu.:I-LL , ~ ~ ~
~ I ~.
-LU- '. '. ..to \ -
~~~ ~~ UJ '1<4-
~f-~,~7lL~~~
'. .' ~ ~,. V,/ /..
. r,'. .....
,;.. ~ ~' - ';
o
--0--- ------ ------ --
.------- -
, ,---.-
ci)
~~~/bu;l-~.
,~-"_ ~ :/n..c..r~ ~i3 /
U/t.:A~~ ~ M4. L~ I ~ , :I1<AT
Li . ~~Pf4L ~ .
/~~~~ ~<~..~
,
'1
.;[. ~
v
~~ ~M/~
I
.
~
..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BOAR" O'UILDING COMMISSIONERS 0
ORDER OF THE BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS OF
THE CITY OF SD BERNARDINO AU'lJIORIZING THE
ABATEMENT OP A PUBLIC NUISDCE
REPORT NO. 3620
ORDER NO. 1585
WHEREAS, pursuant to the San Bernardino Municipal Code,
Title 15, Chapter 15.28, the Building Official has posted a
buildinq(s) located at 1098 W. 5th Street
San Ber-
nardino, California, with a "Notice to Abate Nuisance" and
has notified the person(s) havinq an interest in said
property that the said buildinq(s) or premises constitute a
public nuisance and has prepared a declaration of postinq and
mailinq of the notice, a copy of which is on file in these
proceedinqs; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said San Bernardino Municipal Code,
the Buildinq Official has served a "Notice of Hearinq Before
the Board of Buildinq Commissioners of the City of San
Bernardino", relating to abatement of said nuisance, to the
person(s) havinq an interest in said property, and has
prepared a declaration of mailinq of the notice, a copy of
which is on file in these proceedinqs; and
WHEREAS, a hearinq was held to receive and consider all
relevant evidence, objections or protests on September 6, 1991;
and
WHEREAS, The Board of Buildinq Commissioners heard the
testimony and examined the evidence offered by the parties
relative to such alleqed public nuisance,
NOW, THEREFORE, BB IT RESOLVED BY TO BOARD OF BUILDING
COMMISSIONERS OF TO CITY OF SD BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
- 1 -
...
..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
I~RS .
BOARD OF~' ~NG COMMISSIONERS
OGER OF .."-OARD OF BUILDING COMMI
OGER NO. 1585 OPORT NO. 3620
SECTION 1. Based upon the evidence which was submitted,
. .
it is found and determined that the building(s) or premises
located at 1098 W. 5th Street
, San Bernardino,
California, constitute.a public nuisance:
SECTION 2. The owner is hereby directed to complete the
abatement of the public nuisance by vacating the tenants of
the trailer and to obtain all proper building permits for the
fence within ten (10) days. Also the owner shall remove from
the property all abandonedjwreckedjdismantledjinoperative
autos and auto parts, junk, trash and debris, oil drums and
oil spills within thirty (30) days.
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 -
L.J ..
.JO~ OP BtJZLDZNG COHKZSSI... ..B2
ORDBR NO. 1585
REPORT NO. 3620
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing order was duly adopted
by the Board of Building Commissioners of the City of San
Bernardino at a re2u1ar
meeting thereof, held on the 6th
day of SeDtember
, 19~, by the following vote, to wit:
COHKZSSIONBU: III
Chairman-Herb Pollock ......L
Dan Westwood ......L
Pete Cortez ......L
Jack Hunt ......L
Benjamin Gonzales -L
Manuel Flores -L
Gene pensiero -L
Thomas Chandler -L
11M
ABSTAIN
ABSBNT
The foregoing order
Sentember , 1991.
~.... -L,~~:_<L
CLERK, BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS
is hereby approved this ~ day of
~D ~ COJOUSSlDNERS
Approved as to form and legal content:
JAMES :.~, ~i}J ~t;torney
BY:~~'~
v'
IIII
IIII
CE/BBC
o 0
CBARLBS '1'. HIRDLEY
Attorney at Law
1224 East Oranqethorpe Avenue
Placentia. California 92670-5330
Telephone: 714/579-7381
PAX: 714/579-7377
Bar: CA 55738
Attorney for appellant M. Robert Peters
~ City of San Bernardino ]
]
-v- ]
]
M. Robert Peters ]
]
APPELLANT'S OPENING STATEMENT
PROJECT NUMBER: 91-3920
Nature of Case
This is an appeal to the Common Council of the city
of San Bernardino. California. from the resolution of the Board
of Buildinq Commissioners on Auqpst'16. 1991.
History of Subject Real Property
1.
The property is located within the city of San
Bernardino at
2.
The property has been owned by the appellant since
1971. over twenty years.
3.
Mr. Peters was born in San Bernardino on September
9. 19251 he is presently sixty-five years of aqe and has been
a life lonq resident of this city.
4.
Prior to the Peters ownership. the property was owned
by Albert Roller who purchased it in 1937. Por some thirty-four
'" _1__&/
7t3f,
paqe 1
Openinq Brief of Appellant
o
o
years Mr. Roller used the subject property for the same pUrPOse
that Mr. Peters is presently using it:
Storinq o~ automobiles
Automobile mechanical repairs
Material storage
Automotive body and paint shop
5. For nineteen years Mr. Peters has enjoyed the use
and benefit of his prOPerty keeping it rented to various tenants
until 1990, when his troubles began through the exercise of
the authority given to the code enforcement officer.
History of Case
1. In 1987, a portion of the subject property was rented
to Ramundo Ramirez who conducted with his three sons an
automobile repair business: this business was operated under
a San Bernardino business license.
2. In 1990, Ramundo failed to renew his city business
licens timely, and one of his sons, Everado Ramirez, after being
advised by a business license inspector that the license had
expired, made an application to the city to renew the old license.
3. Everado, enven though he paid the license fee, never
received the renewed license. After several weeks, another son,
Richard, went to the city and asked about the license: he was
told without any explanation that the license was not going
to be renewed.
Page 2
Opening Brief of APpellant
o
o
4. On or about November 19, 1990, another son of Ramundo,
Ray, went to the city to obtain a license for the family business
at which time he was told that prior to the city issuing a
license, a certificate of occupancy for the building was required
even though this type of business had been conducted on the
property over the last fifty-three years. Ray made application
for the certificate of occupancy and paid the required fees.
5. To this date in October 1991, over a year after Everado
applied for the renewal of the license, these tenants still
do not have their license. They have never received a verbal
or written reason why their applications have been denied.
6. On or about December 18, 1990, the city's code
enforcement officer Danny Nolfo informed the city's building
and safety inspector C. B. Emery not to pass the subject property
for electrical and/or structural complience. See No1fo's note
to Mr. Emery at the bottom of Request For Business Certificate
Of Occupancy dated November 19, 1990, attached hereto as EXHIBIT
-A- .
7. Mr. Peters, as the owner of the property, did not
receive a copy of EXHIBIT -B- which does not, in fact, state
any reason why the building should not pass inspection for a
certificate of occupancy as applied for.
8. During Mr. Emery's inspection, he was accompanied
by Ray Ramirez, the appellant and Everado Ramirez at which time
Mr. Emery stated that he was not a structural engineer, that
he could find no fault with the building, that he was under
a lot of pressure and that he would advise that an engineer
Page 3
Opening Brief of Appellant
o
o
evaluate the buildinq.
9.
Based on Mr. Emery's advise, Bob Peters obtained the
services of civil enqineer Michael J. Bailey, who inspected
the buildinq on or about January IS, 1991. A copy of Enqineer
Bailey's initial report is attached hereto as EXHIBIT -C-.
10. The said enqineer's report indicates that there are
no structural deficiencies in the buildinq, but it is advised
that Simpson Stron Tie Straps (ST-22) be installed.
11. Based on the enqineer' s report, Mr. Peters made
application for a buildinq certificate of occupancy payinq the
required fees to the city.
12. In violation of the Municipal Code Sections 15.20.050
and 15.20.080 which state that an applicant must be notified
in writinq of the denial and the resons for the denial. Mr.
Peters nine months later has not received this notice and reason
for the denial.
13. The city records show that on or about January 27,
1991, Inspector Emery conferred with Enqineer Bailey, and a
follow up inspection by Mr. Bailey was requested inorder to
determine if the oriqinal reccommendations of the enqineer were
complied with.
14. Enqineer Bailey did inspect the subject buildinq the
second time, and he submitted his report in a letter dated March
4, 1991, to the city of San Bernardino. A copy of this said
report is attached hereto as EXHIBIT -D- which states that the
post bases
and
straps had been installed as
v
reccommended by
V the enqineer.
paqe 4
Openinq Brief of APpellant
o
o
15.
On or about May 30. 1991. code cOlllpliance officer
Danny Nolfo. without verbal or written permission of the owner
or the tenants. entered upon the subject property at which time
he interviewed persons on the property. took pictures inside
and outside the building and recorded the names of various persons
on the property.
16.
Mr. Peters appeared before the Board of Building
Commissioners on August 16. 1991. to contest the city's order
to vacate the property until a certificate of occupancy is
obtained. Danny Nolfo's worksheet dated June 6. 1991. is attached
hereto as EXHIBIT -E-.
The Board of Building Commissioners
Violated Peters' Civil Rights
1.
The hearing before the Board was a true travesty of
justice. The Board heard the testimony of Mr. Nolfo but denied
Peters' right to cross-examine him. to testify in his own behalf.
to take the testimony of his witnesses and to present other
evidence. Obviously. Mr. Peters' civil and other constitutional
rights were violated.
1.
Basis of Appeal to Common Council
The hearing before the Board of Building Commissioners
was unfair. biased. lacked due process and violated Peters'
constitutional rights.
2.
The allegations of the code enforcement officer lacked
Paqe 5
Openinq Brief of Appellant
o
o
any basis in fact and were deceitfully and incompetently made.
3.
The
resolution
made
by the
Board
of
Building
Commissioners violated
the appellant's
constitutional
rights
under the equal protection clause.
4.
The subject property should not be vacated as the law
does not require that the building be brought up to the present
building code.
Further. that any inoperable automobiles and
other items of personal property shall be removed in an orderly
manner and that the city is required to issue the building
certificate of occupany and applied for business licenses
immediately.
LEGAL AUTHORITIES
United States Constitution. 14th Amendment. Due Process
Equal protection under the law requires the same means
and methods to be applied imPartially to all constituents of
each class so that the laws shall operate equally and uniformly
upon all persons in simular circumstances.
People -v- Finley 153 C 59. In re I:olta 187 C 27 and
Cal Jur2d Section 259 at 696
ill
Brock -v- Superior Court: 12 C2d 605 and Cal Jur2d Section
Equal protection applies to all departments of the
state government thus intentional and arbi trary discrimination
in the enforcement of a statute fair on its face is as much a
denial of equal protection as is the enactment of a statute which
is discriminatory in the first place.
Hill -v- City of Oxnard 46 CA 624 and Robbins -v- City
of Los Anqeles 195 US 223
Police power regulation must not arbitrarily interfer
with the property rights protected by the United States
Constitution.
Page 6
Opening Brief of Appellant
o
o
United States Constitution. Article 1. Section 10 and
Welsh -v- Croll. 146 C"',621,,, ,81 P24 229 <t", , " '\'" ,
All laws of ,w~t."er na~,~ich to any substantial
degr_ iJDpair the obligation of contract are included in the
constitutional prohibition against ~~,~"1;.,.,;"
, '
In re Application of Schuler 167 Cal 282 139 P 685
'lbe ezpena"ofQOllPlying 1f~ir"~~#-ce requlations Il1lst
be in connection with the surrounc1in9!.fa~. ' ,
United St;ates Constitution. ,5th.." ~"daent and l6-A
Allerican Juris~ence2j!." hct10n 401 ,
Bor shal}, private property be taken for public use
without just ~.tic;m,."" ',f',;.;;~' ,;"M~Y ;'
A _'. r~laUon :r;equ~r~g" ~~: .~~y OIfIler ',IUI., o:utlay
of IIOney which is not, justified i. UDconstitutional as a taking
of property without just~sation., ;,,,Hf!
1"',_; "',,::;.:', '.;11(.:,'
ectloD and
;.! lPf\~;;."~j'\;" . OO"~gf\~iv!~t,t"'V~~i
,," \:: > ,,; I, ,,', I ~nn !~,\- !'"!tl" \
, ConcluSionar?if YI. ',iii?'
,"'Il 'l(i1\'tlt11i!:
.~ ,.,,~ ,.i 1 : jfii~(~ hH!,!t;
'lbere have, bElen and. there continues to be .a!1y. serious
violations of Mr. Peteris,~, and, potenti,,11,,'!;8Dfm~s' state and federal
i, ,',," . ,
constitutional riqhts. police powers to be leqitimate Il1lst confoJ:III
to certain BtlUl,dards.
., , :' \. .",. I '1, ;l':~i,i I q. \ i 1ff:
n:Leqit~te exercise of that power exposes
the qovernmental body toliabili;try.
;';:,,::: \~: \'
'lbe
J. li:'.j ;,'~ :! ~ ; i' ,
deprivation of peters' property and civil riqhtB
the U. "s. .,' co~; ::,~~i~l~;I;!~~,:IC~'::~U~'" 198~. ,.th" Due
protected by
Process Clause. the ~lprotection ~qs"t"J~~e'lbe 4th AlleDdaelllt
'1' ~ i'; . . '.; , (,,;'1 ,', ! ~ '';I\,:.~'".' ,,; 'r iH :' j ;:.'1
protection aqainst illeqal searches and seizures and the impairaent
i;' f'!:-:,f'i i. Ui,~I,.V,'< t~nrr tft~t'
of contract protection fODII "the .basi~;, for redress of abuses ,of, power
v
paqe
1/'ft ".
~ Openinq Brief of Appellant
i,'ll,
"'f, .
o
o
by those actinq under the color of authority.
It is abundantly clear that there was an intent to
deny Mr. Peters and his potential tenants the use of the buildinq
and the property. The actions based on any other reasons proferred
by the Board of Buildinq Commissioners and Mr. Bolfo is purely
pretextual and patently false.
In a qeneral bliqhted area, as here, the expectation
of a standard qreater than existinq structures and economic reality
of the area would exceed the leqal requirements of equal protection
of the law and would be an illeqitimate use of the police power.
For all of the above reasons it is requested that
the mayor and this council vacate the resolution of the Board
of Buildinq Commissioners, allow 45 days for the orderly, fair
and leqal disposition of personal property as planned, eliminate
all administrative costs and refund all moneys paid to the city
by Mr. Peters and his potential tenants.
Dated: October 21, 1991
Respectfully submitted,
~..'
paqe 7
Openinq Brief of Appellant
~
~~~~
- .I,..,]' -:"'{~.,
. . v 7,
~'/;',:;c"
"'~li'- ,..;
. ~'\.,.:I;.},~:~-,
"q.,
. .'._~'t ,';:-
P"E
SYSTEMS
-
o
o
c...
P.O. BOX 1584
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92402
(714)68 1.5050
JANUARY 15; 1991
GENTLEMEN,
Re 1098 W.5th. STREET, SAN BERNARDINO,CA.
AT THE REQUEST OF MR. ROBERT PETERS, THE OWNER OF A NON-
CONFORMING BUILDING AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS, WE VISITED THE SITE,
AND REVIEWED THE STRUCTURE.
ORIGINALLY BUILT IN THE MID 1920's, THE STRUCTURE COMPRISES
A COMBINATION OF CONCRETE, BLOCK, STEEL AND WOOD MATERIALS. THE
DESIGN WAS A COMBINATION WOOD/STEEL POST AND BEAM, WHILE THE
ROOF CONSISTS OF CORRUGATED STEEL PANELS ATTACHED TO WOOD TRUSSES
IN THE CENTRAL BAY, AND 2 x RAFTERS ON THE SHED TYPE SIDE BAYS.
THR~UGHOUT THE BUILDING, WE WERE UNABLE TO FIND ANY DISPLACE-
MENT OF TRUSSES OR MEMBERS. 7'1[ TRUSSES SHO'/EJ ~!O SOlJlNG IN THE
CHORDS, AND THE CONNECTIONS APPEARED IN GOOD COtiIiITION.
WE HAVE RECOMMENDED THE INSTALLATION OF SIMPSON STRONG TIE
STRAPS (ST-22 l, WITH RECOMMENDED NAILING PATTERNS AT TWO BEAM
CONNECTIONS IN THE NORTH END OF THE BUILDING: ( PLEASE SE ATTACHED
PHOTOGRAPliS l. T~ESE ITEMS TO BE INSTALLED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
WE TRUST THE ABOVE MEETS WITH YOUR APPROVAL. SHOULD YOU
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL US AT THE ABOVE NUMBER.
YOURS TRULY
P.E.SYSTEMS
~.w_OR..~
~~~~;;;.;;;;.;;.:.......*_.__..~._~
Hi cha....... J ." oa lley.
o
-'"
/)
,,' E.'.' ' P.O,B,OX.,1684 I
g~":'~EM S ,~~t'8~1~~D~~9. C~ 92402
"
"
, .
"
, .
t,;'.,'
",
C ITY OJ;,,.SAN BERNARD I NO
QEPT., QF!BUILOI NG&,~AFETY
300 N; ",'O",ST: '
SAN BE~NAROINO, CA
MARCH 1i,1991
c.
~
RE: 1090 W~5t" STREEr,SAN;~~~~ARtil'~b~:'~~
~ ~i,< ;,',': '~_b'-;:i:;t";:::/Jt;h~>-,':t,:' J,-\",.
'T-. -, .-,:~,:_:,':;;-';:,;:\'<;;:,~'}~}::,::::F:0J:;:::',;~;,"; ", .;~, ' ,'.... 'i ,,~
FURTHER: TO OUR;, LETTE,R' O~;~Nl;:;1~$~~ I.m, CONCERNI!;IG 'THE A~pVE
. '" ':;,:i'/,_~>~"\",:_:'~'~"~';:'",,\,;"',:,,,,: "-" ",f,'_ ',:'!'
BU I LOI NC: WE REV I S I TED THE S ii.(~NO.;JirE\/~V THE ~X8 O. F. POST LOc,ATEO
'-j; , ,,'; , """': "';::::.' ',,;,.,::;:-;'j:1t,,'.~:'_;.':""",;>~,;2::";~;~:.;:,i!--;,~;L""","':'",,,,':::t!:d,,~:.:'~'-;'~,,":":'',j"','_ _', ,."'," ',' .:,:", ;i
IN THE NORTH END OF,THE BUILDING AS"D.lSCUSSED' wt'JI:\ :tHE BUILDING
.' ,.' '-' ' " ,',- -,": ;''.'::,< ":/,"".:{:i;'..-.'::: ," '-, "~,', >,-'::' "
AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT.
THIS I'OST \1AS IllSTALLEO. COMPLETE WITH ^ S IMI'SON POST BASE, AND:
CONNECTED TO TIlE BEAM WITH S I HPSON STRAPS.
. ' "'>""__'__',__,h'"
,".-,
,
:, .
;
i
THE BATHROOM ALSO HAS BEiNPANELI,~D imH PAINTED PLYWOOD.
:;:' ' "e:~:5tk;:j'':,;;';::J;~,;~iil:_~\:_:'t:1?mitrr;;I'_,r'.'~ ):,'~; , :, '~'",') ,,'< ,,',",',": "; I''-~. '"..,-'
WE TRUST THE ABOVE! MEETS WITH,yo.UR APPROVAL. SHOULD YOU"HAVE
.
.
, ,f.",:'.:,:
qUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL US AT THE ADOVE.NUMBER.
.,
"
"
'1
I!
c
.-'
Ii
I'
I ~
,I
I,
Ii
I!
Ii
I,
l,') , ", "c. t- CAOl-l.
, I'd:' ,: ,-j,'15QD
~ lJ '} ~ FED 20 .111
l Bus. Address. i P-f~_!~_~_~5_"!1. . -:'5-r_ _._S:t...=-J3:'..'Ot'J,
Bus. Narne ._~.:~-(::z.~~-.f?_~~~_
Ph. No.ll1-~'_'-2.ll.1__. Date Received -LL- /t/-,/D __
Note: TMs;s A Sta.emetlt Requf.lsting A Br;si,mss CrE,lTlFlCA7E oJFOCCUPAi'JCY "UN( Y# iJnd does no;.: ,,-i-,,., ~'Otl 1:11(, right to (;'.,'.:!'Ict
lJUt,;nB:lS or lII04ke Blterations to the 3rrllcrure.
Your A,Jplicat;rm for Certifici1re of O.;.::upanr.y will b,wo;)me ..."itl if not "I/tHC,",Hi within 60 da'lt>.
l$cfO~& }Nqql-<--r,;'> , '((;')1/ ~lrl(;",
REQUEST h..~il BUaINESS' U
CiERTlFlCATE Ot" OCGW'A[1CY
h/i)
-1/.. '3;';,;'-/7,
-..,,-
'1tJ-l/ .~
City of San Oem.mino
OEPA:nMErliT OF BUILDING ANI} $AFETY
300 No. "O~ St., San tJernar(lll1o. c,\ 92418
Ph. 17141384.5011
/'-,
MulliC(lPV form: Press f"irmly - r~p(! ur IJse Ball poilll POI'l - Applitalion Void and Will Not Be Procllssed !Jnll.l~;s Fillod Out Completel.,. _ Use t#A when qUlSlions Not ^pplitabl.
A. OWNERSHIP:
1. Owner of Building and Land:
Proporty Address t 0 9 9-,
Building Owncr 1\-1 ' K .
Owner's ,,"hiJing Address Sl'UI
Cj!y__~~_~'D~~
--;-h
\!...J. ~. _.- ~t. ___
Pe T E- ~__________ Phone--B.-B-:'
l09Sl...~~~ ~-;-tT-
'22~ "L-Cr
A Copy of euitding Certificate of Occupancy is Attached? eYes
2. 8usines~ Inform<ltion:
Business Addnns---'-Q'ilJ_w..~Q.7N. Sol' ____ SufteIFloor
Busin8ss0wner_~a.-:-.\l)ll'iVI)O r~~tl1lYt;:.~___BiJ~_t.Jj)_ Ownorship: ~iduel
Mailing Address Other Than Business SI,..., . SJ.1M!1> //..L.1J.J!.t2.!!L
City _.s.::~:~ g':'l~~Jc..'Ck<L-_____ SI"I"___c.......C..
S\"'''--L.~
[] No
Zip
q2..ot:~ 1\
Lj Partnership []Corporalion
",_cLz.~~/
D. GENERAL (JUSliIJESS INfORMATION:
1. U New BuikUng First Tenant in Sp<lce 2. k Existing Building
3. If New, BuilrJing Permit Numberll.________~___ ...____
... If Exisling Sliilding: ):(No flemodel/Alter LJ Remodeling lJ tldditioP!ft.lleration
5. Building Permit II For Tenant Speca R~'nodel/Alteration
6. 00 utilities need 10 be releasad 0 Yes t<r No 0 Electric Cl Gas. .'.J .
7. Describe 13l.A~;ness to be conducted A uTa A()~ ___K.~ pA. r
Ii. To,,' F1oo, A,eo ".""d, -2S~9 0__, Sq, Ft. 9 No. of Em",oy'"" :3
If kitchen____._ Sq. Ft. IfStor.:tfjo (insJdel___ Sq. Ft.
to. NumberorBusinessVehlcles---1V.~~ 11.0utsldeSelesDlsfJlJl []V<lS ~N(;
n. CMck the !JO)(;)S that best explains your business (use) of Ihe space III building:
--~_.~---
Full Tima __ Pall Time
t2. Ol.;tside Storage eVes
1\.;'No
"
a. Ci AS3EMl:!L Y
~o R.OSii:l.". ran! ICafeterialCafe)
o The"'leriAuditorium
(j Chll~ch
-C Stadtum
SeCltmp CalJacity
U Dant:cHall
! ] PlacI) of Amusement
b. 0 BUSINESS c.O
o Office Bldg.
o Stores
rJ Retnn
tJWholcsale
o Workshup
LJ Ollter_"__~
o. i.j EDUCATIONAL
fJ Dl1yCme
U GUill,; School
U Mid/Jr. High
o High Schnol
o COllega
Note: #1 Hazardous & Industrial uses are requ;rt'ld to fill out a Halardous Mat6j ia/lnventory and Q/J~sjlonnaire. ContRa!: S;m Bernardino Oeparrment
of fnviromnelll,ll/-lealth Services. "3 S G _ /7'0 I
17. Inspection d:ltc --- 18. Inspection COlllac! persotl-11AY~f.J..~il'.(.;.J1Q..~ Phone _~ 70 _ :tit ;:ZS '7 J
19. Tile understgned business owner or authorized agent declares the "bove information /0 iJe complete, true and correcr
RESliX-NTlAl
o House
CJ Dupltlx
rJ LodlJi!\g/n..I.,'ning House
No. Units._
!_J Dormitory
Nt). :Jfbeds
[j Api Builcling
No. Ilf Units ___
I ) HOI~I/Motel
No.ofU'lils
i] BO<lt"J & Care
d. 0 HAZARDOUS 111:
o Service Stalion
[1 Rep<3irHallfjcr
G Repair Ga"l~e/Mjnor
><1. Auto Boely Rap..ir
rJ Woodworkilllf Sirop
fJ Painting Shop
[] Manufacturing
r-J Welding/CuttIng
[J Sllnding/Grindlng
o Semi Conductors
[J Using Explosives
Highly FllImmablll Materials
o Storage TnnkS/FacJlity
F I] INDUSTfiIP.L III
lJ Warehouse
o Stock oVt!r 12 ft.
r:1 Fabrication/Assembly
[] Pal king Garage
::::.::::,,~~::::~: ~r _ _~~~,~;,~ ,D,:~:,.~ q;~ ~:~_ I ~t//
I . I
The foregoing request comftilutas a statement that yOUr Business is a use that is permitted within the occupancy/use Classification of tha Building
whore \,ou are located or are proposing as your locetion.
APN4
-FOR CtTY USE ONL Y_
------.------
.
r.outing
i"l pranninO (UHiI;cl
R BuilrJinu & ::;,IItJly _.__._~.___
l.1Flrelnspcctor ~_
[J County Health ~_
Busin(~ss Aemodolnd w/out permJts
Cha1tga of Occupancy crass ReQuired
CorODenJed
:C:'iJ
Approvod
Deuied
Zoning Ois!.
-"----._~._-_...- -.
F.lIiIU. Or:ctl~J.lnc:v
Uusinusli Occupancy __
OK: LJ Yes j No
Building Permit lnin:
.;L:L.l> >'1 '1"-0
C nf 0 Approved 1# _
Roason for Denial
.h2 ~
i"#/ '> 1\/0',
.--.-______._~_u
No
"
.
vBrl.L'A'~'7'~'.t7$.
JIor'" Fa
BlSF.U5 fUlIl
gn~~
o 0
DAVID BA'l'PIBLD
Licensed Architect
5055 David Way
San Bernardino, California
714/881-1161
October 18, 1991
M. Robert Peters
1095 West Spruce Street
San Bernardino, California 92411
Re: Report of inspection of building
1095 West Spruce Street, San Bernardino
Dear Mr. Peters:
I have inspected the subject building with the following
observations:
1/ The building is a non-conforming structure.
2/ The walls are post and beam construction with
masonry infill for lateral stability.
3/ The main roof is composed of wooden trusses
supported by the post and beams (not the masonry).
4/ The roofing is of corrugated steel.
5/ The foundation shows no signs of movement or
settlement.
6/ There have been no structural failures.
7/ This is a 65 year old building (more or less)
which has some additions and reparations, but it
is still substantially sound.
8/ The electrical service
installed (circa 1974) city
extended in metal conduit.
is a professionally
permitted completely
Another observation that I have in reference to this building
is that the adverse reports of inspection by the city's code
enforcement officers have been made by non-professionals
who are not qualified to make competent and unbiased judgments.
If I can be of any further service to you in regards to this
matter, please, advise.
Very truly yours,
. !
DAVID HATFIELD
DH/ct
v
~
o
o
DAVID RA'l'PIBLD
LiCensed ~Chitect
5055 Davia'.a}'
Bernardino, california
.
San
714/881-1161
October 18, 1991
M. Robert Peters
1095 We$t Spr~ce Street
San Bernardino, California 92411
Re: Report of inspection of building
1095 West Spruce Street, San Bernardino
Dear Mr. Peters:
I have inspected the subject building with the following
observations:
1/ The building is a non-conforming structure.
2/ The walls are' post and beam construction with
masonry infill for lateral stability.
3/ The main roof is composed of wooden trusses
supported by the post and beams (not the masonry).
4/ The roofing is of corrugated steel.
5/ The foundation shows no signs of movement or
settlement.
6/ There have been no structural failures.
7/ This is a 65 year old building (more or less)
which has some additions and reparations, but it
is still substantially sound.
8/ The electricaL~~!;_ervi,~~__.. is a professionally
installed-TCirca 1974), city permitted-Clompletely
extended in ~etal conduit.
Another observation that I have in reference to this building
is that the adverse reports of inspection by the city I s code
enforcement officers have been made .by non-professionals
who are not qualified to make competent and unbiased judgments.
If I can be of any further service to you in -reqards to this
matter, please, advise.
\ .
,/
-"
\
t.... _
.
CIIARLES '1'. BJ:RDLEY
Attorney at Law
1224 East Oranljethorpe Avenue
Placentia, california 92670-5330
o
o
Telephone: 714/579-7381
PAX: 714/579-7377
Bar: CA 55738
Attorney for appellant M. Robert Peters
City of San Bernardino ]
]
-v- ]
]
M. Robert Peters ]
]
APPELLlUft" S OPENING STA'l'EMENT
PROJECT RUMBER: 91-3920
Nature of Case
This is an appeal to the Common Council of the city
of San Bernardino, California, from the resolution of the Board
of Buildinlj Commissioners on AU911st16, 1991.
History of Subject Real Property
1.
The property is located within the city of San
Bernardino at
2.
The property has been owned by the appellant since
1971, over twenty years.
3.
Mr. Peters was born in San Bernardino on September
9, 1925; he is presently sixty-five years of alje and has been
a life lonlj resident of this city.
4.
Prior to the Peters ownership, the property was owned
by Albert Roller who purchased it in 1937. Por some thirty-four
Palje 1
Openinlj Brief of Appellant
hi _ ., /~L:I ~
~-;:;u.
.L
o
o
years Mr. Roller used the subject property for the same purpose
that Mr. Peters is presently usinq it:
Storinq of automobiles
Automobile mechanical repairs
Material storaqe
Automotive body and paint shop
5. For nineteen years Mr. Peters has enjoyed the use
and benefit of his property keepinq it rented to various tenants
until 1990, when his troubles beqan through the exercise of
the authority qiven to the code enforcement officer.
History of Case
1. In 1987, a portion of the subject property was rented
to Ramundo Ramirez who conducted with his three sons an
automobile repair business: this business was operated under
a San Bernardino business license.
2. In 1990, Ramundo failed to renew his city business
'- licens timely, and one of his sons, Everado Ramirez, after beinq
advised by a business license inspector that the license had
expired, made an application to the city to renew the old license.
3. Everado, enven thouqh he paid the license fee, never
received the renewed license. After several weeks, another son,
Richard, went to the city and asked about the license: he was
told without any explanation that the license was not qoinq
to be renewed.
paqe 2
Openinq Brief of Appellant
1
o
o
4. On or about November 19. 1990. another son of RaJmndo.
Ray. went to the city to obtain a license for the family business
at which time he was told that prior to the city issuing a
license. a certificate of occupancy for the building was required
even though this tyPe of business had been conducted on the
property over the last fifty-three years. Ray made application
for the certificate of occupancy and paid the required fees.
5. To this date in October 1991. over a year after Everado
applied for the renewal of the license. these tenants still
do not have their license. '!'hey have never received a verbal
or written reason why their applications have been denied.
6. On or about December 18. 1990. the city's code
enforcement officer Danny Nolfo informed the city's building
and safety inspector C. B. Emery not to pass the subject property
for electrical and/or structural complience. See Nolfo's note
to Mr. Emery at the bottom of Request For Business Certificate
Of Occupancy dated November 19. 1990. attached hereto as EXHIBIT
-A- .
7 . Mr. Peters. as the owner of the property. did not
receive a copy of EXHIBIT -B- which does not. in fact. state
any reason why the building should not pass inspection for a
certificate of occupancy as applied for.
8. During Mr. Emery's inspection. he was accompanied
by Ray Ramirez. the appellant and Everado Ramirez at which time
Mr. Emery stated that he was not a structural engineer. that
he could find no fault with the building. that he was under
a lot of pressure and that he would advise that an engineer
Page 3
Opening Brief of Appellant
o
o
evaluate the buildinq.
9.
Based on Mr. Elllery's advise, Bob Peters obtained the
services of civil enqineer Michael J. Bailey, who inspected
the buildinq on or about January 15, 1991. A copy of Enqineer
Bailey's initial report is attached hereto as EXHIBIT -C-.
10.
The said enqineer' s report indicates that there are
no structural deficiencies in the buildinq, but it is advised
that Simpson Stron Tie Straps (ST-22) be installed.
11.
Based on the enqineer's report, Mr. Peters made
application for a buildinq certificate of occupancy payinq the
required fees to the city.
12.
In violation of the Municipal Code Sections 15.20.050
and 15.20.080 which state that an applicant must be notified
in wri tinq of the denial and the resons for the denial. Mr.
Peters nine months later has not received this notice and reason
for the denial.
13.
The city records show that on or about January 27,
1991, Inspector Emery conferred with Enqineer Bailey, and a
follow up inspection by Mr. Bailey was requested inorder to
determine if the original reccommendations of the engineer were
complied with.
14.
Enqineer Bailey did inspect the subject buildinq the
second time, and he submitted his report in a letter dated March
4, 1991, to the city of San Bernardino. A copy of this
said
report is attached hereto as EXHIBIT -D- which states that the
c"
post bases and straps had been installed as reccommended by
/ the enqineer.
Paqe 4
Openinq Brief of Appellant
o
o
15. On or about May 30, 1991, code compliance officer
Danny Rolfo, without verbal or written permission of the owner
or the tenants, entered upon the subject property at which time
he interviewed persons on the property, took pictures inside
and outside the building and recorded the names of various persons
on the property.
16. Mr. Peters appeared before the Board of Building
Commissioners on Auqust 16, 1991, to contest the city's order
to vacate the property until a certificate of occupancy is
obtained. Danny Rolfo's worksheet dated June 6, 1991, is attached
hereto as EXHIBIT -E-.
The Board of Building Commissioners
Violated. Peters' Civil Rights
1.
The hearing before the Board was a true travesty of
justice. The Board heard the testimony of Mr. Rolfo but denied
Peters' right to cross-examine him, to testify in his own behalf,
to take the testimony of his witnesses and to present other
evidence. Obviously, Mr. Peters' civil and other constitutional
rights were violated.
1.
Basis of Appeal to Common Council
The hearing before the Board of Building Commissioners
was unfair, biased, lacked due process and violated Peters'
constitutional rights.
2.
The allegations of the code enforcement officer lacked
Page 5
Opening Brief of Appellant
o
o
any basis in fact and were deceitfully and incompetently made.
3.
'l'he
resolution
made
by
the
Board
of
Building
Commissioners violated
the appellant's
constitutional
rights
under the equal protection clause.
4.
'l'he subject prOPerty should not be vacated as the law
does not require that the building be brought up to the present
building code.
Further, that any inoperable automobiles and
other items of personal property shall be removed in an orderly
manner and that the city is required to issue the building
certificate of occupany and applied for business licenses
immediately.
LEGAL AUTHORITIES
United States Constitution, 14th Amendment, Due Process
Equal protection under the law requires the same means
and methods to be applied impartially to all constituents of
each class so that the laws shall operate equally and uniformly
upon all persons in simular circumstances.
People -v- Finley 153 C 59, In re Kolta 187 C 27 and
Cal Jur2d Section 259 at 696
260
Brock -v- Superior Court 12 C2d 605 and Cal Jur2d Section
Equal protection applies to all departments of the
state government thus intentional and arbitrary discrimination
in the enforcement of a statute fair on its face is as much a
denial of equal protection as is the enactment of a statute which
is discriminatory in the first place.
Hill -v- City of Oxnard 46 CA 624 and Robbins -v- City
of Los Anqeles 195 US 223
Police power regulation must not arbitrarily interfer
with the property rights protected by the United States
Constitution.
Page 6
Opening Brief of Appellant
o
o
~ 'I i' . '?
Welsh -v-.
Section 10 lUld
,;,.! ,,,,)'"'1: ':'.,; :Ii' '
In re A liea'ion of Schuler 167 cal 282 139 P 685
e expena." ~().' C!OIIP y 9'.." JI' ,'C8 regu at ons a1Ist
be in connection with~e,surround~9't~"~, .'
United S t8S . COnstitu1:ion 5th."JmeDdaent lUld l6-A
Aaerican Jar s rudence, Sect on, ,
Nor s pr vate proper1:y be 'taken for public use
without just ('OfIlI'e'1.~t:ic;>>n,. .' ',' ,'mil't41,I,U,f'
" ,..A ;,.regulat;J.on J;~~9',at! ~~y owner ,q, ,~1:lay
of aoney which is not: jus1:ified is UDC0D8ti1:utional as a 'taking
of property without just.o.allP8Dsation. ;.>,'
. "" '\ .. '\ . i 'il_, ') ~ .. II ' ;j ,
Article 1 Section 13 Cal fomia COAsti tution lUld
4th JmeDdaent Un tedS tea, . 1:u __~ll:tON'
,An en'try ,ontq."hPr. . "';ll~t withou1:;~ssion
for acDdJ1is1:ra1:ive purposes is prohibi1:ed1dthout first obtaining
a warrant froa a neu,t;r.e,<l- 'MSiL~~te. }Irao' e},~
.. " er -v.., "C 1:; ""0~,,SaJl: '. ". '97
1990)lUld l"--ra -v- 111m c pa Court: "US'
! , ,:.. !! ;: j' ': ,- ~ - j .
PtW!:i\):f,'f/f!
i '/'.1 i. ;",j',
COnclusions,
, "ii rl .~ ~" .,
'.- :(,'~ \,VH\: i '
'l'here have been and there continues to be many, serious
violations of Mr. Peters' lUld I potenti.,],!>' t:~t:s ' state lUld
cons1:itu1:ioD~l rights. Police powers to be l89'it:lJlate mist
federal
.
confoJ:III
to certain st;andards. I11~gi tt.ate e;i~f~i'8~ i'~f that power exposes
the governmental body .tf;J,liabilU;.y.
. If! ~ \'
,p- "i'
'l'he deprivation of Peters' proper1:y and civil rights
.. ," " <_!'~!:r: I'" HI(ilflW "if~il ~lfh ,-
protected by the U. S. ,Co"e, I ,~i'!;.J.~, , ~2"p Section 19U, thfll Due
Process Clause, the Ilqaal protection q,~~~s"i",'~I(,'l'he
4th Aaendaent
'". j' I !l'; .oji , .Ii .el'
protection against il189'al searches lUld seizures lUld the impairaent
{/.,. ''':'\!.I;: (':,:+'.' .. fHlJ.,i, \' grV1t(V
of contract pro'!;.ectionfoJ:III",thebasls/fQr redress of abusesrof power
v
.',
"i'
D~
1J Opening Brief
of AppelllUlt
Page
'i"
,~;:(,l1q~j'~,~ '
o
o
by those acting under the color of authority.
It is abundantly clear that there was an intent to
deny Mr. Peters and his potential tenants the use of the building
and the property. 'l'he actions based on any other reasons proferred
by the Board of Building Commissioners and Mr. Nolfo is purely
pretextual and patently false.
In a general blighted area, as here, the expectation
of a standard greater than existing structures and economic reality
of the area would exceed the legal requirements of equal protection
of the law and would be an illegitimate use of the police power.
For all of the above reasons it is requested that
the mayor and this council vacate the resolution of the Board
of Building Commissioners, allow 45 days for the orderly, fair
and legal disposition of personal property as planned, eliminate
all administrative costs and refund all moneys paid to the city
by Mr. Peters and his potential tenants.
Dated: October 21, 1991
Respectfully submitted,
Attorney
Page 7
Opening Brief of Appellant
..
:..:\~~
:::"1...;-",
.-r"~I\'~,{ ,
- -:';'.'1\,"'_;'""
.1Jl .t,.;--, '.
:tt ~"i\.-' '''..
. ~:t/.;.,J;~-.
~ :_:_-J";f;~-~:'
P"E
SYSTEMS
o
C)
c
P.O. BOX 1584
SAN.BERN~RDINO. CA 92402
(714)681-5050
JANUARY 15; 1991
GENTLEMEN.
~;-"~"'::"f.;i" '.;(.' r";
.. ,; r-" ,~'_;':: .-'
Re 1098 1I.5th. STREET.SAN'BERNAROINO.CA.
AT THE REQUEST OF MR. RQ~. '~I~~~/'IHE OWNER OF A NON-
CONFORM;I~G BUI LDItIG AT THEA~9~;',q ~~~~;::~?E VI ~ITED THE SITE.
AND i REV:' EIIED THE STRUCTURE.';:::;;;., ',':
! i - _ I' _",,:-;':,'~:'&,~,;'f;~~:<i~.:':,~:';:\::'-:,:~),/:;,.-','. . ,
ORIGINALLY BUILT IN THE MIP;',l;920's.:''THE STRUCTURE COMPRISES
I I": 'I, ",';;'i;::S"'~~"".' ':" ". ';'\,,' ",", .
:E~i:: l~r~N t~:B ~~:~'~J~ '1I~~I~J~~~:r, ,;'t:7~~~j~~::~~S ;H~HE .
ROOF COtlS I STS' OF CORRUGATED ST;~. ' i\'6TIACHED TO 1100,0 rRUSSES
- ! _ _ ,i __ I: ,,'" ",:,.",:.-,.', ,,:.'-, "''''::':.."t?..,,<~{-_'' """;;,"-':;'\,_ I'> "c
I N THECE~:rRAL BAY . AND,' ,2 X '~~D:~;rYe,ESXDE:lIAYS...
'~l'::::;:t~j: _ ';':'~',':-' \",': _ ~':"1~:~,:;htfS~t':~t~: t\.::~\, '(:"'e;~\;'i,-":,~ :"Ar -,~.::.:Y'
TI;l~,O!l,GHOUT THE BU I ~P.I NG 'P:,~~~";.TO F I ~D .ANY, 0 I S PLACE-
MENT OF. TRUSSES OR MEMBERS. i!{~'fRt:lSSE~'-SIlO\Ir::J ~IO' SO\~ING IN THE
.' ", ' ,,- i ',::, _"';;i','<~flh,,!i.'t,i~~~J:f:;,,."'i(;~1:'~t~~~;,-,,, .. .
CHORDS. AND THE CONNECT I ONS AP.P.~~~:Di'l N7GOOD COtlD I TI ON.
YOURS TRULY
,:;::7~;:;H.-' ~
"
.,,'
. "'J,
'~"V:':": :,"-"
',0:"',-'.
~ ~.dIi
p
o
o
P.O. BOX 1584
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92402
(714)681- 5050
.,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPT. OF BUILDING & SAFETY
300 N. "0" ST.
SAN BERNARDINO, CA
HARCH ",1991
RE: 1090 W. 5th STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CA
FURTHER TO OUR LETTER OF JAN. 10th, 1991, CONCERNING THE ABpVE
BUILDING, WE REVISITED THE SITE AND VIEWED THE "X8 D.F. POST LOCATED
IN THE tlORTH END OF THE BUILDING AS DISCUSSED WITH THE BUILDING
AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT.
THIS POST I1AS ItlSTALLED COMPLETE WITH A SIMPSON POST BASE, AND
CONNECTED TO THE BEAM WITH SIMPSON STRAPS.
THE BATHROOM ALSO HAS BEEN PANELLED WITH PAINTED PLYWOOD.
WE TRUST THE ABOVE MEETS WITH YOUR APPROVAL. SHOULD YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL US AT THE ABOVE NUMBER.
YOURS TRULY,
P. E. SYSTEMS
~~~=
-
.~.
.
11
'c. CAJ...l /:?Gr;".& )Nrri-<-~i;'/.1 {(All ~jYll(lC7-
ir,ti) ,lC; '. '. - ") REQUEST 1<)\1 BUSliIlESS .
~ \ (j'?-? 6 ' fr8 20 <91,. CERTIF!CATE m= occur ,..\r~c
( Bus. Address. /9.'l~__cl.I~__5_'?"1. . :<;L--St~_r3.f,~Ob.
Bus. Name ._::NL~'~_(._~l..J-r6 t(l~~\..~
Ph. No. .3....2:.!-:-."_LZO.L..... Date Received -LL~'i-!!-__
Nate: T;Jis is A StlHrtment ffequtJstiny A Bus;ness CElrnnCA 1S iJFOCCUPA'oICY "UNL y~ tmd does flO! ,;;"._" ~'O" i/lu rigllt to (;;;,'':/'IC(
business or HJilke alterationlt to the 3rructurcl,
Vour A,'plicdtjrm (fJ" Certificate of Occupancy will l"Jt:..,me \,.,;'; ii nut ill-',Uroll"tll1Iithin 60 d.tyt>.
/7/i)
-4F '3;.;.1-/7,
'ltJ-// '()-
City of San n.rn.rdino
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING ANU SAFETY
300 No. NDq St., San Bernar(lir'lo. CA 92418
Ph. (714) 384.5071
"
Mullieopy lorm: l'rtlSs Firmly" T~p~ or use Ball porn! Pen ^pplicalion Void and Will Not Be rrOCIl~sad 1J"'e~,s Filled Ollt CompJefelv _ Use NJA when questions Not Applicable
A_ OWNERSHIP:
1. Owner of Building and Land:
..... a 0 _. - ;-...)
Proporty Address ~L~~-=-. "S~.________
Building Owner 1\--1 ' R. (:7 IZ:. T E- R...<:..
Owner's M:tiling Address S"e~'_L~~_~ ---":1T-
City --...s~-....L_~P!:=,_Q S'.ltr--..L..4
Phone <F, R -. '2..2..(-:, ~.Lr
A Copy of Building Certificate of Oc';upancy is Attached? 0 Yes [J No
2_ Business Inform,lfion;
Business Addre:;s /O.9_lJ_W!-Q?":...._ ::::r. SuiteJFloor
Business Owner 'Ra~l""LlNf.)O r~l;},iYG:.L_BQ~_I\.J.p_ Ownership: ~dual QPartllllfshijl DCorr.-oralion
Mailing t~ddre55 Other Than Business sl,..,'-_______~I-1M(. I/L__91:!.1?J!J....__
Ci'V __s.;,:_~.) g':"l"'-J.c.:Cd..\~__O____.____.___ .t;'.'I"____c..~":. ZiP~l-__
r'P-32.._.c::~ I'
B. GENERAL UUSli'II€SS INFORMATION:
1. U New Bu;;ljing First Tenant in Sp;Jce 2. J4 Existing Building
3. If New, Building Permit Nufllbr.rN.__._________ .____.__~
01. If Existing Bliilding: XNo l;emodel/AJter LJ Remodeling [J P,dditioll/AJteration
5. Building Permit Ii ___~ For Tonant Space Rwnodel/Alteratlon
6. Do utilities need to ba released rJ Yes :<r No 0 Electric [1 G"." -;') .
7. Doscribe B",~ines5!0 be conducfed ~ oTD A(}dU __:~_~ p" 1 r
--~-----~----.,--
..-...-.-------
u. lOl.1J Fluor Anm Devoted: --2...S~9 0____ 3q. Ft. 9. No. of Emplov';fls: ::3
Ifkitchen.__ Sq. Ft, Jf Stora[lo linsidel___ Sq. Ft.
10. NumberofBusine5sVehicle9--.bJ.J.l.l.J.~ 11.0utsid(!SalesDis~IJ'I OY"s ~IN(.
13. Check the bOM9 that best expJains your busin!lS.~ (use) of [he space or buiJding;
a. [I ASSEMi3l Y IJ. [J BUSINESS c.O RfSID'.NTrAL
ffo Aust~U. rant (CafeterialCefel LJ Office Bldg. 0 House
o Theater/Auditorium [J Stores CJ DlIplflX
[j Chu'ch [J Retail [J lod\,ling/Fkl)'Tling House
-C Stadium 0 Wholesale No. Units '__
SellM{! Capacity 0 Workshup lJ Dormitory
[] Dance Hall U Qlhur__ No. of beds
[1 PJaC<l of Amusement U Apt Builcing
No. elf Units ____
!j Hotr")!fMolel
No. of Unil~'
f] B03i'cJ t: CAn;
----_..~'-.-._._--_._,-----
_.~--_._-,-----------
FullTifTh1
PIIIl Time
12. Outside Storage eVes
;kNo
..
e. IJ EDUCATIONAL
fJ OilY Cllre
U Grad.) School
U Mid/Jr. High
o High Schoul
o COllege
F. I]
INDUSTRIAL # I
Ll WarehOuse
o Slock over 12 ft.
1_ ] Fabrication/Assembly
LI Parking Garage
d, 0 HAZAROOUS #1:
o Service Station
[l Repair Hanger
o Repair Garage/Minor
R. Auto Body Rep..ir
LJ Woodworking Shop
n Painting Shop
fJ Manufacturing
[] Welding/Cult/ng
U Smlding/Grlnding
o Semi Conductors
o Using ExplOSives
Highly Flammable Materials
o Storage Tankslf-acility
Note: #1 Hazardous & Industrial uses are required to fill out a Halardous Mated;:;! Inventory and Quesllonnaire. Contact: San Barnardillo ae,nr'ment
of Environli7eflPl Health Services. "3 S &... /70 I
17. l"speclionrl;Jte_____~__~_. lB.'nllPectioncont8ctPerson..RaY--.C~\.!;J!OaQt\' Phono 3'70- ~ :lSlf/
19. Tile IJndersignad business owner or 8uthorized agent declares the above information to iJe compfete, true Bnd cor~t
s;gn..u,,~~~:
Print N:,m<:l_:F/..s'Ji.,illJJJ.!lOn": . ,./..p~,T::_; "'r - _~..:..:..:.~;.:...... '''\''''J/~~.'~/ :--;':;0;- //f.//
The foregoing reqlJest conltitutes a statement that your Business is a use that is permitted within tIle occupancy/use Claasification of the Building
where you are localed or are proposing as your Jocation. .
D,," ~q~ 90
APNN_____
-FOR CITY USE ONt y_
Zoning Ois!. __~_. ______._"
B1tIU. OCr.UPillll:V.
Uusinuss Occupancy ___
OK: [j Yes ;_! No
Building Permit Inlo;
------~--~._-----------
Routing
Approved
Denied
C of 0 Approved II
Reason for Oenial
J:.J2 ;bo A # .1
1//1 ~'JvO"7
I] PI,lnnin\1 (Urtil;cl
Jq Builditlil & Safety
li Fire IlIspcGtor
iJ County Health
. --.----------+..--- n_______ Bw;iw:ss Remodeled w/out permits
--------,.--.--.- --.-------.- CIl<1IlRIl or Occupancy Class Required
.. ~~
;~A_ ..... ~::~~'l""~~,.~ ._~,
S'//{i5/';"';'6 (1. ~-'. ;;tra'/.!""#7'Jj;:~: 8lSF".1Ill Ill.HI =.:.:...._...
;;>'=;~';;:I :7.".0
--
o 0
DAVID HATFIELD
Licensed Architect
5055 David Way
San Bernardino, California
714/881-1161
October 18, 1991
M. Robert Peters
1095 West Spruce Street
San Bernardino, California 92411
Re: Report of inspection of building
1095 West Spruce Street, San Bernardino
Dear Mr. Peters:
I have inspected the subject building with the following
observations:
1/ The building is a non-conforming structure.
2/ The walls are post and beam construction with
masonry infill for lateral stability.
3/ The main roof is composed of wooden trusses
supported by the post and beams (not the masonry).
4/ The roofing is of corrugated steel.
5/ The foundation shows no signs of movement or
settlement.
6/ There have been no structural failures.
7/ This is a 65 year old building (more or less)
which has some additions and reparations, but it
is still substantially sound.
8/ The electrical service
installed (circa 1974) city
extended in metal conduit.
is a professionally
permitted completely
Another observation that I have in reference to this building
is that the adverse reports of inspection by the city I s code
enforcement officers have been made by non-professionals
who are not qualified to make competent and unbiased judgments.
If I can be of any further service to you in regards to this
matter, please, advise.
Very truly yours,
. I
DAVID HATFIELD
DH/ct
;/
JiIII
~ Ii
L
o
o
DAVID BA'.rl!'.IBLD
Licensed ArChitect
5055 Dav:f.d'way
Bernardino. California
San
714/881-1161
October 18, 1991
M. Robert Peters
1095 West Spruce Street
San Bernardino, California 92411
Re: Report of inspection of building
1095 West Spruce Street, San Bernardino
Dear Mr. Peters:
I have inspected the subject building with the following
observations:
1/ The building is a non-conforming structure.
2/ The walls are' post and beam construction with
masonry infill for lateral stability.
3/ The main roof is composed of wooden trusses
supported by the post and beams (not the masonry).
4/ The roofing is of corrugated steel.
5/ The foundation shows no signs of movement or
settlement.
6/ There have been no structural failures.
7/ This is a 65 year old building (more ot less)
which has some additions and reparations, but it
is still substantially sound.
8/ The electrica:L___l>ervic~_, i!l a professionally
installed--TCirca' -1974>. city permitted completelY
extended in ~etal conduit.
Another observation that I have in reference to this building
is that the adverse reports of inspection by the city's code
enforcement officers have been made by non-professionals
who are not qualified to make competent and unbiased judgments.
If I can.be of any further service to you inreqards to this
matter, please, advise.
" '
Very' truly y.
K~
DAVID HATPIBLD
DB/ct
v"
,
,
'"
,
,