HomeMy WebLinkAboutS02-Building & Safety
o
o
September 1, 1989
Councilwoman Valerie pope-Ludlam
Sixth Ward
Council Office
300 North no" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Councilwoman Ludlam:
I hereby appeal to the Honorable Mayor and Common Council
the Board of Building Commission's decision to demolish my home,
which is located at 1040~ W. Baseline Avenue. The reason for
this appeal is:
1. The house was my primary residence, before the fire,
for the past 18 years.
2. The house was not rehabilitated within 180 days, because,
when the house caught fire, it was not insured.
3. The house was quickclaimed to me by my parents in August
of 1989.
4. I am presently in the position to rehabilitate the house.
Your favorable consideration in this matter will be greatly
appreciated. Thank you.
S9~)!JJJAUL
Pamela Perea
1239 N. nK" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92411
Phone: (714) 884-7728
~cP~
Dulcinea Perea
1077 W. 15th Street
San Bernardino, CA 92411
Phone: (714) 884-9167
.:#s-~
. ciTY OF SAN BERORDINO - REQUEST 90R COUNCIL ACTION
BACKGROUND:
STAFF REPORT
The following is an outline of essential facts pertaining to the
background.
l. The wood frame house was built in the 1930's
2. The property has been zoned commercially since 1964. The
property was zoned C-3 and is currently CG 2.
The residence/house since 1964 has
(meaning legally existed prior
commercial designation.)
4. A fire burnt through the roof on September 14, 1988 and the
house was left vacant after that date.
3.
been a non-conforming use,
to being zoned under a
5. Municipal codes allow non-conforming uses to be continued
except when specific incidents occur. The Ordinance lists
three (3) specific instances.
a.
If the building is
conforming building
(SBMC 19.66.020)
of a wood frame construction a non
may be continued for only 20 years
b. Any use/building that is discontinued for over 180 days
(SBMC 19.66.040)
c. Any building destroyed more than 50' (SBMC 19.66.050)
6. The owners wish to rehab the structure as a single family
residence.
DISCUSSION:
a.
THE WOOD
HAVE BEEN
However,
answers.
FRAME RESIDENCE UNDER
DISCONTINUED BY THE END
this section raises
SECTION 19.66.020 WAS TO
OF 1973.
more questions than it
Has this section ever been enforced?
Did the City survey and give notice to all building
owners?
Is this section constitutional?
The ordinance doesn't clearly distinguish between a
non-conforming use and a non conforming building.
Example: the use of a residence could be discontinued,
the building upgraded to meet commercial building code
requirements and a commercial office or retail use
established.
b. THE USE AS A RESIDENCE HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED FOR OVER 180
5-02&4
"S.-l
.
,
STAFF.REPORT-l
Page 2
o
o
,-
DAYS:
Building and Safety staff, at the time of the fire, had
reason to believe that the house was not being used as a
residence because of the large quantity of business forms,
receipts, and supplies in the house. The owner on August
14, 1989 provided a letter indicating Mrs. Dulcinea Perea
has maintained her primary residence at 1040 1/2 West
Baseline, for the 20 years prior to the fire.
c. DESTROYED MORE THAN 50%:
Section 19.66.050, states "wherein the cost of such
reconstruction ... does not exceed 50% of the reasonable
replacement value of the building immediately prior to its
damage." The house is approximately 1247 sq. ft. in floor
area. Using the current Department cost of $55.37, a
reasonable replacement value for the house is $69,000. The
cost of repair must therefore exceed $34,500. The owner
has indicated reconstruction will cost around $20,000. It
is staff's estimate that it will cost between $35,000. and
$40,000. to reconstruct to current habitibility/code
standards (structural, rewiring, partial plumbing work, new
roof, dry wall, painting, and refinishing floors and/or
carpet, new cabinets, etc.) It is a close judgement call?
FINDINGS:
The review of all the facts applied to the city of San
Municipal Code indicates that the use of the building
cannot be reestablished as a single family residence.
Bernardino
at 1040 1/2
a. However, Section 19.66.020 does not mean that the building
needs to be demolished. The zoning Ordinance and the Building
Code would allow the building to be upgraded to meet commercial
standards for the establishment of a legal use, either as a
retail or an office use.
b. Based on the letter received from Dulcinea Perea, the house was
used as a residence until the fire. The 180 days that elapsed
after the fire was caused by a dispute with Perea's insurance
company and problems in obtaining a loan to rebuild the house.
c.
Whether the structure is more
call. City Technical staff
destroyed based upon "real"
standards.
than 50% destroyed is a judgement
believe the home is more than 50%
cost to rebuild to current code
SEE ATTACHMENT:
- BBC Minutes (Page 2)
- Ms. Dulcinia Perea's letter of August 14, 1989
- Code Sections 19.66.020, 19.66.040 and 19.66.050
-
'CITY OF SAN BERIQRDINO - REQUEST 90R COUNCIL ACTION
From:
Larry E. Reed, Director!:^, _ ,.,. ~ubj,~:
iL.l. D. h"Hln_ 0...
Building and Safety
I~Qr: ,~!!.... 3"'" r,'.. '). :::c
l~vj r.1..\J U i: ...r...) oJ
Request to rescind decision
of Board of Building Commis-
sioners -- demolition of single
family dwelling at 1040 1/2
West Baseline -- Paul &
Dulcinea Perea
Dept:
Date:
August 30, 1989
Synopsis of Previous Council ection:
Recommended motion:
That the appeal of Paul and Dulcinea Perea to rescind the order of the
Board of Building Commissioners to demolish the single family residence
located at 1040 1/2 West Baseline be referred to the Board of Building
Commissioners for review and consideration of additional information.
cc' Marshall Julian, City Adminstrator
im Richardson, Deputy city Administrator
Contact person: Larry E. Reed
Supporting data attached: "~es--
~~_~- -r:- -';;;;:'7----
, 1/ Signature
Phone:
384-5274
Werd:
""6th"- -
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.) .
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No
s-z,
-
o
o
\ (--'--1 r-)
',) , I
.,
l....-\_. .
,'::'_ CI-.
.-)
) (. \.(
J _~
.'>---""\
6.J
,,,-t'\,, -
l !\,.,:.,-!.-
j \.', ("1
L .t L<.(\,l v--{,-
, z..
~ (\''- \.....
v" CC',\,L<.~ (\_ 'I;) V i I
'} I '-i-'
I"
l\... \..,--<,
d
-fY"-I9/f,;')
/ L/- i q.1 (/
<\'", "
" 'f\...\..
,---\.,~
-.::
" ,
- " -~
,
'''-..
..::J
"
r:
., ('-/~':-
c.>---......... -
+' '
- ,
L ~ "'^- '-''-'Y--<'. '- j,l L.v
~ - --J. ,-f,- c....... '---
~
_' \... r~ \.... \.. t \.... -
--4-
\..~
r-",.
'- , ---p.-
~
..--\,.......... (.\......-..L-."'\--_.l.-p.._.L."'Y'-<o?_"l"'---
C \;".~\....\-., "Y "l .. "Y
,\
1 f. U l't j A. ",,--,'
C ,--, I ~ ,-
.,,-
,"- '-'-"T-
' ~ ['~ ~ \.. '-r'-^-
~. ~lL-r"--"-''--
o....~
~.1 ft
~,'--
I ~~. 'v"'Y'-(....1 "-C...-,-,,," C::L-- (I .2. y i I
~~ d.. ",
iJ'-'\ .
"-:7 -h',--""y/ i(:' t'-
'-
0---
.\.,y
l,,-- \;-(-'....- L
q..._,--
~v
t 1-l 'L (l-l.. 'JJ'-/
, ,
(~ .\tftILl'/.7cr.J
-~ '
l.l.l;:k~) '/y-U,,:;--
I..)..l. .
/\.. '-{ 'i.-vr..l.
\ f' ,
.~~'\{)-...,,-h__ \.\t>.V)
I"~, , .,) J\ '
, \ ",\ c ~. C l ~/
.. '
,'-
- -~.
~.- /'.. ;
."....../
\ ('J...,..........,:.-
,. _ _" . I
S,....TE.Jr:-...__L~Jl=-',,_...,. , _I
CCiJNTY'(Jf _X;n .rjot:- (....np , ~,~ /)_
'" /..,.:. r' - . I . -
Or. I -r~ "t ....{ 1."-<;,,, (..;1 __.f...i ,-_.vcC~;._1
solid Slate ~ersuni'l..~ a;;"f"""e~ ___...
;,1;' r " ' , ) / _ / /; 1/ I - /
/"~'___' ...,,_~, 1...-.-..1'"
l'e:()...- r, ,~ ..,....
,'" --,
~ ,"
r'2,"'"
i--~
C '
, ,
. ,.
o
c
c
c
'"
;;
personally known 10 me lor proved to me on tht' b2.~15 of SdIIS'
factoryevidencei to bethe pcrsc:11~V,.f-.,:.:;~. r,arr.e~lls 'are sut'.
. , / I
scnbed to the Within instrument and aCt<rl<,iWIE:dgefl tc me that
I'l9(.6he/they exec.uted the same
( ,
SEAL
~a.6IUIlIE
_1'laIC.~
__mlIIO CllUIflY
.,c.a...._ 26.1993
~
i'i
,
;;
E
Oi
"
:c
WiTNESS my hand and off'cial sea!
a ..Lt:" . L:A! '-
/:.- I ,,~- - /~
S;gnatu,e , . -???2::C.;. .u -' 't..7U:.;;# '/='L;7-C
ITt'H5 area for offICial netarta! seal,
:J
~
o
o
;MlNUTES8-89
page 2
commissioner Miller asked if there was anyone present to testify on
behalf of the subject properties. There being no one to testify,
commissioners briefly discussed subject properties.
commissioner Westwood made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hunt, to
uphold the Staff's recommendation.
Roll call was taken with the motion being unanimously carried.
Motion carried.
ITEM NO.7:
1040 1/2 W. Baseline
/ CASE NO. 89-3367
PRESENTED BY:
Mark Young
Mark Young presented photographs, slides and background information for
the Board's review.
staff's recommendation is that demolition permits be obtained by the
owner within ten (10) days and demolition be accomplished within sixty
(60) days and to incur all current and future costs in the form of a
lien on the property or a personal obligation of the owner(s).
CURRENT COSTS:
$577.50
commissioner Miller asked if there was anyone present to testify on
behalf of the subject properties. Mr. Paul Perea was present to
testify. He indicated he had hoped to work on Monday's and weekends to
refurbish the house for his daughter to occupy. He indicated that he
was unaware that the building could not be rehabilitated.
Mark Young noted that the residence was more than 50% damaged by fire,
therefore, was not capable of being rehabilitated, in addition to being
subject to a zoning change. Mr. Perea agreed to obtain the required
permits and arrange for the demolition within the sixty (60) days
required.
Commissioner Gonzales made a motion, seconded by commissioner Ponder,
to uphold the Staff's recommendation.
Roll call was taken with the motion being unanimously carried.
Motion carried.
o
o
NONCONFORMING BLDGS. AND NONCONFORMING USES
Chapter 19.66
NONCONFOR.\fING BUILDINGS AND
NONCONFORMING USES
Sections:
19.66.010 Regulations generally.
19.66.020 Continuation and maintenance.
19.66.030 Conditions and requirements on continuing
nonconfonning building.
19.66.040 Discontinuance of use - Confonnance
required.
19.66.050 Exceptions to buildings damaged by fue,
explosion or act of God.
19.66.060 Off-street parking and loading requirement.
19.66.070 Alteration to confonning use.
19.66.080 Nonconfonning use of land.
19.66.010 Regulations generally.
The regulations set forth in this chapter shall apply to all
nonconforming buildings and nonconforming land uses. (Ord.
1991 ~ 22.1953.)
19.66.020 Continuation and maintenance.
A. Any nonconforming building may be continued and main-
tained for a period representing the useful life of the
building as defined in this title:
1. Class I or 2 construction. forty years (masonry):
2. Class 3 or 4 construction, thirty years (fire resistant):
3. Class 5 construction, twenty years (frame I.
B. These periods of time shall become operative on September
10, 1953: provided, that such periods of time shall become
operative on. and shall be computed from. September 15.
1953. when applicable to any nonconforming building
and/or structure in any district except a residential district.
C. This section shall not apply to any building constructed
during the ten years prior to the adoption of the ordinance
codified in this title until ten years after September 10.
1953.
(Ord. 1991 ~ 22.HAl. 1953.)
1201
I San Bernardino 4.85)
._-
o
o
ZONING
19.66.030 Conditions and requirements on continuing
nonconfonning building.
A nonconfonning building may be continued as provided
in Section 19.66.020 if the building is not added to or struc-
turally altered other than as required by law; provided, that a
nonconfonning building may be added to or structurally
altered on condition that:
A. A petition approving such addition or alteration and signed
by seventy-five percent of the residents and/or owners of
properties within a radius of five hundred feet of the
building is presented to the Planning Commission; or if,
after a reasonable effort such approval has not been
obtained, a signed affidavit establishing that reasonable
efforts have been put forth to obtain the signatures of
seventy-five percent of the residents and/or owners of
properties within a radius of five hundred feet of the
building but without success.
B. Evidence is presented that the addition or alteration is
reasonable and is not injurious to adjoining properties;
C. The approval of the application by the Planning Commis-
sion is obtained after there has been compliance with the
procedures and provisions pertaining to the granting of
variances as set forth in Sections 19.74.030 through
19.74.070; and
D. The approval of the Common Council is first had and
obtained.
(Ord. MC437, 2-18-85;Ord. 1991 ~ 22.I(B), 1953.)
19.66.040 Discontinuance of use - Confonnance required.
Any part of a building occupied by a nonconfonning use
which use is discontinued for a period of one hundred eighty
days or more shall thereafter be used in conformity with the
provisions of the district in which it is located. (Ord. :31:
(part), 1960:0rd. 1991 ~ ::.I(C). 1953.)
19.66.050 Exceptions to buildings damaged by fire.
explosion or act of God.
The provisions of this title shall not prevent the reconstruc-
tion. repairing or rebuilding and the continuing use of any
nonconforming building or buildings damaged by fire. explosion
NONCONFORMING BLOGS. AND NONCONFORMING USES
or act of God or the enemy subsequent to September 10.
1953, wherein the cost of such reconstruction, repairing or
rebuilding does not exceed fifty percent of the reasonable
replacement value to the building immediately prior to its
damage. (Ord. 1991 ~ 22.1(0), 1953.)
dI
o
o
REPORT NO. 3 i b 7
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
300 North liD" Street
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418
EXHIBIT "A"
An inspection was made of the below mentioned structure(s) and/or
premises, and substandard conditions which shall include but not be
limited to the fOllowinq, were observed.
- The owner(s) and all interested parties, as indicated on the Title
Report, were sent a certified mailinq of these conditions.
- The recommendation is for abatement of the structure(s) and/or
premises; afta/8., all e,rsar t"" YIia""uL. WI. ~x-CQIIJ..es.
iC. . TIQ~ (#/~,j,,J 10
~
- All such substandard buildinq or premises are hereby declared to be
public nuisances and such nuisances shall be abated by the repair,
removal or demolition of such unsafe buildinqs by the proper
procedure. Permits are required prior to startinq repair or demo-
lition work.
TOTAL COSTS INCURRED TO DATE: $ 5 ?? -!e
OWNER~IAL ff1. ~ 'D..c.LCJ/J€lQ rgAEA LOCATION ~O\!.OY2- W'~L1'4IE'
ADDRESS..J.Q1J I JJ. r'Y'lAGoNoIIA AvE-. ASSESSOR'S NO. /4-'1-- 2.1 ~ - , "L..
CITY S- AN ~ f3IMJf"oi:i::D,A,o TYPE/BLDG~ ~
PHONE NO. VIOLATION..J=j ~rs ~MfF 1oFf!Yf' ~
DATE OF INSPECTION 2-2.-89 DATE PREPARED 7 -ItJ-l39
ITEM NO.
V-l.
1____2.
I./"" 3 .
~4.
{ ___ 5.
6.
7.
,.-- 8.
~9.
~O.
~ll.
12.
13.
1/ 14.
V'15.
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING (Inadeauate Sanitationl- ORe CR. 10
SECTION 1001
Lack of or improper water closet, lavatory, bathtub or
shower in dwellinq.
Lack of or improper kitchen sink or drainboard in dwell-
inq.
Lack of hot and cold runninq water in dwellinq.
Lack of adequate heatinq facilities.
Lack of or improper operation of required ventilatinq
equipment.
Lack of minimum amounts of natural liqht and ventila-
tion.
Room and space dimensions less than required by code.
Lack of required electrical liqhtinq.
Dampness of habitable room.
Infestation of insects, vermin or rodents. .
General dilapidation or improper maintenance.
Lack of connection to required sewaqe disposal system.
Lack of maintenance of septic system.
Lack of adequate qarbaqe and rubbish storaqe' and removal
facilities.
Inadequate housekeepinq - trash, qarbaqe, etc.
All Codes are adopted by and are a part of the San
Bernardino Municipal Code (SBMC l5.04.020).
INSPECTION REPORT WAS GIVEN TO:
XX A property owner
B manager
C tenant
o by hand delivery
E regular mail
F certified mail
V--1.
(./'" 2.
I/' 3.
4.
/../' 5 .
6.
7.
~8.
9.
_ ].0.
~11.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
~.
3.
,4.
~J5.
~6.
z.:;;.- 7 .
..........- 8.
9.
THIS
XX
on
July 14.
-
o
o
STRUCTURAL HAZARDS fUBC\ REPORT NO. 3 3~ 7
Open and vacant.
Fire damaged structure.
Broken doors and windows.
Illegal addition (bootleg)
Inadequate weather protection (roof leaks, etc.)
Inadequate foundation.
sagging floors.
Inadequate rat-proofing.
Chimney structure unsound.
Termite damage.
structural integrity questionable.
PLUMBING fUPC\
Water heater illegally installed in bath or bedroom.
Water heater has no T & P valve or saismic tie downs.
Leaking/broken/plugged sewer drains.
Leaking and/or broken pipes.
Cross connected plumbing.
Yard sprinklers must have vacuumn breaks.
MECHANICAL (UMe\
Illegal gas heater or appliance.
Improperly vented water heater.
Inadequate or missing gas shut off valve.
Combustibles stored too near heating appliances.
ELECTRICAL (NEC\
OVerfusing - branch circuits not to exceed 15 amps for
lights and 20 amps for receptacles.
Missing electrical covers or fixtures.
Inadequate outlets. .
Electrical service entrance is inadequate.
Hazardous or illegal wiring.
GENERAL (SBMC\
Pools - stagnant water inadequate fence
inadequate gate
Not to be occupied until corrections are made.
Certificate of occupancy required.
Improper occupancy.
Nuisance
Possible Fire Hazard.
Smoke Detectors Required.
Address required on all buildings and/or apartments.
Supplement:
19~
~~~
INSPECTOR SIGNATURE
.~~c~
.~
o
o
XTBM ltS-l
SUBJECTs Approval of Joint Development Aqre_ent Between
City and Saben, Earlix and Associate.
MOTION: That all language regarding the granting of Rental
Rehabilitation Funds be stricken from the agreement
and that the affected funds be in the form of
deferred loans. Such deferred loan assistance will
be provided under the same loan terms and condi-
tions already set forth in the agreement.
The provision under Item "J", (Performance Bond) of
the agreement relating to the sole discretion of
the Community Development Director to determine a
breach under this clause should be stricken from
the agreement. This clause would have a chillina
effect on new investors and staff advises that
sufficient protections exist elsewhere in the
agreement.
So we do not have to come back to Council, make sure motion
allows for changes to be made and agreement to be executed
with the approval of the City Attorney.
3417
...,
o
..--
V t',
~W:.I;!:~..,.. .
.'t ,.,..,.,
w~ "~':,' "
J'J' "{'..' ..<'~..
'<,0 -';"':'/~',
'0' ....... :-,:-
o F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0 11 -":";
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM (J 00
~
i
,
-
..' . . '."
C I T Y
TO:
FROM:
Larry E. Reed, Director Building & Safety
Patricia Zimmermann, Deputy City Attorney
August 31, 1989
1040 1/2 WEST BASBLXNB RBVXBW OF SBC FDmXNGS
DATE:
HE:
In response to your memo dated August 21, 1989 in the above
captioned matter, other cities' in California have codes similar
in language to San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.66.020
which have been held to be constitutional; San Bernardino's code
per se has never been tested. To my knowledge the City has not
surveyed or given notice to all building owners while Mr. Penman
has been in office, however this code was adopted in 1953 and our
office does not know what activities the Planning Department or
Building and Safety Department took at that time.
With regard to enforcement, I discussed the matter with John
Wilson, who has been in the City Attorney's Office the longest
period of time and he is ,unaware of any enforcement by the
Planning Department, Building and Safety Department, or the Board
of Building Commissioners.
I concur with the positions in your memo that it is a close
call whether the building was more than sot destroyed and that
there are questions about the 180 day period. However, San
Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.66.020 is fairly clear that
this building as a residence has exceeded its useful life of
twenty (20) years. It would appear that the building could be
rehabilitated to meet present zoning\use requirements versus
being demOlished. Therefore, the owner of the property could be
allowed to submit plans to reconstruct the building in compliance
with present zoning requirements as an alternative to demolition.
While I would have recommended going back to the Board of
Building Commissioners to resolve this matter, as you know the
owners prefer appealing to the City Council immediately on the
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
~
.~
o
o
Page Two
August 3l, 1989
RB: 1040 1/2 WEST BASELINE REVIEW OF BBC FINDINGS
issue of reconstructing a residence not a commercial building at
that location.
PZ/dys
cc: James F. Penman, City Attorney
W. R. Holcomb, Mayor
Marshall Julian, City Administrator
Val.r:l..~ope-Ludlam, COuncilwoman ..i
Henry Empefto, Jr., Deputy City Attorney
Brad Ki1ger, Director of Planning
.
C I TO 0 F SAN B B R N A A I
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8908-2718
NO
TO: J.... F. peruaan, City Attorney
c/o Pat Zi_erman, Deputy city Attorney
FROM: Larry E. Reed, Director of Buildinq and Safety
SUBJECT: l040 l/2 West saseUne Review of BBC findings
DATE: August 21, 1989
COPIES:
Councilwoman Pope Ludl.., Brad Kilqer, Director of
Planninq
-------------------------------------------------------------
This m_o is in response to Mr.. Ludl..'s request to review
the facts in the case concerning the owner of 1040 1/2 West
saseline not being able to rebuild her house.
The following is an outline of essential facts pertaining to
the background.
1. The wood frame house was built in the 1930's
2. The property has been zoned co..ercially since 1964.
The property was zoned C-3 and is currently CG 2.
3. The residence/house since 1964 has been a non-
conforming use, (meaning legally existed prior to
being zoned under a co_ercial designation.)
4. Municipal codes allow non-conforming uses to be
continued except when specific incidents occur. The
Ordinance lists three (3) specific instances.
a. If the building is of a wood frame construction a
non-conforminq building may be continued for only
20 years (SBMC 19.66.020)
b. Any use/building that "is discontinued for over
180 days (SBMC 19.66.040)
c. Any building destroyed more
19.66.050)
5. For the purpose of discussion, I am taking the issues
listed above in reverse order.
than 50t (SBMC
o 0
INTEROFFICB MEMORANDUM: 8908-2718
'1040 1/2 West Baseline Review of SBC findings
Augu.t 21, 1989
paqe 2
.
-
c. DESTROYBD MORE THAN 50':
Section 19.66.050, states .wherein the cost of
such reconstruc1:ion. .. does not exceed 50' of
the reasonable replac_ent value of the building
immediately prior to its daaage.. The house is
approximately 1247 sq. ft. in floor area. Oainq
the current Department cost of $55.37, a
reasonable replaceaent value for the house is
$69,000. The cost of repair .ust therefore
exceed $34,500. The owner has indicated
reconstruc1:ion will cost around $20,000. It is
staff's estimate that it will cost between
$35,000. and $40,000. to reconstruct to current
habitibility/coc:le standarels (structural, rewir-
inq, partial plUllbinq work, new roof, dry wall,
painting, and refinishing floors and/or carpet,
new cabinets, etc.) It i. a close judgement
call?
b. THE OSB AS A RESIDENCE HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED FOR
OVER 180 DAYS:
Buildinq and Safety staff, at the time of the
fire, had reason to believe that the house was
not being used as a residence because of the
large quantity of business forma, receipts, and
supplies in the house. The owner on Auqust 14,
1989 provided a letter indicatinq Mrs. Dulcinea
Perea has maintained her primary residence at
1040 1/2 West Baseline, for the 20 years prior to
the fire. A question which arises is was there
also another residence.
a. WOOD FRAME RESIDENCE UNDER SECTION 19.66.020 WERE
TO HAVE BEEN DISCONTINUED BY THE END OF 1973.
However, this section raises more questions than
it answers.
- Has this section ever been enforced?
- Did the City survey and qive notice to all
buildinq owners?
- Is this section constitutional?
- The orelinance doesn't clearly distinquish
between a non-conforminq use ancl a non
conforminq buildinq. Example: the use of a
residence could be discontinued, the building
upgraded to meet commercial building code
requirements and a commercial office or retail
~ '. ... 'IHTEROFFICE MEMOQDUM: 8908-2718 0
1040 1/2 W..~ sa..lin. R.vi_ of BBC finding.
AUCJUst 21, 1989
Page 3
us. ..tablished.
peraitted and the
conforainq.
Thi. aeana the u.e 18
buildinq i. no long.r non
My review of all the foreqoinq aect:iona, includinq the
tJnifora Buildinq Code ..... to indicate that the u.e of the
buildinq at 1040 1/2 cannot be r...tabliabed a. a sinqle
family re.idence. However, this does not Man that the
buildinq need. to be deaolillhed. The zoninq Ordinance and
the Buildinq Code would allow the buildinq to be upqraded to
_et c~rcial standarel. for the e.tablislulent of a leqal
use, .ither a. a retail or an offic use.
Plea.e advise the Department of Buildinq and safety a. to how
i~ should proceed concerning the buildinq at l040 1/2 sa.e-
line Street.
~~~
Larry E. Reed, Director
Department of Building and Safety
LER: nhm