HomeMy WebLinkAbout55-Building and Safety
.C_TY OF SAN BERNARDINO
- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIO~
.{ "::::'~' ,:{. ::7:'':'-;' ':!'.,:.. :'~
FnMft: Mark I. Sutton, Director of
Building & SafetyRE".JfI;tDHIM\pDff'!. Hearing - Board of
Building Commissioners Order to
lSeS SfP 22 PM aqaOO Premi ses, Secure and
Demolish at 765 Nort "0" Street
Alberi Mamlouk
~: BUILDING AND SAFETY
Date: SEPTEMBER 21, 1988
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on August 15, 1988, the Appeal
of the Board of Building Commissioners' Order to vacate premises, secure and demolish
the property located at 765 North "0" Street, was heard.
The Mayor and Common Council closed the hearing and granted a 30-day extension to
Mr. Mamlouk in order to get an Engineer's Report on the building located at
765 North "0" Street, under the condition that an insurance rider be brought in,
within 72 hours, which is acceptable to the City and holds the City harmless during
the 30-day extension. Also, no third party or other tenants are allowed in the
building within the 72-hour period.
RlCOmmen.Jed motion:
That the Board of Building Commissioners' decision of July 1, 1988 to have the
premises at 765 North "0" Street, vacated, secured and demolished within thirty
(30) days; and to incur all current and future costs in the form of a lien on
the property, be upheld and instruct Staff to continue with the demolition and
cleaning of said property. Current Costs: $S67.00.
~/L~
Signature
Conuctpenon: Don Hesterley
Supporting data attached: Yes
Phone: ext./S071
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
75.0262
Agenda Item NO'S ~
C~ _ Y OF SAN BERNAR& ..0 - REQUl JT FOR COUNCIL At,. ..ION
STAFF REPORT
The Appeal of this property is back before Mayor and Common Council. due to the ownerl
tenants failure to act during the time period the Council granted the appellant on
August 15. 1988.
A re-cap of 'the City's involvement in this property. dates back to October of 1987.
where one of the tenants of this building attempted to install a spray booth inside the
structure and eliminated one of the few interior walls which are crucial to non-reinforced
masonry buildings. due to the lack of resistance to seismic movement. that is inherent to
these types of structures.
Further investigation of the structure revealed that there were major stress cracks present.
and that the mortar had deteriorated to the point that in certain locations bricks could be
removed with very little effort.
Upon the termination of this investigation. the owner was notified of the City's findings
and the owner retained a Structural Engineer. Frank Tracadas and Associates.
On November 13. 1987. the Structural Engineer reported that the building could be
strengthened; however. in his opinion. it would not be economically feasible.
On March 15. 1988, the tenants were notified by the owner to vacate, due to the necessity
to secure the premises. Three of the four tenants complied with this order to vacate.
Due to the resistance of the fourth tenant. Mr. Albert Mamlouk. the owner was reluctant
to proceed and the City was forced to bring this matter to the attention of the Board of
Building Commissioners.
On July 1, 1988. the matter went before the Board of Building Commissioners. A resolution
was made to vacate the premises within three (3) days. secure the premises and demolish
within thirty (30) days.
An Appeal was subsequently made by W. R. Holcomb to the Mayor and Common Council on
behalf of Albert Mamlouk. the only tenant remaining at the property located at 765 North MOM
Street.
At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on August 15. 1988. the Appeal of the
Board of Building Commissioners' order to vacate premises. secure and demolish the property
located at 765 North "D" Street. was heard.
The Mayor and Common Council closed the hearing and granted a 30-day extension to Mr. Mamlouk
in order to get an Engineer's Report on the building located at 765 North "0" Street. under
the condition that an insurance rider be brought in. within 72 hours. which is acceptable
to the City and holds the City harmless during the 30-day extension. ,Also. no third party
or other tenants are allowed in the building within the 72-hour period.
On August 16, 1988, the City notified Mr. Mamlouk by mail of the Councils decision. even
though Mr. Mamlouk and his Attorney was present at the hearing. During the hearing. the
Attorney representing the tenant indicated and submitted a letter from an Engineer indicating
that in his opinion. the structure would withstand minimum seismic forces. This statement
was submitted without any back-up documentation; did not meet the requirements for analysis.
as required by the San Bernardino Municipal Code; and was completely contrary to the State
of California's findings regarding non-reinforced masonry buildings.
75.0264
COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION - 765 North "0" Street
PAGE 2 of 2
Staff Report
On August 19, 1988, a letter was sent to John Szekely, the second Engineer representing
the property, indicating the City's requirements for analyzing this structure per the
San Bernardino Municipal Code. To this date, the required analysis has not been submitted
to the Building and Safety Department.
Due to the owner/tenant's failure to provide the required analysis of the building, a
letter was sent to Mr. Korchak indicating that the structure was to be secured on
September 15, 1988. All concerned parties were notified and the building was secured.
The letter also indicated concern over the ownership of the property, since it was
presented to the Mayor and Common Council that the property was in escrow with Mr. Mamlouk,
and at the DRC Meeting of September 8, 1988, Mr. James Roe represented himself as the
owner and was intending to develop the property with a strip commercial center.
On September 16, 1988, the court granted Mr. Mamlouk a temporary Restraining Order for
twenty (20) days in an effort for judicial review. Concurrently, Mr. Holcomb requested
that this matter be heard again by the Mayor and Common Council. Mr. Holcomb claims that
he was not clear as to the conditions of the 30-day extension, and claimed that his client
has submitted the required documentation.
On September 19, 1988, this matter was heard and continued until October 3, 1988, with
no action taken.
To date, the owner/tenant has not submitted the required analysis of this structure and
the structure is still considered a dangerous building. The Building and Safety Department
has received an incomplete set of Plans for the structur~~ that would in effect reduce
the rating of the structure from a Type III-N (masonry) to a Type V-N (wood) structure by
replacing all of the non-reinforced masonry walls with 2" x 6" stud walls and re-tying
the roof structure to them. This submission, even if the Plans were complete, would not
negate the dangerous condition until the construction has been completed.
Staff recommends that the Board of Building Commissioners' actions to abate the structure
and incur all costs, be upheld.
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R 0 I N 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8809-608
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and Common Council
FROM:
James E. Robbins, Acting City Administrator
SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda Item S-3
Street -- Albert Mamlouk
765 North "0"
DATE:
September 15, 1988
COPIES:
-------------------------------------------------------------
At the meeting of August 15th, the Mayor and Common Council
gave Mr. Mamlouk a 30-day extension based upon the presenta-
tion of a suitable certificate of insurance naming the City
as an additional insured. Mr. Mamlouk's attorney has submit-
ted a request or an additional 160-day extension.
Information submitted by the Building and Safety department
indicates that the building has been boarded up upon the
expiration of the 30-day extension. In addition, the staff
of the Building and Safety department have indicated that the
plans for renovation or a new building have not been submit-
ted as of September 15th.
The insurance policy which Mr. Mamlouk provided has a 60-day
coverage from August 15th. Therefore, the coverage would be
sufficient for the additional time, up to the maximum of 60
days, should the Council decide to extend the time granted to
Mr. Mamlouk.
In the event the .Council decides to extend the time granted
to Mr. Mamlouk, it is recommended that: specific goals be
submitted prior to the expiration of that time; a complete
set of plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety
Department for plan check by the 45th day; any further
extension of the insurance coverage will be for a t~me
certain to allow for the rehabilitation or construction as
appropriate. The Council may wish to' extend further
conditions regarding this activity. The other alternative is
to proceed with the demolition of the building as set forth
in t e action taken by the Board of Building Commissioners.
~.)
:& .
/ ~~~>~~...:j i- rd/!t /;C~
JAMES E. ROBBINS
Acting City Administrator
JER/djn
..
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8809-608
765 zmNorth "0" Street -- Albert Mamlouk
September 15, 1988
Page 2
Urgency Clause
Urgency caused by applicant's apparent inability to meet the
criteria set forth by the Mayor and Common Council at their
meeting of August 15th; desire to seek clarification of the
Council's intent and request a time extension for an
additional 160 days.
C I T Y 0 FAN B ERN R 0 I N 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8809-610
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and Common Council
FROM:
James E. RObbins, Acting City Administrator
SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda Item S-3 -- 765 North "0" st.
- Albert Mamlouk
DATE:
September 16, 1988
COPIES:
-------------------------------------------------------------
On September 15, Building and Safety went to 765 North "0"
Street and padlocked the doors closed. Around 11:00 a.m., a
set of plans was delivered to the Building and Safety
Department but no Plan Check fee was paid at that time.
While the department received the plans, they have not
proceeded with the Plan Check. They have called the Engineer
and indicated that in order for a Plan Check to occur, the
Plan Check deposit would have to be made. On the afternoon
of the 15th, Mr. Holcomb was successful in obtaining a
temporary restraining order which was served on the city. At
8:00 a.m. on the morning of the 16th, the padlocks were
removed and the building remains open.
Should there be any further
E~ee 'ng, we will ~dvise you
\ /) ,il) ~_
\ /".'\ -' /( /
'IV r V ':-1,(, \
JAMES E. ROBBINS
Acting City Administrator
developments prior to the Council
of those.
JERjmd
. )
.\l......~.....
~')'. .~.~~,.
....: ..7>-. :;."-::~. .~
'. '~"/. ',-~
CI !......rQf~S:ANj 'BERN ARD IN 0 300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92418
\...,.. -.," .~.
-:-~... ~~.- .,......
... \- ~".' "': ~'~-J-I
.,...~....~ /." .' . ", ',t
~,~y:...,.
....",. ~ /~,.,.
- October 13, 1987
Re: 751,753,763 & 771 N. D Street
San Bernardino, CA
Structural hazard to commercial building
Assessors No: 0140 28~ 43, 73 & 74
Report/Project No. 3114
Earl Korchak
234 McCarty Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
On October 8, 1987 an inspection was made of your properties at 771-775
North D Street by the Department of Building and Safety, City of San
Berna rd i no .
Upon inspection it was determined that the building appears to be in a
severe state of deterioration and may be hazardous to your tenants.
Because the building is constructed of unreinforced masonry and is an
aged structure, the cement bonding is deteriorating causing bricks to
fallout of the building. Also, some original walls of the structure
have been removed by a previous tenant to the rear of 765 N. D Street,
which may have an effect on the strength of the existing walls.
Please be advised that you must sumbit, within 30 days on receipt of
this letter, structural analysis by a qualified engineer or architect
to ensure the safety of your tenants before any vacancy can be reoccupied.
James Richar~~Acting Director
Building and Safety Department
~~~~d^-
by: Alex Valenzuel~
Code Compliance Officer
Phone: 714/384 5272
Hours: 7:30-8:30 a.m. or 3:30-4:30 p.m.
cc: Charles Racoosin
4tAr/e5
Rt:A...( 065 j V1
mt-l/<t13
/ 't /6 /:-- tI, 5f. /'" ~ J
~ ...i
. I -_ _____
. PR,DE:N ,.-r...l.~=;:':'
. A.:'Y. I
~~,I
<fTA;
.. ~ -
,
..
FRANK TRACADAS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
-. SCruc:tureI EngIne.tng. CIvIl EngIne...Il'llo Land PIenrq It DesIjJ1.
November 13, 1987
EARL I. ICORCHAJe ..
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA. 90067
'..
RE: Structure I 765 North "D" Street
City of San Bernardino
Dear Mr. ICorchak:
Pursuant to your request and authorization we examined the
above-referenced building to evaluate its structural features
to adequately resist minimum forces which may be imposed by
normal use or seismic occurrence.
This examination considered only the structural elements
of the building and their ability to withstand these forces.
No consideration was given to the aesthetics of the structure.
The minimum forces referred to were determined in accordance
with standard engineering practice. using the 1982 Uniform
Building Code as a guideline.
This review and evaluation was of a non-destructive nature and
consisted of visual examination of the inside and outside of the
structure. Following is a brief resume of our review and findings:
The eXisting building is a single story commercial
building of approximately 9,800 square feet (see
attached sketch). In general, the load-bearing and shear-
resisting walls are of a non-reinforced brick masonry.
The exterior and interior of some of these walls have
been plastered over to present a more pleasing appearance
but this has not added anything structurally to the
building.
The roof construction consists of bow-string trusses
approximately 16' o.c. along the southerly portion
of the building with no ceiling in the rear area
(easterly 97' +). These trusses bear on unreinforced
brick masonry columns and have steel pipe supports
approximately at their center. Roof rafters span between
the trusses with roof sheathing running parallel with
the trusses. This shea thing consists of I" x 6" + boards.
This roof system is not tied to the shear-resisting walls
in accordance with good seismic-resistant construction
practice.
463 N. Sierra Way. · San Bernardino. (".AliI......... Q'41n . nu\ DIU ...r
'.
Page 2: Mr. E: Korchak
765 North "D" Street
City of San Bernardino
,
In short, this building, a non-reinforced brick
masonry structure, is not "tied" together and
in its present condition is not structurally
adequate to resist minimum seismic forces as outlined
in the 1982 Uniform Building Code. ~
~
It is possible to strengthen those portions of the
building which do not aeet the minimum code re-
quirements, but in our opinion it may not be
economically feasible.
The following is a summary of what will have to be done to meet the
minimUm Code requirements:
1) ReJl!ove and replace all "straight" roof sheathing
and some of the roof framing members (roof sheathing
that runs parallel with the end walls);
2) Strengthen the existing roof bow-string trusses;
3) Anchor all structural walls to the roof framing;
4) Strenghten all structural (exterior) walls;
5) Strengthen existing brick masonry columns.
"
Enclosed are a number of colored photographs which were taken on
the site. (A print of the site plan indicates the area from
which these photos were taken.) A brief explanation and observation
is made on the back of some of these photos.
Respectfully submitted,
-BII {-
Report No. ~
~~~~
~~-ib~~E.
Plan Check Engineer
Building & Safety Department
City of San Bernardino
FRANK TRACADAS & ASS~IATES, INC.
~
Traeadas, E.
xc: Chuek Racoosin,
GEORGE SCHNARRE REALTY
Enclosures: Site Plan
21 Photographs
.J
I
f]
h
,~
J.l
~j
~.
~J
.1
Ii-
I f~"
'I ~
I'
II
Ii
.11
. ,
,
.2)" QS"t.
f,
14'
,..(~,'J,
d"" {c:-...". J
... .-.-
--- --
----
· II 'L
'1"4 fA} A,tf) " .
tI..,.
,$1,,&,.1-: -
....
---it:-
...,.AI","~'8 'l.
h2!" tIo. ~
~
t
""'.
. .~@ 7~S' ~ "D .~.
. c:,1:~~ .s:t/!!J.
,
,"
~
0'
~~" 4!w"
18'
./8
/
.'
~
~..
1/
"--
,~.
"
~
c-...
v-
I'
~~~ ~N"
/.8 ~ ~&'~"
f
111,1'7.
...
'..otice: '.' ... ':.. ... .. ,.:-;.':-~' ','" .
'. :Celculationa to be v_lid mat bur _ comc-ny.......... In : ;-.'. ::':r~ ":.~~.:.;~:..: :..~ .:....... . :... . . .
; ':Nd Ink. A ~ .18M"',.. not nlkI. :-. "j ~ . ~ !"~'-;':' ..\. .;.;.::.-... ;..... ......
. . . .j. ',.:":. -~~: :::::. ~~:'... '::',~{~~'~'.. :;': .::~".~. ;~. : '.' :.~. L ~.: .:': :'-:~~:~ .~:'L~ :~:~~f~~~~}2:i-~=.: ~..:.~)~;' ~ '2:~'.:'.~~': ~'~.' .:
~. '. ....:..:.:...: ,-, -.' ~~. (f' ...1:..! ::.~@ 7~S'.A4 ""L:;) .~: " ""J 1. ..
..I ...... ....:. . "::. 11' i. . ~. . . ~ ::C:,;k' ~ ~~ : +1I1'f117.. . '.
f) ... .... .. '. '" . . : .._:I::.~. ~ ..........- ',,"' "', ..... .
I ....... .:........................ :
,. ... .... .
. " . .. . . _ _ _ '4'.. . .... ~ _ .
J I #7:)" .cS)';t. - .' ..
P
,i
~.
iJ
.J
~Ir
~i II~"
~ 'I -&.
, f J
~ II
l'
'I
- JI
. t
. .
f
.
14'
I'
.\
,'of' ~ 1'Ie .
of..,.. (('o.,A j
. ~1,1)
V'
, ,
..~
~.
\Ii
II
'--
-----
1';,4D"
1,;..~1,"1.
.cIbI.J.o,.
I
~ 7~~, '(16)"
~ i?' ~ t~ ~ ~')
<~, . ~ ~~6~ .
'. .~~
~~
~ II
M~" ~~/f.J aw-~ .
I .,~ .,
'%) ~) I ;I,S -< 1"~
~ tI~;--
~"'. ~h.'O".
I'tJ'tI..,-
~/'&'.i-: -
.~, (\t) ~t --.-
.- --J:-
. '.. ~~" 1'8"
. .....s ~~ Jo .
M!"~~
b
~8
t
~'
-jI
~
., ~)
f
k
LAW O~~ICES O~
EARL I. KORCHAK
" ~.O"E..'O""L C:O"f'O_TIO..
CENTURY CITY NORTH eUll.ClING
10100 SANTA ....ONICA aOUI.EVARCl, 25'" ~~OOR
1..05 ANGEI.ES. CAI.IP'ORNIA eooe7
TEI.EPHONE 121~1 277-..ee ' lei.' 7e4.e20~
March 15, 1988
Albert Mamlouk
c/o: 7/10 Food Store
767 NOrth D Street
San Bernardino, California 92401
Dear Mr. Mamlouk:
Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter that I have received
fran the City of San Bernardino, Build:ing and Safety Department.
As is clear fran this letter, the Building and Safety Depcu: Luc:llt
Director feels that the building is msafe for occupancy in its present
cooditicn. .
\oJhen I received the first notice fran them, I engaged the
services of an engineer to inspect the pr~erty and prepare his report as
to whether it is ecooauically feasible to repair the building or lNhether
it should be demJilshed. 'Ibe opinicn of the engineer in add1ticn to the
opinicn of the Building and Safety engineer is that it is not ecannically
feasible to repair the building and that it DIlSt be demJlished.
I have been advised that the tenants DIlSt be vacated fran the
premises by May 15, 1988 or else the City will obtain an Order of
Dem:>liticn at that tine.
As you can imagine, it is a disaster to ne, as owner of the prOQerty:
However, I have no alternative but to cmply with the Order of the City of
San Bemardino.
Under the cirCllI6tances, it is to the best interest of you and your
custaIErs to vacate your pranises as socn as possible.
~L
EIK:ps
~ :7'( 0r S~I'4 3,.~~ ; ::.0
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
PROJECT NO. 3114
RESOLUTION NO.
SAN BERHARDlNO JllJNlCIPAL CODE. TITLE 15 EMERGENCY ABATEMENT
The undersigned respectfully submits the following statement of costs incurred by the
City of San BernArdino in abating the public nuisance that existed on the property
located at: 751, 753, 763-771, North "0" Street
Owner: Earl Korchak
Address: 234 Mc Carty Dr., Beverley Hills, CA
Assessors No: 140-282-43,73,74
Mare particularly described as:
. STATEMENT OF COSTS
Lot 5 in Block 51 City Of San.Bernardino, Book
7 of maps page 1 except north 200ft thereof.
ITEMIZATION
Safety Oept's Costs:
S
$
4 X 516/hr S
Z X 513 S
25~ S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
5
S
S
W/O and/or E/A
Street Oept's Costs:
Labor S
Administrative Costs S
Building Pennit S
Equipment S
Material S
Dumping S
Build1nq and
Ti tle Search
Special Inspector'
Inspector's Time
Secretary's Time
Camp & ~etirement
Equipment 4 X SOt
Certified Mailing 4 X 52
Pictures 14 X 51
Administrative Costs 40~
Hea ri ng Ti me
Newspaper Advertisement
Additional Costs Attorney
SUB TOTAL
Costs From Previous Hearing
TOTAL S
Demolition Contract Preparation:
Contractors Costs:
Date: June 20, 1988
TOTAL CaSTS
BUIlDI~3r~ {~~ DIRECTOR
SBMe 15:28
By:
165.00
64.00
26.00
36.G~
2.De
fLOC
14.0C
162.0C
SO.OC
40.a~
567.0{
567.0
C.(Y OF SAN B.RNA~L".NO - REQII...ST Fr"1 COUNCIL A-..,fION
STAFF REPORT
765 North "0" street
The Department of Building and Safety inspected this
building on October 8, 1987. The structure is an
unreinforced masonry building in a dilapidated and uangerous
condition. Some interior walls have been removed,
compromising the integrity of the structure.
~
The owner was notified by mail on october 13, 1987 as to
our findings. The owner subsequently retained a structural
Engineer for a structural analysis.
On November 13, 1987, the Engineer delivered a negative
report on the building, stating that it could not withstand
or resist minimum seismic forces, as outlined in the 1982
Uniform Building Code.
On March 15, 1988, the owner notified his tenants of the
City's intent to demolish the structure if it was not
rehabitable. .
On July 1, 1988, the matter went before the Board of
Building Commissioners. A resolution was made to vacate the
premises within three days*, secure the premises and demolish
within thirty (30) days.
An appeal was subsequently made by W.R. Holcomb, to the
Mayor and Common Council on behalf of Albert Mamlouk, a
tenant at 765 North "0" street.
No permits have been obtained for possible retrofit.
The building has been posted as a dangerous building.
Staff recommends approval of the Board of Building
co~issioners action to abate the structure by demolition,
and lncur all current and future costs in the form of a lien on the property.
(*All tenants, except Mr. Mamlouk, have vacated the
premises.)
75.0264
RE?ORT :10. 3 J J '1---
C:TY OF SMI 3E:tNAIU)INO
CE.2P.RT~EN" CF 3Ut~INQ ~o $~:'I f
~CO No~~~ 0 St~..~
SAN 3~NARarNO, e~.92418
UN 17 INSPS:'::7:CN ~~CRT
Th. 3ui14i.ng .nd S""'."Cq O.I""~;1I.n~ "..S insll.c~.d .tlu d.sc~i.b.d
P,.op.~~q. Th. insp.c~i~n ~.v..l.~ 'ft.~ :~. i~..~ ..~k.d do ~O"C c~n",o,.m
to tft. p1"ovisi,ons o? C~. S..n i.,.n,,"~i.no lOfuniclp.al Cod. (SII'1C).. r~...s
"1"ked ~it:'l..n .st.,.isl sus~ .. ~....i~.~ Q1" C01",..c~.d .1~~in-La-d.."s.
Qt:t.,. i~.msllu"s~ ta. ,..ep.1,..ed 01" ,~~~.c-:.~ ...i.'::t1n..L.a-4....s.
P~~IIS. REQUI~~~VS:S____~O
P.~m1~s ..~. ,.e~ul"'.d ~o ~.p.i1'" a,. c~~,..c': ..n~ o~ tft. i-:..... F~1" ~
consul~.ation ~.g..~ding t~is ,..eIlO1"~. .ssis~nc. in s.cy?int . p.,..1-:. O~
scft..uling.a ~.insp.c~ion, pl..s. c..l1 'b. offic. ..nd sc".cay1. ."OU1"
,.e~u.S': ...ith th. insp.cto~ ...hos. n.... .pp..~s an this ~.po~t.
OFFICE HOURS ARE 7:~O-4:~O ~CNDAY THRCUCH FRIDAY
QWN~ ~ CA-f" t. ~L,/, .....-.. k:: OAn:: PREilAAED Z - I - ~~
ACDRESS i 3 t...; fY' r I",t:~,,..f / i' r. TVPS: iU)O/VICL.ATtCN ('..,.,., ~/"Rd1 5trl~"A..;:~
CITY '?,~lIt...r.i\1 /J~I/<.. 10!IZADDRESS 751 7";~ 7'<:1 771 IJ "'v.sf
.' .' ,
ASSESSCR.5 NO. I"/-'?-l. %7. '13 7< 7'1
DAT'E OF INSJ'!:C-:"tCN Ft~
PHONE NO. Cc.. .
I 01 tJ CI 5A.A14.. tnlJl'tic,,-
Sil;1~ 2.500
(-: 13) 5'7'-- I~.t 55
J-/L. Cf0257
,.
1-;lve41
~<g
IJICLATtCNS
~UC~E-~utLntNO
1. Q..~aca~ hildtn,C\lFC11. 41.111.4123 s.cu". an
'yil nw~ to FHA s..an4.~ca. to ,~.v.nt un.auCbo?iz.d
.n~.nc.. S.CU? dOO?" ..n4 .indo.. .ith '1tC.d _l~~Goca
1I.1nC.~ to ...tcla "ou.. .,.i.. C,.n"1I1. win40.. auS1: II.
lI?Gvi4.d .it" ,uies ~.l..as. ..cb.ni... .ft.~. ..CY1"t~q
.c?.ns .~e ins..l1.. Oft 1I..~ao. .indo.~(UBC 1204i).
2. Ft,.. ct....,.. s""Yc~u~.C.] s.ecific.l1"
CS3...c 1~. 10. 2~J S.cu~e u. n.c.....,." ,1.,..1ts ..n. 1'".p.ai~
...i~fti.n tfti~~qC~OJ ~..~s to lIyi14int COd.. o? d~11sft.
:I.
tn...qu.at. 'l~. .
.~u1p..n1:CUHC 9.901.
lI~ot.ct1on
10. 1001n.
01" 'i~"'''' i i" "Cin,
UFC 10.~01J ~ay\~. ...
1
4.
,.
Q
~e~ui~e<< ~~ ~~a.~ ~~~;.~ ~i~.-.I:i~9u~sn~n9 sqs~.~~ O~
.,ui~m.n~.
Q
tn.4.~U.~. .li~~CUHC3.aOl. to. 100t~.uae~~.~~~.UFC
..~. 12: Add~~ion.l .I~~S ~.~ ~. ~.~ui~.d t~ b. In
c..,11.nc. ~1~~ ~ui1~i~g ~:4.~.
tn...'U.~. ~QunQ.ci~n-~.49i"9 ~toa~~ in
CUHC:'O. t.001~.~. J'~' 1. use:.. t.C44lt1auncS.c:.~n a~ ple~. mus~
II. p~avi.:2.4.
In...,u.t. ~ll,/v1V-tT.....l ,up;o,.":S ~-ib ~~,_u. ~ "':l~
..."1cl'l II.ve :a"""~..Ic.n.ca 11'1 4.t.,.i,O,..ti.on 0,./o"."lo.d~"9
CUHC:'O. 1001:. 4. II. J. 1. 1 :sust =a. 1".1I1.c.d 0" st,.en9tft.ned.
7. tn...~u.'. cei.l1n, h.lgn' In
Ct..'HC'. '0:3. use :.2. :..07: All h.Ol :.Q ~. .n4 S.""lce ,. ~ota.-~
sn.11 It.". 7,.'.4tin. ceilings.-
-:. .
8.,
In.de~u.t. ~aam 41m.nsiQn~ in
CUHC'. '0:3.
UIC12. 1207J
9. I"...~u.c. ".nc11.t1on/ti9~~ 1n
CUHC'. '04. uSe:.2.120'J All It.'1t.al. ,.aa_s sn.11 It.". .n
.99,..g.~. ~incao'" .1".. 0" na' t.ss tft.n 1/10~a ,ft. ,.lao,.
.,... 0" 10 tq.. ,It:. ,-n1C:U"." is g,...1:.~ .nd .n 01l.n..1.
winda... .~.. ~~ ~/4 ~~. :0,.1 .,... ~.'U~,....n~. S.t""oo.s
.ust II.V.. ~inlmu. 0+ ~ s~. ,.c. 0" ~. p,.o"id.ca ~i~ft
..cn.nic.1 v.n1:i1.cton.
10. I..,.all." u.. o~ uni~CUHC:'O. 10010J ~. us. o~
.s ~uSC la. 4isc~n1:inu.d.
11. a,.olr.n dao"~ 0" wincto...CUFC1.1. 411/1.1. 41~ UBel.10441 S..
nua'." on. "0" c~"".c~~Qn.
12.
1:1.
c::;
...
In.d.,u.~. ~.ep,.oo,.tn,Ct..~10. 1001kJ All
.~~tc v.nts 0" op.nings .use II. cav.,..d
..sn ~c,...ning.
found.'lon .nd
.i.t:. 1/4 inc:rt
Iauildi.n,s
111.,.1 .4.i.'i.on/sulls~n4.~4 ~cc.'so~,
CU.C:l.~01. ~.~01] ...i'10ft o~
.u.~ confo,.S co cod.s o~ It. ...011sn.d.
....ol&.n/.~ssin' ..1:."i,0,. tirUn,/seucl:o on ~x-r;r {;"r
CUHC10. 1001b.C. 4.11. J. VlC17.17071 SUsC Q. ,..,.i1".ca 0,.
,.., l.tc.d.
1~.
In...e4tu.'.
doo" ..
i.~ clos.s
p,.op.,.l\1.
dcrO,.CUBC::J:J. X304. uFC12. 12. 1041 Inst.ll n...
,,. 1".,.1,. .lls.1n, doo~ to insu".
~,.op.,.L~ 0,. il . lac. is ~,..s.n1t ,a.e lC lOC.S
2
. .
1..
C:1~..n." ,e~u~~u". ulnaun4ClJdC~. lC4d. ;. ;C~.
UHC~Q. 10Q1~. ~. It. ~. J. k. t.] A..av. =:\i.nlne., eo ,.oa'" t1no.
~~O.~ e:\i, ;aaine .nd ,..1 "1:-.001 0" ".11.1,. l'C1-Uc:-:ut'
.11., Ca ~~cae.
.
,
..'
.:-
~AL~~t~~~~~~
17.
~.ol II.. '~~9n.n-: ....t.,.
in.d.q,u.C. 2.ce CSiJ<l~. .&.8.
5.1_in, pool .~-: 24. tOO. HIlS
0,. ".,11.C:. .~~o"fin, Co cod.S.
in.d.q,u.,e lenc:.
St~c. ~~Q. iLcle17CAC
e~d.TT74J o,..Ln. ,..p.i,..
,.
~.. .O.'''i'/Junk/1n.4.,u~t. t."~.'. '~O,.~,.C~e.lt~ .nd
S.ni~.tion R.,ul.ci;n, Tiel. ~ clI.0.2 ~~.o~.~.044.
S.~3.21.0~O.8. 21.040. 8.21.0~0. 8.21.0.0. 8.24.020.
8.24.0~0 8.24.040.a.24.0~OJ A..ov. deb,.i'/Jun. ."d
;a?ovid. ,ui:~ol. ~~n:.~n.'" .its lid. lo? rulllis" .n4
1.,.12., ..
1~.
Unl1ce",.d/inop.,..tiv. v.bicl. Ve.? ~ie
~1c. CSa~3.~~.010kJ Remov. a? ,ta,.e in.
building.
20. In..cts-v."~in-."inl.l d"OPllin,sCSB~..04. 120. i.08.080.
UHC10. 10010. d. k. 11 Ad.,u.C. ~..,u".S mu.~ be ..k.n CO
.lisin.:e ~lIis C~"di.eiQn in
21. Un.."i e.,.q d,..inlla.,.f CU'MC.. 001.. 10. loo1e. 4. J. 1.
UBC2'.2'loi1 R....l 0" ~.pl.c.-d".inDo."d ...ci.,l..ft.
22. Uns.nit~"q ~too"CQv.,.in9-"'loo?\n. 1n
1. . :...It'' ".I.?dCUlCl. 10~, UHC~O. 1001d. J, 11. R.co"."
O? ,.....1 P?OIl.,.l.,.
%3. 0...111n, t.ck. "oc lIfoAt.,.CtJHC'. 'O~, 10. 1001.. d, 1e1 Ho"
..~.? 0'" no~ 1... tit." 120 de,,..., F. au." II. ,,.avid.d
..0 ,..,ui,..d plusoing ~i%:u?'~
24. w....,. "..t.? i 11.,.11" In.ul1.4 in: 1I.~a?ao.
...,.oos CVi"'C2.. 202.. ~. ~OA-'O~, UHC7. 701~. Ule::.. 20:3J
R.loc.". ..~.,. h..~e? ta. ,ui~.'le loc.ciaft un..,.
pe? i. ~.
2:t. w....,. ......~ i..,.oll.,.l" ven"e4C\JP!C2. 20~.. ~. ,~. ~. '08.
UWc:z. 20::3. UHC7. 701cJ \J.n~s s..11 .I~end 12 incn.. .lIav.
.~. point o~ elit '''0. is. ,.oof. All v.n.. ,i,.. ta II.
.ee,,"...
26. flto.of 1..king in eft. .,... .Dav.
ctI1IC1.10044, :z. 20:3. UHC..001, 10.100111, c. 4.11, i. J. II, 1J
R...i.,. ,.00....
n..~C~IC~
%7.
Qv.?...u.ingCU.C1. 10~d.
10. 100111. 4. ., i. J. t. 1.
UHC:L 202. 4. 401. 7. 701.11, .. .01.
NlEC2. 20~"". CPO. oJ Fused .l.c~" ic.al
:J
~~a"c~ ~.~c~t..s ,n.l~ ~, ~~Qvt4'd
~u.,. ncac ~~ 11:.,4 1~ .... ~a~
,.,c:.p t., leH
_.~:1 :"lon-':.lIla'~lalo
lign~s/20 .." ~~
a. rU.' tn, tLIC ~1' i:: i.l t: ~v,~~/ j1 is ~u~" in
tU.C:.1044. UMC2.202", 7. 70t..), ~. ~O1.
10. 1001la. 4. .. t. J. c. l. Nee2. 202a,.~. 90.':'1 ~ll ou:l.~, .""
,.1~=~.t ~u.~ n.vI p~~,.~ t:~v'~1 ."d .ll .l.c..~~::~l
~il~U~.t ~u'C ~I ~"QP'~~~ in'caltl4 a"d sec~,..d:~ t~c
lSu i.1:U:ot9.:
29. In. d . Cl U. t . ~ u 'C 1 .1: S i"
NEC.lc.210J E.c~ n.oi~..l. ~ao. .UI~ ft.VI 2 C~"v\.nc'
ou..1..., Q~ 1 o"cl.c .n~ 1. lii'" 11s'"'''' a.Cft~QOlll' ~U'1:
ft.VI 1 11gftC ~il~U~' .n4 QF! J1."g.
:30. El.c:~,.~tal "I"vi.c. i, i:ot..41,,,.CI "Q~ .lise:.n, t~~~~
1.,.v.4 CN&:Cs.c%30J A n,. s.~vtCI 4..i,n.4 to ,uo.1~.:'.
.i"imu. Q~ 00 ....,.. ~ _11"1 I.~ic' '0" up ~Q ~ C~ivoJ
~o ~L'" ~,.."'n ,i,.,ui~1 c...,~c~.
31. H.a:a,.dou./il1.g.1 lIIi~int in
CUBC1. 10~4. 2.20~. VHC,202. ~.401. 7. 701~. 9.901.
10.1001:'. d. I. i. J. 11.1. NEC, 202.,.~. oJ ,",ust Ia. ~lpl.c.4.
p,.op.,.l~ ~1,..i~14 a,. ~..ov.ci co .1i.in..... n..za,.ci'.
~C~~!C~L~€~T~~Q
~ tl1.~.1 g., b..C.,.,s] .n4/0" g., ..,1i."'I' in
Cur<<:2. 202, ,. '04.1&'08. UHC7. 701c. UlC:z. 20:lJ.r.U unvln1:eca
0" 0"" 11... ,.., .'Oli."c" .u,1: ~I dl'C~""'c:'.4 .".
~..ov.ci ~,.o. ~~I~~.I' .n4 ~ft. g.. pi~.. ~AD'14 in ·
"""I" t~..c ~"Ivln~' ~.'on".c~lo" a~ ~ft.,. A~,lL.nc:.'.
:3:1. I".d.,u.t. "...cCt,,'HC7.70t..J ." .O,,.ovlct bl.ci", '''S~I''
,n.l1 be in.c.ll.. ,.,.01. o~ p,.ovi41n, 10 41,"'1'1 F
~ft,... '.IC ..OVI '100~ in .11 ft..ic.ol. ,.00...
34.
I".dl,u.~./~i,.i", g., sftU~O~~ ,.a~lcq vAlvl
C:Clnn.c-:i.,,~a. CU'lC1. 10"'4. 2. 20:1.
~11Q~4. '.'O~~~~Cc-aJ. Upe1~ 121~.J An .D,"OV'. IftU~
CI~~/v_lv./ conn.c~10" Ift.11 ,. ins~~11.. 1"""
.4J.c:.ftc/acc...t,1. loc:.~ion ~o,. ..11 ,.. ~i~.ct
-1111 11..nc .,.
.~ .
:J~. C...u..ibl., .,.1 ,CCI,.I. coo "I." "..1:i"~ ..,li."'" in
CYPtCS. ao..~ 1. 70::1 70~ J
R...v. co..u,ciDl... C~.Cl SA"U~.C'u,..~~ s,.ci'icac10ft..
'''_In''9B t NO
~. L...lci",/b"Qlen/~lu'i'4 s..'" 4,.a1n, i"
CUBC t. 1Q~4. 2. 202.' 4. 401. ~. ~o~. 10. 1001~. 4. J. I. t. All
~ia1:u"., ."4 .,,1L."c.' ~u.1: al ~,.a'l,.l.. ,0""ec-:.4 ,~
,...,. lLn.. .n4 ..in1:.1"1. in . ,.ni...,.q con4ition.
4
:..,
, ,
~7,
~8.
~I.king-~~~.ed ~i~..-.i'ling ~lu..ing '1.~~~.. 1n
cuae~.1.04d. 2.202. 4,~t. '.'0'. 1.0.100!.~'J,k,t.]
~~e~ ~i~e. .nd ~iJ~u~.. ~u.~~' ~~.. o~ te.~1
..i~~~in'd tn . ,.~vice.ll. .nG s~ni~~~q c~n41~ion.
...tt
.nd
~"o.e~.tive~is'in9 ~~e'lu~e ;e.ol~.CU~. ~.lie' v.lvl
~O1'" :'o~ IItoACI~ ,",~.m'Ule~. 1.044, 2. 20~. UHC2.202, 4. -'01.
:'0. toe 1.~. i>. 1. u;ac ~C. ~007. 1.:%. 1.~O'-l:JO. :R., t.C' v.lv..
39. C1'"O'S e~nnec":ld :alu.iling '&il~u1".Csl in
CUPC~. 1.02e~110. ..008. 10. 10~hl W.~I~ inlles ~u.~ ~. ~
.ini~u. o~ 1.tnc~ .Dove ~~. ri~ Q~ tft. vIsset ,.?vic.4.
tnlee, in ~.CI~ cl~..c C:~tl.el ;~"I. .us~ ~. .~uip".d
~it~ .a~~QveG ANTt-it~~CN ievic.. ~i~~ 1. inc~ cl..~.nc.
~OOVI :ft. oVI?~lcn. tUD..' .
39.. V~1'"4 ta~inll.1'"s .u.e~. ~~Ie o~ C~QSS connec:i.ons ~iC~
~1~~Qvld v.cuu. ~~..~.~CsJ in.~~11.. .~ 1...t lia e.J
1ncft es .Dove IU~"Qund Lng g~ound, ,.nd ".~ds I.~vlc let.
'.
. ..0
QENEiif ,foL
8-
6
NOT TO 8& OCCUPIED CUBC2.20~, ~.~07. '.'01-'031 0-.111n9
s"~ 1 t no~ II' oc :~" t,d un~i 1 via 1.tions no~.d .00VI' "~VI
~lln CO,.,..c~.d .nd .ap~ov.d ~~ . 9utlding Ins'lc~Q1" ~?o.
tft. C1tq o~ S~n Sl~n."~ino Building .nd S.~.tq
O"~1"c...nt.
. C.,.~ilie~ee o~ Occu,.nc~ ~itl ~I ~e~ui"'G to ,..occu,~
p1'"O'I~~~CUae2.20~. 3.307. ,. =01-'~J.
42. tm01"o,e1" occup.ncqCUHClO. tOO:'o. uae~20~, ~.:J07, '.~01-
,OOJ Occu..ncq is no~ .11a... in .ats 'ui1~int o?
p01'"~ion tal~eo~. ~ou .us~ V~C~.I tnl .1"e..
~.
44.
@
',."
Nui SoAnc .CUBe~. 1().4.4, UHC.\, ~1:
This is .n ~'t?ac~iv. ~~1."4
4._.1"t.lfttoAl ~o "u..ns. t_ ~.t
1'".,~i~ed, cr..nld y" 0,. p..oVld
.fti~ft ..~ ,?ov. to ,.
~I '1"ovi4.4 ,?tlc~iQn.
1..ld 1~ ,.t".
F1~. b.I.~d in 01" on
CUBC~. 1~, 2. 2=, UHC2. ~O:z. 4.401. 8.801. 9. 901,
10. leOle, eI, J' Ir, 1, UFC2. 201, ~. 10tl R..oy. tftl lIui14tng,
4...,ic.. ~,'~1'"~'US, ....u ip..n~, co.Ousti.' 1. ..s-c. a,-
""tet.a~1Qft _fti~~ C~n c.us. ~,. .u,..n~ tftl s,~.~d .n.
1nt.nsicq a~ ~1~. a,. ..,1asion.
~.u1~~ ~..,.i.ls o~
CUBe ~. 1 04d. 2. 20~.
o~ ~~nseuc~ion mu.t
Sui.l~ in9 Cod.. .n4
s.~' ~~ndition.
cons""uc~ion in
UHC10. 1001~. 4, J' r. l~] All ....,.1.1'
~e .110...d 0" ."oved II" taeVni'Q~m
.d"u~.ll~ ~in~.in.. in tood .nd
,
, >
.
__. ....<1
..
40. tn~d.~u.~. ~~~~~.ft~"c. Q~
cuse:.. 1. 04d. 2. 20:1. UHC:Z. 2024 4. 400 t.
1 O. tOO 1 ~. c' d, ., ,., ~. ". i. J' _. t. .. ". a. > u...c 1. 104L4. 2. 202.
UPC:'O. 2. N&~;. ;02. .0. t. .0.4. CPO... NF'C2. 201. 3. 1011
R.,.l~ .nd/~~ ~.p14c. ~ui141nt Q~ pa~~1an 'ft.~.of.
(lj
Tlt i. s
47. "ok. d.C.C~~t"CsJ 1".q,ul,...Clnet2. t2:.0.a. UFC APPSND.1-
...1 tnsc.all smole d.~.C~Q~~ .~ ,..q,ui.,....
48. A.d~.s. t".,ui~.d Oft ~11 ~uildlng~ .ftd/a~ .,~~'UFCtO.208.
"I'tC:'2.~. C~OJ. ...,pl" ..d~.~~ 1n~0~..~1an . aft laui141ng.
>. Ill.t..! C~ft~~-:-uc~i.Qn ..."tea
lnsl.e~lansCUaC~.301-30~1.
,..q,ul~.~
,.~.lts
.nd
~o.
SUPP' =-aT
I ,
0-1'
.(:,t'
I
c
7",
~A..(_ ~,_ ~ "-
i~.C~i.an t".oa~~ ... gi.v.n to:
A ~~Ol."~" ollln.,..
a ..n.,.~'
C ~.n.an~.
o Q' ~~nd d.llv.,.".
A E 1'"., U 1~~ ,..11.
XXX F c.,.~i'i..d ,...il. 6/20/88
on ~r' ~
..3
1.'X~.
ty.t2cL I/J,u,I'-iJ"-/
tn~l.c~O? Slln.~
.
, .
Item No. 10 - 1650 North IIJII street/Report No. 3007 -
Mark sutton presented Item '10, Report/Project No.
open and vacant single-family residence and owned
Pierce.
3007, an
by Robert
Mark Young presented photographs to the Board, stating that
inspection made on February 17, 1987 found an open, vacant
and completely unmaintained residence that had plaster, hot
waterheater missing, roof falling in in garage, inadequate
siding, water and termite damage, fire hazard, etc. staff
Recommendation is to obtain a permit within 10-aays and
rehabilitate to current 1985 Building Codes or demolish and
incur all costs in the form of a lien on the property.
Current Costs: $501.90.
Mr. Joshua Sarmiento was present to speak on behalf of the
property, stating that he wanted to buy the property.
Commissioner Ponder stated that persons without interest in
the property could not speak on its behalf.
commissioner Pollock motioned to adopt Staff Recommendation
to adopt a resolution to obtain a rehabilitation permit
within 10 days and rehabilitate to current 1985 Building
Codes within 30-days or demolish and incur all costs in the
form of a lien on the property. Commissioner Hunt seconded.
Motion unanimously approved.
Motion passed.
Mr. Sutton stated owners 15-day right to appeal.
Item No. 11 - 751, 753, 763 and 771 North "0" Street/Report
No. 3114 -
Mr. sutton presented Item Ill, Report/Project No. 3114, an
un-reinforced masonry building and owned by Earl Korchak.
Don Hesterley presented photographs to the Board, stating
that initial inspection was made in October 1987. Structural
Engineer Report had been done with recommendation to the
owner to vacate the tenants because structure was unsafe.
Tenants are currently still occupying the building. Don
Hesterley read report the Board, which was reviewed by
Charles Dunham, Plan Check Engineer. Mr. Hesterley read
letter from owner and from Attorney Bob Holcomb, who is the
attorney for tenant Albert Mamlock. Staff Recommendation is
to adopt a resolution for immediate demolition and incur all
costs in the form of a lien on the property. Current Costs:
$567.00.
Commissioner Ponder expressed concern for tenants occupying
an unsafe building, as well as the liability to the City, and
aotioned to evict tenants in three days.
Pollock s.cond.d.
co..issioner Heil stated that three days was not enough time
to giv. the tenant..
Mr. sutton stated that the tenants have been aware of the
proble.. since October 1987.
co.mis.ioner
Mr. sutton swore in the tenants present to speak.
Mr. Albert Ha.lock spoke on behalf of the property, stating
that. he had invested his savings into his business and
reque.ted .ore time to get money to rebuild his 1,900 square
foot store. Mr. sutton reminded hi. that the building is a
unit and has to be treated as such.
Lucy Martinez spoke on behalf of the property, stating that
she could not vacate the premises in three days and asked for
30 days.
co..issioner asked whether the Building 'Safety Deparmtent
could work with each tenant and find out how much time they
would need individually to vacate.
Commissioner Heil motioned to adopt Staff Recommendation to
adopt a resolution to have the tenants vacate the property
within 3-days and secure the property with iaaediate
demolition to occur within 30 days and incur all costs in the
fora of a lien on the property. Commissioner Westwood
seconded.
Motion unanimously approved..
Hotion passed.
Mr. Sutton stated owners 15-day right to appeal.
Item No. 12 - 838 San Jacinto/Report No. 3157 -
Mark Sutton presented Item '12, Report/Project No. 3157, an
unaaintained open and vacant single-family residence and
owned by Golden Pacific Trust Deeds.
Mark Young presented photographs to the Board, stating that
Golden Pacific Trust Deeds transferred ownership to the
Veteran Administration (VA). Property is currently in
Escrow.
Inspection was aade on June 26, 1988 and the VA was
contacted. The VA understands that the property is not
rehabitable for commercial or residential, due to zoning
ordinances. Staft Recommendation is to adopt a resolution
for securing property and to incur all costs in the form of a
lien on the property.
CUrrent Costa: $471.10.
. ,
"
REC~:' -~, -,. ,,-,..,.
Cl' ... I . .'; ___.. r
July 10, 1988
'88 JUL 11 A 8 : 17
Mayor and Common Council
300 N. "0" St.
San Bernardino, Ca 92412
ID)" :;? ([;) I: /1 ~n /.,,; ,-""
I ". ., . I" " 'J ~
I nO ...~ a !; :J i~! j!~; flu:'
I...:; " ,
JUL :~.;. 1988 "
.
Re: 7-10 Food Market at 765 N. "0" St.
CITY Qr: :::.)\;\.~ n::p:'_!t:\:.\[j'~\JO
NOTICE OF APPEAL r:;;.;:~,C~::J"'; ~t :;';.~..Fr:!'\1
Albert Mamlouk, owner of the convenience market located
at 765 N. "0" S t., San Bernardino, hereby appeals the
decision of the Board of Building Commissioners of July
1,1988, ordering the abatement of the premises located
at 751, 753, 763, 771 "0' St., City of San Bernardino,
and the vacating of the premises within three days.
The grounds for said appeal are as follows:
1. Appellant was not properly notified of the abatement
proceedings as required by San Bernardino Municipal Code.
2. Appellant was denied a reasonable continuance
in order to have counsel present at the proceedings.
3. That the decision was arbitrary and capricious
in that it did not afford appellant reasonable time to
take corrective actions to cure any code deficiencies
for the said action.
4. Said action was not taken in conformity with
the municipal code of the City of San Bernardino.
5, Said action failed to provide appellant an opportunity
to protect valuable property rights he has in ,the business
by rebuilding on adjoining property.
Appellant requests that the Councel stay all proceedings
long enough to give appellant reasonable time tO,either
correct any code deficiencies in said building or to
rebuild a suitable facility for appellant's business
at an adjoining location.
Respectfully submitted this /0 ofJULY8a
~~.f;
Albert Mamlou ,Owner
All notices o~\ tb\S'\t\\iJit\er should be sent to me in care
of my at~r~~~a~ la~~~W~R. HOLCOMB, 505 N. Arrowhead
Ave, Ste~'07, .~MQ'et-..dJ?crino, Ca. 92401
. jjO '"
, .
W. R. HOLCOMD
f(E~r:"/"'~
\" - .... . """;'.
ATTORNEY AT I.AW
SUITt: 407
1505 ARF<OWHEAtJ AVENUe
SAN UltRNAHCINO, CALII'tH:NII'. tli:'~OI
17141 800-10-: I
c8
.,.\~ ~""
- .. .. ~~ -,
n',....
1"-',: .-5 P? '''0
~ .~...
August 5, 198U
MaY(Jr Evelyn l1ilcm~
CorCil.:loil Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North liD" Streat
San Bernardino>> CA 92418
,0, ",,,...../.,
., ':.: ", ' ,
Attcutiou: Shc:!tUlt:! Clm:k
City Clerk
Dee'll: Hrfi. Clark:
I laen~hl respt:~c t.fully 1:'eque~ t. tha,t, a cOlllp<ildon 11m t t.(~)~ 17c'll! t;i,ne
to the appeal of Albert Mamlouk be placed on tbe Cou~~Sl
agenda'of August 15, 1988.
The compani.on Iljclt;t~r relates to ~i.:. HUllllouL transf.(~;~;::ill['. hir.
off..sale b.:~J.:' lmu wine licerwc to the abutt:ing provxt.)I.
without a protest from the City Police n~p~~tmcnt.
It ~.~) Hr. ~1a1'llonk v r; desi:r:c~ to build a 11(:\-1 lndld:tng (Clj' lI:i f:
bt1sh.~&s on ,t V.l:.lc.:.~I,/Ji::. lot that abutv lai,[j r.m 0: eut hm-dl'let::~~
~l t Tn. "Vii S t::r.-ec t.. I laave bc.m .:.~dv it:cd by Chif'f Bm~n(~ tt,
th;'.t th~~ Police Dq)urtmeut \-1i.ll pl.'otcst. thc: moving of thc:
licems.:; next d(JOL'~ If :;iuch 3 protCtit 5,s f:i)cKl \dth the
Alcoholic nCV8:':e:"!~,~) {,;ontl'~ol, no h:llnf':fcl.: (:w, bc' ma-;,omr'] 5 [;h('d
\';1 tbout c1 fm:.'u!,J, !J,~arinz bcf(H:(~ tllC' Al('.oho) ie. lkve:;.:-p.u: C(ln (; rol
B ()~:~ ~.: cl ..
There iE a large b2~klog of hearings Lefolc S:he State "ourd.
amI I ar,! told tbat it \muld Lc at least. a yeflx befcn~ thi t;
nu.; t ter cun bf.! hCEtrd J rfhis being the cltse, Ml=. Namlouk hiH; no
altcr:uati.ve Lut to Dtay in the presel.t bu:UcUng arid ):(ltTof:it.
it to meet tLn City Codes. r
The ratiC)nalc for the CldE1f's posi,U.on in lIds matter. I am
told, is the fact tl1at the area is a high n:ime area. I am
Bdvi3CG, hO~lev~:r, that since this lic.ense \-"['n issued to !-fl".
HC!!CIl.oul:, crime has in fnet dec.r.eEised in lid. f.. reportiuB d5.f,t:l:'lC'.l..
.
-2-
Mayor Evelyn Wilcox
Common Concil
Attn: Shauna Clark
City Clerk
August 5, 1988
In any event, in the interest of fairness, Mr. Mamlouk
should be permitted to move a license previously approved,
to an adjoining location without the filing of an arbi-
trary protest by the Police Department.
Mr. Mamlouk has invested blood, sweat and tca~s in this
small family-owned business and is entirely dependent upon
it for his livelihood. Without a beer license, the business
would be in serious financial jeopardy.
We therefore respectfully request that this Honorable Body
formally instruct the San Bernardino Police Department to
refrain from filing a protest with the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board for the transfer of Mr. Mamlouk's license to
the adjoining property.
Respectfully submitted,
W. R. HOLCOMB
WRH:ht
~-
L.AW OFFICES OF
EARL I. KORCHAK RECti ,I'": .
" :. ': j'
'" -AOFESSIONA&,., CORPORATION
'~8
'-'
'1 Ir"'
j.;:.'j
-4
A 7 :20
CLNTU~V CITV NORTH BUIL.DING
10100 SANTA MONICA BOUL.EVARD, cS'M FL.OOR
L.OS ANGEL.ES, CAL.IFORNIA ~00157
TELEPHONE Ccl31 277-0096 ' 10101 70~-6c03
.July 29, 1988
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North "0" St.
Sail Bernardino, Calif. 92'118
RE: APPEAL FROM RESULU1IUN n 1221
REPORT # 3114
751 - 771 Nor.th "0" St.
Dear Sir;
This is an appeal to the COMMON COUNCIL from the
above order frum the COMMISSIONERS of the City of San Bernandino.
We arc in the ~rocess of toukitlg a conclusive.: dtl'Cer'rnini.Jtiun
regarding the cctJl1otllic:: feasibility of r'etr'ofiting the buiJdJrlg
at the address set fot'th above , which is invo I vcd in tlltl ObOVf~
report and resolutioll.
We rcspec'i.;fully r'e4uet.it Uti additiunol 45 c!cJYB l.:U tillCJ\V
us tinte to make this dE.:cision.PllH::I~;l:. W-sn'L 'LIdn r'(:Cjlj~f;'L ;.."d
notify us accordingly.
Thank YOlJ for YULlI" COOpliJl'lf1;illll in t1dli IIl1lf,t cliff ic.:lIlt
of circuhlstatlc::o~:;.
Very truly yours,
~~~/
EARL I. KOACHAI( '-;::?
EIK/da
"
,
I',
"
(,
. .
F/LL-D'j~ -..
'7? s)J ~ 'I fA
()!J~I;J 3/1 Y
APPEAL HEARING - BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS'
ORDER TO VACATE, SECURE AND DEMOLISH - 765 N. "0"
STREET - ALBERT MAMLOUK, APPELLANT - EARL KORCHAK,
OWNER
This is the time and place set for an appeal hearing
regarding the Board of Building Commissioner's order to
vacate, secure and demolish the building at '765 N. "0"
Street, requested by Albert Mamlouk, a tenant of the
building owned by Earl Korchak. (15)
In a memorandum dated July 27, 1988, Mark Sutton,
Director of Building and Safety, provided a history of
the unreinforced masonry building located at 765 North
"0" Street. After a structural analysis was made of the
building, finding that it could not withstand or resist
minimum seismic forces, the owner notified his tenants of
the City's intent to demolish the building if it was not
rehabitable.
All tenants vacated the premises with the exception
of Mr. Albert Mamlouk, who operates a small grocery store
in the building.
In a letter dated November 13, 1987, to Mr. Earl
Korchak, property owner, Frank Tracadas, Civil Engineer,
provided an evaluation of the structural features of the
building. He stated it is possible to strengthen por-
tions of the building that do not meet minimum code re-
quirements, but it was his opinion that it may not be
economically feasible.
In a letter dated July 29, 1988, Earl Korchak re-
quested an addi tional 45 days to allow time for a con-
clusive determination regarding the economic feasibility
of retrofitting the building.
In a letter dated August 3, 1988, Z. John Szekely, a
registered Professional Engineer, evaluated that the
structural features of the building adequately resist
minimum forces which may be imposed by normal use or
seismic occurrence. He stated that he has been retained
to provide design calculations and drawings for the re-
habilitation of the building, which will be completed
within 29 days.
In a letter dated August 5, 1988, W. R. Holcomb,
attorney representing Mr. Mamlouk, requested that a com-
panion matter regarding the transfer of Mr. Mamlouk' s
off-sale beer and wine license to a neighboring building,
be considered at the same time as the appeal of the Board
of Building Commissioners' action.
16
8/15/88
Mayor Wilcox opened the hearing.
Mark Sutton, Director of Building & Safety, provided
photographs of the building located at 765 North "0"
Street, and answered questions regarding the background
of the appeal.
w. R. Holcomb, attorney for Mr. Mamlouk, stated that
he has the assurance of a local engineer that ~he safety
of the building is not an issue.
The Director of Building & Safety s.poke regarding
the City's responsibility in protecting life and limb,
and provisions of the Uniform Building Code.
Attorney Holcomb stated that Mr. Mamlouk has not
received any notices from the City regarding the build-
ing, although he has a vested interest as he is a leasee.
He stated that the building was given a Certificate of
Occupancy by the Building & Safety Department in 1986.
He requested a reasonable opportuni ty to retrofi t the
building or move next door, and spoke regarding the tran-
sfer of the off-sale beer and wine license of the market.
John Wilson, Deputy City Attorney, answered ques-
tions, stating that discussion of the transfer of a beer
and wine license is not appropriate under this appeal
hearing regarding the demolition of a building.
Earl Korchak, bUilding owner, stated that he had
made a determina tion that it was not economically fea-
sibile to retrofit the building and he notified tenants
to move. He was notified that Mr. Mamlouk finds it very
difficult to move his business. Through the efforts of a
property manager, he spoke with another structural engi-
neer who indicates that, subject to payment of a fee, he
will draw up plans for retrofitting the building as it is
the engineer's opinion that it may be economically fea-
sible to retrofit. Mr. Korchak requested additional time
for this to take place.
The Director of Building & Safety answered questions
regarding the unsafe condition of the property.
Attorney Holcomb stated that Mr. Mamlouk plans to
retrofit the building if the owner does not.
17
8/15/88
,
Deputy Ci ty Attorney Wilson expressed concern re-
garding the City's liability during the time extension.
He stated that the entire liability should be transferred
to the other parties, holding the City harmless. The
City should be named as an insured and the building
should not be occupied until the documents are in hand.
Mark Sutton, Director of Bui Id ing & Safety, sta ted
that the August 3, 1988, letter from Professional Engi-
neer Szekely is an opi n ion, and not supported by any
data. He spoke regarding the provision of a disclaimer
on the property.
Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by
Council Member Miller, that the appeal hearing be closed;
that Mr. Mamlouk be granted a 30-day extension on two
conditions: 1. Within 72 hours, Mr. Mamlouk be required
to provide a Certificate of Insurance, naming the City as
an additional insured during the 30-day e~tension period;
2. During the 72-hourperiod, only Mr. Mamlouk may enter
the building, and only if he executes a hold harmless
agreement at the City Attorney's Office; no third party
or other tenants are allowed to enter the building during
the 72 hours.
The motion
Council Members
Ludlam, Miller.
None.
carr ied by the following vote: Ayes:
Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Pope-
Noes: Council Member Minor. Absent:
RECESS MEETING - CLOSED SESSION
At 3:25 p.m., Council Member Flores made a motion,
seconded by Council Member Miller and unanimously car-
ried, that the meeting recess to Closed Session pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with its
attorney regarding pending litigation which has been
initiated formally to which the City is a party as
follows: (71)
Mallek vs. City of San Bernardino, et al - United
States District Court (Central District) Case No. 97-1615
AWT (Bx).
CLOSED SESSION
At 3:25 p.m., Mayor Wilcox called the Closed Session
to order in the Conference Room of the Council Chambers,
Ci ty Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernard ino, Cal i-
fornia.
18
8/15/88
. ~
X1 0 (; ~ 0
_JCngllltil<eelrnHj~~ aJ)~}t\VJl~eg
z. JolUl SzcJ:clYt P.E.
C<lh,uh&Jit
August 3, 1.988
Earl I. Korchak
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
RE: structure @ 765 North "D" street
City of San Bernardino
Dear My.. Korcliu!~:
I have been retftined by NL. Charles Racoosin of George lr. Schnu~rc
Real E&'C.i:"lte to provide Design Calculations and Drcalings for tlw
rehabilitatIon of the above referenced building. Calculatiol'lf.i cmcl
Dra...ing viII conform to the provisions of the San Bernardino MUllicip<.ll
Code in accordance with standard engineering practice using the 1985
Uniform Building Code. Calculations and Drawings to be complet~d
20 days from today.
I have axumlned the po~tio" of building currently occupied. It is
my profes~ional evaluatioil that its structur.al features adequately
resist _inimum forces which roay be imposed by normal use or seismic
occurrence.
.st.ould yu'L! have any questJ.ons r.egaruing this lllatte>:, pleuse do not
hesitate to call me.
~incerely.l'
z. John Szekely P.E.
,~ ~ ~~~,-,~
"
. 620 E. Valley Boulevanl, Suite B . Coltont California 92324
Business (714) R2d-<)~ 'H _ u~....~ I,., 1 ,H n n... 'u"^ .
CITY OF
San l)ernardino
BUILDING' SAFETY DEPARTMENT
MARK I SUTTON
DIRECTOR
August 19, 1988
Hr. Z. John Szekely, P.E.
620 East Valley Boulevard
suite B
Colton, California 92324
RE: Structure @ 765 North "0" street
San Bernardino, California
Dear Hr. Szekely:
I am in receipt of your letter dated August 3, 1988,
indicating that the non-reinforced masonry building located
at 765 North" 0" Street is safe for occupancy.
I take exception to this statement knowing that the
State of California has studied these types of buildings for
the last fifteen to twenty years, and has resolved that these
types ot buildings are dangerous and have instituted laws to
upgrade these buildings to preserve life and limb.
However, in a effort to substantiate your findings, the
city of San Bernardino requires that you submit a complete
Analysis of the building, Calculations and Drawings, as
prescribed in the San Bernardino Municipal Code; of which is
consistent with the state law for retrofitting non-reinforced
masonry buildings.
Upon receipt of this information, I will evalulate this
information accordingly and give you my determination.
Again, I would like to emphasize my concerns regarding
your statements made in reference to non-reinforced masonry
buildings, and will be conveying these concerns to the state
Board of Registration.
3 0 0 Ii 0 " ~... U S T R E E , SAN B ERN A ROt ~l 0
C A L ; i 0 R r. A 9 2 ~ 1 8 0 CO' 7 1 . I 3 . . . 5 0 7 1
:,:;.c.;~_..:=
...~ ,':".; ':\. ,::.::'{:' ':~;= .:::::~
.1. .,"l
~'; .~~.~>.>~: 91 I
..
Mr. Z. John Szekely, P.E.
August 19, 1988
Page 2
If you should have any questions, please co~tact my
office. Thank you.
Sincerely,
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
CPD/tmo
cc:
Mayor Evlyn Wilcox
Jim Robbins, Administration
~im Richardson, Administration/Development
/Hark I. Sutton, Building and Safety
Don Hesterley, Building and Safety
Dean Pagel, Building and Safety
Common Council
state Board of Registration
Services
CITY OF
San Bernardino
S H A UNA C L ARK
CITY CLERK
August 16, 1988
Albert Mamlouk
C/O W. R. Holcomb
50S N. Arrowhead Avenue, Ste 407
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Dear Mr. Mamlouk:
At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on
August 15, 1988, your appeal of the Board of Building Com-
missioners' Order to vacate premises, secure and demolish
the property located at 765 N. "0" Street, was heard.
The Mayor and Common Council closed the hearing and granted
a 30-day extension to Mr. Mamlouk in order to get an Engineer's
Report on the building located at 765 N. "0" Street, under the
condition that an insurance rider be brought in, within 72 hours,
which is acceptable to the City and holds t~e City harmless
during the 30-day extension. Also, no third party or other
tenants are allowed in the building within the 72-hour period.
SincereJy,
~
City Clerk
SC:dc
cc: City Administrator
Building and Safety
Earl Korchak (owner)
fo)~@~"W~rn
lnl I\\l G 1 8 '988
BERNARD'NO
C'T~~~~~~ & SAFEtY
'OIT OFFICI BOI I"., IAN BlftNAftOINO.
CALIFOftNIA 11.01
300 NORTH '0' STREET. SAN BERNARDINO.
CALIFORNIA 924180001 7..,1....001
7../....1101
PRIDE .,1
.. IN PROC?RESS
~ ~,,",",-.Jf
-.
,: ~.'. ~-~. : :.':"~. :. "
"
- ,
~ , .~
.-,' .... .~
C I T Y
o F
. ,
,.. .
,": "::5
. .
.~.<..' an
.
Bernardino
". .;- .
BUILDING" SAFETY DEPARTMENT
MARK SUTTON
DIRECTOR
September 12, 1988
Re: 751 No. D Street & lot south of it
San Bernardino, CA
Report/Project No. 3114
Earl Korchak
234 McCarthy Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Dear Sir:
This letter is confirmation of our telephone conversation at
approximately one o'clock on September 9, 1988. You confirmed at
that time that you are still, in fact, the owner of 671 North D
Street and adjacent lots to the south.
A Mr. James Roe represented himself to be the owner of this vacant
property in his presentation to the D.R.C. on September 8, 1988.
He presented plans and announced his intention to construct a
commercial strip on these lots.
At the August 15, 1988 meeting of the Mayor and Common Council, we
understood you to indicate that you and Mr. Mamlouk were in escrow
at that time for the sale of this same vacant property.
This letter is to inform you that it is our intention to uphold
the decision of the City Council and the Mayor, which was to allow
a thirty day extension to obtain engineering analysis showing this
building to be safe or to submit plans and calculations to the
Department of Building and Safety for acceptance by Charles Dunham,
Plan Check Engineer, that comply with the requirements for unrein-
forced masonry buildings as prescribed in the Municipal Code.
Mr. Mamlouk was also to obtain a liability insurance policy for this
peridd of time and the city was to be held blameless in event of
ensuing structure failure. The thirty days will expire on
J .-.:) t~ 0 k '.., ~ S r R : l I ~:. t~ n;' R N ^' A 0 I to, ..
C ,.. L I ; (, ~. . ; ,,.. J?: I ~ :) ~ 1I 1 7 1 4 I J . 4 . $ 0 7 1
I
\
Earl Korchak
September 12, 1988
Page 2
September 14, 1988 and this letter shall serve as formal notice
of the intention of the city to secure th building from further
entry on September 15, 1988.
If there are any questions, please contact me at 714/384 52~7.
Respectfully,
f)cr-.1J. /~ ~
Don H Hester1ey .
Code Compliance Supervisor
cc: Jim Richardson, Admin Dev Serv
Jim Robbins, Acting City Admin
Jim Penman, City Attorney
W R Holcomb
Mr Mamlouk
Mayor Evlyn Wilcox
W. R. HOLCOM B
ATTORNEY AT L.AW
SUITE 407
REC"B.-ADMIN. OFF.
1988 SEP 14 PH 3: 2S
505 ARROWHEAD AVENUE
SAN BERNAROINO. CAL.IFORNIA ~2401
17141 889-'041
September 14, 1988
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 N. "0" St
San Bernardino,Ca 92418
Re: Albert Mamlouk Appeal
Board of Building Commissioners
Oear Mayor and Common Council,
The Mayor and Common Council granted Albert Mamlouk a thirty
(30) day extension without clearly specifying the purpose
for which the extension was granted.
It is requested that the Council clarify the purpose of said
extension so as to permit Mr. Mamlouk to proceed in an orderly
way to build a new building and to operate his present store
until said building is completed. Mr. Mamlouk has sent a
set of plans to the city for a plan check. In addition he
has furnished the city with a rider on his insurance policy
for a million dollar liability. Engineers have previously
indicated that his portion of the building is safe.
Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the Council
clarify the intent of their action of August 15, 1988, by
specifying that Mr. Mamlouk can continue operation of his
business for an additional 160 days pending completion of
his new store. ~ ~~~
~&~k<~t':~~e#
W.R. Holcomb
.,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
w. R. HOLCOMB
505 No. Arrowhead Ave., Suite 407
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Telephone: (714) 889-1041
ORiGhlJAL N:U.f:D
S[P 15 1988
Attorney for Plailntiff
COUNTY Cl ~:1K, Cf:~H;L\/ D/<;F'/r'T
S.A,N BEntL~\r-'O!t..;~) (; f~;';_'~< :,/ I,....
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ALBERT MAMLOUK,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
245480
Plaintiff,
NO.
vs.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO a
Municipal Corporation, MARK
I. SUTTON, Director of
Building and Safety for the
City of San Bernardino, DOES
1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
19 Plaintiff complains of defendnts, and each of them,
20 and for cause of action alleges.
21
1. Plaintiff is now and at all times herein
22 mentioned has been the lessee and operator of a convenience
23 market located at 765 North "0" Street, San Bernardino,
24 California, under a lease agreement commencing September
25 1, 1987, for a ten (10) yeat' term.
26
2. That the plaintiff has made leasehold improve-
27 ments to said premises in a reasonable value in excess of
28 $50,000.00.
-1-
1
3. Plaintiff has an inventory of grocery items
2 in said store of a reasonable value in excess of $20,000.00.
3 That most of said inventory is perishable, and cannot be
4 salvaged except by selling same at retail to the customers
5 who frequent plaintiff's store.
6
4. That plaintiff's store is open for business
7 7 days a week between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and.lO:OO p.m.
8
5. That said store is the sole source of plaintiff's
9 livelihood, and if said store is closed for any appreciable
10 time, plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury in that plaintiff
11 will lose the value of all of his perishable merchandise,
12 and plaintiff will lose the good will that he has developed
13 by being regularly open for business to his retail customers.
14 In addition, if plaintiff is not allowed to continue his
15 leasehold interest in said premises, plaintiff will lose
16 the value of all of the leasehold improvements that he has made
17 to the premises.
18
6. In October of 1987, the Department of Building
19 and Safety, of the City of San Bernardino, inspected the
20 premises at 765 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, and
21 concluded from said inspection, that the buildings were
22 dilapidated and in a dangerous condition.
23
7. That the portion of the building at 765 North "0"
24 Street, San Bernardino, that is occupied by the plaintiff, is
..'
25 not in a dilapidated or dan~erous condition and is safe for
26 occupancy.
27
8. Thereafter, plaintiff was informed by his lessor
28 that the City intended to demolish the building that plaintiff
-2-
1 occupied at 765 North "D" Stret, San Bernardino. On July 1,
2 1988, the Board of Building Commissioners of the Ci ty
3 of San Bernardino adopted a resolution requiring that
4 the premises be vacated and that the building be demolished
5 within thirty (30 days.
6
7
8
9
9. Thereafter, the plaintiff appealed the Order
.
of the Board of Building Commissioners to the Mayor and
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino.
10. That at the meeting of the Mayor and Common
Council held on August 15th, 1988, the owner of said building,
Mr. Earl Korchak, appeared before the Mayor and Council,
and informed kthem, that he had retained a registered
professional engineer to provide design calculations and
drawing for the rehabiliation of said building. Whereupon,
the Mayor and Common Council granted plaintiff's appeal on con-
dition that the plaintiff furnish the City of San Bernardino
with a Certificate of Liability Insurance for $1,000,000.00,
naming the City as an additional insured, and upon the further
condition that the woner of said building submit to the City
plans and drawings for the rehabilitation of said building
within thirty (30) days.
11. That for reasons unknwon to the plaintiff, the :
owner did not file said plan~ until the 15th day of September, ,
1988.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"
12. That a dispute has arisen between the plaintiff
26 and defendnts as to whether said plans were timely filed in that
27 defendants contend that the time for calculating said thirty
28 (30) day period should commence on August 15, 1988, whereas the
-3-
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
plaintiff contends that the time should commence on
August 17, 1988, the date on which plaintiff was given
official notice of the City of Bernardino by Shawna Clark,
Clerk of the City of San Bernardino.
13. Plaintiff further contends, that the
delay should be excused, in that it was not of plaintiff's
making, and could have been overocme by the plaintiff had he
been timely notified by the City that the plans had Inot been
filed.
14. The plaintiff did, pursuant to the conditions
imposed by the City Council, furnish the City a liability
policy in the amount prescribed.
15. That on the 15th day of September, 1988, at
the approximate hour of 9:00 a.m., Officials of the City
of San Bernardino, came to plaintiff's business and ordered
plaintiff to vacate same and chained and locked plaintiff's
doors thereby preventing plaintiff from entering said
premises.
16. The plaintiff has requested that the defendants
remove said lock and chain, but the defendants refused to
do so because the Superintendent of Building and Safety is
out of State and unavailable to authorize such action. That
unless said chain and lock is removed from plaintiff's door,
that plaintiff will sustain and has sustained great and irreparabl
injury because it will be impossible for plaintiff to obtain
adequate relief by way of money damages, because there is no way
of calculating the damages for loss of plaintiff's good will,
and there is no way to replace the perishable merchandise on hand,
-4-
..
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~8
1
2
VERIFICATION
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO:
4 I have read the foregoing complaint and know its
contents.
I am the attorney for ALBERT MAMLOUK, a party to this
action. Such party is absent from the County of aforesaid where
such attorney has his office, and I make this verification for
and on behalf of that party for that reason. I a~ informed and
believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the
foregoing document are true.
Executed on September 15, 1988, at San Bernardino,
California.
I declare under penalty of perjury under
the State of California that the foregoing is true
w. R. HOLCOMB
~-