The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000/02/23 - Agenda Packet - Special AGENI A RANGriO CUCAMON6 COUNCm Special Meeting Feb y 23, 2000- 5:00 10500 Civic Center Drive R~cho Cuc~onga, C~ifo~a A. CALL TO O~ER I. Pledge of Allegi~cc 2. Roll Call Ci~ Co~ciI: / ~o ~i~C Alex~der ~a~o n ~(Willi~s . B. ITEM OF BUS~SS 1. HEA~G OF B~LD~G ~D SAFETY OFFICI~'S DECISION ~GA~G SLUMP STO~ W~L LOCA~D AT 6549 EGGLESTON PLACE~ ~CHO CUC~ONGA C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the agenda. The Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. ADJOURNMENT l, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 17, 2000, twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. T H E C I T Y O F ~ANCHO CUCAHONGA Staff Report DATE: February 23, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council, Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William N. Makshanoff, Building and Safety Official SUBJECT: APPEAL OF BUILDING AND SAFETY OFFICIAL'S DECISION REGARDING A SLUMPSTONE MASONRY WALL LOCATED AT 6549 EGGLESTONE PLACE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Building and Safety Official that the subject masonry wall meets the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code. BACKGROUND: On November 4, `1997, a "Complaint and Inspection Request" was received from Mr. George Georgiou that his masonry wall (see attached exhibit A), located at 6549 Egglestone Place, was not constructed properly. In response to his complaint, the first inspection took place on November 6, '1997. The inspection report states that the wall appeared to be built to city standards, but goes on to suggest that a (concrete) block pilaster might stop movement if built at an expansion joint inside the property. On December `15, `1997, a second inspection was held at the site, Mr. Georgiou and a representative from Citation Homes were present along with Mr. Jim Schroeder, Building Inspection Supervisor. At that meeting, it was decided to remove a portion of the wall in order to expose the horizontal and vertical steel and to determine if the cells containing reinforcing steel were grouted as required for structural stability. A building permit was to be obtained for this work after Mr. Georgiou provided written authorization for the work to be done. Mr. Georgiou provided that authorization to Citation Homes in a letter dated December `17, 1997 (see attached exhibit B) and a permit (see attached exhibit C) was obtained by Citation Homes on December `18, `1997. STAFF REPORT: APPEAL - 6549 EGGLESTONE PLACE February 23, 2000 Page 2 Subsequently, the Building and Safety Division received a report from Citation Homes dated January 17, 1998 written by Mr. William Stampfi, a State of California Licensed Civil Engineer. The subject of his report was titled "Results of Structural Investigation of Existing Block Fence at North Side of Rear Yard of Residence at 6549 Egglestone Place, (South Right of Way Line Of Whitestone Place) Rancho Cucamonga, CA." (See attached exhibit D) In summary, Mr. StampIf stated the purpose of his investigation was to observe the exposed vertical and horizontal reinforcing steel, grouting of the cells containing reinforcing steel, and the stability of the wall. He stated that the general appearance of the wall was good and there was no apparent leaning, cracking or other visible signs of distress. Mr. Stampfi scanned the wall with a metal detector to locate the remaining vertical steel. He also drilled two 1/2" diameter holes in the bottom course of blocks in two locations containing vertical steel to determine if cells were fully grouted. In his report, full grout penetration was present in both locations. He then uncovered the foundation in three locations to determine if the foundation was of adequate in size to support the wall. Using the data from his observations he then did a structural analysis based on the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Stampfi concluded that the wall met minimum Uniform Building Code requirements, that the grout and/or mortar used complied with the building code for fine grout. He also stated that additional vertical steel in the wall could make the wall stiffer because the flexibility of the wall is directly related to the amount of vertical steel in the wall. However, because the minimum Uniform Building Code requirements were met, no corrective action was required. I reviewed and approved the report on February 18, 1998. I subsequently had the report reviewed by ESGIL Corp., an independent engineering firm that provides structural plan check services for the city on a contractual basis. They responded in a memorandum dated March 31, 1998. (See attached exhibit E). In ESGIL's opinion, "the engineer adequately addressed the structural concerns with respect to the design of the wall and as stated by the engineer, the wall complies with the minimum provision of the Uniform Building Code". ESGIL went on to state that the quality of construction was beyond their scope of review. That is because ESGIL was not asked to inspect the wall but to respond to the engineering conclusions in the report. -2- STAFF REPORT: APPEAL - 6549 EGGLESTONE PLACE February 28, 2000 Page 3 In a letter to Citation Homes, dated June 11, 1998 (see attached exhibit F), I confirmed my approval of the wall. Mr. Georgiou was provided with a copy of that letter. In addition, I reaffirmed my approval in a letter to Mr. Georgiou Dated November 10, 1998 (see attached exhibit G). The purpose of this hearing is Mr. Georgiou's appeal of my decision to accept the engineering report provided by Citation Homes that found the wall to be in compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code. In numerous letters from Mr. Georgiou, he has made statements regarding the structural integrity of the wall and the validity of the engineering report. However, to date Mr. Georgiou has yet to produce any documentation from a "State Licensed Civil or Structural Engineer" to support his assertion CONCLUSION: My authority as the Building and Safety Official is "ministerial," meaning I do not have discretionary ability to question design unless the design does not meet the minimum requirements of the applicable codes. In my review and approval of the structural report, the wall met the applicable minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code at the time of construction. I would recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold my decision on the basis that minimum Uniform Building Code requirements have been complied with. Respectfully Submitted, William N. Makshanoff Building and Safety Official WNM:Ic Attachments -3- Ek~IBIT B Dr & Mrs George M, Georgiou g E C E 1 Y F~ D 6549 Egglestone Place DEC 18 1997 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 899-1487 CiTATiON HOMES December 17, 1997 Mr. Barry Rehm Customer Service Manager Citation Homes 19600 Fairchild Rd., Suite 270 lrvine, CA 92612 Dear Mr. Rehm, At the suggestion of the City Building Inspeclor, with this letter we give you permission to do the work called for by the Correction Notice issued to you by the City Building Inspector on December 15, 1997. This work basically consists of reinoval of the top row of bricks from our fence b~ ick wall to facilitate fuaher inspection by the City. No corrective work on the wall is to bc done, unless we agree to it. Before you begin, we request that you give us notice of at least two days. We do have two guard dogs in the yard. This permission in no way implies that we have agreed to any form ofcorrectim~s to the wall or restitutions offered by Citation. VIe merely comply with the City Building Inspector's request, the purpose of which is to facilitate determination of violations of standards in the building of the wall. Sincerely, ' .......................U;'7'I': ................ / George M. Georgiou, PhD i: !-: ~ '~ 1997 "-~5,nG ~.D ~ ~ v. -~,o. B U I L D I N G 'city of rancho ,.,dcamonga ~uilding Slories Const, Group Desiqner Lic. No Req'd, Prior to Occ, D No prof~sionsCode, and nW license is in fult force and effect. 7~ asprovidedforhySecdon37OOoffi,eLahorCode, fertkepcrf ........... ftt ...... k for ~ ~which Ihis permit is iss~leO .. ...... ,. .... ..,:::,,::: ,., .. ,: 7~r'rr'rnn Cnny EXHIBIT D · -'CTAMPFL CIV]L Ii FI dN G ANDLANDSURVEyiNG. SpEC[ALiZiNG iN RETAiNiNGWd d L nES,GN __ January 17, 1998 ~ ~~ A~ .... ,nLC/,V~','~r~~ ~t c'~ :, Citation Homes Attn: A1 Isolda 19600 Fairchild Suite 270 Subject.. Results of structural inves~:_a]~!gD--Q~---ezisting -btoek wall fence at north side of rear yard of residence at 6549 Egglestone P1. , ( south right-of-way line of Whitestone P1. }, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. Dear A1, At your request. I complet:ed a structural investigation of the subject wall. You asked me to specifically comment on two issues raised by the city. First, according to the city, mortar mix and not grout mix was used to grout the upper bond beam hat is this bad? Second, the wall can be shaken by hand - is this normal? OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLORATZONS MADE: On 1/15/97 I visited the sfte and observed that at two sections, the 4" cap and the block below it had already been removed jn order to expose the bond beam bar. I observed ~4 vertical rebars and a ~4 horizontal rebar at these locatlons. The material used to grout the bond beam contained no course aggregate. The general aPPearance of the wall was good. There waE: no apparent leaning, cracking or other visible signs of distresr:. I too was able to shake the wall with some effort. In doing ~o, it seemed to me that this was not a rocking of the wall on the e-:,rth, rather it was an elastic deflection of the wall on the footing. When the shaking was over, the wall returned to a vertical position. I scanned the wall with a metal detector and foun,] that the vertical steel spacing was 48 inches on center and [,H~nd only one horizontal steel bar. The horizontal bar found was tho nne exposed below the upper course of blocks. The masonry portion of the wall consisted of 6"x6"xld" slump hlocks six feet high with a 8"x4"xld" cap. I drilled 1/2" diameter holes at the bottom course of blocks at two vertical steel locations to determine if the steel cells were fully grouted. Full grout Penetration was found at both locations. I then uncovered the footing at two locations at the street side of the wall and one location at the private side of the wall to determine the footing gjze. The footing was determined to be thick and 25" wide. A drawing of the wall appears on appendix page A1 herein. ANALYSIS OF DATA, Using the data found as described above, I computed the stresses and stability safety factor of the wall for a wind speed of 70 mph. The calculations show that the masonry and steel stresses are within those allowed by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Also, the overturning safety factor of the wall is equal to that required by the code. The calculations appear on appendix pages A2 to A4 herein. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ASKED: Regarding your two questions: First, the matter o~ the material used for the grout in the bond beam bar. The material used was fine grained, however I could not determine by observation whether a grout or mortar m~x was used. The UBC allows the use of both fine grout or course grout, and the mix for fine grout is essentially the same as for mortar. Therefore even if mortar mix were used on the bond beam blocks or elsewhere, the mortar mix should have about the same strength as fine grout. Fine grout contains only sand aggregate, whereas course grout contains both sand and gravel. Fine grout is used when course grout might be stopped from penetrating to the bottom course of b].ocks by small openings and steel in the cells. Fine grout would have been an appropriate choice for grouting the 6" blocks. But regardless of whether mortar mix or fine grout mix was used in the bend beam blocks, the horizontal steel does not add to or subtract from the principal strength of the wall. The function of the horizontal steel is to distribnte concentrated loads and for crack control. The vertical steel provides the principal wall strength. Regarding the flexibility of the wall, I believe that is related to the amount of vertical steel in the wall. A wall with more steel would be stiffer, but the wall could still b~ shaken with added effort. Since the stresses in the wall and overturning safety factor meet UBC requirements, corrective action is not required. LIMIT~ OF INVESTIGATION~ The investigation was limited in scope insofar as I dLid not test the strength of the materials used, nor did I uncover the footing steel. Rather I l~mited my jnvestigatjon to those areas that are likely to be the major source of flexibility in the wall and that would result in little damage to the wall. I trust that this report responds to the questions that were raised. Thank you for this. opportunity to be of service. illiam Stampfl > ~, .-. APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS A1 Drawing of existing wall A2 Location of loads & dimensions used in computer analysis A3 Calculations page 1 of 2 A4 Calculations page 2 of 2 8"X4"X16" #4 HORIZONTAL 6" WIDE SLUMPSTONE BLOCK~, #4 @ 48" O.C. VERTICAL STEEL SIDEWALK PRESUMED STEEL LOCATIONS (NOT VERIFIED) S~r./~Mp,Fvj~ 12709 EAST END AVENUE ~ EXISTING WALL @ NORTH SIDE OF REAR YARD AT E CHINO, C/,J_IFORNIA 91710 6549 EGGLESTONE PL., RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA NGINEERING (909)628-9611 JOB NO. 98003 I S;~EET A1 ]----WALL OffSET P4, SURCHARCE HEICNT ST - Y/X J T2 ~ ~ / PSH / I P4H / I ~ ~}' / /r' ~ " .... / / ~ / / ~ P2 ~/// ~ ~~ ~ CASE 1 B~RING ~ ES'~fpb'[, 12'109 F~ST END AVENUE k LOCATIONS OF LOADS AND DIMENSIONS G[N~RiNG CNINO. CALIFORNIA 91710 USED IN "WALLCHEK" ANALYSIS PROGRAM (90g) 628-g6H ,rob No. ?,%'O~2 ~ J 'u n ~'~ ,A ~ nr WALLCMEK 11.30), Retaining wall analysis, Stanpfl Rngr., {909) 628-9611 PART 6 - STEM CONFIGURATION |1 12 13 14 |S Pile nanel C~SWALL\90003AO Height from top (ft) 6.33 Sheet I of 2 sheets. See sheet 2 for Parts 9 to IS. Upper thickness (in) 5.60 Lower thickness {in) 5.60 PART I - GI~M LOADS ON STEM Upper of[set (in) 0.00 Retaining heiqht (ft) 0.33 Load P4 {lh) 0 Lower offset (in) 0.00 Yreestandtng height {ft) 6.00 Horlz. dist. to Pd {ft) N/A Wall type & design method PU Total wall height {ft) 6.33 Depth to load Pd (ft} N/A Vert steel bar name or I 4 Variable load {psf/ft) 30 Width of load P4 (ft) R/A Vert steel area/bar {si) 0.20 Uniform load (pnf) 0 Load PB (ib) 0 Vert steel perin/bar (in) 1.g9 Wind pressure (psf) 13.80 Horiz. dist. to P5 (ft) N/A Deformed bar? Yes Seismic weight factor 0.30 Depth to load Pg (ft) M/A Vert steel cover (in) Center Surcharge heiOht {ft) 0.00 Width of load P5 {ft) N/A Cover meas. from cot side? R/A Load P1 (lb) 0 Top restraint? No Vertical bar spacing (in) 48.00 Horiz. dist. to PI (in) N/A Top restraint liait (lb) N/A Horiz steel bar name or | 4 Vert. dint. to PI ([t) N/A Top restraint depth (ft) N/A Iloriz steel area/bar (si) 0.20 Load P3 (lb} 0 UDC code year 94 No. of horizontal bars Height to P3 {ft) N/A Seismic none 4 1/3 stress increase? Yes Block shell thickness {in) f.O0 PART 2 - PROPERTIES OF STEM MATERIALS Block web thickness (in) 1.00 Non-reinforced wall? Mo Wall conc. density {pcf) N/A Block end thickness (in) 1.O0 Steel strength (psi} 40000 Running bond? Yes Masonry strength (psi) 1500 Block length {in) 15.60 PART 7 - BTEM ANALYSIS l{ 12 13 Wall cone. strength (psi) H/A Block spacing (in) 16.00 Effective width (in) 12.00 Masonry density (pcf) 130 No. of closed ends 2 Dffective depth (in) 2.80 Grout density {pcf) 140 Modular ratio (n) 25.78 Total axial load (lb) 225 PART 3 - AIIAL LOAD ON BIER |1 12 13 14 |5 Axial bearing area (si) 39 Axial load Pl ........... 0 Allow axial stress (psi) 200 Weighb of stem section 1 225 Computed axial stress(psi) 6 Weight of stem section 2 Allowable flex tens. {psi) 9 Weight of stem section 3 Allowable flex compr.(psi) 330 Weight of stem section d Free side compression{psi) 317 Weight of stem section 5 Retain side coapr. (psi) 0 TOTALS [lb) 225 Unity total 0.99 Eccentricity (in) 0.00 Allowable steel tenn.(psi) 26667 Computed steel tens. (psi) 25717 PART 4 - SHEAR OR STEM II 12 13 14 15 Allow. shear stress (psi) 26 From variable load ...... 2 Comput. shear stress (psi) 16 From uniform load ....... Allow. bond stress {psi) 133 From wind or seismic .... 83 Conput. bond stress (psi) 81 Prom load P3 ............ Prnvided/req. vert steel 1.06 From horlz part load P4. Provided/req. horiz. steel 0.67 From horiz part load PS. Provided/req. total steel 0.65 Prom top restraint ...... Vert Develop length (in) 25.72 TOTALS (lb) 84 Vert Splice length (in) 38.58 PART S - MOMENT ON STEM I1 12 13 14 IE PART B - FOOTING LOADSI SOIL FARAMETER~L HBTERIALS Fron variable load ...... 0 Load P2 (lb) 0 Variable passive (psf/ft) 200 Crow unifon load ....... Noriz. diot. to P2 (ft) N/A Uniform passive (psf) 0 From wind or seismic .... 276 Bottom restraint? No BenCh passive depth (ft) 0.00 From load P3 ............ Foot cone. strength {psi) 2500 Naxi~o~ passive (psf) None From hotiz part load Pd. Foot cone. density {pcf) 1SO Pe3rinq ~ nin width {psf) 1000 Prom horiz part load PS. Soil density (pcf) 110 Hin hoadnq width (ft) 1.00 Prom eccentric axial ld. Soil depth over toe (ft) 0.17 Bin hearing depth (ft) 1.00 From top restraint ...... Toe ourcharge height ([t) 0.00 D~ar incr for width fib} 0 TOTALS (ft-lb) 276 Slope tangent 0.00 Bnr incr for depth [lb) 0 Slope setback ift) 0.00 Nazisou hearing {lb) Bone CO~NTSI Wind speed = JO mph, exposure C. Wind pressure = 13.8 psf Friction coefficient 0.35 1/3 foot.. stress incr? Yes C~d4Cv~,dT/~'-r I <P/= ~ 743 I' WALLOHHK [1.30), Retaining wall analysis, Staapfl Engr., (909) 628-9611 PART 13 - SHEAR ON FOOTING TOE HEEl, File name~ Ci\WALL\98003AO Distance from base....(fL) 0.00 0,00 Sheet 2 of 2 sheets. See sheet 1 for Parts I to 8. Prom toe soil pressure .... 444 i From point bearing at toe. 0 PART 9 - FOOTIHG COEPIGURNTION Prom load P2 .............. 0 Footing width (It) 2.08 Key end thickness (in) N/A Prom toe surcharge ........ 0 Footing thickness {in) 8.00 Key setback (it) N/A From soil over toe ........ -14 I Toe length (it) 0.75 KeF end offset (in) N/A From toe concrete ......... Toe end thickness {in) 8.00 Cont. steel name or | 4 From key concrete ......... 0 0 Heel length [it) 0.06 Cont. steel area/bar {si) 0.20 From heel concrete ........ 86 I Heel end thickness (in) 8.00 Number of continuous bars 2 Prom soil over heel ....... 31 Key depth (it) 0.00 Provided/req. cont. steel 1.00 From surcharge height ..... O Key base thickness (in) N/A From vertical part load P4 0 i Prom vertical part load PS 0 Development length of straight stem bar in footing ........ (in) 12.00 From load P2 .............. 0 Development length of hooked stem bar in footing .......... {in) 6.00 From heel soil pressure... 0 From vertical friction .... 5 I PART I0 - DRIVING FORCE8 LOAU MOMENT ARM MOMENT From passive pressure ..... Variable load ........... 15 0.33 5 TOTALS 355 123 Uniform load ............ 0 N/A 0 I Wind or seismic load .... 83 4.00 331 . PART 14 - FOOTIRG MOMENT FOE HEEL Load P3 ................. 0 M/A 0 Distance from hane....(ft) 0.00 0.00 Load P4h ................ 0 H/A 0 From toe soil pressure .... 198 i Load PSh ................ 0 N/A 0 From point bearing at toe. 0 TOTALS 98 336 From load P2 .............. 0 Variable and uniform load height ............... 1.00 From toe surcharge ........ 0 From soil over toe ........ -5 I PART 11 - RESISTING LOADS WEIGHT MOHNT ARM MOMENT Prom toe concrete ......... -28 Stem .................... 229 0.98 221 From key concrete ......... 0 0 Soil behind stem ........ 3l 1.65 52 From heel concrete ........ I Soil over toe ........... 14 0.38 5 Prom soil over heel ....... Toe concrete ............ 75 0.38 28 From surcharqe height ..... 0 Footing under stem ...... 47 0.98 46 From vertical part load P4 Heel concrete ........... 06 1.65 142 From vertical part load PB 0 Key concrete ............ N/A From load P2 .............. 0 Load Pl ................. N/A From heel soil pressure... Load P2 ................. N/A Prom vertical friction .... ILoad P4v ................ N/A Prom passive pressure ..... Load PSv ................ N/A TOTALS 164 55 Upper surcharge ......... N/A t Toe surcharge ........... N/A PART t0 - FOOTING STEEL TOE Vertical soil friction.. 5' 2.08 10 Distance from base {it) 0.00 0.00 Top restraint ( O) 0 Steel spacing (in) 96.00 96.00 ~OfAI~ 483 504 Steel bar name or I 4 4 ' Not uned to compute sliding safety factor. Steel cover [in) 3.00 3,00 Cover measured from Bottom EotDa Steel area/bar (si) 0.20 0.20 PART 12 - SOIL PRESSURES AND SfABILITY SAFETY FACTORS Section thickness {in) 8.00 n.oo Eccentricity (it) 0.69 Passive resistance {lb) 70 Effective depth (in) 4.75 ~.05 Etc. in middle third? No Friction resistance (lb) 167 Modular ratio (n) 10.18 10.{0 Allowable bearing {psi) 1333 Bottom restraint (lb) 0 Allow. conc stress {psi) 1500 1500 Toe pressure (psi) 923 Total sliding resist.(lb) 237 Computed cone stress (psi) 166 gO0 Heel pressure (psi) 0 Sliding safety factor 2.43 Allow. steel stress (psi} 26667 2~667 Bearing length (it) 1.05 Overturning safety factor I.% Computed steel stress{psi) 17099 8a39 Point bearing ! toe (lb) 0 ~ap~L~/. ~' r~/: .-:-' Allow shear stress (psi) 73,3 73.3 Toni passive depth (it) 0,84 Req'd top restraint loads {lb): Computed shear stress(psi) 6.2 Max passive ht. reached? No For stem restraint only N/A Dev length, straight {in) 12.00 lEO0 Top restraint ISP,I) (lb) 0 For sliding forces x S.F. N/A Dev length, hook {in) 6,00 ~,00 Sliding force e base {lb) 98 For overturning x S.F. N/A Hplice length (in) 15.60 15,60 EXHIBIT E EsGil Corporation March 31, 1998 To; Bill Makshancrff From: Kurt Culver As we discussed on the phone fast week, we have reviewed the engineering study performed for the masonry fence foPwarded to u~- In our opinion, the engineer adequately addressed the structural concerns with respect to the design of the wall, As stated by the engineer, the waIVs design complies with the minimum provisions from the Uniform Building Code, The issue regarding the quality of construction was beyond the scepe of our review. 7~0'cI 6G:Ol 86, [g. JeN 92_5~-095-6~9:x~:1 NOII~J(D<:J~J03 ~i963 EXHIBIT F 1 H E , '; I T Y 0 F [,2 AN C H ('_)CU CAH () N C, A June 1 I, 199~ M,'. Ila,'ry l'~chm, (:u,st{mmr Sc,'vice Manager Cita[ion HOIIICS 19600 Fairchild Rd., ,qui~e 270 Irvin~, CA 92612 RE: Masonry Wall al 6549 ligglestone Pl.. Rancho [:ueamonga : Dear Mr. Rehm, This I,'ucr is Io con~r|n illat the structural engineering rcpoa prepared by Stmnpcl Engineering, dated lm~uary 17.1995 has been received and revle~ed by Building ~ Sat~ly. The rel~rt approvcd by nm on February ~. 1998 and subsequently reviewed by E~gil Corp. who co.firmcd my approval in a memnrandum dated March 31,199~. In approving Ibis ~ngill~ring confirmed that the minimum provisions of the Uni ~m~ Building Cod~ wcrc complied If I can be of any ~nher assistan¢~ please do not hcsitat~ to call. Sinccrdy, COMMUNITY DEVEI,OI'MENT DD'AKTMENF Building ~d Safety Division Building and Safety Official ~M'.lc Mayor Wiili,.'li'fi ,L Al~,xclndl':~' ~' ~ ;~ U,,irn, AICP. City 10500 Civk: [.: (.~lh!t [)liv{~ · P.O. BOX 807 · f,a~r,crm Cuccsrnor,Oo. CA November 10, 19U8 Mr. George M. Gcorgitm 6549 ICgglcstonc I'lacc Rancht~ Cuc.:|mol~ga. CA 91739 RI{: Masonry Wall AI Subject I'n,l~crly I)car Mr. Gcurgiou: In response to your letter dalcd N{~vcmbcr 3. 1998. as Ihc Iluilding satisticd thai the masum'y wall in qucsli{m mcl Ihc aplfiicablc standaids ;ll Ihc tin., ,I construction. You will recall thai in lhc letter Imm Mr. (ironoz. I)i~ccto~ Development. dated April 30. 1998. it also conlinncd dial Ihc wall in qucUn.n md II,c :q~plicid dc standards at the time ~l'consln~dion. As you and I have discussed received a structural investigation ~clx~t-t fionl Citation I lomcs p~cl~a~cd I,x a Shin~ .,i ~,d~h,I ni.~ licensed engineer which conch~dcd Ihc wall met the al~lfiicablc Requircnlcnls. That icport which wc had leviowed by our ctmsultillg Collcurl'ed with Ihc conch~sions mrivcd al ill the rcpml is a Imblic scc-nl review. [11 conclusion lls we discussed al meeting oll Ihc site un ScpJclllbct' can be rcstorcd noxv. I look Ib~ this ~cpair w~nk tubc completed as Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVI~LOPMICNT DEI~AI('I'MliNI' William N. Makshanol f Building and Safety Olhdal WNM:Ic cc: Rich Gomcz, Director of Communily Development '?"'r', )~ Jock Loin, AIC~ Cily Mcingger Councihn~H~ln~n ,I, 10~q Civic Cenlel Ddve · P.O. Box 807 · I~ancho Cucamonga. CA 91 129 · dQu'h,[ll;/[ll~ i,, . C,'~r: 'g. lu Appeal to a decision of the Building Official George M. Georgiou, Ph.D. February 23, 2000 From: George M. Georgiou, Ph.D. To: Board of Appeals (City Council, Rancho Cucamonga) Date: February 23, 2000 Subject: Appeal (filed on April 19, 1999) to nullify the decision of the Building Official to accept a Report from Citation Homes on February 18, 1998 Definition: The wall~ Reference to "the wall" would mean the wall at 6549 Egglestone Place (that appears in Attachment [1]), which was built by Citation Homes. The gate divides it in two parts. The general consensus is that the small part was not built according to code. Neither the Building Official nor Citation Homes have disputed this. The Building Official found indications that grout is not present where it is supposed to be. (Attachment [2]) The only portion of the wall that the report paid for by Citation, and which is provided in the Staff Report, is that which is parallel to Whitestone Place. Unqualified references to "the wall" would mean this portion. Background On November 6, 1997, two building inspectors of the City of Rancho Cucamonga suggested in writing that ifa support block pilaster was built "might stop movement." (Attachment [3]) An identical recommendation was given for our neighbor's wall (6550 Egglestone Place), which was also built by Citation Homes at the same time. Our neighbor went ahead and started building pilasters (after obtaining relevant permits from the City) to secure the wall. During the building process code violations were uncovered in presence of city building inspectors. For example, paper was found in the place of grout. (Attachment [4]) As a result of this finding, the same day, December 15, 1997, a third building inspector issued a common Correction Notice against Citation Homes for both walls: ours and the neighbor's. (Attachment [5]) The Correction Notice called for the removal of the horizontal beam. At that point, Citation Homes agreed to pay the expenses to our neighbor to the amount of $1,350 (Attachment [6]) and also completed construction of the supporting pilasters. (Attachment [7]) For our wall, Citation neither corrected the problem nor carried out the Correction Notice: the beam was not removed; only a small fraction was exposed. On December 22, 1997, the inspector based on what he saw inside the wall, and particular the absence of pea gravel in grout, issued yet another Correction Notice. (Attachment [8]) This Correction Notice was calling for removing bricks so that the two vertical beams are exposed. Citation Homes never complied. Citation Homes provided a report to the Building Official who, from his office, accepted it and caused all inspections and enforcement of Correction Notices to seize. He informed us of Page 2 of 5 intentions to accept the report via telephone, to which we immediately objected. We made our objections in to in a letter him. (February 17, 1998; Attachment [9]) In that letter we made him aware of the situation of our neighbor's wall, and we argued that the burden is on Citation Homes to prove that the wall is built equivalent to Rancho Cucamonga Building Standards, not merely Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards (the report does not even prove this.) The guidelines handed out at City Hall at the time, primarily to homeowners and small contractors, required pea gravel in the grout, a requirement beyond UBC Attachment [10] In the same letter of February 17, 1998, we also asked the question: If we provided a report from a licensed engineer certifying the instability of the wall "will you reissue the Correction Notices, and in general make sure that the wall is build to standards?" Neither the Building Official nor anybody else from City Hall gave us an answer yet. Now, two years later, apparently forgetting that, the Building Official in the Staff Report states "However, to date Mr. Georgiou has yet to produce any documentation fi'om a 'State Licensed Civil or Structural Engineer'! Furthermore, he does not provide the rational or the legal basis that we should have provided him with any documentation AFTER he made the decision to accept the report from Citation. [It was at this point in the chronology of events, on February 18, 1998, that the Building Official formally accepted the report from Citation, but did not inform us in writing as R.C. Municipal Code section 15.08.020 requires. (See letter of Building Official informing Citation Homes only, Attachment [ 11 ]. )] I ~'~ False! behewn that n.o dec, ~ .... y ' ' g 's'on was made a having not received answers from the Building Makshanoff, and myself in attendance, on April 2, 1998. At that meeting we requested his decision to accept the report from Citation Homes in writing; we were unsuccessful. Still believing that no final decision was made, we followed up that meeting with a letter to ]Mr. Gomez (April 14, 1998; Attachment [13]) repeating our concerns about City standards vs UBC, and in particular the grout question. Had we been provided with the decision in writing, our questions would be different. We would be asking for an appeal instead. We were well into a wild goose chase sent there by both Mr. Makshanoffand Mr. Gomez. In response Mr. Gomez sent us a letter (April 30, 1998; Attachment [14]) including some documents we requested. He made it clear that the documents were provided for information only "and they were not intended to represent how the wall was built." Having no final answer from Mr. Makshanoffand Mr. Gomez we wrote to the Mayor (July 20, 1998; Attachment [15]) asking him questions concerning the status of the wail, including whether the Correction Notices have been rescinded. We followed up that letter with other letters in August and September, addressed to both the Mayor and the City Council, however we never Page 3 of 5 received answers to those questions. We requested an inspection of the smaller part of the wall, the section adjacent to the garage (July 20, 1998), since it was too unstable. Instead of performing the inspection right away, as we believe it to be a baTard, the Building Official performed the inspection only after repeated letters from us. He finally performed the inspection two months later on September 21, 1998, in the presence of representatives from Citation Homes. He concluded that required grout was not present. (September 24, 1998; Attachment [16]) Using as proof the letter that the Building Official that he made the decision to accept the report formally on February 18, 1998, (Attachment), on April 19, 1999, without informing us as the R.C. Municipal Code required, we filed for the present appeal to that decision. The purpose of the appeal nullifying his decision. The Law Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code section 15.08.020 explicitly specifies that decisions of the Building Official have to be served upon the "permitee". This was never done for us even though we have requested that his decision be given in writing. On the other hand, he did inform Citation Homes in writing. Also, in the above section it is specified that decisions of the Building Official are final. Only the Board of appeals can reverse them. Hence, his belated asking for a report from us is groundless. The same section explicitly allows appeals not only on the basis of technical (engineering) grounds, but also on the basis of any provision of the Title, which includes proper notification. We base our appeal largely on this provision. Conclusion We request that the Building OfficiaI's decision of February 18, 1998, to accept the report by Citation Homes, and hence freezing the Correction Notices, is nullified since it was done in direct violation os R.C Municipal Code section 15.08.020. The Correction Notices should be reinstated in order to ascertain structural stability and safety. The the City building inspectors who issued them were the only independent ones to actually physically inspect the wall, not merely do that visually. By independent we mean not paid by Citation Homes. Page 4 of 5 Attachments: [1] Picture of the Wall (February 10, 2000) [2] Building Official's letter (September 24, 1998) [3] Complaint and Inspection Request (November 4,6 1997) [4] Picture of wall at 6550 Egglestone PI. Paper in place of grout. [5] Correction Notice (December 15, 1997) [6] Check for wall at 6550 Egglestone PI. [7] Picture of wall at 6550 Egglestone PI. [8] Correction Notice for wall. [9] Letter to Building Official (February 17, 1998) [10] Guidelines for homeowners and small contractors [11] Letter to Citation (June l 1, 1998) [12] Letter to Mr. Gomez (March 12, 1999) [13] Letter to Mr. Gomez (April 14, 1998) [14] Letter from Mr. Gomez (April 30, 1998) [15] Letter to the Mayor (July 20, 1998) [16] Letter from Building official (September 24, 1998) [ 17] R.C Municipal Code section 15.08.020 Page 5 of 5 ~TT Z ~ H E C I T Y O ~ DANCHO CUCAMONGA September 24, 1998 Mr. George M. Georgiou, PhD 6549 Egglestone PI. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91739 Dear Mr. Georgiou: At your request, a meeting was held at your residence on Tuesday. September 21, 1998 to inspect a masonry wall adjacent to the garage. Present for the inspection were James Isolda and Barry Rehm of Citation Homes and Rick Gomez, Carlos Silva and myself from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The purpose of the meeting was to visually observe the condition of the wali. There were indications based on sound testing that cells where it was anticipated that reinforcing steel should be located were not grouted. However, that can be only verified by removing a portion of the wall. Citation Homes has indicated a willingness to make repairs as necessary, but you stated your desire to purse other alternatives, which is your prerogative. Any remedial work which you may undertake will require a building permit. The City of Rancho Cucamonga looks forward to resolving the masonry wall issues on your property as expediously as possible. I have taken the opportunity to include with this letter a copy of correspondence dated April 30, 1998 that was sent to you previously. Also included is a copy of the permit for your wall. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 477-2710, ext. 2201. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ZdSafety ~ William N. M~ ~ Building Official WNM:dm cc: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director James Allen Isolda, Vice President Construction Barry Rehm, Purchasing Agent Mayor William J. Alexander ~ Councilmember Pau~ Bione Mc~yor Pro-Tern Diane Willlares Councilmember Bob Duffon Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Councilmember James M Curatalo 10500 Civic Center Drive · PO. Box 807 · Rancho Cucamong<a, CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700 · FAX (909) 477-2849 INSPECTION ~,RE, QUEST ~, "" !':' ~ Time: .. ,. '2, ).::~immediately Safety: / :J:-Iazardous Condition: '~" ' ~ ',- UU '- ": ,""' '. ..... ., ddi'ess:' "3 ~ '-'~'~'.':: ':~':, 'T-(: · - "fo' ~,O~c~Ui~tl Narn~! 'hone Number: :"',' 'bi~iti~n: .... : NE\G~6, Qf~'% .t.,,UALL ~"r' f~,SO E&C.,-LE%"I'"bf,4E f'L. *' ~";", crrY OF RAreCliO CUCA~NSA h 'TT 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE BU/I-.DII',le..I AND SAFETY DIVISION PERMIT NO. e_¢_.-~'~, / / \ Office Hours ~f~pector / ' 7:00 - 8:00 am Please Make Corrections and Carl for Reinspection 4:00 - 5:00 pm (9o9) 989-1863 15279 02/09/98 1,350.00 Mr. Silul O. Ma~lnez {OJ tD INVOICE NUMBER INV DATE AMT PAID COMMENT 02/09/98 1~)50.00 stock Watt Repair - 1~945/25 400 10350.00 TAVA DEVELOPMENT CO. DBA CITATION HOMES WELLS FARGO BANK 19600 FAIRCHILD ROAD, SUITE 270 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 ~o~ (714) 250-6600 DATE CHECK NO. AMOUNT 02/09/98 '15279 $*******~,35o.0o *** Or~e Thousand Three Hund:ed Fift, y & Z~o/100 *** .'O iSB?qts" I: i~O00~I~?1: I~B~O O&O~S?"" ~:':!* LDING AND SAFETy DIVISION /~ "~"'T ~ ·~ .. (909) 989-1863 From: George M. Georgiou (6549 Egglestone Place PI., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739) To: Bill Makshanoff, Building and Safety Division, City of Rancho Cucamonga Subject: Block Wall Date: February 17, 1998 Dear Mr. Makshanoff, This is a follow up to our telephone conversation of today, in which you informed me of your intention to rescind the Correction Notices issued to Citation regarding our Block Wall, and that you accept the engineer' s "report" (paid by Citation) that the wall is "stable." You claimed that you were not aware of code violations in our block wall or in our neighbor's (6550 Egglestone) block wall with the same problem. I am posing these questions to you: · Are you aware that Citation within the last week issued a check for $1,350 to compensate our neighbor for the substandard building of her block wall which had the identical problem? This, after code violations were discovered in the process of stabilizing the wall~ The amount was to cover the contractor expenses. Citation also completed the work in progress by contractor. There is hard evidence for the discovered flagrant CODE violations (e.g. paper was where grout was supposed be, concrete used in place of grout, etc.) These were witnessed by City inspectors and other witnesses. I can and will produce the evidence when neeessay. · Are you aware that concrete was used in place of grout in our block wall? Is this according to code? Is it not a code violation? Will 1, as a private citizen, as opposed to Citation, a big corporation, be allowed to use concrete instead of grout in a wall that I intend to build? · If I, as a private citizen, furnish a report from a licensed engineer certifying the instability of the wall will I get the same treatment from you that Citation did? (i.e. take the report on face value, overrule your inspectors, and rescind Correction Notices issue_o~oy them?) Will you reissue the Correction Notices, and in general make sure that the wall is build to standards? We still hope that the Building and Safety Division, by examining the above questions, re- evaluates its position on the matter. Otherwise, we have no choice but to pursue all possible administrative remedies. Thank you. Sincerely, George M. Geor~iou, Ph.D. (909) 899-1487 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION 10500 cIvIc CENTER DRIVE 'RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 (909) 477-2710 GARDEN/PRIVACY WALL DETAIL WALL DESIGN IS NOT INTENDED TO RETAIN EARTH ALTERNATE TOP OF SLOPE STANDARD TOP OF SLOPE CONDITION UTILIZING POST CONDITION FOOTINGS / --__ DECORATIVE CAP ~ (OPTIONAL) 2:1 ' ~ BOND BEAM SLOPE -- ~ SAME SIZE AS "A' BAR5 MAX. \ , . "A" BARS DEEPEN FOOTING "H" ~s (SOLm GROUT ALL STANDARD LEVEL GRADE AS NECESSARY TO , | ] CELLS wrrn S'rEBL) CONDITION A~A~ S'~U~ ~ DECORATIVE CAP /6" OR 8" BLOCK ~ (OPTIONAL) ~12" COL. ~ BLOCK MD-HEIGHT ~SPECTION AND [ ] (SOLID ~ GKOUT~G REQUmED WHEN 6' ~( BOND BEAM ,_ GROUT) SLUMPSTONE BLOCK IS USED s SAME S~E AS "A" BARS s~,vs x ~ ,o" n" ~ : ~. _q--~ ' ~'~ ....... [/ I ' ~ MAX. ~, ~ j ~ ~E AS RS i l ' (SOLID GROUT ALL I ~ 36" ELLS WITH STEEL) --~ ~ [ (4) nS'S GROUT~G REQUIED WHEN 6' r I SLUMPSTONE BLOCK IS USED Y 12 % - DEEP ~ 10' O.C. :~ ~' GKADE ~/ ~J (THESE REINFORCING BARS / ~ BAR REQUIREMENT) HORIZ, BAR I , ~ ~ 24" 3"CLEARM~. ? "'~ ~ ~L PILASTER DETAIL '~ "W" ALTERNATE ' BENDS FOOTING & RE-BAR SIZE TABLE "H" "A" BAR "W" 3' TO 4' ~3 ~ 32" O.C. 16" 4' TO 5' ~4 ~ 48" O.C. 20" 5' TO 6' ~4 ~ 32" O.C. 24" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ Building and Safety Division~N ~o : c~ z Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 R. ETAI N I N G W A LLS TYPICAL SECTION OVER 5%0, TYPICAL SECTION DESIGN tOM LEVEL GRADE ABOVE WALL DESIGN for SLOPING GRADE ABOVE GRADE - -.~.~... c-. TO ADD FENCE C,OUT-, ,AMT C¢M¢N,. 3 p,Mr5 SAND. WALL TO THIS DESIGN, -o,,.. - , ...?cm.e.,. USE NEXT HIGHER '/, ..,T ~,-t .UTT,, .'~ ...?~ ~-.O "H" VALUES. ~ENT BY: R CUCAMQNGA COM DEV; 6-15-98 1t:06AM; 9094772847 => 7142506656~ 'l H E /2; I T Y O F I~ AN CH C) C U CA ~ C) N C, A Mr. Ilm'ry l{¢hm, Customer Service Manager Citation Homc, s 19600 Fairchild Rd., Suii~ 270 Irvinc, CA 92612 RE: Masonry Wall at 6549 F, gglest~ne Pi., Rancho C-'ueamonga Dear Mr. Relun, This Icttcr is to confirm thai the structural cnglnccring report prepared by Stampel Euginccring, dated lmmary 17. 1998 ha.s been received and reviewed by Building 8: Sat~ty. The relxm was approvcd by me on Febmat)' 18, 1998 and subsequently reviewed by E~gil Curp. who cm~firmed my approval in a memorandum dated March 31, 1998, In approving Ihis ejagi|teering report conrimmed that the minimum provisions of the Unili~rm Building Code were complie~j wills, If I cm~ be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, COMMI. TNITY DEVE1LOI'MENT DIjI'AR'I'MENT Building m~d Safety Division Building and Safety Offi¢i~[ WNM:Ic .Ic.~G~. L~:~rn. AICP. Cify Marlc~Oer George M. Georgiou, Ph.D. 6549 Egglestone Place Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Mr. Rick Gomez~ Director ~)~ Community Development Department P.O. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Complain against the Building and Safety Division Dear Mr. Gomez, We run out patience. For whatever reason the Building and Safety Division, and in particular Mr. Bill Makshanoff, refuses to enforce the Building Standards of the City ofRancho Cucamonga when it comes to a large corporation, such Citation Homes, and despite the fact that there is overwhelming evidence of violations. In particular, our block wall across Whitestone, less than 5 years old, is moving like a leaf in the wind, in part due to the fact it was built using substandard materials. The Building and Safety Division refuses to force Citation to correct the problem. Instead, they would have it swept under the carpet. The facts: · In November 1997, following up on our inquiry, building inspectors issued a Correction Notice to the effect that the wall may need pilasters to stabilize it. An identical Correction Notice was issued to our neighbor (6550 Egglestone) for the identical problem. Our neighbor went ahead and built the pilasters, but in process many flagrant violations of the Building Code were discovered, such as paper in place of grout. (Physical evidence and a video tape is available for the asking.) As a result of this, a series of Correction Notices were issued to Citation for our wall. Citation started complying, but as soon as they discovered the use of substandard materials (in particular mortar was used as opposed to grout) they stopped obeying the Correction Notices, lest they uncover more damning evidence. · Thus, several Correction Notices issued to Citation were never obeyed. I hate to think what would have happened ira homeowner or a small contractor did that. · Citation payed for a discredited report (please see enclosed letter to Mr. Makshanoff on the matter, dated Feb. 27, 1998), in which the building standards of the City of Rancho Cueamonga are NEVER mentioned. This report was designed to throw ashes in the eyes of the City and me, to distract from the real issue, which is the obeying the standards of the City. It did not work with us. · Citation now is pushing to put back the bricks removed as part of Correction Notices so that the visual evidence of substandard materials is covered up. We will not allow this to happen. · In a series of letters, as events were unfolding, I explained our position to Mr. Makshanot~ I never received a letter from the City as to their formal stance on wall. We are asking for you · to immediately force Citation Homes to obey the Building Standards of the City of Raneho Cucamonga by rebuilding the wall with materials and standards approved by the City, which everyone has to use and follow. · to give us an explanation as to the refusal of the Building and Safety Division to enforce the Building Standards of the City, which is part of their mission. The problem was brought to the attention of the City in November 1997, four months ago. That is enough time for the City to have corrected the problem, but did not. We lost both our faith and patience with the City. We will not shy away from seeking remedies from sources outside the City, such as the mass media, if this is what it takes. Sincerely, George M. Georgiou, Ph.D. Enclosures: 3 letters to Building and Safety Division George M. Georgiou, Ph.D. 6549 Egglestone Place Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 899-1487 Mr. Rick Gomez, Director Community Development Department P.o. Box s07, 'r T ! Rancho Cueamonga, CA 91729 RE: Complain against the City Date: April 14, 1998 Dear Mr. Gomez, Thank you for taking the time to meet with me, along with Mr. Makshanoff, on April 2, 1998, regarding my complain against the City of Rancho Cucamonga for refusing to enforce the City Building Standards. I find it strange that Mr. Makshanoffinsisted that · The Building and Safety Division cannot find documentation of what the City Code was in 1994 for block walls because "we are not required to keep such records"! We are putting an announcement for a reward in local newspapers for anyone who can provide us that information, if we do not receive it from you within a week. (Please see attached ads.) Also, we will send copies of the ads to all City council members and the Mayor. My suspicion is that you yourself do not get the right information. Here are some facts for you to consider: · The City and only the City determines what standards to follow. The City decided on grout (overwriting UBC) because it is stronger (how else? Just to torture homeowners and contractors? Grout is way more difficult to use, as opposed to mortar. Hence the new requirement for mid-height inspection.) · The City distributes its requirements where it explicitly specifies the mix for the grout. Nowhere it gives the option that one can use something else. Please see enclosed guidelines distributed by the City. The claim by Mr. Makshanoffthat everyone is given the choice between mortar and grout is ridiculous and insulting. Still we have not received any papers you promised to send us. In particular we would like to have the papers showing that the wall in question was inspected (signed off) after it was built. Again, our contention is that the City selectively does not enforce its own Building Standards, even in the face of clear evidence of violations. Thank you. ~eo'rge M. Georgiou, Ph.D. T H E C I T Y 0 F RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 30, 1998 /6f'TT 1 'if"' 3_ ~)~: 2_ Mr. George M. Georgiou, P.H.D. 6549 Egglestone Place Raneho Cucmnonga, CA 91739 RE: Block Wall at Subject Property Dear Mr. Georgiou: I have discussed your letter of April 14, 1998 with Mr. Makshmmff and your request lbr certain documents. Let me first apologize for the delay in getting back to you. flowever in researching our records we wanted to make every effort to be as thorough as possible. Enclosed with this letter are several documents for your review. The first document is a copy of the building permit for the wall issued on July 20, 1994. This permit indicates that the final iospcction was made and approved on Dece~nber 14, 1994. The permit also states under special conditions, that the wall was constructed based on the approved plans for Tract 13945 and not per the standard plan used typically by homeowners and masonry contractors for garden walls not exceeding 6 lizct in height. I have also included a copy of the city approved standard plan for 6 foot higl~ masonry walls in effect at the ti~ne your wall was built as well as a copy of the current city approved standard plan. These sheets are being provided for information only as they are not intended to represent bow your wall was built. With respect to the plans for your wall, the State of California Records Act only requires certain types ofdocmnents to be kept in perpetuity. Other documents, such as plans for your wall, must be kept a ~ninimum of two years and then they can be destroyed which is what has taken place. Mayor William J. Alexander ~ Councilrnember Paul Biane Mayor Pro-Tem Diane Willjams Councilmember James V. Culalulo Jack Lain, AICR City Manager 10500 Civic Cenler Drive · RO. Box 807 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA ~1729 · (909) 477 2700 · FAX (90% 477-?849 Mr. George M. Georgiou, P.H.D. April 30, 1998 A 7]" 14" 2_ 6 F 2_ Page 2 It is our hope that this information will answer your concerns and if you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to call me any time. Sincerely, CO h, JN EVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT velopment R{ :WNM:Ic George M. Georgiou, Ph.D. 6549 Eg~lestone Place Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91739 (909) 899-1487 Mr, William J.Alexander, Mayor ,ancho Cuc monga City Hall TT 2- 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Complain against the City Date: July 20, 1998 Dear Mr. Alexander, Having exhausted all possibilities resolving our problem through the Building and Safely Division (Mr. Bill Makshanoff) and City Development (Mr. Rick Gomez), we have no choice but to write to you, Mr. Mayor, in the hope that a just resolution is found. In short, the problem is that since December 1997 the block wall of our residence, along Whitestone Place, as a result of Correction Notices by the City to Citation Homes, the company that built the wail, is broken, i.e. several blocks are removed, thus being an eyesore of the neighborhood, and at the same time being a hazard. After pressure from Citation Homes, despite the dear violations of City Standards, the City seized to enforce its own Correction Notices, and Citation Homes seized to obey them. The Building and Safety Division, despite numerous letters from us, refuses to give us in writing an explanation of what the status is of our wall. Have the Correction Notices been rescinded? If so, why? Is the wall the according to City Standards? Are the two inspectors who physically inspected the wall and issued the Correction Notices wrong? It all started in November 4, 1997, when we and our neighbor (Egglestone 6550) requested an inspection of our block walls, built by Citation Homes, after noticing that the walls were unstable, i.e. even a small child could make them move like a leaf in the wind. A City building inspector determined that both wails were unstable and needed support by pilasters. Our neighbor following the written recommendation of the City proceeded to build supporting pilasters. In the building process, many flagrant violations of the building code were found, e.g. paper was used in place of grout, etc. Two city inspectors as well as Citation officials were present when substandard work was uncovered (December 15, 1997.) Citation was forced to secure the wall and pay our neighbor the expenses. (Later, Mr. Makshanoff on the phone claimed not to be aware of the code violations in the wail of our neighbor. At a meeting I had on April 2, 1998, with both Mr. Gomez and Mr. Maksanoff I presented them with photographs of those violations and also with a copy of the check in the amount of $1,350 issued by Citation to our neighbor.) At the same time, i.e. on December 15, 1998, the City inspectors issued a Correction Notice to Citation Homes for our wail, since it had the same problem as our neighbor's. After removing some blocks from our wall, it became obvious that mortar was used (without pea gravel) as opposed to the ily mandated grout (with pea gavel.) When the discovery of this clear violation, Citation sto~eying the Correction Notice which was calling for removing a whole row of blocks (they removed only 1/5 of the blocks in the row), lest they uncovered more violations. Based on the uncovered violation, on December 22, 1997, another Correction Notice to expose vertical bars was issued to Citation Homes. This was never obeyed. A"~"V 15' 2 At that point Citation, with the complacency of the Building and Safety Division, started trying to avoid obeying City Building Standards.. The hope of both Citation and the Building and Safety Division is that we will simply go away. Everybody has to obey City Building Standards and Correction Notices, why not Citation? Citation payed for an engineering report with which they (Citation with the help of Mr. Makshanoff) are trying to avoid City Building Standards. That report admits that mortar was used with no aggregate, but the wall "could be" according to UBC (Uniform Building Standards). Mr. Mayor, the City Building Standards mandate a grout mixture with pea gravel, among other things. This is explicitly written on the instructions that accompany building permits from the City Hall. The City considered the presence of pea gravel important enough to mandate, in the last few years, a mid-heigh inspection of block walls to make sure that the grout fills the colunto. Without pea gravel, the grout is so liquid that no such inspection is necessary. Mr. Mayor, does the City of Rancho Cucamonga have two different building standards for block walls? UBC standards for Citation Homes, a big corporation, and another tougher set of standards, the City Building Standards, for small contractors and homeowners, which are explicitly spelled out and handed out with building permits from the City Hall? Mr. Mayor, we have be~iient long enough, but now we believe that we deserve written answers from the City: · Which Building Code is followed by the City? Is it UBC or whatever is being distributed with building permits, which is tougher. · Does our block wall conform to City Building standards? · Have the Correction Notices been rescinded? If so, why? · Is Citation Homes "off the hook"? We would appreciate answers to the above questions. We simply cannot continue having a broken wall which is not built according to City Building Standards, and which we believe is a hazard. Thank you. Sincerely, ~e M. Geor iou, PhD. '~ H E C I T Y O F :DANCHO CUCAPIONCA September 24.1998 ATT Mr. George M. Georgiou, PhD 6549 Egglestone PI. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91739 Dear Mr. Georgiou: At your request, a meeting was held at your residence on Tuesday, September 21, 1998 to inspect a masonry wall adjacent to the garage. Present for the inspection were James Isolda and Barry Rehm of Citation Homes and Rick Gomez, Carlos Sitva and myself from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The purpose of the meeting was to visually observe the condition of the There were indications based on sound testing that cells where it was anticipated that reinforcing steel should be located were not grouted. However, that can be only verified by removing a portion of the wall. Citation Homes has indicated a willingness to make repairs as necessary, but you stated your desire to purse other alternatives, which is your prerogative. Any remedial work which you may undertake will require a building permit. The City of Rancho Cucamonga looks forward to resolving the masonry wall issues on your property as expediously as possible. I have taken the opportunity to include with this letter a copy of correspondence dated April 30, 1998 that was sent to you previously. Also included is a copy of the permit for your wall. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 47%2710, ext. 2201 Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT William N. Makshanoff Building Official WNM:dm cc: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director James Allen Isolda, Vice President Construction Barry Rehm. Purchasing Agent Mayor William J. Alexander ~ CouncilmemUer Paul Biane Mayor Pro-Tern Dic~ne Willlares Councilmember Bob Dull'on JQck Lain, AICE' City Manager Councilmember James M Curotalo 10500 Civic Center Drive · P.O. Box 807 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 · (909) 477 2700 ° FAX (90% 477-28a9 tO ~;'~eEerenCeG ~ the ordinances .icable laws or tion of persons or property are observed there- 1 §4(Part/' 1992/- Section 204 · to read as ode is istrat · 'on of the Building ( ding interpret iform Administra' the tec - effec- rov%sl1991 Edition, or shall become ~de, final and cf the therein shall be service of the decision ~inh upon the . . :~ .e, · icant or other person af-;%r purposes of ermitcee. ' ee shall mean either ~after c pon the pe %% . t thl ro so t he pos known business 'n ten (10) days he · st ' . that t,%~e date of serv an ~ppeal with t ns for the ef~ec~ Official, ~ll he reason or tea · Bu%ld~ ~ng sPecifYing Board o~ Appeals rev%ew in wr% 'requesting that the ea! and muilding Official' apP of the ~ the decision uncil or such other {b] Board of APpeals. The City %~ the CitY, that the 5 persons, other than employees ___ ~ , · . . '~-'l ~r ~S a 5oard of filed in acco The City Clerk shall schedule of this Section. at reasonable times and at - (a)ring on the aPPeal Appeals, but noL laLer appeal- The permittee may appear in person before the Board or by en att rCeY a?d be d a is dence to support h~ec P ' ments and othe thereo~ to the and shall provide a copy (Rancho Cucamonga 189 12/92) ls.o8.o o--15.o8.o o lq 2 OF 2 ' pealing the decision of the Building Official. The permittee appealing the decision of the Building Offi- --~. cial shall cause, at his own expense, any tests or re- search required by the Board to substantiate his claim to be performed or otherwise carried out. The Board may continue such appeal hearing from time to time as deemed necessary by the Board. The Board may, by resolution, affirm, reverse, or modify in whole or in part, any appealed decision, determination or inter- pretation of the Building Official. A copy of the resolution adopted by the Board shall be mailed to the permittee and the Board's decision shall be final upon the mailing, by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the permittee's last known address of record. Notwithstanding the foregoing, appeals filed in rela- tion to substandard residential buildings shall be processed in accordance with Section 203 of the Uni- form Housing Code and appeals filed in relation to a dangerous building shall be processed in accordance with Secticn 205 of the Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. (Ord. 497 §4,(part), 1992). 15.08.030 Section 205 deleted--Violations and Den alties. Section 205 of the Uniform Administrative Code is deleted. (Ord. 497 §4(part), 1992). '15.08,040 Section 301(a} amended--Permits require~. Section 301(a) of the Uniform Administrative Code is amend- ed to read as follows: Section 301(a) Permits Required. Except as specified in Subsection (b) of this section, no building, struc- ture, site preparation or building service equipment regulated by this code or the technical codes adopted by this Title shall be commenced, erected, construct- ed, enlarged, altered, repaired, removed, installed, converted or demolished unless a separate appropriate permit for each building, structure, site preparation or building service equipment has first been obtained from the Building official. A separate grading permit shall be required for each site and may cover both excavations and fills. Separate building permits shall be obtained for major drainage structures and retaining walls submitted for ~;checking as a part of a grading plan. (Ord. 497 §4(part), 1992). (Rancho Cucamon~a 190