Resolution No. 7181x
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
s
FI
RESOLUTION NO. 7181
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF VERNON MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE
DENIAL OF AN APPEAL CONCERNING A NONCONFORMING
BUILDING AT 2111 EAST 51ST STREET
WHEREAS, on June 23, 1998, at an adjourned regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Vernon, the City
Council heard an appeal by Maple Dinettes, owner of the property
at 2111 East 51st Street, from a determination by the Director of
Community Services and Water that a nonconforming building on said
property had been vacant for more than one year and therefore
cannot be legally occupied without being brought into conformity
with all of the regulations of the zone in which the property is
located, as provided by Section 26.4.6-7 of the Vernon City Code;
and
WHEREAS, the appeal hearing was closed during said
meeting and the decision on said appeal was deferred to the
regular City Council meeting of July 7, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony
presented on behalf of the property owner at the appeal hearing,
documentation offered by the attorney for the property owner, a
Staff Report submitted by the Director of Community Services and
Water prior to the appeal hearing, arguments presented by the
attorney for the property owner, a Staff Report submitted by the
Director of Community Services and Water dated June 30, 1998, a
letter from the City Attorney dated July 7, 1998, and a transcript
of the appeal hearing held on June 23, 1998 (erroneously dated
June 28, 1998); and
i
,r , E s
L , 1 i . i
1 WHEREAS, the evidence presented to the Council in this
2 matter supports the following findings of fact:
3 1. On July 31, 1997, an occupancy inspection was
4 conducted in connection with a proposed lease of the property to a
5 company called Rooster Brand Products. The inspection report
6 prepared by Wenceslao ("Pepe") Reynoso, a City Building Inspector,
7 called for a report from a structural or civil engineer with
8 respect to deformities in the building's masonry block walls.
9 (Staff Report, page 1, 1 2).
10 2. Over two months passed before a report was
11 submitted. In a letter dated October 21, 1997, B. J. Moore of
12 Delphey/Gerdes Engineering, Inc. indicated that an extensively
13 cracked wall should be rebuilt to support the roof joists. In
14 another letter dated October 24, 1997, Mr. Moore addressed the
15 question of "having occupants within the structure at 2111 E. 51st
16 Street" during reconstruction of the wall. Mr. Moore declined to
17 say positively that the building could be occupied during
18 construction.
19 3. In a letter dated November 25, 1997, Mr. Wilson
20 informed Maple Dinettes, the property owner, of the consequences
21 of the building being allowed to remain vacant for a year. The
22 letter quoted the relevant section of the zoning ordinance --
23 section 26.4.6-7 -- which states that "a non -conforming building
24 or portion of a non -conforming building which is vacant for a
25 continuous period of at least one year (1) shall not thereafter be
26 occupied except in the case that it has been brought into
27 conformity with all of the regulations of the zone in which it is
28 located." The letter also advised that the City's records
-2-
r ,
r s
1 "indicate that the building located at the above -mentioned address
2 has been vacant since January 28, 1997." The letter concluded
3 with information on the procedure for obtaining an occupancy
4 inspection.
5 4. On December 15, 1997, Leonard Subotnick of Los
6 Angeles Carton Company, a new proposed tenant, filed an
7 application for a certificate of occupancy with the City. An
8 occupancy inspection was conducted the next day, December 16,
9 1997. Again, an inspection report prepared by Mr. Reynoso called
10 for a structural or civil engineer to submit a report on the
11 cracks and deformities in the masonry block walls. Mr. Subotnick
12 was informed by Mr. Reynoso that a temporary occupancy permit
13 could be issued to allow occupancy during construction (Staff
14 Report, page 2, 1 2.).
15 5. Sometime in January 1998, the property owner
16 retained a new engineer, Greg Fox of Fox Engineering, to examine
17 the structure. On January 28, 1998, the same day as the deadline
18 for re -occupying the building, Mr. Fox faxed a brief letter to the
19 City which indicated, among other things, that the building was
20 safe.to occupy during construction.
21 6. In a letter dated January 19, 1998, Mr. Wilson
22 denied a request by the owner's representative for a 60-day
23 extension of the one-year vacancy period. The letter again
24 informed the owner that the building had to be occupied by January
25 28, 1998. (Note: The letter only said the building had to be
26 -occupied. It did not say repairs had to be completed first.
27 There was no "Catch-22" as claimed by the owner.)
28
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
7. On the morning of January 28, 1998, after receipt of
the fax from Mr. Fox, Richard Lucas of the building division spoke
to Mr. Subotnick by telephone, advising Mr. Subotnick that he
should obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy and re -occupy
the building that day. Mr. Subotnick failed to do this. It was
not until the following week that Mr. Subotnick picked up an
application from City Hall, and not until February 11, 1998 that
the application was submitted. The application was too late, and
consequently Mr. Wilson refused to issue a temporary certificate
of occupancy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF VERNON AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Vernon
hereby finds and determines that the recitals contained
hereinabove are true and correct, and adopts the same as its
findings of fact in this matter.
SECTION 2: Based upon said findings, the City Council
of the City of Vernon further finds and determines that the
property at 2111 East 51st Street was vacant for a period of at
least one year from and after January 28, 1997, and consequently
could not thereafter be occupied without being brought into
conformity with all of the regulations of the zone in which it is
located, as specified in Vernon City Code S 26.4.6-7.
SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Vernon
therefore denies the appeal in this matter, and sustains the
determination by the Director of Community Services and Water.
SECTION 4: The Staff Report dated June 30, 1998, the
letter from the City Attorney dated July 7, 1998, and the
MIC
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
transcript of the appeal hearing held on June 23, 1998, are hereby
made part of the record in this case. Copies of said documents
are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "C," respectively.
SECTION 5: The City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall
certify to the passage of this resolution, and thereupon and
thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of July , 1998.
ATTEST:
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk
-5-
LEONIS C. nLBURG, IMayor
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
3 I, BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk of the City of
4 Vernon, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being
5 Resolution No. 7181, was duly adopted by the City Council of the
6 City of Vernon at a regular meeting of the City Council duly held
7 on Tuesday, July 7, 1998, and thereafter was duly signed by the
8 Mayor of the City of Vernon.
10 BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk
11 (SEAL)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
EXHIBIT
0
07/ W 98, 14:28 $213 588 2761 VERNON COMM.SVS
STAFF REPORT
2111 East Slow sTRELT
JUNE 30, 1998 .
444 DAVID BREARLEY
1?1 092/00A
This Report is a chronology of the events and correspondence that
led the City into determining that the building located at 2111 S16t
Street was vacant for one year and therefore must be brought into
conformance with all City codes prior to being reoccupied.
On July 22, 1997 Norman Nishizaki with Ivy Realty applied for
an occupancy inspection for Rooster Brand Products.
On July 31, 1997 an occupancy inspection was performed for
Rooster Brand Products. One main -concern was the condition of the
masonry walls. The building inspection report prepared by
Wenceslao (Pepe) Reynoso, Engineering aide in the building section,
required that a structural or civil engineer inspect the building
and determine if repairs were required and if so obtain permits for
the necessary repairs. They were advised that an occupancy permit
was required prior to occupying the structure.
On October 20, 1997 the City received a letter from
Delphey/Gerdes Engineering, Inc. dated October 16, 1997. B.J.
Moore recommended that the crosswall with extensive cracks be
removed.
On October 22, 1997 the City received a letter from
Delphey/Gerdes Engineering, Inc.' dated October 21, 1997. B.J.
Moore reinspected the building and changed his recommendation to
rebuild the extensively cracked wall to support the roof joists.
On October 28, 1997 the City received a letter from
Delphey/Gerdes Engineering, Inc. dated October 24, 1997. This
letter addresses the question if the building could be occupied
during construction. B.J. Moore stated there would be an element
of risk and that the ....`insurance underwriter for the occupant
and the contractor would be the controlling factors to determine
whether or not the building is occupied during the construction
alteration."
On November 18, 1997 the City received an electrical permit
application to correct the violations noted during the occupancy
inspection dated July 31, 1997. This permit was issued on November
25, 1997 and finalized on December 11, 1997.
On November 25, 1997 the City sent a certified Letter to Maple
Dinettes notifying the property owner that the building has been
vacant since January 28, 1997. If the building remains vacant for
07/07/98, 14:29 $213 588 2761 VERNON COMM M i-*-> DAVID BREARLEY- Q 003/00,5 .
a one year period it shall be brought into conformance with all
regulations of the zone in which it is located.
On December 11, 1997 the City received a letter from Robin D.
Linden with Hansolo Building Services representing Harriet Belasco,
owner of 2111 513t Street & proposed tenant Leonard Subotnick of Los
Angeles Carton Co. The subject was to see if the City would accept
the proposed method of construction. Mr. Linden made reference to
the letter from Delphey/Gerdes Enginering, Inc. dated October 24,
1997.
On December 15, 1997 Leonard Subotnick of Los Angeles Carton
Co. applied for an occupancy inspection. The inspection for the
occupancy was performed on December 16, 1997. The primary
concern, addressed in the building inspection report was the
cracks and deformities in the masonry walls. Leonard Subotnick
was advised at this time that an occupancy permit was required
prior to Los Angeles Carton Co. occupying the structure. The
process of a temporary occupancy permit was also explained to
Leonard Subotnick by Liz Quaranta; with the Health Department. A
temporary occupancy permit had previously been issued to A.M.
Luggage, Inc. on December 14, 1997 for this site.
On January 6, 1998 the City received a fax from Robin Linden
with Hansolo Building Services requesting a 60 day extension from
the January 28`h 1998 deadline.
After the original occupancy inspection for Los Angeles
Carton Co. Richard Lucas and Pepe Reynoso met with Robin Linden
with Hansolo and Greg Fox with Fox Engineering regarding
structural concerns of the walls and the roof. The entire front
half of the roof appeared to be over stressed. Greg Fox stated
that an engineers analysis was required to determine the amount
of repair. Robin Linden said that after reviewing the engineers
report he would be able to estimate the value of construction
improvements required. There was a concern about the repairs
exceeding fifty percent 50t of the reasonable replacement value.
Robin said he would inform us of the repair value just as soon as
he completed his estimate. They were informed that if the value
of the work exceeded Sot of the reasonable replacement value that
the building would have to conform to current codes. Robin
Linden stated that it might be close to the Sot threshold and the
one-year vacancy issue might not be a concern. To date, we have
not received any engineering or estimate.
On January 19, 1998 Kevin Wilson, Director of Community
Services for the City of Vernon, mailed a letter to Robin Linden
responding to their request for an extension and stating that it
could not be granted.
On January 28, 1998 the City received a fax from Fox
Engineering that they would be the engineer -of -record and that
the building could be occupied during construction.
07/07/98, 14:30
$213 588 2761 VERNON COM(. SVS -►-+i DAVID BREARLEY 00,4/00.5
On January 28, 1998 Richard Lucas, Senior Building Inspector
for the City of Vernon, called Mr. Subotnick of Los Angeles
Carton Co. in the morning. Mr. Subotnick stated that Pepe
Reynoso was going out to the building today to see if the
building was OK. Mr. Lucas informed Mr. Subotnick that the
temporary occupancy permit application needed to be picked up,
notarized, brought back and issued today or the building would be
considered vacant for more than one year and would have -to be
brought up to current code.
Mr- Subotnick did not pick up the temporary occupancy permit
application on January 28, 1998. Unaware that the building could
not be reoccupied Karon Berry of the City called him the
following week. Mr. Subotnick dropped off the temporary
occupancy permit application on February 11, 1998. Uporeceipt
of the temporary occupancy application, Mr. Subotnick was
informed that the building had been determined to be vacant for
one year and could not be reoccupied until it was brought into
conformance with current codes.
On February 17, 1998 the City received a letter from Harriet
Belasco to Kevin Wilson dated February 12, 1998 explaining the
details of the occupancy of Los Angeles Carton Co. Ms. Belasco
stated that Pepe talked to Robin Linden of Hansolo on the phone
and said "You've got your temporary occupancy". Pepe does not
recall having that conversation however, he does remember telling
a Hansolo representative that the temporary occupancy permit
application could now be picked up. This occurred on January
28 ,1998 not the 27th-
On February 23, 1998 the City received a letter from Harriet
Belasco dated February 21, 1998 explaining the details of the
occupancy again.
On March 31, 1998 the City mailed a letter to Harriet
Belasco informing her that the building has been determined to be
vacant for more than one year.
On April 13, 1998 the City received a letter from Gary S.
Reisman with Wallin, Kress, Reisman & Kranitz dated April 9,
1998 to Kevin Wilson regarding time limit on appeals and
requesting a faxed copy of Section 24.4.
On April 28, 1998 Kevin Wilson responded to Resiman's letter
confirming the deadline on appeals and informed him that he could
purchase a Zoning Ordinance at the City Clerks office.
On May 12, 1998 the City received a letter from Gary Reisman
to Kevin Wilson dated May 11, 1998 stating several facts as he
understood them. This letter has several in correct statements_
The third paragraph stated that Subotnick actually moved
material into the building on January 27, 1998 and that Pepe
confirmed the building was occupied and stated the temporary
07/07/98 14:30
'0213 588 2761 VERNON COMM -+-*3 DAVID BREARLEY Q 005/00& '
occupancy permit was approved.
This is not true - Pepe inspected the building on the 28°''
and did not see any material in the building. Pepe also told a
Hansolo representative that the temporary occupancy permit
application could now be picked up. Pepe and Richard first
observed a desk and two pallets of cardboard material on a follow
up inspection in mid February 1998.
The eighth paragraph is incorrect and misleading in stating
"the initial occupancy inspection is what lead to the
determination that work was needed". This infers that the
initial inspection was in December. However, the initial
inspection after the building was vacant was July 31, 1997.*
The ninth paragraph states that Kevin Wilson's letter of
January 19, 1998 contains a real "catch-22",
The City notified the occupants at the July 31, 1997 and
December 16, 1997 occupancy inspections that there were concerns
with the stability of the structure. The tenants were advised
that they would need a letter stating that the building was safe
to occupy before a temporary certificate of occupancy permit
could be issued. The City did not receive a letter from an
engineer until the morning of January 28, 1998.
Based on these facts, City staff believes that the property
owner was fully aware that the building needed to be occupied by
January 28, 1998 and that they were informed about our occupancy
permit requirements. It is therefore recommended that the City
Council determine that the building has been vacant for one year
and shall not be reoccupied until it is brought into conformance
with the City of Vernon's current code.
EXHIBIT
11
CITY COUNCIL
LEONIS C. MALBURG
Mayor
THOMAS A. YBARRA
Mayor Pro-Tem
Wm. 'BILL" DAVIS
Councilman
H. "LARRY" GONZALES
Councilman
W. MICHAEL McCORMICK
Councilman
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST
City Administrator/City Clerk
FAX: (213) 581-7924
CITY HALL
4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058
TELEPHONE (213) 583-8811
July 7, 1998
The Honorable City Council
of the City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, California 90058-0805
Re: 2111 E. 51st Street
Gentlemen:
DAVID B. BREARLEY
City Attorney
FAX: (818) 330-5818
KEVIN WI SON
Director of Community Services & Water
FAX: (213) 588-2761
KENNETH J. DeDARIO
Director of Light & Power
FAX: (213) 583-1983
DAVE TELFORD
Fire Chief
FAX: (213) 581-1385
LOUIS ROSENKRANTZ
Police Chief
FAX: (213) 581-1178
f�F5 1
Regarding the above -referenced property, I have reviewed an
appeal letter dated May 11, 1998, submitted to the City by Cary
Reisman, attorney for the property owner; a Staff Report dated June
30, 1998, prepared by Kevin Wilson, Director of Community Services
and Water; and various documents from the files of the Department of
Community Services and Water.
The issue before the City Council in this case is whether Mr.
Wilson correctly determined that the property was vacant for an
entire year and thus could not be re -occupied without being brought
up to code. It is that determination which the property owner has
appealed. The appeal hearing was last before the Council on June 23,
1998, at which time the Council heard brief testimony and continued
the matter to July 7, 1998.
Key facts in this case are as follows:
1. On July 31, 1997, an occupancy inspection was conducted in
connection with a proposed lease of the property to a company called
Rooster Brand Products. The inspection report prepared by Wenceslao
("Pepe") Reynoso, a City Building Inspector, called for a report from
a structural or civil engineer with respect to deformities in the
building's masonry block walls. (Staff Report, page 1, 1 2).
2. Over two months passed before a report was submitted. In a
letter dated October 21, 1997, B. J. Moore of Delphey/Gerdes
Engineering, Inc. indicated that an extensively cracked wall should
be rebuilt to support the roof joists. In another letter dated
October 24, 1997, Mr. Moore addressed the question of "having
City Council of the City of Vernon
July 7, 1998
Page 2
occupants within the structure at 2111 E. 51st Street" during
reconstruction of the wall. Mr. Moore declined to say positively
that the building could be occupied during construction.
3. In a letter dated November 25, 1997, Mr. Wilson informed
Maple Dinettes, the property owner, of the consequences of the
building being allowed to remain vacant for a year. The letter
quoted the relevant section of the zoning ordinance -- section
26.4.6-7 -- which states that "a non -conforming building or portion
of a non -conforming building which is vacant for a continuous period
of at least one year (1) shall not thereafter be occupied except in
the case that it has been brought into conformity with all of the
regulations of the zone in which it is located." The letter also
advised that the City's records "indicate that the building located
at the above -mentioned address has been vacant since January 28,
1997." The letter concluded with information on the procedure for
obtaining an occupancy inspection.
4. On December 15, 1997, Leonard Subotnick of Los Angeles
Carton Company, a new proposed tenant, filed an application for a
certificate of occupancy with the City. An occupancy inspection was
conducted the next day, December 16, 1997. Again, an inspection
report prepared by Mr. Reynoso called for a structural or civil
engineer to submit a report on the cracks and deformities in the
masonry block walls. Mr. Subotnick was informed by Mr. Reynoso that
a temporary occupancy permit could be issued to allow occupancy
during construction (Staff Report, page 2, 1 2.).
5. Sometime in January 1998, the property owner retained a new
engineer, Greg Fox of Fox Engineering, to examine the structure. On
January 28, 1998, the same day as the deadline for re -occupying the
building, Mr. Fox faxed a brief letter to the City which indicated,
among other things, that the building was safe to occupy during
construction.
6. In a letter dated January 19, 1998, Mr. Wilson denied a
request by the owner's representative for 60-day extension of the
one-year vacancy period. The letter again informed the owner that
the building had to be occupied by January 28, 1998. (Note: The
letter only said the building had to be occupied. It did not say
repairs had to be completed first. There was no "Catch-22" as
claimed by the owner.)
7. On the morning of January 28, 1998, after receipt of the fax
from Mr. Fox, Richard Lucas of the building division spoke to Mr.
Subotnick by telephone, advising Mr. Subotnick that he should obtain
a temporary certificate of occupancy and re -occupy the building that
day. Mr. Subotnick failed to do this. It was not until the
following week that Mr. Subotnick picked up an application from City
Hall, and not until February 11, 1998 that the application was
submitted. The application was too late, and consequently Mr. Wilson
refused to issue a temporary certificate of occupancy.
City Council of the City of Vernon
July 7, 1998
Page 3
The building in this case is "nonconforming," which essentially
means it was legal at the time it was built but no longer conforms to
applicable requirements. See, Stokes v. Board of Permit
Appeals(1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1354. The City's zoning ordinance
allows a legal nonconforming building to continue in existence,
subject to various restrictions. Section 26.4.6-7, the section
quoted in Mr. Wilson's November 25, 1997 letter, provides one way
that the right to maintain a nonconforming building can be lost -- by
failing to use it for an entire year. Importantly, this code section
does not require that the owner intentionally or voluntarily cease
use of the building, only that it be vacant for one year. No
California case has held that a cessation of use must be intentional
or voluntary. See, Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of
Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 571.
Based upon the foregoing facts, it is my opinion that the City
Council, as a legal and proper exercise of its discretion, can deny
thisappealand uphold the determination made by Mr. Wilson. The
property owner was apprised of the possibility that extensiverepairs
might be required well in advance of the January 28, 1998 deadline.
As the deadline drew near, the owner was informed that the property
could be occupied during construction, providing an engineer would
say that this was safe. It is clear the owner understood this as
early as October 24, 1997, when Mr. Moore of Delphey/Gerdes
Engineering specifically addressed the question of the property being
occupied during construction. The record shows the property owner
was treated fairly and reasonably in all respects by the City staff.
On the other hand, it would also be within the Council's
discretion to relieve the property owner of having to bring its
building up to code, but in my opinion the factual justification for
this is slim and could present problems in the future administration
of the zoning ordinance unless the Council can find a unique and
equitable reason for granting such relief.
Very truly yours,
V= Nl�lt
David B. Brearley
City Attorney
DBB:RJM:nc
fcc\c-2111e.51
EXHIBIT
I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VERNON, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1998
CITY OF VERNON
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MR. MALBURG: Okay. Now, we will go bark.
MR. BREARLEY: If the clerk will start_ It's
the last item on Page 5. 1 think what we should do is
start with Mr. Wilson to explain his decision.
MR. MALKENHORST: Which one is this?
MR. BREARLEY: It's on Page 5. The last item.
MR. MALKENHORST: Resolution?
MR. BREARLEY: The communication on the lower
part of Page 5.
MR. WILSON: I've made a determination that
this building cannot be reoccupied until it is bought
up to current code. On November 25th I sent a letter
to Maple Dinette advising them that the city of Vernon
had determined that their building had been vacant
since January of 199 -- January 28, 1997, and that if
it was not reoccupied by January 28, 1998, that it
would be determined to be vacant for more than one year
and would have to be brought up to current city code.
On December 16, our city staff made an
■
G1
JONNELL AGNEW & ASSOCIATES
1 (800) 524-3376
ROUGH DRAFT
1 object inspection for the property for a proposed
2 tenant. we made a determination that there was some --
3 in one of the walls, and one of the rafters had
4 cracked, and we made a determination that those had to
5 be repaired prior to occupying the building or that
6 they get a letter from the engineer stating that the
7 building could be occupied while the repairs were being
8 made.
9 On January 61 1998, I received a letter
10 from Robin D. Linden requesting an extension of time.
11 On January 19, I responded to Mr. Linden's letter and
12 stated that we could not grant an extension of time and
13 the building would have to be occupied by the
14 January 28 deadline.
15 On February 5, we received a temporary
16 occupancy permit form for the building. That was
17 finally completed. we told the tenant that he could
18 not occupy the building because we received the request
19 after the deadline and the building would have to be
20 brought up to city code.
21 On January 12, I received a letter from
22 Harriette Belasco, the owner of the building, and a
23 follow-up letter on February 21, requesting that they
24 be allowed to reoccupy the building.
25 And on March 31, 1 sent a letter back to
2
JONNELL AGNEW & ASSOCIATES
1 ( 800 ) 524-3376
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
j(V V VII Yam+ +
them stating that I had made a determination that the
building was vacant and could not be occupied. That's
it, and they are here to appeal my decision on the
matter.
MR. MALBURG: Okay. I guess we should hear
from counsel over here.
Would you please give us your name.
MR. REISMAN: Thank you, your Honor. I am
Barry Reisman with the Law Offices of Wallin, Kress,
Reisman and Kranit2.
I have some documents which are city
records. The City Attorney was kind enough to provide
me copies of them. I still ogre him for them, if you
tell us how much.
MR. BREARLEY: $10 million.
MR. REISMAN: Well, that depends on if we win
or not.
I have a copy for the department head,
copies for the department members, and one extra the
City Manager can fight over. They are chronological.
That's the only logic to the order.
Basically my clients have owned this
property for many years. It became vacant about a year
and a half ago, and they found out in probably
September that they needed to reoccupy it within a
JONNELL AGNEW & ASSOCIATES
1 (800) 524-3376
3
t-�T T L�R7
jtVUVL �
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1,1
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
year. They fully intended to reoccupy it. In fact,
they leased it to L.A. Carton, another property owner
in Vernon and another good property owner in Vernon.
And Mr. Subotnick applied for everything he was
required to apply for. He applied for a certificate of
occupancy. Paid the fee for it. Be applied for a
business license. Paid the fee for the secured
occupancy inspection reports from the various
departments, and you'll see them in the packet dated
November and December 16.
The business license application is very
difficult to read, the copy that I received by fax from
Mr. Brearley. It was submitted and paid for on January
12. The fee was $545.75. There wasn't a problem with
that as far as he was informed. There is a copy of the
report from an engineer back in October of 197 saying
what was needed for the property as far as the engineer
was concerned. There is an engineer's report on
December 11, that may have been when they submitted
that report I just referred to. Yes.
Then there is an application. for a
building permit. And it looks like the lath of
December '97, buyer's permit. The certificate of
occupancy application is in your packet. It's dated
December the 15th.
JONNELL AGNEW & ASSOCIATES
1 (800) 524-3376
ROUGH DRAFT
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Now, the key date that the department
was saying that they had to reoccupy by was not until
the 28th of January. So all this is going on. They
hire Han Solo Engineers, and Robin Linden is here and
will speak to you in a moment.
There is a letter here dated January 6th
regarding it. Information engineering and information
letter is dated January 27, the day before. Attached
to informations there is a little note and it says,
Called 1/28/98. Called Leonard Subotnick, and
Mr. Subotnick is going to talk to you about that.
Then there is a temporary occupant dated
February 5. Mr. Subotnick is going to tell you when he
was called to come pick it up. He didn't even know he
had to fill this out and it had to be notarized until
the day before. The notary requirement doesn't appear
anywhere in the Codes. I've looked. There is no
requirement of the notarized document, and
Mr. Subotnick was not told it had to be notarized until
the day that they called on February 4th.
Then there is some letters back and
forth that give you some more background.
Ms. Belasco, the owner, was never told
that she had to have this done by January 28, 1998- Xf
she'd known, of course she would have run down, filled
5
JONNELL AGNEW & ASSOCIATES
1 (800) 524-3376
ROUGH
1 it out herself, had it notarized and she would have
2 taken care of it.
3 The building is too valuable to lose-
4 Mr. Subotnick has a four-year lease, and is here to
5 stay permanently. She had a lot to loose. They'd
6 filled it out, gotten it notarized and brought i_•l' in.
7 That's the only thing that the city is saying we didn't
8 do is fill out the form, get it notarized and bring it
9 back. They said they called on the day it was due, the
10 26th, and we didn't come until the 4th.
11 And I think I've said Enough. I don't
12 like to hear lawyers go on and on at city council
13 meetings. I'm going to it turnover to my client and
14 let her speak about her company and property.
15 MS. BELASCO: Hi. Thank you for hearing us. I
16 really have very little to say except for the fact that
17 I did -- should I say my name?
18 MR. MALBURG: Please.
19 MS. BELASCO: I'm Harriette aelasco. I'm not
20 the property owner, but I represent the property owner,
21 Maple Dinette. I've done all the course with some of
22 the people here.
23 I did receive a letter -- it was October
24 or November -- that the building had to be occupied by
25 the 28th, I believe, of January. It had to have a
6
JONNELL AGNEW & ASSOCIATES
1 (800) 524-3376
r,r,rtr`_v TD�TiT
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
tenant. it didn't say have to have a tenant and the
different things where the building safety, fire and
health, et cetera, et cetera, had to be complied with.
I feel I'm in a catch 22. And then they
say now the tenant can't occupy the property, so where
an I left? I'm left hanging by a thread at everybody's
mercy.
All we're trying to do is abide by your
request, which we have a tenant who calls me maybe
every couple of weeks, "When can I move in?"
I say, "Leonard, I don't know what to
do. We are at the City's mercy."
I'm here at your mercy trying to do
anything that I need to do to make everybody happy
including me, Maple Dinettes and my tenant. We would
do anything you said if you tell me in enough time. If
you say the building needs a tenant and I get a tenant
by the 28th, that should be fine.
So if you have any questions and want to
know why I didn't do anything when I was supposed to, I
will try to give you the best answer I have.
MR. REISMAN: What other property does your
client have?
MS. BELASCO: Has 2101 East 51st and a piece of
property on Fruitland and on Everett Court. We've
■
i
JONNELL AGNEW & ASSOCIATES
1 (800) 524-3376
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
always been honest to. do the very best with any of the
requirements that the city of Vernon has asked us to
do. Life is just too short to make life difficult for
anyone, especially when we are willing to abide by
anything you say.
MR. REISMA4: Mr. Subotnick, if you would,
would you also state whether you moved anything in
there and what?
MR. SUBOTNICK: My name is Leonard Subotnick.
I have a building on 51st, Los Angeles Carbon Company.
On December 12th or 16th, I applied for
the occupancy permit which cost $120. Then I found out
that later in.January that they're going to fix the
building.
on January 12th, I applied the $545 for
it. At that time the lady, the clerk in the office did
not tell me that I had to have another paper signed and
notarized. I knew nothing about that.
On February 4th, I get a call from the
office that there is a paper up there I have to sign
and have it notarized. I have city or state or federal
government.
I immediately picked up the paper, went
to my notary public in Vernon, had it signed and have a
copy of it. I sent two in. I don't know if I mailed
JONNELL AGNEW & ASSOCIATES
1 (800) 524-3376
8
y
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TTTY.IT
it in or took it in.
A few days later, I think, this
Mr. Lucas called and said we didn't comply to the
January 28 order. I didn't know I was supposed to get
it in by the 28th. Nobody told me. That's all I know
about it.
MR. REISMAN: Did you move some things into the
property?
MR. SUBOTNICR: We moved in some desks, a water
cooler. I have a couple of pallets and corrugated
boxes. They said there is no occupancy permit. It was
all in there before the 28th.
MR. MALBURG: Thank you.
MR. SUBOTNICR: That's all I have to say.
MR. MALBURG: Thank you very much.
MR. LINDEN: My name is Robin Linden with Han
Solo general contractor. I'm with Harriette Belasco
for Maple dinettes general contractor.
First of all, I think with the letter,
we requested an extensions. We had met personally
prior to that. We had to put it in writing asking for
the extensions in the letter. He replied back on the
19th we had until the 28th.
if you look at all our things before the
28th, except for the notary public notarized signature
JONNELL AGNEW & ASSOCIATES
1 (800) 524-3376
I
r
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
ROUGH
didn`t comply, and everything else with the engineer
letter that came on the 27th, it was assumed by
everyone over here we made it. And then here we are.
MR. REISMAN: Did Pepe tell you that the
inside ---
MR. LINDEN: Yes, we had an inspection on the
27th that they inspected everything. They violated
some things on the building of course. We have so long
to comply with that. And I think before we even
completed the proposal to my client, we were canceled.
On the 27th, Pepe had been inside to
verified that there was -- all the city inspectors had
been there, seen everything and -- including the
engineering with Richard Lucas and Pepe, he told us all
we had to do, so it could be occupied or the work was
being performed, which we did give a letter to that
effect.
MR. REISMAN: Your attorney is making a
technicality and saying, "Oh, you didn't cross this T
or dot this I."
MR. BREARLEY: In this case, I think it's kind
of the City, but you didn't notarize it because there
is no legal requirement that you have a notarize
acceptance of the conditions.
MR, REISMAN: They knew who Mr. Subotnick was.
JONNELL AGNEW & ASSOCIATES
1 (800) 524-3376
r
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
That's all this note says. it doesn't say it's all
true. This is the person he says he is. The city
knows who he is. The notarization is a real
technicality. The submittal of this form after
everything else had been done is a technicality and
it's not really fair to put these people out of
business based upon that technicality.
So we are appealing to the council's
sensibility, and we're requesting that they be
permitted to reoccupy that building, make any remaining
structural -- city of Vernon.
MR. MALBURG: Do you have any comments on this
at this time?
MR. BREARLEY: Well, I would recommend that you
defer this matter to the next meeting. The next
meeting in July, we will come back again and go over
the comments that have been made and see just where the
truth lies. I think that might be the better collusion
at this time.
MR. MALBURG: Work with Kevin then.
MR. BREARLEY: I'll work with him.
MR. MALBURG: Did you hear the City Attorney,
what he said and so forth? And I think the council
confers with the recommendation.
MR. GONZALES: I would like to have it deferred,
JONNELL AGNEW 6 ASSOCIATES
1 (800) 524-3376
11
L. 6 r
,RVuyu aia�+-�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
until the next council meeting. Of course you will
give me a copy of this. I can't see it this fast.
MR. REISMAN: I understand.
MR. GONZALES: I'm not going to read this right
now.
MR. REISMAN: I thought you would have some of
it already.
MR, GONZALES: I've got to matchwhat you said
and what the other people tell me, too.
MR. REISMAN: is my appeal letter already
there?
MR. BREARLEY: Which letter?
MR. REISMAN: My appeal letter in the -- what
the council has?
MR. BREARLEY: Yes.
MR. REISMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. GONZALES: I will move to defer.
MR. BREARLEY: The first meeting in July.
MR. MALBURG: Gonzales moves to defer this to
the first council meeting in July, and second by Davis,
and be the order. And I will see you back --
12
JONNELL AGNEW & .ASSOCIATES
1 (900) 524-3376