# Building owner convicted of unsafe construction



## mark handler (Mar 17, 2015)

Building owner convicted of unsafe construction

By Yibin Shen on March 17, 2015

http://smdp.com/building-owner-convicted-unsafe-construction/146368

The Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office has successfully concluded the criminal prosecution of the owner of a commercial office building, located at 2105 Colorado Blvd., for fire and building code violations.

The owner was charged with rendering fire protection equipment inoperable (such as fire sprinklers and fire alarms) and engaging in significant construction work without permit.

The City of Santa Monica’s Building Official, Ron Takiguchi, and Fire Marshal Eric Binder jointly referred the case to the City Attorney’s Office after a routine fire inspection revealed that the fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems had been compromised or disabled throughout the building and substantial construction had occurred without any permits. The Fire Marshal and Building Official concluded that these conditions seriously jeopardized the life and safety of the building’s many occupants and the City’s firefighters.

On March 9, 2015, the owner pleaded “no contest” in the criminal case. He was placed on 12 months of probation and ordered to perform 30 days of court approved community service, pay $10,000 in restitution to the City to cover City investigative costs, pay an additional $10,000 to the Building and Safety and Fire Prevention Training Fund to train and educate California Fire and Building & Safety personnel, pay hundreds more in mandatory court fines, costs and fees, comply with all other applicable laws and permit conditions.

“This is a positive and fair result,” Takiguchi said. “All businesses, including commercial property owners, must operate within state and local building and fire protection laws.  These laws exist to protect the life and safety of the building occupants and first responders. Disregard of such laws puts every occupant of the building at serious risk.”

Binder said fire protection equipment, especially in multi-tenant buildings such as 2105 Colorado Blvd., is critical to timely evacuation of building occupants and to the Fire Department’s ability to timely suppress urban fires.

“Time is truly of the utmost essence in fire suppression,” he said. “A disabled fire alarm means that occupants and fire fighters would not be promptly notified of an ongoing fire in the building. A disabled or malfunctioning sprinkler system cause fires to spread within a building, unchecked, and could place fire fighters and occupants at great jeopardy.  The owner has now committed to prompt and strict compliance with all applicable building and fire protection laws. We are very happy with this commitment and we look forward to working with the owner, and any other business that needs our assistance, to ensure that they can operate successfully in Santa Monica and within the bounds of the law.”

Anyone in the City that notices any disabled or defective fire protection equipment should immediately contact the Fire Department at (310) 458-8915.


----------



## ICE (Mar 17, 2015)

> On March 9, 2015, the owner pleaded “no contest” in the criminal case. He was placed on 12 months of probation and ordered to perform 30 days of court approved community service, pay $10,000 in restitution to the City to cover City investigative costs, *pay an additional $10,000 to the Building and Safety and Fire Prevention Training Fund* to train and educate California Fire and Building & Safety personnel, pay hundreds more in mandatory court fines, costs and fees, comply with all other applicable laws and permit conditions.


Do they make stuff up as they go along?  The first 10 grand is what would be called overcharging.  The second 10 grand is just a rip.  Compliance is the stated goal but since he made them force him....he gets screwed too.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Mar 17, 2015)

Gotta get paid yo.

Brent


----------



## JCraver (Mar 18, 2015)

Maybe.  Not enough details in the article.  But if this cat _intentionally_ disabled a life safety system (or two, as it sounds) and was still renting these units for Cali. prices, I say he got what was coming.  Whether we think the requirements for sprinklers/alarms are warranted or not, if they were there and functioning and he deliberately disabled them (as the article makes it sound) then he got off cheap.

It's one thing if the building is empty, or if you're not bound/mandated to have the systems there in the first place.  It's entirely another when you start shutting stuff off to save a dollar.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 18, 2015)

What they could have said is there was a 20,000 dollar fine and not said where the money was going to.....


----------



## jdfruit (Mar 18, 2015)

The fine is about one month's, maybe less, rent gross on the building.


----------

