The Great Wall of Coarsegold - 2 T's Mini Storage

[Newcomer]

I drove by the great Coarsegold wall (Storage facility and noticed that about 7-8 more of the wall bricks have falloen completely out and the wall at it's base is buldging further and the crack in the rest of the base stones has extended vertically up another 6-7 feet. This thing is going to break and someone is going to get hurt or killed possibly. I called Pete's Publishing and they say that the county knows of the issues and a Law suit is already under way. I just hope they get it resolved before something bad happens.

[beautiful_mess38]

Wow Thats scary. Hopefully they will get it fixed before something happens.
Didn't we all predict this.

[Mysteefied]

yup. It was only a matter of time..or as my sweetie hates to hear. It wasn't a matter of if...but...when. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/annoyed.gif

[oakhurstmoon]

maybe Wild Pete should move..
looks scary

[Kahlua Kid]

Its really gotten bad - two spots now broken out up to about 5-6 feet tall and the rest bulging around the bottom. Other blocks have cracks going right up the middle of them clean through...

I really think its only a matter of time... And if I worked at Wild Pete's location, I think I would certainly be concerned for my safety.

From what we've heard, if it goes, the blocks will actually fly across Hwy 41 due to the pressure being released all at one time.

[Lacey]

Wild Pete had his place for sale for a while. I'm sure there will be some sort of action taken as this had to effect the value of his property a great deal!

My question has always been....What On Earth Were They Thinking???

[Newcomer]

This is really concerning.

See the below pics. You can see why the blocks are crumbling. The base of the wall is bulging about 10-12 inches out from where it should be. The blocks on the bottom are placed too far in, versus being at an even angle the whole way down.

Look for an article in the upcoming Sierra Star on this issue.

[Newcomer]

.

[Mysteefied]

That is scarey! Someone is going to get hurt.

[Lacey]

I would have thought they'd have to use rebarb when building a retaining wall that is expected to hold that much earth. Heads will roll somewhere over this one, I'm sure! Gosh, I wonder if it will spill clear out onto the road once it gives way? And does the land owner have any of the storage buildings on top yet? Unbelievable!!!

[Newcomer]

I have seen walls built with this kind of stone and the better stone used in this has a steel rod that is hammered down into each stone from the one above to give the wall extra strength. I am not sure that even that type of stone construction would work here based on the height of the wall and the amount of dirt and weight it has to be able to hold back.

and Yes Lacey the buildings on top have been completed. so if the wall goes down so does at least part of the buildings. I am no engineer but I think anyone can tell that this is just wrong. Also now you can see as the wall crumbles look behind the stone it looks to be like it is being washed out and leaving an air gap,

[Kahlua Kid]

I would have thought a better retaining wall would have been required also - rebar and the like.

I insure hundreds of contractors and many of our insurance carriers do not allow them to build any retaining walls over 8 feet tall... obviously due to a situation such as this... It takes special engineering and materials to make this work appropriately.

I wonder when the first wall finally does let loose, if the 2 walls above (approximately 60 feet high total) will also fall immediately in one event?

This really needs to be rectified. I know there is a lawsuit between Pete's Place and the storage facility owner (I believe over the fact the wall encroaches on their property, but I don't know if anything else is named in the lawsuit). But, what is being done to fix the problem? At this time, it appears nothing.

The owner of the storage place is probably arguiing with their contractors and engineers to fix it and how. (They already had the contractors out to "fix" it one time before - you can see the cement drips on the photos).

But in the meantime, nothing is being done to shore the hillside up which to me is a huge safety concern for everyone going up or down Hwy 41 - when it goes, its obviously going to spill across the Hwy.

You can see its a domino effect since those bricks are not rebarred into the ground. When one goes, so does another and then another and...

What a mess! Its probably even unsafe for workers to try to fix the thing. Would you want to be the guy at the bottom taking bricks out to fix the thing? The whole thing probably needs to be taken down from the top-down and redone.

[Newcomer]

Future uncertain for local "Great Wall"

Grand Jury releases report on 2T's Mini Storage, also known by some as the "Great Wall of Coarsegold"

By Jenna Nielsen

(Updated Thursday, June 29, 2006, 10:07 AM)


The Madera County Grand Jury released a final report in response to complaints about the segmental retaining walls at 2T's Mini Storage and has concluded the Madera County Planning Department will not issue a certificate of completion until certain corrections are made.



Some residents and county officials consider the wall at 2T’s Mini Storage in Coarsegold to be a safety concern because of its close location to Highway 41. Groups of interlocking bricks have cracked and are beginning to crumble, while parts of the wall are starting to bulge.
Photo by Jenna Nielsen




2T's, also known to some residents as "The Great Wall of Coarsegold," is located near the corner of Road 415 and Highway 41.

The wall was put up in 2004 and has since become a problem in the opinion of Madera County officials, residents and engineering professionals.

Members of the grand jury were asked to verify the retained heights of the three segmental walls that terrace up the hillside and observe the cracking and "bulging" of the lowest retaining wall blocks.

Resource Management Agency Director Floyd Davis made some evaluations about the wall based on his experience as a civil engineer.

"With the information I have at this time, it is my understanding that the wall is bulging because the other wall(s) behind it are not back far enough," Davis said. "It is pushing on the lower wall and in my opinion, the bulging wouldn't happen if the wall was put back further."

Davis also said the problem with the wall isn't so much the type of block used, but that is was improperly placed.

Cement grout was placed behind the wall at one point that Davis said the wall was not designed for and ended up changing the character of the wall.

Terrence Travis, the owner of the mini storage, said he hired a professional company to design the wall and thought he was doing everything right.

"I had an outside engineering firm do all my tests," Travis said. "I thought I was doing it the right way, building it the way I built it."

The professional company is based out of the state, according to documents.

Company officials did not return phone calls as of press time Monday.

According to a memo written in 2003 by the company, an analysis of the retaining wall (proposed at this time) was done and it states, "the 4-Tiered retaining wall will be internally and externally stable provided the specific recommendations contained herein…"

Travis' architect, John Aldridge of Aldridge Associates, an architecture, planning and engineering firm based out of Laguna Hills, alleged the design company is at fault and said the liability should rest with the original engineer of the wall, not Travis.

"The first time the block began to break, [Travis] tore it down and put it back up again," Aldridge said.

Aldridge also alleged that Madera County has been arbitrarily holding Travis up from opening.

"I don't think they (the county) are following the proper procedures and are actually making matters worse," he said. "They required no special inspection of the building and everything they have asked [Travis] to do he has done."

The grand jury concluded the following as causes of the block fracturing and wall bulging:

Improper engineering.

Improper construction.

Defective materials (green block).

Build-up of moisture behind the wall (hydrostatic pressure)

The first course of block at the base of the bulging wall was "keyed" into the base footing through the use of wedge anchors or "redheads." As a result, the bottom course could not move horizontally with the rest of the wall causing the bulge to occur at the courses above.

Some slack that would allow for horizontal movement of the wall was left in the reinforcing grids (geogrids) behind the wall.

The storage building at the top of the hillside is applying pressure on the lowest retaining wall, and it is unknown if this was taken into consideration in the design of the lowest segmental wall.

In a complete wall failure, the likelihood is that the whole hillside will come down causing disruption of traffic within the area of Highway 41 and Road 415.

According to the manufacturer, this type of block requires a minimum of 21 days drying time and these blocks were used in constructing the wall seven days after they were made.

Construction was not started on a firm foundation of bed rock.

As a result, the grand jury concluded:

The segmental walls were designed and constructed with reinforcing grids ("Geogrids") that extend into the hillside behind the wall and that this was not done per the approved plans.

Rock-dowels have been designed for overturning resistance to sliding of the wall, but this has not been done and that providing another row of rock dowels along the toe of the footing would resist the sliding forces of the wall.

Determining the cause of the cracking and bulging may be an appropriate action, but will not change the fact that some form of retrofit or shoring is necessary to insure the future stability of the hillside.

The Madera County Building Division wrote correction notices for work that was not in compliance with the approved plans and that the builder has not come into compliance at the time the grand jury released its report.

The grand jury's report comes at an inconvenient time for Travis, who has been trying to open the mini storage since 2003. He said he was scheduled to open June 13 and that, to his understanding, plans were being finalized.

"I cannot wait another week to open," Travis said. "I need this building to open like I need air."

But Davis said he wanted to wait until Madera County Counsel reviewed a field observation that was done by a consulting firm, delegated by the county, in regards to whether changes could be made to the wall and if it can be repaired in its current state by buttressing.

Buttressing, by definition, is something that serves to support, prop or reinforce.

According to a letter obtained at the Resource Management Agency in Madera dated June 22, Travis requested occupancy of some storage unit buildings while the wall was being buttressed.

Travis requested the opening of those buildings that would not be directly affected if a wall failure were to occur.

This was based on advice he received from Hugo Kevorkian, a geotechnical engineer with BSK Associates of Fresno.

BSK assessed the buildings and concluded that one building in particular would have minimal direct exposure to stability failure resulting from the potential collapse of the segmental wall.

According to the RMA's letter, written by Davis, it states the county building staff and county counsel reviewed the project and came to the conclusion that "although staff has determined that buttressing the retaining wall is an acceptable remedy, a permit cannot be issued because the work would be done on adjacent property" and that "occupancies cannot be given to any structure for the project because they do not comply with code requirements of the County of Madera."

Pending litigation

According to the Madera County Superior Court, Travis and the owners of a neighboring business, Wild Pete Publishing (the adjoining property) have litigation pending.

The grand jury report indicates, "the builder erred when his surveyor used the wrong property marker and subsequently constructed the wall on 4 feet 6 inches on the adjoining property."

Travis confirmed his surveyor made the error.

Casey and Carolyn Root, the owners of Wild Pete Publishing, would not comment because of pending litigation with Travis.

Travis would not comment further on the pending litigation as well.

The June 22 letter also states, "County has determined that for life and safety reasons, no member of the public should have access to the project until all corrective measures have been completed, including the retaining wall and code violation to the structures. These and all other issues shall be completed and accepted by the county prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the building division."

Specific code violations

Aldridge claims that neither he nor Travis have ever received anything about what specific code violations the letter refers to and that letter never states what corrective measures need to be taken

"We believe it is the wall, but how can [Travis] proceed when he doesn't even know what the county is writing him," Aldridge said. "Travis cannot go on [The Root's] property to fix anything and by the county telling him he can't open until the wall is fixed means the neighbor can hold Terry up forever."

Aldridge said Travis cannot afford to wait for litigation to be solved and that if the situation is prolonged, it could force Travis into bankruptcy.

Travis said he is the only person who can that be singled out in the process.

"My money, my energy, my livelihood is on the line," Travis said. "I'm the only one who can get hurt."

Zoning preference

Travis lives in the San Diego area and said he decided to build the mini storage in Coarsegold because of location and the need for a business of its type in the area.

"This is the best zoning in California," he said. "There is a great need for this business; I have a large number of people who want to move their stuff in."

Travis added he is unhappy with the way the wall has come out and that his original plans were to have something beautiful put up.

"This wall is aggravating the heck out of me," he said. The county knows that — there hasn't been a time where I have gone around the county, I have always worked with them."

He said his plans were to cover the wall with greenery that would grow to cover it.

"I wanted that corner to look like a million bucks," Travis said. "Now it has become a big problem for me and I never expected this much aggravation. I just wanted it to look beautiful."

Travis said he shares the concerns of others regarding the safety of the wall.

"I care if something happens to that wall; it would concern me," Travis said. "I spent almost $70,000 taking it down just to put it back up again because I care. The part of the wall that is crumbling is on [The Root's] property. I have wanted to do something about it but I can't touch it."

Travis said it just seems like one problem after another and that he has done all he could during the whole process.

"I could be bitter, I have three years invested in this," Travis said. "But now I have to deal with it."

Residents speak out

Residents in the area have their views and reservations about the wall too.

Ray Long, of Coarsegold, has been against the project for various reasons.

"My reservation is that at some point this thing is going to arrive on Highway 41," Long said. "If the wall were to fail, it poses a hazard because it is crumbling slowly. Gravity is going to take it down."

Coarsegold resident Terry Waite said he and his wife has been monitoring the wall since it was put up and they are concerned with both the safety issues and aesthetics of the wall.

"Once the facility is filled to capacity it is going to add more weight to the wall, and the concern is that it could collapse and blow out across the road and could potentially injure someone," Waite said. "I am really at a loss for what should be done to correct the wall. I am not against businesses coming to Coarsegold, but when something is unsafe then it becomes a concern — I hate to say it but I wouldn't want to see them open in its current state. I don't think it could be opened and operated safely, or if it can even be repaired."

Coarsegold resident Tammi Edmonds, said there has been problems with the site from the beginning and would like to see the wall removed.

"The problems started as soon as they were breaking ground," Edmonds said. "I think the whole thing is one big disaster. They keep telling [Travis] that he needs to fix it and he has tried but I think it should all be removed only because it has continually been one problem after the other."

Rain allegedly taking its toll

Edmonds said this past rainy season she witnessed grout from the wall discharging across Highway 41 and she thinks the wall will crumble in time.

"When it rained and snowed the ground is so sandy that it seemed like the grout just came apart and started to run across [Highway 41]," she said. "And here it is almost done and there are still problems. The wall is coming loose and I think it is going to come down."

As a result of the discharged grout, Travis has faced several violations with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB).

According to public documents obtained at the CRWQCB in Fresno, Travis was the subject of an initial violation in February of 2004.

The document states that the 2T's Mini Storage site was the subject of a complaint alleging that sediment was discharging and being tracked onto Road 415. In January, a member of the CRWQCB staff investigated the complaint and issued an inspection report. Based on the staff member's observations, Travis was in violation of threatening to discharge sediment into a water of the United States, threatening to cause pollution, contamination or nuisance, not implementing best management practices to the best available technology/best conventional technology performance standard and not conducting routine inspections for maintenance of existing best management practices.

As a result, the documents indicate that discharges of sediment into the storm water drainage system were flowing into the Coarsegold Creek. The CRWQCB also concluded that the gap within the silt fence near the northeast corner of the site needed to be repaired to prevent further erosion.

Subsequent violations of the same nature were issued to Travis on April 7, 2004, May 6, 2005 and Aug. 31 2005 to which he was asked to submit a written description of all actions that would be taken to address the concerns. He did respond to all notices of violation with the exception of the Aug. 31, 2005 notice.

At one point in March of 2005, construction was ordered to cease on the site until the erosion and sediment control issues were addressed.

Dale Harvey, senior engineer at the CRWQCB Central Valley Region, said his office is in the process of completing another investigation on Travis that should be done in the coming weeks.

Madera County District 5 Planning Commissioner Tony Ward said he has received a lot of phone calls regarding the problems associated with the wall.

He said upon seeing what was going on, the Madera County Planning Commission looked at the facility and recommended to Ray Beach at the planning department that a conditional-use permit be required for all storage facilities that would be built on commercial property.

Ward said a conditional-use permit would assess whether the proposed site meets the aesthetics of the community and would promote the health, safety and welfare (quality of life) of the public.

"These are both key parts of the Coarsegold Area Plan," Ward said. "We want to make sure it is aesthetically pleasing and promotes the quality of life in our area. That's the purpose of the general plan."

From now on, Ward said those who want to build a storage facility on commercial property in the area must obtain a conditional use permit and that it has to be approved by the planning commission and the Madera County Board of Supervisors.

In its final report, the grand jury indicated the recommendation that the property line dispute should be resolved in order for corrective measures to be taken to remedy the situation.

The grand jury also requested the recommendations submitted by the Madera County Planning and Building departments be considered to satisfactorily resolve the present condition of the wall.



According to the grand jury’s report, the hillside is retained by three segmental walls that terrace up the hillside and that most of the wall’s cracks occur at the lower retaining wall. The grand jury reported the most severe cracking has occurred at the tallest section of the wall just before its slope up the hillside where a bulge is quite visible.
Photo by Jenna Nielsen



A portion of the wall was built onto the neighboring property, Wild Pete Publishing. The grand jury report indicates the builder erred his after his surveyor used the wrong property marker and subsequently constructed the wall 4 feet 6 inches of the adjoining property. Travis and the owners of Wild Pete Publishing are now in litigation.

[monkey]

Thanks for posting the article. It answers alot of questions. It also leaves me with some.

[Yosemite Joy]

Travis said he is the only person who can that be singled out in the process.

"My money, my energy, my livelihood is on the line," Travis said. "I'm the only one who can get hurt."

Zoning preference

Travis lives in the San Diego area and said he decided to build the mini storage in Coarsegold because of location and the need for a business of its type in the area.

"This is the best zoning in California," he said. "There is a great need for this business; I have a large number of people who want to move their stuff in."

Travis added he is unhappy with the way the wall has come out and that his original plans were to have something beautiful put up.

"This wall is aggravating the heck out of me," he said. The county knows that — there hasn't been a time where I have gone around the county, I have always worked with them."

He said his plans were to cover the wall with greenery that would grow to cover it.

"I wanted that corner to look like a million bucks," Travis said. "Now it has become a big problem for me and I never expected this much aggravation. I just wanted it to look beautiful."

Travis said he shares the concerns of others regarding the safety of the wall.

"I care if something happens to that wall; it would concern me," Travis said. "I spent almost $70,000 taking it down just to put it back up again because I care. The part of the wall that is crumbling is on [The Root's] property. I have wanted to do something about it but I can't touch it."

Travis said it just seems like one problem after another and that he has done all he could during the whole process.

"I could be bitter, I have three years invested in this," Travis said. "But now I have to deal with it."



Oh boo hoo.

This place, should it ever open, should be boycotted.

[Patagoniamaniac]

someone needs to blow it up with dynamite. then the problem would HAVE to be taken care of...

[Newcomer]

Pata, you sould like one Bush's so called "Evil Dooer's" LOL

If R. Regan was still alive I would have him ask, Mr. Travis tear down this wall...

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

[Newcomer]

'Great Wall' decision delayed


Supervisors to continue discussion on 2T's Mini Storage during the last meeting in September

By Kristen Hoverman

(Updated Wednesday, September 20, 2006, 3:41 PM)


In last week's regular board meeting, the Madera County Board of Supervisors requested the continuance of the discussion and direction of 2T's Mini Storage until Sept. 26. The board item, continued from Aug. 22, was continued to allow the parties involved to discuss a more definitive decision for recommendation to the county.

"I'm not going to be prepared to approve or disapprove this until all the parties are in the room and everybody knows what's going on," said District 5 Supervisor Gary Gilbert.

Gilbert feels the owner and engineer made a mistake with the project.

"They trespassed on another person's property, they built a wall, they've done environmental damage and have not been responsive to anything to date to the county."

2T's, known to some residents as "The Great Wall of Coarsegold," is located near the corner of Road 415 and Highway 41.

The wall was put up in 2004 and has since become a problem in the opinion of Madera County officials, residents and engineering professionals. A Madera County Grand Jury report was released in June in response to complaints about block fracturing and wall bulging of the segmental retaining walls at 2T's.

The grand jury concluded that block fracturing and wall bulging were caused by improper engineering, improper construction, defective materials (green block) and build-up of moisture behind the wall (hydrostatic pressure).

Other causes named in the report include slack in the reinforcing grids behind the wall that would allow for horizontal movement of the wall and the pressure on the wall applied by the storage building at the top of the hillside.

In its final report, the grand jury indicated that wall failure is likely to occur, which would cause disruption of traffic within the area of Highway 41 and Road 415.

The grand jury's recommendation was that the property line dispute be resolved in order for corrective measures to be taken to resolve the issue.

"I would personally like to see this issue resolved," said District 1 Supervisor Frank Bigelow. "Winter's about to come before us, and given the strategic location of that particular issue we could have a major issue here that could cause a failure during the winter. We need to get this resolved before winter sets in."

County officials say that the process of working on a solution is underway.

"Doug Nelson and I had discussions with the owner (Terrence Travis) his architect (John Aldridge of Aldridge Associates) and also his legal representation yesterday and we look like we're coming to a nameable solution," said Resource Management Agency Director Floyd Davis. "Just need a little time to resolve it. I think we're getting there.

"I've had conversations with that other land owner (Casey and Carolyn Root), what we're trying to do is provide an opportunity for a way in which they can get occupants into a couple buildings that have enough available bonding money that if he does not perform, then we'll be able to exonerate the bond and move the wall back off the adjacent property and construct it in a different manner.

"I've had good conversations with them. They have some concerns that need to be resolved. We'd like to get this resolved as soon as possible."

Davis added that in an initial conversation with the adjacent property owner, "that property owner said that if we were to take it over and do it that they would give us a right of entry to get on to their property and fix it. A method in which he can change some of his financial arrangements and get the bonding in place so we can get it resolved."

"When does the county have any responsibility for the financial liability of any project?" Gilbert said. "That individual on his right, made a land use decision to build a mini-storage. Financially that's between him and his bank. I don't care if he makes $1 million or loses $1 million that's the decision he made when he pulled those permits. He did not abide by the permit. He's already trespassed four feet into the other property owner's land."

Under public law 4290, all parcels one acre and larger shall provide a minimum 30-foot setback for buildings and accessory buildings from all property lines and/or the center of the road. For parcels less than one acre, local jurisdictions shall provide for the same practical effect.

Davis said that the fire marshall has looked over the property and has made an opinion, and legal counsil is in the process of reviewing so that a determination can be made.

A 4290 variance from the 30 foot setback was never requested by the owner, Gilbert said. "You got a major issue here, grand jury's identified it there's an individual and an engineer that have made an error I have no responsibility to correct their errors. They should correct their own."

[MDB]

Supervisor Gliberts comments on setbacks are confusing. I know his background is with CDF, but his comments are not accurate regarding Public Resources Code(PRC)4290. 4290 establishes fire requirements for all parcels in State Responsibilty Areas (SRA) regardless of size, and the confusion is from calling what 4290 defines as defensible space a "setback". 4290 authorizes CDF to impose fire requirements, but sec. 4291 lays out the defensible space requirement of a minimum of 30 feet or to the property line, meaning you must keep that area clear of flammable vegetation. If your building footprint meets the county's setback requirements, and the building is less than 30 from the property line, PRC only requires clearance to that line. You cannot be held responsible to clear property that is not yours.



I am running into the same code mis-interpretation on my house plans in the Oakhurst area. I have 30 years in the Fire Service and currently hold the rank of Division Chief, Fire Marshal. I sit on State and local commitees that write and interpret these codes.

pertinant code sections:

PRC 4290. (a) The board shall adopt regulations implementing minimum
fire safety standards related to defensible space which are
applicable to state responsibility area lands under the authority of
the department. These regulations apply to the perimeters and
access to all residential, commercial, and industrial building
construction within state responsibility areas approved after January
1, 1991. The board may not adopt building standards, as defined in
Section 18909 of the Health and Safety Code, under the authority of
this section. As an integral part of fire safety standards, the
State Fire Marshal has the authority to adopt regulations for roof
coverings and openings into the attic areas of buildings specified in
Section 13108.5 of the Health and Safety Code. The regulations
apply to the placement of mobile homes as defined by National Fire
Protection Association standards. These regulations do not apply
where an application for a building permit was filed prior to
January 1, 1991, or to parcel or tentative maps or other developments
approved prior to January 1, 1991, if the final map for the
tentative map is approved within the time prescribed local
ordinance. The regulations shall include all of the following:
(1) Road standards for fire equipment access.
(2) Standards for signs identifying streets, roads, and buildings.
(3) Minimum private water supply reserves for emergency fire use.
(4) Fuel breaks and greenbelts.
(b) These regulations do not supersede local regulations which
equal or exceed minimum regulations adopted by the state.


PRC 4291. A person that owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains
a building or structure in, upon, or adjoining any mountainous area,
forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or
any land that is covered with flammable material, shall at all times
do all of the following:
(a) Maintain around and adjacent to the building or structure a
firebreak made by removing and clearing away, for a distance of not
less than 30 feet on each side of the building or structure or to the
property line, whichever is nearer, all flammable vegetation or
other combustible growth. This subdivision does not apply to single
specimens of trees or other vegetation that is well-pruned and
maintained so as to effectively manage fuels and not form a means of
rapidly transmitting fire from other nearby vegetation to any
building or structure.


The County also bears responsibility if they want to quote PRC Fire sections because sec 4291 requires the owner of the property to have County Building Official certify the project meets all State and local building requirements before the county approves it.

PRC sec 4291 f.
(f) Prior to constructing a new building or structure or
rebuilding a building or structure damaged by a fire in such an area,
the construction or rebuilding of which requires a building permit,
the owner shall obtain a certification from the local building
official that the dwelling or structure, as proposed to be built,
complies with all applicable state and local building standards,
including those described in subdivision (b) of Section 51189 of the
Government Code, and shall provide a copy of the certification, upon
request, to the insurer providing course of construction insurance
coverage for the building or structure. Upon completion of the
construction or rebuilding, the owner shall obtain from the local
building official, a copy of the final inspection report that
demonstrates that the dwelling or structure was constructed in
compliance with all applicable state and local building standards,
including those described in subdivision (b) of Section 51189 of the
Government Code, and shall provide a copy of the report, upon
request, to the property insurance carrier that insures the dwelling
or structure.


PRC does allow for a variance as he states if your building is non-combustable. It is not a "setback" variance but a variance to be exempt from clearing the vegetation and CDF must sign off on it to be exempt. Sec g of 4291 explains the exemption and it applys to vegetation.


PRC4291g
(g) Except as provided in Section 18930 of the Health and Safety
Code, the director may adopt regulations exempting structures with
exteriors constructed entirely of nonflammable materials, or
conditioned upon the contents and composition of same, he or she may
vary the requirements respecting the removing or clearing away of
flammable vegetation or other combustible growth with respect to the
area surrounding those structures.
No exemption or variance shall apply unless and until the occupant
thereof, or if there is not an occupant, the owner thereof, files
with the department, in a form as the director shall prescribe, a
written consent to the inspection of the interior and contents of the
structure to ascertain whether this section and the regulations
adopted under this section are complied with at all times.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/prc_table_of_contents.html

[Newcomer]

The storage facility has a "Now Open" sign on it....How can that be when it is deemed an unsafe structure. Just last week in the Sierra Star they stated that they were told that they had 18 months to resolve and repair or it could be torn down. Something is not right here. Rainy season approaches and storage of goods will only add to the weight and make the hillside more unstable. who would pay now to have their good stored there. Who approved the opening of this? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shout.gif

[Scribbles]

Well, well, well. I saw an ad in the Sierra Star advertising spaces for rent, so it looks like that place is at least partially open. It just seems wrong.

[Michelle]

it is worse. I was just looking at it today...can't believe how much has broken out...
what are they going to do when that crumbles... I was telling my kids that is going to be a bad bad thing when and if that ever happens....

sighs.. how come things only get looked at when it becomes bad..... i don't understand....

[beautiful_mess38]

honestly though all of us have seen the past year what has been happening plus the law suits pending.

Open or not, would you store your stuff there? I wouldnt.

[Kahlua Kid]

Originally posted by Scribbles:
Well, well, well. I saw an ad in the Sierra Star advertising spaces for rent, so it looks like that place is at least partially open. It just seems wrong.

Yup - unbelievable isn't it? I heard they have rebar bracing behind the wall supposedly (but who knows if that was installed correctly if the bricks weren't???) And how's a 10 or 20 foot long rebar going to hold back the mountain if it gets water-logged and starts to put pressure on it?

I understand that Pete's Publishing will most likely be moving their building. Bummer we loved having that building on the corner there. It just added to the pleasantness of Coarsegold and the aesthetics. (I heard its been moved before.)

The corner of the 415 and 41 has been slated to be widened with the coming traffic light (so they would have had to move Pete's anyways).

Now there is rumor they will landscape and maybe put a fountain. Can they plant REALLY REALLY tall Cedar trees to hide that ugly, hideous wall once its been fixed? Or maybe a vine? Something - it looks totally out of place up here!

[Lacey]

It is my understanding that the wall doesn't support anything at all. It was put there for asthetic purposes and the owners planned to plant vines so it would eventually be covered with growth of some sort. I am sure the supports behind the wall must still be doing their job or the county would have done something as it would not be safe.

I have also heard that the people who own that property are very nice people who have done everything by the book and really planned to make the place look beautiful. They have run into financial problems due to the poor construction of the wall and the lawsuits. I feel bad for them. Think what it would do to you to have put all your money into this business venture and have this sort of thing happen to you. Had they been crooks, or the kind to cut corners to get this done, I'd feel differently, but I have talked with people who actually know them and that's not the case. They are good, honest people who had a vision that has not been realized yet.

I believe once the wall is fixed and the plants start covering it, it will be a beautiful corner. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Michelle]

Lacey I totally agree with you that it will be a beautiful corner. nobody I don't think is blaming the owners. sadly enough it is the fault of the contractor and builder of the wall. We put so much trust in contractors to do a honest safe job and now they have something that is or looks so unsafe for our corner and little town and some people will put the blame on them only because they wanted to open and start a buisness here. I do hope that something gets fixed and it is before something goes wrong and or someone gets hurt if that wall falls. I looks like that wall is holding something because it is pushing outward. I don't know it just looks that way to me. all that dirt holding up behind that wall... rain and possible snow could make it tumble down don't ya think.????
I remember when they put that wall up and then had to take part of it down and they were putting down iron rods that was scary enough....
I do hope someone helps them out and fixes that......

[Ironhorse]

'Great wall of Coarsegold' is crumbling, may tumble down


Tuesday, October 30, 2007
By June Woods

Grand Jury slams the builder and county

COARSEGOLD - The Madera County Grand Jury has delivered a scathing report on what it calls the "Great Wall of Coarsegold," which it describes as a "distracting - and potentially dangerous - eyesore."

Travelers heading south into Coarsgold on state Route 41 may see the retaining wall; it's about 144 feet in length and 47 feet tall.

http://www.maderatribune.com/news/newsview.asp?c=228448

[Newcomer]

Mr Travis, Tear down this wall.......


Put the mountain back and go away...

Your blatant disregard for our community and the safety of it's residents is a disgrace. I will never do business with you.

[Sandman]

Debate continues on 2 T's Mini Storage (Sierra Star) (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/search/coarsegold/SIG=121q0mb0d/*http%3A//www.sierrastar.com/news/story/14199884p-14731651c.html)

Debate continues on 2 T's Mini Storage

By David Richards (editor@sierrastar.com)
<!--/STORYHEADLINE--><!--STORYBODY--> (Updated Friday, November 30, 2007, 1:16 PM)
www.sierrastar.com (http://www.sierrastar.com)

The 2T's Mini Storage sits atop what has become known as "The Great Wall of Coarsegold." The storage facility, which has been open since Oct. 31, 2006, has become a matter of public controversy, in part because of a hole in the brick façade.
<!-- BEGIN Component: SierraStar : component/storylevel/photo.comp -->
<!-- BEGIN Component: SierraStar : component/storylevel/mainimage.comp --> <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="252"><tbody><tr><td> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="252"><tbody><tr><td>http://www.sierrastar.com/ips_rich_content/524-kstar_p1130_greatwall1.jpg
</td></tr><tr><td>“The county is requiring Mr. Travis to repair the wall by a deadline and then not allowing him to do it,” said Leon Saad, attorney for 2T’s Mini Storage owner Terrence Travis. “Telephone call after telephone call has been ignored and nobody will tell us why we cannot go forward with the repair of the wall.”
Photo by Denise Aday</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
</td></tr></tbody></table> <!-- END Component: SierraStar : component/storylevel/mainimage.comp -->
But the wall itself is not the only controversy.
Leon Saad, attorney for 2T's owner Terrence Travis, said the county is not dealing with his client in good faith.
"With good faith this thing could have been resolved long ago," Saad said. "Mr. Travis has been attempting to repair the problem for a long time. This is a retired couple dealing with a powerful government entity. They are at a disadvantage, having to deal with the county with cap in hand."
The latest go 'round occurred after Madera County issued notices of violation and notices of revocation of occupancy to the mini storage facility office Nov. 6.
Jeff Janes of the Madera County Planning Department said the environmental health department investigated a report of surfacing sewage at the location.
"We found the report to be true," Janes said. "Because of unsanitary conditions, which we considered a life-safety issue, we suspended the certificate of occupancy for the office."
Saad said the notices were given to Travis without warning.
"He immediately traveled up from his home in San Diego that weekend," Saad said. "The leach lines, which had not previously been approved by the county, were installed immediately."
Dispute over violation notices
A dispute has developed about the effect of the notices of violation and revocation that were served by the county on Nov. 6.
Saad said he and Travis had a meeting with a number of county officials who said they were not shutting down the business.
"They said Mr. Travis could conduct his business, but not occupy the office," Saad said. "The leach lines were inspected by the county and Mr. Travis was given permission to occupy the office again Nov. 14."
County officials gave mixed responses on the issue.
Janes agreed with Saad.
"The office building was tagged because of the surfacing sewage," Janes said. "But the facility has four buildings; the office and buildings A, B and C. The revocation of occupancy only applied to the office building."
However, the same day, county counsel Doug Nelson said, as far as he knew, the facility was closed until the problem was corrected Nov. 14.
"A red tag notice was posted and no business could be conducted at the facility until Nov. 14," Nelson said. "As a practical matter, people could remove their stuff out of the storage spaces."
All sides agree that the office has been open for business since Nov. 14.
The wall
Saad said everyone is missing the point.
"The real story here is what is being done to this retired couple, pushing them to the brink of losing everything they have," Saad said. "The county has still not given a certificate of occupancy for building C, the third storage building."

more (http://www.sierrastar.com/news/story/14199884p-14731651c.html)