Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout54-Planning ".. '\ fly CITY OF SAN BE~ARDINO/~ REQUESTQOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Larry E. Reed, Di rector Subject: Appeal of BBC finding and BBC action of April 6, 1990, by John Hardt, agent for owner, Jean Hardt. Re: 845 Mayfi.e 1 d Dept: Planning & Building Services Date: May 24, 1990 Synopsis of Previous Council action: None Recommended motion: That the Board of Building Commissioners' finding of April 6, 1990, that the City had incurred costs of $2,605.94 for the abatement actions at 845 Mayfield, and the BBC order to incur the costs of the City's abatement as a lien against the property.and'a personal obligation of the owner(s) be upheld. cc: Marshall Julian, City Administrator Pat Zimmerman, Deputy City Attorney 4 rk/ Si9nature Contact person: Debra Dan i e 1 Phone: 384-5257 Supporting data attached: Staff Report. Aooea 1. BBC Order Ward: 1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $2.605.94 Source: (Acct. No.! 001 181 53156 (Acct. Descriotionl Council Notes: Finance: a..Ju"" 1Mr,;...- 0/ 51./ V OF SAN BER-'ARDINO - REQUEST Q,R COUNCIL ACTION 11-9-89 11-28-89 12-4-89 12-8-89 12-14-89 1-24-90 2-2-90 4-6-90 STAFF REPORT 845 NORTH MAYFIELD Complaints recieved, property inspected, citation issued, see attached. N.O.V. issued, 8.33.010 property nuisance, 19.56.370-380. Parking vehicles on unimproved surface. Ordered to correct violations within ten (10) days. File started. Notice of Pendency placed on property. Correction notice mailed to owner with no response. The Code Enforcement Division in conjunction with the City Attorney's Office, inspected the property. A summary abatement was ordered and completed on that day. Notice of abatement and demand for costs incurred. A protest letter was received from John Hardt, agent for owner, Jean Hardt. Board of Building commissioners ordered costs to lien, protest denied. STAFF RECOMMEDNATION: Staff's recommendation is to uphold the Board of Building Commissioners' finding that costs have been incurred in the amount of $2,605.94 for the abatement actions taken at 845 Mayfield, and their order to incur the costs of the City's abatement as a lien against the property and a personal obligation of the owner(s). ..,.._n"~4 22 23 24 2S 27 28 1 <:1UARD OF BUILDING COMMISS;:)i.~ ORDER NO. 1378 REPORT NO. 89-3633 2 3 WHEREAS, pursuant to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Title 15, Chapter 15.28, the Building Official has posted a building(s) located at 845 Mavfield , San Bernardino, California, and has notified person(s) having an interest in the above prop- erty that the building(s) or premises constitute a public nuisance; WHEREAS, pursuant to San Bernardino Municipal Code, the build- ing official has served a "Notice of Hearing Before the Board of Building commissioners of the city of San Bernardino", relating to abatement of said nuisance, to the person(s) having an interest in the above property, and has prepared a declaration of mailing of the notice, a copy of which is on file in these proceedings; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held to receive and consider all relevant evidence, objections or protests on Aoril 6 , 19A, and examined the evidence offered by the parties relative to the alleged public nuisance, WHEREAS, the Board of Building commissioners heard the test- imony and examined the evidence offered by the parties relative to the alleged public nuisance, 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED BY THE BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: IS 16 SECTION 1. Based upon the evidence submitted, it was found and determined that the building(s) and/or premises located at 845 Mavfield , San Bernardino, California, constituted a public nuisance for the reasons set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at length as the findings of fact of the Board. SECTION 2. Based upon the evidence submitted, it was deter- mined that the City of San Bernardino was required to initi~te abatement actions; that the City incurred costs in the sum of $2605.94 to abate the above property, and that these costs to the City to abate the above property shall be the personal obligation of the owner(s) as well as a lien on the above property. SECTION 3. The owner(s) is directed to keep the vacant building(s) boarded and secure and to keep the premises free of debris, trash, and graffiti. The owner(s) is directed to obtain permits and to rehabilitate the building(s) in compliance with city codes prior to any occupancy. 17 18 19 20 21 SECTION 4. Anv Darson Aoorieved bv this order may. within ~:lft....on \.1.:>1 allY>> cl.t~er I\Orll l\J. l!l90, Clppell.L ~o ~ne Common Council by filing with the City Clerk a written statement or the order appealed from the specific grounds of appeal and the relief or action sought from the Common Council. PAGE -1- " ! 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 .OARD OJ' BUILDING COMMISSIdw ORDER NO. 1378 REPORT NO. 89-3633 I HEREBY the Board o~ at a reQular Aoril . CERTIFY that the foregoing order was duly adopted by Building Commissioners of the City of San Bernardino meeting thereof, held on the ~ day of , 19~, by the following vote, to wit: commissioners Warren Miller, Herb Pollock, Dan Westwood. William Ponder, Jack Hunt, Benjamin Gonzales, Gene Pensiero NAYS: None AYES: ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Manue 1 Flores ISSIONERS The foregoing order is hereby April , 19...2Q... of COMMISSIONER Approved as to for and legal content: JAMES F. PENMAN, City Attorney ~~ . By: .' ~)'Iu..l.'VULLU""/: CE:I02 L-- PAGE -2- c '''I ~ 12120 Raley Drive River.ide, california 92505 714/359-8052 8~~~~\fl~ru' I '11 \.!) Wl.l fE.B G \990 I Building & Safety Departmen~.... H..;:f\Ni,P.OINO\ city of San Bernardino ;~'~r~';;~70FPL~NN\N3a."-____ 300 N. D Street 0_." &lJiLDiNG S~l\VICSS San Bernardino, CA. 92418-001 February?, 1990 - -- -----~ ---" / Attention: Don G. Histuley Re: 845 N. Mayfield APN ~: 140 213 19 Report/Project No: 89-3633 Dear Mr. Histuley: I am writing this on behalf of my sister-in-law, Jean M. Hardt, the owner of record of this property. I was formerly owner, but passed title to my brother, Donald and his wife, Jean, several years ago. Since she does not live locally, I am trying to look after the property for her; sort of a local manager. We would like to begin by registering our strong protest over the way the city has handled this property in this current drive to clean up blight. I'm afraid this is going to be a long letter because there are many aspects on which we have strong feelings, and we feel it is important that we be allowed to make these feelings known. First, we must indicate that we have no objection to cleaning up blight--we believe that this is in the long-term interest of everyone--the residents of the city, the owners, and the tenants in the properties concerned. It is just that we feel that this has been carried out in an arbitrary and overly zealous manner. We feel that if we had been contacted with some explanation of what the city was attempting to do, rather than simply receiving citations, warnings and threats through the mail, we WOU!o have been better able to respond in a helpful and cooperative way. We do work very hard, and are very much tied down by our jobs, and it is very difficult to just up and run over to the property when we get such impersonal presentations. Also, we fp.el ~hat 10-day notirp~ arp unreasonable. .Sometimes it ~aKes !ongerthan that to De aole to arrange schedules to get away. In one of the articles in the Sun, the City Attorney is quoted as saying that "most of these absentee landlords are .just interested in collecting the rent." We take this as a libel on ourselvesl We have owned this property for several years, and have provided inexpensive, affordable housing for our present tenants, and for a number of other families in (iJ _/ . c ,.."" -....i the past. And we have spent considerable money on improvements. Just a couple of years ago we spent about $1,000 to completely re-wire the house; it was done with a permit, and was approved by your building dept. Our current tenants have experienced continual difficulty in meeting their rental obligations, yet we have been patient with them, hoping. that their situation would improve. (At the present time they Are six months behind in their rent.) Would you have us throw them out qn the street--and let the city provide shelter for them? Actually we feel that we have performed a public service for the community by providing shelter for these people. Maybe we should ask the city for some reimbursement for thisl Not that we approve of the way they live--if they didn't spend so much money for cigarettes, beer, and probably other drugs as well, perhaps they could have been able to remain current with their rental obligations. We don't use those things and live that way, and would like to see them also change, but we really don't have any way of making them do sol That's why we feel libeled by Mr. Penman. Please refer to the Correction Notice dated December 8th. It announced the necessity of contacting your office "within 10 days from the date of this notice". I did not even receive this notice until December 18th. Now, if you are going to insist on the 10-day deadlines, it would be reasonable to begin that period as of the time that the notice was received. It is absolutely unacceptable to date it from the date of the notice! I did call your office right after receiving the notice--and was informed that the inspector, Debra Daniel, was on vacation and would not be back until after New Years', and that no one else could help me. A few days after January 1st I called again and was told that she was still gone. Now as to the actual inspection report. We have no great argument with th.e items no. 11, 14, and 15 relating to general maintenance and housekeeping. I have been checking on the tenants and believe that they are attempting to cooperate--and it certainly does look better than it was. On the second page, we accept the citation on the hazardous wiring, and are in the process of taking care of this. At the bottom of the second page, "General", we have been working on numbers 5 and 6, nuisance and fire hazard. Actually this seems to be just a repetition of the items on the first page. No.7, smoke detectors--has been corrected--we spoke w1tn 115 .l>aniIH, asklng aDout tne nuffiDer of detectors required, but she was unable to give us a number. It is my recollection that she promised to let me know, but I have not heard from her again. Our tenants told us that one smoke detector was already up prior to the inspection. I took over three more detectors, and they have been installed. I was very angry about no. 8, requiring an address on all buildings. There was a number in plain view on the front o c r'" -- of the building, but Ms. Daniel said it was not large enough. I would like to take issue with that, since the citation did not stipulate a particular size, and simply implied that there was no number there. But I have supplied larger numbers and they have been applied. On Item No.9, a note was written in that it was also in violation of 5B M.C. 15.24.040, and that a copy of that section was enclosed. Well, if it was enclosed, it must have fallen out as soon as I opened the envelope, because I have never seen it. And I continue to be unaware of what it is. Some days following this, and I get varying stories of what happened (from the tenants and from Ms. Daniel), a city crew or contractor came to the property, hauled away numerous items and trash, and vehicles. The tenant tells me that five cars were towed and/or hauled away, some of which had current registrations, and two of which were there to be repaired, and which belonged to other people. Apparently they were taken to a storage facility nearby, where rental charges are rapidly accumulating. Also a number of engine blocks were taken, and the loss of these represents a genuine financial loss to our tenant. He has no resources to pay for the storage costs that are being levied. The notice dated December 27th states that a city resolution (No. 89-487) imposes costs of abatement of abandoned vehicles. Well, we deny that these vehicles were "abandoned." Some were be ing repaired, some were used for parts, and would eventually be hauled away. This notice announces an assessment of $138.50, but does not state precisely what this is for. We would require a detailed itemization of how you arrived at such a charge. Again, we feel we were not provided with proper communication of what exactly would happen. Had we known the vehicles would be hauled away, we would have called a wrecking yard, who would have come and taken the vehicles from our location, and paid us up to $80 per vehicle (probably depending on condition and completeness). But I'm sure we could have come up with more than $138.50, and it would have been coming in rather than going outl Ms. Daniel also informed us that there would be an additional charge, and that we would be informed of this amount (my recollection is that she stated that this would be even more than the $138.50). To date we have not been notified of any additional charge (please don't assume that we are unhappy about this--we'd just as soon never hear from you again, and especially not about any additional charges.) In further conversation with Ms. Daniel I also discovered that there had been some police reports issued in connection with these activities. I called the Police Dept., and then went over in an attempt to acquire a copy of those reports. It required one hour of my time there at the department, and considerable hassle and questioning before I was able to get these copies. And furthermore, the charge for them was absolutely out of reason. We have photocopying U) i o ~ '-" equipment at my place of employment, and we know what it costs to make photocopies. We charge the public Five Cents per copy, and don't feel like we are losing money. The charge the city makes for these copies is totally unacceptable! If all this wasn't bad enough, the final straw was the letter dated January 24th, which stated that the buildings were found "open, vacant and an attractive nuisance," and that the city had abated, cleaned, secured and boarded up the property, and announced a charge to us of $2605.94. Again, no itemization. We were absolutely shocked by this-- in addition to not having received rent due us, now the city was hitting us for charges totalling near $3000, and this would impose a severe hardship on us. I immediately called our tenants, and they stated that no one had been there to inspect, and that they (tenants) continued to occupy the house. I made an appointment and went over either that same afternoon or the next day, and found this to be true. I then called your office, and was able to speak with you and inquire about this. You seemed vague about it, stating that you might have signed a letter without checking the facts carefully. And that you had a number of deputies, and that you would sign the letters of some of them without checking, because you felt they would not make any mistakes. Well, this was a major mistake, and we greatly resent having been given such a shock. We realize that it was an error, and are greatly relieved, because if it had in fact been true, it would have presented a tremendous financial setback for us. Let me conclude by again reiterating what I have told Hs. Daniel, and what I have told you, Hr. Histulley, namely that we are in sympathy with the city's objectives in making it a better, nicer, and safer community, and that cleaning up blighted properties is important. And we are anxious to cooperate in achieving these objectives. After all, it is even to our advantage to have cleaner and safer properties. It's just that we reject the way in which this has been handled in our case. In view of the harrassment that we feel we have suffered, we feel that following would be an acceptable manner of resolving this case: 1. We request written confirmation from you that any ana al.!. cnarges to us be reversed; 2. That all vehicles and property taken from the tenants custody be returned and all storage costs be cancelled; 3. That in future, I be advised of any further enforcement action planned against the property, providing me an opportunity to be present. (4) I>..:...- c /~ -..../ In return, we are willing to do the following: 1. We will agree to a reasonable amount of time (say, 15 days) within which the vehicles must be removed or disposed of by tenant. In other words, this would assure that the yard would not again be cluttered with vehicles; 2. We would agree.to provide appropriate access (burying of approved electrical conduit) of electricity to the rear shed; 3. We would be willing to pave the driveway. I'm sorry that this has gotten to be such a long letter, but there are many items that we feel had to be covered. We prefer to settle this case in a mutually amicable way at this level, and hope that this can be done. However, if you are unable to provide an acceptable solution, be assured that we will follow through with our local city councilperson and to the mayor. I await your timely reply. Sincerely, ~~ Jo Hardt Ag nt for Owner I am available by phone: 359-8052 (home) 785-2416 (work) 1'S'. 7C-.. l' 0. !l&, p P~" ''it ~ c.J"r ~ ~..~~ ~-;~4:::~? ~. (d f.y 1~~) j-:-\ \. 5) .../ .......... . ....,. j ( I To CITY CLERK ORDER FROM BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF April 6, 1990 ~..--... ...--..... ... .-.. ...... f ....., ! ( ',..." .. ...... . . ..... . .. ... ...... ........ . . "" ,,(' Subject - From BSC CLERK Date April 9, 1990 Approved Date ADDRESS: 845 Mayfield Pursuant to Title 15.28, transmitted herewith are two (2) copies of Order No. 1378 of findings from the Board of Building Commissioners. Don Hesterl ey Clerk of The Board of Building Commissioners attachments PR/oe ., .siN FRCGRESS ~4 ~ ::IIO.:.~''":;.i#.'..''f'' ~/' : c . //'~ / . ,/ /1 ~ / <<",,,,~. ~~ <I' / '0 .A' , f\, <:Y .( ~ 4~ '-. ~ /,~~" /., .~..J:.t:f' . '-Jt.~ ~~ ,.'~<J' ~.rf~ ' / '-,,' . .~ '-. City of S.n ......~ulldlng .. S.fMy CODE ENFORClo",JENT DIVISION S8 .. . NOTICE TO APPEAR q " '':>:' 0 J . '. .)" OUAIfNENT NO. 181 ..... ~MST.,MIOfJU.LA$n -. I,"'-~ t::Jp ItEIlDENCI ADDRESS J'\ ~ --\.0 (I 'A cnv .:::.. -==-" -Ld... e. I h-=-,J Av. rX .Ell . VIOLATlONISI SECTION 'R ~"2,.. .~,:::, ...p, ""r~ . ~ l.. I (\ ~,.."o,v!L. I ':\ . ""in. O.;;:)!"'> :'.f\..~ 7,~A"? _ ,_. .....~.o<...- . I - ,_, -II... r"" r __ !-+Ct'f1_ . "" ~ I -'~+,.,._ ..,-........--.. '1"IA~I, ;....,.."6 ~ ~ t.,,....e .... ~ -=; . -=-0. I 1<"":) rl ~ : ~ P.,H a _.:>.2 -:...,./1 ~ -t=~ .~I ,r J Li ~." qO-,& ~~"..<lo~:"~N~At A- ,O<-J - ~ J.. "'- i4--h'"... o DO NOT ACCEPT BAIL (~A I t=-;"' ~ 1,1 ~ c:>.l-=- ISSUING OFACIR . I '~,~~;.A ~1:C=- NAMf. Of: ""'IIESTlHG 0FlIJCltl1F DlFFIMNT fIIIOM AIOVl. I SI"W.NQ. 1.3~ VACATION OATIS 1"-" I TD WITHOUT AOMITTlNG GUilT. I PROMISE TO APPEAR AT THE TIME ANO PLACE CHECKEO BELOW -;:? X ~ . . $lGNATUM " ,//- . .~ _,( / _~: _ _ . ," BEFORE A JUOGE OR A CLERK OF THE MUNICIPAL COORT COUfIT HOUSE BLDG. . lNO I'lOOft ., N..AMOWHEAO AV(. . SAN IlIVUoIIOINO I OAY Of' WHit I ',,\) r l~ ~..' ':.u OATlTO""'INl 2:':' (,.:;;.:.....-.. .............: wtur. . c..JEnforc...... C",IfV-Coutt ,... . 0...... tltl..tt~ CIT'f'OI'S-_ CiIOT___Sl....CU .