HomeMy WebLinkAbout40-Public Works
. .
..
o
o
o
o
JOHN R. TINDALL. ATTORNEY AT LAW ~~!,..,._ 71,4.794,2805
po. Box 864. SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92401
....' ,:q, ') < ",1" ~
:_:j ..:.....;
March 26, 1987
Mayor and Members of
the Common Council
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: 1139 W. 19th Street
Manuel Enriquez
Request for Extension of Time
for Rehabilitation of Property
Dear Mayor and Members of the Common Council:
On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Enriquez I hereby request an
extension of sixty days to obtain a building permit and to
bring the additional construction at the above address up to
Code, on the grounds that good cause exists for such an
extension.
This matter was last heard at the February 2, 1987,
meeting, and a copy of the minute page concerning ,this item is
attached for the Council's convenience. (Exhibit "A")
Mr. Enriquez has substantiafly complied with the Council's
order of February 2, 1987, but has encountered unanticipated
delays in having the plans completed, submitted and approved.
As counsel for Mr. Enriquez, I have met with Mr. JohnE. Tucker,
Director of Building and Safety. We have made arrangements
for an expedited review of the submitted plans, (which are
currently under review), with the understanding that the City
will provide a list of additional items of information necessary
for final review and issuance of the permit, and that Mr. Enriquez
must continue to demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with
the Council's mandate, and that an appeal process to the Building
Official will be instituted and followed in this case for
corrections that are required by Code and which the property
owner has not completed within a specific time frame.
/fO(
o
o
o
o
Letter to Mayor and Common Council,
dated 3/26/87
Page 2
However, Mr. Tucker advised that Mr. Enriquez's request
for an additonal extension of time be presented to the
City Council.
Additionally, I request that this matter be set for hearing
as an agenda item at the next available meeting of the City
Council, at which time we shall update this matter.
Yours very truly,
eJ~
ohn R. Tindall
Attorney at Law
JRT:es
Enclosure
cc: City Attorney's Office
John E. Tucker
Clients
... -0.
O.
/
~
-
o
o
o.
RESCHEOULING OF MARCH COUNCIL MEETINGS -
PRIMARY ELECTION
City Clerk Clark requested that the Mayor and Common
Council consider rescheduling the March Council Meetings
due to the March 3, 1987, Primary Election. (32)
Council Member Quie! made a motion, seconded by Coun-
cil Member Estrada and unanimously carried, that the March
Council Meeting be scheduled for March 9th and 23rd, the
second and fourth Mondays.
ABATEMENT - OEMOLITION - 1139 W. 19TH STREET -
MANUEL B. ENRIQUEZ
In a memorandum dated January 12, 1987, Charles P.
Dunham, Acting Superintendent of the Building and Safety
Department, provided a history of construction events
since 1979, concerning property located at 1139 W.~9th
Street, owned by Manuel B. Enriquez. (33)
John Tindall, attorney for Manuel Bnriquez, requested
a two month continuance of the matter, in order for 1:e-
mOdeling of the building to be'completed in conformity to
City standards, and answered questions 1:egarding work
performed on the property since 1979.
.
Charles Dunham, Acting Superintendent of the Building
and Safety Department, stated that a set of plans for the
construction is needed, and answered que.tion. regarding
hie opinion of whether plans could beobta1ned and work
completed within 61 days.
Council Member Prazier made a motion, .econded by
Council Member Hernandez and unanimously carried, that the
property o~er, Hanuel Enriquez, be allowed 61 days to
comply with all necessary requirements, and if, in fact,
the plans, permits and completion of the work are not
accomplished, the demolition will proceed without the
necessity of further Council action.
City Attorney Prince answered questions, .tating that
the property owner can appeal the matter to the Council
within the 61-day period. He questioned John Tlndsll,
attorney for property owner Manuel Bnriquez, if his client
and he are willing to represent that the Council does have
the power to demolish the building In the event that with-
in the 61-day period the Council's directive has not been
complied withw
John Tindall, attorney for Manuel Enriquez, answered
that if they do not come back and show good cause why the
applicant should be allowed additional time, that the
decision can go forward. They are attempting substantial
compliance and working to the best of their abilities, but
certain inordinate delays had occurred that he was not
aware ofw As far as ppenly stipUlating that no they can't
come back in, he canlOt, on behalf of his cli.nt, stipulate
to such a thing w He would llke to r...rve the l'ight to
come back. .
City Attorney P1:ince stated that he construes this to
be an agreement between the City and the developer. The
City is agreeing to delay further .the demolition of the
project, permitting them an opportunity to bring the
matter up to code, to obtain permits, submit plans and to
complete the building in a satisfactory condition. How-
ever, the developer has the right to request an appearance
prior to the end of the 61 days.
12
2/2/87
EXHIBIT
,. -fJ '1