HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-Public Works
~IT~F SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEO FOR COUNCIL AC~N
From:
Larry E. Reed, Director
Building and Safety
Subject: Appeal of Board of Building Commissi ioners
decision assigning costs of the abatement
of a nuisance at 1395 North "E" Street
Dept:
Date: July 12, 1989
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Council set this appeal of costs for public hearing on July 5, 1989.
Recommended motion:
That the appeal hearing be closed; that the 80ard of Building Commissioner's
Decision of June 2, 1989, denying the appeal and assigning the cost of City
abatement at 1395 North "E" Street be upheld.
~
Copi es :
Marshall Julian, City Administrator
Jim Richardson, Deputy City Administratol
~,_~~f
Contact person: I arry F R!'!'d
Phone: ::!R4-::!::!'il
Supporting data atteched:
~taff r!'port. minut!'s
Ward: ?
.lad Rpi11y
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.l
(Acct. Descriotionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
75.0262
AlIenda Item No_
__Li
l
. CI..9 OF SAN BERNARDI.Q - REQUa9r FOR COUNCIL AC-htN
STAFF REPORT
Attached is an outline of chronological order of events concerning 1395
North "E" street. There is one piece of information which is not
listed but is clear in the board of Board of Building commissioners
minutes. At the time of Building and Safety reinspection, not only,
was the owner board-up unacceptable, but also the nailed on press board
(not bolted plywood) had been removed in several places. (Some
unauthorized person had gone into the building.) The unacceptable
board-up was done by students hired by the owner.
The Department of Building and Safety proceeded to have the building
boarded up faced with an unacceptable board-up which would not deter
unauthorized use and had already been removed in places.
b.C~or
Department of Building and Safety
LER: nhm
75-0264
-
o
o
o
o
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF EVENTS
Case No. 3089 - 1395 No. E Street
3/28/89 - Complaint from Police Department (See attached Exhibit "A".)
3/28/89 - Inspection of property by Dany Nolfo, Code Compliance Officer.
3/28/89 - Building posted.
3/30/89 - Inspection report done.
3/30/89 - File started.
3/31/89 - Notice mailed to owner, letter to contractor.
4/3/89 - Mrs Dexter called.
4/3/89 - 2nd inspection - board-up unacceptable.
4/4/89 - Building and Safety informed Mrs Dexter of our intention to
proceed with abatement.
4/5/89 - Freeman Construction begins board-up.
4/8/89 - Board-up completed.
4/14/89 - Madeline Dexter protests board-up and charges. Requests BBC
heari ng.
4/18/89 - Demand letter sent to Madeline Dexter.
4/25/89 - Notice of BBC Hearing mailed.
6/2/89 - 8BC holds Hearing of protest, denies protest.
6/16/89 - Madeline Dexter appeals to Mayor and Council.
7/5/89 - Council Agenda to set Hearing.
7/17/89 - Hearing by Mayor and Council.
o
BBC JUNE 2, 1989 MINUTES
PAGE 2
06/07/89
meeting due to a zoning change that may affect the status of
this property.
o
o
o
commissioner Benjamin Gonzales arrived at 9:05 a.m.
The Board members, Code Enforcement and Legal Counsel
discussed the property being out of zone as well as this case
being brought back to the Board for the second time with no
response from the owner(s).
Commissioner Pollock made a motion to adopt the STAFF
RECOMMENDATION to direct the owner to obtain demolition
permits and to demolish within sixty (60) days, and to incur
property or a personal obligation of the owner(s).
CURRENT COSTS: $1,919.80
Commissioner Ponder seconded the motion.
Roll call was made
by Commissioners'
Flores.
with the motion being unanimously approved
Miller, Pollock, Westwood, Ponder and
commissioner Gonzales abstained due to his arriving late.
Commissioner Miller stated the 15 day right of appeal. .
The motion was passed by the majority of members present.
HEW BUSIHESS:
ITEM NO. 11 - 1395 N. "E" STREET I CASE NO. 3089
Item No. 11 (Appeal of Costs) was moved up to the second item
presented to accommodate the individuals involved in the
case. Mr. Reed presented Item No. 11, Report/Project 3089.
Dany Nolfo presented Exhibit A photos and slides to the
Board. Mr. Nolfo described the background of the case as
being a return request by the Board of Building
Commissioners. The property is a commercial property
formerly used as a restaurant, found to be open and vacant
and a board-up was ordered. Building and Safety ordered the
structure to be boarded up properly on April 8, 1989,
incurring costs.
commissioner Ponder stated his purpose in requesting this
case to be returned before the Board this June 2, 1989
meeting so to have information clarified through detailed
events from those that were involved.
o
BBC JUNE
PAGE J
06/07/89
Dany Nolfo read his statement of the events for the board-up
for this case.
o
2, 1989 MINUTES
o
o
Commissioner Flores asked why the owner wasn't given a ten
day notice. Mr. Nolfo stated that it is not required for an
emergency abatement.
Mr. Reed asked if F.H.A. board-up instructions are given to
the property owneres). Mark Young stated that this informa-
tion is available but not distributed directly unless
requested by the owner.
Randall E. Wilson, the Police Officer who responded to the
call, was sworn in by Mr. Reed. Mr. Wilson stated the
condition of the property upon his arrival as having been
vandalized by male juveniles with broken windows and dishes
on the floor, and with indication of drug use within the
structure.
Mark Young stated that upon his inspection of the owner's
board-up, he found the board-up was not done to F.H.A. and
was not secure.
Commissioner Miller asked if anyone in the audience wanted to
testify. Ms. Rebekah Dexter, representing Madeline Dexter,
spoke in behalf of the property. Her reasons for the appeal
of costs included her not being given enough time to board
the property to F.H.A. standards, the legal right for Mr.
Nolfo to board the building, and the unnecessary damage done
to her property in the reboarding process.
The board discussed the legal
the letter from Mr. Freeman,
stating the action he took
requirements.
Mark Young stated that there have been previous problems with
this property in the past as noted from a statement recorded
by James Clark, General Building Inspector.
entry into the building, read
contractor for the board-up,
in accordance to the City'S
Mike Dewey asked Ms. Dexter if she contested the need for the
board-up and she replied "no".
Mr. Reed requested the memo dated April 11, 1989 from Lt.
Devlin be read for the record. This memo indicated the
owner's board-up with press board had been removed in places.
Photos of the April Jrd board-up were again viewed by the
Board.
Commissioner Miller stated that he felt the costs were not
out of line. Commissioner Flores asked Ms. Dexter what she
felt was appropriate. Ms. Dexter felt she shouldn't be
..:....... .
Qc JUNE
PAGE 4
06/07/89
expected to pay costs incurred because she feels the City has
overstepped their authority in this situation.
2, 1989 M:'.. JTES
o
o
o
Commissioner Pollock feels that the City acted in a
responsible manner and made a motion to adopt the STAFF
RECOMMENDATION to uphold the costs and to direct the owneres)
to maintain a secure board-up and to keep the property free
of trash and debris and to incur all current and future costs
in the form of a lien on the property or a personal
obligation of the owneres).
CURRENT COSTS: $1,991.50
Commissioner Ponder seconded the motion.
Commissioner Miller stated the 15 day right of appeal.
Roll call was made with the motion being approved by
Commissioners' Miller, Pollock, Westwood, Ponder, and Flores.
Commissioner Gonzales voted against the motion.
The motion was passed by the majority of members present.
lTBM NO. 7 - 2371 ARTBSlA STRBBT / CASB .NO. 3411
Mr. Reed presented Item No.7, Report/Project 3411 and swore
in Charles De La Cruz, speaking in behalf of the property.
Oany Nolfo presented Exhibit A photos and slides to the
Board. He also stated that the property was still open and
vacant.
Mr. De La Cruz stated that his intentions were to have the
property burnt down by the Fire Department through their
training program. .
The Board discussed
being unsafe and
Department.
this process of demOlishing by burning as
no longer available through the Fire
Mr. De La Cruz agreed to demolish the property himself. The
Board and Code Enforcement explained the need for permits and
insurance for this demolition to Mr. De La Cruz.
Commissioner Gonzales made a motion to adopt the STAFF
RECOMMENDATION to direct the owner to obtain a demolition
permit and to complete the demolition in thirty (30). days,
incurring all future costs in the form of a lien on the
property or a personal obligation of the owneres). ~
CURRENT COSTS: $564.90
Commissioner Westwood seconded the motion.
..
,... .
~.-
-
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8904-2601
TO: DON HESTERLEY, Code Compliance Supervisor
FROM: Dany R. Nolfo, Code Compliance Officer
SUBJECT: 1395 N. "E" / Report Project 3089 - PROTEST
DATE: April 21, 1989
COPIES:
Lt. Devlin, Police Department/Area B; James C.
Richardson, Acting Building and Safety Director;
Mark Young, Senior Code Officer
-------------------------------------------------------------
On March 28, 1989, an inspection was made by the Code
Compliance Division. Upon arrival, the property was found
open and vacant with trash and debris allover and transients
appeared to be living in the dwelling. On March 31, 1989 a
Unit Inspection Report was sent to the owner of the property.
An abatement purchase order was also sent to Freeman
Development on March 31, 1989, which included special
instructions. These instructions were to board-up to F.H.A.
Standards and to leave all trash and debris inside, and to
clean the outside only.
On April 3, 1989, the Building and Safety Department received
a phone call from Mrs. Dexter in regards to the Unit
Inspection Report, giving zero days to secure. I informed
Mrs. Dexter that the property was open and vacant with
transients starting fires inside, and that I received a
request from the Police Department to have the property
boarded up. She did ask about boarding her property up and I
informed her that the contractor for the City had been
notified to do the work and it would be done in a couple of
days. She told me that she was going to secure the building
herself. I did inform her that the City had definite
standards on securing the building.
On April 3, 1989, Building and Safety made another inspection
at the property and found that someone used a 1/4" chip board
to secure the glass windows and a couple of small pieces of
chip board to put across the front door. This was not
acceptable to city standards. On April 4, 1989, at 6:50
a.m., the Building and Safety Department called Mrs. Dexter
and informed her that the City contractor would proceed to
secure the building,
o
INTEROFFICE MEMORA..L>UM: Q4-2601
1395 N. "E" I Report Project 3089 -
April 21, 1989
paqe 2
J
o
o
PROTEST
On April 5, 1989, Steve preeman called the Buildinq and
Safety Department in reqards to the larqe bay windows on the
wests ide of the buildinq. Steve pree_n was concerned that
breakinq the windows to board up was not the answer and that
the replacement costs would be extremely hiqh. Mark Younq,
Senior Code Compliance Officer, met with Mr. Freemen on April
6, 1989 at approximately 11:00 a.m. Mr. Younq _de a
decision not to break the windows, because of the cost
factor. Mr. Freeman acted professionally when he inquired
about the windows and should be cOllllllended for his job. On
April 8, 1989, Mr. Freemen completed his assiqnment.
This letter recaps 1395 N. "E" Street in reqards to a written
protest by Mrs. Dexter.
~fY7~;-
Code Compliance Officer
Imes
f
o
o
o
o
~
,
G. G. Df;XTf;R
San '.rnardino, California 92402
June 16,1989
City of San Bernardino
Mayor and Common Council
300 North D Street
San Bernardino Cal.92418
Madeline M. Dexter Appeals to the Mayor and
Common Council for the decision of the Board of
Building Commissioners to require her to pay the
charges of $1,991.50 for work done at 1395 North
E Street($1,422.50 to Freeman Develpment and
$569.00 in Administrative Costs).
This appeal is based on the fact that I had
already paid for the site to be cleaned and
boarded up prior to the arrival of Freeman Devel-
opment's workers.
1JJ/1,h.l - -... In. U;
Madeline M. Dexter
~~
Rebekah Dexter
L r- .
~
u.J -.
U -
>- a..
C '0
I -
Co ~
"-'
>
u:;
to) ~
UJ
a::
IF
~s is what occurred:
o
o
o
Neighborhood gang broke
1989, and while spending
by the police.
into the building apparently on March 27,
several hours there, remained undetected
The next day, March 28, a neighbor called the
to report the incidence. I was not notified
April 3, 1989 by the Building Department
.immediately called the police.
- The poI ice dispatcher, Nancy, informed me that day and the next day
April 4, that only a phone report (#14229) had been taken, no
officers had gone out to investigate and n2 other reports had been
filed. She also said no other calls concerning the site had come in
and gave me the names of three officers to contact for more infor-
mation: Leo, Higgins, and Price.
police, after the fact
of the incidence until
at which point I
- This area (the Baker area) is patrolled mainly by officer Rick Price
and, to a lesser extent, by officers Leo and Pete Higgins.
- I spoke to officer Price personally on April 10. Officers Leo and
Higgins were also contacted and none of the three had made any
reports or received any calls about this site. Additionally,
officer Price said he knew there had been no other incidences or
reports filed by other officers about this site since he personally
would have been notified of such since this is his area.
- At the 2nd Appeal hearing on June 2, the Building Department read
two "new" letters, supposedly written by police officers that
"appeared" after being solicited by the Building Department after
the 1st hearing on May 5th. These letters appeared to be fabricated
since their "facts" differed greatly from even the Building Depart-
ment's official version of the facts, let alone the true facts. For
example, one letter stated that the author had found the building
open with trash and "evidence of transients" inside and was dated
six days after the Freeman Development workers had taken possession
of the property and had placed their own lock on it. This leads me
to believe that both letters are fakes. I was not given copies of
the letters to cheek them out.
- Mr. Nolfo also produced a new witness at the 2nd hearing who stated
he was a police officer. This man made serious allegations that he
went to the site in response to a radio call from his dispatcher,
even though this was not his area. He said he found trash and
evidence of the building being used for prostitution and as a crack
house, yet he could not produce any evidence to back up his story
such as a police report. And, even though he said he considered
this a serious and dangerous situation, he did nothing to correct it
such as contacting me, filing a report, or passing the information
on to local officers. Additionally, there is no record the call
even went out. Mr. Nolfo's own report of his inspection on March
28, made no mention of the above "evidence" and neither I nor any of
my workers found any evidence of the above on April 3. This makes
me believe that this man's testimony is also not valid.
-1-
o
- The police departm~ made no effar\s to contact me (my PhoneQmber
is posted on two windows at th"'building) since they didn feel
this was an "attractive" enough nuisance to merit them personally
visiting the site or to merit asking me to take emergency action.
- Upon receiving the letter from Danny R. Nolfo of the Building
Department on April 3, 1989 notifying me of the problem with my
property, I immediately went to the property to inspect it. Even
though the letter stated that as of March 31, 1989 "the property was
boarded up and cleaned", the property had in fact not been boarded
up and cleaned. It was stilI open and littered from the visit by
the gang. When I called Mr. Nolfo about the situation, he said if I
got to the site first, before his contractors, and boarded it up and
secured it, that would be fine. So I immediately took action to
clean and board it up, following the instructions included in the
Building Department's letter. My workers and I spent April 3, 4,
and 5 working.
- Monday, April 3, we cleaned up all the broken glass outside, all the
glass and trash inside, and boarded up all the open windows. All
four door3 were secured: two with dead bolts, one (the rear) with a
dead bolt pIus metal security bars and wood cross bars, and the
emergency exit was locked.
- Tuesday, April 4, we weed-eated all the outside area, trimmed and
shaped all the bushes and trees, and bagged all weeds, trash and
debris. We also boarded up the rest of the street level windows.
- Wednesday, April 5, we boarded up all parking lot windows, attached
two cross bars across the emergency exit door, and hauled away all
the bags of trash and debris.
- Thursday, April 6, Mr. Nolfo met the Freeman Development boss at the
site and since the building was secure, they broke into it. The
boss then radioed the workers to come and start work. Even though
Mr. Nolfo had said in his letter of March 31 that this vas "an
emergency abatement action", his workers did not show up until April
6, nine days after Mr. Nolfo first visited the site. Obviously Mr.
Nolfo didn't consider this a real emergency situation or he would
have contacted me after visiting the site on March 28 (my phone
number was immediately posted)or had his workers come out
immediately.
- I watched the Freeman workers and additionally talked to one who
admitted that Mr. Nolfo and their boss had to break into the
building because it was secure, and that, though the exterior was
clean and weed and trash free, they had been ordered to "clean" it
up again.
- The Building Department now wants me to pay for boarding up the
windows that were already boarded, securing doors that were already
secure, and bush and tree trimming that was already done. Worse
than that, in their Ore-trimming" of our landscaping, they hacked
away the bottom 2 to 3 feet of my manicured bushes which may kill
them and at the least makes them 100k ugly. They also cut away all
the shade branches on my trees. Additionally, they ruined the dead-
bolt on my secure front door, in pI aces they ripped out the thick
rustic cedar interior walls, drilled huge holes in other areas of
cedar and they ripped out a huge door frame. The most outrageous
-2-
-
o
damage was to a windoi:)hat I had pr~ousIY taken out, boarded ~r
on the outside, boarded over on the~side with metal security bars
over that, then paneled over and had attached permanent wood book-
cases to. They tore the bookcases off, ripped off the paneling,
yanked out the metal security bars, then tore off all the plywood so
it was wide open just so they could close it up again. To top it
all off, they stole a huge pizza oven worth $ l.OOO.OOand a huge
"daily special" advertisement sign."
.
,
- In my eyes, the worse crime they committed was breaking into my
already secured building on April 6, 1989. They had to use force
and did damage in order to get in because the building was secured
and that equals Breaking and Entering. That is against the law!
Then to add insult to injury, they locked me out and denied me
access to my own building for five days! This is also against the
law! The municipal code allows the Building Department to inspect
a building but it does not allow them to break in in order to
inspect it! ---
the
need
To summarize in this matter, I
very least, acted with malice.
to be done. They have behaved
feel the Building
They have charged
ruthlessly.
Department has, at
for work that didn't
I have had to suffer rudeness and verbal abuse from it's employees.
They have denied me my constitutional rights to access, and the use of my
own property. They destroyed parts of my personal property and stole other
parts.
I feel the hints of
as the unprofessional
further investigation of
fraud and perjury and misrepresentation, as well
and illegal behavior of it's employees, merits
the Building Department.
Because I have 'suffered such turmoil and mental anguish at the hands
of the Building Department, as well as the cost of bringing myself and my
witnesses to three hearings, I don't feel I should have to pay a penny of
this very questionable bill and I appeal this Council to void it.
-3-
PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY SECURING
CLIENT ~1Cw_D' S BV
ADDR ~F.. $r S~
WORK ORDER DATE
IINSTRUCTIONS
o
.
,
o
o
.",",
V
LOG NO.
LOAN NO.
MTGRNAM~~~
~N~~
f:'~
THE FOLLOWING ANSWERS WILL BE USED FOR BILLING PURPOSESIl!!
CLEAN UP REPORT
ALL EXTERIOR DEBRIS REMOVED'
,
,GRASS CUT & EDGED?
!BUSHES & TREES TRIMMED?
'ANY AUTOS ON PROPERTY?
WERE AUTOS REMOVED?
..--
!GARAGE CLEAN & SWEPT?
i
'DRIVEWAY SWEPT?
INTERIOR DEBRIS REMOVED?
!ALL ROOMS SWEPT & CLEAN?
iWAS POOL DRAINED?
!WATER SHUT OFF?
roo-
GAS SHUT OFF?
IELECTRIC SHUT OFF?
ilNTERIOR PHOTOS TAKEN?
XTERIOR PHOTOS TAKEN?
INO. OF PHOTOS? (Total)
~ I
"
pROPERTY WINTERIZED
S THERE VANDAL DAMAGE?
!
'F SO WHERE?
S THERE FIRE DAMAGE?
'F SO WHERE?
~S THERE WATER DAMAGE?
IIF SO WHERE?
Yes No
Yes No
Ves No
Yes No
Ve~ No
Ves No
Ves No
Yes No
Yes No
Ves No
Ves No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Y~s No
Yes No
Yes No
Ve~ No
Ves No
Yes No
SECURING REPORT
NO. WINDOWS BOARDED?
NO. DOORS BOARDED?
NO. SECURITY DOORS INSTALLED?
NO. SLIDERS BOARDED?
NO. VENTS BOARDED?
OPENINGS PAINTED?
/
NO. LOCKS USED FOR GARAGE DOOR?
NO. GATES PADLOCKED?
WERE LOCKS CHANGED?
DATE COMPLETED
11.J;S./)() rLL
tJ .()() ..La.....
\j d '.l
o. ..'
~.,? ':;. +
1 I; O. +
';':)' +
::: J. +
1 1J. +
01):;
f; 0 <). *
000
o. *
~
'~
-
.
c.
o
o
o
aBl"~AfttrI. or,.
1989 JtIN 16 PIt, 36'
C;,C;,D!;XT!;R
San a.rnarcllno, California 92402
June 16,1989
Ci ty cL,San R"'...n"..."i no
~r- aEd Common Counc~
300 North D ~"ree"
San Bernardino Cal.92418
Madeline M. Dexter Appeals to the Mayor and
Common Council for the decision of the Board of
Building Commissioners to require her to pay the
charges of $1,991.50 for work done at 1395 North
E Street($1,422.50 to Freeman Develpment and
$569.00 in Administrative Costs).
This appeal is based on the fact that I had
already paid fer the site to be cleaned and
boarded up prior to the arrival of Freeman Devel-
opment's workers.
JJJ/J~~ -~ m. u:,
M~deline . Dexter
~~
Rebekah Dexter ~S-- '1791
r- '
~.
-
/jjktt/lj
Jlj, ff /J/j)
C/71- Qt 'N 20 1989 Il
1I/J1LO'!,:" .,,...
'(]. !'TIVAI b..
~,.t:;~/"'O
0...
'I()
.-
~
~
Ii
o.
o
~
--
~
o
o
ERN ARD IN 0 300 NORTH "0" STREET, SAN eERNAROINO, CALIFORNIA 112418
Madeline M Dexter
POBox 209
San Bernardino. CA 92402
Dear Ms Dexter:
May 19. 1989
Re: 1395 North E Street
San Bernardino, CA
APN 145 211 53
Report/Project No. 3089
This letter is to advise you that your appeal will be
heard before the Board of BUilding Commissioners on
Friday June 2. 1989 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers.
300 North 0 Street. San Bernardino. California.
The appealed charges of $1.991.50 will become a lien
on the property or a personal obligation of the owner
should the appeal be denied.
Respectfully.
Don H Hesterley
Code Compliance Supervisor
cc: City Clerk
City Attorney
J
~"'~'
\,.
. 0'
o
o
o
cr
ERN ARDIN 0 300 NORTH "0" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92418
Madeline M Dexter
POBox 209
San Bernardino, CA 92402.
Apri 1 18, 1989
Re: 1395 North E Street
San Bernardino. CA
Open & vacant Commercial Bldg
APN 145 211 53
Report/Project No. 3089
This notice is hereby served on you as
property located at 1395 Nnrth F <a,.....t
Bernardino, California.
owner(s) of the
, San
The building(s) located on the above property was found open,
vacant and an attractive nuisance, in violation of the San
Bernardino Municipal Code sections 15:28.010(A) (11),
15:28(140(A) and 15:28.150.
An emergency abatement of the above propety was necesary to
protect the health and safety of the community, therefore the
City boarded, secured and cleaned the property. The building
has been posted against entry. In addition, a "Notice of
Pendency of Administrative Proceedings" against the above
property has been filed with the County Recorder's Office.
The costs incurred by the City toabate the above property
were $ 1991.50 . This amount should be paid to the city
within thirty (30) days of this notice or a lien will be
placed on the above property.
An appeal may be made to the Board of Building Commissioners
at the above address, within ten (10) days of this notice,
and a hearing will be scheduled at the next regular meeting
of the Board. The written appeal should include:
(a) the specific action appealed from~
(b) the specific grounds of appeal~ and
(c) the relief or action sought from the Board
~' F-'---
t-,!"...;:: ,
~~/
, /~~
/, tJ"
t ~,
, .r!
, (j'
o
o
o
If the abatement action and CO&ts are not annuled by the
Board of Building Commissioners, then the City will lien the
above property, unless the costs are paid within thirty (30)
days of the hearing.
Director/Building Official
Department of Building & Safety
~:
-
-
. o.
Ci'R of san'Berna2inO
Department of Building and Safety
Code Enforcement division
o
Statement of Costs
Proj ect No. 10RQ
San Bernardino Municipal Code, Title 15
The undersigned respectfully submits the following statement
of costs incurred by the city of San Bernardino in abating
the public nuisance that existed on the property located at:
1395 North E Street
Owner:
Madeline D Dexter
Address:
POBox 209, San Bernardino, CA 92402
Assessors No:
145 211 53
More particularly described as:
Revised map of Maanolia Park
All Lot 27 And W ! Lot 38 Book 17 Paqe 81
ITEMIZATION
Building and Safety Department Costs:
Title Search
Inspector's Time
Secretary's Time
Comp & Retirement
Equipment
Certified Mailing
Pictures
Administrative Costs 40~
Costs from Previous Hearing
Hearing Time
Attorney's Costs
Contractor's Costs
TOTAL COSTS
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 569.00
$
$
$
$1422.50
$1991.50
SBMC: 15:28
Date:
By:
compli ce Off1ce
Approved by: Ll-.. ;1/ ~~:;
J1
J.
-
.
. o.
/,
(
o
o
C'"
o
c
ERN ARDINO 3llll NORTH "0" STREET,SAN ~11'Ml"'U~f41'
'89 APR 25 P 3 :58
April 25. 1989
Re: 1395 N. E St
San Bernardino. CA
Report/Project NO. 3089
Madeline M Dexter
POBox 209
San Bernardino, CA 92402
Dear Ms Dexter:
This letter is to advise you that your appeal will be
heard before the Board of Building Commissioners on
Friday May 5. 1989 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers.
300 North D Street. San Bernardino. CA.
The appealed charges of $1.991.50 will become a lien
on the property or a personal obligation of the owner
should the appeal be denied.
Respectfully.
1L-j/~
Don H He5terley
Code Compliance Supervisor
cc: City Clerk
City Attorney
,
oOloA,,:~......,...- ,- --...:...~..
-i.~r~~~;~::~~;/' ~~ ~
_'70/ '
~;"""F