HomeMy WebLinkAbout04- City Administrator C I T Y O F S A N B E R N A R D I N O
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE
DATE: February 4 , 1994
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: Shauna Clark, City Administrator
SUBJECT: 2/7/94 Public Comments - Carol Wright, 968 Northpark
COPIES : Debra Daniel , Code Enforcement Supervisor
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This office has received a letter from Carol Wright requesting a
hearing before the Mayor and Council to appeal a lien of $484 for
administrative costs ssociated with a code enforcement action at
968 Northpark Boulevard. I decided not to place the letter on the
regular agenda because the appeal procedures were not followed.
The Municipal Code presents strict requirements for the appeal
process, however, in spite of several notices, Mrs. Wright did not
follow the process. Upon explaining the Municipal Code to her,
Mrs. Wright was still adamant that the Council hear her concerns
about the actions of Code Enforcement which led to the charges.
Mrs. Wright has informed us that in lieu of a hearing, she will be
speaking during the public comments portion of Monday' s agenda.
Attached is a copy of the letter Mrs. Wright sent to Mayor Minor.
Also attached is a chronology of events. This office has looked
into Mrs. Wright' s complaint. It appears that all notices were
sent and that Code Enforcement and the Board of Building
Commissioners adhered to the requirements of the Municipal Code.
The Mayor and Council cannot take action during public comments,
but may wish to direct Mrs. Wright to our office. Though I see no
way to waive the charges against her property we might be able to
establish a payment mechanism.
City Administrator
4v_t1r 1 3
JJ-
Jc
CLI
��Oo
kv'a
�41
7`41
C I T Y OF S A N B E R N A R D I N O
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE
TO: Shauna Clark, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne' Fitzpatrick, Administrative Analyst
DATE: February 4 , 1994
SUBJECT: Carol Wright Appeal Letter
----------------------------------------------------------
Per your request, I have listed reasons as to why the Council
should not conduct an appeal hearing.
1) Regardless of whether or not the fees are out of line, there
are specific procedures which must be adhered to in order to
file an appeal . Specific guidelines are communicated to the
property owner through correspondence sent by the Code
Compliance Division. Carol Wright was notified of her appeal
rights; however, she failed to follow the correct procedures.
The procedures, as stated in the code compliance
correspondence and a brief chronology of events are listed
below:
a) Complaint received. Initial inspection made.
b) 5/17/93 : Letter sent to owner via certified mail
outlining violations, appeal rights and possible costs to
be incurred. Carol Wright did not file a protest at this
time.
C) 6/10/93 : Reinspection of property made. According to Code
Compliance, conditions remain the same.
d) 10/6/93 : Follow-up inspection made. According to Code
Compliance, conditions remain the same.
e) 10/21/93 : Second notice of violation sent to owner
listing violations and costs incurred as communicated in
first letter dated 5/17/93 . Administrative charges of
$387 . 00 include: notice of pendency fee, clerical fee,
supervisor fee, title search, photos, mileage, clerk fee,
etc. This letter further states the scheduled BBC hearing
date (November 5, 1993) .
Memo to Shauna Clark
Re: Carol Wright
Page Two
f) 11/5/93 : BBC hearing held. According to Code Compliance,
Carol Wright was given 60 days to abate conditions and
staff recommended to incur administrative costs as a
lien.
g) 11/24/93 : Letter confirming BBC action was sent by Code
Compliance to Carol Wright. The letter specifically
states that if an appeal is to be filed, it must be sent
to the City Clerks Office within 15 days of the notice
and must be accompanied by a $75.00 appeal fee. According
to the City Clerk's Office, an appeal letter was never
submitted by Carol Wright to the City Clerk's Office as
required.
h) 1/10/94 : Letter sent by City Clerk's Office informing
owner of lien. An $89 . 00 lien fee and $8 . 00 recording fee
was added to the original costs of $387 . 00, bringing
final total to $484 . 00.
2) Letter dated 1/24/94 was submitted to the Mayor's Office
objecting to the BBC recommendation; however, as stated above,
the appeal was not received by the City Clerk's Office.
Furthermore, the appeal letter submitted to the Mayor's Office
was not within the 15 day time frame and was not accompanied
by the $75.00 appeal fee.
If further information is needed, please let me know.
l