Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-Public Works ~:v- ' c > MAILING ADO""..: Ii. O. .ox 1244 LAK&' Mlllow"IAD. CA 82352 J. RICHARD LISTER ATTORNIIY AT I.AW 181 SOUTH STAn: HIGHWAY 173 I.AKE A""OWHIIAD. CA (7141 337-81458 REC'O.-lDM'N. ,,...... . "J-:' If; 1387 AUG f8 PH /: IS .; t-r ,'I ~'r August 15, 1.987 To: The Common Council of the City of San Bernardino RE: Report No. 3012 829 West Spruce Street san Bernardino, California APPEAL ~ ::w m ('") m :>>> < ~ ", 0 ... ; ... ., ~ .." -< ~ :-> ~ 0 ,.." ~ ^' -y ?, ....-...... ~./ This ls an appeal ot the deo1s1on reaohed 1:1,. the Board of Bulld1Dg" Commissioners on August 7, 1987, on the aboTe-ent1tled matter. PI1 1f1fe and I owned and operated the subjeot rental property tor 7 years and in 1985, sold it to UIF. the present O1fDers. W. hold a Deed of Trust on this property, which is presently 1n toreclosure. Apparently a correction notice by the Building Department was sent to the owner on February 13, 1987, but no copy of this notice was sent to us. We f1rst learned of the problem when we received a notice on May 29, 1987, that the matter was scheduled for hearing on June 5, 1987. At that hearing, Inspeotor Clark read the 11st of bu11d1ng violations. I spoke at that hearing, identifying myself as the lender. I stated that I had spOKen to the owner who had assured me that they would correot all problems and I stated that I was prepared to do everyth1ng necessary to bring the property into compliance, 1f the owner did not. Resolution No. 1168 was adopted by the Board of Building Commissioners, requir1ng the owner to obtain permits and perform the required repairs. On apprOXimately June 15, 1987, I cheoked at the Bu11ding Department and learned that the owner had not obtained the building permits. At that time, I attempted to purchase the permits to allow me to repair the property, but was told that permits could not be issued to me because I was not the owner nor the o1fDer's oontractor. . ". ...-' OIl June 23, 1987, 11I7 wife and I and our attome,., Randolph LeTin, .et 1f1th Bu1ld1ng and Safety D1reotor John E' Tuoker and reiterated our position of want1ng to repair the property, but were preTented from doing so. Mr. Tucker stated that it was not the pol1oy of the City to destroy buildings and that he would instruct Inspector Clark not to proceed 1f1th demolition, but that we could not be issued bui1d1Ag permits to do the required 1fOrk until we had regained title. Mr. Tucker stated that the owners (UIF) had untll July 2, 1987 to take out permits and if they did not by that date, he 1fOuld so notify us. He also stated that the City 1fOuld allow us time to obtain legal t1tle through foreclosure, so that we could then legally bring the property into compl1ance by performing all required repairs. on July 8, 1987, I filed a letter of appeal to Resolution No. 1168. on July 13, 1987. I had not heard from Mr. Tucker and I telephoned him. He informed me that the owners had not obtained the permits and that the matter was again scheduled for hearing on August 7, 1987. That same day I telephoned the owners and told them I intended to immed- iately initiate foreclosure. The spokesman for the owners told me that they were awat1ng another bid from a oontractor and that they may possibly re-convey title to the property to us. On July 20. 1987, I employed a Reg1--.red Civil Engineer to inspect the condition of the two structures on the property. -2_ '",.,J He dete1"lll1ned ttlat: ...,,/ 1. The structureS are struotural1y sound and pose no ph1s1ca1 danger; 2. They are no 41ff.rent than other structureS in the same blook; 3. They are repairable; 4. Repairs are econom1cal11 feas1b~e; and, 5. The property can be total11 rehab111tated for approximately $10,000, A copy of his report is attached, as EXhibit A. On July 21., 1987, it became apparent that the owner was not going to transfer title baok to us, and we oommenced foreclosure. on approximately August 4. 1987, I was told by Deputy City Attorney John Wilson that I eould not be issued permits to repair the structures, until I had regained legal title to the property. At the August 7, 1987 hearing, I presented the engineer'S report and suggested to the Board that the property could easily and cheap11 be rendered safe from fire and ..,..""'.I1.Sa hazard until such time as we can acquire legal title through foreclosure and then perform the necessar1 work to bring the property into compliance with the requirements of the Building Department. (See page 7. paragraph 1) The Board of Building Comm1ss10ners nevertheless resolved that the bu1ldings nould 1:Ie dem{c.hed. l"or the follo1f1ng reasons, I do not believe that we have been treated fa1rly 1:Iy the C1ty of San Bernard1ao: 1. There now exists, and has existed for some t1me, 1f1th1n the same block as this property, other structures which a casual glance ind1cates are violative of the Building Code. (See EXhibits B through H attached here1f1th.) Are proceedings ourrently 1n prooess to demolish these structures? If not, why are we denied the right to repa1r the subjeot property? 2. The only struct;ure 1n this block which sho1f8 signs of proper ma1ntenance is the house 1mmed1at;e~ west of the subject property. The c1V1L engineer 1f1l1 testify that both th1s house and the subject property were constructed at the same time by the same builder and the d1fference between them can be easily correoted. In fact, the sUbjeot property can be compLete~ rehab1l1tated for apprOXimately t10,uOO and render this prop,,~ in be~~er condition than any of its neighbors. which repairs are econom1caLLy reas1ble and which we are prepared too spend. 3. Had we been not1fied by the Build1ng Department; 111 February, 1987, as the present owners were, of this pending aot1on, we couLd have 1n1tiated foreclosure then and we would now be 1n legal t1tle: the proper~y repa1red; and a~L t;hese proceed1ngs wouLd not; have been necessary. .... We nave Deen ret'Used bu1lding perml.~s t;o a~~ow Ul:I ~o repa1r the proper~y. -*- 5. Tne 8u1J.cl1.ng ~:rt._t has twtJ.e4 co eD.foroe 1 t. Ol'Qer ..~ VlICa1:e, as J.lWP8Uliur carlt s1:a1:ec1 11: 1fOUJ.a., a1; 1;be June 5, 19l5"/ b..r~. ThUS, taB1J.1.S uonli1QUe 1;0 l1ye ~ both oulld1ngB preven1:~g us x'rom. DOal'QJ.ng up lOne projJerliY 1;0 !i'HA S1;ana.ara.S. 6. The ut1ol11;1eB nave n01; Oeen snut; or!, Whlcn Inspeoeor Carll s,,&cea. t;ne cley wouola. 0.0. 7. I completelY ral.1. t;o understana. wny t;he ~1t;y 4S WQW1.1.ol1ng eo grant us the Short; t;1me requ1rea. eo ga1n elt;.1.e ana. perxorm ene necessary rehab1olltat10n. At the June ~, l~lS'l hearLng, a ~rojJerey o~er gave exp.lBDat10ns wny nls order to aemoollsh n1S DU1.1.alng had noe oeen carr1ea. oue s1noe 1~'l~1 Why is t;ne e~e now so 1mporeant t;0 ehe Cley 1n our caSeY I understand that le 18 1;he des1re OX. the C1ty to 1mprove the cona.1.uon OX. property and may do so, under 1 ts pO.1.1ce power. However, When 1. t passes oerona proper bOuna.~ 1n 1es lnvaslon or property rlghts, it; comes wlth1n tne purvlew ox' the law of em1nent aoma1ll ana requlres compen- sae10n. A st;rong PUb.1.1C aeS1re eo 1mprove the PUb.1.1C condle10n 1s DOt enough to warrane aChlev1ng ene aes1re oy a Shorter cut than the conseltutlonaol way or paylng x'or ehe cnauge. Tn1s property is a SlgnlI.lcant; part or the ret1rement plans of me and my W.1.I"e. Ite are now more than lenders - s1nce we are 1n t'orecolosure. we are dUUCessor eo ene oill1er and 1f1ol.1. agaln be ehe 01fllers. We are n01; absent;ee .land.1.0raS nor 8~um4vra.8 ana lneena ~o e~e any and aol.1. s1;eps necessary to save our 1nvesemene and repalr eh1s propert;y. 1fhlch the present 01fllers have Obvlously abandonea. and a.1..1.owea. t;o a.eeer10.raee and be continually vandallzed. c .; '-' '-' I dOD"1; Imow if CO_1s81oner Sheene spoke tor me eft1;1J'e SCIara. 01' BuU.d.1.ng Comm1BS1.0ners _en, a1; 1;he AIlgi.l81; 7, 19~1 hear1ng, he desor1bed these t1fO bul1d1ngs as "dogs", but 1t is readily apparent, upon ph,-s1oal inspection by anyone with any oonstruot1on knowledge, that approximately '10,000 could completely rehabilitate theBe bu11d1~ and would render them in better shape than any of its neighbors, providing desirable low- 1noome housing and an iaproved tax base for the City (certainly more than just another vaoant lot). Perhaps Mr. Sheehe meant simply "not new". In the event the resolution by the Board of Building Commissioners to demolish this property is allowed to stand, please be informed that I will seek a wr'-t of administrative mA.n"Amus, under C.C.P. 1094.5 to Challenge the proc edure by the C1 ty of San Bernard1no. Under the due process clause of the California Constitution, the San Bernardino City Charter, and pertinent California caSeS, it is obvious that the hearing process, as oonducted, doeS not meet the standard required for a jUdicial determ1nat1on that this property oonst1tutes a legal nuisance and that demolition is the only reasonable way to abate it; the evidence does not support that determination and; Binoe a fundamental, vested right is involved, the court, rather than the administrative agency. has the responSibility to make that determination. In the event the City Attorney has not researched th1s area, I suggest . you may wish his office to consider the following pert1nent cases: Agins v. City of T1buron 447 u.s. at 260, 100 S.ct. at 2141 Leppo v. City of Petaluma 97 CR 840, 20 Cj 711 Walker v. City of San Gabr1el 20 C~ 879, 129 P2 349 san G1ep1to UIlioa 111,,- 80bo01 D1.~:) T. CO\I\I1ss1on of Professional COBpeteooe 174 CA3 1176-1180, 220 OR 351 CM7JUm v. Board of Aooountanoy 55 CA3 1010, 128 CB 137 Armistead v. City of Los Angeles 152 CA2 319, 313 P2 127 I suggest that this matter can be easily resolved to the satisfaction of both the City and us as follows: 1. The old garage-type outbuilding be demol1shed. Apparently a permit is required and apparently we can't be issued one. However, the City oan do this 1fOrk. 2. Trash be removed. I will do this work. 3, Occupants be evicted. We are powerless, but the City has said it can and would perform this function and vacate the property. 4. Turn off utilities. We cannot, 1:Iut the City can. 5. Board up the exterior window and door openings to FHA standards. If the property is vacated by the City, I will be glad to do this work. ~ i " .,.'0. 't once boarded up and ut111t1es.shUt off, the property can thus be protected and rendered non-hazardous in no different manner than the many FHA and VA repossessions 1f1th1n the City. -7- .' 7. 'l'be CitY' oan Uen "o1\e propert,. fo....-the up..es, or I 1f111 gladly paY' the City d1reotly m,-self, 10 that no additional expens e 1. inourred by the City for this work. 8. I be allowed sufficient time to obtain legal title through foreclosure so that bu11d1ng permits oan be issued to me to complete all necessary repairs and rehabilitation. 'or the above reasons, I request that action be taken aCCOrdingly, :aespeotMfu~llY' submitted, /,' _ ,'(' / - ,/ , /C -c;L. 4: -;;"A'<; c rd L1S~--r -8- I , '-,,/ , boy.' & assocla'.s 231311 CREST FOREST ORIVE . P.O. BOX 3211I . CAEITLINE, CALIFORNIA 112325. (71.1338-2113 ~I l:f ! o ~ ... s: C3 -~ ") July 30, 1987 MR. RICHARD LISTER P.O. BOX 1244 LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA. 92352 RE: 827 & 829 W. Spruce On July 20, 1987, I made a structural inspection of the property at 827 & 829 W. Spruce. I failed to get access to the interior of the two houses because no one was at home. The observations that I made were of the foundation, roofs, and the .general condition of the structure. 827 W. Spruce The house had windows missing, trash lying about, but more par- ticularly we noted the following: 1. The west side of the build-up had been removed and revealed severely dry rotted floor joists and floor under the bathroom. These would have to be removed and replaced. 2. The electrical service line to the house is in need of replac- ement and being raised. 3, The dirt to wood contact will have to be eliminated and wood examined for rotting. 829 W. Spruce The windows of the house were boarded up except in the front, and from what we could see, there is no structural damage or failure. This house is of the same origin and construction as the two houses to the west and the one across the street, The architcture and construction are identical. We observed no foundation distor- tion or failure. The roof was in good shape. Our conclusion is that both houses are structurally sound or need little in the way of structural repair. The major repairs are those of an~'.iles.t:hE!\tic nature',llsuch as,,' rep~ace'. Windawsj;. ft'ameS-;-: and doors, and repaint the house. Very truly yours. Boyer & Associates DGB/mah - -- ..... \ I \ EltHIIH!' ~ - ~l~ N."g;' Streel; (Nexl; cloor) HOllae burneo. months ago-nolO repaired-r001 coversa D1 torn -, plast10. Burned wood above window opell1ng-winaow OPeIling oovered e7 unpainted. p.Lywoocl. North s1de or roor shOWS oeviouS l:Ilgns 01 1..1.J.tlre or structura.L 1J1tegr1 ty. Home remains fuU7 oocul'ied. ~Hl~.L'j: u 'Rear 01 d'+l West ::$pruce Streel; Unsight.L7 p1.Les or mlsoel~eouS mater1al-obv10us l.L.Lega.L room ..........1<r.."".. , . I '- -,. . '" - u..Hll:l.L.r t.; ~ --------..-- --- ~l weSl; ~pruoe ~treel; ( 2 houseS West) DeterloratiOn and. J.aOI!: 01 maintenanCe - unpa1J11isa PJ.7- 1fOod-trash and. clebrlS 1n yarn. -~.- ~l:!.Lb.Lr E ~55 West Spruoe() houseS West) Same age,same construot1on-boarded up wind.01f8 -unpa ln 1i sa p.LJ"1fooa. , . - ~HIBI'1' F ~v wes~ Spruoe Stree~lD1reo~~y aoross s~reetJ Remode~1ng .1~noU~ ~erml~s. - [. ....>1. ~ . - !:J\.HIBIT H d,d west spruce Stree~ lauro~~ s~reeeJ ODv10us signs of deter10rat1on-ral1ure 01 voron r~oor ana roor support. . iik r. , ~ -~ ',k. ......... ,';' T '1... , . .... ~ ~ "':-..... ........ ~ . !~. .!. ~ aHIBI'l' G .-_. ----- ~b West spruoe ~Street {aerotl't1 s~ree~J OD~10~t1 t11~ 01 ae~erlor- atlon ana laOk or ma1ntenanoa.