HomeMy WebLinkAbout14- Planning Building Services CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Bill Skiles, Code Compliance Subject: Appeal of the Board of Building Commissioner's
Order #3814, 1048 Congress, San Bernardino, CA
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Date: November 8 1996 C(a[Ply
MCC Date: November 18, 1996
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
None
Recommended Motion:
Deny the appeal and uphold the finding of the Board of Building Commissioners Hearing, held October 3,
1996.
Bill Skiles, Code Compliance Manager
Contact person: Bill Skiles Phone: 384-5205
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward(s):
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.) N/A
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Continued to A
Agenda Item No. _
II111) o
SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF November 18, 1996
BACKGROUND
See attached Staff Report which by reference becomes a part of this report; Exhibit B
The Code Compliance division case file history indicate 1048 West Congress, San Bernardino,
has an extensive history of S.B.M.C. violations to include the following:
8/5/96 Code Compliance Division received a call from Fire Dispatch requesting Code
Enforcement assistance. The Fire Department posted the building to be
dangerous.
A count of windows and doors was done so a contractor could be called to board
and secure. During this count numerous violations were noted including: trash,
debris, broken windows, doors with no locks or hardware, no water, no
electricity, and containers with substance that looked and smelled like urine.
A notice was posted by the Code Compliance Division listing the violations.
8/6/96 Officer Hernandez and Officer Nolfo went to the residence of Marie
Romano-Myers, 1177 West Congress #47, San Bernardino, California to issue
an infraction citation for the above listed violations, there was no answer
so checking the property 1048 West Congress, we located the owner Marie
Romano-Myers. Citation No. 47 was issued.
10/3/96 BBC Hearing held, staff recommendation was upheld. Fees incurred: $1669.32.
See order #3814 attached.
APPELLANT'S GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
1. The appellant is requesting for the $1600.00 fees to be waived.
2. Appellant states that all necessary corrections were made and that the case was
closed and dismissed in 1995.
APPELLANT'S ACTION SOUGHT FROM THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
Requests that all "fees" ($1600.00) be waived.
STAFF ANALYSIS
1. Fees were based on actual costs to abate as delineated in attached Statement of Costs
Sheet.
2. Code violations continued to exist at the property throughout the entire Code Compliance
process. Currently the property remains boarded and secured. The violations remaining
include unmaintained landscaping, lack of landscaping, unsafe fence.
STAFF RECON EWENDATION
That the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and uphold the findings of the Board of
Building Commissioners meeting held October 3, 1996.
Attach: Appeal
Staff Report
BBC Order
Photos (to be distributed at meeting)
Statement of Costs
Fire Department Report
Prepared by: Julie Hernandez, Code Compliance Officer for Bill Skiles
f
October 15, 1996
Mayor and Common Council J p :�2
300 North"D"Street
2°d Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: 1048 Congress, San Bernardino, CA
Parcel No.: 137-042-18
Case No.: 9580/ Complaint No.:45178
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am requesting an appeal to the judgment against me to pay a fine of$1600 for administration
costs and boarding up of the said property 1048 Congress.
During the hearing, I was not given the chance to fully present my case and proof to the Council.
The plaintiff used proof of damages to the said property from last year as evidence to show the
present condition of the house and that no improvements have been done. The statement from
Doug Leeper is that, "nothing has changed from the conditions of the house since [his]
involvement last year," disregarding the fact that all the repairs and maintenance he requested of
me have been completed. In fact, he dismissed the case in 1995 because I complied to all the' -`+
requirements of which he asked
I became legal owner of the property on 1048 Congress upon receiving a Quit Claim Deed on
September, 1996 from my husband. It had been my impression that this property was legally
owned by myself and my husband since I lived in this property for four years after his
disappearance in 1989. Since 1982, I have been disabled with systemic lupus. My income is just
$620 per month from Social Security Disability. I rented this house to Margaret Williams in
November, 1995 in order fund continued improvements on the property and someday increase my
income.
The City—represented by Doug Leeper and Child Protective Services required repairs and
maintenance to the house which I already was doing at the time. For example, the five window
panes which were either missing or broken, were repaired immediately. The repairs and
maintenance required for safe living conditions for children as established by Child Protective
Services had been met and approved by this organization. Ms. William and her children were
allowed by Child Services to live in the house because it was now in safe living condition. As
stated earlier, Mr. Leeper dismissed the case in 1995 for my complete compliance with his
requirements, to my understanding. (I was not given notice to otherwise).
Now in October 1996, Mr. Leeper claims that nothing had been changed from the first time he
became involved with the property last year. The windows that the City claims to have been
"broken out" and missing were damaged after Ms. Williams left the property due to vandalism. I
believe the Council concluded that no repairs and maintenance have been completed when in fact,
the vandalism occurred three months after the tenants left caused much damage to the property.
The problems in the 1995 case when I first met Mr. Leeper and the case now in 1996 are two
separate incidents.
Ms. Williams lived on the property for seven months without paying the agreed rent sum of$500
monthly. I had much difficulty evicting her because, as I became aware, I was not the "legal"
owner of the property on 1048 Congress. During this time, I was able to contact my husband, who
agreed to give me the property as compensation for illegally liquidating my accounts worth a total
of$40,000 and charging $10,000 on my credit cards. With my disability and after such monetary
loss, I was forced to file bankruptcy and was left with no credit cards. The City did not consider
this fact or my finances when I was questioned why I did not make repairs right away (referring to
the broken windows).
The day of Ms. Williams' lock-out, I phoned the City and spoke with Arnie and informed him of
the conditions of the property and assumed responsibility to clean the property waiting the legal 14
days for her to retrieve her belongings—furniture, food, clothing, cars in the front and back lawns,
etc. Due to lack of funds (since I am not the legal owner of the house as of yet, I could not secure
a home improvement loan) coupled with my illness, it took me about two months (working two
hours/day)to clean the property and make minor repairs myself.
I decided to put the property for sale "as is" for 90 days. During this time when the property was
vacated, much vandalism occurred and many articles were stolen (e.g. Jacuzzi, front door, door
locks, water heater, stove, garbage disposal, etc). I made several police reports regarding the
thefts. During this time, the property was constantly littered. Only one week passed from the time
the windows were broken that the City boarded the house and claimed it was in violation of
housing codes. During this same week, I was securing a loan to make the necessary repairs to the
property. I was afraid that the house may be burned down, as it already been much vandalized and
littered,that I asked a few friends to clean the broken glass, etc. and keep watch of the house.
This is the incident that resulted in the fine of$1600 to cover the costs of administration and labor
for boarding up the house. It was inferred that I was a slum landlord and was irresponsible when
in fact, I was actively involved making the necessary repairs and securing the loans to make
improvements to the said property for many months now. The thefts, vandalism, littering, etc. are
the cause for the bad condition in which the property is in at present. I have reported these
incidences to the police and asked for their help, but to no avail. The defamation to my character is
inappropriate considering the responsibilities I have undertaken.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to meeting with you. You can contact me at
909/880-4353 or at 1177 W Congress #47, San Berardino, CA 92410.
Sincerely,
Marie Romano-Myers
--�O_A �
1
2 ORDER OF THE BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING
3 THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE
4 ORDER NO. 3814 CASE NO. 9580
5 WHEREAS, pursuant to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Title
6 15, Chapter 15. 28, the Building Official has posted a building(s)
located at 1048 Congress, San Bernardino, California, with a
7
"Notice to Abate Nuisance" and has notified the person(s) having
8
an interest in said property that the said building(s) or premises
9
constitute a public nuisance;
10
WHEREAS, the Building Official ordered abatement of said
11
property to protect the health and safety of the community;
12
WHEREAS, pursuant to San Bernardino Municipal Code, the
13
Building Official has served a "Notice of Hearing Before the Board
14 of Building Commissioners of the City of San Bernardino" , relating
15 to abatement proceeding, to the person(s) having an interest in
16
the above property, and has prepared a declaration of mailing of
17
the notice, a copy of which is on file in these proceedings; and;
18
WHEREAS, a hearing was held to receive and consider all
19 relevant evidence, objections or protests on October 3, 1996, and;
20 WHEREAS, there was an appearance by Marie Romano having an
21 interest in the above property.
22
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED BY THE BOARD OF BUILDING
23 COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
24
25
26
27
28
1
BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS
2 ORDER NO. 3814 CASE NO. 9580
PAGE 2
3 SECTION 1. Based upon the evidence that was submitted, it
4 was found and determined that the buildings) and or premises
5 located at 1048 Congress, San Bernardino, California constituted
6 a public nuisance.
7 SECTION 2 . The Board of Building Commissioners accepted
8 staff's recommendations. The property owner(s) are hereby
9 directed to comply with the following requirements. To prevent
10 unauthorized entry, within ten (10) days from the date of this
11 order, the owner(s) of record shall continue to keep all
12 structures secured to FHA board-up standards. Owner(s) shall
13 obtain a pre-inspection report to identify all violations. Work
14 shall be completed within sixty (60) days from the date of this
I15 order. Property shall not be rented, leased or occupied until. all
16 work has been inspected by the Building Inspection Division.
17 Owner(s) shall maintain the landscaping to include regular
18 irrigation and pruning, and shall remove all weeds, dry brush,
19 overgrown vegetation, trash, debris, or other items causing an
20 unsightly appearance. The property shall meet all applicable
21 codes adopted by the City of San Bernardino.
22 SECTION 3 . Upon the owner(s) of record failure to comply
23 with the order of the Board of Building Commissioners, the Code
24 Compliance Division shall proceed to initiate abatement action by
25 obtaining an Inspection/Abatement warrant to abate violations
26 noted.
27
28
1 BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS
ORDER NO. 3814 CASE NO. 9580
2 PAGE 3
3 SECTION 4 . It was determined that the City was required to
4 initiate abatement proceedings upon which the City incurred costs
5 in the amount of $1,669.32 . These costs and future related
6 abatement costs shall be the personal obligation of the owner(s)
7 and shall be placed as a lien on the above property.
8 SECTION 5. Upon receipt of an application from the person
9 required to conform to the order and by agreement of such person
10 to comply with the order if allowed additional time, the
11 supervising building official may grant an extension of time, not
12 to exceed an additional 120 days, within which to complete said
13 repair, rehabilitation or demolition, if the supervising building
14 official determines that such an extension of time will not create
15 or perpetuate a situation imminently dangerous to life or
16 property. The supervising building official's authority to extend
17 time is limited to the physical repair, rehabilitation or
18 demolition of the premises and will not in any way affect or
19 extend the time to appeal the notice and order.
20 SECTION 6. Any person aggrieved by this order, may appeal to
I21 the Mayor and Common Council by filing a written statement with
22 the City Clerk. The statement must include the order appeal, the
23 specific grounds of your appeal, and the relief or action souclht.
24 This appeal must be received within fifteen (15) days from the
25 date of this notice dated October 15, 1996.
26
27
28
BOARD OF BUILDING COMMISSIONERS
ORDER NO. 3814 CASE NO. 9580
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing order was duly adopted by
the Board of Building Commissioners of the City of San Bernardino
at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of October 1996,
by the following vote, to wit :
COMMISSIONERS: AYE NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT
Alfred Enciso �(
Carol Thrasher X
Amado Savala x
Larry R. Quiel X7-
"Joe" V. C. Suarez, Jr.
Ruben B. Nunez
Herbert Pollock
Benjamin Gonzales
Leo Cash, Jr.
Clerk, Board of Building Commissioners
The foregoing order is hereby approved this 3rd day of October,
1996 .
Chairman, Board of Building Commissioners
Approved as to form and legal content :
James F. Penman, City Attorney
By:
�9
p C CITY OF
Z DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES
(San 15crnardino CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION
(909) 384-5205
oG�DED l*i,01
STATEMENT OF COSTS
CASE NUMBER: 9580 Date: September 16, 1996
Location: 1048 Congress SAN BERNARDINO CA
Parcel Number: 137-042-18
The undersigned respectfully submits the following statement of
costs incurred by the City of San Bernardino as a result of
abatement proceedings recently completed at the above referenced
property.
DIRECT COSTS
Code Compliance Officer: $23 . 00 Hr X 3 $ 69.00
Clerical Staff Costs: $15. 00 Hr X 2 $ 30. 00
Supervisor Costs $28.00 Hr X 2 $ 56. 00
City Clerk Costs $ 30.00
Attorney Costs $ 40. 00
Vehicle Mileage (REPEAT TRIPS) .50 per mile X 20 $ 10. 00
Photographs $2 . 00 each X 35 $ 70. 00
Title Search $ 25. 00
Certified Mailing $2 .52 each X 3 $ 7.56
Notice of Pendency $ 125.00
Hearing Costs $ 50. 00
SUBTOTAL $ 512 .56
CONTRACTOR COSTS
Contractor: Brett Carlson Construction $ 826.26
40% Administrative Costs $ 330. 50
Subtotal $1,156.76
Previous costs incurred: Contact City Clerk for $ -------
previous fees incurred
Abatement Date:
Total Amount Due $ 1,669.32
All costs not immediately paid will be recorded with the County Tax
Assessors Office as a lien upon the property, at which time
additional processing fees plus interest will be assessed.
If you have any questions or need clarification of this statement
of costs, please contact the City Clerk's Lien Coordinator at
(909) 384-5002 with the case number and property address.
Codes': ompliaz a Officer
Al Boughey,Director of Planning and Building Services/Debra L.Daniel,Code Compliance Supervisor
300 North"D"Street,San Bernardino,CA 92418
03/05!1996 08: 3, 3053845'J�81 SB CITY` FIFE DEPT PAGE 01
SAN BERNARDINO CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT
INUER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Debra Daniel, Code Enforcement Supervisor
From: Laurie Sawha Fire InspcAor
Date: August 5, 1996
Subject: 1018 W. Congress Ave.
This morning on a complaint referred to we by the Police Department, I went to the property
located at 1048 W. Congress. The complaint had been that property was open and vacant. On
arrival I noted that the power was disconnected, but that two vehicles were in. drive, and no door
knobs on front door. As I was leaving, a woman went into the structure.
T returned to the office and contacted the Realtor listed out front. He(Harry Stone) informed me
that lie had been receiving complaints in his office on the property for over two weeks. That
er.,ti.re time period he had been trying to contact the owner, and she has not returned any of his
calls or messages left with a message number. I informed him that people were living ir the
dwelling, and be said that no one had permission to be in dwelling. I then .informed bun i would
return with the police to evict the vagrants and have the property secured.
I had dispatch send officers to assist me at the property. Three officers responded and evicted the
five people still sleeping in the house. They were allowed to pickup their belongings and told not.
to return. I posted the property and asked dispatch to contact you to have property secured.
They radioed back that you had received the message, but was uncertain on time frame.
Please note that there are 13 medium sized windows(no glass or any way to secure) and three
doors. Please ba-ve this property immediately secured/boarded. If the contractor would like me
to meet)lim.back on Location,please call my office and I will meet them.
Thank you for your cooperation.
I