Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-04-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - RESO RB95 01 BLDG SAFETYS (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Item to be re y: �404Ruben Barrera PUBLIC HEARING DATE: April 11, 1995 SUBJECT: AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING REHABILITATION APPEALS BOARD'S (PLANNING COMMISSION) ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. RB95-01 TO UPHOLD BUILDING & SAFETY'S ORDER TO DEMOLISH A SUBSTANDARD AND UNSAFE BUILDING KNOWN AS "DILLENBECK'S MARKET" AT 18409 SIERRA HIGHWAY. DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND This appeal is being heard by the City Council in accordance with Government Code Section No. 25845 (A). This hearing is to consider all competent evidence offered by any person pertaining to the matters set forth in the report by the City Building Official regarding substandard and unsafe conditions at the building known as "Dillenbeck's Market" at 18409 Sierra Highway and to make findings of fact as to whether or not the building or property is substandard as defined in the Building Code. If so determined, to uphold Resolution No. RB95-01 - Order to Demolish as adopted by the Planning Commission acting as Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board on March 7, 1995 (Attachment "A!'). Over the last several years, the Building & Safety Division has received numerous complaints about the unsightly condition of the subject site. Since 1988, the Dillenbeck's Market property has been in a state of disrepair and continued deterioration and has caused a great amount of discontent with neighboring businesses and property owners. Attachment "B" gives a history of the numerous complaints, inspections, and attempts by the City to bring the building into compliance. Numerous inspections have been conducted by staff and the building/site has been declared substandard/unsafe and therefore a public nuisance in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. The building was ordered to be demolished by the City Building Official on February 8, 1995 in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 99 of the City's Building Code (See Attachment "C", "Notice and Order to Demolish Building.") The property owners exercised their right to appeal this order to the Building Rehabilitation APPROWED Agenda Item:� Appeals Board (Planning Commission) in accordance with Section 9917 of the City Building Code and are now appealing the findings by the Board to the City Council for further consideration. Attachment "D" is a copy of this request for an appeal hearing. The appeal is based on the owner's contention that: (1) The building is not substandard, and should not be ordered demolished, (2) The City has already accepted the responsibility for demolition of the building pursuant to written agreement; (3) That the City has made demolition of the building substantially more difficult and expensive by entering the building and disturbing the asbestos in the ceiling in the building. On August 9, 1994 the City and the Los Angeles County Fire Department proposed to burn and clear the building at no cost to the owner by using it for Fire Department training. An agreement was reached with the owner on August 19, 1994 to proceed with the Fire Department training exercises and remove the building as proposed (see Attachment "D"). Subsequently, asbestos was found prior to engaging in full training(burning exercises. This added an unexpected and excessive cost to the pending demolition. The City cannot fund these costs and demolition cannot take place without the asbestos removal. Since these costs were not included in the City's original agreement to demolish the building, the City consequently requested that the property owners pay for the asbestos removal only. The property owners have refused to pay for said costs or to remove/demolish the building as ordered by the February 8th notice.. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Per Section No. 9917. (A) of the City Building Code, a hearing regarding the Building Official's order to demolish the structure known as Dillenbeck's Market located at 18409 Sierra Highway was conducted by the Building Rehabilitation Board on March 7, 1995. After the Board reviewed all written findings of fact, Resolution No. RB95-01 was adopted to uphold the City's order to demolish and the property owner was given fourteen (14) days to complete the demolition work. Per Section No. 9917.(B) - Rehearing, the property owners are entitled to a rehearing within fourteen (14) days of adoption of the resolution. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council affirm Resolution No. RB95-01, which includes written findings of fact that the building and property in question are substandard as defined in Chapter 99 of the City's Building Code and uphold the Building Official's notice and order to demolish said building and clear the property of any and all substandard conditions as required by the Building Code. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. RB95-01 Attachment "A" - Order to Demolish Attachment `B" - Action Taken Attachment "C" - Notice and Order to Demolish Building Attachment "D" - Appeal Request RMB :.Lwbs bldg\er9532dm.r Public Hearing Procedure 1. Mayor opens hearing *States purpose of hearing 2. City Clerk reports on hearing notice 3. Staff report 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute rebuttal (Proponent) •Proponent 7. Mayor closes public testimony S. Discussion by Council 9. Council decision 10. Mayor announces decision CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING REHABILITATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THAT THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 18409 SIERRA HIGHWAY, SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA IS IN VIOLATION OF THE SANTA CLARITA BUILDING CODE AND CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THEREBY ORDERING DEMOLITION OF THE DILLENBECK'S MARKET WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OF THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. R95-01, ADOPTED ON MARCH 7, 1995. PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita regarding the decision of the Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board that the building located at 18409 Sierra Highway, Santa Clarita, California is in violation of the Santa Clarita Building Code and constitutes a public nuisance and thereby ordering demolition of the Dillenbeck's Market within fourteen (14) days of the adoption of Resolution No. R95-01, adopted on March 7, 1995. The hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 11th day of April, 1995, at or after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, and any interested pe`sons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita. If you wish to challenge this order in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council, at or prior to the public hearing. Dated: March 23, 1995 Publish Date: March 28, 1995 Donna M. Grindey, CMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RB95-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE BUILDING REHABILITATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AFTER HEARING AND CONFIRMING THE DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT THE BUILDING AND PREMISESLOCATED AT 18409 SIERRA HIGHWAY, SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE SANTA CLARITA BUILDING CODE AND CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING DEMOLITION OF THE DILLENBECK MARKET WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION I. THE BUILDING REHABILITATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: A. The improvements located on, and that certain real property commonly known as 18409 Sierra Highway, City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles (hereinafter, the building and the real property are collectively referred to as the "Premises") are in violation of Section 203 (a) of the Santa Clarita Building Code (hereinafter, all references to the "Code" herein will be to the Santa Clarita Building Code unless otherwise noted) in that said building is (1) structurally unsafe and not provided with adequate egress, (2) constitutes a fire hazard, (3) is dangerous to human life, (3) constitutes a hazard to public safety and welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, damage and abandonment and is an unsafe building, and is, therefore, a public nuisance. B. The Premises are in violation of Section 9904 (h), (k), and (n) of the Code in that there exists thereon (1) hazardous and unsanitary conditions in an unsafe building as defined by Section 203 of the Code, (2) said building is abandoned and is inadequately secured against ingress and has been open and vandalized, (3) there is on the Premises an accumulation of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage and similar materials or conditions which constitute a fire, health and safety hazard. C. The Premises are in violation of Section 9905(b), (c), (d), (e), (n), (o), (p) and (q) of the Code in that the building located thereon (1) is unpainted, has dryrot and broken windows, (2) there are dead trees, weeds and debris constituting an unsightly appearance located thereon, (3) the Premises are in such condition as to be detrimental to public health, safety, (4) maintenance of the Premises is in such a manner that the Premises constitute a public nuisance under California Civil Code Section 3480, (5) the Premises, including but not limited to building exteriors, are maintained in such a condition as to be unsightly, defective and in such a state of deterioration and disrepair that the same causes appreciable diminution in the property values of surrounding property and is materially detrimental to proximal properties and improvements, (6) maintenance of the Premises is out of harmony and conformity with the maintenance standards of adjacent properties and causes substantial diminution in the enjoyment and use of adjacent properties, (7) maintenance of the Premises is in violation of the rights of others so as to establish a prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments and social and economic maladjustments to such an extent that the capacity of the owner of the Premises to pay taxes is reduced and the capacity of Reso No. RB95-01 Page 2 adjacent properties to pay taxes may be reduced. D. The Premises are, by reason of the conditions set forth above in Section A through C, a public nuisance as defined in Section 17.01.080(c) of the Santa Clarity Municipal Code. E. Notice of Substandard Building and Property and City's Order to Demolish Building was given to the owners of the Premises, Simon Feirstein and Bryan Stafford (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the "Owners") by Ruben Barrera, Building Official for the City of Santa Clarita (the "Official"), pursuant to Santa Clarita Building Code Section 9910, 9911 and 9912, with respect to the Premises by the City, by certified mail (No. P 240 487 027), postage prepaid on February 8, 1995, a true and exact copy of which is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference, marked as Attachment "B" (hereinafter, the "Notice"). F. The Owners have requested a hearing pursuant to Code Section 9917. G. A hearing was held pursuant to the written request of the Owners and Code Section 9917 on March 7, 1995, at 7:30 p.m.. by the Building Rehabilitation and Appeals Board (the "Board") as required by Sections 206, 9906, 9907 and the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. II. NOW THEREFORE, THE BUILDING REHABILITATION AND APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: A. The determination of the Official as set forth in the Notice is reaffirmed. B. The Owners are ordered to proceed with demolition of the building located on the Premises in accordance with Section 9919 of the Code and to correct all other violations on the Premises within fourteen (14) days of the effective date of this Resolution. C. Failure of the Owners to comply with the Notice within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Resolution shall result in a violation of the Code in accordance with Section 9932 thereof and of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.01.080(b). D. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption by the Board. E. The Vice Chair of the Board shall execute this Resolution on behalf of the City Reso No. RB95-01 Page 3 and the Clerk of the Board shall attest to her signature and the adoption of this Resolution. Adopted this 7th day of March, 1995. Linda Townsley, Vice Cha A9 E / 1 Ru en Barrera, Secret ry f the Board STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Building Rehabilitatioin Appeals Board of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of March 1995, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: Vice Chair Townsley and Board Members Brathwaite, Cherrington and Doughman NOES: Board Members: None ABSTAIN: Board Members: None ABSENT: Board Member: Chair Pat Modugno onna Grindey, City Clerk resR9501.bra Attachment "B" CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE: MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Darcy and Members of the City C neil FROM: George Caravalho, City Manager DATE: January 30, 1995 SUBJECT: ACTION TAKEN BY CITY STAFF RELATING TO THE DEMOLITION OF DILLENBECKS MARKET LOCATED AT 18409 SIERRA HIGHWAY This memorandum is to inform you of action taken by City's Building and Safety and Code Enforcement staff in an effort to demolish the unsafe substandard building located at 18409 Sierra Highway. The following is a list consisting of dates and action taken by City inspection staff at the above mentioned location. March 15, 1988 A declaration of substandard property is filed with the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Office by Mr. Ken St. John, District Engineer for the County of Los Angeles. July 22, 1991 Code Enforcement staff received a complaint of an unsafe vacant building located at 18409 Sierra Highway. Staff conducted a site inspection and observed a unsafe vacant building. Staff contacted property owner Mr. Feirstein via telephone. Subsequently, on August 21, 1991, all violations were corrected by Mr. Feirstein. September 20, 1991 Code Enforcement staff received a complaint of dry high weeds surrounding a vacant building located at 18409 Sierra Highway, Again, staff contacted Mr. Feirstein. After numerous inspections and telephone conversations with Mr: Feirstein, all violations were corrected by December 13, 1991. July 21, 1992 Code Enforcement staff received a complaint of trash and debris in and around a vacant building located at 18409 Sierra Highway. A site inspection was conducted and large amounts of trash and debris was observed. Staff contacted Mr. Feirstein through correspondence and via telephone. All violations were corrected by August 19, 1992. July 13, 1993 Code Enforcement staff received a complaint of a substandard building and numerous property maintenance violations located at 18409 Sierra Highway. A field inspection revealed several property maintenance violations. Staff contacted Mr. Feirstein through correspondence and via telephone. All violations were corrected on August 13, 1993. August 5, 1993 Building and Safety staff mailed correspondence via certified mail to Mr. Feirstein requesting that the entire property be secured and restored to a condition which would make its appearance harmonious with the adjoining properties. August 7, 1993 Return receipt for certified mail dated August 5, 1994, received by staff with signed by W. Feirstein's signature verifying that the document was received. October 28, 1993 Code Enforcement staff received a complaint of transients habitating a vacant building located at 18409 Sierra Highway. Staff conducted a site inspection and observed several boards securing the building entrances had been removed. Staff reattached boards and secured property.. No transients were observed at time of inspection. November 15, 1993 Building and Safety contacted Mr. Feirstein via telephone regarding the demolition of the vacant building. Staff was unable to obtain any further information from Mr. Feirstein regarding this matter.. June 15, 1994 Building and Safety staff began the process of ordering the demolition of the vacant building.. July 1, 1994 Building and Safety staff mailed via certified mail the official notice of order to demolish building by July 25, 1994, to Mr. Feirstein. July 5, 1994 Building and Safety staff attempted contact with Mr. Feirstein via telephone. He was unavailable, therefore a message was left with his secretary advising that the City has started the procedure to demolish. July 7, 1994 Building and Safety staff received a complaint of a substandard building and numerous property maintenance violations. Staff conducted a site inspection and posted a notice of correction at location. August 9, 1994 Building and Safety staff received correspondence from Mr. Feirstein acknowledging the City's request for demolition. Mr. Feirstein continued by authorizing the City and the Los Angeles County Fire Department to utilize the vacant structure for fire fighting practice and in return the City will be responsible for demolishing whatever remains of the building. August 19, 1994 After City staff and Los Angeles County Fire Department staff reviewed the document received from Mr. Feirstein, a signed agreement was entered accepting the proposal for use of the building for training purposes and debris removal. August 23, 1994 Captain Leary of Los Angeles County Fire Department, Station No. 107, was issued a demolition permit for 18409 Sierra Highway. Captain Leary scheduled burn for Saturday, August 27, 1994. Code Enforcement staff obtained all keys for gates at the location from Mr. Feirstein. August 27, 1994 Code Enforcement staff met with Captain Leary at 18409 Sierra Highway, Captain Leary advised staff that the Air Quality Management Board. would not allow burn of building until an asbestos inspection certificate was obtained. Burn rescheduled for September 3, 1994. August 30, 1994 Code Enforcement staff received a telephone call from Captain Rohr of the Los Angeles County Fire Department_ He advised that the Fire Department is unable to obtain an asbestos certificate due to the cost of inspection, Code Enforcement staff was then instructed to obtain asbestos certificate. September 1, 1994 Code Enforcement staff contacted Mr. Bob Garcia of C.F. Environmental Inc., a certified asbestos inspection company. Mr. Garcia agreed to inspect the structure and provide a written estimate. Staff met with Mr. Garcia at; the location and an inspection was conducted. Mr. Garcia removed fifteen bulk samples of material within the structure for examination. Code Enforcement staff received a telephone call from Captain Leary advising that the building burn has been postponed indefinitely by the Los Angeles County Fire Department Management. September 6, 1994 Code Enforcement staff received the test results from C.F. Environmental. Asbestos was found to be present_ Results were forwarded to building official. Code Enforcement staff was instructed to obtain informal bids on asbestos removal. Code Enforcement staff contacted Mr. Bob Griese of A.C_T.T., asbestos removal company. Mr. Geese agreed to inspect the. structure and provide the City with a written estimate. Staff met with Mr. Griese at the location, and an inspection was conducted. Later in the day Mr. Griese faxed an estimate to the City for the amount of forty seven thousand eight hundred dollars ($47,800.00). September 8, 1994 Code Enforcement staff contacted Mr. David Smith of Southwest Industries, asbestos removal company. Mr. Smith agreed to inspect the structure and provide the City with a written estimate. Staff met Mr_ Smith at the location and an inspection was conducted. Staff received a fax from Mr, Smith estimating the cost of removal to be fifty thousand and forty one dollars ($50,041.00). October 3, 1994 Code Enforcement staff contacted Mr, Frank Smith of Total Environmental Industries Inc., asbestos removal company. Mr. Smith agreed to inspect the structure and provide the City with a written estimate. Staff met with Mr. Smith at the location and an inspection was conducted. October 5, 1994 Code Enforcement staff received a fax from Mr. Smith estimating the cost of removal to be twenty-eight thousand eight hundred eighty nine dollars ($28,889.00). L *October 15, 1994 Spoke with Steve Kerekes regarding City's position on demolition agreement, City would pay for any demolition costs outside asbestos removal costs. *October 10, 1994 Spoke with City Attorney to discuss City's responsibilities under the agreement to help with demolition. *October 16, 1994 Sent fax of cost estimate for asbestos removal to Steve Kerekes: Steve indicated he would speak with owners and get back to City within about a week. Nov -Jan, 1995 Made various telephone calls to Mr, Kerekes to get status of owner's willingness to pay for asbestos removal and to inform of possible additional costs if compliance was not achieved and Code Enforcement process was pursued in lieu of previous agreement_ Calls were not returned. Weekend of January 20, 1995 Chamber of Commerce pickets Dillenbecks Market site to request demolition. January 23, 1995 Spoke with Mr, Kerekes. Will contact owners again for recommendation to pay for asbestos removal. Mr. Kerekes was informed of City's position to follow code enforcement process to demolish building at owner's cost. City still willing to pay for regular demolition costs (excluding asbestos removal) as per previous agreement. Promised to call back by Wednesday; January 25, 1995. No response. Due to Mr. Kerekes lack of response to this matter, Code Enforcement staff was requested to proceed with municipal code enforcement to remedy this situation. January 24, 1995 Spoke with City Attorney about required process for Code Enforcement of Substandard Property, Public. Nuisance Abatement. Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures Code Enforcement staff ` sends a series of correspondence to the assessors listed property owner of the property in question when a violation of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code is observed. The first letter explains the current violation which exists on the property. A request is then made of the property owner to contact City staff within three (3) days of receipt of the notice. This letter is sent in an effort to explain the violation and how it could be remedied, If no response is received from the property owner, staff sends a second letter citing the specific code section in which the property owner is in violation of, and a time limitation is given for compliance which is usually seven (7) days. *Approximate date If no progress is noted towards the resolution of the violation staff sends a final violation notice advising the property owner that failure to comply with this final notice will result in corrective action taken by the City through the District Attorney's Office. Five (S) days is usually given to comply with final notice. After the above mentioned process is completed, and the property owner fails to comply, staff prepares a,District Attorney conference request. Once the request is received by the District Attorney, itis reviewed and a conference date is scheduled. The District Attorney will mail subpoenas to each party involved. The conference is held in an effort to resolved the violation thus avoiding a criminal filing. Finally, if the violation are not corrected within the time period agreed upon during the conference, a criminal filing is then requested. The time period of the above described process usually takes sixty (60) to ninety (90) days from the opening date of the complaint, Sections That Apply for Prosecution Along with each section of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, property owner is found to be in violation of the following sections apply towards the prosecution. Building Code Section No. 9932. Prosecution In case the owner shall fail, neglect or refuse to comply with the directions in the Notice of Substandard Building or Substandard Property (if neither he nor any other person requests a hearing) or with any order of the City Council, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and the Building Official may cause such owner of the building or property to be prosecuted as a violator of this code. The code allows the property owner to appeal the violation(s) to the City Council. This will inevitably add an additional thirty (30) to sixty (60) days to the process. Section No 17.01.080. A. General Prohibition. 1. No structure shall be moved into an area, erected, reconstructed, added to, enlarged; advertised on structurally altered or maintained, and no structure or land shall be used for any purpose, except as specifically provided and allowed by this Development Code. 2. No person shall use or permit to be used any structure, or land nor shall any person erect, structurally alter or enlarge any structure, or advertise on any structure, except in accordance with the provisions of this Development Code, 3. No permit or entitlement may be issued or renewed for any use, construction, improvement or other purpose unless specifically provided for, or permitted by this Development Code. B. Violations. Every person violating any provision either of this Development code, or any permit, variance, or amendment thereto, is guilty of a misdemeanor, unless such violation is otherwise declared to be an infraction in subsection D below. Each violation is a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which the violation is committed. 2. Each violation determined to be an infraction by this Development Code -shall be punishable by a fine of $100 for the first violation, Subsequentviolations of the same provision of this title shall be punishable by a fine of $200 for the second violation and $500 for the first violation ,in a 12 month period as provided by applicable law. The fourth and any further violations of this title within a 12 month period shall be deemed misdemeanors. Each misdemeanor is punishable by a maximum fine of $1,000 or six month in jail, or both. C. Public Nuisance. Any use of property contrary to the provisions of this Title is illegal and is deemed to be public, nuisance and the authorized legal representative of the City my commence actions and proceedings for the abatement thereof, in the manner provided by law, and may take such other steps and may apply to any court having jurisdiction to grant such relief as will abate or remove such use and restrain and enjoin any person from using any property contrary to the provisions of this title. Section No. 203. A Definition. All buildings or structures which are structurally unsafe or not provided with adequate egress,; or which constitutes a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life, or which in relation to existing use constitute a hazard to safety or health, or public welfare, by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster damage, or abandonment; as specified in this code or any other effective ordinance, are, for the purpose of this chapter, unsafe buildings. Whenever the Building Official determines by inspection that a building or structure whether structurally damaged or not is dangerous to human life by reason of being located in an area which is unsafe due to hazard from landslide, settlement or slippage or any other cause, such building shall for the purpose of this chapter, be considered an unsafe building. All such unsafe buildings are hereby declared to be public nuisances and shall be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal in accordance with the procedure specified in this chapter. As an alternative, the Building Official may institute any other appropriate action to prevent, restrain, correct or abate the violation. As used in this chapter, "party concerned" means the person, if any in real or apparent charge and control of the premises involved, the record owner, the holder of any mortgage, trust deed or other lien or encumbrance of record, the owner or holder of any lease or record, the record holder of any other estate or interest in or to the building or structure or the land upon which it is located. Section No. 9903 B. BUILDING is any structure. Section No. 9904 H. Hazardous or Insanitary Premises. Those premises on which an accumulation of weeds; vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage, offal, rat harborage, stagnant water, combustible materials, and similar materials or conditions which constitute undue fire, health or safety hazards. Hazardous Buildings. Any building or portion thereof which is determined to be an unsafe building as defined in Section 203 of this code. K: Fire Hazard. Any building or portion thereof, device, apparatus, equipment, combustible waste or vegetation which is in such a condition as to cause a fire or explosion or provide a ready fuel to augment the spread and intensity of fire or explosion arising from any cause. N. Abandoned Buildings. All buildings or portions thereof which are abandoned, open or vandalized or both. Substandard Property Section No. 9905 Any one or more of the following conditions shall constitute substandard property. (a) Substandard buildings; (b) Unpainted buildings causing dry rot, warping and termite infestation; (c) Broken windows constituting hazardous conditions and inviting trespassers and malicious mischief, (d) Overgrown vegetation causing detriment to neighboring properties or property values. (e) Dead trees, weeds and debris: L Constituting unsightly appearance, or 2. Dangerous to public safety and welfare, or 3. Detrimental to nearby property or property values. (n) Maintenance of premises in such condition as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or in such manner as to constitute a public nuisance as defined by Civil Code Section 3480; (o) Property including but not limited to building exteriors which are maintained in such condition as to become so defective, unsightly, or in such condition of deterioration or disrepair that the same causes appreciable diminution of the property values of surrounding property or is materially detrimental to proximal properties and improvements. This includes but is not limited to the keeping or disposing of or the scattering over the property or premises of any of the following: 1. Lumber; junk, trash or debris; 2. Abandoned, discarded or unused objects or equipment such as automobiles, furniture, stoves, refrigerators, freezers, cans or containers; 3. Stagnant water, or excavations; 4. Any device, decoration, design, fence, structures, clothesline or vegetation which is unsightly by reason of its condition or its inappropriate location; (p) Maintenance of premises so out of harmony or conformity with the maintenance standards of adjacent properties as to cause substantial diminution of the enjoyment, use or property values of such adjacent properties. (q) Property maintained (in violation of the rights of others) so as to establish a prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustments to such an extent that the capacity to pay taxes is reduced and tax receipts from such particular area are inadequate for the cost of public services rendered therein., Costs Sec. 9927. The costs involved in the demolition or other work by the Building Official, including in addition to other costs the applicable processing costs as set forth in Table No. 99-A, shall become a special assessment against the property. Notification of Costs Sec. 9928. The Building Oficial shall notify, in writing, all parties concerned and all persons notified pursuant to Section 9914, 9917, or 9926 of the amount of such assessment resulting from such work. Within 5 days of the receipt of such notice any such party concerned and any other person having any right, title, or interest in the property or part thereof may file with the Building Official a written request for a hearing on the correctness or reasonableness; or both, of such assessment. Any such person who did not receive a notice pursuant to Section 9910, Section 9911, Section 9914, or Section 9920, and who has not had a hearing on the necessity of the demolition or other work, in such request for hearing also may ask that such necessity be reviewed. The City Council thereupon shall set the matter for hearing, give such person notice thereof as provided in Section 9914, hold such hearing and determine the reasonableness or correctness of the assessment, or both, and if requested, the necessity of the demolition or other work, The City Council shall notify all such persons of its decision in writing. If the total assessment determined as provided for in this section is not paid in full within 10 days after mailing of such notice by the Building Official, the Building Official shall place such charge as a special assessment on the tax bill for the property pursuant to Section 25845 of the government code. Collection Sec. 9929. The assessment shall be collected at the time in the same manner as ordinary county taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary county taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of county taxes shall be applicable to such special assessment, Section No. 1.01.260., E. Nuisance - Recovery of Abatement Expenses. Moneys due to the City pursuant to this section may be recovered in an appropriate civil action_ Alternatively, such liability may be enforced by special assessment proceedings against the parcel of land upon which the nuisance existed, which proceedings may be conducted in manner substantively similar to proceedings described in Sections 39574 et seq. of the Government Code of the State relating to weed abatement assessments. (Ord. 87-2, 12/15/87.) This section allows the City to perform all services necessary to abate a public nuisance. All moneys due to the City may be recovered in an appropriate civil action. Alternatively such liability may be enforced by special assessment proceedings against the parcel of land where the nuisance existed. In essence; this process would eliminate the existing nuisance. However, City staff will be required to start a bid process, which entails staff time to create specifications for the project, publish bid in newspaper, and provide a prebid construction meeting. The recovery of costs experienced may be a lengthy process through civil procedure, or parcel assessment. Appropriate Funding As mentioned above, the informal bid estimates range from $28,889.00 to $50,041.00 for the removal of asbestos. Other costs for demolition and debris removal are expected to abe approximately $15,000. Administrative costs vary, but are anticipated to exceed $5,000. These funds would need to be appropriated and approved by City Council. Please, review this memorandum. If you have any further questions please contact Lynn Harris, Deputy City Manager, Community Development at (805) 255-4346_ NS twb �,nnem<,,..„ cc, Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager Lynn Harris, Deputy City Manager, Community Development Ruben Barrera, Building Official City of Santa Clarita Jo Anne Darcy Mayor Carl Boyer Mayor Pro -Tem George Pederson Councilmember Jan Heidt Councilmember Hamilton C... Smyth Councilmember 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 .. City of Santa Clarita California 91355-2196 February 8, 1995 Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax (805)259-8125 CERTIFIED MAIL - P 240 487 027 Mr. Feirstein & Mr. Bryan Stafford 8315 Santa Monica Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90069 Dear Messrs. Feirstein & Stafford: "Attachment "C" Subject: Notice of Substandard Building and Property and City's Order to Demolish Building - Abandoned 'Dillenbeck's" Market - 19409 Sierra Highway, Santa Clarita This is to notify you that inspections of the above -referenced building and site have been conducted by the Santa Clarita Building & Safety Division in accordance with Section 9908 of the City's Building Code, and that the building and property were found to be "Substandard" in accordance with Sections 9903 and 9905 of said code and is therefore deemed a public nuisance in accordance with Section 17.01.080(c) of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. This notice is pursuant to Santa Clarita Building Code Sections 9910, 9911, and 9912 requiring notification of these findings. The following conditions were found to exist which make the building and property unsafe and substandard in accordance with Chapters 2 and 99 of the Building Code: • Unsafe conditions in accordance with Section 203(a). • Hazardous and unsanitary conditions in accordance with 9904(h). • Fire hazard in accordance with 9904(k). • Abandoned and vandalized building; 9904(n). • Unpainted, dryrot conditions; 9905(b)., • Broken windows; 9905(c). • Overgrown vegetation and detriment to neighboring property values; 9905(d). • Dead weeds and debris and unsightly appearance; 9905(e). • Lack of property maintenance; 9905(n). • Property/building exterior not maintained, unsightly, deteriorated, defected, and in disrepair, thereby causing diminution of adjacent property values; 9905(0). • Property not maintained or kept in harmony with standards of the rest of the neighborhood or the city; 9905(p). • Property causing depreciated property values; 9905(q). • Property conditions causing public nuisance; 1701.080(c) [Municipal Code]. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Feirstein & Mr. Bryan Stafford Page 2 February 8, 1995 This notice also serves as the Citys official order and notice to the property owners that the required demolition of the building shall be started within five (5) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to act on this notice will cause the City to proceed with the demolition of the building in accordance with Building Code Section 9919 and all costs incurred by the City, including processing and administrative costs, will be assessed against the property in accordance with Building Code Section 9927 and as permitted by the Government Code. Failure and/or refusal to comply with this order will make the property owner guilty of a misdemeanor and cause the City to pursue the property owner's prosecution for violation of the City's Building Code in accordance with Section 9932 and Municipal Code Section 17.01.080(b). You may request a hearing by the Santa Clarita City Council regarding the substandard conditions. Said request must be made in writing and in accordance with Building Code Section 9917. If you have any questions regarding this letter please call our office immediately at (805) 255-4952, 7:30-5:30 p.m. Sincerely, Lynn M. Harris Deputy City Manager Co ty Develo t Ruben M. Barrera Building Official bldg\IL09.h.r b cc: George Caravalho, City Manager Lynn Harris, Deputy City Manager, Community Development Steve Kerekes, Owner's Counsel/Representative Joanne Manley, District Attorney Carl Newton, City Attorney John Robinson, Building Inspector Norm Sieger, Code, Enforcement Officer i® v i , Attachment "D" LAW OFFICES OF KEREKES & RIVAS. STEVEN W KEPEKES 6310 SAN V CdNTE 40 Lj-V�'ii,D ; •%� I4CSI..LE SANDRA RwaS - `I 1213) 93a-1928 SUITE`. 505 LOS ANGELES,. CALIFORNIA 90046. TELEPHONE 12I U 931-1103 March 20, 1995 Donna Grindey SENT VIA FAX TO: City Clerk (805) 259-8125 City of Santa Clarita AND BY UPS/ 23920.Valencia Boulevard Suite 301 OVERNIGHT MAIL Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 re: Appeal of Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board Decision Dear Ms. Grindey: This firm represents the owners of 18409 Sierra Highway, Santa Clarita, California also known as the "Dillenbeck's Market": Simon and Leslee Feirstein and Bryan and Jeanne Stafford. On March 7, 1995, the Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board, held a hearing on the notice and order issued to demolish the building on the above property. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.04.100, we request an appeal hearing before the Santa Clarita City Counsel. At this hearing, the owners and their representatives would like to appeal the following matters: 1) The building and property are not substandard and should not be ordered demolished; 2) The City has already accepted the responsibilityfor demolition of the building pursuant to written agreement; 3) That the City has made demolition of the building substantially more difficult and expensive by entering the building and disturbing the asbestos in the ceiling in the building. Enclosed is a check for the fee of $465.00. Donna Grindey City Clerk City of Santa Clarita March 20, 1995 Page 2 Concerning point 2, the City has taken the position that the discovery of asbestos in the building excuses the City's performance under the August 19, 1994 Agreement. It is my clients' position that while the asbestos may make the demolition and removal more expensive, it does not make the City's performance impossible. Unforeseen difficulty or expense does not excuse a party's performance. See Kennedy vs. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App.2d 717, 37 Cal. Rptr. 708. See also Witkin, 1 Summary of California Law (9th Ed., 1987), Contracts, §774, pps. 699-701. Moreover, if my clients were to remove the asbestos, at their own expense, the City would not even be able to assert this excuse and their failure to demolish and remove the building on the property would clearly be a breach of contract. Concerning point 3, the asbestos in the ceiling of the building was intact until the Fire Department, by the City's own admission, cut large vents in the roof so that the Fire Department's "planned fire" could breath. However, these vents also disturbed the asbestos in the ceilings, and some of it is now exposed or lying on the floor of the building, and will increase the costs of remediation. It is clearly unfair and inappropriate to require the owners of the property to clean-up the problem caused by the City. Incidently, the Fire Department entered the property and made the vents pursuant to rights it obtained in the August 19, 1994 Agreement. Since the City has already acted upon the Agreement, and the owners have relied on it to their detriment in allowing the Fire Department to enter the property and disturb the asbestos, the City is estopped at this late date from asserting that the contract.is excused and of no force or effect. The relief sought by the owners of the property is as follows: 1. For a revocation of the order of demolition and findings that the building is substandard, or, in the alternative, 2. For the City to honor its prior agreement with the owners of the property. If the City agrees to demolish and remove the building, as it previously agreed to do, the owners will absorb the costs of removing the asbestos, including the increased cost of removal due to the City's negligence in disturbing the asbestos in the ceiling. Donna Grindey City Clerk City of Santa Clarita March 20, 1995 Page 3 Please ;let me know the time, date and place of the appeal hearing when it is scheduled. Very truly yours, Ker 4s & Rivas Steven W. Ker es cc: Simon and Leslee Feirstein Bryan and Jeanne Stafford RESOLUTION NO. R95-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE BUILDING REHABILITATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AFTER HEARING AND CONFIRMING THE DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT THE BUILDING AND PREMISES LOCATED AT 18409 SIERRA HIGHWAY, SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE SANTA CLARITA BUILDING CODE AND CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING DEMOLITION OF THE DILLENBECK MARKET WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION. I. THE BUILDING REHABILITATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY FIND AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: A. The improvements located on, and that certain: real property commonly known as 18409 Sierra Highway, City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles (hereinafter, the building and the real property are collectively referred to as the "Premises") are in violation of § 203(a) of the Santa Clarita Building Code (hereinafter, all references to the "Code" herein will be to the Santa Clarita Building Code unless otherwise noted) in that said building is (1) structurally unsafe and not provided with adequate egress, (2) constitutes a fire hazard, (3) is dangerous to human life, (3) constitutes a hazard to public safety and welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, damage and abandonment and is an unsafe building, and is, therefore, a public nuisance. B. The Premises are in violation of § 9904(h), (k), and (n) of the Code in that there exists thereon (1) hazardous and unsanitary conditions in an unsafe building as defined by § 203 of the Code, (2) said building is abandoned and is inadequately secured against ingress and has been open and vandalized, (3) there is on the Premises an accumulation of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage and similar materials or conditions which constitute a fire, health and safety hazard. C. The Premises are in violation of § 9905(b), (c), (d), (e), (n), (o), (p) and (q) of the Code in that the building located thereon (1) is unpainted, has dryrot and broken windows, (2) there are dead trees, weeds and debris constituting an unsightly appearance located thereon, (3) the Premises are in 04f RE52012.951 RESOLUTION NO. R95-01 such condition as to be detrimental to public health, safety, (4) maintenance of the Premises is in such a manner that the Premises constitute a public nuisance under California Civil Code § 3480, (5) the Premises, including but not limited to building exteriors, are maintained in such a condition as to be unsightly, defective and in such a state of deterioration and disrepair that the same causes appreciable diminution in the property values of surrounding property and is materially detrimental to proximal properties and improvements, (6) maintenance of the Premises is out of harmony and conformity with the maintenance standards of adjacent properties and causes substantial diminution in the enjoyment and use of adjacent properties, (7) maintenance of the Premises is in violation of the rights of others so as to establish a prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments and social and economic maladjustments to such an extent that the capacity of the owner of the Premises to pay taxes is reduced and the capacity of adjacent properties to pay taxes may be reduced. D. The Premises are, by reason of the conditions set forth above in Section A through C, a public nuisance as defined in Section 17.01.080(c) of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. E. Notice of Substandard Building and Property and City's Order to Demolish Building was given to the owners of the Premises, Simon Feirstein and Bryan Stafford (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the "Owners") by Ruben M. Barrera, Building Official for the City of Santa Clarita (the "Official"), pursuant to Santa Clarita Building Code §§ 9910, 9911 and 9912, with respect to the Premises by the City, by certified mail (No. P 240 487 027) , postage prepaid on February 8, 1995, a true and exact copy of which is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference, marked as Attachment "B" (hereinafter, the "Notice"). F. The Owners have requested a hearing pursuant to Code § 9917. G. A hearing was held pursuant to the written request of the Owners and Code § 9917 on March 7, 1995, at 7:30 p.m. by the Building Rehabilitation and Appeals Board (the "Board") as required by §§ 206, 9906, 9907 and the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. 04:RE82012.951 - 2 RESOLUTION NO. R95-01 II. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BUILDING REHABILITATION AND APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: A. The determination of the Official as set forth in the Notice is reaffirmed. B. The Owners are ordered to proceed with demolition of the building located on the Premises in accordance with § 9919 of the Code and to correct all other violations on the Premises within fourteen (14) days of the effective date of this Resolution. C. Failure of the Owners to comply with the Notice within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Resolution shall result in a violation of the Code in accordance with § 9932 thereof and of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code § 17.01.080(b). D. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption by the Board. E. The Vice Chair of the Board shall execute this Resolution on behalf of the City and the Clerk of the Board shall attest to her signature and the adoption of this Resolution. Adopted this 7th day of March, '1995. (. Li a Townsley, Vice Chai 04iRE82012.961 - 3 - RESOLUTION NO. R95-01 CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. R95-01 was adopted by the Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board of the City of Santa Clarita at a special meeting of the Board held on March 7, 1995, upon the motion of Board Member Cherrington, second by Board Member Doughman, by the following vote of the Board: AYES: Vice Chair Townsley and Board Members Brathwaite, Cherrington and Doughman NOES: Board Members: None ABSTAIN: Board Members: None ABSENT: Board Member: Chair Pat Modugno A4�, '24 - Ruben M. Barrera, ClrV of the Board [SEAL] 04IR892012.951 - 4 City Of Santa Clarita -1920 .a,e,c,a 31vc Z^cre 5,. 1e 300 K5t 249.2189 C tv of Santa Clarlta Fax Canfoma 91355 8051 259-8125 TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: /iC�P DATE: 3 FAX NUMBER: FROM: PAGES (ZNCLUDZNG SMZTTAL SHEET) RENARRS: `�-= cc, 7`) sesseesassesssessssessssssasseessssessssssssssssssesesessss TRANSMITTED Br: Geri Miller -Davis, Deputy City Clerk PHONE: (805) 255-4390 DEPARTMENT: City Clerk Dwwtment CITY OF SANTA . CLARITA .23920 VALENCIA BLVD.. SUITE .300 w SANTA CLARITA 91355 -,(S,O.5) 259-2489 - H RECEIPT `CAS RECENED OF'. CRY & PHONE DRIVERS LICENSE NW' M PUNDCCT. NO. '* *"%�'''". fOR '"'� x�,. ?`T6TAL'NAOUNT:,`�.: yt 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I Q CASH CHECK -NO. ? • �' nm � n � reeve CASH RECEIPT No. 64970 �RECEIVED BY DEPARTMENT COPY CSC 006 CITY GF `,1 (R 0L.',; ITA LAW OFFICES IF KEREKES & RIVAS STEVEN w KEREKES 5310 SAN 11d1j 1 4.L[ LP1�Tjio }{li J� FACSIMILE SANDRA RIVAS. Ii^' �' 1213) 934-1926 SVITE SOS LOS. ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90046 TELEPHONE 12131 931-1103 March 20, 1995 Donna Grindey SENT VIA FAX TO: City Clerk (805) 259-8125 City of Santa Clarita AND BY UPS/ 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 301 OVERNIGHT MAIL Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 re: Appeal of Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board Decision Dear Ms. Grindey: This firm represents the owners of 18409 Sierra Highway, Santa Clarita, California also known as the "Dillenbeck's Market": Simon and Leslee Feirstein and Bryan and Jeanne Stafford. On March 7, 1995, the Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board held a hearing on the notice and order issued to demolish the building on the above property. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.04.100, we request an appeal hearing before the Santa Clarita City Counsel. At this hearing, the owners and their representatives would like to appeal the following matters: 1) The building and property are not substandard and should not be ordered demolished; 2) The City has already accepted the responsibility for demolition of the building pursuant to written agreement; 3) That the City has made demolition of the building substantially more difficult and expensive by entering the building and disturbing the asbestos in the ceiling in the building. Enclosed is a check for the fee of $465.00. Donna Grindey City Clerk' City of Santa Clarita March '20, 1995 Page 2 Concerning point 2, the City has taken the position that the discovery of asbestos in the building excuses the City's performance under the August 19, 1994 Agreement. It is my clients' position that while the asbestos may :make the demolition and removal more expensive, it does not make the City's performance impossible. Unforeseen difficulty or expense does not excuse a party's performance. See Kennedy vs. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App.2d 717, 37 Cal. Rptr. 708. See also Witkin, 1 Summary of California Law (9th Ed., 1987), Contracts, §774, pps. 699-701. Moreover, if my clients were to remove the asbestos, at their own expense, the City would not even be able to assert this excuse and their failure to demolish and remove the building on the property would clearly be a breach of contract. Concerning point 3, the asbestos in the ceiling of the building was intact until the Fire Department, by the City's own admission, cut large vents in the roof so that the Fire Department's "planned fire" could breath. However, these vents also disturbed the asbestos in the ceilings, and some of it is now exposed or lying on the floor of the building, and will increase the costs of remediation. It ,is clearly unfair and inappropriate to require the owners of the property to clean-up the problem caused by the City. Incidently, the Fire Department entered the property and made the vents pursuant to rights it obtained in the August 19, 1994 Agreement. Since the City has already acted upon the Agreement, and the owners have relied on it to their detriment in allowing the Fire Department to enter the property and disturb the asbestos, the City is estopped at this late date from asserting that the contract is excused and of no force or effect. The relief sought by the owners of the property is as follows: 1. For a revocation of the order of demolition and findings that the building is substandard, or, in the alternative, 2. For the City to honor its prior agreement with the owners of the property. If the City agrees to demolish and remove the building, as it previously agreed to do, the owners will absorb the costs of removing the asbestos, including the increased cost of removal due to the City's negligence in disturbing the asbestos in the ceiling. Donna Grindey City Clerk City of Santa Clarita March 20, 1995 Page 3 Please let me know the time, date and place of the appeal hearing when it is scheduled. Very truly yours, Ker s & Rivas Steven W. Ker es cc: Simon and Leslee Feirstein Bryan and Jeanne Stafford City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita California 91355-2196 March 28, 1995 Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax (805) 259-8125 The Public Hearing for your appeal will be heard by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita on April 11, 1995, at or after 6:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, CA. If you have any questions, please contact my office at (805) 255-4390. Sincerely, onna M. Grindey, CMC City Clerk correa.dilappeal/gmd/DMG PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Law Offices of Kerekes & Rivas 6310 San Vicente Blvd., Ste. 505 Jo Anne Darcy Los Angeles, CA 90048 Mayor Attn: Steven W. Kerekes t Carl Boyer Mayor Pro -Tem a George Pederson r Dear Mr. Kerekes: Councilmember Jan Councilm ember We are in receipt of your request and check to appeal the decision of the Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board from the meeting of March 7, Hamilton C. Smyth 1995. Please find enclosed Receipt No. 64970 for the appeal fee. Councrlmember The Public Hearing for your appeal will be heard by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita on April 11, 1995, at or after 6:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, CA. If you have any questions, please contact my office at (805) 255-4390. Sincerely, onna M. Grindey, CMC City Clerk correa.dilappeal/gmd/DMG PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: R ben M. ` ra PUBLIC HEARING DATE: April 11, 1995 SUBJECT: WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BUILDING REHABILITATION APPEALS BOARD'S FINDINGS THAT THE BUILDING AT 18409 SIERRA HIGHWAY, ALSO KNOWN AS "DILLENBECK'S MARKET" IS SUBSTANDARD AND UNSAFE. DEPARTMENT: Community Development Agenda Item No.I on the April 11, 1995 council meeting is for a public hearing of a request by the owners of Dillenbeck's Market for appealing the City's Order to Demolish said building in accordance with the Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board's findings. Said building was found to be unsafe and substandard as determined by the City's Building Official and as set forth in Resolution RB95-01, adopted by the Planning Commission while acting as the Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board on March 7, 1995. The request for this appeal and public hearing has been subsequently withdrawn by the property owners on April 10, 1995 (see attachment "A"). The property owners have completed contract negotiations for asbestos removal, demolition, and cleanup of the subject property, and expect to complete the building demolition by April 25, 1995, as ordered by the City, at the owner's expense (see attachment `B"). An administrative extension has been granted by the City's Building Official until this date (April 25, 1995), as permitted by the City's code.. The City's Building and Safety Division will issue all necessary demolition permits and monitor progress on the work to ensure that it is done in a timely manner. The demolition work is not expected to include removal and/or abandonment .of any subterranean septic tanks or systems, or removal of the foundation system unless specifically desired by the property owners. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council acknowledge withdrawal of the appeal, open and close the hearing without taking testimony and deny the appeal. RMB:ry.tt / cwnci0vdilln2.emb %TC'!EN W. XERENE2 nayoaa n.v.tiE April, 1995 " LAW OFRICC5 OF, KEREKEB. & RIVAS 4310 TAN V.vwNTE COU6RVARO SUITE'CG LOS ANGELCS. CALIIORNIA %QO4e fKLKpNANE (112; CSI -;103 Department of Building 6 safety Attn: Ruben Barrera city of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia BOulavard Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 Doar Kr. Barrera: •ACSIM14% (0131 O�4.1'rn{ SENT VIA FAX TD: (005) 254-3538 Pursuant to your request for certain items as a coaditlan for the administrative extension of time to conduct the aabestor removal and demolition, enclosed please find a dopy of the contract executed by 111Y clients, as wall as a Copy Of the letter I sent Donna withdr awn. I trust that about an our athi.s atimfiteethtbe e ae diticneforing that thel the administrative exte::gion. Lot me know if there is any problem. Very truly yours, Korakos & Rivas S van w ii .s �- Cc: SiMOn and Lesley Fairstein Bryan and Jeanne Stafford ZO'c STC ON 80:b1 S6'01'-Idy $4Zz-X45-SiZ:l31 SQNn1 SS3NISng t4 T-/-,4(tyA4 9}tV[N N. ntp[nrg f�aNnRA NAVA L.. April io, 1095 4AW OrrrCL>l or . KEPr-kEs & RiVA.3 41310 SAN ViN CN1[ Y9VLtVARo ■U.I. ." 1.09 AN©[LC9, CAL.co Rrylw VQO9a T[LtRNONt Itlal gal -1103 Donna Grindey City Clerk City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard suite 301 Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 e , Dear Ms. Grindays PAC411MlLC calal ear. ns41 SENT VIA PAX Tpi (805) 259-8125 ll of 18449$sierrarHighway,�rsanta noticethatm Orniantalsohe owners the eannahbta Market", Simon and Lealee Fairstein and Bryan and ,7eanna Stafford, hereby withdraw their appeal of the Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board Decision, tly Get For which is curren hearing on April 11, 1995 at 6:30 p.m, We also reurrAn thn return of the appeal tea in the amount of $465We Thank -you for your. assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, Kerekes & Rivas even W. ere go 5 CC: Ruben Barrera Simon and Leslea Felrstein Bryan and 34anne Stafrord £0'd STO'ON 60:VT S6`0T .add 8£ZZ-L£5-ETZ;731 SQNnJ SS3NIS(1H �L'�L iY EXE_U p y7 qq r1aA'i h1r�s7liY..r .rareypwo r' 7145AT,9E "pIAiTYtiMv©OR�Z�CJ ©".464N 11!14 VIA LAWA VALIN Yx xoxtwo) is,%.)*M M8friAS Ar51exr A41La1No INIPWTION1Mur (M) i!!at{ "Al CUT]Into TRAINING Dow� 611403 a9 3R+� "AAl�AG1l VM7 FOAALN AEIkAA,11 77: MIk R1�!!d Itt'M 0404! KPANIMM1M0!4 ISMIN ffmm H. Ai+ar 1 A , LWA ANA, CA, Al701 ��'� CA. AUlf MAR1CJeY? FVAWOM . XAX(i0 04,0137 WS NEWT P148!!DA11 TO IMMIS ALS. MATO Alla PLUOM Air. Mlrt= CCrr$ MCZ MAU roLW y� MAT T%L,pC jYVN.AAj. LAM, A'P TM A**n l 71,A31VWM AS lUUA I I A 010800 L RMOVALOw "AAAI{ w bIATw"fi ......... a,» o . , ..„ ..n i DAVS 11IMI T4N11:AZ1i0N ANb Gf#TblAL DP 4ONfYl"RLIGiiO?! a19 a,w ... . 1.9VORliA7lu.Le9PMWRMLAINA=- RDA"WrM,MVt.ATDAvAg&NCA. 2 WAULMO MCI DIED MOV ALL ACOS WAgft TC AN AMOluxlsl! DTJAkp$ M 3. YA0VM9 ALL ATPlII'IPAIAT$ MOM01. MAN E A 14OTMCAMONS AM Arlt , p I. rROVWl APACA FOR wglct= A 6T'OWE COWrA11:1<RS, �. PKovmis sAa ptA,susm� a t1�'NO cvsa3�sv�aa s, av>A rlvplr 144A11,l NMON OF PROM rc K"m Do ural+ caxmmcm o8 r�cuncr ,.. �- - -- ,7 �;�.4 4' a era DU'd STO'ON 6U:CT S6`OT add SQNAJ SS3NISfIH 9i!�didi141M'ht�'17?bd'fk?wk4dMY!'�kY9�dl+ipttlN!h4��fIWM�a*w�cs+raaaa•w.w.u«k4.•�.�+.w.«.aa:<t.x,.«.,«... ,....,._.. .. wi: i1 ,� o��t rpm Ftta_rr F''iii 7146 IsTolla 07 na�4aHM ta6S '✓TR I pppt4 vu t.AU1 om,AsilRTofl ARM�A1iMT FROR?ICiA, CA -to BUILDING INIPMONR PAX N1 RRR MMS) I R•A, CIITIR SO TNAININO 1 RAV AMv AMV owco y. DAM, vm*mYOU, vio= YOU �fl',� glrt'�N OS:lii 'lE`Oi a�H 4f 71 —; SE—C ir.: ��I SRNfI� S59NiS(1F 0 AJL .. THE LAW OFFICES OF KEREKES & RIVAS 1788 OPE(213)M ACCOUNT 1 931-1103 8310 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. #506 LOS ANGELES. CA 90048 20(7) PAY JOvl 19 TOE ORDER OF WILSHIRE - SAN VICENTE OFFICE -DOLLARS VJFJ.J,S FARGO SANK 41600 WILSHIRE 60ULEVAAQ LOS ANGELES. CA gWa rFOR-'ArM&AI!j!jj�� bloo e7681" 1:1220002471:0625 0195340l