My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
02
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2017
>
071817
>
02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2017 3:26:29 PM
Creation date
7/12/2017 8:31:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
7/18/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
BACKGROUND <br /> From 2009 to 2012, the City inspected the property at 4719 Orangewood Court and <br /> discovered various Pleasanton Municipal Code and state law violations. Administrative <br /> citations were issued, but the property owners failed to comply or pay the fines. <br /> Due to the continued substandard condition of the property, the City, on August 3, 2012, <br /> filed a petition for appointment of receiver in the Superior Court of California, County of <br /> Alameda (City of Pleasanton v. Spitzer, Case Number RG12642206). After a hearing <br /> on September 12, 2012, the Court found that the property was substandard and a public <br /> nuisance and maintained in a manner that violated the state building standards, <br /> including the Health and Safety Code and the Pleasanton Municipal Code. The Court <br /> further found that the violations were extensive and of such a nature that the health and <br /> safety of any occupant of the property, the neighboring residents, and the general public <br /> was substantially endangered. The Court also held that the City properly issued the <br /> property owners a notice to repair and abatement order and the property owners failed <br /> to comply with the notice and abatement order. The Court further held that the <br /> property's substandard conditions were likely to persist unless the Court appointed a <br /> receiver to take possession of the property and rehabilitate it and the property owners <br /> were given notice of the City's intent to file a petition for a receiver's appointment. <br /> The Court's orders included the reimbursement to the City for its enforcement costs, <br /> including but not limited to inspection costs, investigation costs, and attorney fees and <br /> costs in the receivership action. <br /> The City's outstanding fees and costs which can be specially assessed, as of June 27, <br /> 2017, total $141,231.39, and include: <br /> Senior Code Enforcement Officer, Walter Wickboldt: $8,250.58 <br /> Hazardous Materials Inspector: Isaac Mendel: $620.28 <br /> Assistant City Attorney, Julie Harryman: $11,137.50 <br /> Assistant City Attorney, Renee Peko: $11,781.00 <br /> Outside Counsel, Trisha Aljoe - $71,892.60. <br /> Outside Counsel, Dawn Ceizler $35,820 <br /> Litigation Costs: $1,324.43 <br /> Process Service Costs: $405.00 <br /> At an upcoming State Court hearing, currently scheduled for August 15, 2017, the Court <br /> will hear the City's motion for a judgment to be imposed as a special assessment in <br /> accordance with the City Council's actions on July 18, 2017, if any. <br /> Staff recommends that the City Council impose a special assessment in the amount up <br /> to $141,231.39 to recover the City's attorney fees, investigation costs, prosecution <br /> costs, and enforcement costs. <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.