Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Case topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate continues Sandoval code-enforcement case to Dec. 18; city seeks formal finding on two violations
Summary
The Sandoval property case (24-1101) was continued to Dec. 18. The city dismissed two counts, said one count is in compliance, and asked the magistrate for findings on two remaining violations. The owner representative said permits have been issued and renovations are underway.
The magistrate continued the Sandoval code-enforcement case (24-1101) to Dec. 18 and instructed the owner or an attorney to appear in person. The city noted it would dismiss counts 3 and 4, said count 5 is in compliance, and requested a finding and timeline to resolve counts 1 and 2.
Why it matters: The city emphasized it wants a concrete timeline to ensure the outstanding violations are resolved and to preserve enforcement options if the property reverts to noncompliance. City staff told the magistrate the response in this matter had been properly noticed and recommended a finding to clarify the outstanding issues.
What happened: Owen Trepanier, the property owner’s representative, told the hearing that permits had been issued and that renovations were underway, adding the work “can be done in 20 days, approximately.” The city—represented in the hearing—said it planned to present evidence on counts 1 and 2 and sought a definitive resolution rather than additional informal delays. The magistrate said, “I’m gonna continue it to the mid December date,” and set the next hearing for Dec. 18, warning that he would not extend the matter beyond that date.
Context and next step: The hearing record shows counts 3 and 4 were dismissed by agreement and count 5 was recorded as in compliance; counts 1 and 2 remain active and will be the subject of the Dec. 18 hearing. The magistrate instructed staff to notify the parties and emphasized the need for the owner to appear in person; if the owner does not appear, the magistrate said he could proceed in absentia and that the parties may risk being found in default.
Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the hearing record and include the magistrate, Owen Trepanier (representative for the property owner), and city staff who presented the case.
