County Internal Memos

STN
STRAIGHT TALK NEWS

County of Santa Cruz documents are available to citizens through the Freedom of Information and Public Information Act and as public property. The County check register for each bank account is available for the public to audit, as well. County staff who know the difference between right and wrong and what is going on, please continue to send Internal documents that have been hidden from the public and should be made available to them. Thank you.

November 20, 2010- One of our investigators has uncovered the secret internal code enforcement violation and penalty fee chart that has not been authorized by the Board of Supervisors yet has and is being used against property owners without their knowledge or input. See the unofficial illegal chart being used.

Also, a multiplier sheet is used to increase the fees. Why would a multiplier sheet be in existence? Still, property owners are not allowed a legal housing and building appeals board for relief from the bulldozing illegal county initimidation scheme.

April 12, 2010 - Internal Email between David Lee, at the time assistant planning director, and Jennifer Hutchinson, uncertified building official/inspector at the time, and Glenda Hill, protest hearing staffer who denied due process to property owners. Read this email where it is stated by Hutchinson she believes the Building Appeals Board is just for fire issues - wrong. Read this email where Lee states, "Either ignorance or willful disregard of the law, not sure which is at play." In the STN investigations it is both in play, David Lee. Glad you left with your amigos, Deming and uncertified and ignorant of the law, Burns. Read the email dated April 16-13, 2007.

June 16, 2009- Internal Email David Lee Sends to Almquist and Mauriello to restructure county for their advantage. Shows his insufficient background as well. Read more.

January 29, 2009 - New documents have been received from County storage archives that reveal decades of cover-up of the Building and Housing appeals boards. Each new Supervisor continued to rollover the cover-up of Appealgate since 1976. These documents will be posted to assist law firms that are representing property owners, who have lost collectively up to perhaps a half billion dollars, in Santa Cruz County's extortion fraud scheme with criminal intentions from the top to the bottom, in our opinion. Our intensive investigations will preserve documents that are not allowed by law to be destroyed for 100 years and some have been. We do recognize there are a few honest and good employees at the County. Please continue to stand-up for integrity and better treatment for yourselves. The dictatorship practices will come to an end.

HEARING OFFICERS NOT GIVEN AUTHORITY TO REDUCE FEES & COSTS

August 16, 2008 - A January 2008, communication to Kevin Fitzpatrick, one of the harshest enforcers of red tags (even though red tags are now proven to be not within county jurisdiction or authority), has been uncovered addressing whether the Code Compliance hearing officer has any authority to reduce, mitigate or otherwise modify code enforcement costs. When a property is served a red tag they are directed to a county government employee hearing officer that is not an independent separation of power appeal board. Rarely does a property owner find relief with this self-contained judge and jury by the county system that is not democratic. The county code section 1.12.070 does NOT provide the hearing officer with the authority to reduce enforcement or abatement costs. The citizens of Santa Cruz County cannot receive relief or due process in the maze of ordinances and codes that conflict with State and Federal higher laws and codes, and cannot have a fair hearing from a code compliance staff person, or reduction of fees and costs. Since 1956 citizens have not been disclosed of State required appeals boards. It is time that this is corrected and those inflicting such harm for decades be penalized themselves and forced to resign immediately and the Supervisors continuing this charade be recalled.

ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR, DAVID LEE, INTERNAL EMAILS EXPOSE APPEAL BOARD COVER-UP.
July 29 - August 11, 2008 - David Lee emails reveal Appealgate. "Higher and higher profile" must mean the hard work of devoted speeches, letters, emails, research and investigation of Alliance for Change advocates for property rights and civil rights for all Santa Cruzans. In Lee's own words, "We're bringing another out of hibernation - " . . . . The David Lee emails combined with Jennifer Hutchinson and Tom Burns email of November 3, 2004, below, show they were aware of what they were doing all along . . . obstructing due process for property owners, don't you agree?
(Takes a couple of minutes for this document to open up.)

INTERNAL MEMORANDUM BETWEEN NANCY McCOLLUM, DAVE LAUGHLIN AND KEN HART. THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF GOV CODE 27383 OR STATE LAWS THAT THEY CANNOT RECORD REDTAGS TO TITLE OR CHARGE FEES TO PROPERTY OWNERS
September 23, 2005 - Government Code section 27383 which reads:
"No fee shall be charged by the recorder for services
rendered to the State, to any municipality, county in the State or
other political subdivision thereof, except for making a copy of a
paper or record." Read this long internal memo between uncertified and untrained staff of Santa Cruz County under uncertified and untrained Tom Burns, Director.

BOARD OF APPEALS REQUEST EMAIL BETWEEN HUTCHINSON AND BURNS PROVES AWARENESS BUT NOT EXPERIENCE OR EXISTENCE

November 3, 2004 - When you read this memo, it looks like the county has no idea how a building appeals board is supposed to work or about its existence themselves. The email would prefer the Fire Chief give a final so the issue will go away. The State of California mandated again by January 1, 2002, open access to Building and Housing appeal boards, yes two boards, so citizens can resolve adverse and inferior determinations by the county. Take note the questioning if the Board of Supervisors has even appointed the seats and the need to ask permission to contact the Clerk of the Board for a list (Nov. 3, 2004). Only 2 or 3 citizens even know about the (hidden) appeal board requirements in 2004. Does Tom Burns require his approval on every employee action and contact with other employees? Read the email.

This email is hard to read as it was printed in blue ink. An exact retyping of the wording was made. Read exact copy with an added "comment about the implications".

Here is the 1999 Annual Report for the Building Appeals Board approved by the Board of Supervisors just to show how long they have been hidden from the public - oops - there are earlier awareness dates:
Here is a February 3, 1998 Board of Supervisors appointment of Angelee Dion to the Building and Fire Code Appeals Board (BFCAB). Jan Beautz and Tony Campos are supervisors during this time and to date!
Here is a letter from David Smith, Contractor, Alliance for Change activist and Supervisor seat challenger, dated January 27, 2004, objecting to the Supervisors fraudulent 2003 Building Board of Appeals Commission Annual Report. We have yet to find a report of any meetings held or citizen appeals heard. When did the BFCAB first form on paper only? Our investigation uncovers an April 20, 1976, Ordinance (page one, page two, page three - download time three minutes each) as the establishment date and established not according to State requirements that appeals can be made for ANY reason.

GRADING OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD AND MISUSED AGAINST CITIZENS
July 16, 2003 - Clarification of Definition of "Height (or Depth)" of Cut (or Excavation)
The definition and illustration is lacking and cannot be relied upon. Therefore, property owners cannot be violating and red tags are invalid. Red tags are invalid for grading anyway as the State preemptive laws in the Uniform Building Code do not give authorization for such form of penalty.

Also see grading exclusions. Read more.

Comment from County insider:
"Not to mention the fact the county never bothered to get their grading ordinance approved by the state. So it is void since the beginning. This gets interesting when the county says they have their own appeal procedures for grading rather those within the uniform building code. What does an appeal board do when someone appeals a violation of a void ordinance?"

Note that riparian areas are the jurisdiction of Fish & Game, Coastal Commission and other entities, not the County Planning Dept.

Disclaimer

Main Navigation