Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-2016 Item 07 Appeal of Construction Board of Appeals decision to deny Property Owners appeal of amended notice of violation at 1236 Fredericks - Walker Meeting Date: 4/5/2016 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Anne Schneider, PE, Chief Building Official SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION TO DENY PROPERTY OWNER’S APPEAL OF AN AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION (ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PERMIT AND OTHER VIOLATIONS) AT 1269 FREDERICKS RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of S an Luis Obispo, California denying an appeal of the Construction Board of Appeals’ decision to deny an appeal filed by the property owner of an amended Notice of Violation for construction without a permit and other violations”. SITE DATA REPORT-IN-BRIEF In October 2013, City staff received a complaint regarding substandard housing conditions at 1269 Fredericks St., San Luis Obispo. On May 14, 2014 an inspection of the property was conducted - pursuant to an inspection warrant issued by the court - by the Chief Building Official and Code Enforcement staff. Code violations were documented and the property owner received a Notice of Violation (NOV) for construction without permits, structural hazards, plumbing and electrical hazards and inadequate sanitation. The NOV was appealed by the Property owners of Appellant Steven and Kathie Walker, Residents Zoning R-2 Appeal Submittal Ferurary 8, 2016 General Plan Medium Density Residential Site Area ~7,500 Square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Section 15321(a)(2) adoption of an administrative decision. 7 Packet Pg. 18 the subject property to the Community Development Director who denied the appeal and upheld the NOV. The property owners then appealed the Director’s decision to the Construction Board of Appeals (CBOA) and after amending the NOV, the appeal was denied. Specifically in the CBOA’s ruling, the Board did find that the second unit on the property was a legal non - conforming use and the original NOV was modified to delete this reference.1 In addition, the Board determined that the property was not in violation of Uniform Housing Code section 1001.2.13, general dilapidation or improper maintenance, and the NOV was also modified to delete this reference. The CBOA’s decision is being appealed by the property owners to the City Council in conformance with the appeals provisions that were in effect at the time the NOV was issued. The City Council’s review of the NOV per this appeal is de novo, which means that all issues within the scope of the original NOV are subject to review and determination by the Council and the Council is not obligated to afford any presumption of correctness to the underlying decisions of either the Community Development Director or the CBOA. It should be noted that future appeals will be processed under the City’s recently amended procedures per Chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code, under which an NOV would not be appealable unless and until final action was taken and an administrative citation was issued. The appeal submitted by the property owners acknowledges that construction work was done without permits. However, the appellants ask that the City take no action to require the appellants to correct any of the existing violations until a new owner takes possession of the property at some point in the future pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17959.4, discussed below. Also for reasons discussed below, Staff does not support this request. If the City Council denies the appeal as recommended, it is staff’s intention to work with the property owners to develop a mutually acceptable Abatement Agreement to address the code violations noted in the NOV. On many prior occasions, staff has attempted to negotiate an Abatement Agreement with the property owners, but attempts have not succeeded because of differences in opinion between the City and property owners regarding the scope and legality of the unpermitted work. Staff anticipates that if an Abatement Agreement can be reached, the compliance schedule could take well over a year to complete, with the immediate focus on violations that pose the most danger to the occupants and surrounding community - for example, the unpermitted electrical work in both the main house and second unit. DISCUSSION 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Site Information/Setting The subject property is located at 1269 Fredericks Street in San Luis Obispo. The immediate neighborhood consists of duplexes, apartments, and single family homes. According to the San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office, the two bedroom residence was originally constructed on the property in 1930. Site Size ~7,500 1 As discussed further in this report, the CBOA errored in this analysis. From a land use standpoint, t he use of the second unit as a residential unit is permitted and the use conforms with the allowed uses within this zone. The conversion of the second unit from non-habitable to habitable space without permits however, was unlawful. 7 Packet Pg. 19 Present Use & Development Single-family residence Access Fredericks Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-2 (Single-family residences) South: R-2 (Multi-family residences) East: R-2 (Single-family residences) West: R-2 (Single-family residences) 1.2 Code Case Timeline The City received a complaint regarding the subject property in October, 2013. Following inspection, the property owners received an NOV and they appealed the notice to the Community Development Director and the CBOA. A chronological summary of the actions prior to the CBOA hearing are included in the Council Reading File. On January 28, 2016, the CBOA heard the property owners’ appeal. The City provided a presentation of 30 minutes to the Board. The property owners provided a presentation that extended over one hour, which included both written materials and a detailed PowerPoint presentation. The Board deliberated for over an hour, including several questions to staff and comments from the property owners and their attorney before reaching their decision. The Board went through the NOV line by line and provided specific direction to staff for alterations to be made to the February 23, 2015 NOV. The Board provided specific language for the Resolution (Attachment A) denying the appeal and upholding the NOV as amended (Attachment B). On February 8, 2016, an appeal to the City Council was filed by the Property owners (Attachment C). 2.0 APPEAL 2.1 Original Construction and Subsequent Permit History The subject property contains two buildings and a shed. The first building is a single family home, built in about 1930. Original building permit records are not on record from that time period for this property because the property was not within the city limits at the time of construction. A second structure on the property was identified in 1995 by the County Assessor’s records as a “storage and a garage” area (Attachment D). At the time of the inspections in 2014, the entire storage and garage building had been converted (without permits) into a four room (bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living room) second dwelling unit. The only recorded construction permits obtained for the entire property include minor work in 1964 to add a small carport, laundry plumbing fixtures, and an electrical permit and a permit in 1982 for a solar water heater (Attachment E). No other permits have been obtained for any construction at the site. 2.2 Code Violations Single Family Residence: 1. Unpermitted Construction a. Plan and permits required for relocation of kitchen. (Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing)* 7 Packet Pg. 20 b. Plans and permits required for converting former kitchen into living room. (Building, Electrical and Plumbing)* c. Plans and Permits required for installation of new water heater. (Mechanical and Plumbing) d. Plans and permits required for demolition and reconstruction of master bathroom (Building, Plumbing, and Electrical)* e. Permits required for new plumbing in second bathroom.* f. Plans and permits required for upgraded electrical and plumbing in laundry room 2. Substandard Conditions a. Lack of kitchen sink* b. Lack of smoke and/or carbon monoxide detectors 3. Unsafe Conditions a. Improper/Lack of Drainage and Improper Conveyance of Stormwater Second Dwelling Unit: 4. Unpermitted Construction: a. Plan and permits required for conversion of storage and garage to habitable space. (Building, Plumbing, Electrical and Mechanical) 5. Unsafe Conditions a. Heater exhaust vent less than 5 feet from the side property b. Electrical wiring extended from the front house is unsafe. The wiring is in conduit that rests on the ground in some locations and is unsecured. c. Gas piping to operate the appliances in the rear unit lies on the ground unsecured and unprotected. d. Lack of smoke or carbon monoxide detectors. * The property owner has acknowledged doing this work without permits. As discussed in detail below, significant modifications and alterations have been made to the property without permits. Some of these modifications have been acknowledged by the property owners in their appeal to the Council and in testimony in their 2013 bankruptcy proceeding, wherein they admit that, due to rats, mold, a leaking roof and other issues with their property, they demolished and remodeled many areas of their home without permits. In addition, based on the Assessor’s records for this property, it appears that other significant modifications and alterations were done by prior property owners without permits. For example, at some point after 1969 but before 1995, the former carport area was framed in and converted into a kitchen (now converted by the current property owners into a living area). The fact that current property owners did not make some unpermitted modifications or may not have known about certain modifications does not relieve the property owners from the responsibility to ensure that their property is in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and is maintained in a safe and habitable condition. The violations noted above are described in detail in Section 2.2.1 – 2.2.11 below (see Attachment F for full size photos). 2.2.1 Overall Floor Plan Modifications The property owners provided two floor plans in their appeal to the CBOA (Attachment G). The first floor plan details the home as it existed when they purchased the home in 2009, and 7 Packet Pg. 21 the second plan reflects the most recent configuration, which existed when the City conducted inspections in 2014. The red highlights on the 2009 floor plan indicate the areas of alterations that were acknowledged by the property owners as work done by them. The floor plans clearly show that, in addition to the remodeling work, walls have been removed and/or modified, all of which requires a permit. The 2009 floor plan shows the main entry door from Fredericks St. into a bedroom. This portion of the home is a raised wood floor. Staff believes the raised wood floor portion of the home is the original construction. The property owners have converted the room into a partial kitchen, lacking a kitchen sink. 2.2.2 Drainage Outside of the single family residence, there is evidence of improper drainage with a sloping driveway forcing water up against the building at the front. It appears that the driveway leading to the former carport was broken up in an attempt to reduce the amount of water pooling against the building (Photo 1). The improper drainage also appears to be the cause of collapsed floor supports under the main portion of the home (Photo 2). Visual inspection in 2014 noted that there was evidence of significant water flow under the building due to improper conveyance of stormwater and the lack of drainage that exists. Both of these issues are evidence of general dilapidation and improper maintenance of the property. 2.2.3 Kitchen Modifications/Deficiencies The new kitchen includes new gas piping to a stove and new kitchen cabinetry blocking the existing windows. A permit is required to abandon, relocate or alter a gas pipe. There is no exhaust hood above the stove, which is required by code. The construction of a kitchen requires compliance with electrical code provisions for locations and protection of electrical outlets, which were not found. There Photo 3 Photo 1 Photo 2 7 Packet Pg. 22 is also no kitchen sink. (Photo 3) Alterations to the existing water and sewage systems also require a permit. Proper installation of gas piping to prevent gas leaks and an explosion hazard, electrical wiring to prevent possible electrocution, correct water piping to prevent cross contamination and tested and approved installation of sewer piping to prevent sewage spills or potable water contamination are all necessary to protect public health. 2.2.4 Substandard Conditions The lack of a kitchen sink violates Health and Safety Code 17920.3 for a dwelling unit to be considered habitable. H&S Section 17920.3 states: Any building …including any dwelling unit,... in which there exists any (emphasis added) of the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or occupants…is declared to be a substandard building: (a) Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (3) Lack of, or improper kitchen sink. The only available sink in the home at the time of inspection in 2014 was in the bathroom adjacent to the second bedroom. No change in this condition has been documented in the two years since the City conducted its inspections. The dwelling unit did not have smoke or carbon monoxide detectors at the time of inspection, although the property owners have indicated that they have installed such devices since. City staff has not been permitted to confirm through subsequent inspection that smoke and carbon monoxide devices have been installed and, if so, installed per code. This issue is so critical to public safety that the legislature enacted separate regulations that require the retroactive installation of both smoke detectors (Health and Safety Section 13113.7) and carbon monoxide detectors (Health and Safety Section 17926). Battery operated smoke detectors are required to be installed in every bedroom, in the hall leading to a bedroom and on each floor level within a home. Battery operated carbon monoxide detectors are required to be installed in the hall leading to every bedroom and on each floor. 2.2.5 Interior Wall Construction and Demolition There is evidence of interior walls being removed, as shown on the Property owners’ floor plan and in photos in the area of the new kitchen (Photo 4). Demolition of a wall, whether a structural or non-structural wall, requires plan and a permit. 2.2.6 Water Heater Installations. In the hallway leading to the rear of the original home, there is a newer water heater. It appears the date of installation for the water heater as noted on the exterior of the water tank was 2006. Installation of new mechanical equipment requires a plumbing and mechanical permit to ensure that the equipment is located Photo 4 7 Packet Pg. 23 and installed safely. 2.2.7 New Living Room at Illegally Converted Carport To the left of the new kitchen in the other room facing Fredericks St. was the location of the kitchen when the property owners bought their home in 2009. The former kitchen area (new living room Photo 6) was identified by the Assessors’ office as a carport in 1965. This area was slab on grade construction and no permits are on file approving the conversion from a carport to habitable space. A new elevated floor was built in this living room, bringing it approximately level with the raised wood floor portion of the home. Photo 6 Photo 7 This change in finished floor height may have caused one of the untempered glass windows in the room (Photo 7) to be too close to the finished floor. While this may initially seem insignificant, the Building Code requires that windows less than 18 inches above the floor to be tempered glazing to protect against catastrophic injuries that can occur when a person falls against a window near the floor. Interior pictures show installation of new modern vinyl windows, removal of a door Photo 5 7 Packet Pg. 24 (converted to a window) and new gypsum board wall finishes, as well as the demolition of interior walls and the old kitchen, including utilities. All of the work depicted requires permits, which were not obtained. The unfinished gypsum board that has been installed is clearly evident in the pictures. It is unknown what changes were made to the electrical wiring, framing or other utilities concealed by the new wall finish, which should have been inspected for safety prior to covering the work. Exterior pictures show the former driveway to the carport that was demolished for drainage purposes and some of the abandoned plumbing piping on the exterior of the building. (Photo 7) The existence or condition of any abandoned gas piping serving the prior location of the kitchen stove is unknown. Verification of proper abandonment of gas lines is important for obvious safety reasons. Photo 8 The step down from the elevated living room into the adjacent bedroom/bathroom is unfinished, which presents a trip hazard, and constitutes work for which a permit is required and, again, was not obtained. (Photo 8) 2.2.8 Bedroom/Bathroom Addition From the elevated living room, there is a step down to the bedroom/bathroom addition. This addition appears to have been originally constructed originally in 1946, based on the Assessor’s records. The bedroom did not have any alterations at the time of inspection in 2014. Photo 9 Photo 10 7 Packet Pg. 25 Photo 11 P hoto 12 The property owners completely demolished the bathroom and installed new wall framing. (Photos 9 and 10). All of the work to demolish the old bathroom and return this bathroom to a functioning space requires permits for construction. Previously, the plumbing for this bathroom was partially enclosed in a dilapidated exterior enclosure. As shown in Photos 11 and 12, the exterior finish of the building as well as the framing for this enclosure is extremely dilapidated and shows a general lack of maintenance of the property. The enclosure was not weather tight and allowed water penetration into the space. In the enclosure, exposed to water intrusion, there is also modern Romex wiring (a type of wiring consisting of 2 or more insulated electrical wires grouped in a plastic sleeve for ease of installation). Romex wiring is not approved for exposure to weather and must be protected from water intrusion. This represents a hazard to the occupants and to emergency responders, and is a significant fire hazard. All electrical connections must be made in approved electric boxes. Spliced wires and “wire nuts” are not permitted except in an approved box. The condition of the space as shown has numerous violations, which present serious safety concerns. (Photo 11) Repairs to properly construct a weather tight enclosure to protect the electrical wiring requires a permit. The Property owners have stated that they have altered this area since 2014, but they have not obtained permits for any subsequent work and they have not documented the work or requested inspections by the City, despite the ongoing code enforcement proceedings. 2.2.9 Second Bedroom/Bath The last affected rooms in the main house are the second bedroom with an adjacent bath. The wall finish in this bedroom (Photo 13) was removed in large areas. The wall finish in the bathroom was also removed in a small area (Photo 14). It should be noted that one of the functions that wall finish provides is the protection of electrical wiring. With the advent of Romex wiring- electrical nonmetallic cable (NM-B), the use of metallic conduit to protect the individual electrical wires is no longer required. Previously, most electrical wiring was placed in rigid metallic conduit (pipe) to protect from accidental damage and electrocution. Romex cable allows for a flexible installation but requires an alternate means of protection - usually installation of gypsum board drywall. The lack of wall finish in the bedroom is an electrical hazard. Photo 1 7 Packet Pg. 26 Photo 13 Photo 14 The trap in the plumbing piping under the sink is new construction and does not properly vent to the exterior which is a violation of the Plumbing Code. (Photo 15) This allows toxic sewer gases to back up into the bathroom. A doorway into the previous front bedroom (new kitchen) was also closed in partially (Photo 16), which needs to be completed to protect the wiring as noted above. Photo 15 Photo 16 2.2.10 Laundry Room Adjacent to the second bedroom and accessed from the outside is the laundry room (Photo 17), which was constructed pursuant to the 1964 permits. The electrical wiring inside the laundry room has been changed since the original construction and currently is not properly protected from damage because the walls are not finished with drywall (Photo 18). Again, the sewer pipe ventilation in this area does not extend to the exterior as required by code and toxic sewer gases are vented into the laundry room (Photo 19). Permits are required to ensure proper installation. 7 Packet Pg. 27 Photo 19 2.2.11 Secondary Unit (Former Storage/Carport) No records exist of a permit issued by the City to convert the second building on the property into a second home. The contention by the property owners that the building has been a residence, continuously rented, since the 1930’s is based solely on the declaration of a neighbor, who has not been personally present for any proceeding and whose statement is not supported by independent evidence. No separate address has ever been issued for the unit, nor has a business license ever been obtained for the use of the unit as a permitted rental. Moreover, the statement that the unit has been a fully finished residence since the 1930's is directly contradicted by the official governmental records that are recorded related to the structure. More detailed discussion regarding the legality of the second unit is set forth in Section 5.0 below. Photo 17 Photo 18 7 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment H, Kitchen The 2009 floor plan (time of purchase) provided by the Property owners for the structure at the back of the property shows a four room single family home. The exterior finish materials of the building are modern cement board lap siding. (Photos of the Second Unit are included in Attachment H). Within the new unpermitted dwelling unit there are several modern appliances installed. In general, all building materials used in the unit, appliances installed, and finishes used are modern, clearly not from the 1930’s and are more typical of 1980’s and 1990’s construction. Regardless of the legal status of the secondary unit, there are other code violations that present significant safety concerns. The heating system installed in the unit has a vent through the side wall of the building. The exhaust vent is less than 5 feet from the side property. Exhaust from a heater may not discharge within 10 feet of a property line because of potential impacts to legal construction across the property line such as venting carbon monoxide into the neighbor’s building. Thus, the installation is improper and must be corrected in order to ensure the safety of the subject property and the adjacent neighbor’s property. The property owners suggest in their appeal that this improper installation can be legalized by ignoring the installation since the neighbors existing construction is several feet away from the property line. However, a property owner may not “legalize” the improper installation of a heater too close to the property line by restricting the use of their neighbors’ property. The vent termination must be completely within their property and at least ten feet from the property line to protect against discharging carbon monoxide into the neighbors building. Additionally, the water heater compartment is stuffed full of combustible paper and cardboard and is a fire hazard. The gas piping to operate the appliances in the rear unit has been run from the main house and lies on the ground, unsecured and unprotected which makes it subject to physical damage and corrosion. Similar to the gas lines to the secondary unit, the electrical wiring for the secondary unit has been extended from the front house and is unsafe. The wiring is in conduit that rests on the ground in some locations and is unsecured and subject to physical damage and corrosion. Electrical wiring may be secured above grade to a building or may be installed a minimum of 18 inches below grade in a trench. All of these improvements require permits and would not have been allowed in their current unsafe condition if the property owners had obtained permits and requested proper inspections. Finally, the second unit does not have any smoke detectors or a carbon monoxide detector. 7 Packet Pg. 29 Photo 20 Again, the Property owners’ state that they have installed such devices, however, the City has not been permitted to confirm that such devices are installed and, if so, installed per code. 2.2.12 Small Storage Shed There is a small storage shed on the property. It is partiall y constructed on the neighbor’s property. The building code does not require a construction permit for a structure under 120 square feet; however all zoning regulations apply even if a permit is not required. The storage shed must be relocated approximately 7 feet onto the Property owner’s property to comply with the zoning regulations. The adjacent property has an existing garage that is also close to the property line in the same location. There is a hazard created by the two buildings being less than 2 feet apart and a fire starting in one building would likely lead to both buildings being involved. The new shed needs to be relocated to minimize the risk it poses to the neighbor’s property. 2.2.13 Current Condition of Property The City requested permission to view the property prior to the Council hearing and to date, no consent has been given, nor have the property owners obtained any permits or provided the City with any documentation verifying resolution of any of the issues identified in the NOV. Staff did not pursue an inspection warrant to access the site prior to this hearing and has no information updating the condition of the property since the last consensual site visit in 2014. The Property owners have not provided any documentation of the current condition of the property but have instead used the 2014 pictures obtained by the city to show the condition of the home. No new information has been obtained by the City or provided by the Property owner. 2.3 Other Background, Assessor’s Records In reviewing the construction history for structures built before construction permits were required in the city (Pre-1932) or for structures built when the property was in the county, it is often necessary to rely on the County Assessor’s records to document the evolution of the property over time. It must be clear that the Assessor’s inspections of a property are for the purpose of documenting what they find and determining the value to be taxed. The records they develop do not document what was legally constructed or what work was performed with permits. They only record what was physically in existence at the time of the property inspection. For the subject property on Fredericks St, these records do include a significant amount of instructive information. The site was not annexed into the city until 1948, after the original home was constructed. The Assessor’s record begins in 1930 and so the main home existed before building permits were required by the City. So, the lack of permit records for construction of the original home is to be expected. Since that time, there have periodic 7 Packet Pg. 30 updates of the property record by the Assessor and those are dated and documented. In 1995, the Assessor created a new record sheet for the property. This is frequently done when the data blocks are all filled on the form and additional information must be recorded. The Assessor does not normally leave out of their records structures for which they collect taxes. A summary of the information provided on the Assessor’s record is provided below: a. 1930 – Main residence of 480 sq. ft., a porch of 20 sq. ft., a garage. b. 1946 – Garage converted to create a room 216 sq. ft. and a bedroom of 160 sq. ft. for a total of 876 sq. ft. This matches the approximate description of the property at the time of an appraisal of the home in 2013 of a two bedroom, one and one half bath, 975 sq. ft. home. c. 1965 – Carport and Porch 288 sq. ft. added d. 1995 – A significant change in the property is noted by the Assessor. Up until this point, only one building had been recorded by the Assessor. A garage/shop building at the rear of the property was added, specifically noting a sand floor in a portion of the building, unfinished in other areas, and a lattice carport near the rear alley. e. At a later date (post 1995), the record of the Assessor was altered by strikethrough- a normal practice to preserve the prior records- to show the garage/shop structure as a studio apartment with old lattice carport. Attachment I provides a line by line detail of what is on the Assessor’s record. 2.4 Bankruptcy Filing- Meeting of the Creditors In 2013, the appellants filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the Central District Court, Northern Division, Case Name: In re Steven Walker and Kathie Walker, Case No. 9:13-bk-10604. As part of those proceedings, the bankruptcy trustee and any creditors have an opportunity to review the assets and ask questions of the debtors. The hearings are open to the public and the audiotape is available for download from the court’s website at the following link: http://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/transcripts. Included in this report is a declaration from Andrew Mansfield (Attachment J). , attorney for one of appellants’ creditors, authenticating the audio file that is available in the Council Reading file In this case, specific questions were asked regarding the subject Property which are relevant to this appeal. Specifically, on (date?), appellants stated the following under penalty of perjury (emphasis added in bold font): Bankruptcy Trustee: “How did you determine the value of your home for purposes of your bankruptcy filing?” Kathie Walker: “Mr. Taos determined the value of our home.” 7 Packet Pg. 31 Bankruptcy Trustee: “How did Mr. Taos determine the value of your home?” Kathie Walker: “I think you have to ask him, I’m sorry. Um, our home is…We bought our home and um, when Steve was employed, and short…and we went about demolishing our home because it was a student rental for thirty or forty years. So we gutted the interior and then Steve, he is an airplane pilot and he was injured in an airplane accident with some spinal cord injuries and herniated discs and he was unemployed for two years going through physical therapy up at Stanford and various things. And so we lived in a home, we’re still live in a home, we have no kitchen, our only running water is in the bathroom. There are no doors between any of the bedrooms, it’s not insulated, it doesn’t have a floor and so you couldn’t get a loan on it currently.” Bankruptcy Trustee: “So basically you leveled and gutted it…” Steve Walker: “And then I had an accident and I was out of work…” Kathie Walker: “And he just started working again.” Bankruptcy Trustee: “And did you obtain a loan to do the remodel…?” Kathie Walker: “No, we have done it before to homes.” Bankruptcy Trustee: “And right now in the last few months no progress has been made to the home?” Steve Walker: “That’s correct.” Kathie Walker: “It’s actually…I don’t know what is going to happen…yeah we have mold issues and I was sick with a black mold infection in my lung because the roof was leaking and there is ivy growing into the home from the exterior.” (Audio: 5:50 – 7:20) *** Bankruptcy Trustee: “And are you currently renting out part of the Fredericks Street property?” Kathie Walker: “Yes.” Bankruptcy Trustee: “The part that is livable?” Kathie Walker: Yes there is a back…it’s like a little cottage, it’s not legal. But, there is someone living there. It’s a student yeah, she helps with our children.” 7 Packet Pg. 32 (Audio: 9:18 – 9:40) As the record reflects, for purposes of their bankruptcy filings, appellants asserted that the property was unfit to live in, that they “gutted the interior”, that they have “done it before to homes” and that they were aware the second unit was illegal and that they had someone living there. 3 EVALUATIONS OF APPEAL The relief sought in the property owner’s appeal is a waiver or deferral of compliance to the amended NOV as adopted by Resolution of the CBOA. Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3: In the appeal, the Property owners cite Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3. That section states, in part: 17920.3. Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit, guestroom or suite of rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard building: [list of conditions] The Property owners argue that “[m]ost of the violations listed in the NOV do not endanger the health and safety of themselves or others. Therefore, the Property owners request that the NOV be dismissed except for those specific items that truly relate to the health and safety of the occupants.” (Appeal pg. 10, 14-16) The bulk of the violations listed in the NOV relate to improvements or alterations made to the property which were done without a permit, which is a violation in and of itself, regardless of the extent that the improvement endangers the health and safety of the occupants. What Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 addresses are conditions which are substandard regardless of whether the improvements were permitted – i.e. a fully permitted residence, which is in so poor a condition that it endangers the health, safety and welfare of the occupants. The property owners’ logic would render compliance with the California Building Code (“CBC”) superfluous because, under their argument, a property owner need only comply with the CBC to the extent that non-compliance endangers the health and safety of the occupants. In other words, under the Property owners’ reasoning, an individual who disregards or only partially complies with the CBC would face no consequence, provided such improvements do not actually endanger the health and safety of the occupants. With some minor exceptions, any “…owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.” CBC Section 105.1. A property owner who intends to make alterations to a structure is required to obtain a permit from the City and is required to construct such improvements in accordance with the Building Code, as confirmed by final 7 Packet Pg. 33 inspections. As discussed above, and as admitted by the Appellants, significant improvements were made to the residence without a permit and the assertion that these improvements do not endanger the health and safety of the property owners does not absolve them of the requirement to comply with the CBC as adopted by the City. Health and Safety Code Section 17959.4: In the appeal, the Property owners cite to Health & Safety Section 17959.4 and request that the Council apply this provision and defer compliance with orders of abatement so that they can remain in their home and not lose their property. This section of the state code provides: 17959.4. The housing appeals board may, in cases of extreme hardship to owner- occupants or tenants of dwellings, provide for deferral of the effective date of orders of abatement. Any deferral of the effective date of an order of abatement under this section shall terminate upon any sale or transfer of the dwelling by the owner-occupant but shall not terminate upon the sale or transfer of the dwelling if the dwelling is occupied by a tenant other than the owner-occupant. As noted in the appeal, the CBOA questioned the application of this provision and staff stated that this provision was inapplicable because no order of abatement has been issued. The appeal contends that the NOV constitutes an order of abatement and cites Collins Dictionary for the definition of an order to abate – “to do away with a problem, such as a public or private nuisance or some structure built contrary to public policy.” This interpretation is incorrect. The NOV is not an order of abatement within the meaning of Health & Safety Section 17959.4; it is a requisite notice that is issued prior to additional enforcement action, such as the issuance of an administrative citation, administrative abatement proceedings or a civil court filing. The February 23, 2014 NOV underscores this fact with the following language: “Failure to correct these violations will result in additional enforcement action being taken which may include the issuance of Administrative Citations and fines of up to $500 per day, an order to vacate the building, administrati ve abatement proceedings or other remedies provided by law …” Article 6 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), which is part of the State Housing Law Regulations, sets forth the regulations regarding an enforcement agency’s authority to institute an abatement action and issue “orders of abatement.” 25 CCR section 60 sets forth the “Notice to Abate Nuisance” provision which states as follows: If the enforcement agency determines to proceed with the abatement of the nuisance through proceedings instituted before its governing board, it shall give a second notice in the same manner as set forth in Section 58 directing the owner of the building to appear before the governing board of the enforcement agency at a stated time and place and show cause why the building should not be condemned as a nuisance, and the nuisance be abated as provided in this article. A copy of this notice shall be mailed to each mortgagee or beneficiary under any deed of 7 Packet Pg. 34 trust, of record, in the manner prescribed in Section 58. The notice shall be headed “Notice to Abate Nuisance” in letters of not less than three-fourths of an inch in height and shall be substantially in the following form: NOTICE TO ABATE NUISANCE The owner of the building situated at __________ is hereby notified to appear before ________ (insert name of governing board) of the __________ (insert name of enforcement agency) at its meeting to be held ________, 20__, at __________ (place of meeting) at the hour of ________ o'clock __m., or as soon thereafter as the owner may be heard, and show cause, if any, why the building should not be condemned as a public nuisance and the nuisance be abated by reconstructing or properly repairing the building or by razing or removing it. Dated ____________________ ___________________________ (Name of enforcement agency) By_________________________ (Name of officer) (b) The officer or employee of the enforcement agency giving such notice shall file an affidavit of posting and mailing in the manner required by Section 62 hereof, but the failure to any owner or other required by such notice shall not affect in any manner the validity of any proceeding taken hereunder. At this time, the City has only issued a “Notice of Violation” and the current proceedings will determine if such violations exist. Similarly, the Resolution adopted by the CBOA is not an order of abatement although staff concedes that the language utilized in the Resolution is imprecise in this respect and raises legitimate concerns regarding the interpret ation of such language and staff has revised its template to avoid any potential misunderstandings. To be clear, no orders of abatement within the meaning of 25 CCR 60 have been issued. If violations alleged in the NOV are determined by the Council to exis t, the City will move forward with additional enforcement action – the first step of which will be to work with the property owner to develop a mutually agreeable and reasonable schedule for compliance. 4 DUE PROCESS The property owners’ appeal argues that their due process rights were violated during the CBOA hearing. The property owners break down their argument into the following components: (1) Notice; (2) Opportunity to be Heard; (3) Chance to Controvert Evidence; (4) Fair Tribunal; and (5) Fair Decision. Notice: The Property owners argue that their procedural due process rights were violated because the original notice given to the Property owners indicated that the hearing would start at 3:30 p.m., not at 3:00 p.m. as stated in the CBOA’s agenda. The notice was originally issued did indicate that the hearing would start at 3:30 p.m. yet as soon as the discrepancy was identified the Property owners and their attorney were notified of the start time on the CBOA agenda. Under general principles of due process, notice must be of a type reasonably calculated to give the person with the property interest knowledge of the proceedings. 2 7 Packet Pg. 35 Witkin, California Procedure, Jurisdiction Section 263 (5th ed. 2008). The Property owners were clearly on notice of the CBOA hearing and a thirty minute discrepancy between the original notice of hearing and the final hearing time does not violate one’s due process rights, especially given the fact that staff notified the Property owners’ attorney of the correct time as soon as the error was discovered. Moreover, both the Property owners and their legal counsel clearly had actual notice of the time of the hearing, met with staff in advance of the hearing, appeared at the hearing, fully participated in the hearing, and were in no way adversely impacted in their ability to present their appeal by the quickly remedied error. The hearing began at 3:00 p.m. and the Property owners and their attorney were present from the start of the hearing. Opportunity to be Heard: The Property owners assert that they were deprived of their right to be heard by the Chair of the CBOA when the Property owners were asked to move on in their presentation after being given more than one hour to make their presentation. A person facing possible deprivation of a recognized interest has a right to defend him/herself and present his/her side of the dispute to the body or hearing officer that will be making the decision. (The “fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.” People v. Swink, supra, 150 Cal.App.3d at 1080.). Due process under the federal and state constitutions does not entitle the party who is the subject of the administrative abatement proceeding to have a full judicial-type hearing; it is sufficient that the party receives adequate notice of the nature of the alleged violations or nuisance and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the charges. Mohilef v Janovici (1996) 51 CA4th 267, 276 (no right to sworn testimony, cross-examination of witnesses, discovery, or subpoenas in nuisance abatement hearing. Here, the City is not even at the administrative abatement stage and the hearing at issue does not involve any deprivation of property or liberty; the current proceeding is preliminary to any such action and is simply to determine whether the violations alleged do, in fact, exist. Thus, the level of process due in this context is minimal and has been satisfied here. In this case, the Property owners were provided well in advance of the hearing with clear, complete and comprehensive notice of the alleged violations on their property, including a substantial staff report, they were permitted to give a more than one hour long presentation addressing the alleged violations before the CBOA, represented by legal counsel, and they had a full and fair opportunity to respond to both the written NOV and staff’s presentation before the CBOA. This presentation was in addition to the significant written material the Property owners submitted to the CBOA in advance of the hearing. The Board reviewed and considered all oral and written materials submitted, actively deliberated for over one hour after hearing presentations for an hour and a half, asking questions of staff and questions of the appellants during the process. The fact that the CBOA Chair requested the Property owners to move their presentation along to avoid redundancy and that other Board members thought their presentation was very thorough and helpful only confirms that (1) the Chair was using his prerogative to reasonably manage the hearing;2 and (2) that the Property owners 2 It should be noted that an appellant does not have the right to unlimited time to present his or her position. Council Policies and Procedures Section 1.3.7.4.2 for example states: “Applicants or applicant representatives or appellants 7 Packet Pg. 36 were able to meaningfully participate in the proceedings. The underlying facts of this proceeding clearly indicate that the Property owners had a substantial amount of time to plead their case and were afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard even at this preliminary stage. Chance to Controvert Evidence The Property owners claim that their due process rights were violated because of “…the repeated offering of new information and claims by the City that the Property owners were not permitted to address.” (Appeal; Brief on Due Process Violations pg. 3, 18 -20) First, the Property owners do not provide any examples of what new information or evidence that was submitted that they were not able to address. The CBOA did not add any new violations to the NOV which was issued to the Property owners in February of 2015; instead, the CBOA addressed each item in the NOV item by item based on the evidence presented and made determinations based on that evidence. The result was the denial of the Property owners’ appeal with the removal of certain items of the NOV. Fair Tribunal The Property owners argue that their due process rights were violated because they were deprived of a fair tribunal. The allegations asserted in support of this argument is that (1) Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere provided prior training to the Board and had a “significant and lasting relationship of trust;” and (2) that Interim Assistant Anne Russell, who was and is the Board’s independent legal advisor, “interjected herself into the Board’s discussion on multiple occasions in a way that advocated for the City’s position.” First, it should be noted that the City provided the CBOA with its own independent counsel, far in excess of due process protections required in this context and at this stage, where no deprivation of a protected right is yet at issue.. The City’s dedication to this separation of roles is underscored by the Property owners’ own appeal on page 6, 23-28 and on page 7, 1- 14, wherein they reference a legal question from the Board which was properly re -directed to their advisor, Ms. Anne Russell. Even assuming the deprivation of a protected interest is at issue at this point, having a “fair tribunal” means within the due process context means “…one in which the judge or other decision maker is free of bias for or against a party.” Morongo Band of Mission Indian v. California State Water Resources Control Bd. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 731, 737. When they have no financial interest in the outcome of the hearing, adjudicators (the CBOA) are presumed to be impartial. Id at 737. In Morongo, the Supreme Court laid out the test for rebutting the presumption of impartiality: “In the absence of financial or other personal interest, and when rules mandating an agency’s internal separation of functions and prohibiting ex parte communications are observed, the presumption of impartiality can be overcome only by specific evidence demonstrating actual bias or a particular combination of circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias.” (emphasis added) Id at 740. This evidence can desiring to speak shall: Shall be permitted to speak first during the public comment portion of the public hearing for not more than ten (10) minutes.” Again, the Property owners’ presentation was permitted for over one hour to ensure a full opportunity to be heard. 7 Packet Pg. 37 consist of a combination of circumstances “‘in which experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.’” Id. See Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v Los Angeles County Office of Educ. (2013) 57 C4th 197 (board's reliance on staff to investigate matter, and on counsel to explain board's duties, did not disqualify board from ruling impartially on matter investigated). The fact that staff’s attorney previously provided the CBOA with training or that this attorney might have significant and lasting relationship of trust falls woefully short of constituting specific evidence demonstrating actual bias or a particular combination of circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias. Moreover, legal advice provided by the CBOA’s independent advisor during the course of a hearing similarly does not constitute bias. As the record clearly reflects, the CBOA was an impartial decision making body free of any bias whatsoever and, in fact, demonstrated itself to be both independent in its decision making and capable of deviating from the recommendations advanced by staff to the extent it deemed appropriate. Fair Decision: The Property owners attempt to attack the CBOA’s final decision on due process grounds based on similar reasoning as discussed above. As the record clearly shows, the CBOA carefully considered the evidence before it and made specific findings, supported by reasoned analysis of the applicable standards and facts in the record, in support of their decision. 5.0 SECONDARY UNIT The CBOA determined that the second unit on the subject property constituted a legal nonconforming use based on the testimony provided by the appellants. That testimony generally consisted of a short declaration from a neighbor who remembered someone living in a second unit since about 1931 and U.S. Census records from around this same time (see Property owner’s Appeal of Director’s Decision pgs. 1-3). As indicated in the footnote above, the use of the second unit is permitted in this zone and therefore, the use is a conforming use. The physical conversion of the structure from non-habitable to habitable space without permits however, is unlawful and the structure cannot attain legal non-conforming status because the structure, did not “lawfully exist” as contemplated in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code section 17.14. Specifically, the 1946 – 1969 Assessor records do not show a fully detached second unit at all.3 The 1995 Assessor records 3 The 1946 – 1969 Assessor records do show a room and bathroom attached to the old carport, which could have been the space the neighbor remembers someone living in. It appears that over time, the carport was enclosed connecting the original building to this room which is now the living room and attached bedroom and bathroom, both of which have been substantially remodeled by the current property owner without permits. 7 Packet Pg. 38 show a rear unit as 600 square feet which is the same as the current unit. A picture of this portion of the Assessor records is included to the right. However, these records show that only 160 square feet of the 600 square foot structure has a finished concrete floor. 200 square feet is “old lattice cp [carport]”, 240 square feet of “Fin Br [Boards] on Sand Floor”, and 200 square feet of “Unfin[ished]” space. In addition, this depiction does not show a bathroom, water, heater, sink or any other features which commonly make a space habitable. In order to find that the entirety of the current second unit constitutes a legal non-conforming structure, the City Council would need to determine that (1) the structure that the neighbor remembers someone living in in 1931 (approx. 85 years ago) is the same structure that is depicted in t he 1995 Assessor records; and (2) that the Assessor’s description of the interior of structure is incorrect and that the improvements were constructed before building permits were required. Again, the City has no building permit records permitting the conversion of this building from non-habitable space to habitable space, and based on the facts and evidence described above, it is staff’s position that the second unit is not a legal non-conforming structure. Moreover, as discussed above, the construction methods and materials of the improvements within the second unit are modern which is inconsistent with the property owners’ claim that this structure is legal non-conforming. Staff has prepared a Resolution upholding the NOV issued by staff for adoption by the Council (Attachment K). As discussed in the Alternatives below, if other findings or a full or partial granting of the appeal is contemplated, Staff can prepare a Resolution for adoption based on direction provided at the hearing and return to Council at a subsequent meeting for adoption . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Categorically Exempt under Section 15321(a)(2) adoption of an administrative decision FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the determination of this review, as there would be no outcome in this individual case that reasonably would be expected to have a material impact on the adopted Community Development Department budget for Code Enforcement, development review and/or permitting revenues. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the appeal based on different or modified findings, including any revisions to the NOV. Should Council deny the appeal but request revisions, it is recommended that staff return with a revised resolution and related findings. 2. Grant the appeal based on different or modified findings. This is not recommended as the violations clearly exist and are a health and safety threat to the public and the occupants. The effect of interpreting the violations as the appellant has argued would strip the intent of the Building code to require timely remedy of unsafe conditions. Should Council grant the appeal, it is recommended that staff return with a revised resolution and related findings. 7 Packet Pg. 39 3. Continue the action and request that staff and/or the appellant provide more information. Attachments: a - CBOA-2016-0001 Resolution 1269 Fredericks- Appeal Denied as amended b - 1269 Fredericks - CBOA - Amended NOV c - Appeal - Walker - 1269 Fredericks St d - Assessors 1995 Update-detail e - City Bldg Permits f - Photos g - Floor Plans with alterations noted h - Second Unit photos i - Assessors Exhibits and keyed narrative j - Declaration of Mansfield- Audio & Appraisal k - Resolution denying appeal of NOV 2-23-15 l - Exhibit A to Resolution denying appeal of NOV - February 23 2015 m - COUNCIL READING FILE - BACKGROUND n - COUNCIL READING FILE - H&S 13100-13135 Smoke Detectors o - COUNCIL READING FILE - H&S 17920-17928 Carbon Monoxide Detector 7 Packet Pg. 40 7.a Packet Pg. 41 At t a c h m e n t : a - C B O A - 2 0 1 6 - 0 0 0 1 R e s o l u t i o n 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s - A p p e a l D e n i e d a s a m e n d e d ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.a Packet Pg. 42 At t a c h m e n t : a - C B O A - 2 0 1 6 - 0 0 0 1 R e s o l u t i o n 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s - A p p e a l D e n i e d a s a m e n d e d ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Community Development Department, Building & Safety Division 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Ph. (805)781-7180, Fax (805) 781-7109 Website: http://www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/ NOTICE OF VIOLATION February 23, 2015 Steven Walker, ETUX 1269 Fredericks Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 SUBJECT ADDRESS: 1269 FREDERICKS, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 APN: 052-202-011 Dear Mr. Walker: On May 14, 2014, City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff inspected property that you own at the above subject address and observed the following violations of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and related State Building and Housing Regulations: A. The following violations relate to the single-family dwelling at 1269 Fredericks. Violations followed by an asterisk require a permit to correct: 1. Inadequate Sanitation A. The kitchen lacks a sink. Each dwelling unit is required to have a kitchen with a sink for food preparation and proper sanitation. (SLOMC 15.02.010, Uniform Housing Code (UHC) 1001.2.3) (ref: Photo 1)* B. General dilapidation or improper maintenance – Wall coverings missing or damaged in bedroom and bathroom. (SLOMC 15.02.010, Uniform Housing Code (UHC) 1001.2.13) (ref: Photo 16-17)* 2. Structural Hazards A. Defective or deteriorated floor framing and supports in the kitchen area. The kitchen floor slopes up to 4%. Dislodged girder posts and pier foundations are observable from the crawlspace access opening. Repair floor joists where damaged and replace missing posts and piers at floor girders. (SLOMC 15.02.010, UHC 1001.3.2) (ref: Photo 2 and 3)* B. Portion of roof sheathing replaced with noncompliant plastic panels. Replace roof sheathing and roofing in these areas. (SLOMC 15.02.010, UHC 1001.3.7) (ref: Photo 17)* 3. Lack of Required Smoke Detectors – A smoke detector must be installed on the ceiling or wall in each bedroom, in hallways or rooms providing access to bedrooms, and in each story within a 7.b Packet Pg. 43 At t a c h m e n t : b - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s - C B O A - A m e n d e d N O V ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 2 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation dwelling unit. (SLOMC 15.02.010, CA Residential Code (CRC) R314.6.2 , and CA Health & Safety Code 13113.7) 4. Lack of Required Carbon Monoxide Alarm – A carbon monoxide alarm is required to be installed in existing dwellings which have a fuel-burning appliance, a fireplace or an attached garage. Alarms shall be listed as complying with UL2034 and be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. (SLOMC 15.02.010, CA Residential Code (CRC) R315.2.3 , and CA Health & Safety Code and 17926) 5. Faulty Weather Protection (SLOMC 15.02.010, UHC 1001.8) A. Portion of roof sheathing and roofing replaced with noncompliant plastic panels. Replace roof sheathing and roofing in these areas (ref: Photo 17)* B. Damaged exterior siding. Replace where damaged or missing.(ref: Photo 9 and 9.1)* 6. Hazardous Electrical Wiring (SLOMC 15.02.010, UHC 1001.5) A. Unprotected NM sheathed cable (romex) wiring in various locations. Such wiring requires protection from physical damage such as concealment in walls or ceilings, conduit, etc. (CEC 334.10(3)) (ref: Photos 4-7)* B. Electrical faceplates missing or damaged. (CA Electrical Code (CEC 406.6)) (ref: Photo 19-20) 7. Hazardous Plumbing (SLOMC 15.02.010, UHC 1001.5) A. Improper vent terminations. Drainage vents may not terminate under a window or within framing. Vents must extend through and terminate at least 6 inches above the roof and be protected from physical damage. (CA Plumbing Code (CPC) 906.1)(ref: Photo 9 and 10)* B. The lavatory in the bathroom is not properly vented to prevent siphonage of the trap seal. (CPC 901.1)(ref: Photo 8)* 8. Construction Without Required Permits or Inspections (SLOMC 15.02.010, CRC 105.1) A. The carport attached to the east side of the dwelling has been enclosed and converted to a living room (ref: Photo 18)* B. The detached bedroom and additions thereto have been converted to a second dwelling unit accessed from the alley in the rear of the lot. (ref: Photo22)* C. Electrical wiring has been installed or replaced in various locations throughout the dwelling.(ref: Photos 4, 4.1, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, and 17)* D. Plumbing installed at exterior wall of house in the rear and at the front. (ref: Photos 9 and 11)* E. Framing, electrical and plumbing in bath and area between bedroom and living room. (ref: Photos 12-14)* F. Unpermitted gas piping and electrical supply installed from the dwelling to the unpermitted second. (ref: Photo 19)* G. Water Heater installed in hallway alcove of main house and in the rear unit. (ref: Photo 23)* Plans will have to be submitted for review and approval and permits obtained for all unpermitted construction. Unpermitted construction that is concealed must be exposed for inspection. Unpermitted construction and installations do not comply with code requirements in many respects. Unpermitted construction must be made to comply with all applicable state and local building, zoning, and development codes or be removed as appropriate. 7.b Packet Pg. 44 At t a c h m e n t : b - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s - C B O A - A m e n d e d N O V ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 3 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation 9. Structure in Required Yard Set Back – The shed and unpermitted second dwelling unit in the rear of the property encroach into the required five foot side yard setbacks. (SLOMC 15.02.010, SLOMC 17.16.020C) (ref: Photos 21-22) 10. Inadequate Drainage around Structure: Stormwaters do not drain away from the structure as required. Water drains under the dwelling and has undermined floor supports. The areas around the structure need to be regarded to provide drainage away from the structure (SLOMC 15.02.010, IPMC 302.2, UHC 1001.8.3) (ref: Photos 3, 7, and 11) B. The following violations relate to the unpermitted second dwelling unit in the rear yard accessed from the alley: 1. Land use approval and compliance with SLOMC Chapter 17.21 – Secondary Dwelling Unit Standards is required. 2. Lack of required Fire Protection a). The exterior wall located less than 5 feet from the property line is required to be 1-hour fire resistant construction. (CRC302.1) b) The direct vent wall heater improperly discharges through the wall less than 5 feet from the property line. (CA Mechanical Code Sec. 802.8.6) (ref: Photo 24)* 3. Lack of Required Smoke Detectors – A smoke detector must be installed on the ceiling or wall in each bedroom, in hallways or rooms providing access to bedrooms, and in each story within a dwelling unit. (SLOMC 15.02.010, CA Residential Code (CRC) R314.6.2 , and CA Health & Safety Code 13113.7) 4. Lack of Required Carbon Monoxide Alarm – A carbon monoxide alarm is required to be installed in existing dwellings which have a fuel-burning appliance, a fireplace or an attached garage. Alarms shall be listed as complying with UL2034 and be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. (SLOMC 15.02.010, CA Residential Code (CRC) R315.2.3 , and CA Health & Safety Code and 17926) 5. Hazardous Plumbing (SLOMC 15.02.010, UHC 1001.5) – Improper installation of gas piping. Black iron gas piping must be installed at least 6 inches above grade and protected from corrosion. (ref: Photo 19)* 6. Water Heater – Water heater installed in storage closet without obtaining required permit. (SLOMC 15.02.010, CRC 105.1)* 7. Fire Hazard – Separation of Combustibles from Sources of Ignition – The closet houses the water heater and is also being used as a storage. The combustible materials stored around the mechanical equipment create a fire hazard and must be removed (CA H&S Code Sec. 17920.3 (15) (h) and CFC Sec. 315.2) (Ref: Photo 24) 7.b Packet Pg. 45 At t a c h m e n t : b - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s - C B O A - A m e n d e d N O V ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 4 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation These violations constitute substandard and unsafe housing conditions as defined by law, are a public nuisance and must be corrected by March 6, 2015 to prevent further legal action. Please obtain the necessary Code Correction permit at the City of San Luis Obispo’s Community Development Center at 919 Palm Street, phone (805) 781-7180, to either remove the unauthorized work or to modify it in a manner that complies with applicable codes. Failure to correct these violations will result in additional enforcement action being taken which may include the issuance of Administrative Citations and fines of up to $500 per day, an order to vacate the building, administrative abatement proceedings, or other remedies provided by law as indicated below: 1) The City of San Luis Obispo may seek an injunction or court order which will require the property owners to comply with City laws, be liable for civil penalties of $250.00 per day and pay all costs accrued by the City in its enforcement effort, including attorney fees. Failure to pay associated costs and fines may result in a lien being filed against your property. 2) File a criminal complaint: Each violation constitutes a misdemeanor and carries a maximum penalty of six (6) months in jail and a $1,000.00 fine for each day the violation exists. If you disagree with the findings contained herein you may submit a written appeal within ten (10) days of the date of this Notice. A written Letter of Appeal should be submitted to the Community Development Department at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. The written appeal should clearly state the specific finding or action you wish to appeal, the grounds therefore, and include any substantiating documentation. Your appeal will be scheduled for the next available hearing and you will be notified of the date, time and location of the hearing. If you have questions, or would like to make an appointment to meet with me, please call me at (805) 781-7588. We look forward to working with you in resolving this matter. Sincerely, Cassia Cocina Code Enforcement Officer cc: File, Front Counter Code Enforcement Binder Enclosures: Photos 7.b Packet Pg. 46 At t a c h m e n t : b - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s - C B O A - A m e n d e d N O V ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 5 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation Photo 1: Lack of required sink in kitchen Photo 2: Floor slopes in kitchen at 3.7 percent Photo 3: Dislodged girder posts/piers at kitchen floor due to improper drainage around dwelling 7.b Packet Pg. 47 At t a c h m e n t : b - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s - C B O A - A m e n d e d N O V ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 6 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation Photo 4: Unpermitted wiring and plumbing Photo 4.1: Unpermitted wiring and framing Photo 5: Unprotected NM Cable Photo 6: Unprotected NM Cable 7.b Packet Pg. 48 At t a c h m e n t : b - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s - C B O A - A m e n d e d N O V ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 7 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation Photo 7: Unprotected NM Cable and drainage Photo 8: Unvented trap at lavatory under house Photo 9: Vent terminated below window and Photo 9.1: missing siding/rat proofing lack of weather protection 7.b Packet Pg. 49 At t a c h m e n t : b - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s - C B O A - A m e n d e d N O V ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 8 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation . Photo 11: Unpermitted/unprotected plumbing at front wall of dwelling Photo 10: Vent terminated in framing in laundry room Photo 13 – Unpermitted construction/alterations Photo 12: Unpermitted construction/alterations 7.b Packet Pg. 50 At t a c h m e n t : b - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s - C B O A - A m e n d e d N O V ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 9 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation Photo 14: Unpermitted construction/alterations Photo 15: Floor sheathing replaced Photo 16: Damaged wall covering in bath. Photo 17: Missing/damaged wall coverings New framing and shower unit. in bedrooms exposing romex wiring. Portion of roof replaced with plastic. 7.b Packet Pg. 51 At t a c h m e n t : b - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s - C B O A - A m e n d e d N O V ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 10 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation Photo 18: Converted carport to living room Photo 19: Corroded gas pipe on grade (new drywall, wall framing and wood floor overlaid on concrete slab.) Photo 19: Electrical faceplate missing Photo 20: Electrical faceplate missing 7.b Packet Pg. 52 At t a c h m e n t : b - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s - C B O A - A m e n d e d N O V ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 11 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation Photo 21: Shed encroaches into setback. Photo 22: unpermitted second dwelling unit encroaches into required sideyard. Photo 24: Water heater installed in second dwelling unit without permit. Combustibles stored next to water heater. Photo 23: Water heater installed in main dwelling without obtaining required permit. 7.b Packet Pg. 53 At t a c h m e n t : b - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s - C B O A - A m e n d e d N O V ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Notice of Violation - 1269 Fredericks Page 12 CEP 5 – Notice of Violation Photo 24: Direct vent wall heater termination adjacent to property line 7.b Packet Pg. 54 At t a c h m e n t : b - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s - C B O A - A m e n d e d N O V ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Filing Fee Tree Appeal: $112.00 All Other Appeals: $279.00 Received by: APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Name bate Received FEB 0 8 2016 2b09 1S e.7 1 Mailing Address and Zip i..Aid Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL Fax 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: 101 -- Name of Officer, Committee or decision being appealed) o V L L-sq=motJ 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: I 4 4 I 3. The application or project was entitled: a1L.T. 0 11) L Ai7n -2420 I 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: N,%k)V-_ art1 >tC F., on_--__ 3taff Members Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and 8ft you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 7.c Packet Pg. 55 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Reason for Appeal continued SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of $279 , which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal i$ scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. Si afure otWpelfant) (Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1) Appeals of Tree Committee decisions are $112. 2) The above-named appellant has already paid the City $279 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for cc: City Attorney City Manager Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson Advisory Body Liaison City Clerk (original) 07/15 update Page 2 of 3 7.c Packet Pg. 56 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPEAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION ISSUED 2/23/2015 Steve and Kathie Walker file this appeal of the Notice of Violation ("NOV") issued February 23, 2015, for their property at 1269 Fredericks Street, San Luis Obispo. The Walkers purchased the property in 2009 and live there with their two sons, ages 9 and 14. The Walkers have not altered the property with the exception of two areas: Kitchen (Presently the Livia Room): After moving into the property the Walkers discovered it was infested with rats, especially in the kitchen area. They located a rats' nest and rat carcasses inside the walls and ceiling. The insulation throughout the walls and ceiling was filled with tunnels rat urine and waste, therefore the Walkers removed the contaminated wallboard, insulation and cabinets. Half --bathroom: Kathie Walker had a persistent lung infection in 2014 that was traced to Damp areas of the house were investigated and mold was found in the half bathroom. The drywall was removed which exposed the framing on the exterior wall. It was only supported by a single vertical bowed stud therefore additional reinforcement was added to the wall with studs at 16" intervals and horizontal blocking. The original framing was not disturbed. The original plumbing was not disturbed. HISTORY The Walkers purchased the property in 2009. Both dwellings on the property had been rentals for decades. As a requirement for purchasing the property, the Walkers had two separate inspections performed: one by a licensed real estate inspector and the other by a licensed FHA inspector for the purposes of ensuring the property complies with the stricter standards to allow funding by the Federal Housing Administration. The FHA Inspection Report states there are no issue: that affect the livability or integrity of the property. The Seller's paid for repairs such as termite damage and the Walkers were able to qualify for the mortgage based on the rental income received from a 1 -bedroom rental cottage at the rear of the property. Ms. Walker is disabled and receives $324 per month which almost covers her monthly medication and doctor visits, and Mr. Walker earns approximately $4,200 per month as a medevac helicopter pilot. Soon after moving into the main house in 2009, the Walkers found a rat infestation especially in the kitchen area. They removed the contaminated cabinets, a rat's nest located behind the wood paneling and contaminated insulation. In March 2010, Steve was injured in an aviation accident the commercial aircraft he was piloting hit unexpected clear -air turbulence. The force catapulted him 7.c Packet Pg. 57 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 into the ceiling of the cockpit and he sustained head and spinal injuries. He was unemployed for two years. During this time, the house remained in limbo as the Walkers concentrated on Steve's health. He was referred to a team of doctors at Stanford and was eventually able to regain mobility and overcome most of the issues related to nerve damage. The Walkers spent their savings to pay for their basic living and medical expenses throughout that time. Steve returned to work in 2012 but a few months later the airline furloughed all 200 pilots went out of business. In 2013, after three years of unemployment, he was hired as an EMS helicopter pilot. He was based in El Paso, Texas while he waited for an opening at the company's Ft. Hunter Liggett base. Meanwhile, with limited financial resources, the Walkers home remained as it was in 2010 when the kitchen was removed because of the rat infestation. That room now serves as the Walker's living room and remains the hub of their home. At the end of 2014, Steve transferred to Ft. Hunter Liggett as a first responder to the troops who conduct training there. He also assists in their training missions and responds to traumatic injuries of residents in San Luis Obispo County and Monterey County. He still has pain from his accident and underwent back surgery last June 2015, so is limited in his ability to perform construction. Inspection of the Property by Code Enforcement, 5/14/2014 On May 14, 2014, Mr. Lease, Chief Building Official, and Code Enforcement Officer Cassia Cossina conducted a thorough inspection of the Walkers property based on a complaint filed by Kathie Walker's estranged step -mother, Kathy LaFollette, in August 2013. Ms. LaFollette does not live in San Luis Obispo and has never been to the Walkers property. The complaint was filed with vindictive motivations, to hurt the Walkers. During this time she also filed a lawsuit against the Walkers which was dismissed by the judge, with prejudice against Ms. LaFollette. And she filed a false report alleging child abuse with Child Welfare Services which was determined to be false by the social worker who interviewed the Walker's children and the family. The Walkers told Mr. Lease tha they were certain Ms. LaFollette made the complaint and explained her harassment of their family. Mr. Lease was aware the complaint was filed by Ms. LaFollette because she continually contacted code enforcement between August 2013 and May 2014. She met personally with Mr. Lease in April 2014 to insist that the Walker's home was inspected for code violations which resulted in the inspection on May 14, 2014. Mr. Lease told the Walkers he would work with them to resolve any issues. He noted the City's permit record for the property is sparse and said that any upgrades to the W 7.c Packet Pg. 58 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I property that do not have a permit from the original development of the property is considered a code violation. First Notice of Violation On July 20, 2014, the Walkers received a Notice of Violation ("NOV") which listed violations dating back to the original construction of their property in the 1920's. They went to look at the City's permit file and the file was almost empty. The first record was for some additions made in 1964 including a laundry room at the rear of the west bedroom. City Planner, Kyle Bell, said that many of the City's permit files were lost or destroyed for various reasons including a fire decades ago. Next, the Walkers went to the Assessor's office. The Assessor's staff explained that their records are used for the purpose of determining property taxes and do not always represent accurate records of improvements, with or without permits. They provide records to code enforcement with the disclaimer that the records "should be used for informational use only and does not constitute a legal document for the description of the property." The original Assessor's records for the property were crossed out and a new record was created in 1995. The Assessor's staff said that the Assessor purged their property records in 1995 so many of the permits and original records were thrown away when the new files were created for each property. In the Walker's case, a new record was created in January 1995. Although the old records were crossed out, they were fortunately left in the file and not thrown away (as is the case for some properties.) The original records offer a more complete historical record of the property, including permits for additions, which contradict claims made in the NOV. The Walkers presented the Assessor's record to Mr. Lease and he said the Assessor's office did not provide those records to the Community Development Department therefore he had not seen them before. The Walkers were advised to ignore the NOV and Mr. Lease scheduled a meeting to meet with them on July 30, 2014. Meeting with Joseph Lease, 7/.30/2014 On July 30, 2014, the Walkers went to their scheduled meeting with Mr. Lease. He was headed out of the office for vacation and needed to catch a flight at LAX so asked that the meeting rescheduled. Another meeting was later scheduled for September 16, 2014. 3 7.c Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Meeting with Joseph Lease and Second Inspection of the Property 9/16/2014 On September 16, 2014 the Walkers met with Mr. Lease and Cassia Cocina. Mr. Lease could not make sense of the Assessor's Records so asked to return to the Walker's property. That afternoon Mr. Lease and Code Enforcement Officer Cassia Cocina performed another inspection of the Walker's property. Mr. Lease agreed that several things should be eliminated from the NOV and indicated he would revise the NOV. Revised Notice of Violation 2/23/2015 and the Walker's Appeal Over five months later, on February 26, 215, the Walkers received the "revised" NOV which does not contain the revisions discussed with Mr. Lease. The Walkers were told that Mr. Lease terminated his employment with the City in December 2014. The NOV still includes the items that were to be eliminated according to Mr. Lease such as illegal construction of the bedroom and half bathroom constructed in 1946, the rear dwelling, and other permitted improvements. Based on the SLO Municipal Code, the Walkers had 10 days from the date the Notice was *sent* to file an appeal. They prepared evidence that supports their claims, paid $279 and filed an appeal on March 3, 2015. Notice of Director's Decision to the 'Walkcr's Appeal, 5/6/2015 In response to the Walker's appeal, the Community Development Director, Derek Johnson, had three options available: to grant the appeal and DISMISS the Notice of Violation; to grant portions of the appeal and MODIFY Notice of Violation; or to DENY the appeal in whole. On May 9, 2014, the Walkers received a Notice of Directors Decision which DENIED the Walkers appeal entirely. It appears Mr. Johnson did not thoroughly review the evidence provided in support of the appeal. Further, Mr. Johnson did not itemize the violations nor address each violation as outlined in the NOV and responded to by the Walkers in their appeal. He generically lumped violations together in a boilerplate fashion at the end of brief paragraphs, stating all of the violations are upheld. He also mistakenly listed and upheld electrical violations for the rear dwelling when the NOV does not even list any electrical violations for the rear dwelling. The following are a few of Mr. Johnson's findings which are inconsistent with the evidence presented: 1. Mr. Johnson states the appeal is denied because San Luis Obispo adopted the Building Code which requires permits beginning in 1931 and there are no permits on file for the property. 4 7.c Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 He ignores the fact that the property was not annexed into the City until September 1948 therefore City permits were not required until that date. A large poster of the Map hangs in the lobby, just outside of Mr. Johnson's office. It shows the dates of annexation of various neighborhoods including the Walker's. Mr. Johnson also ignores the Assessor's Records we provided that show the house constructed before 1930 when permits weren't required anywhere in San Luis Obispo County 2. Mr. Johnson states that the bedroom and half bath addition were not constructed with permits 3. therefore they constitute illegal construction and illegal plumbing. He states the City requires__ new permits and construction according to today's code. He ignores the Assessor's Records which indicates a price was paid for a permit in 1946 which includes the addition of a bedroom and half bath. It was legally built with a permit. i It without hermits and needs to be Also, a "use permit" must be obtained with approved plans before permits are obtained .For construction of new dwelling and it must be rebuilt accordingtoo today's code. He ignores the evidence that the second dwelling was built at the same time as the main residence in the 1920's, supported by a sworn declaration from a living witness who lived next door from 1928-1973, Census Records from 1930, a SLO Directory from 1932, at other historical documentation. The evidence proves that the second dwelling was constructs at the same time as the house prior to 1928 and was inhabited by tenants since 1931-1932. It is a legal dwelling. It is obvious that Mr. Johnson did not thoroughly review or consider the evidence provided by the Walkers. On May 14, 2015, the Walker's appealed Mr. Johnson's decision to the Construction Board of Appeals. Appeal to the Construction Board of Appeals, 1/28/2016 Notice to the Walkers was Incorrect. On January 18, 2016, eight months after the Walker's filed their appeal to the Construction Board of Appeals, the City posted a Notice of Hearing on the Walker's front door which stated the hearing was scheduled for January 28, 2016 at 3:30 pm. The hearing was actually at 3:00 pm — not 3:30 as the legal notice stated. The Notice was prepared by the code enforcement department who is prosecuting the case. Fortunately, the Walkers noticed the 5 7.c Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 discrepancy on the agenda posted online which listed the hearing time as 3:00 pm — otherwise they would have missed the hearing. The Walker's Appeal was Altered. Code enforcement uploaded the agenda packet, including the Walker's appeal, and provided a copy to the Construction Board of Appeals. The Walkers prepared their appeal in color, with highlights to help the Board follow the complexity of the information more easily. They also included color photographs. However, the City converted the Walker's appeal to black and white before uploading it, while the City presented their own documents in full color. It may seem the alteration of the Walker's appeal — from color to black and white — was an honest mistake except for the fact that whoever converted it to black and white miss the last exhibit which was written with blue ink. That one exhibit is still in color. The Walkers sent an email to Chief Building Official, Anne Schneider, and Code Enforcement Officer, Cassia Cocina, requesting that they upload the appeal, in color, as it was filed. They did not respond to the Walkers or correct the issue. Due Process Violations The hearing before the Construction Board of Appeals on January 28. 2016, did not follow correct procedure. The Board members were recently trained by Assistant City Attorney, Jon Ansolabehere, regarding their new roles and responsibilities related to hearing code violation appeals as a quasi judiciary body in adversarial proceedings. However, they were unable to contain Chief Building Official, Anne Schneider, or Assistant City Attorney, Anne Russell from committing due process violations throughout the hearing. This unfairly influenced the ruling and prejudiced the Walkers. When Board Member Matt Quaglino asked for a legal interpretation of the Uniform Housing Code 1001.1 (also CA Health and Safety Code, Section 17920.3) Ms. Russell skirted the question and did not give Mr. Quaglino a direct answer to his question regarding the code. Instead she falsely implied that the code does not apply to this case. The code does very much apply to this case. In fact, the specific code that Mr. Quaglino asked about was the same code used by the City to describe the violations issued to the Walkers and support their claim of code violations. Matt Quaglino: So I have a question, Jon, what's your opinion of this? (Holding up CA Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 and 17959.4 provided to Board members and Staff by attorney Matt Boutte) Jon Ansolabehere: I'll give you Staff's opinion. 6 7.c Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) i 2 3 L 7 10 11 1.2 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 23 Matt Quaglino: What's your legal opinion? Jon Ansolabehere: I advise Staff - - Anne Russell: I'm supposed to advise you. Matt Quaglino: So what's your opinion? Anne Russell: Which one are you - -? Matt Quaglino: Both of them. Anne Russell: Well, the housing code doesn't go with everything. The building code has the permit requirement. So that's one issue. Uh. The extreme hardship with regard to the effective date of order of abatement. There is no order of abatement right now, so this isn't (unintelligible) But if they came in and said, We have to have all this done in six months or something and they wanted to appeal that, you might be able to give them a different timeline. But you're not at that point yet. And to the extent that we find there are any immediate safety issues those should be addressed immediately. " By stating, simply, "(The housing code) doesn't go with everything." implies that the very code used by the City in prosecution of this case is irrelevant to this case. Ms. Russell's advice caused the Board Members to discount the provisions of the Health and Safety Code. Later in the hearing, while Board members deliberated the merits of the Walkers case related to the second house on the property, Ms. Russell advocated the City's position and discounted the Walker's evidence which includes a sworn declaration from a living witness who lived at the neighboring property for many years beginning in 1928. Ms. Russell stated that the second house may not have been continually occupied over the years which would invalidate its legal nonconforming status. Throughout the hearing she continued to argue the City's position regarding the second The Board came to consensus that the second house was established as legal, nonconforming based the sworn declaration of a witness and other historical documents, however Ms. Russell stated she 7 7.c Packet Pg. 63 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 q 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 not feel they should make a determination about the legality of the second house because it has some pretty big ramifications." A Board member moved to recognize the second dwelling as legal nonconforming and Ms. Russell stopped the Board member in a last ditch effort to prevent the motion, and stated, "I just wonder if this body (Board) is the right body to make a decision regarding Planning." It was subsequently pointed out to her that it is listed on the Notice of Violation. Ms. Russell also weighed in on other issues as an advocate for the City's prosecution against the Walkers. At one point she said that the HVAC may not be safe. The HVAC is not an issue in the Notice of Violation. It was inspected twice by Joseph Lease and not listed in the NOV. Ms. Russell's conduct is supposed to be consistent with that of a neutral legal advisor to the city itself, not as an advocate for any particular position or result. Ms. Russell crossed the line and become involved in the prosecution of the Walker's case, offering partisan advice or advocacy. Such advice or advocacy is deemed prosecutorial and is strictly prohibited by law. Ms. Russell's actions constitute a violation of due process. At the outset of the hearing, Chair Neil Dilworth explained the procedure which included party presenting their case followed by questions from the Board and deliberation among the Board. After each case presented their side and public comment concluded, Mr. Dilworth stated it would be a structured meeting to allow the Board to discuss the matter. He stated that the parties are not allowed to interrupt or interject during the deliberation. However, as the Board deliberated and seemed to be leaning in the Walker's direction, Anne Schneider interrupted the Board's discussion without being addressed. She argued that their reasoning was incorrect based on her authoritative opinion. Her contentions were subjective and in some cases, flatly untrue. For example, during the Board's deliberation, Board Member Rebecca Jansen stated that the lack of a kitchen sink does not constitute unsanitary conditions in the Walker's case. Ms. Schneider interjects, without being addressed, and argues the false contention that the Walkers "prepare food next to their toilet" which constitutes an unsafe condition." The kitchen area is far removed from the bathroom. One must wa down a hall, through a bedroom, in order to access the full bathroom. This is one example of histrionic contentions and reasoning presented by Ms. Schneider throughout the hearing. 8 7.c Packet Pg. 64 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ms. Schneider's interjections caused the Board's one-way deliberation to ultimately become a two-sided conversation between the Board members and Ms. Schneider. She was ultimately able to sway the Board members to adopt her position based on her unsolicited interjections. When the Walker's attorney attempted to object, he was told to be quiet. He tried to insist but was cut off again before he could complete the sentence. The Board's Ruling. The Board adopted a motion which determined the living room / dining room is identified as it is currently used, not as "carport" as alleged by the City. They resolved it is not subject to scrutiny regarding alleged code violations and that the permit requirement for this area is limited to obtaining a permit for the recent work performed — demolition and replacement electrical in 2009 - to ensure the electrical is safe. The Board determined that the Walkers established the second house is legal nonconforming. The Board determined that the Walkers established the addition, including the half bathroom, were permitted additions per the Assessor's records. The Board determined that the outstanding violations related to the house are to be determined under the lens of tree health and safety issues. The stated they trusted Anne Schneider to ensure these limitations are imposed because they did not want to take the time to draft an entire document related to each violation. CALIFORNIA STATE HOUSING LAW Health and Safe Code Section 17920.3 The California State Housing Law is outlined in Health & Safety Code, Division 13, Part 1.5, Sections 17910 through Section 17998.3. The violations outlined by the City are contained in CA Health & Safety Code Section 17920.3. Section 17920.3 states: Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit, guestroom or suite of rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, c welfare of the public or the occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard building: (List of Conditions). The Legislature enacted the code with the specific provision that a substandard building exists if the listed conditions if those conditions endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare Vol 7.c Packet Pg. 65 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of the public or occupants. The Legislature included the distinction related to safety which must be considered when issuing a Notice of Violation. Otherwise, indiscriminate "violations" can be cited under Section 17920.3 to the extent that they do not affect the health and safety of the occupants. For instance, the NOV issued to the Walkers lists a small patch of drywall (8" x 16") they removed from a wall above the shower to investigate for water/mold as "Inadequate Sanitation" under Section 17920.3 which states, (a) Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 13) General dilapidation or improper maintenance." There is no moisture or mold in the drywall and it was subsequently patched. However, this example illustrates how a simple item that does not realistically pose any risk to the health and safety of the occupants is construed by the City as a violation under "General dilapidation or improper maintenance." Additionally, many of the violations listed are not per se violations, such as "general dilapidation." Therefore they are open to the City's interpretation of what a code enforcement officer believes constitutes "general dilapidation." The provision enacted by the Legislature, to the extent it endangers life, limb, safety, welfare... provides context for each alleged violation in order to prevent the code from being unduly burdensome for property owners. Most of the violations listed in the NOV do not endanger the health and safety of the Walkers or others. Therefore, the Walkers request that the NOV be dismissed except for those specific items that truly relate to the health and sa&ly ofthe occuTants. Health and Safety Code 17959.4 The Legislature provides an additional allowance for owner -occupants of property subject to a Notice of Violation when the compliance requested by the City creates an extreme hardship to the owner -occupants. Section 17959.4 states, in relevant part, "The housing appeals board may, in cases of extreme hardship to owner -occupants provide for deferral of the effective date of orders of abatement. Any deferral of the effective date of an order of abatement under this section shall terminate upon any sale or transfer of the dwelling by the owner -occupant." The Walkers asked that the Board apply this code section in their case because of their financial situation and Ms. Walker's disability. They are unable to afford to make the modifications required by the City, defined in the Notice of Violation. Simply paying for one permit fee is a hardship for the Walkers. The Walker's income barely covers their basic needs and makes it impossible for them to hire a professional to complete building plans, pay for permits, inspections 10 7.c Packet Pg. 66 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and other administrative fees, or complete the renovations requested by the City. The Walkers will lose their house if the Notice of Violation and Resolution is adopted by the City. Secondary sources of law that refer to this code section support exercising discretion in cases of limited income, elderly or senior citizens and those with disabilities. The cases express a strong policy in favor of keeping people in their homes, not forcing people to leave their homes or lose their homes even if there are violations that exist in the home. The Walkers fit into the category where discretion should be used. During the Construction Board of Appeals hearing, Assistant City Attorney, Jon Ansolabehere stated that the Board does not have the power to defer abatement of the violations because there is no abatement order in place. The Walkers were not given the opportunity to refute this contention. Later, Ms. Russell advised a Board Member who inquired about the code section, tha there is no abatement order therefore it does not apply. The Notice of Violation is, in fact, an order of abatement. The Notice of Violation demands that the Walkers "correct these violations" or face additional penalties, including citations, fines, an order to vacate the property, etc. The legal definition of abate is "to do away with a problem, such as a public or private nuisance or some structure built contrary to public policy"' This is precisely what the Notice of Violation directs the Walkers to do. The terms abatement, correction and compliance can be used interchangeably. The NOV uses the term "correct" in the context of "abate." The NOV states: Failure to correct these violations will result in additional enforcement action being taken which may include the issuance of Administrative Citations and fines of up to $500 per day, an order to vacate the building, administrative abatement proceedings, or other remedies provided by law" including "1) The City of San Luis Obispo may seek an injunction or courl order which will require the property owners to comply with City laws, be liable for civil penalties of $250 per days and pay all costs accrued by the City in its enforcement effort, including attorney fees. Failure to pay associated costs and fines may result in a lien being filed against your property; 2) File a criminal complaint: Each violation constitutes a misdemeanor and carries a maximum pem lty of six (6) months in jail and a $1,000 fine for each day the violation exists." The Resolution adopted by the Construction Board of Appeals also states, "Determination anc Order for Abatement of Violations." It directs the Walkers to hire a licensed design professional to prepare plans, obtain building permits, planning approvals, make all necessary repairs... and to obtain all required inspections and final inspection approval from the Department." The items listed, to be corrected, include the "carport" and a litany of other items that do not endanger the health or safety of the occupants. 1 Collins Dictionary of Law. (2006) 11 7.c Packet Pg. 67 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Walkers are unable to pay for these items. Ms. Schneider indicated that the City will pursue administrative citations and fines will accrue if the Walkers do not perform these items. She said that the City will abate the items to force compliance and charge the Walkers for the cost to do so, including attorney fees. The Walkers, as owner -occupants of the property, respectfully request that the City Council apply the provision enacted by the Legislature under the Health and Safety Code 17959.4 so that they may remain in their home and not lose their property. The Walkers have corrected the items related to the health and safety of the property. They have installed new batteries in the smoke detectors and installed carbon monoxide detectors, reinstalled the piers under the joists so the front room is supported, replaced both missing electrical faceplates, reinstalled the siding on the exterior, patched the missing wallboard in the boys' bedroom and bathroom. The property is safe. The Walkers will obtain certification from a licensed building professional which verifies that the property is safe. Therefore, the Walkers respectfully request that City Council apply the provisions of the Health and Safety code 17920.3, as it was written by Legislature to the extent that violations endanger true health and safety issues, and uphold their appeal. Steve Walker 12 Kathig Walker 7.c Packet Pg. 68 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) rIP6. a ,rksr #A oft1110110 IEPoo ` rM Jrgv r JOWLy ` • Ills y • 61a .. J.it, I R 47. Ism wr r' r r As A, a 7.c Packet Pg. 69 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) a W 4 0aCD oxM1 x+ rr 9 A U44 a X3 m I zao - D. OL 7.c Packet Pg. 70 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) ED O nClED0Tnz0LOW zitop cilv. os J V1} 0- i 7 QUp Q 0 OriCWP94M I tinjC0 JJ W W G7 ff m i1 CD m C7 ni C.", J r, W Icu pE i! w CEJ L? Ej CO p2 a J O47 Ofl 0U7 00OLn 0O uj c`'1 c CJ c•'7 ci O} o co p} CJ E C6 r v r, z UJ r W v+ ve a . ar eT to m e w W O oLuCLhlCJm ito f3 c [( lj I G 1 1..J T Q m a Q 0 Z sl a.+odEo sYi J C ni W a C'J Cl LCP 77 iry ca O OQcDp0pS''} 7 N U- Vi 3 Q T r. a W 1- r: r c: J or•J Y+ J isJ S OC w e co d0 jsi A e LL, CL c c rJ t6 co CO a Ed G W E a J 17, 9 n d Q ui f4 C'J C U' r' tT aEC t t ns d7 3m C] I iSS C7J C] 0 O L a GO 4' LO p. V r" Ln Irl n, r.7 ¢ E `r asr E Luw W v, O L„ LC r F, z wJ m Y W D m r D o E 5 n LI1 C 1 W0 U} tp 7 n YGa.y0a S a vJ o -h S Y Cz V7 crya+ 9 a 1 X33 9 v'r a p r w LL ti U- aaa tla L i 0 70i9 C' 13 nr LLS n c J E p CD ptD ptrJ J 1:4 c Y cn i,a Y, C1 OC OC O O J S C7 0 7.c Packet Pg. 71 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Q N W a 0- 0 0 D V) Y ) W V) V) / rL LL. No CN r r -- rIIrrII1I1I I 1 1111 I 1 — II11Yr 1 45 1I11Fl,Ie M1 IIi I I0 r II I I III YI tI 7.c Packet Pg. 72 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 01O O W U 7C) vv Ii O Q N O t/'1 D J N N cn V) v U i H Q 1 No N r -- 5o MOO JNVNI T d315 0I JNINIO punoj sled i 3DO31 ONINIO Ar / I I I NNOAN r AWW ovnN y a NOW wooa03e o-,9 S tn i 7.c Packet Pg. 73 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) R Abandoned PlumbingiJ* DWHVACiKITCHENra \ / DINING LEDGERatsFound DINING BEDROOM ST -FP 7.c Packet Pg. 74 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Abandoned PlumbingJ* iLLDWJ'11C ` KITCHENrrr rDININGLEDGEif — — — Rats Found " BEDROOM TFP 7.c Packet Pg. 75 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) N os - 0 N O N E F- 0 Q O c0 Z) J O V) L V) Ln U W LLW L No N w7-50zQzLLI0J 0w 0 a 0 w z D joop 4uoil uo palsod 8011ON910Z'VT A.ienuerjeaddpal! eaddy paluaa UOSuyo j laaa(lleaddypa113uollelolAJOa:)lIoNA410aylsanealaseal •relwollle0ofsjajsuejlanalS aseai •rAq uoipadsul puZ Inp sanoW lueual uollelolA 10 a:)lIoN aseai •r Aq uolpadsul luawa:)Jolu3 apo0 Wm Peluo0 P sexal'juawAoldwa spur anais 49nolin3 auipiV jaoM of swnjaa anajS luaplD:)y s,an91S Aliadad pasepind 7.c Packet Pg. 76 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) lON C- 0 U N Q 7.c Packet Pg. 77 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) N_ a h CO n N a M ray- Uy X y U N O c Q yJ N a GY ro oy Esa. U bo r m vi ti w© x c u e 9axyEOanar+ U u %+ '•"' oe can U o Q o E 12 E C4 3c 3x DcrFaqo = c a s p vuCEOAoroc`? E = 4oro F-. ' dp to a a U c y> ro aGp e Y m'o' aU d m o c O q C M W 0V9O'' Cto y y 2 V. U c a ooV E ro g ar c E E p W an 5, O1 m 3 i' W T' e o b to=a Q _ c 7 3o Ine t E pM, Vl a M u q C G F n, CL E Tj 8 F oUu`r n G 9 I b p[a CDA U G d O. y F2 7' at a C a x.00 3. v a e u NF o u0v cry u uwa C o ar ; w .-. FL auk C m 'N1117toaFF v1 in H rl a h F oO d 7.c Packet Pg. 78 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) t- ffm A SY I OiOHd 91 OiOHd Ll 01OHd 7.c Packet Pg. 79 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) r K L i s O L mjr m N L Qi E0 Q to 3 0 m U m W QN L Y Q C -a O 4A O 0 m O H M Y L U Y M C V1 4J Ln M ++ t 3 Y c Q O ri Q Q fC WuO4AccW T O1OHd 7.c Packet Pg. 80 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) ai v C m C 0J c E N CL O L. E L O C = C C. H a L ami = U mQC) m0 ri ri = a a k' in r is -s• I r / i v a L v m CL O 0 o C A o WOO. W w m 9Z 01OHd x LZ OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 81 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Z 01OHd E MOM YV in LT 01OHd 7.c Packet Pg. 82 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Z OlOHd ChCt a) I• ti y 1 k c cr LU 7.c Packet Pg. 83 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) c m O L 0 O CL a tb C m a O C O E ro LnN L. 0O U L Q UlC O N aon L 4% an LM U 0 L L C M O O C 7 4J t' v N N a) OlOHd C N Q c } 0 t U C; y v V v t N 3 00 N 4) C) t J s Q c 0 0 0) 7.c Packet Pg. 84 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Q 0 u c 0 t a V f0 CL a UD c L r of p E o O N 0 = 0 a 7i c 0 a a V N oo +• N N Q a f 14-r 15•-2' 1T4' ti f 14i .e f11.Y.. I ff 9 LT OlOHd CL y m L e o ZNwO yC6 D C C O 0 L Z T N C E 6 C O O m U) C w E._ 41 m NO O N ygttll N w G. m O U e N 00 o 6o .' i. mm3 $ cF. O Y N O ml0 2w o t CL 3 gL V pp Y '" Lr S S'' w 0 mC LVO cis S C O Ooa.- F C ` U "- 0 oU o C •v EZHO v oU c v a Q N E N r C U C U O C O N j 0 uGGO N O Z 7.c Packet Pg. 85 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 2 LA L cla Q u ui s H sQ T4' LZ OlOHd 6 OlOHd Z'6 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 86 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) c m Q E O u C O c r 3 au m CL U C °i0 o o cu Oa o O 0 0 3 o N a a= C m 3 C - LL m + N N Q Q Q k An i` V br2G0 :ti 61 LT OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 87 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) IS -r 6 OlOHd Z'6 OlOHd I Yao 5.1- S•, - 6 OlOHd Z'6 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 88 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) ui O 2 of O O X GJ O E 41 m O U f0 C fC Z Q- u n 3 o .L 9 01OHd P 3 at c v a D w C Q m taa s W— r Ira• t ko ti OlOHd I r 1i L 01OHd S OlOHd I 61 OlOHd OZ 01OHd IF -2' M r Ira• t ko ti OlOHd I r 1i L 01OHd S OlOHd I 61 OlOHd OZ 01OHd 7.c Packet Pg. 89 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) I TX 0 m a U b C L bb 3 f° X m W -0 O y -CuGC • E _ o 0 L O OD 3 4 o L Z a ani 'O W 67 3 N c 0 0 L to _ ENi m 3 m Q t u QQ1n o 1s'B' 5'11• 5'-1• W-11• 3-0• L V OlOHd I N v s o c U -d N X ou 0 ~ 'n 0,00 W C O t :_ u 3 c _o 0 Q o n o r- 00 N O U C 0 0 L N W K O 0-0 7.c Packet Pg. 90 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) a Lr 0 H 0 2 a 00 L 3 w E c°c a mu t L m 3 L fA v L ZvMd ui N 0 0 L E Q. m _ N m x Q a a 9 010Hd S 010Hd E 0 LF N EL 0 0 U E 0 t 0 0 a Z 0 0 c 0 ' Do- O C v 0 C v 0 L A, 0 0v30H i H C 0 0 0 O 7.c Packet Pg. 91 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 1+'-r 15'-B" 17'4' L OlOHd I i 7.c Packet Pg. 92 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) a N 6 r -I N 0 H 2 d. GJ bA m E m L O to BVI i N 3IA u o a v w N Uf0 W M 3 V O 'L mN NJM m l0 ,6 d d 14'-7- a 4-r OZ OlOHd 61 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 93 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) r4• 9 AF 6 OlOHd 71 01 OlOHd 8 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 94 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 5•.6- F oo 6 OlOHd ob(u t 5•.6- F oo 6 OlOHd ob(u E ra- I cu o c m a 3 u L o o V) ru o to Fu cu UL C Q - OA EL C OL 0 E LnVfN 4- O p p aCLCv a a> LWLn 4J m dDE o I Q Q oo L 5•.6- F oo 6 OlOHd ra- I5•.6- F oo 6 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 95 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) t 0 0 0 2 a c 0 m c aA E c E c 0 > a CL H Q 0 0 a- L CL 24 E a Q Q 17'4' iIto OT OlOHd yCj gra 7.c Packet Pg. 96 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) u. r C i A L CL oo 0 O a O c a N E mOvii O QL to ' t o v to L M a O 0 H Q tM > a Q Q o w -z 1.. L ira• A 8 OlOHd C. O 0) t N CL t 0 C_ N 4) 4) t C C E O .Q C C v N i t t 7.c Packet Pg. 97 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) r ra- i , Isl • tiIfr 1 T F nNyj OcoLniOrCLM ONOQ0 2 a EO0 O 000h Va a O E CL o r c oo um o c c° c ` L bo LO E 41 ` c c o U o 3 MMU CU c c v O cv O w c O co UCU o o 3 4 a i > o v c o E N m w a Q. O O p UbD L' f0 O c a O O U _U i 3 y t c o o W W4- c L fC p Q M U U V) M 1 i mi N U 6D c) t-' c U 1 Oa hAm 3 co bD c N— bD U+ N E s i U41EE GJ Q i M LU QaduoWLL i o6 o6 o6 od od od od a d d d d a d r ra- i , Isl • tiIfr 1 T FF 7.c Packet Pg. 98 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 81 OlOHd O W O N H O M 4F 4- 0 c E m v c 0 E 3 owaWE 3 0 0 E O ._ u o 0 N o E= f0 W w L L N C} W o O s c=}EVut c o s W~ U 0mcul O us u}s W 3 0 W v W mMW-0a' U 0 E vac Ea tm a O t W 3t3.u;o.0 Hs 0 O} O p. O Nc°- 4J o} o y N N} E LO 1 N-0 MI-- 0 a 'D P o f° c o M Q. va0 a U E T o w0 L- aa) L N u c° o n v L a 0 O0 0 co w 0 m vL 1 c E o a.. L W y O CUa 0 0 0 E o Q U 0 U 7 V m L O E is O i a, N as E MOr 00 Q 00 a U v a 4 o C 0-v 81 OlOHd O W O N H O a E O c v0C•QE a E 3 owaWE 3 0 E ,o v O ._ s v o 0 N o E= E WE 3 ua3o O C} W o O 0 p c=}EVut o s W~ U ua O us u}s W 3 0 W v W cQ cvp U 0 E vac Ea tm a O t W 3t3.u;o.0 Hs O} O p. O W W CL W} 0 in o} o y N N} O Q 0 0 W N-0 MI-- 0 a 'D P o 7.c Packet Pg. 99 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) oA N N o LU o O 0 _ 0 CL H O L O C y 0 O 41 U L- mmLJ a °J v t 5 - co 0 s t i cr O c0 v L O + en 3 g vm O (, L C C w 4- 0 N cc V) m °A Lnv a 181-8- - - - - --.. W4r1e.•'o- 1 I ICn Cil ZZ OlOHdl I . ZZ OlOHd i # 7.c Packet Pg. 100 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) o 00 N o Ow N OL f V cvi y u X W Id u vcA i v 2 toC O C3 md w A C v U d c0 o N 0 IUL 7WuO0 0 N J A 1 h 3 cd m a H mN 4 w mCcc oN m wn 3 m m 13 7.c Packet Pg. 101 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) L U 0 N 0 1) ry D V) W U 0 0• A- i i i Is iR, 1 2 4,:3 at jN. ay !17r.m s.4 4—ii , Q vIL it all A it I JAI ss F i Is, od I ole FI, a& hL y 1. Al. i i Is 7.c Packet Pg. 102 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) i • t R -L 9 x k R 6 It 4 A% \ 1 i tin = - - - - - - _ r tiia 1• - - . { ^ - } -._ . -. t Y 'aLU !- - - Jr I a \ J 1 '•J - y J l C w \ IM AA r t } 3 1 a I..L i ' a ', - o a 1 t a a I ' til 1. `Y ' I • W Callpp CD SRL --1 s' a a! .. e s . 1 i s a r 7 I e N J l i nil IT W. IF I I iJ, I 4. 8. _ _ _ _ S i4• c rR. 4' al R 64 !I R >! as R! al : ;R A R a 4Z1,41 4 s '27 Z tt Q 1 7.c Packet Pg. 103 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 0 L_ n Q O N D J 04 C'7 O ci r Oct p Aa O N C g a '°v C7c e a e~,'"o nwtia U ='Aeo 6i Oi.$`•,y wQ W r m acgSpA,y xN c°O p q 7a"•+m6 5' ug o"i7NE" 9A k m m,o me .°W L] "'"«Q maH a H C..52°yj•• A"`` dR1W F 4 n .'°, ym .~.meq g` ° <D _ . uV Wu w b8 u4.'.r m0.'A0.•gbx w V atlayyyrryy""a m L79i w _ Omr A qa V LL_y n 'OM a°+Q.:Y~N U WQI .k b«O p. 3'.072i'"E 7 •«'a °° °'-"p"q oholg cp OjO" 79M,,P74 i A p" aigti'V m a m L' z.•^, FiW Qm Wv'm CSU m..-Ao,we{a f-0o^ L Ww'x—. F 5•gz W G a aZ _q mxo"°v owmEmammG,rgx. '"eoLCw y.a d ... 'o.., apVp-oy6 ,q" baa m FV Me^°e;'iw A O O..We;d Fye Rv ChF L7UctlF m,yV a EW .7 e dp.,baO a, •ayo tea,>>"O pa P+Eb n p 's Ee. y 40¢ n. F C, . f. V tA' -..-• P4 m „ a i C7 , , Naafi' y U p ° S a 2 u•, ,, aJ a+C7 h.o Oh.n_p W'X3V W W'y R1 "%°d'h'j tjm'cm aopcE' 1Vtii-lP ti ? L:7 `.+ a mGia p ii G C q pc p UJ F " P ` b m(AA . .M ?b7 O O C^O aw uu uua ma..._9 abca+ anac aaao aAo uaa a arc 4 4 ao aaaaaaa^acaaaA fit I i ' 56 . . z r a1 . i _ 7.c Packet Pg. 104 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) m O N H •` rl O > 0 Lrav L Q O a, H L Ln E O p a a m O N a L_ • bb a' cu =_ u 41 O s stto 3 c 3 t O UA Uu .L O L U c w C U U o6 o U Q Q O IT OlOHd V OlOHd G O O CL 7.c Packet Pg. 105 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) n r-1 r -I M V) NO O > n cu LA 0 n L N ISO a O N a L cb v O Cu m *' J L 0 0 3 to u v O L 0 v O W U U 06 o U Q Q O 1, 9 OlOHd S OlOHd C Nt i Q 7.c Packet Pg. 106 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) n M O r4 r L o u c V) 0 gyri LQ CL E O o a O rr N a 41 4J O aj L r GA 4' L O 0 3 O U O L L H U +J 4J V1 C W C O UU 06 06 U Q Q I T-4* L OlOHd YU O L.: VfO +- C XO C N } O N V a O 3 0 0 ,O N Q v L Q } Q N O L O N X W _O E;v W L O N O C CL C N X O Nv '> 7.c Packet Pg. 107 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) FIOI16k£ f9I1 IR±f i STORAGE MriNr -I Ir4l T ©14Hd VI OlOHd ZZ OlOHd N W G 0 z_ Y O J W 7.c Packet Pg. 108 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) rl M V) -- V1 O N r- L- 0O a - CLv r u O Q NAa O a O d N d L_ bb v 3 vO s 3_ 4- c '3 t O cw v U O L. 4- L 4+ U 4J v v1 O 0 0 U U +J W o6 U Q Q O 15-0' 15'-2' 1r4' LT OlOHd I 7.c Packet Pg. 109 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 4 h t Y-2' tT4' 6 OlOHd tt OlOHd O t N c c C3 a) C3 O rn C N E O t a C } O O s 0) L E •O 0 E N H a t t'-tT 6 OlOHd tt OlOHd O t N c c C3 a) C3 O rn C N E O t a C } O O s 0) L E •O 0 E N H a 7.c Packet Pg. 110 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) C m L H m O L a v o 0 of L L a 3 LJ O XGJN r -I L N Fa O3N o o W_ L 0 U p o6 o6 +' Q Q 15 2' 6 OlOHd h 1 6 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 111 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) v v 3 41o a f0 4J CL N C = L m O t M a = o cr 0) cl: a m L u O i O 3U ODN o v ,> on — H mC L G O U- O U uj O o6 o6 v ad -0 wr m ire" Nr -IOHO lb r 1-0` 1. e• // ST, T OlOHd bT OlOHd O ZT OlOHd C N N N 3o-°aveE=av o3 E o Q H N_oya u aXi 03o}ys3O y ° 0 01 O o 3 0"M 0C0t•=-0 O uaCL i°s Q y' 0? •0 t 3 3: Tv o 0 0 > N W 0 O '0 Ou CT 0 Mn >'a '0 _ '0 lb r 1-0` 1. e• // ST, T OlOHd bT OlOHd O ZT OlOHd C N N N 3o-°aveE=av o3 E o Q H N_oya u aXi 03o}ys3O y ° 0 01 O o 3 0"M 0C0t•=-0 O uaCL i°s Q y' 0? •0 t 3 3: Tv o 0 0 > N W 0 O '0 Ou CT 0 Mn >'a '0 _ '0 7.c Packet Pg. 112 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) v t E O 4 rC o U W V) Q. C Ln CL o a wl `^ O v O a u a v aJ o Cr v L) bA O a *' s N E 3 bo a c o U E s L 4 Lo H a c o u L.L: o6 o6 6Z OlOHd a u L T c 3 0 0 O 0 U u a h E Q 0 3 Q O N Q C 3M>, 00 00, Q u o 0u O U a1 d 3 p 3 s rn0 v 0 C CN u= Q 0 03 to 130 o0- 0 L 7.c Packet Pg. 113 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Z OlOHd C L W fl. Q E aL N Q N i i fl. c 0 O Q N N O CL c 0 v c 00-6 a •c ' N N L A 0p0p C3C14a 7.c Packet Pg. 114 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) t a a z 3 u of W P ZZ OlOHd ZZ OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 115 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) N O O 2 CL rn rn Q Q ZZ OlOHd 0 7.c Packet Pg. 116 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) rn rn Q Q I I1 ZZ OlOHd W i N u O d) c_ N L O c a L L N 0 N 3 O O O N W :E c u O' O a OM a C O W A, L Q m a1 O O u c a v N a) 3 ch C; N a u a c O 3 W c u E n a - O 7.c Packet Pg. 117 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) IrMo4n, 1 TJ' E OlOHd L OlOHd 11 01OHd 7.c Packet Pg. 118 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 1s•: 17,_4. OlOHd v CO do a o a vi L c 3 L L o m cr Q 1) a Q 3 a 0 W O t.+ o Q C O f0 L Q 0 CL ro 0 0o N a Eo L 0 v L C M ui Maj 3 r ` L i 4J C CA a 0 Qm L C O N O m nC m m- y 3 rj Q O a N Ln wM to ai p a i m CL to L 4- O c M Q C OoqN U O G c a U a m 0 a, O 02 ca 06 ti e'o o'^ u L ti O 4EU U M C o o O E C CO rl p m v m 3. OlOHd do a o c a vi L 010 2 3 o m r a 0 a 0 W O t.+ Q C O CL ro r 0 N a E o Ctm M m3 5 w m m a O Qm L C U w O L io m y 3 I O w OLn wM ai p ao CL 4- O c M Q C OoqN O G M U a U V r O 02 cac e'o o'^ u 7.c Packet Pg. 119 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 17'4- c \ L O1OHd w ,O'/ Q) R r o t 7 2 CL 2 S o C 0 7 r2 00 0 2 E c c Q) 7 o c Mo a 4A EA 0 2 m Ek 0 c_ 0 rn @ 2 2 2 2 2 co 0S to I*- 0 C m m 7 m 2 w R 06 E 02 o m m 0 w 0£ p 2 o W 5 2 o 2 t 0 0 m Y. E cq rl - k Ln 5 0 m 2 z 2 k R L O1OHd w ,O'/ k r o t 2 CL 2 0 m C 7 r2 00a k ° c c Q) o c M a 4A a Em 0 2 m c_ 2 2 2 2 2 co 0S to I*- 0 m m 2 c g7 E ao0 u p 2 0C2 4 4a Q m Y. 4"0 cq rl - C) k Ln 5 rl / cn z 2 k R u a u i 7i Ln 7.c Packet Pg. 120 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) X0 y w y . r % , r ,« > TTO1OHd 2 f a CL QJ 4 o 2 o 2. m o> CL Vo c Mr V) cCCMLkZ 2E a o 7 U 2 c CL 7 Ec2 f 4.0 m @ M 2 O N ORcc q 2 m 40U a kfU k 2 O 3 m m c o c 2# Q 0 @ o E 2 4 q m o o 2 § 3 V) M 0 M» k un -0 m m o y w y . r % , r ,« > TTO1OHd CL o 2 o> V t c Mr cCCMLkZ 41 1) 0 a o 2 ° 2 c CL t 4.0 a 2 2 2 m 40U a c k 0m 5 @ m 0 U 2 0 o 2 o o u 7 p 06 C6. L 2 0 c R u E 0 d q o em"U LJ 2 U 0 W 2 0. 0§ q 2 7.c Packet Pg. 121 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 4- O OCNN4JON -C U fB 4A N =3 N i E U a -J i v 3 v o U N N CLO L O O N N O tw OD Q txo O . 0O4 -+ C O C O i tto L U L }u O U Q cv E d r4 c a 14O J w m u I, LDN m L a Q CL ru IL 1I d 6 W O u v v c o v o O C v mu 6 a0 J3 Qo O C10 A N C m w Lna tioN C m 0 aui > v o M a O c U N 7.c Packet Pg. 122 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) ri a 7.c Packet Pg. 123 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) i it r, Oil O sz LA 0 LA J I N N GJ N ri 5 R J Mu N O N D V) C Mu 7.c Packet Pg. 124 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) ri 0 4 - OJ OtCNNNO4-1N U 3 aA a, N E v L O U N L N L O •— N O f0 Z, V O C aNA v M C: bn C — ca Q to O . O O C: O L1 C: t L U b L 4-1 O W U Q fII E 0 L Q O CL N M O- 7.c Packet Pg. 125 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) cOU7LhCOUCf6NvL ca) O Q O Q O E O L_ L Cr wL F N Ln c c i L a O ro a 3 V v tt E bo o o a) G1 L4' U-) tjp C fC L tL C 41 U O a G1 L cu o v a) i t O 3 7 O L U NO H H J Q m V N N n m m VZ OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 126 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) c L a) Q OL Q a) F Ca" C O O U L 4-1 4 Ln O O Ln U G7 C t L CU v U L O i -0 Y O O V 'L J X `1 N 7.c Packet Pg. 127 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) a 3 a, L t dA O L N cubD L UN C • O 4J Q NO = O C= a E L L a Q LL M c OQ L aj C c o O a Y 4 - LnLn m N m N LOLD 0oo Lo- D Ln p L N p N 0) p Q00 •c O O N Qi - 0 — 0 C C V(1) Eo N Q N Op_ p C Qcn > uoo p° v o 0 0 ° p N N N N > Q Q U O c 0TSte a b09HDHN VZ OlOHd N O 0 a i 7.c Packet Pg. 128 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) vvLbio0a c N v s v c N a, c a, N c LnN 0 E tw Q Q Nco on c 0L_ f0 0 - m 0 W c a Q c A' 0 m tm on V) o c o 0 E" o E i r0 0 in— 3 ao 0 d li Q. r 61 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 129 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) C O N 'LnO L N O U E E pp O C a Q "a Q 41 NU M v to 0O L O Q - L Y u fD O co 0 OJ bb " L Q 4J a Q O L m m 6L b-0 N C O t O • cr M L- 0C *' NN _ Y • a..i Q1 J Q 0 OQL is O Q +J m E a 61 OlOHd 7.c Packet Pg. 130 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) L m W 7.c Packet Pg. 131 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) d Cd O r 75 O Q I I ICCNIN7 & cv n hN8.. L. I 1Yi Yi SSCC 86 C"ii6 C ii ffiQ7",z «5yi i ji iii 33nnyyr tMocrr. O :YOjT «ili}..: @CB . ky.nal airr 9l. M€l•Q fFlt hyi u iY R` ELf w 10 N [i eYuoW iu« 3..' HAI1PppaOtCr .oI i p .Iwi. 7Mwl b.. ~YyLjv Y YYw.1i'aa3 dnGl:l il r els bj Mill Oji I I4 7.c Packet Pg. 132 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) a s421 c O ^ ar W C • V IU o y ' C co V C 1 E y V ed N con red- C O" w M y 6 p 1.0 a O V C Y!= o C CL -r- bs GqC N cd O ed a.1 Occob 0-0 Z ca wOCOs fl r.a • G 0 O Vi "• C V Q% L o cn'c yUCo o H V. O C Q G y' Y 0 0 - c ° U c 1a 3 V O cid L7 D d w a c H O y Q 0 H 'b q H b•° O c 0.0 cm 4"o W ca ryO Q'> 3 t 7.c Packet Pg. 133 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) NXa+ E Eti. w ees ouaM 3 C7,Jw- 0 aci c 2:% E CQ u 73 4. G. c0 E 'b G V GQ y Cd t O Ri o N OQ G 0 O s edoy y U G fA F Q a.i Qi CA r co14 rLDo' U G° a o b 0,E LtwCV1 d y U of ,9 G N 0 O ea 'b H VO Ci ow i. 0 y H 0 b o O W 2 Cc CC0QQ u Q o f u " Q, 7.c Packet Pg. 134 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) I 141" a We-famr, WAMINION TWHEIIIIIIII I 0 7.c Packet Pg. 135 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) O— W O 0 W 0V ,v 0oE, so- a g y o 0p0c Uas3°33'vu0-0a a`oi}°cEa. ;'ccE=v3.Cvv° 0 y o o E 0v°1Uo E3 E V15-} c v u N c4;AO— O U O 0=°OtO -° }H o.Co-vw">v c.0 vpCOO"vy - v tx Uv:ESE°w a, h vi O O H EvoO r= oov Oo.o3v o H v u E Wt id tOO° yD. QLL 04::E3'a,vo CL... ml v ` t O c> oa.. EvOe a 1S w 7.c Packet Pg. 136 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) V J21 sr r C C R. en Q o 3E a 3 n o. E 3 coo 'sp0 C U m 430O cd0 N o a CO Jou MCI Q2 acs o = o, -- b rc C p E 3 N 4% oma} V + A• v ou u o o v v 0. t C C N v'v 0,0 t u H 0 c v y o uu as c E c > N u 0 E CL uyuv vvv' 7.c Packet Pg. 137 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 8 0 3 Crn ti U CQ V C C cc O O U tip 7.c Packet Pg. 138 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) e V o H o u u WM C c^ CW U c v u o0 Eauio vv 3E o dv1= W rN orH c. a^ p } D C p c .- 4 C W 3 y M A o . u o o c r- o Ga D a c O0Cccryc G O u aX03 a ° 3p c ooX u0-0 3' c ov u 0 o v o c H ' c C r •p c o o o u vo v z }} N ou3 oo ou 7.c Packet Pg. 139 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 0 = c a u 0 v_ CL 0. vG0atj O W c 0 Am ° d) v CrCX 3 u 0 41 c heU, 41 aui v E c v a ta 0 v°tEN o_v 0 0. v ry>' u_ o° o. o. = U z} v H-va r 0 7.c Packet Pg. 140 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Z ii a' 1CT E a cc a84 C 3 GIn13Z16 i S 0 0E r 9 1p2A T C13 W a ew it w. W 00 R V w4p 3 W 0 N a, N O N s N N v o a m 0 CL 0 L- CLa U m Q) m s M O AOcu4J O3 uNLYQiCUoL2. 0 C 40-- 4-1 N U CO viQ% a-+ v vaN0QN41ELUU NC. O L 04-1 NMNCUL N a4L v OL C 0 L r O W oLnL3U 4-1 U GJ G141 m N CA LAim N Z,C a a, 0 a? o 00-p v N a O C 0 L L OL N L L GJ L GJ V 4-fNs m L 3 a Ln L 4- 4-0 L w C C O W 4-0 4-0 0 L a a m co cv LAN G1 C 3 X N N L L m a1 t O L m ai s d N O 4- d O L cu w 0 cu 4 J a a, U 0 3 r4 U p GJ tLOrN3 0.3 cN oN J civ c E L C 0 O U fC C L WOt]D L O' V O C C GJ O J M C 4J C L Ni N L O N N C O L U L 4A v J 3Po. O F- u fl. o o m a J m• U v U s au m N U QJ uU fC Cn C U m H cn Q N a, N O N s N N v o a m 0 CL 0 L- CLa U m Q) m s M O 7.c Packet Pg. 141 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) F Matthew E. Boutte, SBN 294722 Attorney & Counselor at Law 77 Del Oro San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805)704 -1199 1 meb @mattboutte.com Attorney for Appellants 6 Steven Walker and Kathie Walker SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL I t t7 1 In re 1269 Fredericks Street, 1 San Luis Obispo 4 FEB 0 9 2016 BRIEF ON DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS THAT OCCURRED BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS w' E i6 Due Process Standards I S Both the United States Constitution and the California Constitution require due process P rior to the deprivation of life liberty, Y, or property. ( United States Constitution Amendment Fourteen. California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 7.) These constitutional requirements create a i sliding scale of what process is due in any particular circumstance. To answer the question of what process is due in a particular situation, the United States Constitution requires consideration of three factors: 4 (1) The private interest that will be affected by the official action; Ir 2) The risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used and the 6 probable value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and 27 ++ ii ( 3) The government's interest, including the additional burden from different procedures. 11 (Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 334.) BRIEF ON DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS 1 7.c Packet Pg. 142 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) r, sa 10 11 12 13 14 15+ 16 1 The California Constitution requires consideration of three similar factors plus an additional one: 1) The private interest that will be affected by the official action; 2) The risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used and the probable value of additional safeguards; 3) The dignitary interest in informing individuals of the nature, grounds, and consequences of the action and in enabling them to present their side of the story before a responsible government official; and 4) The governmental interest, including the burdens of additional procedures. (People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 268 -69.) Here, there is no doubt that a property right of the Walkers' is implicated and therefore that the City must provide due process to the Walkers. Although an administrative hearing such as the one the Walkers had before the Construction Board of Appeals does not require the full panoply of procedural safeguards that are required in the judicial setting, such hearings affect significant property interests and are quasi-judicial and adversarial in nature and therefore require significant procedural safeguards under the Mathews and Ramirez analysis. At a minimum, this requires adequate notice to the parties, a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and a chance to controvert evidence presented. This is in addition to basic due process requirements of a fair tribunal and a fair decision. There were major issues with how the hearing before the Construction Board of Appeals 1. . was conducted that implicated each of these due process requirements. 21 1 Notice The notice the Walkers received stated that the hearing would occur at 3:30pm. However F the Construction Board of Appeals' agenda later indicated that the hearing would occur at 2 3:00pm, which it actually did. Fortunately, the Walkers noticed the discrepancy and were able to v I I gain clarification prior to the hearing. BRIEF ON DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS 2 7.c Packet Pg. 143 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) l ii In addition to this, the Walkers never received the notice of the hearing in the mail. Opportunity to be Heard 3 11 During the hearing, the Chairman of the Board repeatedly rushed the Walkers' 4 5 6 7 it ire l 12 1 l t, r 19 7 f I l I presentation of their case. At one point he told them that they needed to finish their presentation or risk boring the Board. However, other members of the Board indicated that the Walkers' presentation was very thorough and helpful, going out of their way to thank the Walkers for the research they had done on the case and the insights that it provided. Thus, it is clear that the Chairman infringed the Walkers' right to be heard in a meaningful manner. (See Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation - San Diego Section (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1072.) This is even more problematic when examined in the light of how the Chairman handled the Board's discussion and decisionmaking processes, discussed below. Put together, it strongly 9 suggests that the Chairman was not interested in listening to the Walkers or discussing and p considering their arguments, but was simply trying to make the quickest decision possible. Chance to Controvert Evidence At the core of due process is the right to know what charges are made against an individual and the opportunity to respond to those charges. All the other procedural safeguards are designed to protect this right to respond to one's accuser. The most alarming conduct at the Construction Board of Appeals was the repeated offering of new information and claims by the City that the Walkers were not permitted to address. Not only were the Walkers not permitted to address these new charges, they were rudely shut down by the Board. Even more egregious than the offering of new charges by the City, the Board actively solicited new charges, information, and claims from the City and then would not permit the Walkers to respond to these new charges. This activity was directly contrary to the requirements of due process and clearly violated t, the requirement of Ramirez that the Walkers be able to present their side of the story. The a Board's conduct required the Walkers to sit by silently as new claims were brought against them N 11 BRIEF ON DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS 3 7.c Packet Pg. 144 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) the very kind of conduct that due process is intended to protect against and an affront to their dignity. 4 Fair Tribunal The Board is not comprised of attorneys and therefore required training and legal representation. The Board was represented by Anne Russell at the hearing while City staff was represented by Jon Ansolabehere. However, Mr. Ansolabehere was the attorney who trained the Board and members of the Board asked for legal advice from Mr. Ansolabehere by name during the hearing. This poses a significant conflict of interest and clear violation of the due process I requirement of a fair tribunal. It is true that a City attorney may represent the Board in one matter while representing the i prosecuting City staff in an unrelated matter. (Morongo Band ofMission Indians v. State Water 6 Y Resources Control Bd. (2009) 45 CalAth 731.) However, this is an entirely different situation. In 14 ! this situation, Mr. Ansolabehere acted as the Board's attorney in general when he trained the IS Board. This is a much more significant and lasting relationship of trust than one that would be I o created if he merely represented the Board in a particular matter. This is evident by the confusion I that the Board had as to Mr. Ansolabehere's role at the hearing. This clearly compromised the I S j fairness of the tribunal and therefore violated the Walkers' due process rights. 1 ca In addition to this, Ms. Russell interjected herself into the Board's discussion on multiple occasions in a way that advocated for the City's position. This is an additional serious conflict of interest and violation of the Walkers' due process rights. With the Board's own attorney 7 advocating on behalf of the City, the Board cannot be considered a fair tribunal. 21 24 Fair Decision 25 During the Board's deliberations, members of the Board indicated a desire to discuss R f individual items on the Walkers' Notice of Violation. However, the Chairman of the Board 27 would not permit discussion of individual items and required the Board to vote on the various items en masse with absolutely no discussion whatsoever. He did this to save time, explicitly BRIEF ON DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS 4 7.c Packet Pg. 145 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) r, 7 14I CI stating that he was doing so because he did not want the hearing to go on until midnight or their decision to be one hundred pages long. The items in the Notice of Violations are extensive and many are completely distinct from the others. Thus, the process engaged in by the Board could not possibly reach a fair decision. There is no way of knowing whether a majority of the Board considered any particular item in the Notice of Violation to actually be a violation. Conclusion The conduct of the hearing before the Construction Board of Appeals constituted clear and extensive violations of the Walkers' due process rights. Throughout the hearing, the Board repeatedly indicated that the issues in the Walkers' appeal were significantly more difficult than ones they had addressed in the past and expressed concern that they would have to regularly start y addressing these types of issues due to the City's rental inspection ordinance. Based on its 6 conduct and expressions of concern, the Board is not adequately prepared or trained for hearings of this magnitude. This lack of experience manifested itself in multiple due process violations. 16 These violations of constitutional rights should be of serious concern to the City — particularly in light of the many similar appeals that the Construction Board of Appeals will be hearing in f8 AJ 1 1 i S coming months without the benefit of review by the City Council. Dated this 8th day of February, 2016. y Matthew E. Boutte Attorney for Appellants BRIEF ON DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS 5 7.c Packet Pg. 146 At t a c h m e n t : c - A p p e a l - W a l k e r - 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s S t ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.d Packet Pg. 147 At t a c h m e n t : d - A s s e s s o r s 1 9 9 5 U p d a t e - d e t a i l ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.d Packet Pg. 148 At t a c h m e n t : d - A s s e s s o r s 1 9 9 5 U p d a t e - d e t a i l ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.e Packet Pg. 149 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y B l d g P e r m i t s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.e Packet Pg. 150 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y B l d g P e r m i t s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.e Packet Pg. 151 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y B l d g P e r m i t s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.e Packet Pg. 152 At t a c h m e n t : e - C i t y B l d g P e r m i t s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Ph o t o 1 7.f Packet Pg. 153 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Ph o t o 2 7.f Packet Pg. 154 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) No window sill above counter top edge New gas stove- no exhaust hood Ph o t o 3 7.f Packet Pg. 155 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Ph o t o 4 7.f Packet Pg. 156 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Photo 5 7.f Packet Pg. 157 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Ph o t o 6 7.f Packet Pg. 158 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Ph o t o 7 7.f Packet Pg. 159 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Ph o t o 8 7.f Packet Pg. 160 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Photo 9 7.f Packet Pg. 161 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Photo 10 7.f Packet Pg. 162 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Photo 11 7.f Packet Pg. 163 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Ph o t o 1 2 7.f Packet Pg. 164 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Ph o t o 1 3 7.f Packet Pg. 165 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Ph o t o 1 4 7.f Packet Pg. 166 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Ph o t o 1 5 7.f Packet Pg. 167 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Photo 16 7.f Packet Pg. 168 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Ph o t o 1 7 7.f Packet Pg. 169 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Unprotected wiring Photo 18 7.f Packet Pg. 170 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Photo 19 7.f Packet Pg. 171 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Photo 20 7.f Packet Pg. 172 At t a c h m e n t : f - P h o t o s ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Doorway closed off Wall removed Wall shown in owners pictures- not on plans 2009 FLOOR PLAN 7.g Packet Pg. 173 At t a c h m e n t : g - F l o o r P l a n s w i t h a l t e r a t i o n s n o t e d ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 2014 FLOOR PLAN 7.g Packet Pg. 174 At t a c h m e n t : g - F l o o r P l a n s w i t h a l t e r a t i o n s n o t e d ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.h Packet Pg. 175 At t a c h m e n t : h - 7.h Packet Pg. 176 At t a c h m e n t : h - 7.h Packet Pg. 177 At t a c h m e n t : h - 7.h Packet Pg. 178 At t a c h m e n t : h - 7.h Packet Pg. 179 At t a c h m e n t : h - 7.h Packet Pg. 180 At t a c h m e n t : h - 7.h Packet Pg. 181 At t a c h m e n t : h - 7.h Packet Pg. 182 At t a c h m e n t : h - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PA R T 3 PA R T 2 PA R T 1 7.i Packet Pg. 183 At t a c h m e n t : i - A s s e s s o r s E x h i b i t s a n d k e y e d n a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 7.i Packet Pg. 184 At t a c h m e n t : i - A s s e s s o r s E x h i b i t s a n d k e y e d n a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) PA R T 1 PA R T 2 PA R T 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7.i Packet Pg. 185 At t a c h m e n t : i - A s s e s s o r s E x h i b i t s a n d k e y e d n a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 7.i Packet Pg. 186 At t a c h m e n t : i - A s s e s s o r s E x h i b i t s a n d k e y e d n a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) PAGE ONE Beginning in the upper left hand corner of the record and going through the first series of columns in part one we find documentation of: Part One Column One - Class & Shape D4B, Architecture one stories, Use Type single C; Column Two - Construction standard, Foundation Piers 6; Column Three - Structural frame 2X4- 16, subfloor 2X6- 24; Column Four - Exterior siding RE, Windows casement screens; Column Five - Roof gable, pitch m, gutters, tile trim, compo shingle; Column Six - Lighting Wiring K.T., Fixtures Avg., Plumbing 5 fixtures, water heater, automatic, gas, Column Seven - Air Condition heating (2) Column Eight – All floors T(ongue) &G(roove) grade A with op trim; Ent Hall floor BR- illegible notation at right; 1 living room, floor finish car(pet) Grade B, stuc(co) interior wall and ceiling finish; dining illegible count and floor finish, 1 dinet, floor finish lino(leum), wall and ceiling finish HP; 1 bed(room) wall and ceiling finish PB; 1 kitchen , floor finish lino(leum) grade A; drain Bd (board) material mica, length 8 ft, splash 12. Part Two Construction Record Line One - 1930B Effec Year 1930 Appr Year 1946 Age 16 Remain’g life 30 Table R45 69% Rating A (all categories) Line Two - Effec Year 1930 Appr Year 1955 Age 25 Remain’g life 22.5 Table R45 50% Line Three - Effec Year 30 Appr Year 57 Age 27 Remain’g life 21 Table R45 49% Line Four - Effec Year 1930 Appr Year 1959 Age 16 Remain’g life 29 Table R55 59% Line Five – Permit ?50; c-port amount ^00, date 3-2-64, Effec Year 1930 Appr Year 1965 Age 35 Remain’g life 23 Table R55 54% Line Six - Effec Year 1930 Appr Year 1970 Age 40 Remain’g life 20 Table R55 56% Condition A Line Seven - Effec Year 1930 Appr Year 1972 Age 42 Remain’g life 19 Table R55 48% Block 8 – Bath Detail, Line 1- No 1 lino(leum) floor, walls HP, 1 WC (water closet), 1 7.i Packet Pg. 187 At t a c h m e n t : i - A s s e s s o r s E x h i b i t s a n d k e y e d n a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) La(vatory), 1 tub, type ST, grade A, Shower 1 OT, finish FG: Line 2- No 1 illegible floors- walls -, 1 Wc (water closet) 1 la(vatory) Line below- initials. Part Three Appraiser & Date NDR 12-4-46 Unit Area Unit Cost Cost Illegible 480 4.40 2112 F Porch ¼ 20 1.10 22 GAR RM 216 1.00 216 Bedroom 160 2.50 400 Total 2750 Normal % GOOD 69% R.C.L.N.D. 1898 MH 1955 Unit Area Unit Cost Cost Illegible 480 F Porch ¼ 20 GAR RM 216 Bedroom 160 Total 2750 Normal % GOOD 50% R.C.L.N.D. 1375 DU 1957 Unit Area Unit Cost Cost Illegible 480 6.70 3216 F Porch ¼ 20 1.70 340 GAR RM 216 2.50 540 7.i Packet Pg. 188 At t a c h m e n t : i - A s s e s s o r s E x h i b i t s a n d k e y e d n a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Bedroom 160 4.00 640 Heating 120 Total 4856 Normal % GOOD 49% R.C.L.N.D. 2379 DU 1960 Unit Area Unit Cost Cost Illegible 480 7.10 3408 F Porch ¼ 20 1.78 36 GAR RM 216 2.70 583 Bedroom 160 4.50 720 Heating 120 Total 4867 Normal % GOOD 59% R.C.L.N.D. 2872 DU 1965 Unit Area Unit Cost Cost Illegible 480 8.40 4032 F Porch ¼ 20 2.10 42 GAR RM 216 4.00 864 Bedroom 160 5.00 800 Heating 120 C-Port & PCH 288 1.50 432 Total 6290 Normal % GOOD 54% R.C.L.N.D. 3400 7.i Packet Pg. 189 At t a c h m e n t : i - A s s e s s o r s E x h i b i t s a n d k e y e d n a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) PS 1969 Unit Area Unit Cost Cost Illegible 480 8.94 4091 F Porch ¼ 20 2.24 45 GAR RM 216 4.50 972 Bedroom 160 5.50 880 Heating 150 C-Port & PCH 288 1.70 490 Total 6828 Normal % GOOD 50% R.C.L.N.D. 3400 FACTORED Total 7511 Normal % GOOD 48% R.C.L.N.D. 3605 PAGE TWO (Poor Quality Sketch) Note near center of sketch the word “C-PORT”. Various dimensions are legible. Miscellaneous Structures GAR RM- Found(ation) C(oncrete), Cons(truction) FR(ame), Ext(erior) CHR, Roof C(ompostion) Shin(gles) Floor C(oncrete), Int(erior) (illegible) FIN(ished) Size 12 X 18 BEDROOM- Found(ation) C(oncrete) Pier, Cons(truction) FR(ame), Ext(erior) CHR, Roof Comp(ostion), Floor T(ongue) &G(roove) Int(erior) WB, Size 10 X 16 C-PORT- Found(ation) C(oncrete), Cons(truction) R+P, Ext(erior) open, Roof flat T&GR Floor C(oncrete) Int(erior) -, Size sketch COMPUTATIONS Res (idence) 16 X 21= 336 7.i Packet Pg. 190 At t a c h m e n t : i - A s s e s s o r s E x h i b i t s a n d k e y e d n a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 12 X 12= 144 480 F P(OR)CH ¼ 15 X 4 20 C(AR)-Port+PCH 20 X 12 240 4 X 12 48 288 Remarks Bedroom price includes 2 fixtures MC 1-25-95- no visible changes PAGE THREE The revised record from 1995 uses a similar form as the original record started 1946. New information of note is highlighted below Under DESIGN USE in Column one, notation “OLD” Under CONSTRUCTION in Column two, notation Sub-Standard, FOUNDATION noted as SAND and NONE Under HEATING in Column seven, noted as WALL (heater) and under FIREPLACE noted as FREE S + D In Column eight notations for 1 living room, 2 bedroom, 1 kitchen, mica drain board 12 feet and 4” splash. No information is completed for construction record. In Block eight- BATH DETAIL the record notes 1 vinyl floor, S(heet)/R(ock), 1 water closet, 1 lavatory and 1 tub, Finish FB (fiber) gl(ass) 1 bath vinyl floor, S(heet)/R(ock), 1 water closet, 1 lavatory. Under SPECIAL FEATURES oven, range, hood, (these three are grouped with an initial), fan, disposal, dishwasher, 2 pullman, X green house window. COMPUTATIONS Res (idence) 480 Add(ition) 495 Total 975 GAR/SHOP Studio APT 600 7.i Packet Pg. 191 At t a c h m e n t : i - A s s e s s o r s E x h i b i t s a n d k e y e d n a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) CCP 200 on studio (covered carport) W-UP 480 main res (walk up deck) PAGE FOUR Legible sketch of two structures. Note at the upper left corner the sketch of a second building that did not appear in the prior record. Notes include “old lattice cp (carport)” “Fin BR on sand floor” (Finished BR on sand floor) “Fin Conc Floor” (finished concrete floor) “Unfin” (unfinished) Remainder of notes at prior structure are “orig res”, “w-up” and “res adds” with meaning already discussed. COMPUTATIONS Res (idence) 16 X 21= 336 12 X 12= 144 480 Res Add(ition)s 14 X 4 56 18 X 2 36 16 X 7 112 18 X 1 18 12 X 18 216 12 X 3 36 7 X 3 21 T(otal) 495 ALL 975 7.i Packet Pg. 192 At t a c h m e n t : i - A s s e s s o r s E x h i b i t s a n d k e y e d n a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Detach GAR/SHOP STUDIO APT 30 x 20 600 W(ALK) UP (deck) 6 X 5 30 11 X 3 33 18 X 10 180 T(otal) 243 C(ar) P(ort) 10 X 20 T 200 Remarks- to preserve the content no abbreviations are expanded into full words for this section. MC 1-30-95 Viewed res. old many adds. kind of cute inside although floor bludge and sag. Part of the adds have no foundation, built in sand. The older raised part is termite infested. Per (three initials- not legible) said the have had roof repairs and found more dry rot and termites, rear portion and low spots have evidence of H20 damage with heavy rains. Also per (three initials- not legible) the gar/shop are built on sand has H20 seep up with heavy rains. (three initials- not legible) told me they were going to pay 150k. then inspection ca about and they neg. price down to 130k. he fee res will be replace in the future. feels he paid 7.i Packet Pg. 193 At t a c h m e n t : i - A s s e s s o r s E x h i b i t s a n d k e y e d n a r r a t i v e ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.j Packet Pg. 194 At t a c h m e n t : j - D e c l a r a t i o n o f M a n s f i e l d - A u d i o & A p p r a i s a l ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.j Packet Pg. 195 At t a c h m e n t : j - D e c l a r a t i o n o f M a n s f i e l d - A u d i o & A p p r a i s a l ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2016 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS’ DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL FILED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT AND OTHER VIOLATIONS WHEREAS, on July 18, 2014, a Notice of Violation was issued by City Code Enforcement Staff to the property owners of 1269 Fredericks Street, San Luis Obispo (the “Property”) for violations of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) alleging, among other things, unpermitted construction, unpermitted dwelling unit, and improper occupancy; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2014, and September 16, 2014, the Chief Building Official, Code Enforcement staff and the property owners met to discuss the alleged violations and to conduct a second inspection of the subject property; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2015, an Amended Notice of Violation was issued by the City Code Enforcement Staff to the property owners for violations of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) (and of various state building, housing and safety codes, as adopted by the SLOMC) for unpermitted construction, unpermitted dwelling unit, and improper occupancy; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2015, the Community Development Director received an appeal and a Request for Director’s Review from the property owners referencing the Amended Notice of Violation; and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2015, the Community Development Director issued his decision denying the appeal; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2015, the property owners appealed the Director’s Decision to the Construction Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2016, the Construction Board of Appeals of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in City Council Conference Room, of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering the appeal of the Director’s Decision; and WHEREAS, at its January 28, 2016 meeting, the Construction Board of Appeals of the City of San Luis Obispo adopted Resolution No. 2016-0001 entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AN APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1269 FREDERICKS APN: 002-334-007” denying the appeal and amending the Notice of Violation dated February 23, 2015; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2016, the property owners appealed the decision of the Construction Board of Appeals; and 7.k Packet Pg. 196 At t a c h m e n t : k - R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V 2 - 2 3 - 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2 WHEREAS, on April 5, 2016, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering the appeal of the Construction Board of Appeals’ action submitted by the property owners; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Construction Board of Appeals’ hearing and actions, testimony of the property owners, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council hereby finds as follows: A. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. B. Based on the evidence presented, modifications and improvements were made to the Property without a building permit as outlined in the February 23, 2015 Notice of Violation. C. The property owners admit to renovating the Property without a permit, including, but not limited to: relocating a kitchen and related electrical and plumbing work, removing interior walls, full renovation of a bathroom and related electrical and plumbing work, and installing a raised floor. D. The renovations set forth in paragraph C above, as well as other work completed on the Property, require permits prior to beginning work and subsequent inspections to ensure that work has been completed in compliance with applicable codes and/or safety standards. E. The second unit on the property was not permitted as a residence. Assessor’s records reflect a transition of the building over time from 1969, which showed no second unit, to 1995 which showed a detached structure of the exact same size as the current unit. The 1995 Assessor’s records described the interior of that structure as finished boards on sand floor, unfinished and finished concrete which is not habitable space. Moreover, the second unit contains substantial modern construction and improvements to both the interior and exterior of the building for which no permits were obtained. Thus, the second unit does not constitute a legal non-conforming structure as contemplated by Chapter 17.14 of the City’s Zoning Code because official records and visual observation establish that the structure, in its current form as a residential occupancy, did not “lawfully exist” as of Assessor’s inspection in 1995 and the structure appears to have transitioned from unfinished non-habitable space to significantly improved habitable space sometime after January 30, 1995 without a permit. 7.k Packet Pg. 197 At t a c h m e n t : k - R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V 2 - 2 3 - 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 3 F. As a result of improvements being completed without permits or related inspections, it is not possible to make a reliable assessment of structural safety and soundness of the building without exposing portions of the improvements concealed by modern construction, such as the unpermitted electrical work and plumbing, the existence of compliant insulation, lateral support, anchoring and foundation. G. Neither the February 23, 2015 Notice of Violation, nor the Construction Board of Appeals’ Resolution No. 2016-0001 dated January 28, 2016 is an “order of abatement” within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 17959.4 and no order of abatement within the meaning of that Code shall be issued prior to compliance with notice and hearing requirements under that Code and regulations promulgated thereunder. H. The property owners were duly notified of the January 28, 2016 hearing of the Construction Board of Appeals, and notwithstanding any noticing errors, the property owners were in fact provided with a full and fair explanation of the alleged violations against them in advance of the hearing and were provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to controvert any evidence against them in front of an impartial body. SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby determines that the violations cited in the Notice of Violation dated February 23, 2015, issued by the Code Enforcement staff, a copy of which is reflected in Exhibit “A” attached hereto, in fact existed on the date of the Notice of Violation and continue to exist, and as such constitute a public nuisance, and the property owners are responsible for such violations. The City Council hereby further determines that the second unit on the Property does not constitute a legal non-conforming structure, that the Construction Board of Appeals errored in making its determination of legal non-conforming status, but that statement of the violation shall be modified from the language set forth in the February 23, 2015 Notice of Violation regarding violations related to the status of the second unit as follows: A. The violation stated in Section A.8.B is hereby modified for purposes of Council’s final determination to read: The detached bedroom and additions thereto were constructed, or significantly expanded, improved, or modified, without permits and in a manner that requires destructive inspection to determine the structural safety and soundness of the building as habitable space. B. The requirement set forth in Section B.1 is hereby modified for purposes of Council’s final determination to read: The second dwelling unit must receive zoning clearance and obtain inspections and permits deemed necessary by the Chief Building Official to ensure safe residential occupancy. The property owners are hereby directed to work with the Chief Building Official within the next ninety (90) days to establish a time frame for compliance, with priority given to violations which most significantly affect the health, safety and welfare of the occupants and surrounding community as determined by the Chief Building Official. Failure to correct these violations will result in additional enforcement action being taken which may include Administrative Citations, administrative abatement proceedings, or other remedies as provided by law. 7.k Packet Pg. 198 At t a c h m e n t : k - R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V 2 - 2 3 - 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 4 Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Lee Price Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Lee Price Interim City Clerk 7.k Packet Pg. 199 At t a c h m e n t : k - R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V 2 - 2 3 - 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) EXHIBIT A 7.l Packet Pg. 200 At t a c h m e n t : l - E x h i b i t A t o R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V - F e b r u a r y 2 3 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.l Packet Pg. 201 At t a c h m e n t : l - E x h i b i t A t o R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V - F e b r u a r y 2 3 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.l Packet Pg. 202 At t a c h m e n t : l - E x h i b i t A t o R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V - F e b r u a r y 2 3 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.l Packet Pg. 203 At t a c h m e n t : l - E x h i b i t A t o R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V - F e b r u a r y 2 3 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.l Packet Pg. 204 At t a c h m e n t : l - E x h i b i t A t o R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V - F e b r u a r y 2 3 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.l Packet Pg. 205 At t a c h m e n t : l - E x h i b i t A t o R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V - F e b r u a r y 2 3 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.l Packet Pg. 206 At t a c h m e n t : l - E x h i b i t A t o R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V - F e b r u a r y 2 3 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.l Packet Pg. 207 At t a c h m e n t : l - E x h i b i t A t o R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V - F e b r u a r y 2 3 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.l Packet Pg. 208 At t a c h m e n t : l - E x h i b i t A t o R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V - F e b r u a r y 2 3 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.l Packet Pg. 209 At t a c h m e n t : l - E x h i b i t A t o R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V - F e b r u a r y 2 3 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.l Packet Pg. 210 At t a c h m e n t : l - E x h i b i t A t o R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V - F e b r u a r y 2 3 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.l Packet Pg. 211 At t a c h m e n t : l - E x h i b i t A t o R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V - F e b r u a r y 2 3 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) 7.l Packet Pg. 212 At t a c h m e n t : l - E x h i b i t A t o R e s o l u t i o n d e n y i n g a p p e a l o f N O V - F e b r u a r y 2 3 2 0 1 5 ( 1 2 7 3 : A p p e a l o f C o d e V i o l a t i o n s a t 1 2 6 9 F r e d e r i c k s ) Page intentionally left blank. APPEAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEAL RULING FOR 1269 FREDERICKS STREET 1269 FREDERICKS – GOOGLE SATELLITE IMAGE MAIN HOUSE SECOND UNIT Aerial of site 1957 Main House Location of Permitted Carport/then Kitchen/ Now Living Room. Location of Second Unit Now Attached Bedroom/Bath Demolished- no longer exists Appraisal Information – Oct 28 2013 One of the first issues the appraiser noticed was the drainage that would allow rain water coming from the street to run directly to the front and side of the subject home. This is most likely contributing to the subject's foundation issue. The foundation shows signs of foundation wall that is tilting, and piers moving off center. There is a sizeable water channel that is most likely active when it rains. The water flow is most likely has some contribution from Frederick Street and definitely from the down coming from the roof. The interior current does not have a kitchen. There is a range and oven no sink and few cabinets. The kitchen has been torn out. Appraisal Information – Oct 28 2013 The .5 bathroom has been torn out with drainage and water pipes sticking throughout the floor and the ceilings. The living room is semi finished with drywall. In the bedroom you can observe daylight from the interior of the home. The ivy growing through the bedroom walls reflects no exterior siding or black tar paper used to keep water out. There is exposed wiring throughout the home. The roof in the bedroom appears to be covered in plastic. Appraisal Information – Oct 28 2013 To summarize the subject home it has been gutted and the present condition of the home is poor. It lacks a kitchen and unfinished throughout the home. Basically the homes interior has been gutted. The remodel that is ongoing does not appear to have a definite plan; it appears every room in the home has had some degree of attempted remodel with nothing completed. The rental unit does not meet code; the roof appears to be a shed metal roof, the floor is partially slab the remainder unknown. The construction is fair to poor quality. The rental unit looks like it was converted from shed. It appears newer siding was placed around the exterior of this rental unit prior to the applicants purchasing the property. Kathy Walker: “we went about demolishing our home because it was a student rental for thirty or forty years. So we gutted the interior…. We have no kitchen, our only running water is, is in the bathroom. There are no doors between any of the bedrooms, it’s not insulated it doesn’t have a floor, um and so it’s not, you couldn’t get a loan on it currently.” Bankruptcy Trustee: “No, you were just gonna do it on your own..?” Steve Walker: “Yeah. Exactly.” Kathie Walker: “We’ve, we’ve done it before to homes. Bankruptcy Meeting of the Creditors Kathie Walker: “No. It’s actually…I don’t know what is going to happen…yeah we have mold issues I was sick with a black mold infection in my lung because the roof was leaking and there’s ivy growing into the home from the exterior.” Bankruptcy Trustee: “And are you currently renting out part of the Fredericks Street property?” Kathie Walker: “Yes” Bankruptcy Trustee: “The part that is livable?” Kathie Walker: “Yes there is a back…it’s like a little cottage, it’s not legal. But, there is someone living there. It’s a student yeah, she helps with our children.” Bankruptcy Meeting of the Creditors 2009 floor plan KITCHEN LIVING ROOM 2014 floor plan 5 3 4 2 1 6 7 8 Exterior Side View New Kitchen 1 Former Kitchen -New Living Room 2 Raised flooring in living room 3 Remodeled Bathroom 4 Remodeled Bathroom – Electrical and Mechanical 4 5 5 Original Bedroom 6 7 Exterior view of skylight - Original Bedroom 7 Bathroom off original bedroom 8 9 11 10 13 12 1269 Fredericks – Back Unit 9 10 11 12 13 Wall heater vent Knob & Tube Wiring Knob Tube Illegal splice of new wiring to knob and tube wiring. Old knob and tube wiring The Code Enforcement Process (Generally) COMPLAINT INSPECTION NOTICE TO CORRECT/ NOTICE OF VIOLATION INSPECTION/ WORK WITH OWNER Administrative Citations/ Civil Complaint/ Administrative Nuisance Abatement 1st July 18, 2014 2nd February 23, 2015 October 2013 May 14, 2014 Priority for repair of the main home Completion of Kitchen •Installation of a kitchen sink •Installation of exhaust hood over stove •Install required electrical outlets in new kitchen Provide a fully functional and safe bathroom •Repair and complete drywall •Provide plumbing vents for fixtures Correct the drainage and repair the foundation •Regrade or install drainage devices to direct water away from interior of building •Provide minimum clearance from bottom of walls to finished exterior grade (dirt) by removing dirt against the foundation. Remainder of issues to be addressed after completion of site repairs and 3 major issues Priority Site Repairs •Inspect, test and repair all electrical work •Inspect, test and repair all gas piping •Inspect, test and repair all sewer piping Questions? 1269 Fredericks Street, San Luis Obispo . MLS Photo . 2009 1269 Fredericks Street, San Luis Obispo . Alleged “Raised Floor” “Carport” 1269 Fredericks Street, San Luis Obispo . Former Kitchen/Carport 1269 Fredericks Street, San Luis Obispo . Former Kitchen 1269 Fredericks Street, San Luis Obispo . Front Room 1269 Fredericks Street, San Luis Obispo . Patch in Bathroom 1269 Fredericks Street, San Luis Obispo . Siding Replaced 1269 Fredericks Street, San Luis Obispo . Half Bathrom 1269 Fredericks Street, San Luis Obispo . Piers now support joist R ICATE RECEIPT CITY OF SAN LUIS DBISPp FWD BY: FINANCE CASHIER OIfJp4)3 YOR: lATHIE mm ?6p 'TODAY'S DATE: ( o&,16 REGISTER DATE; f} /DB/16 TIS: r 'DESCFtIPTIOly �r COST ID..WnL wv "'NIi LAilp� REVEK TOTAL Dom; U*M. $279,0o. y REF a.- tmag 1/1 STEVEN WALKER OR KATHIE L WALKER 2253 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405-1936 t ( Pn to the Order of t7r1k• -79 �(J � Dnl�rrts � oTel, e ick USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK 10760 MODERMD7T FWV P S[CTLL_p�M®SPUSAA ''H�724 For--At