Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS - 09102004 - 71-324 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Re : Abatement , property of } A. Lincoln Barker :Estate, et al � RESOLUTION NO. 7,11324 )Resolution of Nuisance & Abatement } Building Inspector Abatement ) (Cal.Adm.Code §17014.5) #1. D... 951 } The Contra Costa County Board of� Supervisors RESOLVES THAT: 1. This Board's records show that (a) the County Building Inspector, acting pursuant to the County Ordinance Cade in accor- dance with Sections 203 and R-.1001:--H-1002 of the Uniform Building Code , Volume III , and Sections 17014 et seq . of Title VIII of the California Administrative Cade, determined that the buildings and/or Improvement(s) located at Canyon, California, the subject of the above-mentioned Building Inspector Abatement Proceeding, and located on that real property described as set forth in "Exhibit B, 'attaebed hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are substandard and therefore , a public nuisance ; and (b) the Building Inspector posted said property with Notice of Substandard Buildingand/or Improvements and duly notified the owners thereo t-h-at they are substandard, as appears more particularly From the declaration of the Building Inspector on file herein. 2. Those buildings and/or improvement(s) have not been repaired or removed as required by the Notice of Substandard Buildings and/or Improvement(s) ; and the Building Inspector thereafter posted said property with Notice tri :bate Nuisance , specifying the time and place of a hearing before this -Board for the property owners to show cause why the buildings and/or improvement(s) should not be condemned as a public nuisance, and the Building Inspector duly notified the owners of the hearing as appears more particularly from his declaration on file herein. 3. This matter came on regularly for hearing by this Beard as provided in the notice, and on November 12, 1969, this Board, pur- suant to the request of owners or occupants of the subject buildings or improvements , duly referred the matter for hearing to the County Tearing Officer., and after hearings on this case and related ratters the Hearing Officer filed his corrected report with this Board, a copy of which, marked "LxhibitA` is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 4 . The Board today adopted the Hearing Officer's corrected report and the findings and recommendations therein. 5. This Board now finds that said buildings and/or improvements are substandard as defined in Sections H--1001 and H -1002 of the Uniform Building Cade, "volume III, by reason of the deficiencies set forth in "Exhibit A;' which are hereby found to exist , and said buildings and/or improvement(s) are declared to be a: public nuisance and the owners thereof are hereby ordered to abate said nuisance within 30 days after a copy of this resolution, together with notice thereof, has been posted on said property. 6. This Board concludes that said buildings and/or improve- ment(s) cannot be reconstructed or repaired in a manner so as to comply with the provisions of law cited above and therefore they must be razed and removed; and if said nuisance is not abated within the time allowed, the Building Inspector shall abate it and the expense thereof shall be a lien upon the land upon which said build- ings and/or improvement(s) are located. PASSED AND ADOPTED on Ma 1.8 1971 Air W:1p RESOLUTION No 71/324 ...................................................................................................................................................... ............ ......... ..... ..... CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEARING OFFICER DAVID J. LEVY April 20� 1971 DIRECT CORRESPONDENCE: CONCORO OLVD. AT GRANT STA6CT CIVIL SERVICE HEARINGS. CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 6411912 ROOM tOS. ADMINISTRATION OLOO. PH*149 gas-aAA* P.O. sox 791 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 04553 EXHIBIT "At' PHONE AIS-220-3000, EMT. loft RETIREMENT BOARD HEARINGS: ROOM 102, FiNANCC bUiLOING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94353 PHONE 419-220.3000,EMT. 2301 Honorable Chairman and Members T_(' Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors L 10 E' County Administration Building Martinez , California FW. T. PAA86H RE: CA14YON ABATEMENT PROCEEDIVIGS CLZAK 130AR0 OF SUPEPYISORS MiFSrt oE Hearing 5.Mcer I By Gentlemen: Pursuant to your resolution of November 12, 1969, hearings on abatement of the sixteen structures herein described were referred to the undersigned as County Hearing Officer. There is submitted herewith a report of these proceedings , summary of the evidence, findings , conclusions and recommendations. The County acting through the Building Inspector was designated as Petitioner and was represented by Arthur W. Walenta., Deputy County Counsel. The residents and landowners were designated as Respondents and were represented by William Bennett, Attorney. One resident repre- sented himself, one property owner was not represented. INTRODUCTION These proceedings involve a combination of legal, constitutional, economic and sociological issues, all of which are of utmost conce-An to the individual residents , the people of the County of Contra Costa and your Honorable Board as their representatives. The hearings were conducted publicly and informally at the con- venience of the residents , property owners, counsel and the Hearing Officer. They extended over a period of a year and entailed an es- timated 100 hours of testimony. The proceedings were reported by a court reporter retained at the request of the respective parties and not on the order of the Hearing Officer. There has been no order A10- a complete transcript of the proceedings. All parties were permitted to testify and to present witnesses and relevant evidence. In addi- tion, the tearing Officer viewed all the premises that are subject to the proceedings. The format agreed upon by the parties was to have the .Deputy Building Inspector describe the location and posting of each parcel rt`,,I y E APR ? 110771 T�F - /324 ..............I......... ............................ -2- with "'Notice of Substandard Building,." The notice contained a list of -alleged deficiencies , a description of the real p opert,r and evidence of service either b7 mail or personal delivery. There was similar evidence of posting `'`�ioti.ce to Abate i`uisance" on tine respective na.r cels. Without udmi tti.ng t`ze allegations in described notices , it was stipulated on behalf of the owners and residents that the described notices had been regularly posted or mailed as set forth in the exhibits submitted in behalf of each respective parcel.. At the outset, it was evident by statements of residents and their counsel that the abatement proceedings were considered personal in nature, e violation of the equal protection provisions of the Constitution and aimed at removing homes of people because of their dress , appearance or activities. During the entire proceedin-s , there was ample evidence that a number of the residents , not only described themselves , were described by others , and appeared to be anon-conformists" as to their dress and rode of living. In deciding the issues, your Hearing Officer has summarily dismissed these factors from his considerations and is basing this report and recommendation solely on the factual_ evidence of the buildings , and their construction, subject to the efforts of the residents and landowners to comply with the cord and spirit of the ordinances adopted by the Board of Super- visors. . RESPONDENTS I RESIDE17fS & PROPERTY OWNERS POSITION At the outset, the respondents raised legal issues as follows 1. The Board of Supervisors has no enforcement Sower. 2. The burden of proving violations is upon the County. 3. The evidence that, was to be presented Paas unlawfully obtained. 4. The ordinances were being applied discriminatorily. 5. The residents of Canyon have the right to live their way of life unless the method of Life is unhealthy or dangerous. 6. The structures as erected and maintained contribute to conservation in the area, and, 7. They objected to the entire proceedings. The Petitioner (Building Inspector) acting through Mr. Walenta, Deputy County Counsel, filed a general argument in response to the position taken by Respondents. He argues that no building permits were issued for any of the buildings and that all of them have long lists of deficiencies. Ile describes the Respondents' conduct as an attempt to harass, hamper and intimidate the County to kaep it from enforcing in Canyon the code provisions that apply to the rest of the County. During the hearings , the residents mane similar charges that«. the County And its agents were attempting to harass and intimidate them. Bath parties argue that they are interested in "Conservation," one side wishes to conserve Canyon by saving it from development, the other to save it from the use to which the Respondents are 'putting it. RIE Q00 Tff WE APR '2 11971 ID CONTRA CO >T'A COUNTY BUILDING IN$PBCTOR mr. Bennett- , Attorney for the residents and homeowners , dial not file a written argument. Considerable emotions were aroused by the investi-,bons l.eadin-; up to the abatement procec.din-_dinAn automobile 1 ;,n..tii on Ice; of a Deputy Building Inspector t�as removed from his car and an auto- �iobile i nition wire was �:er�oved. Later t;he ignitioxa iced eras returned. On another date, in 1963 two County vehicles had the air removed from seven tires and the ignition wises removed. Nails were driven into automobile tires resul.ti,r,g in lat tires, On one occasion, a camera was removed from the Inspectorsr automobile but it was returned. A resident carried a shotgun on occasion, however, there was no direct threats with it. On one occasion when notices were posted, the Building Inspector had a large number of Sheriff's deputies present. The premises involved were all unfenced. The Building Inspector gained his evidence from observations made from outside the buildings. The Health Officer made inspections with the Deputy Building Inspector however, no written health reports were made or filed. The occupants of the various structures vary in occupation from laboring carpenters through the professions of engineering and teaching. All the occupants were relatively young with none appearing to be over 40 years old. With the e:kcepti.on of the public officials who inves- tigated and testified , there was no direct evidence of complaints against the structures from the immediate public or residents in the neighborhood E.ESPONISE TO LEGAL ISSUES LIAISED BY RESPONDENTS Separate :47:om considering the individual sites, it is possible to rule on the Respondents` legal objections. I. The Board of Supervisors has the power to abate structures that are determined to be a nuisance. 2. The burden is upon the County to prove that the various c structures are a nuisance. D 3. Evidence of i3legal searches or seizures was insufficient 01 v u� to make the evidence inadmissable. < t e.-y co Q o 4. The applicable ordinances are not being applied discrimi- cc v Z natorily. Q. do H 4 5. The residents of Canyon have the right to live their own way of life so lon as it is not in violation of applicable laces and ordinances. 6. Conservation of natural resources is not an issue for o against the Respondents. The discussions and recogimendations made in this report are directed specifically to the abatement proceedings before the Board of Supervisors. r'o recommendation or opinion is expressed relative J N 4 - to misdemeanor violations of the building codes or whether there is evidence that they have or have not been committed. WITNESSES The County's witnesses included_ the Deputy Building Inspector, the County Building Inspector and ,Deputy Health Inspector. Respondent's witnesses were most of the residents who were involved, some landowners , residents whose property was not involved, an architect, interested persons who were: knowledgeable on the general availability of housing in Contra Costa County and sub-standard hous- ing in 'tither areas of the County, the County Supervisor for the Dis- trict. THE GENERAL AREA Canyon is a rural area locatedin the southwest portion of Contra Costa County. Its terrain is predominately steep, with numerous trees and heavy undergrowth. It lacks streets , curbs and gutters, access is gained by the paved: county road described as Redwood Highway. The area is zoned for residential use, minimum site size is one-half acre. In the vicinity of the properties, there are other established homes, electric power service is available, some of the established homes have septic tanks and there is an existing Moraga Water District. None of the sites subject to the proceedings is on a paved road. OTHER ABATEMENTS Respondents submitted evidence to show that there were other buildings in Contra Costa County that were substandard and had not been abated. There was no substantial evidence to show these struc- tures had come to the attention of the Building Inspector or that they had been allowed while the Respondents were singled out for abate- ment. The Respondents requested and received a list of structures subject to abatement proceedings instigated by the Building Inspector. The list is quite formidable and refutes the contention of the Respondents that there was discrimination against their structures and other substandard structures were ignored. ORDINANCES AND CODES There was received in evidence the County Ordinances adopting the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1967 edition; the Uniform Building Code, Vol. III (Housing) 1967 edition; Uniform Building Code,. 1967 edition, Volume 'I; Uniform Mechanical Code, 1967 edition. The following is a detailed analysis of each structure set forth in the original' referral from the Board of Supervisors: FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO THE VARIOUS STRUCTURES 1. Building Inspector's No. 3_v-194$ Owner of Property: Canyon Water Brothers ; Occupant, Resident or er: arry mith MAY 101971 Exhibits 2-A through 2-D, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY / �2 "„ GU1LDINle INSPECTOR -5- This is an interesting structure i:ede completely of large Vii' x 8' sheets of �l.ywood bolted to-othor to form three ­eoc es-i c do,jjes. oi:1.,-a7:, ;�clly, the u ldin, Inspector o''.�se�.:ved s�.t'L pl-zt i ,inside these conies. However , nere was no water , "ood , toilet ities or other evidence that anyone was residing in these The lar-e openings in the plywood would make the buildings untenable for living. There is ins , i1cient evidence to show that this structure was used or will be used for a habitation. Linder the definition of substandard buildings , Section I1-1001 , it is the opinion of tine Hearing Offices: that the structure was not tised as a residence and in its present condition and location noes not endanger' the life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare of an occupant or the public. 2. Buildinginspector's ro. 3-D-1964 Owner o:t: Property: Canyon Water Brothers Occupant: Thomas Voorhis Exhibits -A Building is a shack measuring 8' x 16' erected on a hillside and constructed of a conglomeration of second-land materials such as old nii.smaatched window frames and odd len;ths of timber. The building contained no kitchen sink, no water closet, no lavatory, no bathtub, no running fiiater, no connection to a sewer system, no facilities for storing garbage or rubbish. Some panes of glass were out. Heating wa.s by a small wood stove that was located close to combustible twterial. The stave was not properly vented and was described by the building inspector as a fire hazard. The roof had a plastic material to keepout the elements. There was evidence that someone had been residing in the building. There was no provision for disposal of waste waster'. 11r. Thomas Earl Voorhis testified he was the builder. He identified his occupation as a. telephone engineer. He resided in the building to "get sway from the mechanical. society." He described lighting by kerosene lamps and testified that tract houses have burred down in the neighborhood. In his opinion, if there had been "good roads" and "good fire protection," the buildings may have been saved. A spring furnishes cold water which is pumped uphill by an electric pump located ' a quarter of a mile away. Waste :,pater was transported on his lade down hill and deposited in someone's septic tank. This buildin g,, although satisfactory to the occupant, dotes not have any redeeming .actors. It is a hazard to health and safety of its occupants and the public. ' TEM11- WED 3. Building 'I,nspecto�:'s DTo. 3-D-1949 Owner of Property; Canyon CI�Rrothers APR 2 11971 Occupants: George Icetl.rer ana gailye < er Exhibits 6-At rou, CONTRA Coa l+► c OUNTY rU11.01t4a If4spaCTOR . In September of 1969, when first observed by the Building Inspector, this structure presented a: single geodesic dome in the course of construction. It is built on a solid wood platform on the crest of 'a. hill, apparently new dimension lumber was used. At the time of the site inspection by the Hearing Officer, the structure showed considerable more development and to the inexperienced eye of the uear .ng Officer appeared to be sturdily and well built of solid �t materials. The Building Inspector: cited numerous examples of a failure .y to meet the minimum standards o-. the Uniform Housing Code. In comnarin the photographs ta3�cn at she time of posting, notice o' su' � standard building and the field trip inspection, there were numerous additions including a Hitchen area , bathing and toilet facilities and the digging of what appeared to be space: 'or a septic wank and drain field. The occupants exerted considerable effort to obtain approval of their construction. They took all the preliminary steps necessary to build a sewer treatment plant to satisfy sewer requirements but they were unsuccessful.. The location of the structure is in an area that would be inaccessible to a standard automobile in good weather. In inclement weather, very few, if any, wheeled vehicles could reach the site. The Building Inspector described the building as one of the "better buildings" and at the time of his inspection "up to the plat- form'' was very near code. From the desire and determination of the occupants, it is the Hearing Officer's opinion that they would do anything reasonable within their power to obtain approval for the structure zf they could live there. The items of the structure that have been listed by the Building Inspector as substandard do not appear to be condition; that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare of the public or the occupants of the structure. 4. Building Inspector's No. 3-D-1956 Owner of Property; Franc §' R: "B rker Thomas as Adm nist'ra.tr x of tie 4 s tate o Z: nco ,n ar kerdeceased 1BU anter Occupant: Dirk Allen an 77 .e This is a one-room cabin. I4hen the Building Inspector first observed the site, the cabin was under construction. He advised t'--hat a permit- was necessary, nevertheless , construction' wa.s completed, Water service was by plastic pipe, no termite protection, no hoL. t and cold running dater , no water closet, no bathtub, no shcn'rer or lavatory. There is inadequate living space. Approximately 40 feet away there;was a wash tub with a seat on it that was described as the toilet. heat was by a 'small wood stovecloseto combustible materials. A. deck railing required under the Code was not present. The occupant, Mr. Dirk Allen, is 23 years old. He has had experience as a builder. He was raised in Lafayette. He testified he uses a large redwood tank for supplying water. The building has "stressraded wood" and for a. foundation, he slug two feet down to solid rock and set wood. beamson it. There is no electricity, no hot eater'. 'He used creosote under the structure for termites. The malls are plywood over studding. There is some tar paper and redwood siding. ID)EG T1971D21 CMTRA caiTA OOUN7Y <4 ' clescribee by the Buil.din Inspec= . Dyne to lack, of sanitary c£3Cld t OT1 , rt?3�T3?T3'; C?arca" and toilet .mac^cilities , the bui.ldxr; s``ln,acllc isha4,: coni c iI7s inadequate san3.tatlt.on F.nd structural ha zares. The buildin- e'T:ean-ors the health, property and safety {7�f- the t'S?.1blic and o.L the bui.ldins Occupants. S. Building Inspector's 17o. 3-D -1951 Owner of 2?ropc::t y: Franc-3--s U . 7 arll-ler Thomas its A r11-,qinis t at. :ix o t1 ✓,cafe o.'iA. � nco nBarcer deceascr and glen G MFE Occupant. George Ke. i ne Exhibits ll_-A_t_ zro' ugt"t, "11-E This is a frame building measuring 16' x 301 covered by corru;ated sheet iron that could roughly be described as a warehouse. inside, there was one room in which George I:ennel resides. The building was built and is owned by David Lynn, a licensed general. contractor. Mir. Lynn is a graduate of Pomona College with a Master's Degree fran-i the University of Cali:ornia. lie taught Design in the .art Department. Mr. Lynn is building his own home 1001 away. The subject structure has light framing of 2 x 41s. There are some 4" x 4" supports. This "warehouse" is used to dry lumber and also as a Contractor's shed to store tools and materials. The buildinc is 30' aide with a supporting wall down the center. The resident, Mr. Fennel, is an architect and city planner. 11e attended Harvard College, Harvard School of Design and studied design in Cambridge. The room in which he lives is 15' x 161 . It contains a wood burning stove, lacks toilet and sewage facilities, no plumbing, no electricity. He feels the space is adequate and he claims it is not intended as a residence. By letter to the Board of Supervisors dated May 1:4, 1969 , the builder., Mr. David Lynn, admits that the structure should be abated for failure to conform to the building code. He requested a. five year delay to allow the premises to be used as a Stora-e building while he builds an approved residence nearby. He offered to post bond to guarantee demolishing. He states that the residence use has terminated. However, in August of 1970, a portion of the building was still being used as a residence by Mr. Kennel. This structure is primarily a warehouse and contractor's store- room. It was not intendedas a residence. As long_as it is used for living purposes , it is a nuisance, 'since it is substandard in area and construction and a hazard to the health and safety of the occupant and the public. 9. Building Inspector's No. 3-D-1.955 Owner of Property: noZ C.an�J'.G. Moyston and Blanche M. Mitchell Occupant; TimothyJ.Bi Exhibits 157-X t roug - RT;xJ tp* APR 2 11971' CONTRA CWTA COUNTY u lding consists of 141 x 17' , ane-room, dwelling. 117rom the outside, the buildinn, has a quaint "'roger bread" appearance re til "Ung from split. shales on the wa- 1 .s. The underpinnings are heavy wood beams The building lacks the following: Shm7er, lavatory, toilet, hot and cold running water, electrical i4irin g, connection to sewage disposal system and plumbing facilities. An outhouse latrine was available that was cormnon to three other nearby residences. meat was by means of a wood burning stave that had inadequate insulation from combustible zv,all materials. Because o:! the described deficiencies, this building is a hazardto the health and safety of its occupants and the public.. 10. Duilding Inspector's leo. 3-D-1.954 Owner of Property: Roy a J. c. `aox ston and Blanche !% Mitchel: Occupant: Sabra Pieldstine Exhibits 12 tl-rQug -E Mr. Barker claims that he has been the owner of this property for ten years. There is some vagueness as to the actual tenant. In October of 1966, Mr. Taylor Sloan informed the Inspector that it was his residence and that Mr. Tien Biggins was attempting to purchase it. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Bob Bonaccorsi was the resident who had been living there for seven months. This is a 10' x 161 , one-room,; flat roofed building with walls of plywood and an overabundance of small paned windows. There is no foundation and there is an uninsulated wood stove. The building lacks the following- kitchen sink, lavatory, bathtub (or shower) , hot and cold running eater, plumbing fa.cili.ties , sewage connection, electric power connection, and guard rail on a small balcony. This structure has no redeeming features. it is a hazard to the health and safety of. the occupant and the public. 11. Building Inspector's No. 3-n-195$ Owner of Property: David MUM Occuoant: Michael Exhibits l4�ra�`14-D ,The structure consists of two buildings next to each other with varied construction of plywood, tarpaper sides , and one wall of very small paned windows. It does contain a. toilet bowl fixture in the building and it is reportedly connected to a septic tank. "There is cold water but no hot running water. There is no electrical lighting, wash basin, bathtub or shower. The heating stove. was improperly installed and created a fire hazard and the dwelling unit lacked sewage and plumbing facilities. The structure .is located on relatively flat ground approximately 100 feet from the right-of-way of the Sacramento Northern Railway and is easily visible and accessible by vehicle. This structure is a hazard to the health and safety of the occupant and the public. 4iw 211971' CONTRA COSTA COUNW suli.OtNQ INISPILCITOR ..7_ This building was constructed in outright defiance of the building codes. it was under construction when the Building inspector told Mr. Allen to obtain>a permit. Although it may satisfy the .occupants' needs as an adequate wilderness cabin, it is much too rustic to comply with the codes as adopted by the Beard. of Supervisors. The exposed toilet, the wood stove without adequate shielding and lack of adequate, water service combine to maks this structure substandard to the extent that it is a hazard to; the health', safety and welfare of the public and the occupants. 5. Building inspector's No. 3- D-x.952 Owner of Property: Francis' . Barker Thomas as Administratrix oF t e Estjtj St A. ElBcoln- RAE er eceased an- a en ar er occupant; Unknown Exhibits 10 Uiroough 10-D The structure was described as a tent platform. At the time of the field trip, it had been removed and was non-existent. 6. Building Inspector's No. 3-D-1966 Owner of Property: Franc s H. "Barker Thomas as Administratrix o t e state o L nco 'n ar er' Deceased an a en ar er Occupant: Unknown Exhibits 9-K""tR3G-gh .9-D When proceedings were commenced, a small "A" shaped building was on the site. At the time of the field trip, the described structure was removed and another small house structure erected in its place. No 'proceedings had been commenced against this most recent building 7. Building Inspector's No. 3-D»1953 Owner of Property: FrancTs—H. garker Thomas Administratix of t e EMte of A. Lincoln ar er ecease aR Men G. Barker Occupant: Michael V. SEg ooZI Exhibits 8-A through At the time of the original inspections, this structure consisted of a wooden platform located on a hill with a grade' of approximately 35% There was a tent occupying half of the platform; the remainder had miscellaneous items including a large bathtub. At the time of the field trip a different structure had been erected, obviously constructed of scrap plywood and "patchwood" siding. There was no evidence of a water supply, outhouse or sewer supply. Mr. Peter Burgess testified' that he has resided can this structure since June of 1969. He is 21 years old and an apprentice carpenter.. He 'was raised in Pleasant Hill and went to Canyon for peace and quiet. The structure as pasted was in direct violation of the minimum requirements of the Building Code. The structure as it existed in 1.974 with its unauthorized additions- showed n' - I ltt .eis /32r_ tY 10 � x1971 f {, CONTRA Celt TA COUNTY _10- 12. Euil.din- Inspector's bra, 3-D-1977 Otiner of '.Property: Es ate a� r aret, Lydihson Qccunant: i. r 6. Exhibits �'ZI This small cabin presented an appearance of assorted windows , of various sizes and construction, :from large panes approx .zzately 2' x 3' t o s-mall l leaded vindocus. The building laced the following. Shower, lavatory, toilet, hot and cold running water, electrical wiring, connection to a sewersystem. There was an outhouse type o:- 7atr ne available that was shared by three other: residences. The slope of the grade to the building directed surface waters onto the earth floors. The wood burning stove and pipe were dangerously close to combustible call. materials. The total living space was 380 cubic feet which is less than the minimum permitted by the Code. This structure is a hazard to the health and safety of its occupants and the ;public. There was received in evidence letter dated October 1 , 1969 from rlobert A . Smallmn, the Attorney for the estate of I-lar a:ret Lydikson. He; agrees that the nuisances do exist' but that the structures were erected by trespassers without authority and that he would like the buildings removed and since the owner slid not create the nuisance, Mr. Smallman objects to the cost of removal being imposed as a lien, 13. Building Inspector's No. 3--D-1978 Owner of Property, Estate o" Tlaraaret Lt dikson Occupant: Mr. &: Vl s. John Lawrence Exhibits 17::A t roug -D This is a one-room 12' x 161 cabin, walls of wood tongue and groove, slanting roof. It is erected on a slope with the under- pinnings set on individual concrete bases. It contains a large wood burning� range which the Building Inspectorstates creates a fire hazard. The structure lacks the following Hot running water, sewage and plumbing facilities, connection to available electrical power, vlate: closet, lavatory, bathtub (or shower) . Water is furnished by mean; of a 50-gallon drum located at the rear of the building. The letter of October 1, 19,69 , from Attorney robert A. Small.man, agreeing that the structurep are a nuisance also applies to this structure. The non-existing water and plumbing facilities and the hazard of the range make this structure dangerous to the health and safety of the occupants and the public, TER M E Rw71D . APR 21 1971 CON'xtl`a♦A CWTA yCOUNTY 14. Building Inspector's No. 3-D-197' Caw:-ser of Property: Estate oF liar ares <dikson Occupants: Mr. ;.& M s. rent Exhibits 184, t roug - Th s structure is on the side of a steep hill and varies from some of the others in that, the siding and construction are more uniform. The underpinnings are set on concrete bases. Access is by means of a wooden ramp. The interior is heated by a wood burning stove inadequately insulated from combustible materials. 'There is lacking the following: Sewage and plumbing facilities, hot and cold running water, water closet, lavatory, bathtub (or shower) and electricity. The letter of October 1,, 1969, from Attorney Robert A. S allm n agreeing that the structures are a nuisance, also applies to this structure. The structure is a hazard to the health and safety of the occupants and the public. 15, Building Inspector's No. 33-�I3�. 16. Building Inspector's No. 3-D-1989. Maher of Property: John r_. _a_n_TTarbara G. Wyatt Occupant: Unknown Exhibits 15"-»A through I5'-D ( ) These are the structures described as tree houses. Structures 3-D-1988 and 3_D-1989 were built as a tree house. It does not conform to the cede requirements relating to plumbing, water, electricity and heating. Likewise, it does not cornp ly with the construesural requirements relative to materials and their use. There was no evidence that the premises were being used for living quarters or as a residence. The 41housell was on two separate levels, the first being approximately five feet above grade and the upper- approximately 14 feet. There were no railings or safety devises making them unsafe for any child or adult that may use them. When the Hearing Officer climbedto the first deck, it was apparent that the flooring and steps had noticeable "give." Neither t e Hearing_ Officer nor anyone in the inspection party saw reason to assume the apparent risk of climbing up to the second floor of the tree house. This structure endangers the safety of the public.. From the foregoing findings, the Hearing Officer' concludes and recommends as follows: MAY 10 1971 DD" 7 j S 2 4 CONTRA;; COSTA COUNTY ° BUILDING INSPUCTOR -12- Conclusions: 1. The following designated structures are unsafe buildings and nuisances under the provisions of the County Building Codes. Those structures referred to in the files of the County Building Inspector numbered; 3-D-1964 3-D-1956 3-D-1953 3-D-1951 3-D-1955 3-D-1954 3-D-1958 3-D-1977 3-D-1978 3-D-1979 3-D-1988 3-D-1989 After due and proper_notce, the owners of the above described structures have failed and neglected to comply with notice to repair, rehabilitate, demolish and remove said buildings. 2. The following designated 'structures are not unsafe buildings and nuisances under the provisions of the County Building Codes. Those structuresreferred to in the files of the County Building Inspector numbered. 3-D->194$ 3-D-1949 3. Structures that are no longer in existence are 'those referred to irs the files of the County Building Inspector numbered: 3-D-.1966 3-D-1952 Recommendations: 1. That the Honorable Board of Supervisors order the Building Inspector to proceed with demolition and abatement as specified in each respective Notice and in accordance with the provisions of Section 203 of the Uniform; Building Code, 1967 Edition, Vol. I as to the following designated structures, 3-D-1964 3-D-1956 3-D-1953 3-D-1951 3-D-1955 3-D-1958 3-D-1977 RMAY 101971 3-n-1.978 3-D'-19 79 CONTRA e,'O j f A 4;c Uc,J,''+ITY 3-D-1988' BUILDING INSPECTOR 3-D-1989 2. That there be no demolition of the structures designated as: 3-D-194$ 3-D-1949 _ 1663 2 ........................................................................ ..................................................... -13- and that any existing or continuing violations of the buildiner codes be considered as misdemeanors or violations subject to Court injunction. Respectful ly ,submitted, .Da id J,. �Icvy Hearin; %4 five/.J/ DJ L j g cc: Mr. William Bennett A ttoriiey at Law 11&1�IE R Mr. Arthur W. Walcnta, J'r• RAPR '2 11971 Deputy County Counsel CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDINS INSPI+ TOR (Kinnell) EXHIBIT H REAL PROPERTY in the County of Contra Costa, Unincorporated, State of California, described as follows: A CERTAIN strip of land situate in Section 230 Township 1 South, Range 3 West, M.D.B. & M., and lying northeasterly of the northeasterly boundary line of the Moraga Ranch Number 2 so-called, said strip of .land being 100.0 .feet wide lying 50.0 feet on each side of the following described center line; f BEGINNING at Station 104+20 of the L-41 line of the surveyed location of the Oakjanr;1.' d Antioch Railway, said paint of beg npj being on the easterly 1x-.40 of that certain parcel.` of land conveyed t by John J. and Catharine ` :.0. Allen to the Oakland and Antioch Railw by deed recorded October 'S, 1911, in Volume 170 of Deeds, page 354, Contra Costa County Records, Califdrnia; thence from said point of beginning easterly along a 3*301 curve to the left, 323.88 feet, to Station 107+43.88 E.C. of said railway survey, thence south 50°08+ i east 1290.62 feet to Station 120+34.5 of said railway survey, on the i easterly line of that certain parcel of land conveyed by Frank J. Fake and Emma E. Fake to Oakland and Antioch Railway by deed recorded j In Volume 186 of Deeds, page 29, Contra Costa Records, California.. The strip of land herein conveyed contains 1.954 acres, more or lessp- and being all of those pieces or parcels of land conveyed to the Oakland and Antioch Railway by the following conveyances: PARCELS 2 and 3 of the deed from George W. Austin and Margaret Austin, his wife, recorded October 28, 1911, in Volume 174 of Deeds at Page 88, the deed from William H. Take recorded October 6, 1911, In Volume 170 of deeds, at page 356, the deed from Clarence E. Wilson recorded October 6, 1911, in Volume 170 of Beech, page 352, the deed from John F. Dryer and Annie M. Dryer recorded November 16, 1911 in 'Volume 174 of Deeds, page 164, the deed from William C. ; Jurgens recorded October 28, 191.1, in Volume 174;'of ]Deeds, page 91, f the deed from Clara E. Glover recorded November 16, 1911, in Volume 147 of Deeds, page 167, the deed from Frank J. Fake and Emma E. Fake., reoorded August _9, 1912, in Volume 186 of Deeds# page 29, Contra Coat County Reoorde ,Wltornla o