Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS - 09102004 - 71-326 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY , CALIFORNIA Re : Abatement, property of 71/326} RESOLUTION No. moyston, Mitcheli, et al } )Resolution of Nuisance & Abatement c/o Estate of A. Lincoln Barker, et)al Building Inspector Abatement ) (Cal.Adm.Code §17014.5) 3-D-3954 } 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 H-1001-H--1002 of the Uniform Building Cade , Volume III , and Sections 17014 et seq. of Title VIII of the California Administrative Code , 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, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are substandard and therefore a public nuisance ; and (b) the Building Inspector pasted said property with Notice of Substandard Building and/car Improvements and duly nota. 'ie the owner(s) ther_eof that 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( ) ; and the Building Inspector thereafter posted said property with Notice to Abate 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 Board 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 Hearing Officer, and after hearings on this case and related matters the Hearing Officer filed his corrected report with this Board, a copy of which, marked "Exhibit A." 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 Code, 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) mprove- ments) cannot be reconstructed or repaired in a manner so as to comply with the provisions of lair 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 Mair IR-1 1971 AVIW:1p RESOLUTION N07,1/32'6 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEARING OFFICER DAVID J. LEVY April 20, 1971 DIRECT CORRESPONDENCE: CONCORD OLVD. AT*RANT STRIST CIVIL. SERVICE HEARINGS: CONCORD, CALIFORNIA &AS213 ROOM 1055 ADMINISTRATION BLOO{ _ PHONE$44.2440 P.O. BOX 791 EXHIBIT "A" PHONE CALIFORNIA 94553 PHONE 413.226•:1000, EXT. 2011 RETIREMENT BOARD HEARINGS: ROOM 102, FINANCE BUILDING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94533 PHONE 415.226.3004, EXT, 2341 Honorable Chairman and Members lay ;. -,IN7,AContra Costa County Board of SupervisorsCounty Administration Building Ma�:tinez, CaliforniaW. T. PAASOH RE: CANYON ABATEMENT P�ROCEEDII�IGS K 130ARO OF SUPEPVISORS eport o H axln i Icer 64 k •�*:rir,ty „aY Gentlemen: Pursuant to your resolution of November 12, 1969 , hearin;s on abatement of the sixteen structures herein described were referred to the undersigned as County Dearing 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. INTRODITCTION These proceedings involve a combination of legal, constitutional, economic and sociological issues, all of which are of utmost concern 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 104 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 for a complete transcript of the proceedings. All parties wf:r e permitted to testify and to present witnesses and relevant evidence. In addi- tion, the Hearing 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 fffl FL,, XY x r APR J' -2- with .2..with "Notice of Substandard Building." The notice contained a list of alleged deficiencies , a description of the real property and evidence of service either by mail or nersonal delivery. There was sijiu.lar evidence of posting "NNotice to !abate Nuisance" on the respective parcels. Without admitting t;ie allegations in e described n8tices , it "-s sti.nulated 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, nroceedin s were considered personal in nature, a violation of the equal protection provisions of the Constitution and aimed at removing homes of people because of their dress , appearance or activities. Du-rin the entire proceedings , there was ample evidence that a number of the residents , not only described themselves , were described by others , and appeared to be f'non- conformists" as to their dress and mode 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 word and spirit of the ordinances adopted by the Board of Super- visors. R:ESPaNDENTS ' RESIDENTS & PROPERT`:! 01gN`ERS 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 was 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. G. 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. Ite argues that no building permits were issued :for any of the buildings and that all of them have long lists of deficiencies. He describes the Respondents ' conduct as an attempt to harass, hamper and intimidate the County to keep it Zrom enforcing in 'Canyon the code provisions that apply to the rest of the County. During the hearings, the residents made 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. RAPR 2 ' 1971 /,D2 6CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTOR -3- Mr. Bennett, Attorney for the residents and homeowners , did not file a written ar-urment. Considerable emotions were aroused by the investi.- tions leading up to the abatement procecdin-;.:. An automobile i. n`Ltion key of a Deputy Building Inspector was removed 4 rom his car and an auto- mobile i 7nition wire was renoved. mater the ignition lkey -v;as returned. On another date, in 1963 two County vehicles had the ai: removed from seven tires and the i nition wires removed. Nails< were driven into automobile tires resulting in flat tires. On one occasion, a camera was removed from the Inspectors ' 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'; deputies present. The premises involved were all unfenced. The Building inspector gained his evidence from observations rade 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 anal t.eac"ing, All the occupants were relatively young with none appearing to be over 40 years old. With the exception 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. RESPONSE TO LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY RESPOUDENTS Separate `c'. om considering the individual sites, it is possible to rule on the Rcspondents' legal objections. 1. 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 structures are a nuisance. 2 me a 1- 3. Evidence of il.l.egal. searches or seizures was insufficient M to make the evidence inadmissable. t »+ ►�.. Z cq 4 4. The applicable ordinances are not being applied discrimi- 09 U z natorily. " 5. The residents of Canyon have the right to live their own Z m way of Life so long as it is not in violation of applicable v laws and ordinances. 6. Conservation of natural resources is not an issue for or against the Respondents. The discussions and recommendations made in this report are directed specifically to the abatement proceedings before the Board of Supervisors. No recommendation or opinion is expressed relative � 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 other areas' of the County, the County Supervisor for the Dis- trict. is- trict. THE GENERAL AREA Canyon is a rural area located in 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 comae 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 ether 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-D-1948 �r ���� Owner of Property: Canyon Mater Brothers ; Occuppant, Resident or er: Barry m Ch ' 1'971 Exhibits 2-A through 2-D a a CONTRA COSTA COUNTY }:.> BUILDING,INSPECTOR This is an interesting structure rude completely of bare 0 x 81 sheets of 4-)1y7,7ood bolted to-ether to form t:1;;:ee -eodes"?c domes. Originally, the Buildin- In."a4]ecto's: observed slaG'*3 n-, ba—s inside these Clones. Hovever, t.;icra was no water, food, toilet we cil.- itles or other evidence that anyone was residing in these st.ru.^^_tj�-c3. The lay-e openings in the plywood would make the buildings trnten bl.e for 14.vin There is insufficient evidence to show that this structure was used or will be used for a habitation. Linder the definition of substandard buildings, Section I-i-IOOI , it is the opinion of the hearing Office- that the structure was not used is a residence and in its present condition and location does not endanger the lire, limb, health, property, safety or welfare of an occupant or the public. 2. Building, Inspector's Fo. 3-D-1964 Owner o:' Property: Cannon WaT Ler Brothers Occupant, Thomas Voorhis Exhibits 5-A t rod;H -i3 Buildin- is a shack measuring 8' x 16' erected on a hillside and constructed of a conglomeration of second-hand materials such as old mismatched window frames and odd lengths of timber. The building contained no kitchen sink, no water closet, no lavatory, no battztub, no running water, no connection to a sewer system, no facilities for storing ,arta e or rubbish. Some panes of glass were out. Tleatin was by a small wood stove that was located close to combustible ,mterial. The stove was not properly vented and was described by the Building Inspector as a fire hazard. The roof had a plastic material to keep out the elements. There was evidence that someone had been residing in the building. There was no provision for disposal of waste water. Mr. Thomas Earl. Voorhis testified he was the builder, He identified his occupation as a telephone engineer. lie resided in the building to "get away from the mechanical society." He described lighting by kerosene lamps and testified that two houses have burned 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 water was transported on his back down hill and deposited in someone's septic tank. This building, although satisfactory to the occupant, does not have any redeeming factors. It is a hazard to health and safety oil- its yits occupants and the public. } M" 3. Buildin -1 EvLED g Inspector's No. 3-0-1949 (0 Owner of Property, ranydn- I�Brothers AFR 2 11971 Occupants: George I e it er and Sally--_R-M—rer Exhibits 6-A through 6- CONTRA oWTA COUNTY >SU16oING swa090TOR . In September of 1969 , when first observed by the Building Inspector, this structure presented a single geodesic dome in the course of construction. Ii 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 shored considerable more development and to the inexperienced eye of the Hearing Officer appeared to be sturdily and well built of solid r materials. The Building Inspector cited numerous exarip?es of a failure to meet the minimum ;standards of the Uniform Housing Code. In comparing the photographs taken at the time of posting; notice of sub- standard buil:dinn; and the field tri; inspection, there were numerous additions including a kitchen area., bathing and toilet facilities and the digging of what appeared to be space for a septic tank 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- ford' 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 tAthin their power to obtain approval for the structure if they could lire there. The items of the structure that have been listed by the Building inspector as substandard do not appear to be conditions 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-1.956 Owner of Property: Francs :>arker Thomas as Administratrix R taeE state of A. Elncoln NrIzer, deceased, an , 76135 tartier Occupant: I.irk Gillen, End UM This is a one-room cabin. When the Building, Inspector first observed the site, the cabin was under construction. Ile advised that a permit, was necessary, nevertheless, construction' was completed. Dater service' was by plastic pipe, no termite protection, no hot and cold running water, no water closet, no bathtub, no shower or lavatory. There is inadequate living space. Approximately 44 feet away there was a wash tub with a seas: on it that was described as the toilet. Meat was by a small wood stove close to combustible materials. A deck railing required under the Code was not present. The occupant, Mr. Dirk Allen, is 23 years old. Ile has had experience as a builder. He was raised in Lafayette. Ile testified he uses a large redwood tank for supplying water. The building has "stress graded wood" and for a foundation, he dug two feet down to solid rock and set wood beams on it. There is no electricity, no hot water. ''He used creosote under the structure for termites. The malls are plywood over studding. There is some tarpaper and redwood siding. APR 2 11971 } CONTRA co s rA OO NTY -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 Board of Supervisors. The exposed toilet, the wood stove without adequate shielding and lack of adequate water service combine to make 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-1352 Owner of Property: Francis. t rker Thomas as Administratrix BE t e Estate of A. nco n Barker eceased an2 MET.G. Barker Occupant: Unknown Exhibits 10Z-A—E ir—ough 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: Francis fl: Barker Thomas as Administratrix oZ ER Estate R A . Lx nco n ar er eceased NE3 Hilen U. Earker Occupant: Unknown Exhibits 9 Rough .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-1353 Owner of Property: Francis R. 1�arker Thomas Adm nistratix of t e EsEate o . Linco n Barker, cleceased, ang TIME G. Barker Occupant: Michael ma woo Exhibits 84 t roug At the time of the original inspections, this structure consisted of a wooden platform located on a hill with a grade of approximately 350 . 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 scraplywood and "patchwood"' siding. Theme was noevidenceof a water supply, outhouse or sewer supply. Mr. Peter Burgess testified that he has resided on this structure since .lune 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 posted was in direct violation of the minimum requirements of the Building Code. The structure as it existed in 1970 with its unauthorized additions showed n IRMAY 10 197 1 CON'T'RA CWTA COUNTY descr ibee by the Bluildin2 Ins sector. Due to lack of sanitary conditions , ru'i'n n` water and toilet :t�*acilwtiev tine buile'ing I. c shack that contains iradecua'�.e sanitation o.-i-i 1. St".ruct-tir .l �ac^...7ards. l ae �:uildinu ene.an-ers tine health, property and safety of the public and o:L` the buildinS occupants. 3. Building Inspect;or's 17o. 3- D-1951 Owner of Prope,~t:y: rranc:.s-�-+- . T',ar .er Thomas as P&Mi.nistr,^t :i. of Fie 'state o-A. L .nCo n Sarrter, aeceiseC Occupant: Geon;e Menne Exhibits ll- t rough -E This is a frame building; measuring 161 x 30' covered by corru'sated sheet iron that: could roughly be described as a warehouse. inside, there was one room in which George fennel resides. The building was built and is owned by David Lynn, a licensed general contractor. 11Ir. Lynn is a graduate of Pomona College with a Master's Degree fro,�a the University of California. He tau,,-,,ht Design in the Art Department. Mr. Lynn is building his own home 1001 away. The subject structure has light :gamin; of 2 x 41s. There are some 4" x 411' supports. This "warehouse'ti is used to dry Lumber and also as a Contractor's shed to store tools and materials. The building is 30' wide with a supporting wall down the center. The resident, Mr. fennel, is an architect and city planner. He 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 woad burning stove, lades 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 14, 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 storage 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. Fennel. This structure is primarily a warehouse and contractor's store- room. It was not intended as 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 Vo. 3-D-1955 Owner or Property: Ro= C. 2J.G. Mq stop and Blanche M. Mitchell Occupant: Timptay ggins Exhibits 137A through 1 C',RL APR 211971 CONTRA CO3TA COUNTY f a BUILDING INSPECTOR 4 .......................................................... ....................................................................... ......................................................................... .................................................. Building consists of 141 x 17' , one-room, dowelling. From the on side, the buy s ding has a quaint r'gin-er bread" appearance rest4l ring from split shakes on tine Halls. The underpinnings are heavy wood beans The building lacLcs t'?e following: Sho-,,7ex, lavatory, toile- ;poi. c,nel cold runnin- water, electrical xwir.ing, connection to sewage disposal systezi and Flu- bing facilities. An outhouse latrine was available that was common to three other nearby residences. heat was by cans of a wood burning stove that had inadequate insulation from combustible wall materials. Because of the descried deficiencies, this buil,d.zn- is a ha--ard to the health and safety of its occupants and the public. 10. Dui .ding, Inspector's No. 3-D-1954 Owner of Property: no C. aid': G. Piot stop and Blancbe i . Mitchel Occupant: Sabra Fie i st3.ne ExI-libits 12- ti-Toug , ME- 1,1r. Barker claims that he has been the owner of this property for ten years. There is some vaueness as to the actual tenant. In October of 1968, PIr. Taylor Sloan informed the Inspector that it was his residence and that Mr. Tim 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 rooted building with walls of plywood and an overabundance of small paned windows. There is no .foundation and there is an uninsulated wood stove. The buildin- lacks the following: kitchen sink, Lavatory, bathtub (or shower) , hot and cold running water, plumbing facilities, 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-D-1958 Owner of Property: DavidMud Occupant: Michael. 3; ,est ins Exhibits I -A t rou14-D -The structure consists of two buildings next to each other, with varied construction of plywood, tar paper 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 stave 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. kP. APR 211971 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY gUjj.0jr4ci tNSPUCTOiR ......................... __. _ _.._ ........................................................... ........................................................................ .................................................................. ............................................ 12. Building Inspector' s Flo. 3-D-1977 Owner: of Property: Estate o�' r i «caret Lyd t on Occu,,", ni:, Y'r. 6. I.I.r . 1'a17 0.;, S ,1.�JLgn %x:1ibits ici- l�i1CC?Lt�t2�1i7�L This small cabin presented an appearance of assorted windows , of various sizes and construction, from large panes approxiiatelT 2' x 3' to s al.l leaded windows. The building lac?,Zed the following: Shower, lavatory, toilet, hot and cold runninc, water electrical wiring, connection to a sewer system. Ther: was an ouzhou e type of latrine available that was shared by three other:: residences. The slope of the grade to ti-,e building, directed surface waters onto the earth flours. The wood burning stove and pipe were dangerously close to combustible wall materials. The total living space was 3f30 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, 19(,9 from Robert A . Smallman, the Attorney for the estate of Margaret 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 did not create the nuisance, Mr. Smallman objects to the cast of removal being imposed as a lien. 13. Building Inspector's No. 3-D-1978 Owner of Property: Estate os lar'aaret Lydikson Occupant: M� . & cars. =onLawrence Exhibits 1 - t rou 17::15 ' This is a one-room 12' x 16' 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 good burring, range which the Building Inspector states creates a fire hazard. The structure lacks the following: Hot running water, sewage and plumbing facilities, connection to available electrical power, nater closet, lavatory, bathtub (or shower) . Nater is furnished by mean; of a.50-gallon drum located at the rear of the building. The letter of October 1, 1969 , from Attorney Robert A. Smallman, agreeing that the structures are a nuisance also applies to- this structure. The non-existing dater and . plumbing facilities and the hazard of the range make this structure dangerous to the health and safety of the occupants and the public. APR 21197 V CO�"f A COUNTY CONTRA `j' �`P � '.� �4iiLplMG INiM:�CYt3A 14. Building Inspector's No. 3-D-2979 Owner of Property. Estate of Mar area L dikson Occupants: Mr. & Mrs. U. E . French Exhibits 184, tEr-ough 18-D This 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 mems 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 , hat and cold running water, water closet, lavatory, bathtub (or shower) and electricity. The letter of October 1, 1969, from Attorney Robert A. S allman, 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. 3-D-1988. 16. Building Inspector's No. 3-D-1989. Owner of Property: Johns.arn_J arbara G. Watt Occupant: Unknown Exhibits 15-A `hough 15-D (2) 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 code requirements relating to plumbing, water, electricity and heating. Likewise, it does not comply with the constructural 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 ""house" 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 climbed to the first deck, it was apparent that the flooring and steps had noticeable "give." Neither the 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 fellows: MAY 10 1971 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ° 01 BUILDINGINSPROTOR -12- Conclusions: 12- Conelusi©ns: 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-1.'958 3-D-1977 3-D-1978 3-D-1979 3-D-1988 3-D-1989 After due and proper notice, 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 structures referred to in the files of the County Building Inspector numbered: 3-D-1948 3-D-1949 3. Structures that are no longer in existence are 'those referred to in the files of the County Building Inspector numbered: 3-D-1966 3-D-1952 Recommendations: 1. That the Honorable Board of Supervisors carder 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-1'951 3-D-1.955 r, _ 3-D-1954 `-y #'tw 3-D-1958 3-D-1977 MAY 10 1971 3-YD-1.978 3-D-1.979 CONTRA 00-i. c ouNTY 3-D-1988 BUILDING INSPECTOR 3-D-1989 2. That there be no demolition of the structures designated as: 3•—D-1 d��[48 3-D-1'949 -13- ... and that any existing or continuing violations of the building cedes be considered as misdemeanors or violations subject to Court injunction. Respectful ly Pubmitted, DpNid Hearin -"fice DJL:jg cc: Mr. William Bennett Attorney at Law RAPR Mr, Arthur W Wa e1 ntaJr. 2 11971 i,9,71 Deputy County Counsel. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUILDiNQ MP'1EC'TOR i s (LaRosa) {! EXHIBIT B . 1 Those parcels of land in the County of Contra Costa# State of California# described as followas } The following 2 parcels appear as Parcels in the Decree of Final Distribution recorded May*2'1# 1948 in Book 1202 of official Recc►rds# at 'page 548„ PARCEL ONE *Being a part of Section Twenty-three {23) # Township One (l) 3 East M. D. B. M. and more particularly described as followsz Commencing at a paint in the North line of the Right of way of the San Francisco and Sacramento Railway which point beams north 50' 051 east 99"# 78 feet from bhe southeast corner of property deeded to Creed Shepardsonby Myrtle Allen# recorded in Volume 397, page 83' of Deedsr Records of Contra Costa County# Cal# running thence North 39' degrees# 15 minutes east, 94.96 feeEt# thence North 50 degrees fly minutes west 50 feet] thence Month 39 degrees 55 minutes west] 94.96 feet thence south 50 degrees fly minutes East 5o feet to the point of beginning, PARCEL TWO OCOMMENCING at a point in the North line of the Right of way of the San rran+cisGo and Sacramento Railway which point bears north 50 degrees 05 minutes East 149.78 feet from the Southeast corner of property deeded to Creed Shepardson by Myrtle Allen# recorded in Vol. 397, page 83 of Deeds;# of recorder in the County Recorder's office of Contra Costa County* Cal. # thence north 39 degrees 53 minutes East 94.96 feett thence north' 11 degrees 45 minutes east 35 feet$ thence North 30 degrees 56 minutes i east 10 f+eety thence south 51 degrees 22 minutest gest 105.5 feett thence south 50 degrees 05 'minutes East 65 feet to the point of beginning. { SAVING AND EXCEPTING five feet along the northerly line of w f within described property, an easement, for Might of Way. SAVING AND EXCEPTING oleo an Easement for pipe 1 n*& to convey water o the WithJA + adjacent 'pa"tty'•" + . I