Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS - 09102004 - 71-330 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Re: Abatement, property of } RESOLUTIO14 No. 71LA-30 ___-- )Resolution of Nuisance & Abatement ) Buildin nspector Abatement ) (Cal.Adm.Code 17014.5) The Centra 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 Code in accor- dance with Sections 203 and H-1001-H-1002 of the uniform Building Cade , Volume III, and Sections 17014 et sept 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 posted said property with Notice of Substandard Building„hand/or Improvements and duly notif ea the owner(s) th.ereaf 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 Improvements) and the Building Inspector thereafter posted said property ,ovith Notice to Abate Nuisance , specifying the time and place of a hearing before this Beard 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 "Exhibi.tA 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-10101 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) 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/car improvement(s) are located. t PASSED AND ADOPTED on AW 1p RESOLUTION No. TT 111.111.1.11.1................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . . ................... -CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEARING OFFICER DAVID J. LEVY April 20, 1971 DIRECT CORRESPONDENCE: CONCORD BLVD. AT GRANT STASST CIVIL SERVICE HEARINGS, CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 641120 ROOM 105, ADMINISTRATION SLOG. PHONE 605244* P.O. Sox 791 MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553 EXHIBIT "A" MARTINEZ. 415.220-3000. EXT. 2011 RETIREMENT BOARD HEARINGS. ROOM 102, FINANCE BUILDING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94333 PHONE 413.229-3000. EXT. 2391 Honorable Chairman and Members Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administration Building Martinez, California Lq;i W. T. P A A IS 0 H RE: CANYON ABATEMENT PROCEEDI1',7GS CLGFtK 130ARO OF SUPERVISORS C_0N,rF%A co . TA t, Report of Hearing, C'Eficer .. . 8 ly : ... 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. 0 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 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 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 for a complete transcript of the proceedings. All parties o-ere permitted to testify and to present witnesses and relevant evidence. In addi- tion, the 11-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 APR 107� L 7 1, ............................................................................................................................................................................................... . . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .. ...... ......... _..._.......... __ _2_ with "I4Totice of Substandard uuildin;." The notice contained a list of .aIle-ed deficiencies , a description of tle real Property and evidence of service either by mail or personal delivery. There was similar evidence o.-E' Posting "xlotice to Abate Nuisance" on the respective parcels. Without admitting tyle allegations in : ..e described notices , it .was stipulated on behalf of tae 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, a 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 proceedino-.s , there was ample evidence that a number of the residents , not only described themselves , were described by others, and appeared to be rtnon-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 bui.l.dins , 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. RESPONDE-N-rS ' (RESIDENTS & PROPERTY OWNERS) POSITION At the outset, the Respondents raised legal issues as follows: 1. The Board of Supervisors has no enforcement power. 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. 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. Ile argues that no buildingpermits were issued for any of the buildings and that all of them have Ion; lists of deficiencies. Ile describes the Respondents' conduct as an attempt to harass , hamper and intimidate the County to keep it Zrom enforeing 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. Both 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. IE ME APR 2 11971 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTOR ......... ...._.... ......... ......... ..........._...... _.. _ . .............._...... ......... .. ....... .............. ............ ..... . . ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _._ _ _.... . ......_.. ...._.... ........... ....... ................. _ _3_ Mr. Bennett, Attorney for the residents and homeowners , did not file a written argument. Considerable emotions were aroused by the investions leading uo to the abatement procccdin S3. An automobile i--n.1.Lion key of a Denuty Building Inspector was removed Zrom his car and an auto- mobile ignition wire vas re.-aovcd. Later the ignition key �'7as returned. On ,another date, in 1360 two County vehicles had the air removed from severe tires and the ignition wires removed. Nails, were driven into automobile tires resulting in flat tares. On one occasion, a catliera was removed fro.. the Inspectors ' automobile but it was returned. A resident carried a shotgun on occasion, hogsever, 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 horn 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 teach—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 T4 LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY RESPONDENTS Separate J:::om considering the individual sites, it is possible to rule on the Respondents' 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. f* 0 3. Evidence of illegal searches or seizures was insufficient to make the evidence inadmissable. Z tv o_ 4. The applicable ordinances are not being applied discrimi- = 0 z I natorily. CA. 40 W*J 5. The residents of Canyon have the right to live their own zU, m way of life so long as it is no in violation of applicable 0 laws and ordinances. b. Conservation of natural resources is not an issue for or against the Respondents. The discussions and recammendati,ons 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. 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 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, 1957 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 Owner of Property: Canyon Water Brothers �; Occupant, Resident or B wi Builder: arry thffl MAY 10 1971 Exhibits 2-A through 2-D j CONTRA CO3TA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTOR -5- This is an interesting structure wade completely o� lar e 41 x 81 sheets of �-,�.ywood bolted to,-ether to form three geodesic domes. Originally, the Building Inspector observed s,leepin,; i)c ;a inside these. domes. 11owever , Clic-A e was no water, food, toilet "a:cil- ities or other evidence that anyone was residing; in these The lar ,e openings in the plywood would make the buildings unte.7r b7.0 for living. There is insuficient evidence to show that this structure was used or will be used for a habitation. Under the definition of substandard buildings, Section I1-1.001., it is the opinion of the hearing Officer that the structure was not u, ed as a. residence and in its 1)resent condition and location does not endanger the Life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare of an occupant or the public. 2. Building Inspector's Fo. 3-D-1964 Owner o.L Property: Carvon Water Brothers Occupant: Thomas Voorhis Exhibits 5-A t rou R -D Building is a shack measuring 8' x 1.61 erected on a hillside and constructed of a conglomeration of second-hand materials st_�ch as old mismatched window frames and odd lengths of timber. The building contained no kitchen sink, no water closet, no lavatory, no bathtub, no running water, no connection to a sewer system, no facilities for storing garbage or rubbish. Some panes of glass were out. Heating was by a small wood stove that was located close to combustible material. 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. iii. Thomas Earl. Voorhis testified he was the builder. He identified his occupation as a telephone engineer. He 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 '.actors. It is a hazard to health and safety of its occupants and the public. 1E IE EWE 3. Building Inspector's No. 3-D-1949 Owner of Property: Canyon f7ater brothers RAFR 2 11971 Occupants: George I e Erer anZI-Tally Fefirer Exhibits 6-A trod; - CONTRA coLjrA COUNTY �t11Lt�i'NQ �NlIi►YCTOR . 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 tine of the site inspection by the Hearin; Officer, the structure showed considerable more development and to the inexperienced eye of the Hearing Officer appeared to be sturdily and well built of solid materials. The Building Inspector: cited numerous examples of a failure to meet the minimum standards of the Uniform Housing Code. In comparing the photos raphs tat�ccn at: the time of posting; notice of satb- standardbuil:din'-"' and tine field. trip inspection, there were nu �zerous 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 o their construction. They took all the preliminary steps necessary to build a sewer treatment plant to satisfy sewer requirements but they dere 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 tate plat- form" was very near code. From the desire and determination of tete occupants, it is the Hearing officer's opinion that they would do anything reasonable within their power to obtain approval for the structure if they could live 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-1956 Owner of property. Francls i.Earker Thomas as Administra.trix 57 t Se ;state d w A : nco n ar es eceased IMU i,e, in Ar fey Occupant: circa AllCn anF w fe This is a one-room cabin. When the Building Inspector first observed the site, the cabin was under construction. He advised chat a permit, was necessary, nevertheless , construction, wa.s completed. Water service was by plastic pipe, no termite protection, no hot and cold running water, no coater closet, no bathtub, no shower o;: Lavatory. There is inadequate living space. Approximately 40 feet away there was a wash tub with a seas: on it that was described as the toilet. cleat was by a small woad stove close to combustible materials. A deck railing required under the Code was not present. The occupant, lair. Kirk Callen, is 23 years old. Ile has had experience as a builder. He was raised in Lafayette. lie 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 eater. 'He used creosote under the structure for termites. The walls are plywood over studding. 'There is sorsa tar paper and redwood siding. ;P TV11MVW_Mft% APR 2 11971 [D) CONTRA codrTA COUNTY �1�1i#INfi f1�f{Mt�CTOM� -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 adapted by the Board of Supervisors. The exposed toilet, the wood stave without adequate shielding and Lack of adequate water service combine to make this structure substandard to the extent that it a hazard to the health, safety and welfare of the public and the occupants. 5. Building Inspector's No. 3-D-1952 Owner of Property: Francis arker 'Thomas as A dministratrix of Me Estate oF W. EMBIF Barker, eceased anU Helen G. Barker Occupant: Unknown Exhibits lOPA-It'Frough 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 as I . Barker Thomas as Administratri.x 31 E69 Estate SE A. L:t.neo n Barrier, eceased an a en' Barker Occupant: Unknown Exhibits 9-X t , 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-1953 Owner of Property: Francis H;, Barker Thomas Admini.stratix of trie Estate 5t A. Lincoln Barker, UlliiseL iiNd Men G. Barker Occupant: Michael V73maIN662 Exhibits 8-A 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 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 on this structure since ,Tune of 1969. He is 21 years old and an apprentice carpenter. He was raised in Pleasant Hili and went to Canyon for peace and quiet. The structure as posted was in direct- violation of the minimum requirements of the Building C ode. The structure as it existed in 1970 with its unauthorized additions showed n cts V U� 1-p f MAY 101971 CONTRA CWTi A► COUNTY _ - - -- o1411 niX74-INSPECTOR described by the Buil.di,n Insnect:o-r. Due to lacy of sanitary conditions ,,ons , r inrin4, wager and toi.l.et facile ties , the uuildin- is a Shad; that contains inadequate sa nitat t on a.nd structural The Luildin� enczan�;ers til: iZet lth, nroner€:y and safety of t'he pubiic and o.c the buildin; occupants. 0, Building Inspector's I'o. 3-s -1951 Owner Owner of Property: Fra.nca.s 1.� . T'arl.-er "'homas as Administ, a.t.�:ix o �.Fat:e of I nr ter cecea:c and T!e en r,. L r ,er Occupant: Georce Kennel Exhibits ll:X ttroi -E This is a frame building measuring 16' x 30' covered by corrusated sheet iron that could roughly be described as a warehouse. inside, there was one room in x�.Ihich George Kennel resides. The building was built and is owned by David Lynn, a licensed general contractor. i,xr. Lynn is a graduate oy Pomona College with a Master's Degree from the University of Cali.:ornia. He taught Design in the Art Department. Mr. Lynn is building his own home 100' away. The subject structure has light framing of 2 x ti's. There are some 4" x 41' supports. This "warehouse" is used to dry lumber and also as a Contractor's shed to store tools and materials. The buildin; is 30' wide with a supporting wall down the center. The resident, Mr. Kennel, is an architect and city planner. Ile 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, lacus 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 era, 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. lie offered to post bond to guarantee demolishing. He states that the residence use has terminated. However, in .Au ust 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 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 hazardto the health and safety of the occupant and the public. 9. Building Inspector's No. 3-D-1.955 Owner of Property: Roy C,an21 J.G. Mo stop and Blanche M. Mitchell. Occupant: Timothy Exhibits 15--A tEroug R9 FIV APR Z 11971 I CONTRA Ct3;�iYA CJU'NTY Buildin3 consists or 141 x 171 , one-room, dwelling. ' ron t1he outside, the buildin has a ouaint ►tg�xZ�,G'� bread" anpeaiance restil_-in- from snl i t shalkes on the walls. The uncle; t��inningS Bre heavy C}d&)Ce bCr^xTilS The builclin lacks, tie following: Snoi?er, Lavatory, toilet, i�ot i2Ci cold runni_n mate )1e.lectri.ca.l wi::ing, connection to sewage disposal system and 'plumbing facilities. An outhouse latrine was available that was cormon to three other nearby residences. Beat was by means of a wood burn n-, stove :hat had inadequate insulation from combustible wall ma--erial.s. Because o.: the described deficiencies , this building is a hazard to the health and safety of its occupants and the public., I.O. Puildin- Inspector's No. 3-D-195 Owner of Property: Roy n J. G. Molrston and Blanche !-f. Mitchel Occupant: Sabra Fie stine Exhibits 12 throe 111'r. 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 1908, 1y1r. Taylor Sloan informed the Inspectorthat 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 16' , 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 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: David `` ouZ, Occupant: Michael J. estlriri— Exhibits 14--A ti "rrna` T 14-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 stove was improperly installed and created a fire hazard and the dwelling unit lacked sewage and plumbing facilities. The structures 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. OR 211971 (;014TRA COSTA COUNTY ` RU1L01NQ tMiPtCTOR _10- 12. - 12. Buildin4 Inspect-or's No. 3-D-197? Owner of T'ronerty Estate 617 77arparet Letson Occu rynt.. 1,1'7r. ( T''.r s a'a;?�' a: S.Loan EX, ins 3 "Ya This small cabin presented an appearance of assorted windows , of various sizes and construction, from large panes approxiniatelr 2' x 3' to s-mal_l leaded windows. The buildinc, laci:ed the following: Shower, lavatory, toilet, hot and cold runnins water, electrical wiring, connection to a sewer system. There was an outhouse type of latrine available that was shared by three other residences. The slope of the grade to t1lie buxl.din directed surface waters onto the earth floors. The wood burning stove and pipe were dangerously close to combustible wall materials. The total living space was 3€30 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, 1909 from Cobert A . Smallman, the Attorney for the estate of Margaret Lydikson. Ile 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 cost of removal being imposed as a lien. 13. luil,ding Inspector's Aro. 3-n-1973 Owner of Property: Estate of ,iar&_,aret Ly dikson Occupant: M . & Mrs. onn Lawrence Exhibits 17- t reu _9 This is a one-room 121 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 wood burning range which the Building Inspector states creates a fire hazard. The structure lacks the following: Hot running water, sewage and ;dumbing facilities, connection to available electrical power, water 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 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. RYA R IE APR 211971 D . CONTRA CC3: TA COUNTY 14. Building inspector's No. 3-D-1979 Owner of Property: Estate of Mar area L dikson Occupants* Mr. & Mrs. U. E. Frenc Exhibits 18-A, t ioug 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 means of a wooden ramp. The interior is heated by a wood burning stove inadequately insulated from combustible materials. There is lackingthe 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. Smallman, 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: John 1:. ZEE Rarbara G. Wyatt Occupant: Unknown Exhibits 1�`A—`t�irough 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 follows: MAY 10 1971 t CONTRA COSTA COUNTY < BUILt�1NG INSPECTOR R ' W` -12- conclusions: 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 3-3-1956 3-D-1953 3-D-1951 3-D-1955 3-D--1954 3-D-1.958 3-U-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 iv the files of the County Building Inspector numbered: 3-D-1966 3-D-1952 Recommendations: 1. That the Honorable Boardof 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-195+6 3-D-1953 3-D-1951 3-D-1955 _ 3-D-1954 1 �V/Is , 3-D-1958 3-D-1977 MAY 101971 3-D-1978 3-D-1979 CONTRA to,.,fm COUNTY 3-D-1988 BUILDING INSPECTOR 3..D-1989 2. That there be no demolition of the structures designated as: 3-x-1948 3-D-1949 r F :R 5.: --13- and that any existing or continuing violations of the building codes be considered as misdemeanors or violations subject to Court injunction. Respectfujily ,submittedNN , . ° 1) '\7d J. `. ¢�}evy Hearin . ©dice DJL;jg cc. Mr. 1,.Tilliam Bennett Attorney at Law RAFR Mr. Arthur W. Walenta, Jr. 2 11971 Deputy County Counsel CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTOR (French) EXHIBIT B ' DESCRIPTION. REAL PROPERTY in the County of Contra Costa, Unincorporated, iState of California, described as follows : LOTS 1 , 2, 3 , 15 and 6 and that portion of Lot 4 which lies northerly of the northerly line of Oak Lane, as said lots and Lane are shown on the "Map of Alder Dell, Contra Costa County California", filed March 6 , 1916, in Book 14 of Maps , page 296, in the office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County. a . �� �