Waterways Advisory Committee - Regular Meeting

Please stand up and state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes for your comment and a countdown timer will alert you at the conclusion of that period. No public comments.

Item number five, board's business. We'll be moving to do the elections. So the first one would be the electing of the chair. The chair will ask for someone to make a motion for the nomination of chair and call for a second. One item has a second, you will call for a vote. So I guess I'm looking for nominations for chairman. I nominate Mr. Cooper as chair. Second. Second. OK. Further nominations or comments? Nominations are closed. All in favor of David Cooper being the chairman?

Aye.

OK. Now we're moving on to the vice chair elections. Do we have a nomination for vice chairman?

Yeah, I'll nominate Craig Lawson.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Seconded that Lawson be vice chair. Further nominations? Any comments? All in favor? All opposed? There we are. The next scheduled item is item number six, which are the appeal hearings. We're going to the first scheduled item. The appellate will have equal time as code informant to present to the board. to an appeal of an administrative notice in order to vacate for 2371 Corbett Avenue and number 15, Santa Rosa, California. First presenter is Jenny Marquez.

Hello and good afternoon to you all. My name is Jenny Marquez. I'm a Code Enforcement Officer II for the City of Santa Rosa Code Enforcement Division. My duties include enforcing Santa Rosa City codes. I am certified. I'm a certified code enforcement officer through the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers and have been continuously engaged in code enforcement profession for approximately five years. On February 5th, 2016, the city of Santa Rosa Code Enforcement Division received a complaint regarding living conditions at 2371 Corby Avenue, Unit 15. The complaint- Excuse me.

Yes, sir. Would you repeat?

Was that 2016? 23, yeah, 2026. Oh, 2026, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, did I say 16? I might have. February 5th, 2026. Thank you. I'll just restate. On February 5th, 2026- The City of Santa Rosa Code Enforcement Division received a complaint regarding living conditions at 2371 Corby Avenue, Unit 15. The complaint was submitted in Spanish and was translated using Google Translate by one of our senior administrative assistants. The complainant alleged that four living conditions had existed since 2022. and have been reported to the individual responsible for managing the apartment complex. The complaint described excessive humidity, walls that were black with mold, and green microbial growth, cockroach infestation, the presence of rats, and a lack of functioning heat. Additional Allegations were included in the complaint. However, those issues were determined to be a civil matter outside the jurisdiction of code enforcement. On February 6, 2026, I was assigned to inspect the property in response to the complaint. Because the occupants were Spanish-speaking, code enforcement technician Nancy Reyes-Fernandez accompanied me to provide translation services during the inspection. Based on our inspection and photographs taken at the time, Unit 15 was determined to be substandard and presented an immediate threat to life, health and safety of the occupants. As code enforcement officers, our primary responsibility is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring compliance with local ordinances, the California Health and Safety Code, applicable building codes, and property maintenance standards. Our duties include conducting inspections, investigating complaints involving unsafe and substandard housing conditions, documenting findings through photographs and inspection reports and taking appropriate enforcement action when necessary to protect occupants. The issuance of a notice in order to vacate is one of the most significant enforcement actions available to the city. Its purpose is to protect the occupants from conditions that present an immediate or substantial threat to life Health and Safety. Such an order is issued only after an inspection determines that a structure or dwelling unit is unsafe or unfit for human occupancy. In accordance to California Health and Safety Code 17920.3, Unit 15 was declared to be a substandard unit under subsection A-6, Lack of adequate heating. I'm going to be pulling up and sharing photos at the time of the inspection. The wall heater, which I will be going through a little fast, I'm sorry. So we can get to this. It's not showing me the actual pages, I'm sorry. So the wall heater serving the unit was inoperable, with wires hanging loosely from the bottom of the unit, constituting an electrical hazard. As you can see, here's the wall heater, and below it are the actual wires that are exposed And at the time of the inspection, I did check with the thermostat and it was not clicking on or off. And in accordance with subsection A-11, dampness in the habitable rooms. There were elevated moisture readings that were taken and recorded on the walls, baseboards and windows of all three bedrooms in the living room. There are photos, probably gonna have to go backwards here. So this is bedroom number one. Behind the bedroom door, you'll see a little area towards the bottom corner that had a significant amount of what could be mold. We're not mold experts and that's why we ask for a report from a mold specialist. But as you can see in the reading that I had taken, the moisture in the wall was 100%. There we go. Right here is another area within bedroom one where the moisture reading under the window is 100% as well. And within the window, the caulking around the window has failed and you could see where water could be, some type of moisture could be coming through, because there's no caulking around the window. Also in bedroom one, this light switches that were on the bedroom curtain. In bedroom two, another area that had some Showings of high moisture, 100%, and condensation under the bed. It's under the bed, and the bed's being held up by blocks. Moisture reading in the windowsill of bedroom two there is high. It's 77%, as well as wall texture around the bedroom door is peeling. There's bedroom three, which shows another reading of 100%, which is one of the bedroom walls and has evidence of live wretches on the wall as well. Another wall in the bedroom that has the blackish, sorry, I can't get this to work very well, little blackish area here with 100%. It's like 100% there. And alive roaches crawling on that wall as well. And the high readings around the windows on that room as well. There's another bedroom wall for three and condensation on the floor. A little out of so in the living room, there was a an area in the corner that had some blackish build up in the quarter and the moisture reading in that area was about 77% which is high as well. This is another same area just making sure that the I believe the picture was. And then according to California Health and Safety Code 17920.3, subsection A12 is the infestation of insects, vermin, rodents as determined by the health officer. And that one also shows that the live roaches and the rodent feces. There's a photo that I have. where it shows behind the stove. It shows the sticky trap that roaches and a rat tail or mouse tail. It also shows several holes have been patched, and then it's been chewed through as well. And this is the heat sensor for the sprinkler system that required securing as well as testing to make sure that it's working properly. Once a building has been determined to be substandard, the California Health and Safety Code 17980.6 provides the enforcement authority for the local enforcement agency to require corrective action, including the issuance of a notice in order to vacate when occupancy presents an immediate danger to the health and safety of the occupants. When preparing a notice in order to vacate, the city is also required to determine whether displacement excuse me, displacement tenants are eligible for relocation benefits under health and safety code section 17975 through 17975.10. Accordingly, when the city of Santa Rosa issues an order to vacate because of substandard conditions posing an immediate threat to the occupants, health and safety, the code enforcement building division must determine the tenant's eligibility for relocation as required by state law. This determine is time sensitive because it must be made in conjunction with the issuance of the notice in order to vacate. In making that determination, the code enforcement officer considers the facts and circumstances of the case, including the occupancy stick, occupancy status of the residents, whether any tenant substantially contributed to the conditions resulting in the order to vacate, and other relevant evidence. Whether conditions were also considered during the investigation, the period between January 15th and approximately February 14th was unusually dry in Santa Rosa. with little to no measurable precipitation. As a result, the prolonged dry conditions reduced the likelihood that the elevated interior moisture readings and dampness observed in the unit were attributable to ongoing rainfall during that period. So there was not that much rain at that time, so that we had nothing to consider in that point. Based on the inspection findings, photographic evidence, register ratings, and conditions observed within the unit, the city determined that Unit 15 constituted a substandard building under California Health and Safety Code 17920.3. And that continued occupancy presented an immediate threat to the health and safety of its occupants. Accordingly, the issuance and posting of the notice in order to make it was authorized under health and safety code section 17980.6. Based on the evidence presented, The City of Santa Rosa recommends that the Board, by resolution, deny the appeal and uphold the City of Santa Rosa building official's decision to issue the notice in order to vacate for 2371 Corby Avenue, Unit 15, including the determination that the tenant is entitled to relocation benefits. Thank you. Any questions?

Were the windows functioning? Did they open and close?

They did open and close. One of them, the first bedroom, though, I did notice on the notice, in order to notice the violation, didn't have the insect screen. So that would have to be replaced. And I believe he did that after.

Were you able to determine a cause of the excessive moisture?

Well, at that point, the only thing that there was no heat. And during the time there was periods where the morning and evenings were like 30 to 40 degrees. And then the heat in the afternoon was around 60 to 70. So during the early periods and in the evening, I would say it was cold in there, but without having the ability to turn on a heater. to regulate everything.

Did you find any instances of maybe a plumbing leak somewhere?

There was a leak under the kitchen sink. There's in my photo. There's a photo in the kitchen where there was a plumbing leak. This just doesn't show it correctly. So it was leaking right up in here. And you could see the condensation here. And actually, on my notice of violation, he didn't use the proper plumbing as well. So that could have caused the leak.

Do we know if the tenant contacted landlord about the heater.

As far as I've been told, according to the submission of the complaint, the property manager was reported, was being told, and this was an ongoing issue since they moved in.

Is that a third-party management company, not part of the ownership?

It's a part of, I believe, who he had hired. You'd have to verify with it.

But it's a third-party company?

Yes.

So there is documentation that these deficiencies were brought to the landlord's attention. Do we have copies of that documentation?

These deficiencies were, I do not have copies. What had happened was after the fact, We had asked them to send over emails with all of the documentation and all of it set in. They said that they had to get a new phone and their emails were lost.

Which? The tenant or the landlord?

The tenant.

And out of curiosity, did you ever talk to the property management company?

No, sir. Didn't know who it was. We couldn't find out who it was. They said that what the person does is he's on a different, he usually is located on a different property by this, the same landlord. And that's where they just, they take their money and he's only there periodically. Because I asked before I left to, you know, present, then notice an order before my inspection was over, I had asked where he was located on the property or not. They said it was a totally different property.

So now it sounds like we are ready for the presentation by the appellant. If you'd like to go ahead. If somebody has more questions.

Can you remind me which section of the exhibits Mr. Greenberg will be referring to? Yes. Attachment for the mold report with the color photographs. Okay. Mr. Greenberg on. Okay, great. All right. Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair Cooper, Vice Chair Lawson, and members of the board, my name is Michelle Zyrowski, and I'm an attorney at Zyrowski Connoisseur, downtown Santa Rosa, over on 4th Street in the Press Building. With me here is our paralegal, Elizabeth Arbayo, and Mr. Greenberg. Jeff Greenberg is also present. He would be here, although he had knee replacement surgery and doctor's orders, and thank you to the board and everyone to let him appear by Zoom. But he'll be filling in some of the factual details for you. I'd like to thank you for your consideration of our appeal this afternoon. And the focus of the appeal is a legal question that must be decided by evaluating the pertinent facts. Contrary to the assertion of the city and the staff report, the landlord-tenant principles do come into play here and they're critical and they must be considered in answering the question of whether the notice should have been issued in the first place and whether the owner has to pay relocation benefits to the tenants. Even in the staff report at page 3 of 10, it cites to the International Property Maintenance Code Section 18-20.301.2, it says responsibility. There are highlighted sentences in The staff report, but what's not highlighted is the language that follows that, that says occupants of a dwelling unit, rooming unit, or housekeeping unit are responsible for keeping in a clean, sanitary, and safe condition that part of the dwelling unit, rooming unit, housekeeping unit, or premises that they occupy and control. So it's not merely a landlord-tenant dispute, as the city refers to it at page 8, number 4 in the report, but it's a requirement of that very code section that the city does cite. And as we point out in our brief, which is part of the documents that we have submitted, I referred to California state law, which is codified in Civil Code section 1929 and 1946.2, Those laws require that the tenants maintain the premises in a clean and safe condition. So the tenants have a legal duty to repair damage and deterioration that is caused by their own acts. The legislature has enacted these legal obligations. It's not the city's prerogatives or my office to decide what they're supposed to do. That's the law. There is also contractual responsibilities that are in the rental agreement at paragraph 21 and others that I've cited to in the brief that say and require the tenant as consideration for living there, you have to keep this property clean. The other important legal requirement is that the tenant does have to provide notice to the landlord of issues that are going on before the landlord can be held responsible for those. And that's the Peterson case. It's a California Supreme case from 1995. So it's over three years old. And that's the jurisprudence in our state that if the landlord doesn't know about it, they don't have the obligation to do something. They can't be held responsible for something they don't know. A corollary to this is that a tenant has exclusive right to possession of the premises, the interior of the unit. Landlord can't just walk in the door and see what's happening. If the landlord doesn't know, the landlord's not responsible. And we will have, um, It was a testimony from Mr. Greenberg this afternoon that he did not know about these issues. When they were brought to his attention in the staff report, for example, he'll tell you the heater was fixed in a day, something like that. So if he had known, he would have fixed it. So the question for this board to decide is whether the tenant's actions caused or substantially contributed to the conditions for which Mr. Greenberg was cited. Our facts and our law are set forth in our briefs and our exhibits, which are part of the record and we request that you review. And Mr. Greenberg is here to provide additional factual testimony so that you can get the whole picture of what the tenants did and did not do. Under Civil Code Section 17975.4, the tenants are not entitled to relocation benefits if they have caused or substantially contributed to the condition giving rise to the order to vacate. Under the legal principles that we've raised in our papers and here at the hearing this afternoon, applied to the facts that were laid out, as a matter of law, these tenants are not entitled to relocation benefits. It's not a case of strict liability. It doesn't work like that. There has to be a determination of what the tenants did or did not do. And just a visual observation does not tell the story. It can't. It's impossible. So there's no investigation done, no adequate investigation asking people like the mold company, Mr. Greenberg, what he did or didn't do. that the tenants actually caused and contributed to the issues that they complained about. So we appreciate your consideration of our appeal and I will turn over my time to Mr. Greenberg.

Mr. Greenberg, you have been promoted to panelist. You can go ahead and proceed to enable your microphone and video. And I am prepared to share the screen for the attachment four from the staff.

Hi, can you guys hear me? Yes. Great. So thank you for listening to this and let me acknowledge that this department clearly had numerous issues that aren't disputable. What I am disputing is who caused them and whether the tenants who created the problems should be paid for that. And also thank you for allowing me to do this virtually. I just had my knee replaced and I'm not mobile yet. So my name is Jeff Greenberg. I've built more than 20 very nice homes in Marin over the past 20 years, and I own and have remodeled several hundred apartments in Sonoma County over the same time using the same crew. I purchased the subject apartment complex in 2019 and performed more than a million dollars in major renovations over the course of the next 12 months, including installation of a new roof that does not leak, installation of new hardy plank siding on top of the house wrap that creates a moisture barrier and prevents leaks, and installation of new double pane windows that were properly flashed to prevent leaks. It should be noted that when the testing, the repair, and the remediation were performed recently, there were no signs of water intrusion at any of the mold growth areas where drywall was removed, thus indicating that these were interior issues solely within the tenant's control and not something resulting from exterior water intrusion. You'll see the pictures and the exterior still looks great. And Jenny even said she didn't believe it was from rain. So it's unlikely that this was an exterior type of occurrence. In fact, it's impossible. Code enforcement issued the notice to vacate on February 6. This was the first notification I had there was any issue. The tenants never once contacted me or my crew regarding any of the things on the list. And my maintenance crew is at this property fixing stuff almost weekly. There are 20 units between people clogging sinks, clogging toilets, whatever. We just were there a lot to fix stuff. Never once did anybody mention any issues. As soon as I learned about the issuance of the notice of violation, I took steps to secure alternative accommodations for the tenants so I could hire someone to do the remediation work. First, I booked multiple rooms at the extended stay down the street, but the tenants wouldn't move. I paid $2,300 for two weeks at a three-bedroom Airbnb several miles away. The tenants wouldn't move. I offered up a two-bedroom unit that became available in the same complex. The tenants wouldn't move. And finally, I paid a tenant to move from their three-bedroom to the vacant two-bedroom so they could have a three-bedroom, but they still wouldn't move. They didn't move for 11 weeks after the notice to vacate was served and only after we served the three-day notice, which is the last document in our exhibits. I mean, that's crazy. The violation says, quote, failed weatherproofing and caulking around failed windows. This is possibly the most important and inaccurate piece of information in the report. As you will clearly see from the pictures, there's no caulking on the interior windows None is required or recommended by the manufacturer. In fact, caulking is not commonly done with window installation on the inside, except for cosmetic purposes. And there's zero supporting evidence that the windows failed and let water in. Caulking is not how you prevent water intrusion. You prevent it from the exterior, especially since inspectors said this probably wasn't due to the rain. So let me just take a minute to describe how windows are properly installed and why these windows aren't the issue. First, you frame the opening. Next, you install the house wrap, which is required moisture barrier along the siding and plywood. Then you put polyurethane sealant on the window fin before installing the window. You put the window in, you nail it with galvanized nails so they don't rust. You put Forda flash around the exterior perimeter of the window to complete the weatherproofing. As an extra step, we like to put Z flashing above the window as additional protection. And then the exterior trim is installed around the window. The flashing and waterproofing was inspected and signed off by the building inspector on 2-27-2020 for these 35 windows I installed. No caulk is applied on the inside of a window like the report states. In 20 years of building houses, I've never caulked the interior of a window except if required for painting. If there's a significant gap between the windows and the finish, the manufacturer recommends using expandable foam. You prevent water intrusion by properly installing the windows from the outside. You can't prevent water from the inside. What I think the inspector may have been looking at on the interior of the window was wet drywall delaminating from the condensation caused by the high humidity. 20 units were remodeled with 35 windows installed. 19 units don't have any issues with their 32 windows. I know because I checked every unit after this happened. This unit's windows are also fine. No failure at all. They were just dripping condensation from the high humidity that Jenny pointed out. The windows in question were inspected by the remediation company, by the testing company, by the building inspector, and by me. And everybody agreed the windows are fine. If the information about the windows and their weatherproofing was accurate in that report, which it's not, the windows would have had to been replaced in order to remedy the problem. And they weren't replaced, and the problem's been remedied. There are also multiple locations on the interior baseboard and walls that had mold. And Jenny showed you those pictures. That couldn't have anything to do with the windows or water intrusion. They're interior walls, nowhere near the windows. And again, it's condensation from humidity, so this negates the theory that the windows are the issue. I hired the professional mold company and they came out and they said the indoor humidity in the unit was exceptionally high at the time of the inspection. Mold needs a moisture source and a food source in order to be present. Dust is often a food source, limiting dust and moisture will help contribute to a lower mold count. Moisture sources can include steam from showers and baths, condensation buildup, high humidity levels, as well as cooking condensation. It's important to keep humidity levels below 55%. In these rooms, not the wall where she was measuring, just the air in the rooms was 82% to 87% humidity at the time of the inspection. High humidity can be contributed from some of the following. We just went through that. So apparently, even though only 3 individuals were authorized to live in this apartment, there were either 9, 8 or 9 people living there causing and contributing the issues for which the city cited me. They had placed their couches, dressers, boxes, and personal items up against the walls, preventing airflow. They had affixed heavy curtains over the windows to make a living room into a sleeping area, which trapped air and caused condensation on the windows. I don't have the pictures. I can just see the hangers. But Jenny showed pictures of the very heavy velvet curtains. They also allowed dust to accumulate, which is a precursor to mold conditions, if not removed on a regular basis. They failed to ventilate while cooking, which resulted in the accumulation of grease all over the walls and the ceilings and inside and outside of the cabinets, and even some made it to the bathroom. That many people, it was a lot of cooking, a lot of showers, and without airflow causes high humidity, which everyone noticed. Mold doesn't just appear overnight. This condition took months of neglect to create. So I'd like to just point out a couple of the pictures, which frankly are similar to what you already saw. But if you can pull up page two of the mold report, you can see how the exterior of the building looks. Can somebody show that?

Yes, I'm pulling that up right now. Thank you.

And these are pictures from the certified old testing company who came out after the notice. So you can see that the building still looks pretty darn nice. I mean, it's nice hardy siding, nice new vinyl windows. And then if you go to page four, you can start to see the level of dust that is rampant throughout the apartment. So one more picture down where you can see in the windowsill, this is the door jam. I mean, there's just dust everywhere. It doesn't look like these people ever cleaned. If you look at the next picture on number five, there's dust visible right at the front door and all around that. And if you keep scrolling up, that's grease on the ceiling, grease in the cabinets. And then the next picture on page six, you'll see that's the heater. There's dust in every single crevice. It doesn't look like these people ever cleaned once. You can see on page seven that if you go to the window see there is no caulking around the window we don't caulk the insides of the windows we do a high-end professional job where the drywall meets the window and you can see we even do special corners we do metal corners which are nice but that's what we've been doing in multi-million dollar houses for decades we do the same thing in our apartments If you scroll down to page 7 further, you can see that by the door, that's an interior wall. It is mold. And if you go to page 8, you can even see the interior closet wall has mold. So clearly, this has absolutely nothing to do with windows failing, as the report states, weatherproofing failing. That's not proven and it's completely inaccurate based upon everybody that looked at this. If you look at page nine, you can see the humidity sensor, but Jenny already showed us the humidity is off the charts all the way in all of these rooms. Page 10 shows stuff all over the walls everywhere, which prevents airflow. and then if you look at the back of on page 11 you can see their bed frame and there's dust everywhere on the back of the on page 11. go up one more a little bit more I mean, there's just dust everywhere. It's clear that not a lot of cleaning was done. And the last picture on page 14, which is just unbelievable to me. Well, here, scroll back up on 13 one second. One more up. That's grease on the ceiling of the bathroom by the fan. cooking grease, which is boggles my mind. I replaced that fan because I was concerned that it wouldn't work anymore because of all the grease. But if you scroll down a little bit further to 14, you can see the condensation right here on the toilet. They're not using the fan. There's no ventilation. There's actually water dripping off of the toilet and you can see how dirty the outside of the toilet is. So That's the situation that I was completely unaware of until I was served this notice. As for the other things on the list, I had no idea the heater wasn't working. I was never notified. The day I read this report, I sent over my maintenance guy, and it took him 10 minutes to get the heater working. Those wires that Jenny showed you a picture of, the heaters are gas heaters. Those are low voltage thermostat wires, so they're not dangerous. But we did just put the wire back on and that was the issue as to why the heater wasn't working. The holes in the drywall and cracked tiles were definitely caused by the tenant. The building department would have never signed off on my remodel permit with these conditions. And again, the tenant never notified me regarding any of the issues. And frankly, I didn't patch those holes. I wouldn't do a shitty job like that. And I didn't do the plumbing under the sink. I mean, that's substandard. That's a cheap flex line from Home Depot, which... You know, I don't know who did it, but for sure we didn't do that. So are we running out of time? I'm almost there. Bear with me one more minute. Managing pests is difficult. I sent all the tenants at the building letters about leaving food out in front of the apartments for their cats, removing their barbecues. The pest company wrote, it's noted that prior infestation was significantly impacted by the previous tenant sanitation practices, which contributed to conducive conditions for pest activity. We cleaned the unit for two days while the tenants were gone and the pests are no longer present, according to the pest company. Code enforcement has closed this case. At no time prior to the issuance of notice did anybody at the city ask me, anybody who worked for me, the mold inspector, or anybody about the cause of this problem. If you read the mold report, you clearly can ascertain that it was high humidity from the tenants. In fact, I recently added a new sentence into all of my leases requiring a biannual health and safety inspection in an effort to prevent this from ever happening again. Like Michelle said, I can't just go into a tenant's place and check and make sure that they're doing the right things. So the work is now finished with no further violations. It's been signed off by the building inspector who finaled the remediation permit and the code enforcement manager who closed the case. I know it's difficult to believe someone would live in conditions like this and not report them, but realize these people stayed in this place knowing there was mold from which they had been hospitalized. And it still took them 11 weeks to move out despite me giving them numerous options. And of course, they didn't pay any rent during that period. The issues cost me almost $50,000 and was caused by the tenants. I didn't cause it and I wasn't notified about any of it. I resolved everything, but it's not reasonable that the tenant should be rewarded by being paid a relocation benefit for something they caused. Thank you for listening to me.

I think we're at the point where we're asking questions from the board.

I have a question. Do you have a property manager for these apartments?

I do.

And did you speak to that person?

Yes, he's worked for me for more than 20 years. I talk to him five times a day, every day.

And did the tenant ever?

Tenant never contacted him.

May I ask if you have maintenance records and logs? for all your units for all the complaints that do come in and the maintenance that is done on the property. You said that there are several per week and you always have crew on location.

We don't. So I have a platform called Appfolio, which if a tenant sends a maintenance request on Appfolio, then it's logged in. But usually what happens is is Byron shows up to or one of the guys shows up to mow the lawn and somebody says, oh, my sink's clogged or my faucet stopped working or this. And we have a storage shed at the property there that has a bunch of faucets in it and stuff like that, and they just replace it. So, no, I don't keep specific – uh you know log entries of each and every thing unless the tenant actually reports it to me which the lease states that they have to report their issue in writing but a lot of the spanish-speaking tenants don't use the app folio platform and you know don't send me emails they just wait till byron's there and then they ask him

And he doesn't keep a log of his time?

Well, he keeps a log of his time, but he doesn't keep a log specifically of, I fixed the sink in number 13 and I plunged the toilet in number 12. He just says, the log I get is I spent four hours at 2371 Corby on Monday the 13th.

Do you have any other pictures of any other units showing that these conditions do not exist in those units?

No, I'd be happy to get them. I mean, I actually went through all 20 units, and if there was an issue, we would have remedied any issues that were there. You know, I spent a million dollars on the place. I like it to look nice. If you looked at the outside, you can see it looks really nice. And, you know, I'm not a slumlord. We like our places. It's why I employ four people full-time to just fix things at my apartments.

Just out of curiosity, are the tenants that are there the same tenants assigned the lease?

They are not, actually. I didn't need, so apparently these tenants sister was in the place and the sister moved out without telling me. And I didn't even know who these people were, nor that they moved several families in without telling me. I only discovered that when they were moving out, they said, we want you to put a lease together for us so we can move back in when it's all fixed. And so I printed out the original lease and I gave it to them. They said, no, that's not us. And that's how I knew that they were different people.

Do you have a prohibition about the number of people that can occupy certain residents?

Well, I've discussed this with Michelle, my attorney. It's a little tricky in the state. I mean, obviously, I pay for water, sewer and gas. So, you know, the idea of having nine people in a three bedroom is, you know, high wear and tear. And Not a great business decision, but my understanding is it's bedroom count times two plus one. So a three-bedroom should max out at seven people, not eight or nine like they had in.

And you said relocation services were offered to these tenants and were denied?

Not only offered, I mean, I have the reservation for the extended stay. I actually physically paid $2,300 to Airbnb, which wasn't refunded. I offered them unit number two. I paid a tenant several thousand dollars to move from their unit into the two bedrooms so these people could move there. And they didn't move to any of those until we served them a three-day notice. And then they moved into another recently vacated three-bedroom apartment where they were living up until last week when they just moved back into their original apartment.

Are there records of any of those acquisitions of properties? Places for them to move to or stay or communication with the tenants that you were doing.

I have the reservation for the extended stay. I have the payment to the Airbnb. Byron even drove with them to the Airbnb to look at it. They, I have communications with them about unit two. They didn't want that because they wanted a three bedroom, which is why I paid somebody to move. They then said they didn't want to move into the three bedroom unit because they thought there was mold in there. I drove out, looked at it. There was no mold in there. Michelle and one of her partners drove out there to look at it. And we all concluded the unit was fine, but they still wouldn't move.

May I add something very quickly to detailed facts about what happened are included in the three day notice, which is part of the packet. It's exhibit D and it went through everything and the dates and what Mr. Greenberg tried to do and what he paid for and all of that. So there's a lot of detail in that notice, like a factual timeline.

I have a question for legal on our side. She cited several government section codes. Are you in agreement with those?

So yes, all of the case law and statutes provided by their counsel are accurate, and we don't dispute any of them. I will just point out that I think there is a tension between a lot of the case law cited is good law when it comes to liability under the warranty of habitability and general civil code as to landlord tenant issues. The health and safety code and the regulatory scheme that code enforcement issues the notice in order to vacate is separate and distinct. So for instance, the Peterson versus Superior Court case requiring notice as to landlord tenant liability is absolutely the correct law in that context. However, in the health and safety statutory scheme, notice is not required and there have been cases locally where someone is a landlord genuinely unknowing is required to pay relocation benefits under the statutory regulatory scheme that doesn't have this notice requirement, but then defeats it in the civil context under the lack of notice defense. So I completely understand that there's two kind of There's a little bit of tension there, but what code enforcement operates under has a very specific regulatory scheme outlined by the health and safety code.

Was this rented as a furnished or unfurnished apartment? Unfurnished. And then the bathroom fan, that's a separate switch to the bathroom light?

Yes.

So you can see that there are options to use the fan or not.

Yeah, it's so we have tried wiring the fans to this light switch. But a lot of these tenants are ultra conscious about their PG&E bill. And even though a fan doesn't draw much, they get very unhappy and try to disconnect it themselves. It's why a lot of the tenants don't report that their heater is not working because they don't want to use it because they don't want to pay for the heat bill, which I don't pay for. I only pay for water, sewer, and gas for the water heaters.

Are there humidistats associated with the exhaust fans in the bathroom?

Yeah, so the new fans have the humidity sensors on them. But, you know, I mean, for a three-bedroom apartment that has high humidity, they're designed like that 70 CFM ceiling fan in the bathroom is designed for the bathroom, not for the whole apartment.

I would differentiate the gas bill from the wall heater and the the water heater?

Each unit is individually metered for gas and electric. So each tenant's responsible for their gas, for their range and their wall heater and the laundry room and the water heaters are on a common meter, which I pay for. Common gas and common electric meter.

Stoves are electric?

No, stoves are gas.

Oh, okay. So you wouldn't notice if the peer wasn't working by examining the gas bills?

No, I mean...

I'm not saying you have to, you should, or even should, but it just, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, I don't see any of those gas bills because those go to the tenants.

Right, gotcha. Do we have any further questions? I see something about this is option of public comment for this item. Do we have any public comment for this item here or somewhere else? And I don't know if you have instructions.

There's no one here for public comments.

I have a general question here. We have a notice to vacate. And then is it separate from the relocation benefits? Are they connected?

So the board can make findings and determination as to the notice in order to vacate as a whole. You also have the ability to uphold the notice in order to vacate but deny the granting of relocation benefits. You can grant the appeal in its whole. So you have the ability to determine that.

And how much are the relocation benefits that we're talking about? Money-wise. I believe it's $5,000.

That's what it stated in the... Okay, I didn't see that. What about... What about the fact that he didn't relocate them and and repeat the repair and then place them back in the unit. They're back in the original unit sounds like that's correct.

And there were in the river charge for the 11 weeks but while they were not leaving the original unit.

That's correct also. For the 2 units they were occupying the rent was charged. Because there was their unit that was being remediated and then the unit I was holding trying to get them to move into, which they finally did.

I'm a little confused. So you relocated them, yet they're still trying to get relocation fees. That's correct.

Which is why I'm spending more than $5,000 in legal fees trying to prevent this from happening. I understand. You got something?

In your appeal, it states that they haven't paid any rent since this incident.

That's correct. They haven't even paid the July rent, even though they moved back into their apartment, which is a whole different issue. And did they sign a new lease? They were provided a new lease. They haven't signed it. And I wasn't giving them the key initially. And then Michelle said, I had another tenant that had been waiting to move into the other apartment. And it took these guys an extra week to move in. And I lost that tenant immediately. And Michelle said, under the circumstances, just let it move without the lease. So I don't have a lease with these guys. I don't have a rent for them, but they're back in their original apartment.

But that's necessarily beyond the question.

Yeah, that's beyond you and me.

All right. Further questions or do we have enough thing to create a motion?

I don't have any more questions. I don't have any more questions.

Can we get a motion on how to resolve this issue?

I don't think that.

We need a motion.

Can we discuss how we're going to?

We move. We have the motion, then we discuss it, and then we vote off.

Motion to discuss it.

Well, no.

I have a motion.

All right. Why don't we try that?

I would like to move to state that the issue is resolved and not have this gentleman pay any more money out of pocket. And then he needs to resolve his tenant issue and either get them to sign their lease or... That's outside our... Well, but like... I don't think he owes them any more money. How's that? I don't know how that.

But if you guys want to volunteer to help on the lease payment, I'd love it.

Yeah. How about, how about, let me try something different.

Sure.

How about I move that we uphold the notice in order to vacate, but deny any further relocation fees. I like that. Second. Okay. So we have a motion and a second discussion. Okay, legal comments?

No, I just want to clear for the record, upholding the notice in order to vacate, but overturning the determination that the property owner or that the tenant is entitled to relocation benefits.

Okay, and let's throw the word further relocation benefits. Is that okay? Everybody ready to vote? Yes. I call the vote.

Well, Michelle, can you weigh in? Because if you put further, I mean, they've had plenty of benefits, but nothing paid directly to them, which this asks for. So I'd actually, if you're going to do that, prefer not to have the word further in there.

Yes, and if I can clarify, I think that's what I was trying to do with my last comment. So I think there's a distinction between the notice in order to vacate the property, but then also the determination as to the tenant's entitlement to relocation benefits. So that is the component that you are either upholding

We're denying. We're denying. Okay, so shall I remake the motion? Let's do it in two pieces here. Okay. So I move. Okay, so we got a motion on the table. Can I take back the motion? Can I withdraw the motion? Okay, let's do it this way. Let's vote down the motion. Okay, so all in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. All in favor of the motion, say nay. Nay. So first motion. I want to move that we uphold the Code of Enforcement Division's notice and order to vacate, period. Second. OK. Discussion? Shall we vote on that one? Yes. OK. So everybody, all in favor, say yes.

Aye.

All right. Okay. All opposed? Okay. Second motion.

Determination that the displaced units are eligible for relocation benefits.

Yeah. So we deny the determination. I like that. Deny the determination that the displaced tenants are eligible for relocation benefits. I second the motion. Okay. Discussion?

I feel like they've received them, though. That's my hang-up. I feel like they've already received them.

They haven't received any monetary.

No, but they received relocation benefits, not necessarily monetary ones. Right. But they were relocated. So I don't believe they deserve any more, but I believe they've already received those. Can we ask for some of it back? Back between him and me.

So you are going to help me. I love it.

I believe what we're trying to say here is that he does not have to pay them any money. Any money. He hasn't paid them any money to start with.

They haven't paid him any money either.

But the point is that we're just saying that he does not have to pay them any money. Is that accurate?

That is correct.

And are you comfortable with that?

I am.

Are we ready to vote? Yes. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? That settles that one.

Thank you, Mr. Greensburg. Thank you guys for having so much fun with me.

Anything else we need to do before adjournment?

Nothing further.

Well this meeting of the board of building relation appeals now adjourn.

Thank you very much you're on your time and consideration.