[0:00] Message that indicates that. Do you see that? Did it come through? Good.

[2:25] Whenever you're ready to commence, feel free.

[2:30] All righty. Your clock and minor on the same sink here. So I'll start. I like to call the building board of appeals hearing for June 24, 2021 at 2 o'clock PM to order.

[2:43] I'd like to start off by asking Boardmember Jack to lead us in the Civil Regions, please.

[2:51] Okay, and everybody in attendance, would you please repeat after me?

[2:55] I pledge allegiance to the flag.

[2:57] I pledge allegiance to the flag to the flag.

[2:59] From the United States of America.

[3:02] From the United States of America.

[3:05] And to the Republic.

[3:06] And to the Republic.

[3:09] Of which it stands.

[3:10] Of which it stands.

[3:11] One nation under God, one nation under God, in the visible, in the visible, with liberty and justice for all, with liberty and justice for all.

[3:24] Thank you, Jack.

[3:25] So now I'd like to get a roll call of the members.

[3:32] Can I get that Arlene?

[3:34] Yes.

[3:35] Heinrich?

[3:36] Here.

[3:37] Who is he?

[3:39] Here.

[3:40] Heather,

[3:45] you're on mute.

[3:53] Eric,

[3:56] Eric.

[3:56] I'll present.

[3:57] Thank you.

[3:59] So I'd like to call for a motion from the board members to approve the June 2nd 2021

[4:04] minutes.

[4:06] Do I have a motion to do so?

[4:09] A motion?

[4:10] Thank you, Jack.

[4:11] Do I have a second?

[4:20] So I'd like the recording secretary to call for the vote?

[4:24] Yes.

[4:24] Heinrich?

[4:25] Yes.

[4:26] Who wants to go?

[4:27] Yes.

[4:28] So that's our goal of our.

[4:33] Nick Farlin.

[4:34] Yes.

[4:35] Motion carries unanimously.

[4:37] Thank you.

[4:38] So I'm going to go through and read some things here that give us an outline of our meeting here today.

[4:46] So bear with me.

[4:47] I've got a page of things to go through.

[4:50] And if you hear noise in the background,

[4:52] for some reason, people next door to me decided today was the day to start building things.

[4:57] No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

[5:00] If it gets loud, just tell me, hey, could you repeat that, please. So I'm going to open the hearings of two appeals of the city building code compliance determination.

[5:10] The two determinations are both appealed by the same appellant, so I'm going to consolidate the hearings to consider both matters.

[5:19] So we will hear the two appeals separately in this one hearing.

[5:23] This hearing is being recorded by the staff, you can see that on the top of the screen.

[5:29] The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the procedures adopted by this board on June 20, or June 2, 2021, consistent with all legal requirements.

[5:41] Those procedures guarantee the appellate due process, such that we can decide the appeals fairly.

[5:50] The formal rules of evidence do not apply, both the city staff and the appellate will have an opportunity to make a brief presentation no more than 15 minutes please.

[6:03] The board may ask questions of those presenting to the board and the parties shall also be afforded the right to ask questions of anyone making a presentation.

[6:13] Through the board chair, please.

[6:16] At the conclusion of the presentation, there will be an opportunity for public comment.

[6:21] After the public comment, the board will deliberate and appropriate will take action.

[6:27] I'll have a bit more to say about that.

[6:29] We're going to get to that portion of the hearing.

[6:32] Are there any general questions from the board about the procedures for today?

[6:39] Okay, hearing none, let's get started.

[6:41] The first item to be heard is in a PO case number 30 dash 2021 dash 01183961.

[6:52] This concerns a notice of if violation dated March 15th 2021 provided to the appellants.

[6:59] And I'm going to ask somebody to do a better job with names and I do to read that

[7:03] into the record please.

[7:06] Maybe David or our lean.

[7:09] I could go for it.

[7:10] So I believe that the appellate is Sharam Manigalam and I'm not sure who the other party is. Mr. Manigalam, would you pronounce your other counterpart's name for the record?

[7:31] Sheerine, I mean, my mom and sister, I believe,

[7:38] sheerine Manigalam and Hajar Azadmar.

[7:42] There we go.

[7:43] Okay, thank you so much.

[7:45] I didn't want to mess it up, so my apologies.

[7:50] And concerns against an electrical line serving a barbecue cooking device.

[7:55] And the record are the following documents on March 15, 2021, the city served in the violation notice on the appellant.

[8:04] On March 24, the appellant submitted and response to the notice of violation.

[8:13] On March 30, 2021, the appellant notified the city of the intention to appeal the notice of violation.

[8:22] On June 3, 2021, the appellate was notified that a hearing would be scheduled to hear an appeal on June 14, 2021.

[8:33] At the Appellate's request, the hearing was rescheduled for today.

[8:37] Also on June 3, 2021, the appellate was provided a copy of the procedures applicable to this hearing

[8:46] as well as a copy of the city's written documentation submitted to the board.

[8:53] On June 21, 2021, this gets harder to say as you go along.

[8:58] They have helped through the council submitted a letter to the board.

[9:03] That letter was approved or provided to the board and to the city staff.

[9:08] Neither the city nor the appellant have notified the board

[9:12] that they intended to call any witnesses.

[9:14] is accordingly, no witness testimony will be heard today.

[9:18] I would now like the city staff and the appellant

[9:22] or the appellants for representatives

[9:24] to identify themselves for the record, please.

[9:28] I'm at great attorney representing the appellants.

[9:36] Jim Sowers, Building Officials, City of York,

[9:38] Linda,

[9:43] no mümduse men, city attorney's office.

[9:50] And Mr. Moneygalom?

[9:53] Yes.

[9:55] Share all my new Gallum appellant.

[10:00] So do we need any of the rest here to introduce themselves as well?

[10:08] I believe that's it, Mr. Chair.

[10:10] Okay. So now I would like to invite the city to provide a presentation to the board.

[10:14] Please keep in mind there is a 15 minute time limit.

[10:19] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[10:21] Good afternoon. The first item on the agenda is a notice of violation regarding extra lighting attached to a residence.

[10:27] Located at 211-29, via Canon, on March 29, 2021, the building division received an email regarding two

[10:36] unpromitted light pictures that were installed on the reference address.

[10:39] Subsequent research of permit history was completed and no permits were found for the new the attached experience.

[10:45] Excuse me, Chair Heinrich, could I interrupt for just one second?

[10:49] This is now a presentation on the second of the issues that you just called the hearing for.

[10:56] So, okay, with me, if you've

[11:03] scribed, it's for a different matter than what's now being said.

[11:06] I'm sorry, the one that I had for the agenda show that being the first back in the easy switch to the other one, if you'd like.

[11:15] Yeah, let's try and keep the order.

[11:17] Yeah, no problem.

[11:18] Okay.

[11:18] I'm sorry for the confusion.

[11:20] Thank you.

[11:21] Good.

[11:21] Can't even thank you.

[11:23] Thank you.

[11:23] The first item on the agenda, excuse me, is an agenda for a, is an agenda for an appeal,

[11:29] for a notice by a violation pertaining to gas and electric lines serving a brick and mortar

[11:34] barbecues structure located at 211-29V a cannon. On October 21st, 2020,

[11:41] city staff received an email regarding gas and electric lines serving a detached brick and mortar

[11:46] barbecues structure. The complaint, the complainant, also stated there's a strong smell of gas

[11:52] coming from the rear yard of 211-29V a cannon. A researcher permit history was completed and no

[11:58] for myths for found for the gas and electric line serving

[12:01] a detached barbecue structure.

[12:03] In an attempt to verify the validity of the report,

[12:06] city staff made multiple requests to the homeowner

[12:08] to conduct an onsite inspection

[12:10] all which were denied.

[12:13] Staffs then contacted Southern California gas company

[12:16] to verify if there is any gas company activity

[12:19] at 211-29 via Canon.

[12:22] The gas company represented at excuse me,

[12:25] The advice staff that a disconnection of service had been completed on 3, 11, 2017 for service

[12:32] to a barbecue, and no service had been re-established since.

[12:36] The representative also stated that there was a recent service request for 21129 B.A.

[12:41] Cannon.

[12:42] The request was made on 10, 5, 2020, and was for the reconnection of service to a barbecue.

[12:49] The request was denied by the service technician as it could not find proper point of connection

[12:54] to the home and the work appeared to be unpromitted. Due to the owners' refusal to allow

[13:00] a voluntary inspection staff applied for an inspection warrant, which was signed by the judge

[13:05] in March 2, 2021, and executed on March 3, 2021. The site inspection is built that both unpromitted

[13:12] gas and electric lines were indeed did indeed serve a detached brick and mortar barbecue structure.

[13:19] Based on the inspection results, City issued the owner, a notice of violation dated March 15, 2021.

[13:27] The owner appealed a notice of violation.

[13:29] Based on the site inspection and staff report provided, staff is requiring that the owner's secure permit for the gas and electric lines.

[13:36] The inspection process be completed to an approved final inspection, or that the owner's secure permit for the abandonment of the gas and electric lines.

[13:44] and the abandonment inspection process be completed up to the final inspection.

[13:50] Staff findings are based on the following.

[13:53] 2019 California Building Code and the 2019 California Residential Code, Section 105.1

[14:00] and Section 105.2 Electrical Employment.

[14:05] 2019 California Public Code, Section 104.2, exempt work.

[14:10] Chapter 12, Bill Gas Bifing, 1997, Uniform Housing Code, Section 1-001.6, Hazardous Flonis, 2019 California

[14:22] ElectroCode, Article 89.

[14:25] General Code provisions, Section 89.108.4.1 permits, and Section 189.108.4.4, and Section

[14:36] The 1997 Uniform Housing Code, Section 1001.5, Hazard's Electrical Wiring,

[14:44] the Arbulendor Ordnance Number 2019-1065, Article 95.7, Permit, Article 95.10 Compliance, Article 95.11,

[14:58] infections.

[15:08] Okay,

[15:12] thank you, Mr. Sauer. Do any of the board members have questions for the city staff?

[15:19] I have one. I was curious as to why the original disconnect of the gas. Why was that disconnected?

[15:28] Can anyone know?

[15:31] It did that give me any information.

[15:33] If the gas companies just noted to me that there was a

[15:35] Disconnection date on the date that I gave you.

[15:37] Thank you.

[15:40] Any other questions from a board member?

[15:45] All right.

[15:45] Thank you.

[15:47] Before we had office is known to be from city attorney's office.

[15:52] I'm fairly certain that we have probably approximately 10 minutes left

[15:55] on our presentation.

[15:56] We'd like to reserve that time to respond to any questions after the

[15:59] phone's presentation and or address the some of the points that they may

[16:05] raise. I believe you're right on your timing.

[16:11] So thank you. Does the appellate have any

[16:13] questions for the state staff and please note there's a five minute limit on questions

[16:17] and questions must be related to the compliance issue related code sections and if you

[16:25] Yeah, from that I may ask you to stop, please.

[16:30] Go ahead.

[16:30] Yes, I'm at the rate for the appellums.

[16:33] Mr. Sowers, when you got there, did you smell gas?

[16:37] We got where to do the site inspection?

[16:40] Yes, no sir, at that point in time,

[16:42] there could be a flex line that was disconnected prior to our arrival.

[16:45] But the flex line had been disconnected in 2017, correct?

[16:50] I do not know.

[16:52] There's a lot of what you're working on as a gas company.

[16:55] Again, the complaint was for a strong smell of gas.

[16:58] Flex length can easily be reconnected and connected.

[17:02] So I have no idea if it was reconnected or not reconnected.

[17:05] At the time where there, no, there's not a smell of gas.

[17:07] Did you see any F?

[17:10] Did you see any evidence that the flex line had been connected or reconnected?

[17:14] What I noticed was shiny connections that had been,

[17:18] look like brand new connections had been reapplied.

[17:21] And you can see also see it in some of the photos, if you look at the photos.

[17:27] So what's that being there, excuse me, would that be a no, can you repeat your question

[17:36] because I don't, it doesn't make any sense for your ass.

[17:38] Sure, if you hold on to any evidence, that the objection mistakes, the witnesses testimony,

[17:45] he asked you if you saw he saw any evidence and he just testified that he did see evidence which was

[17:51] untarnished caps on the line that would indicate that the disconnection occurred recently.

[18:05] And did the fact that there were untarnished caps on the lines indicate that the lines had been

[18:12] used recently.

[18:18] It appears that there were possibly used recently however there were caps.

[18:25] Okay. And you do not know when those caps were installed. No, I was not present during the

[18:30] cap installation or uninstallation. All right. And do you have any evidence that the caps

[18:38] were not installed when the lines were cut off in 2017? The lines were never cut off. What do you

[18:44] mean by cut off? I mean the gas lines were, I believe testified that the gas, you were advised

[18:50] the gas company that the gas lines were disconnect. That is correct. Okay. And were you advised

[19:00] by the gas company as to whether the gas lines were kept by the gas company? They did not do

[19:06] any of the capping because that is not their job.

[19:13] And they told you that? Yes. So whoever kept them

[19:18] and wherever disconnected it, they disconnected service to the gas line by disconnecting the service,

[19:24] wherever they disconnected, that's what they told me, that they disconnected service,

[19:28] how they did it, I do not know. I wasn't there. All right. And as your understanding is that

[19:36] once the service to the gas line was disconnected, that gas could continue to flow through the gas line.

[19:43] That is not a repeat the question.

[19:53] The gas company advised you that the gas line had been disconnected.

[19:57] Correct.

[20:01] All right. And is it your understanding that even though the gas line has been disconnected, that gas continues to flow through the gas line?

[20:15] If it was reconnected without anybody knowing, sure, it could be absolutely could definitely go back to the gas line.

[20:32] I don't have anything further for Mr. Sours.

[20:38] So, did the city attorney want to respond to any of that with the title?

[20:41] I just have one question from Mr. Sours.

[20:44] Is the violation that's at issue that was cited in the notice of violation 105.1 for a permit requirement?

[20:53] Does that have to do with the existence of the gas line or is it the fact that there's actually gas running to it?

[21:02] In other words, isn't the existence of the gas line in and of itself a violation, in

[21:07] as much as it was constructed or installed without a permit?

[21:12] That would be the same for the electrical lines, whether or not electricity is actually

[21:20] flowing through those lines, there would be a requirement to get permits under 105.1 for

[21:27] those wiring.

[21:28] That is correct sir. May I ask a follow-up question please if Mr. Eugen?

[21:35] You did have a minute left like we can.

[21:40] Yeah, I have no objection.

[21:41] All right.

[21:43] 105.1 prohibits.

[21:47] Well, let me ask you this.

[21:49] Did you see any evidence or advised by anyone that the appellants intended to construct in large

[21:56] all-ter repair, move, demolish, or change the gas lines or electrical lines to the unit,

[22:05] to the barbecue unit. First of all, you quoted 105.1 and as far as the owner,

[22:14] they didn't have anything to do with respect to what you said as far as all-ter repair or

[22:20] move. However, if you look at 105.1 under electrical, it talks about the only thing you get to do

[22:27] with electrical as well as gas piping under the plumbing section of it.

[22:33] It doesn't apply to somebody actually putting in a gas line.

[22:37] And I don't know if they put in the gas line to the barbecue structure,

[22:40] if it's done prior to, in purchasing the home, the bottom line is,

[22:43] is that they are there, and they need to permit,

[22:46] and they need to be infected for safety reasons,

[22:50] both the gas and electrical lines.

[22:52] It doesn't matter who put it in, the bottom line is there.

[22:55] And to that point, Limit.

[23:00] One 0.5 point.

[23:02] Oh, sorry, my apologies.

[23:04] Please, please continue.

[23:06] I'm sorry.

[23:06] But one 0.5 point one, we're specific, excuse me.

[23:10] Specifically refers to the construction and largements,

[23:14] alteration, repair, movement, demolition or change in the

[23:20] electrical or gas structures.

[23:22] That's right.

[23:24] However, it does not, it does not indicate and 105, but it does not refer to exceptions,

[23:35] but the violation is directed towards the appellants.

[23:40] The violation is somebody who did it previously.

[23:44] Yeah, and Jim, you can respond to that.

[23:49] You need to respond to that question, and then I will add what I need to add.

[23:53] You're correct of the devolation, it goes toward the gas line and the electrical line in this case.

[24:04] And the appellant owns the property and purchased the property.

[24:08] I don't know if it's past, I'm assuming it was done in the past.

[24:11] And it was inherited upon the sale.

[24:14] The bottom line is followed up on a complaint, which is the light safety issue that we followed up on.

[24:19] found the following items to be unpromitted at that point in time we address the unpromitted items and try to bring them into compliance.

[24:28] That's what this whole thing is towards and nothing else.

[24:32] Yes, the appellant does own the home.

[24:35] And to that point, and I know what Council is getting at for the appellant.

[24:39] I'd refer the board to civil code section 3483.

[24:43] 3. Again, that's 3, 4, 8, 3. And that code section states that a success of owner of a property

[24:51] is responsible for the conditions ongoing violations that the property created and I'll quote

[25:00] It by a former owner and is liable, therefore, in the case, in the same manner as the one who first created it.

[25:09] And the reason that that civil code section exists is obvious.

[25:14] You know, as a public policy, we have to hold someone accountable for a property.

[25:20] that is the owner. The owner kicks on whatever, you know, the property as is the owner's

[25:29] recourse is against the former owner if the required real state disclosures, which would

[25:36] have to disclose unpromitted improvements are not made or not made to the extent that they should

[25:43] be, the recourse of the owner is against not the city, but it against the the form owner

[25:50] who may have not made those disclosures.

[25:53] But according to the civil code and there's also a case law to the extent that the board

[25:58] is interested supports this long standing notion that a property owner is responsible for

[26:08] whatever unpromitted conditions exist at the property.

[26:13] we would not go back and find a previous owner, for example, what if the previous owner was

[26:19] deceased, then the city could never get compliance. The existing owner is the one responsible

[26:27] under the civil code and case law.

[26:30] Okay, can we move now to the presentation?

[26:37] Okay, first did the board receive our written response

[26:44] to the accusations or written repeal that was filed.

[26:50] On, we submitted to Mr. Bradley and Mr. Sowers on June 21, 2021.

[26:55] So everyone has seen that?

[26:57] Yes.

[26:58] Okay, so now I'd like to invite the appellant to provide a presentation to the board.

[27:05] Again, there's a 15 minute time limit.

[27:07] Thank you.

[27:10] I believe that our position is set forth in the documentation we previously submitted.

[27:20] The public building permits were issued for this property back in 1978.

[27:27] We believe, or we have seen nothing to establish that those building permits did not

[27:34] encompass either the electrical line or the gas line that is a subject of this appeal,

[27:42] or that my client or anybody else previously altered or changed those lines without obtaining

[27:51] necessary building permit. There clearly was no building permit obtained since 1978. We've researched that.

[28:00] But what the building permit in 1978 permitted or did not permit is not an evidence before the board.

[28:07] The board cannot assume that just because the condition is there that it was not constructed

[28:14] to the original building permit issued to broaden more homes in 1978.

[28:22] We do not know that the board does not know that, and staff does not know that.

[28:28] Siding Mr. Mike Lyons for their inherited violation of what may have been a violation or

[28:36] a failure to get a permit is simply not supported by the evidence.

[28:47] And I would rely on the remaining arguments made in the position paper filed on the 21st.

[28:56] All right, does that conclude your presentation?

[28:59] Yes.

[29:00] Thank you very much.

[29:02] Does any board member have any questions for the appellate?

[29:06] Before that, can we briefly respond in the same way that appellate was provided an opportunity?

[29:14] I'd also like the board to be aware of the rule of convenience, and there's a case

[29:24] of people versus Yoshimuro, 91, Calap 3D, 609 for the board's reference, and that case

[29:33] along with a line of other cases cited therein, stands for the proposition that under

[29:40] circumstances where there's a question of whether or not it permit exists. It is not the moving

[29:46] party here, the city obligation to prove the negative. We cannot prove the negative as was

[29:54] indicated in the staff report and it was indicated in the presentation. There is no permit on

[30:00] File for either this gas line or for the electrical line. The city cannot prove the negative. If the property owner wishes to argue that somehow these improvements were included in the original building plan, which the city found not to be true, it would be the property owner's burden to bring forth a plan or a permit to demonstrate that either of these improvements or both of these improvements were at some point permitted.

[30:30] The property owners had that opportunity and has failed to demonstrate that.

[30:36] Again, the city cannot prove the negative.

[30:39] The city has demonstrated or has testified to the fact that there is no permit.

[30:45] The city is not in possession of any permit.

[30:48] We've provided the property owner months of opportunity to produce such a permit to demonstrate that we are wrong

[30:56] and somehow there is a permit and they're not in violation of the permit requirement.

[31:01] They have not met that burden and therefore, you know, they have not demonstrated that this is,

[31:09] these are permitted improvements to say, you know, that there could have been a permit at some point,

[31:14] it could have been done part of the original construction, that's not enough.

[31:19] They actually have to demonstrate that that was, in fact, the case and the evidence is to the contrary here.

[31:30] Well, if the board would like to see, I was retained as I've indicated to the board about five days ago.

[31:39] We have a building permit that was issued by the city May 16, 1978.

[31:52] It's an application for plumbing permits.

[31:56] It indicates that there are one gas system up to five outlets that was approved by the city.

[32:07] It does not provide any details of that, but that does not, man, there's a sign off and it's very difficult to read.

[32:21] It looks like November of 1978.

[32:29] We do not have access to the plans.

[32:31] If anyone does, it would be the city.

[32:35] But there definitely was a permit issued back in 1978 that would, at least on its face, cover the installation of the gas lines.

[32:49] And if I can share my screen, I can show those to the board if the board wishes.

[32:54] Assuming I can figure out how to do that.

[32:57] Let me go to the board to find out what questions they may have.

[33:01] And if they have a question that relates to you showing it, we can work with the technology to see how we get that to happen.

[33:09] So board members, any of you have any questions for the appellate.

[33:15] I have one.

[33:17] Me too.

[33:19] Now, any medical first.

[33:21] Thank you.

[33:23] Thank you.

[33:24] Thank you.

[33:24] And my question is maybe a city can answer that.

[33:30] Do we have the plant original plant?

[33:33] And 90, 78 or any other plant from that.

[33:39] The information I have from my client

[33:41] is that the city doesn't have any plans

[33:44] for anything that was constructed prior to 1997.

[33:49] So it is not, and which is certainly not

[33:51] the problem of the appellant.

[33:55] But I'm sure the city attorney or Mr.

[33:59] Brantley or Mr. Sours can confirm whether that statement is true.

[34:05] But without those plans and without access to the plans,

[34:08] we are no more able to prove a negative than the city has.

[34:16] And you said you have five options.

[34:20] Do we have how coming up is great now?

[34:24] I do not know how many outlets there are. The gas system, the original permit in 1978,

[34:34] says gas system up to five outlets and they charge of what appears to be $50.

[34:41] For no, $5. It's $5.00 in low quality $36.00 in 50 cents.

[34:47] Yes. And what I like, can I speak now on this retirement? That's okay if I can add two things.

[34:53] So you're answering board member and as Reane's question?

[34:57] Okay.

[34:58] The city has...

[35:00] Kind of did the gas outlet, and we looked at it from perspective of one would be for water heater, one possibly for a forced area unit, one for a cooktop, one for an oven and one for positive gas dryer, getting to the five.

[35:16] Thank you.

[35:17] Any other questions?

[35:19] May I just clarify whether that's a statement of factor in the statement of opinion?

[35:23] Just a statement of opinion.

[35:26] Thank you.

[35:27] Thank you.

[35:28] Okay.

[35:36] Thank you. Mr. Ray, this is a letter I'm holding dated June 21st from you to Mr.

[35:46] Brentley and Mr. Sours, and we have a number one preliminary statement and then number

[35:52] the mere existence of the barbecue does not violate 2019 residential code section is 1 0 5 1 0 5 2.

[36:00] Prior to that. Do you have the same letter in front of you sir?

[36:04] Yes, I do. Okay, the last paragraph, the staff report indicates the dispute began when Mr.

[36:13] following an e-mail from Debracolor, the Golden List Property Management, representing the

[36:17] Association contacted Mr. Kohler, who advised him there was a strong smell of gas coming

[36:24] from the rear yard of the property that report has clearly patently fallen since, as indicated

[36:31] by the staff report, the gas line to the barbecue had been disconnected on March 11, 17, 2017 by the

[36:43] connection request by the appellant was denied.

[36:47] And staffs inspection of the barbeque does not indicate that the gasline had ever been reconnected.

[36:54] Appellant or anyone on their behalf as the testimony of the appellant will establish

[37:00] Appellants have never used the gas, have never used the barbeque as a gas barbeque.

[37:05] No one stole the gas line. What have they been using it for?

[37:10] My understanding is that there's simply been used as a charcoal barbecue.

[37:16] So they are using it, they're using it as an outdoor fire feature cooking appliance.

[37:24] But in the Associations action, against my clients, when they saw the preliminary injunction,

[37:34] they had a declaration from his color and from the next door neighbor, Ms. Chavez, who

[37:39] also by coincidence happens to be a vice president of the association in which they both said

[37:46] that there was a strong smell of light of charcoal fluid, not gas. They had no place in any

[37:59] declaration to the indicate that they ever smelled gas. The only reason I would submit them

[38:05] and Miss Chavez or Miss Colour indicated to city is that there was a strong smell of gas

[38:13] is so that they could obtain the assistance of the city in manufacturing their claim against my client.

[38:25] Because there simply could not be a gas smell coming from the patio if there is no gas connection outside of the patio that has been turned on by the gas company.

[38:40] Okay, there's a second part of this question and thank you for hanging in there with me.

[38:43] March 11, 2017, the disconnection by so-called gas company, correct?

[38:51] Yeah, an October 5, 2020 prior to that, they requested that the gas be turned on and they were denied.

[39:04] Is that right?

[39:05] That is correct.

[39:06] Okay, that is my understanding.

[39:08] And in the October 5th day was not prior to it was after the disconnection.

[39:17] The disconnect states here was March 11, 2017, so that's going to correct?

[39:23] So you're saying that the request for reconnect was after that?

[39:27] Oh, yes.

[39:27] My client didn't even open the property until August of 2020.

[39:35] Did they give you a reason why the gas was disconnected?

[39:40] The appellant did he give you a reason why the gas was disconnected?

[39:43] My understanding is that the appellant does not know he was not, he was not there, it was disconnected as any normal homeowner would do who was not put on notice by the prior owner that there was any problem with the barbecue or anything else.

[40:00] And we do have the seller questionnaire to establish that. Once they purchase the property, they wanted to use the gas barbecue as a gas barbecue, and they asked that it be reconnected.

[40:15] three years out of the firm down. That's just normal homeowner conduct. Thank you. There's

[40:23] certainly weren't trying to violate or breach any obligation owed to the city because until

[40:29] at that point in time, they had no knowledge that there was a problem with the gas barbecue.

[40:36] Thank you, Peru. So is that a dress here two questions yet? It does. Thank you. Okay, Jonathan.

[40:46] If it's being determined that this gas line is disconnected,

[40:52] what type of permit is a city requesting that the gas line is obtained.

[41:00] I can answer that if you'd like.

[41:04] Go ahead.

[41:05] at this point the gas line has been disconnected. If you look at the, if you have

[41:10] a staff report in front of you by any chance,

[41:17] the board, Chairman Galver, do you have the staff

[41:21] report?

[41:27] I'm sorry. Yes sir. Okay. If you look at page 7 and you look at page 8,

[41:34] you'll see two stuff out. That's how the gas is reconnected is with a flex line. To reconnect

[41:42] it would be very simple with the shut off on one end and reconnection with a flex line.

[41:47] And if you flip to this page, number 9 you'll see some page 8 where it goes through the wall

[41:53] and comes out and goes under a slab and then services the barbecue. At this point in time

[41:59] we'd love the appellant to obtain a permit to either get it scored away, get it connected,

[42:06] get it inspected, make sure the gas test is done properly, make sure there are no gas

[42:10] If that's not what they wish to do, then proper abandonment is what we would be seeking at this point.

[42:20] And that abandonment would require what?

[42:27] Personally, I'm willing to work with the appellant.

[42:31] So to sever the gas line at the slab, rather than having to completely tear apart the slab,

[42:35] So, over the gas line, the slab,

[42:40] I can, on the back side of the garage, that's feeding the barbecue at this point.

[42:45] And so, over the gas connection at the barbecue, and then have that infected, we would consider that to be demolished at this point.

[42:54] With respect to the electrical line, if they like to keep it, that's fine. Let's get it watertight, GFI protected, get a permit for it, make sure that the wiring is correct.

[43:05] Make sure it's connected to the circuit breaker that's correct and let's get it scored away. We haven't that's all we want them to do

[43:12] Any other questions

[43:19] So the ability he could he can he can remove the

[43:23] Conduct or he could remove the gas line back to the point connection and that was he and at the same time the connection the barbecue server that and

[43:32] It's done

[43:33] Thank you.

[43:37] The total permit costs for that would be $301.

[43:41] It's probably due inspections.

[43:46] So board member, Jack, did you have a follow-up question?

[43:51] I might even catch that.

[43:53] The outlet serving the barbecue is not ground fault protected.

[43:57] That is correct sir.

[43:59] I need to see that if you go to page, on the staff report, if you go to page 12, but OF, you'll see it's no GFI, there's no water proof connection, I want to test it at time, but it's raining.

[44:14] And I did not till say checking the wiring at that point due to water and non GFI protected.

[44:21] Thank you very much. You're welcome.

[44:23] Any other questions for the pellet from the board?

[44:27] I have a question.

[44:30] Go ahead.

[44:31] What kind of materials were used to run the gas line and where is the gas line run through

[44:36] the slab that runs through the house or what would part of the slab of that it run through?

[44:42] It looks like I can't tell because it's painted.

[44:45] I mean, no.

[44:48] Mr. McFarlane.

[44:50] But it appears to be either galvanized black pipe.

[44:53] I have no idea.

[44:55] and what happened was that we're very nice patty on the backyard and to help the

[44:59] Hell it with...

[45:00] On him to tear it up because at one point, it was a slab in somebody's pebble text. And it's nice. We'd like to just see it severed at that point and severed back at the bar with you to preserve the patio's integrity.

[45:12] And then go back inside the garage and remove the gas line to that point, plug up the wall. So that's the problem that I have no idea what to use for gas piping. So if you want to keep it, that's fine, but that point will all need to be exposed.

[45:26] So that way we can check out the validity of the material used, and at that point, a gas test would be required, and we do the inspection based on chapter 12 at that point.

[45:35] And again, my clients bought the property in August of 2020. They have absolutely no idea how this was constructed.

[45:47] Understood.

[45:49] So, Mr. McFarlane Boardman, did that answer your questions? Do you have a follow-up?

[45:54] All right, I do have a statement to make the, it was black iron that's not permitted in the ground, you're not allowed to use that other than above ground on the inside.

[46:04] And the, you know, as if the patio has a roof covering, you're not allowed to run the gas piping through the slab.

[46:11] There's a roof covering is just a slab.

[46:13] Okay.

[46:15] You can, you can tell all the board members are taking a grant, cancha.

[46:19] May I ask Mr. Sowers what question?

[46:25] Mr. Sowers, did you ever determine whether the electrical outlets that is shown

[46:31] on photo F on page 12 of the report is connected to anything?

[46:38] Like I said, in my earlier statement, it was raining that day and that did not go comfortable

[46:44] going and checking that number one, number two, our inspection warrant was limited to

[46:49] specifically the barbecue and it did and it does not have

[46:53] authorization to go back into the garage and ask the

[46:56] appellant to remove anything or to, you know, to uncover anything.

[47:00] We stuck to exactly with the inspection warrant.

[47:03] Limit this, too.

[47:06] So if the plug is not connected to electrical wiring,

[47:10] it doesn't still create a problem.

[47:12] It would need to be abandoned because at that point

[47:14] time it could easily be reconnected if it's running condo it

[47:17] to be very simple to reconnect.

[47:20] But at that point, you have two options either.

[47:22] You disconnect it, remove it, put a brick in its place,

[47:25] check out all the wiring, as well as the conduit,

[47:28] and wherever's back at the service panel,

[47:31] or legalize it, and go through the process.

[47:35] Thank you.

[47:36] You're welcome.

[47:36] Okay, moving on.

[47:38] So, thank you, does anyone from the city

[47:44] have questions for the appellate?

[47:45] And again, please note there's a five minute limit on questions and the questions must be related to compliance issue and related to code sections and I may stop you if those guidelines are not followed.

[48:03] The only question I would have for the appellant is, do they have any permit in their possession or any evidence that either the electrical line or the gas line was actually permitted.

[48:15] Well, here's the difficulty that we have.

[48:19] The only, it's a question to the appellum itself not to counsel.

[48:27] Oh, yes.

[48:29] You have the original parents for the gas lines and the electrical wiring for the house.

[48:41] And there is no evidence that these permits don't cover the electrical lines and the gas lines going to the barbecue.

[48:53] These are probably built by the initial manufacturer and

[49:00] the permanent.

[49:01] And the permits are right here.

[49:05] Unless you can prove that it was built after and somebody didn't get a permit and there is no such proof.

[49:17] Yes, can we ask the appellant any questions?

[49:22] I guess the board members can always ask.

[49:26] Three, do you know how that outlet to the BBQ was connected?

[49:31] Is that on a home run back to the panel?

[49:34] Is it sliced off another outlet?

[49:36] Can you explain that to me, please?

[49:38] Yes, there's just one outlet on the BBQ structure

[49:42] that has no electricity to it and nothing.

[49:46] It might have been built like 40 years ago and it was the wiring was taken out or it's just they left the outlet there.

[49:57] There's no electricity to it. There's nothing. There's nothing.

[50:00] There's no reason for you not to abandon the line. I mean, if it bothers the city, I can take out the outlet and just put it,

[50:10] color on it. Okay. How about the gas line? Is that on a home run back to the meter or how, how is that barbecue fed? Do you know, you know the type of material?

[50:23] There's just a barbecue, there is no visible gas line that goes to it, there's nothing.

[50:31] Everything is on the ground and I don't know.

[50:39] Just a barbecue brick structure, anything on the ground that's connected to it, I don't know.

[50:46] And even if it was, if it's disconnected,

[50:48] all the ports are off, I mean, there's one gas port on it.

[50:52] It's hopefully open, there's nothing.

[50:54] It's just pipes on the ground, probably that were used

[50:58] a long time ago, and there's nothing.

[51:01] I mean, it's so, you're really not,

[51:04] you're really not too sure what's below grade

[51:06] is what you're showing.

[51:08] I don't know what's on their ground,

[51:10] connected.

[51:11] Thank you.

[51:12] Thank you.

[51:13] Next.

[51:14] I appreciate you answering the question.

[51:15] Thank you very much sir. Okay, let's go back to does this, does anyone from the city have any questions for the appellant?

[51:25] Mr. Sherman, may I ask a question of Mr. Sours?

[51:30] Sure. Mr. Sours, the appellant has stated that in their view, the gas and electrical lines were part of the original construction of the house and were part of the original building permit.

[51:46] Can you comment on in your experience what I guess the likelihood or how common is it that a building permit for a house would include reference to an accessory structure like a barbecue on a condominium patio.

[52:05] So that's question number one.

[52:08] And number two, when you expected the nature of the construction,

[52:15] the gas line in particular, because as you said,

[52:18] you couldn't really inspect the electrical line other than just

[52:22] observe the on GFI protected outlet itself without a cover.

[52:29] But when you observed the gas line,

[52:31] Can you comment on the nature of that connection or that construction rather and the connections and comment on whether or not in your view it is reflective of what would be required to meet codes either today or presumably back in 1978 if in fact it were part of the original construction?

[52:55] So the answer to the first question, typically, I started in this business back in the early

[53:02] 80s and into the obviously to now, and doing with multiple tracks and condominium projects,

[53:09] if anybody ever did anything with an accessory structure on a track tone or a condominium

[53:15] very, I'd never seen it happen.

[53:17] It's normally something that's done afterwards or possibly at the rarest point of view, it might

[53:23] a model. And this was never a model. This was done as a plan to be R. It was on a lot three unit

[53:32] five. And it was just, it was built to plan to be R, which would be the inside content as well

[53:38] as the outside to thought and things as that nature. As Mr. Medigalaham and as well as the

[53:47] his attorney indicated they had a gas cell. And they totally agree with that. It was done on

[53:53] 16 to 78, but I listed the fly of items that was typically being included in something like that.

[53:59] And I've never seen anything like that be done at the time of construction, Mr. Bradley.

[54:06] I was just not the norm.

[54:08] With respect to the construction of it, from what I've read from the code in 1978,

[54:15] It's not a period that they adhere to the code, what's respected, they required a gas

[54:21] valve outlet that's visibly seen as a shock, connects, which they have there, but they

[54:25] also required another one back at the back side of the pipe, which I did not see.

[54:32] The same time, I have no idea what was used with respect to materials.

[54:37] The material is painted, and it goes back to board member Kalensky's question as well as

[54:44] What material is used?

[54:46] I have no idea.

[54:47] I don't know if it's black pipe.

[54:48] I don't know if it's galvanized pipe.

[54:49] If it's black pipe, it's never been allowed to go underground.

[54:53] So, from that perspective, I have no idea.

[54:57] And the points of connects.

[55:00] In between the dryer, in the garage, with flex line connectors on them, is that typical construction? Go to compliant construction?

[55:09] No, typical construction, something like that, to go back into hard wire, excuse me, a hard pipe, and same time, we'd be a shut off valve at that point, to shut it off in case of servicing, or if there's ever an event of an emergency, you shut it off at the, at the cooked up itself.

[55:22] The flex connectors are normally an appliance connector in the event of an earthquake or something like that, they can move and have some movement.

[55:28] It would be hard, it would be hard to come back so that that and itself led me to believe that it possibly did not have a prevent that time.

[55:37] And as well and during the inspection the flex line was a connection at the appliance, which was the cooktop which would have been a great place for a flex line.

[55:47] You're talking about the, the, the, the, the part the other demo the barbecue is struggling to be recently removed from the flex line that is still unpar

[55:55] And you can see the brass, and you can see that if you look at photo number as photo E on page 11 and that's where the flex connector go because that's where the

[56:06] the cook helps that on top of the barbecue structure at that point.

[56:10] And I think that would be exactly where the flex line would go, not back at the main connection.

[56:15] Yeah, there's a question of Mr. Sowers.

[56:18] Yes.

[56:19] Hold on a second.

[56:20] Hold on a second. I'd like to have a follow up to that one please.

[56:22] So, and I don't know who desks with dresses to other than, I'll make it open to either the city or the appellate.

[56:33] So, if this might have been a home builder accessory, did we see this in any of the other units?

[56:44] Did anybody else have this option?

[56:47] I have not seen it.

[56:49] I've done a couple of, we've done a few inspections out there.

[56:52] There was another barbecue that was done without a permit and since it's been cited

[56:57] and is going through the inspection process for permitting and it was never done at the time

[57:02] it was a building and that's the only one that I know of.

[57:05] The homeless association might be able to comment on that.

[57:08] I don't know.

[57:11] David, do you know anything about that?

[57:14] No, I'm not aware, but I do agree with Mr. Sowers when he said that it's not typical at all that we would see construction of an accessory nature like a barbecue not called out separately on a building permit as part of a production home for a builder.

[57:38] And that type of feature would normally only be part of like a model, a home that was

[57:48] serving as a model.

[57:49] They would have all those types of accessories and accoutrements in order to market the

[57:55] homes and the builder would pull those permits from the city and they would be reflected

[58:01] on separate permits or called out separately on on the permit for the the main the main structure

[58:08] it's in fact they kind of covered them by that original permit usually it's it's reflected

[58:17] on a separate permit however is that you're understanding to Mr. Sauer's. Yes and Mr. Chairman

[58:23] I'd like to read something for the 1978 woman code and basically what it states and talks about

[58:29] an accessible shot off valve, show of a tight step forth in the indicated indicates the

[58:34] subsection, shall be installed in the field supply piping outside of each appliance and a

[58:39] head of the Union connection, and in addition there to the valve at the appliance side as well,

[58:44] so they're calling out to certain, and this never really coincided with that, and then it also

[58:49] talks about the gas piping, and I did not see that as being apparent with respect to the

[58:56] the 76 uniform plumbing cuts.

[58:59] Okay, now, I'm sorry, I didn't catch who I talked over,

[59:04] sorry, who is looking to ask a question.

[59:09] I am at a rate.

[59:11] Okay, thank you, thank you for letting me go,

[59:14] sorry if I talked over you.

[59:16] That's okay.

[59:19] Mr. Sowers, were you working

[59:20] for the city in 1978?

[59:22] No sir.

[59:24] So you have no idea what their standards were 1978.

[59:28] from your personal knowledge.

[59:30] No, I do not.

[59:31] Other than what I've seen on the,

[59:32] okay.

[59:33] Hang on, thank you for being here for three and a half years

[59:36] and doing permit research and history here

[59:38] for three and a half years.

[59:44] Or, and it is a correct set.

[59:46] The city does not maintain plaque for units

[59:48] going back to as far.

[59:51] That is correct.

[59:53] And Mr. Bradley, you indicated

[59:54] that it would be unusual for this structure

[59:58] to exist unless it was...

[1:00:01] Do you know if this was a model home?

[1:00:06] Yes, Mr. Chair, to respond to Mr. Ray, as indicated by Mr. Sowers and his earlier comments, the permit

[1:00:13] does not reflect that this was a model, and it would have, if it would have been a model.

[1:00:20] So it presumably is just a regular production unit.

[1:00:23] Yeah. And that was true, even in 1978,

[1:00:30] that client, I believe that is the case, but I

[1:00:36] wasn't doing this in 1978, so I can't attest to that. I can just say this on the permit history

[1:00:43] that we've done on various track tones around here, those condominiums they do call out specifically

[1:00:49] model 1, 2, 3, and after going through an extensive re-model and going back through multiple

[1:00:58] tracks as well as countless items in permit history, we've noticed that every track from the

[1:01:06] 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s indicated the models and what they planned on doing with the models.

[1:01:14] All right. Moving on, does the Board wish to entertain any additional testimony from the city staff

[1:01:21] or the appellant.

[1:01:24] Just for stitching salad.

[1:01:29] Okay, yeah.

[1:01:31] Um, if the owner doesn't want to use the system, um,

[1:01:36] barbecue or anything like that.

[1:01:38] And they are willing to remove the electrical sticks,

[1:01:42] which is not working.

[1:01:45] And still, city has any problems,

[1:01:47] because they are not doing any repair or anything like that.

[1:01:51] And do you want them to be moved for barbecue or yeah, if they don't want to fix it, what's if you want it here?

[1:02:01] First of all, the city has never had an issue with the structure itself.

[1:02:04] It's only been the gas line and the electrical line.

[1:02:09] If Mr. Manning would like to disconnect the gas line and disconnect the electrical line and do it per code and properly.

[1:02:20] I have no issue

[1:02:26] in yet a question.

[1:02:29] Well, I have one for the panelist by me.

[1:02:35] Sharim.

[1:02:37] Listening to all to listen to the information from both sides.

[1:02:41] It sounds to me like the source of power and the source of fuel.

[1:02:50] there is such a large unknown factor here. Why is it that you don't want to remove the existing gas line and the existing conduit containing the conductors back to the main service panel?

[1:03:13] I told the city that I'm not going to connect any gas to this or anything, and I can,

[1:03:24] the thing is that Mr. Sauer and his notice of violation said that we have to open the flap,

[1:03:32] the concrete, we have to bring it to something to open the entire patio,

[1:03:38] to break the concrete, he wants to open up the entire patio to look at the line that goes

[1:03:46] into the barbecue and then he said, and also maybe the barbecue itself. So he wants to destroy

[1:03:53] the barbecue to look at the lines, make sure that they're fine. I mean, the whole thing

[1:03:59] found that extremely malicious. If you read what he says in his notice of violation, that

[1:04:07] what he wants to do in order to issue a pyramid and he never mentioned about the abandonment

[1:04:16] in his notice of violation. He can say that, well, if you want to abandon it, he can do it this way.

[1:04:22] He wants to open up his intention to inflict massive damage to this thing, and now he says that,

[1:04:29] okay, if you just cut it off at the surface of the patio, it's fine. I think that's what he says.

[1:04:37] And what I said was you can sever it at the surface of the patio and at the same time go back to the

[1:04:43] to the barbecue structure itself and as long as it was done in a point that it could never be reconnected

[1:04:52] that we would be willing to work with with the appellant on that but

[1:04:58] I mean, to keep it, you would have to...

[1:05:00] Those everything and do what you need to do. So in order to be working, you know, the bottom line is we want to get to a resolution of the abandonment or permitting of the, uh, of the gas line. So we're trying to find a resolution that's why we're here at the field. And I don't, in order to do it correctly, we might have to, to tear it up. I am hopeful that we don't have to. I mean, I'm trying to work with, you know, with whatever we can in order to get a proper abandonment.

[1:05:30] or proper, yes. And Mrs. Sauer has no evidence that there is any line going on the ground to

[1:05:37] the barbecue. There's nothing. It's just this structure. I don't think he has it's just this

[1:05:41] pipe sticking out of the something in the garage. He has no evidence that that pipe is connected to

[1:05:48] the barbecue. So, a speculation, there's one line in the barbecue in the garage and he's saying

[1:05:53] that is probably going into the barbecue.

[1:05:57] He never tested it.

[1:05:59] He came here on March 3rd to do that.

[1:06:02] And he never tested it.

[1:06:03] He just looked at things.

[1:06:05] He just looked at the barbecue

[1:06:06] and this thing sticking out of the garage.

[1:06:08] He's saying that it's probably going into the barbecue.

[1:06:11] That's what he's saying.

[1:06:13] I have one last question, and I appreciate your time, I do, sir.

[1:06:17] So the fact that you may or may not have a gas line,

[1:06:21] You may or may not have current running to conduct this below grade. Does not concern you at all?

[1:06:31] Well, there's nothing. I mean, you can dig up the thing, the patio to see if there is anything.

[1:06:38] You have to have evidence that there's something in there. I mean, you're saying that there might be a

[1:06:44] there, that's odd of coals inside the ground.

[1:06:48] Therefore, we have to dig it up to see if there is a pipe and if there is, I mean, you can do it.

[1:06:54] Then you have to go all over the place and dig up everybody's patio to see if there's anything

[1:06:59] there.

[1:07:00] You can do that.

[1:07:02] Thank you for your response.

[1:07:05] All right.

[1:07:06] So I'm going to ask again.

[1:07:07] So the board was to entertain any additional testimony from the city staff or the appellant.

[1:07:16] No.

[1:07:16] Here in nine, I will now close the time for testimony.

[1:07:21] There will be no more testimony accepted unless the requested by the board.

[1:07:26] We will now have an opportunity for public comment.

[1:07:29] Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on this item?

[1:07:34] Note there is a three minute time limit for public comment.

[1:07:40] I would like to be

[1:07:50] from someone else.

[1:07:51] So what I'm going to do is I'm going to mute all right now.

[1:07:53] and then Ms. Fuller, I'm trying to mute it.

[1:08:01] I'm sorry.

[1:08:02] Here we go.

[1:08:04] Can you hear?

[1:08:14] Hello.

[1:08:15] Okay, Ms. Fuller, we can hear you. So go ahead.

[1:08:18] Yes, please.

[1:08:19] Hi. The only comment I wish to make is if Mr.

[1:08:25] Sharam's

[1:08:26] dissertation or explanation.

[1:08:29] This is, this is, this is Chairman Heinrich.

[1:08:31] Could you please identify who you are please,

[1:08:33] because the board probably doesn't know?

[1:08:36] Hi, I'm Deborah Coler.

[1:08:37] I actually managed the Ranch of Dominguez Town

[1:08:39] home association.

[1:08:41] OK, thank you.

[1:08:50] As a location of the barbecue is sticking point

[1:08:54] for the association, because it's built up against the garage

[1:08:58] wall, and the wood sensing, and we

[1:09:00] will be addressing that with the homeowner.

[1:09:05] My comment on the gas line is, Mr. Maglahine, do you have a gas stove?

[1:09:17] Chair Heinrich, I'm going to interrupt for a second.

[1:09:19] Yeah, public comment should address the board and they're welcome to address the board.

[1:09:23] But I don't think it's proper to fly or the questioning of the appellant.

[1:09:29] Okay, well, in my research, the gas lines that were run appropriately based on original homeowners

[1:09:42] who have owned, every patio was dirt.

[1:09:48] There are easements in the governing documents that talk about the gas line, and if something

[1:09:53] is built over the gas line if it needs to be worked on, that homeowner acknowledges that

[1:10:00] They must make access for that easement.

[1:10:07] So, from what I can understand and my limited knowledge is that the gas sign that would run into the home for either the fireplace and or the heater would have gone underground and would have been set by the builder.

[1:10:26] every home was an electric cell and an electric oven.

[1:10:34] All other appliances would have been electric kept set for the heater

[1:10:39] and or the fireplace.

[1:10:43] That's the only thing I want to bring up.

[1:10:46] All right, thank you.

[1:10:48] Are there any other members of the public that would like to address the board?

[1:10:56] Hearing none, I'll now close the public comment portion of the hearing.

[1:10:59] We will now discuss and deliberate at the end of our deliberation or at any time during the deliberation.

[1:11:07] I will entertain a motion from the board on this matter.

[1:11:11] The motion could either deny the appeal and uphold the bill in official decision,

[1:11:18] or it could be to modify or refer the bill in official decision.

[1:11:24] In determination to modify or reverse the billion officials' decision must be a vote of two thirds of the board's membership.

[1:11:34] In other words, by at least four votes.

[1:11:37] Our determination should be by resolution.

[1:11:41] There is a draft resolution in the agenda packet, but we can modify that resolution as we see fit.

[1:11:49] including I boys vote with the drafting of the resolution occurring after the meeting.

[1:11:57] So here's the part where the board members deliberate if there is a motion, I will entertain one.

[1:12:20] Don't everybody go shy on me.

[1:12:30] I see Ron talking, but I he's mute.

[1:12:34] I can enter a motion.

[1:12:36] I believe we should stay with what the billing officials find memes are and go along with what he wishes the homeowner to do.

[1:12:46] I second that motion.

[1:12:48] So we have a first and a second to adopt the resolution as part of the agenda packet.

[1:13:00] So I'd like to, at that point, Steven, do we ask the Arlene to call for a vote?

[1:13:13] Yes, so, Chair Heinrich, at this point, I mean, you are free to continue to discuss the motion that's on the table.

[1:13:19] But if you are, when, if and when you are finished your discussion, you would ask Arlene to call a roll call, call vote, and you will each vote.

[1:13:26] Any board members have any additional conversation, deliberation, that before we call for the vote.

[1:13:40] Hearing none, Arlene, please call for the vote.

[1:13:48] Who is ski?

[1:13:49] Yes.

[1:13:50] That's Ar?

[1:13:51] No.

[1:13:52] Goal of Ar?

[1:13:54] Yes.

[1:13:55] McFarlane.

[1:13:58] Motion carries four to zero.

[1:14:00] That's Ar voting no.

[1:14:06] All right. Thank you very much. I will now turn to the second item to be heard. This is an appeal of case number CC-DAS-044026.

[1:14:18] This concerns the notice of violation dated May 5 2021 provided to the Appellants.

[1:14:26] I will ask the names we read in again because I'm still not good at this.

[1:14:34] Perhaps you can ask the appellant to just identify himself so we have the proper.

[1:14:41] That would be perfect.

[1:14:43] That's the issue.

[1:14:49] What you're muted, sorry.

[1:14:55] Sharon Manny Golem.

[1:14:57] Thank you so very much.

[1:15:00] And concerns an exterior, electrical, light features. In the record are the following documents. On April 5, 2021, the city service served a courtesy notice to the appellant.

[1:15:15] This was followed by a final notice of violation provided to the appellant on both April 20 and May 5, 2021 on May 12, 2021, the appellant submitted a request for appeal.

[1:15:31] On June 3, 2021, the appellant was notified that a hearing would be scheduled to hear an appeal on June 14, 2021.

[1:15:40] that the Appalachian request the hearing was rescheduled for today.

[1:15:45] Also on June 3, 2021, the Appalachian was provided a copy of the Procedures

[1:15:51] Epical to this hearing as well as a copy of the city's written documented

[1:15:56] documentation submitted to the board. On June 21, 2021, the Appalachian

[1:16:03] council submitted a letter to the board that that letter was provided to the board and to the city staff.

[1:16:12] Neither the city nor the appellant have notified the board that they intended to call any witnesses.

[1:16:18] Accordingly, no witness testimony will be heard today. I will now invite the city staff

[1:16:24] to provide a presentation to the board and again there's a 15 minute time limit.

[1:16:29] lead.

[1:16:38] You're muted, Mr. Stowers.

[1:16:43] Thank you. Thank you for the help, David.

[1:16:46] The second item on the agenda is a notice of violation regarding exterior lighting,

[1:16:51] attached to a residence located at 211-29B at Canada. On March 29, 2021, building

[1:16:58] division received a name mail. Excuse me regarding two unpromitted light pictures that were

[1:17:03] installed on the reference address. A subsequent research of permit history was completed

[1:17:07] and no permits were found for newly attached exterior light pictures.

[1:17:11] Thus, in no violation was sent to the owner in April 5th, 2021.

[1:17:16] With additional follow-up notices sent on April 20th, 2021,

[1:17:20] and may 5th, 2021 by a good enforcement.

[1:17:23] The homeowner has requested the appeal of the most of the violations.

[1:17:27] The property owner appealed claiming that the light picture is exempt from the permit

[1:17:31] requirement under California Building Code Section 105.2 work exempt from permit, specifically

[1:17:38] under Electrical with a focus on replacement of lamps. Staff findings are based on the following

[1:17:44] code definitions, codes, section references, and energy code ACE. 2019 California Building Code

[1:17:53] In 2019 California Residential Code, Section 105.1 and 105.2, Electrical Item 1, repairs and maintenance,

[1:18:03] minor repair work including the replacement of lamps or the connection of approved portable

[1:18:08] lecture equipment to an approved permanently installed receptacles.

[1:18:13] 2019 California Energy Code defines lamp as the following.

[1:18:18] An electrical appliance that produces an optical radiation for the purpose of visual

[1:18:23] Designed with a base to provide an electrical connection between the lamp and a luminaire.

[1:18:30] And it's designed to be installed into a luminaire.

[1:18:32] A lamp is not a luminaire and is not an LED retro set kit.

[1:18:38] 2019 energy code defines a luminaire as a complete lighting unit,

[1:18:42] consisting of a light source.

[1:18:44] This is a lamp for lamps together with the parts that distribute light position

[1:18:50] to protect the light source and connect to a power supply.

[1:18:54] Energy code A is a program funded by Pacific Gas and Electric,

[1:18:59] San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California and Southern California Gas Company,

[1:19:05] and is zetted by the California Energy Commission.

[1:19:07] California Code A says released a publication online that clearly defines

[1:19:12] that clarifies these definitions by further elaborating that a light bulb

[1:19:17] or similar, separable lighting components.

[1:19:21] Other findings were 2019 California Electrical Code, California Article 89, California Code provisions, section 89, 0.108, 4.1, permits and section 89, 0.108, 4.4, inspections, 2019 California Energy Code, section 100, 0.1, definitions, alterations,

[1:19:46] Lamp, Luminare, Section 1, 50.2, B, Alterations, J, Lighting, Section 150, K, Resonance, Lighting,

[1:19:56] Item 3, Resonance, Lout, Door Lighting, and Table 1, 5.

[1:20:00] 0.0-a, classification of high-efficancy light sources, euroblender, ordinance, number 2, 019-1065, article 9, 5.7, permit, article 95.10 compliance, article 95.11 inspection, but a zambian, the staff report, reference the light pictures and questions. I am available for questions.

[1:20:27] All right, thank you. Does any board member have questions for the city staff?

[1:20:39] No, I do not.

[1:20:44] Well, then I guess I do. So do we know what this replaced?

[1:20:54] I do not know. I'm assuming the regular or regular light fixture.

[1:21:00] Okay. Well, maybe I can ask that when the appellant gives their presentation.

[1:21:04] All right. Thank you. Does the appellant have any questions for the steady staff and please note there's a five minute limit on questions questions must be related to the compliance issue and related code section.

[1:21:17] And I may stop you if those guidelines are not followed. Thank you.

[1:21:24] Any questions from the appellant.

[1:21:28] This is Emma rate representing the appellant. Do you know whether a light fixture was there before this current light fixture was installed?

[1:21:38] I

[1:21:41] do not.

[1:21:43] Did you see any evidence that new electrical wiring had been placed through the walls of the exterior to the patio?

[1:21:55] If this is in fact just the replacement of one light fixture by another light fixture, does that require a building permit?

[1:22:05] And it has to conform to the California energy code as well.

[1:22:11] And which provision requires that the replacement of one light picture for another light picture requires a building permit.

[1:22:21] It falls back under the California building code and goes back under section 105.2 the electrical item.

[1:22:27] or specifically exempt lamps, which this is not a lamp,

[1:22:32] this is actually a fixture and a room in here.

[1:22:35] So at that point, since the exemption

[1:22:36] is only applies to a lamp, which is a light bulb,

[1:22:39] has defined by energy code as well as in the energy code.

[1:22:44] When you start changing out light pictures,

[1:22:47] the whole fixture itself, that's when it requires a building for that.

[1:22:51] At the same time on an exterior,

[1:22:52] we want to make sure that obviously it's watertight

[1:22:55] And make sure it complies with the motion sensor, whatever the case may be that he's decided to put in.

[1:23:01] And let me quickly add to that.

[1:23:03] I think Jim was referencing 105.1 is the permit requirement.

[1:23:08] What I want to do is just the exemption when you're not required to get a permit.

[1:23:14] And 105.1 actually specifically calls out along with plumbing and gas.

[1:23:20] it does call out on, you know, any any improvement to electrical.

[1:23:25] So the appellan is actually raised an exception to that rule in 105.2,

[1:23:32] but that only refers to the replacement of lamps.

[1:23:35] And that's why there was an explanation of what a lamp is

[1:23:39] in contrast to a luminear being a light bulb, which is a lamp versus a luminear,

[1:23:44] which is the actual picture, which is what was replaced here.

[1:23:47] Okay, so just to clarify, he's not accused of violating the exemption provision, 105.2.

[1:23:58] We know part of the charge against him.

[1:24:00] No, he's the one who's relied on 105.2 to claim that he was not required to get a permit.

[1:24:11] The reference in the notes of violation was to 105.1 which is the permit requirement.

[1:24:15] and 105.2 maybe the bottom of page one of the June 14, 2001 building board of appeals staff report.

[1:24:26] Again, that's just references all relevant code sections.

[1:24:32] But the notes of violation refer to the 105.1, that's the violation, not getting a permit.

[1:24:42] Okay, so I guess I have another question I should have asked it, like previous one.

[1:24:48] So I assume that we don't have two options with this one, like we did with the last one.

[1:24:56] You can't just remove it and leave stuff hanging there.

[1:25:00] So, what is the city's desired resolution?

[1:25:08] I've taken a building permit, have it inspected and put in a proper light picture.

[1:25:14] And I'm assuming, I don't know if it's a proper light picture, so obviously we haven't done the inspection.

[1:25:19] Okay, and did you do any estimate like you did on the last one of what I did?

[1:25:25] It would be $170.50, however, if we were to put in the gas line, electrical outlets,

[1:25:31] as well as the two light fixtures, it still pulls us a 350 for everything.

[1:25:38] Okay, thank you.

[1:25:41] So now I'm going to invite the appellant to provide a presentation to the board.

[1:25:46] Again, this is a 15 minute time limit.

[1:25:59] Do we have a presentation from the appellant?

[1:26:02] I'm just looking through my notes, your honor.

[1:26:13] I'm

[1:26:16] looking at the April 5 2021 citation, the courtesy notice,

[1:26:34] just directed to the fixture or to the light that was replaced to the flood light.

[1:26:44] It appears, well, it's confusing.

[1:26:50] The April 20, 2021 final notice states required actions to correct the violation.

[1:26:59] Please obtain all required building payments for the newly installed exterior floodlights.

[1:27:06] It does not say fixture. It does not indicate that there is a problem with the fixture.

[1:27:10] is the position taken by the city currently that when it said floodlights, it meant fixture.

[1:27:24] That's just a question that I have.

[1:27:30] And isn't there an exception in the code for what is deemed a minor repair work?

[1:27:39] We can, or I can understand how the city would have a problem if this requires new wiring

[1:27:48] and a new intrusion into the exterior of the property with new wires and all of that wonderful stuff.

[1:27:59] But if someone just goes down to Home Depot and buys a replacement exterior light to replace a light that has already been

[1:28:08] there, and has already been permitted, and that is apparently identical to the structure that

[1:28:15] is in the home of this next door neighbor, wouldn't that just be minor repair work?

[1:28:30] Sounds nice, but unfortunately it isn't anymore.

[1:28:33] The energy code requires it to be controlled either by a photo cell, a motion sensor,

[1:28:39] or an automatic time switch or controlled by an astronomical time clock control for energy

[1:28:45] requirements.

[1:28:46] So at that point it has to be a fixture that's going to be approved by the California Energy

[1:28:50] Commission as well as falls in line with the California Energy Code.

[1:28:55] So if the structure is just powered by a switch that's illegal, I don't know if you say

[1:29:04] a legal, but it's not for code.

[1:29:05] In other words, you can't just turn them off and turn them on.

[1:29:07] If that should you have currently and you have a replacement, obviously that's legal, non-performing, it's fine.

[1:29:14] But if you change them out, then you need to comply with the new requirements and you obtain a permit.

[1:29:20] At the same time, we want to make sure that they're watertight fixtures and that there's all correctly.

[1:29:28] And did the city see anything to indicate that this exterior light is not just operated by a switch?

[1:29:38] No.

[1:29:41] So as far as the city knows it's operated by a switch.

[1:29:46] It could be operated by a switch.

[1:29:48] And if it's operated by a switch, and it's a new fixture, then obviously it would not make the requirements to the California Energy Coast.

[1:29:58] Because it either has to be done by a phone.

[1:30:00] So, or it has to be operated by a motion sensor, an automatic time switch, control, or by an astronomical time clock control. You can't override it to stand the opposition at all times.

[1:30:13] So, in other words, during daylight, it probably wouldn't work.

[1:30:17] Okay. Let's say I had a motion sensor to pick this up, I guess.

[1:30:22] So, or a home belt in 1978 before there were white sensors, things like that, which still

[1:30:32] operate their exterior lights by a switch, all of those homes are in violation of the electrical

[1:30:38] item.

[1:30:39] I said a bell.

[1:30:40] I said that.

[1:30:42] I was asking a question.

[1:30:44] So, in other words, if I had a home belt in 1978 and I had the original fixtures and there's

[1:30:48] nothing wrong with them, I'm more than welcome to continue.

[1:30:51] to use them and change out the bolts. Obviously, I couldn't change out an incandescent bulb now,

[1:30:57] I probably changed it to an LED. But if I took that picture off and said, you know what,

[1:31:00] I'm going to put something different and it puts something new. And at that point, I need to go to

[1:31:04] the city, county, wherever my jurisdiction is, to end the proper permit, go through the inspection process.

[1:31:11] And did you check to see whether the current light fixture that has been installed can be

[1:31:19] is operated by a motion sensor. No, I did not, because I did not go on the

[1:31:24] authority and I won't want this property. Okay,

[1:31:30] and if it was operated by a motion sensor

[1:31:33] with a, there'd be a problem with the installation, with the replacement. Most likely not,

[1:31:40] as long as the dual approved, it falls under the guidelines of the 2019 California Energy Code

[1:31:45] And it's water type. I don't see an issue with it. Okay.

[1:31:53] Any other questions?

[1:31:56] I'm sorry, Pichelle. I like Pichelle. Can we see Mrs. Bell?

[1:32:04] Yeah, some page four.

[1:32:06] I'm going to have a report.

[1:32:08] Can I show it to everyone?

[1:32:09] Sure.

[1:32:10] Yes, please.

[1:32:11] Thank you.

[1:32:31] Mr. Chairman.

[1:32:31] I've got the photograph photo A on my screen.

[1:32:36] I can share my screen with the group.

[1:32:39] If that's the pleasure of the board.

[1:32:42] It's just please.

[1:32:45] It sounds good.

[1:32:56] So is there something you wanted to point out Nazarene?

[1:32:59] Yes.

[1:33:00] I was wondering is this solar?

[1:33:03] Or is this a WhatsApp latch spot underneath?

[1:33:08] Is this sensor?

[1:33:09] I don't know.

[1:33:12] Because I think similar to that, I'm looked like that's the type you put in on top of the brush and then you move, it's activated.

[1:33:26] So maybe the question is for Mr. Cheryl, is this already has sensor or not?

[1:33:38] It has a motion sensor, but that can be disabled or enabled by software,

[1:33:52] so it's fully flexible.

[1:33:56] program, it can be program to can turn off the sensor, turn it on, I mean it's fully flexible

[1:34:06] and it's portable, it can take it out and put it somewhere else. It's very easy to install

[1:34:12] it takes five minutes to install it.

[1:34:15] I have a question on that. Is it just attached to the wall? There's no electrical light source

[1:34:20] in the home, that it's just a solar panel, and there's no electrical connection at all from

[1:34:27] the switch phone operated or anything like that, it's just stuck to the wall.

[1:34:31] No, it's not, it's not a solar panel, it's connected to the three wires, because they're receptacle

[1:34:40] at the wall.

[1:34:42] It's not connected.

[1:34:44] And the wire and that's going to put the screws in and go from the wall.

[1:34:47] It's just a connector, you connect it, it's a connector, and you can snap it out, snap back in, oops, it's easy.

[1:34:54] Yeah.

[1:34:55] It's just how you can see any chance you are number.

[1:35:00] Oh yes, it has all the UL number and all the certificates and everything. Can buy it from home depor,

[1:35:12] cost codes, the full of them. Everybody installs it and I think I'm the only one who has to get a permit for it.

[1:35:19] I mean, Mr. Sauer hasn't probably never issued any permit for anyone else.

[1:35:28] Can you present all those new members that have taken through Mr. Stella?

[1:35:37] Yes. Yes. I can. Absolutely. Yes.

[1:35:42] If it wasn't approved, it wouldn't be sold in stores and buy it from any store.

[1:35:50] No, you shouldn't buy things. It's not approved, but you have to show it.

[1:35:55] But it has a, if you have an approval, yes, it has all the certificates, it's FCC, FCC certification, everything.

[1:36:05] Okay, I believe we're still in the presentation from the appellate.

[1:36:14] I believe you're on the administrative.

[1:36:22] This is the joy.

[1:36:23] Sorry.

[1:36:25] It's always a virtual meeting.

[1:36:27] It's one of the vagaries of Zoom meetings.

[1:36:29] One of the things they don't teach you in Zoom school is that if you have a desktop camera

[1:36:34] Cool. I put it in front of your camera. You put a coffee cup in front of your camera. It really impacts people's ability to see you

[1:36:43] Now you don't teach it that either. I just want to know where you've got to go to zoom school. No, me. Yeah. Oh

[1:36:51] Anyway, it's very judge with a spare your court

[1:36:56] Zoom settlement conferences all the time, but I digress, but in one or five point two

[1:37:02] under a electrical

[1:37:04] point once as repairs and maintenance, minor repair work, including replacement of lamps or the

[1:37:11] connection of approved portable electrical equipment to approve permanently installed receptacles,

[1:37:19] is exempt from getting a permit. And that's exactly what this is.

[1:37:28] And I am wondering why

[1:37:32] What there is about this particular installation that does not make an example as minor repair work.

[1:37:43] If all it is is the replacement of a fixture A with fixture B,

[1:37:51] and fixture B is portable.

[1:37:53] As Mr. Men, excuse me,

[1:37:56] Manning Helm has testified it is.

[1:38:00] For one, I don't think this is a life fixture is considered portable just because you're able to install it or uninstall it.

[1:38:09] That would be applicable to any fixture at all. Obviously they're installed and uninstall.

[1:38:18] Secondly,

[1:38:21] this is obviously not a repair. It's a replacement.

[1:38:24] repair would be of an existing fixer or appliance. This is a replacement, and as Mr. Sowers

[1:38:34] explained, the permit requirement is in place so that there is an inspection to make sure that the

[1:38:43] reconnection is done correctly that there is that it's you know airtight and so forth. So it's not

[1:38:51] exposed to the elements. This is clearly not a minor repair or maintenance, it's a replacement.

[1:38:59] In that provision, specifically called that, what is exempt by way of example, and that is a lamp and not a luminaire.

[1:39:09] There's definitions in the code to distinguish the two. One is a light bulb, which is a lamp, which you can replace without a permit under 105.

[1:39:17] to. The Luminear, which is defined as the fixture itself, is not exempt and therefore by virtue

[1:39:25] of the fact that it was not specifically referenced where it could have, they referenced a lamp

[1:39:31] and not a Luminear. It is clear that the replacement of a Luminear does require a permit.

[1:39:38] Well, like most things in the lie, things are not always as clear as we would like them to be.

[1:39:44] If maintenance of a unit could also include replacement, there is nothing in the statute that says it does not include replacement.

[1:40:00] This is basically going to home depot getting a replacement unit and connecting it.

[1:40:13] It's hard to see why the city would want to be burdened with permit requirements for something as minor as this.

[1:40:24] If there were intrusions into the wall, if he was putting in a new light, where one had not existed before, that would certainly be understandable.

[1:40:40] But,

[1:40:44] I have not, you know, searched for the definition of luminaire since I don't know how to spell it, one of the other problems.

[1:40:54] But

[1:41:01] I will point out that in the same regulation, 105.1, as it's found in the residential

[1:41:10] code, which is nearly identical to 105 in the California Building Code, both being

[1:41:14] applicable.

[1:41:15] Where are the, you know, the board wanted to, that adopted these, these regulations wanted

[1:41:23] use replacements they did and in 105. In section 105 permits, excuse me section 105.2 of the

[1:41:34] replacement of the residential code, which is identical, requiring a permit for electrical work,

[1:41:40] you will see the word replacement as opposed to the word reuse, which indicates that they know the

[1:41:48] difference between a replacement or a repair, and they use the appropriate word where they

[1:41:55] think that.

[1:41:58] If I might, this is the portion of the hearing, where the appellant, you know, I didn't

[1:42:05] have the appellant to make a presentation.

[1:42:07] I don't mean to stifle the questions by the board or by to the staff, but I do just want

[1:42:13] to make sure that the appellant has an opportunity to make a presentation and then complete

[1:42:17] that presentation and that it acknowledges that opportunity because we seem to be a little bit

[1:42:24] just free flowing here and I just don't want to deny the appellant it's opportunity for

[1:42:28] a presentation.

[1:42:30] Thank you.

[1:42:31] Our position is outlined pretty thoroughly in the appeal filed by Mr.

[1:42:42] Manningolum and which

[1:42:44] If I take it as a better job than most attorneys that I know,

[1:42:51] that

[1:42:54] this seems to qualify as an exemption under one of five point to you for minor repair work.

[1:43:04] There's just not that much involved in this process.

[1:43:10] And I think that the vast majority of the citizens of your Belinda, who are called upon

[1:43:19] to want to replace an exterior light fixture, are not going to think they have to go

[1:43:25] and get a building permit.

[1:43:30] It just doesn't make no sense to get a building permit for something as minor, as unscrewing

[1:43:39] fixture and screwing a replacement fixture in. If that does require a building permit and the failure

[1:43:47] to do so results in the possibility of violations and fines, I think you probably have a lot of

[1:43:53] people in the city who are subject unknowingly the violations and fines.

[1:44:01] Because I would submit that

[1:44:05] For anyone who's walked down a home depoliled in the lighting section, people are doing this all the time.

[1:44:16] Without giving it a second thought or having any idea that it requires that something is minor as this requires a building permit.

[1:44:27] Is that conclude your presentation?

[1:44:30] Yes.

[1:44:31] Alright, thank you very much.

[1:44:32] Do any of the board members have questions for the appellate?

[1:44:37] I do.

[1:44:39] This is his response dated June 8, 2021, subject request for amending the present appeal timeline

[1:44:50] 14, 2021, built in the procedures of 2019 California Building Code Section A.

[1:45:02] First of all, I want to commend you for researching the building code. That in itself is quite an accomplishment.

[1:45:10] You go into detail about how the delighting question is installed to bless in five minutes to connect the connectors to the snap and snap unit into the wall back plate.

[1:45:25] five-minute work is definitely a minor repair work. Therefore, even the city notices,

[1:45:31] we're regarding the entire unit, pursuant to section A105.2.

[1:45:38] Floodlight unit does not need a permit. Okay.

[1:45:43] So the question I have for you is, is this certainly a problem? Did you do the repair work yourself?

[1:45:50] Oh yes. And could you describe how you replace that to me please?

[1:45:55] You took off the original six year that was there and what was beneath it beneath it is a bracket that holds the receptacle put the new receptacle in there and screw it and then you

[1:46:14] I put the back plate there, and then you snap the, and you connect three wires with the connector, and you snap the slot like into the back plate.

[1:46:31] That's it.

[1:46:31] Regarding the connector, sir, how are the existing connectors inside the stud bay? You have a stucko finish on the wall, is that correct?

[1:46:41] Yes. Okay. So, I just replaced the old one with the new one, and everything is there.

[1:46:49] Okay. So, inside the hole of the exterior wall of the stucco between the stud base, you have conductors, wives.

[1:46:59] How did you attach those wires the existing wires inside the wall to the new wires of your new fixture?

[1:47:09] How did you combine those wires?

[1:47:12] The three wires, and then they go to corresponding three wires on the floodlight.

[1:47:19] And how did you connect those wires the existing wires and the new wires?

[1:47:24] How did you connect those together?

[1:47:26] What devices did you use?

[1:47:29] Bubblegum, you welded them. How did you, how did you connect the existing wires with the new one?

[1:47:35] Oh, we did. We did a wire wrap connector. Would that be a cone-shaped cap that you stuck the

[1:47:45] wires into and twisted it onto? Is that what we're talking about here? Yes. So we use caps for

[1:47:51] So you're existing wires inside the stud base were connected to the new wires of the fixture.

[1:48:01] You bonded the wires together by slipping a cone shape cap over them and twisted it together.

[1:48:06] Three of them, yes, correct?

[1:48:08] Okay.

[1:48:10] Thank you.

[1:48:14] Well, you're really getting into it there, Jack.

[1:48:16] So, any other board members have questions?

[1:48:23] Nobody, okay?

[1:48:26] So, thank you.

[1:48:28] Does this nitty have any questions for the appellate?

[1:48:30] And please note that there's a five minute time limit on questions.

[1:48:35] Questions must be related to the compliance issue

[1:48:39] and related code sections.

[1:48:41] I may ask you to stop with those guidelines or not follow.

[1:48:46] I have one thing to say, but it's more of a statement.

[1:48:48] I'd like to ask Mr. Miller if I can make a quick statement.

[1:48:56] Gask me, you need to ask me a question.

[1:49:00] Then I will allow it.

[1:49:02] Okay. Now, I say that I want to make is Mr. Mennig,

[1:49:05] along indicated that we do not issue permits for exterior light,

[1:49:10] as well as the attorney.

[1:49:13] We do issue permits for exterior lighting.

[1:49:16] We get a lot of rehab permits to come in.

[1:49:19] and we also have a science that come in that show complete.

[1:49:24] You know, light fixture done throughout the entire home,

[1:49:27] which in turn are provided with the LTG forms.

[1:49:30] They go through the plan check process.

[1:49:31] If it's just a simple light fixtures that are going on the

[1:49:35] extra of a home will normally attempt to do those over the counter

[1:49:37] provide the correct fixtures as well as the information

[1:49:40] to help the inspector alone.

[1:49:44] A lot of them, you're absolutely correct.

[1:49:46] We don't see everything that happens

[1:49:48] with the instructors drive by and somebody is replacing the light pictures on the extra

[1:49:51] home and physically see them doing it or they notice it's a new, they will issue a stop

[1:49:56] opportunity.

[1:49:56] And we do issue stop works, notice it's periodically for those items.

[1:50:00] That's what I wanted to say.

[1:50:04] All right. Thank you for that. Does the Board wish to entertain any additional testimony from the city staff or the appellate? Board members?

[1:50:18] Maybe one, maybe one question, okay, but, and I don't know why I would address it, too.

[1:50:24] Regarding precedent, there's an actual way.

[1:50:35] Sometimes the actual way has issues with the type of lighting.

[1:50:38] I'm just wondering if there are any other issues other than the physical connection that we're looking for permit for.

[1:50:46] or not, we're not spilling over light into other people's property. We're not concerned about

[1:50:54] any other violations. It's essentially a permit to connect this new device to the existing

[1:51:04] conductors. That's what the permit is for, and I don't know if Mr. Brownlee wants to comment.

[1:51:08] I don't know what that is. Lenses on the bottom there, I don't know if it's the photo cell.

[1:51:11] I have no idea, but I know that Mr. Brantley commented on it.

[1:51:16] Yes, I would like to Mr. Chair.

[1:51:19] So the zoning regulations for the city also govern outdoor lighting.

[1:51:24] And there are performance standards for outdoor lighting.

[1:51:28] And absolutely there are sort of requirements for

[1:51:34] for containing light within the boundaries of your own property, as well as ensuring that

[1:51:42] the actual lighting source itself, the light bulb is downward directed and shielded

[1:51:51] from a joining property so that you don't see the hotspot from a neighboring property

[1:51:57] and and or from, you know, public rights of way, et cetera. So in this case, if you recall, the photo that I showed before,

[1:52:10] there does appear to be some visibility of the actual bulb, the light source itself, and there is glare potential associated with that.

[1:52:21] So the city did not include that reference in our violation notice, because the permit requirement

[1:52:37] was really superior to that.

[1:52:41] The normal course of action, what have involved the homeowner responding to the notice

[1:52:49] the violation to come in and get a permit.

[1:52:52] And as part of that process, it would be reviewed

[1:52:55] and approved by the planning division.

[1:52:58] The planning division at that time

[1:53:00] would put certain conditions on the approval

[1:53:06] that it comply with those zoning provisions

[1:53:12] that I mentioned a moment ago,

[1:53:13] regarding downward-directed fixtures that don't reveal

[1:53:18] light source from offsite and eliminate glare potential and do not cause light bleeds onto a

[1:53:28] joining properties. So that would be the zoning side of things, but it wouldn't become

[1:53:34] relevant until they come in to obtain a permit unless we received a complaint about an already

[1:53:50] Sometimes, in the case of new technologies, you know, we have, for example, security

[1:53:59] lights, flood lights, sometimes these devices get out ahead of the codes,

[1:54:08] and that's

[1:54:09] what we have, reductions, ordinances, you know, fluid standards that can be adopted to

[1:54:19] these kinds of circumstances.

[1:54:23] I don't believe there would be an issue with that particular device, you know, meeting

[1:54:28] in the California Electric Code or building energy standards.

[1:54:34] It looks like a typical, of the shelf type of an item.

[1:54:39] So it appears that, you know, maybe, I've got them on my house, I know people install these

[1:54:48] things, homeowners and all these devices,

[1:54:54] and it sounds like it might be a case of somebody

[1:55:00] Having

[1:55:05] been noticed that somebody changed this device, obviously we know that the homeowner was the one that did a great device.

[1:55:16] And that's why my question regarding a president in the area is the city, the state is that they are requesting permits for this kind of device and believe they are the ones that would be responsible for issuing those permits and establishing the criteria in this particular case for that type of a fixture.

[1:55:47] I read that correct, and that's your position as well.

[1:55:51] I read this in my correct, Jim.

[1:55:55] Well, it's not only us, it's the building code, as well as the energy code.

[1:56:03] I mean, it's a very simple permitting process, it's relatively inexpensive permit, and we

[1:56:09] do have people doing it quite often, or they're doing it completely rehab on their homes

[1:56:13] we include the lighting pictures into the permit at that point in time as well.

[1:56:19] You can ask a question of Mr. Sours?

[1:56:21] Yes.

[1:56:23] If Mr. Heinrich is that acceptable?

[1:56:25] Yes.

[1:56:27] Do you have people coming in only seeking a permit to replace a exterior light fixture with another

[1:56:37] exterior light fixture and nothing else?

[1:56:41] We have to do people come and do that.

[1:56:43] a lot of them are extra light pictures not only on the home, but some of them actually have

[1:56:47] extra light pictures that are attached to block walls and things. And they want to

[1:56:51] replace them for something different. And at that point in time we go through the permitting

[1:56:56] process as well.

[1:57:02] Okay, does the board have any desire to entertain any additional

[1:57:07] to have testimony from either of the available or the city staff.

[1:57:12] Not only.

[1:57:13] I have a question.

[1:57:14] If you're hearing it, Nazarene.

[1:57:17] First of all, as for a California code,

[1:57:20] it's just a license and electrician.

[1:57:25] They can replace it.

[1:57:27] So, um, doing it by home home owner.

[1:57:31] It may cause problem as one of my colleagues asking how they're doing stolen.

[1:57:36] And that's the concern I think City has, and maybe regularly we don't check for one

[1:57:44] life or two lives, but then you have complaints, then we go and check everything,

[1:58:04] did

[1:58:04] you do?

[1:58:10] What are you, why are you resisting?

[1:58:15] Everyone benefits it.

[1:58:36] Is that directed to Mr. Manningolong?

[1:58:39] Yes.

[1:58:40] Okay, first he is an electrical engineer,

[1:58:45] with that.

[1:59:01] Well, I have a master's in an execon Engineering from California State University and I don't know what else you need.

[1:59:14] I have to have that.

[1:59:16] Even licensed electricians are still required to pull a permit for electrical work.

[1:59:26] It's, I congratulate you on your education, I know that wasn't a cheap one, but yes, but that's a very minor work.

[1:59:36] Right, you don't have to be an even in engineers to connect three wires.

[1:59:40] Just three wires.

[1:59:41] Right, the moment that you broke the surface of the, of the exterior wall and you went into the wall cavity that became an entirely different matter.

[1:59:52] I'm not going inside the wall, but if the wires are out, yeah, once you attach to the

[2:00:00] Doctors that are attached back to the main service panel. That's not simply plugging into a receptacle. Okay, that's far more.

[2:00:10] So we thought was there already, but you didn't, you didn't talk about or describe a receptacle earlier.

[2:00:16] Are you talking about a junction box? Is that what you went into attach your, it sounded like you were talking about a junction box and not a receptacle.

[2:00:24] it's a definition of receptacle is very broad. I have it. It is a receptacle with three wires.

[2:00:34] That's not a receptacle. I have a definition of a receptacle that you want to read it.

[2:00:41] I have it right here. It's a 2019 California Electrical Code. This is an electrician's Bible.

[2:00:48] Everything has to be done per this code. And the work that you described to me earlier

[2:00:55] is just not fall under this definition.

[2:01:00] Were you mistaken in the description you were giving me earlier?

[2:01:04] No. The wires are out of the receptacle.

[2:01:08] You just connect them three wires. It's very simple.

[2:01:11] It takes 25 minutes.

[2:01:13] You don't go inside the wall there.

[2:01:15] So actually it's already there.

[2:01:17] Just for what I'm correct here.

[2:01:19] The description that you gave me earlier was accurate description.

[2:01:25] Yes.

[2:01:25] Okay. Thank you for that. Any other additional testimony from the City staff or a

[2:01:34] pellet that the board would like to hear.

[2:01:40] I'm not hearing any. I want to close the time

[2:01:43] for testimony. There will be no more testimony except unless requested by the board.

[2:01:48] We will now have an opportunity for public comment. Is there any member of the public

[2:01:53] who wishes to speak on this item? Please note you will have three minute time limit on public

[2:01:58] comment.

[2:02:03] I don't hear any, so I will close the public comment portion of the hearing.

[2:02:08] We will now discuss and deliberate at the end of the deliberation or at any time during

[2:02:13] the deliberation, I will entertain our motion on this matter. The motion could be to either

[2:02:19] deny the appeal and uphold the building official decision or it could be to modify or reverse

[2:02:26] the building official decision. A determination to modify or reverse the building official

[2:02:32] decision must be by a two-thirds vote of the board's membership, in other words, at least four votes,

[2:02:40] our determination or our determination should be by resolution. There is a draft resolution,

[2:02:49] I keep saying, anyway, there's a draft resolution in the agenda packet, but we can't modify

[2:02:56] that resolution as we see fit, including by voice vote, with the drafting of a resolution

[2:03:04] a crane after the meeting. So is there deliberation or I will entertain a motion?

[2:03:12] Motion to deny the appeal, just in part two, in total part due to the type of repair that

[2:03:20] done. Do I hear a second? I come to motion.

[2:03:28] Any further deliberation?

[2:03:37] All right. I would

[2:03:37] like to call Arlene for the vote.

[2:03:55] Yes.

[2:03:58] Yes.

[2:04:00] Yes.

[2:04:01] Yes.

[2:04:01] Goal over.

[2:04:02] Yes.

[2:04:03] My car line.

[2:04:05] Yes.

[2:04:06] Motion.

[2:04:06] You're using that.

[2:04:08] So thank you having voted on both matters for for us.

[2:04:12] I will now close this hearing.

[2:04:17] So Steven, is there anything that we need to do after that?

[2:04:22] Well, where's, you know, we're back on the agenda.

[2:04:27] I'm on the agenda for correspondence received.

[2:04:29] I don't know if there is any, and then adjournment.

[2:04:36] I don't remember any correspondence received.

[2:04:39] Mr. Chair, the only correspondence received was already

[2:04:42] forward to the board as amounts to the additional correspondence

[2:04:48] from the Appalachian Attorney, which we discussed throughout the hearing

[2:04:54] from time to time today, dated June 21, 2021 from the rate law firm.

[2:05:03] And the normal packet that was delivered from staff, certainly, which went out to you as well, other than that, no further correspondence was received.

[2:05:16] All right, thank you. So next agenda item is adjournment. So do we need a vote on adjournment?

[2:05:27] You do not, although you are welcome to, if you would enjoy that.

[2:05:33] Yeah, boy, we didn't do a voting for adjournment. Everybody in favor of adjournment.

[2:05:38] Hi, hi. Mr. Chair, and I would just like to thank you and the board, as well as all of the parties to this matter for conducting yourselves in a very professional manner.

[2:05:56] and for adjudicating this in a fair straight forward manner and hopefully we can all work together to resolve the issues with the appellant and efficient and thoughtful manner and appreciate everyone taking the time today to help work through this.

[2:06:23] I would say the same thing and it would be my hope that the two praise would work this out and get this

[2:06:32] behind them and maybe we'll meet on the streets someday and I'll smile at each other.

[2:06:39] Thank you.

Appeals Board Meeting re Manighalam Appeals

Agenda

Transcript