Berkeley City Council
June 9, 2026

Excerpt from California Building Code 2025
California Building Code 2025 (Vol 1 & 2) - Chapter 3 Occupancy Classification and Use 310.2 Residential Group R-1
Residential Group R-1 occupancies containing sleeping units where the occupants are primarily transient in nature, including:
 Boarding houses (transient) with more than 10 occupants  Congregate residences (transient) with more than 10 occupants  Hotels (transient)
 Motels (transient)
 [HCD 1] EƯiciency dwelling units (transient)
310.3 Residential Group R-2
Residential Group R-2 occupancies containing sleeping units or more than two dwelling units where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature, including:
 Apartment houses
o Large family child care
o Small family child care
 Congregate residences (nontransient) with more than 16 occupants  Boarding houses (nontransient)
 Convents
 Dormitories
 Fraternities and sororities
 Monasteries
 Hotels (nontransient)
 Live/work units
 Motels (nontransient)
 Vacation timeshare properties
 [HCD 1] EƯiciency dwelling units (transient)

Attachment 7

Index for Administrative Record for 1615 Fairview St

1. Letter from Mr. Marowitz (submitted 9-25-2025)

2. Staff Response (10-3-2025) to Letter from Mr. Marowitz (submitted 9-25-2025)Staff

3. RealQuest Report for 1615 Fairview St (3-27-2026)

4. E3 Warning Letter and Proof of Service (9-16-2025)

5. E3 Exemption Declaration Form (signed 8-01-2021)

6. E3 Inspection Certification Form (signed 6-30-2016)

7. E3 Exemption Declaration Form (signed 3-1-2016)

8. Emails Communications between Mr. Marowitz and Building & Safety Staff

9. Email communications between Mr. Marowitz and City Clerk

Building & Safety Division
E3 Inspection Program October 3, 2025

1 Mr. Andrew Marowitz,
The following is a response to your letter submitted in-person on September 25, 2025, regarding E3 Inspection Program requirements for your property located at 1615 Fairview St, Berkeley.

California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Article 2.2., Section 17973(a), requires that “Exterior elevated elements that include load-bearing components in all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units shall be inspected.” These inspections are required regardless of whether they are occupied by either tenants or owners. There are no exemptions for owner-occupied properties or vacant units under Health and Safety Code Section 17973 or Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 19.40.040. In fact, condominiums that have Exterior Elevated Elements (E3) are also required to be inspected. Condominiums are, for the most part, owner occupied.

In 2016, an E3 Exemption Declaration Form was submitted, signed March 1, 2016, (attached) declaring under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that Inspection Certification requirements do not apply to your property at 1615 Fairview St because:

1. “Wood-framed or steel-framed exterior elements (i.e. exterior balconies, decks, stairs, landings, terraces, walkways, guardrails, handrails, or similar appurtenances) elevated more than six feet above adjacent grade DO NOT EXIST at this building.”
Subsequently, an E3 Inspection Certification form (attached) was submitted, signed by a licensed professional on June 30, 2016, verifying that your building at 1615 Fairview is 4-unit apartment house with exterior elevated elements subject to the City of Berkeley’s E3 Inspection Program. You also confirmed in your letter dated September 25, 2025 that your building is a 4-unit apartment house with exterior elevated elements. A 4-unit apartment house is considered an R-2 occupancy per California Building Code Section 310.

In 2021, an additional E3 Exemption Declaration Form was submitted, signed August 1, 2021, (attached) declaring under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that Inspection Certification requirements do not apply to your property at 1615 Fairview St because:

1. “Wood-framed or steel-framed exterior elements (i.e. exterior balconies, decks, stairs, landings, terraces, walkways, guardrails, handrails, or similar appurtenances) elevated more than six feet above adjacent grade DO NOT EXIST at this building”

2. “This building is not an R-1 or R-2 occupancy. It does not have 3 or more dwelling units and is not one of the other building types listed above. (Please note, R-1 and R-2 occupancies as defined in the California Building Code do not correspond to Berkeley’s R-1 and R-2 zoning districts.)”

3. You also checked the box indicating the building type to be “Residential Condo Building” and added a notation that the building is a “Multi-Unit Home House”.

Your letter received on September 25, 2025, states that Apartment #4 does have exterior elevated elements, but is exempt from E3 Inspection Program requirements because it is owner occupied. As

2 stated above, there are currently no exemptions for owner-occupied properties under Health and Safety Code (HSC) 17973 or Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 19.40.040.

To clarify any confusion, the Berkeley Municipal Code Section 25.502.020 S.16. defines single-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings as follows:
x Single-Family Dwelling - A building designed for and occupied exclusively by one household, or may provide accommodations for six or fewer employees as "employee housing" pursuant to Healthy and Safety Code Section 17021.5."
x Multi-Family Dwelling. - A building, group of buildings, or portion of a building used or designed as three or more dwelling units.

By your own admission and by confirming in our research of property records the property at 1615 Fairview is a 4-unit multi-family dwelling. Whether the units are occupied or not, has no bearing on whether the building is a multi-family dwelling or not. As defined by BMC Section 25.502.020 S.16 the structure at 1615 Fairview is a Multi-Family Dwelling building.

Per Berkeley Municipal Code, the inspection schedule set forth in BMC 19.40.040 shall apply retroactively to the original enactment of the City’s Exterior Elevated Elements inspection program on July 14, 2015; cyclical inspections of all buildings subject to E3 Inspection Program requirements shall be completed by March 31, 2022 and every six years thereafter. The E3 Inspection Certification form dated June 30, 2016 placed your property in compliance with the prior E3 inspection cycle, but no E3 Inspection Certification form was received by the March 31, 2022 deadline.

On September 16, 2025 staff issued a Notice of Violation and Warning of Administrative Citation (attached) to notify you that you are in violation of Section 19.40.040 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, which requires owners of buildings with three or more dwelling or sleeping units to hire a licensed or certified professional to inspect the building’s exterior elevated elements and verify that the elements are in general safe condition. You were given until October 16, 2025 to comply with the Notice of Violation.

According to California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Article 2.2., Section 17973, paragraph (o) “The governing body of any city, county, or city and county, may enact ordinances or laws imposing requirements greater than those imposed by this section.” The City must comply with State law and may impose more stringent requirements, but cannot impose less stringent requirements than dictated by State law. Therefore, your property at 1615 Fairview, which is a 4-unit multi-family dwelling with exterior elevated elements is subject to E3 Inspection Program requirements under Berkeley Municipal Code Section 19.40.040.

Per your request, I have included a copy of your previously submitted Inspection Certification form dated June 30, 2016, as well as copies of your Exemption Declaration forms from 2016 and 2021.

Regards,
Galadriel Burr
Community Services Specialist III
Building & Safety Division
[email protected]

Property Detail Report
For Property Located At :
1615 FAIRVIEW ST, BERKELEY, CA 94703-2363
Owner Information
Owner Name: MAROWITZ ANDREW
Mailing Address: 1615 FAIRVIEW ST, BERKELEY CA 94703-2363 C010 Vesting Codes: SM / /
Location Information
Legal Description: LOT 7
County: ALAMEDA, CA APN: 052-1543-014
Census Tract / Block: 4240.01 / 3 Alternate APN: 052154301400 Township-Range-Sect: Subdivision: HAMON
Legal Book/Page: Map Reference: 4-A3 /
Legal Lot: 7 Tract #:

Legal Block: R School District: BERKELEY
Market Area: School District Name: BERKELEY
Neighbor Code: Munic/Township: BERKELEY INCORP
Owner Transfer Information
Recording/Sale Date: / Deed Type:

Sale Price: 1st Mtg Document #:

Document #:

Last Market Sale Information
Recording/Sale Date: 07/18/1994 / 1st Mtg Amount/Type: / Sale Price: $12,400 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: /
Sale Type: FULL 1st Mtg Document #:

Document #: 254557 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: /
Deed Type: TRUSTEE DEED 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: /
Transfer Document #: Price Per SqFt: $4.24
New Construction: Multi/Split Sale:

Title Company:

Lender:

Seller Name: PETRAK JOHN H
Prior Sale Information
Prior Rec/Sale Date: 04/02/1993 / Prior Lender:

Prior Sale Price: $40,000 Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type: /
Prior Doc Number: 103633 Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: /
Prior Deed Type: TRUSTEE DEED
Property Characteristics
Gross Area: 2,922 Parking Type: Construction: WOOD
Living Area: 2,922 Garage Area: Heat Type:

Tot Adj Area: Garage Capacity: Exterior wall:

Above Grade: Parking Spaces: Porch Type:

Total Rooms: 15 Basement Area: Patio Type:

Bedrooms: 5 Finish Bsmnt Area: Pool:

Bath(F/H): 4 / Basement Type: Air Cond:

Year Built / Eff: 1903 / 1903 Roof Type: Style: L-SHAPE Fireplace: / Foundation: Quality: AVERAGE
# of Stories: 2 Roof Material: Condition:

Other Improvements:

Site Information
Zoning: Acres: 0.15 County Use: RES PROPERTY OF 2,3
OR 4 UNITS (2800)
Lot Area: 6,750 Lot Width/Depth: x State Use:

Land Use: MULTI FAMILY

DWELLING
Res/Comm Units: 4 / Water Type:

Site Influence: Sewer Type:

Tax Information
Total Value: $125,970 Assessed Year: 2025 Property Tax: $8,771.00 Land Value: $67,184 Improved %: 47% Tax Area: 13000
Improvement Value: $58,786 Tax Year: 2025 Tax Exemption:

Total Taxable Value: $125,970

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 1:26 PM
To: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Subject: ZĞ͗ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌǁĂŝǀĞƌŽĨƉĞŶĂůƚLJƉĂLJŵĞŶƚĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟǀĞĐŝƚĂƟŽŶ ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ƚŚĞŐƵĂƌĚŝĂŶ͘ĐŽŵͬƵƐ-ŶĞǁƐͬŐĂůůĞƌLJͬϮϬϭϱͬũƵŶͬϭϳͬďĞƌŬĞůĞLJ-balcony-collapse- california-pictures
dŚŝƐƉŚŽƚŽǁĂƐƚĂŬĞŶďLJƚŚĞŐƵĂƌĚŝĂŶ͕ĂƐƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͘/ĨLJŽƵŐŽƚŽƚŚĂƚǁĞďƐŝƚĞĂŶĚŝŶŝƟĂƚĞ ƚŚĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂƐƐƚĂƚĞĚĂďŽĞ͕ƚŚĂƚǁĞďƐŝƚĞǁŝůůĂůůŽǁLJŽƵƚŽĞŶůĂƌŐĞͬďůŽǁƵƉƚŚĞƉŚŽƚŽƚŽĚŽƵďůĞ size, thereby clearly showing the distance of the balcony and the exterior wall, as closely ĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞŐƵLJƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞƚĂƉĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞ͘LJŵLJĞLJĞ͕ŚĞŝƐŵĞĂƐƵƌŝŶŐϭϲ-18" from the wall, ĨŽƌ>>ŽĨƚŚĞďĞĂŵƐ͕ŶŽƚũƵƐƚĂĨĞǁ͘͘
hdƚŚĞ'ĞƩLJƉŚŽƚŽƚŚĂƚ/ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞďĂůĐŽŶLJŇŽŽƌďĞĂŵƐďƌŽŬĞŽīƌŝŐŚƚ ĂƚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĨŽƌĨŽƵƌŽƵƚŽĨƐĞǀĞŶŽĨƚŚŽƐĞďĞĂŵƐ͘/EZ />
͊͊͊
This means that a decision was made to tamper with the beams, by shortening them, and ĂƌŐƵŝŶŐƚŚĂƚǁĂƚĞƌƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƟŽŶĂŶĚǁŽŽĚƌŽƚǁĂƐƚŚĞďĂƐŝƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽůůĂƉƐĞ͕ŶŽƚƚŚĞǁĞŝŐŚƚĂŶĚ ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞ͘ƐƐƵŵŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞďLJƚŚĞƚĂƉĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞǁĂƐϭϲͬ18" , that is not quite half of the 48" deep balcony, which is where the sloping angle begins. And the balcony ŇŝƉƉĞĚŽǀĞƌĂŶĚǁĂƐƉĞƌĐŚĞĚƵƉƐŝĚĞĚŽǁŶŽŶƚŚĞůŽǁĞƌďĂůĐŽŶLJ /ƚĂůƐŽĚĞŇĞĐƚƐĂǁĂLJĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŶŽƟŽŶƚŚĂƚƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞƚƌĞĂƚĞĚůƵŵďĞƌǁĂƐŶĞǀĞƌƵƐĞĚĂŶĚŶĞǀĞƌ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͕ĂŶƵŶĚĞŶŝĂďůĞŇĂǁŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽĚĞĂŶĚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽĸĐŝĂů͘ hd͕ƚĂŵƉĞƌŝŶŐǁŝƚŚ ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ͍͍͍͍tKt͊͊͊͊
This, then, was a full blown cover up by the City and the building dept. tŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƚŚĞƉŚŽƚŽƐƚŚĂƚǁĞƌĞƚĂŬĞŶĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŝŶǀĞƐƟŐĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĂƚďĂůĐŽŶLJ͍tŚĂƚĞŶƟƚLJǁĂƐ ƚŚĞŝŶǀĞƐƟŐĂƟǀĞƚĞĂŵ͍

Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813

From: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 4:48 PM
To: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌǁĂŝǀĞƌŽĨƉĞŶĂůƚLJƉĂLJŵĞŶƚĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟǀĞĐŝƚĂƟŽŶ

Dear Mr. Marowitz,
/ĨLJŽƵĂƌĞĐŝƚĞĚ͕LJŽƵŵĂLJĂƉƉĞĂůĂĐŝƚĂƟŽŶ͕ĂŶĚLJŽƵŵĂLJƐƵďŵŝƚĂZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌtĂŝǀĞƌŽĨWĞŶĂůƚLJ WĂLJŵĞŶƚĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟǀĞŝƚĂƟŽŶ/ƐƐƵĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJ͕ǁŝƚŚĂĐĐŽŵƉĂŶLJŝŶŐ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ͘zŽƵŚĂǀĞŶŽƚďĞĞŶŝƐƐƵĞĚĂĐŝƚĂƟŽŶ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕LJŽƵĚŽŶŽƚŚĂǀĞ ĂĐŝƚĂƟŽŶƚŽ appeal and have no reason to submit a ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌtĂŝǀĞƌŽĨWĞŶĂůƚLJWĂLJŵĞŶƚĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟǀĞ ŝƚĂƟŽŶ͘
Sincerely,

:ĞŶŶLJDĐEƵůƚLJ͕ZĞƐŝůŝĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐWƌŽŐƌĂŵDĂŶĂŐĞƌ
^ƉĞĐŝĂůWƌŽũĞĐƚƐͬƵŝůĚŝŶŐΘ^ĂĨĞƚLJŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ
Phone: (510) 981-ϳϰϱϭ
Email: ũŵĐŶƵůƚLJΛberkeleyca.gov

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 4:32 PM
To: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ ZĞ͗hŶƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉĞdžĐĞƉƟŽŶ
/ƐƚŚŝƐĂŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĨŽƌŵĂŶĚĨŽƌŵĂƚƚŽƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉǁĂŝǀĞƌŽĨƚŚĞ ƵŶĂīŽƌĚĂďůĞĐŽƐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞ

ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞŵĂŶĚĂƚĞƐ͍^


>Kt͘
Dƌ͘<ůĞŝŶ͗/ũƵƐƚĚŝƐĐŽǀĞƌĞĚLJĞƚĂŶŽƚŚĞƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƚŚĂƚƌĞůĂƚĞƐƚŽƚŚĞďĂƐŝƐĨŽƌŵLJƉƉĞĂů͘/ĂƐŬĞĚ Mr. Lopez, what is ƚŚĞƵŶƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉĞdžĞŵƉƟŽŶĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂ͕ďĞĐĂƵƐĞ/ďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĂƚŵLJ income level would result in me being eligible.

Dƌ͘>ŽƉĞnjƐƚĂƚĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽĞdžĞŵƉƟŽŶĨŽƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͕ŽŶůLJĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘
tŚĂƚ/ĐůĞĂƌůLJĂůůƵĚĞĚƚŽŝƐŵLJĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůůŝŵŝƚĂƟŽŶƐ͕ŽĨǁŚŝĐŚDƌ͘>ŽƉĞnjƐŚŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞƌĞĐŽŐŶŝnjĞĚ ƚŚĂƚǁĂƐŵLJĐŽŶĐĞƌŶ͘,ĞƐŚŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚŵĞƚŽƚŚŝƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌǁĂŝǀĞƌŽĨƉĂLJŵĞŶƚ͘hd/ ŚĂǀĞŶŽƚďĞĞŶŝƐƐƵĞĚĂĐŝƚĂƟŽŶŽĨĂŶLJƐŽƌƚ͘Dƌ͘>ŽƉĞnjŝƐŶŽƚŝŶƚhe business of providing ĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞƚŽŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐ͘,ĞŝƐŝŶƚŚĞďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐŽĨŝŵƉŽƐŝŶŐŚŝƐĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJĂŶĚŐĞŶĞƌĂƟŶŐƌĞǀĞŶƵĞ for the City. Thank you very much.
/ũƵƐƚĚŝƐĐŽǀĞƌĞĚƚŚŝƐĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůŶĞĞĚƐΗZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌtĂŝǀĞƌŽĨWĞŶĂůƚLJWĂLJŵĞŶƚĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟǀĞ ŝƚĂƟŽŶ/ƐƐƵĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJΗ
dŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶƌĞƋƵĞƐƟŶŐƚŚĞǁĂŝǀĞƌǁŝůů͕ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŵƉůĞƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁďLJƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐ ĂŐĞŶĐLJĂŶĚͬŽƌƚŚĞŝƐƐƵŝŶŐĂŐĞŶĐLJ͕ďĞŵĂŝůĞĚƚŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐŽĨƚŚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁ͘WůĞĂƐĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƚŚŝƐĨŽƌŵ ĂŶĚƐƵďŵŝƚŝƚƚŽ͗ŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJŝƚLJDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͛ƐKĸĐĞϮϭϴϬDŝůǀŝĂ^ƚƌĞĞƚĞƌŬĞůĞLJ͕ϵϰϳϬϰ WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚLJŽƵĂƌĞŵĂŬŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶƵŶĚĞƌƉĞŶĂůƚLJŽĨƉĞƌũƵƌLJ͘ŶLJŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ ŽŵŝƩĞĚŵĂLJƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶƚŚĞĚĞŶŝĂůŽĨƚŚŝƐŵŽƟŽŶ͘/ŚĞƌĞďLJƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJǁĂŝǀĞƌŽĨƚŚĞ required deposit of penalty and that the City ŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJŝƚLJDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͛ƐKĸĐĞƉƌŽĐĞĞĚƚŽ ƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞƚŚĞĂƉƉĞĂůŽŶƚŚĞůŝƐƚĞĚĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟǀĞŝƚĂƟŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƌĞĂƐŽŶƐ͗ ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________
______________________________________________________________________________ _____________
______________________________________________________________________________ _____________ _______________________________________________________________ Date: _________________ Total Amount Due͗ΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺŝƚĂŶƚ͛ƐEĂŵĞ͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺdĞůĞƉŚŽŶĞ͗;ͿͺͺŝƚĂƟŽŶη͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ______________________ ____________________ ____________________

______________________ ____________________ Address:
______________________________________________________________________________ ͺ^ƚƌĞĞƚŝƚLJ^ƚĂƚĞŝƉ^ŽĐŝĂů^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJηͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ-______-_____________ CDL ηͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ&/EE/>/E&KZDdION: Employer Name:
__________________________________________________________________________ Employer Address:
_________________________________________________________________________ ^ƚƌĞĞƚŝƚLJ^ƚĂƚĞŝƉϭ͘
DW>KzD
EdϮ͘^hWWKZd
z͗ϯ͘W
Z^KE^^hWWKRTED: _____
Employed _____ Self _____ Self _____ Full Time _____ Spouse _____ Spouse _____ Part Time ͺͺͺͺͺWĂƌĞŶƚƐͺͺͺͺͺŚŝůĚƌĞŶ;ηŽĨͿͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺhŶĞŵƉůŽLJĞĚͺͺͺͺͺtĞůĨĂƌĞͺͺͺͺͺKƚŚĞƌ _____________ _____ Student _____ S.S.I. _____ Total _____________ _____ Disabled _____ ͘&͘͘͘ͺͺͺͺͺ,ŽŵĞŵĂŬĞƌͺͺͺͺͺhŶĞŵƉůŽLJŵĞŶƚͺͺͺͺͺDŝůŝƚĂƌLJͺͺͺͺͺKƚŚĞƌ͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺKƚŚĞƌ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ&KZ/dzK& Z<
>
z/dzDE'
Z͛^
K&&/
h^
KE>z͗t/s
ZK&W
E>dz͗΀΁'ZEd
΀΁
E/

__________________________________________________ Date ____________________________ 4. Monthly gross income (include income from all earnings of LJŽƵƌŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚͿΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺĂ͘WĂLJ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞ͗tĞĞŬůLJŝ-Weekly: Monthly ;WůĞĂƐĞĞŶƚĞƌƚŚĞĚĂƚĞĨŽƌŵŽŶƚŚůLJͿEKd
͗zKhDh^dWZKs/
Wz,
<^dh^&KZKE

DKEd,KZs
Z/&/d/KEK&Kd,
Z^KhZ
K&/EKD
͘ď͘WĂLJƌŽůůĚĞĚƵĐƟŽŶƐĂƌĞ;ƐƉĞĐŝĨLJ
purpose and amount): (1)________________________________________ $______________________ (2)________________________________________ $______________________ (3)________________________________________ $______________________ (4)________________________________________ $______________________ (5)________________________________________ ΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺdŽƚĂůWĂLJƌŽůůĞĚƵĐƟŽŶƐΨͺͺͺͺͺ_________________ c. Net Income (take home pay) $______________________ d. Other money received each month (specify ƐŽƵƌĐĞĂŶĚĂŵŽƵŶƚͿ͗EKd
͗Dh^dWZKs/
K&&//>KhD
EdK&WZKK&K&/EKD
͘;ϭͿ
_______________________________________ $______________________ (2) _______________________________________ $______________________ TOTAL ΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺĞ͘dKd>DKEd,>z/EKD
;ĐнĚͿΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺϱ͘
^^
d^͗;sĂůƵĞͿDKEd,>z
yW
E^
^͗DŽƚŽƌsĞŚŝĐůĞ;ƐͿΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ZĞŶƚͬDŽƌƚŐĂŐĞΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ,ŽŵĞΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺhƟůŝƟĞƐ ΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺWƌŽƉĞƌƚLJΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ>ŽĂŶƐͬƌĞĚŝƚĂƌĚ;ƐͿ Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐĐĐŽƵŶƚ;ƐͿΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ&ŽŽĚͬůŽƚŚŝŶŐ $_________________ Checking Account(s) $____________________ TrĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶ ΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺĂƐŚŽŶ,ĂŶĚΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺDĞĚŝĐĂůͬĞŶƚĂůWĂLJŵĞŶƚƐ $_________________ All Other $____________________ All Other $_________________ dKd>^^
d^ΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺdKd>
yW
E^
^Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝĨ

I am found liable I will be required to pay the delinquent amount due. I further understand if I ĨĂŝůƚŽƌĞƐŽůǀĞƚŚŝƐŵĂƩĞƌ/ŵĂLJďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗ϭ͘ƚƌŝĂůŝŶĐŝǀŝůĐŽƵƌƚǁŝƚŚ subsequent garnishment of my earnings. 2. A lien placed against my California Franchise Tax ƌĞƚƵƌŶ͘ϯ͘dŚŝƐĐůĂŝŵĂƐƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽĂĐŽůůĞĐƟŽŶĂŐĞŶĐLJ͘^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗ ________________________________________________ Date _____

From: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 4:12 PM
To: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Subject: ZĞ͗hŶƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉĞdžĐĞƉƟŽŶ

Dear Mr. Marowitz,
zŽƵŚĂǀĞĂƉƉĞĂůĞĚĂĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐKĸĐŝĂůĂŶĚƐƚĂƚĞĚLJŽƵƌĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐŝŶLJŽƵƌ ĂƉƉĞĂů͘dŚĞŶĞdžƚƐƚĞƉŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝƐƚŚĞĂƉƉĞĂůŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͘dŚĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚ^ĂĨĞƚLJŝǀŝƐŝŽŶǁŝůů provide a report to the Housing Advisory Appeal responding to the points you raised in your ĂƉƉĞĂů͕ĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚLJŽƵƌĂƉƉĞĂůůĞƩĞƌĂŶĚĂŶLJĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐƉĞƌƚĂŝŶŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ džƚĞƌŝŽƌ
ůĞǀĂƚĞĚ
Elements case at 1615 Fairview. I will mail these materials to you at least ten days in advance of ƚŚĞŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͘zŽƵƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĂŚĞĂƌŝŶŐĚĂte in January, rather than an earlier date in November.

Sincerely,

Jenny McNulty͕ZĞƐŝůŝĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐWƌŽŐƌĂŵDĂŶĂŐĞƌ
^ƉĞĐŝĂůWƌŽũĞĐƚƐͬƵŝůĚŝŶŐΘ^ĂĨĞƚLJŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ
Phone: (510) 981-ϳϰϱϭ
Email: [email protected]

From: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 3:29 PM
To: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Subject: hŶƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉĞdžĐĞƉƟŽŶ

Dear Mr. Marowitz,

/ŶƚŚĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽĚĞ͕ĂŶƵŶƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉĞdžĐĞƉƟŽŶŝƐƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƚŽŵĂŶĚĂƚĞĚĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJ ƵƉŐƌĂĚĞƐǁŚĞŶĂůƚĞƌĂƟŽŶƐƚŽĂďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵŶĚĞƌĂďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŵŝƚ͕ĂŶĚǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞ ĐŽƐƚƚŽĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐǁŽƵůĚĐŽƐƚĚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƌƟonately to the overall cost ŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘/ƚŽŶůLJĂƉƉůŝĞƐƚŽŶŽŶ-ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƉƵďůŝĐĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐĂŶĚƉƵďůŝĐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘dŚĞ ŵŝƐĐĞůůĂŶĞŽƵƐĨĞĞƚŽƌĞǀŝĞǁƵŶƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉĞdžĐĞƉƟŽŶƐĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĂƉƉůLJƚŽƚŚĞŝŶƐƉĞĐƟŽŶ requirement for Exterior Elevated Elements.

Sincerely,

Jenny McNulty

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 2:35 PM
To: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ZĞ͗ƵƚŽŵĂƟĐƌĞƉůLJ͗^ĐŚĞĚƵůŝŶŐĂ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐĨŽƌLJŽƵƌƉƉĞĂů

tZE/E'͗dŚŝƐŝƐŶŽƚĂŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJĞŵĂŝů͘ŽŶŽƚĐůŝĐŬůŝŶŬƐŽƌĂƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐƵŶůĞƐƐLJŽƵƚƌƵƐƚ the sender and know the content is safe.

Ms. Mcnulty:
>ĂƐƚƋƵĞƐƟŽŶ͘
tŚĂƚŝƐƚŚĞĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂĨŽƌŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƟŶŐƚŚĞhŶƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞ,ĂƌĚƐŚŝƉ džĐĞƉƟŽŶ͕ŽƌŵŽƌĞĐŽŵŵŽŶůLJ
ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚĂƐƚŚĞ,ĂƌĚƐŚŝƉtĂŝǀĞƌ͕ĂƐƐĞƚĨŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŚĞ&ĞĞ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞŽĨ:ƵůLJϭϳƚŚ͕ϮϬϮϱĂƐƐĞƚĨŽƌƚŚ ďLJŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝů͕ŝŶZĞƐŽůƵƟŽŶϳϭ͕ϴϯϰE͘^͘ ŚĂƉƚĞƌys//͕DŝƐĐĞůlaneous, on Page 5.?

Andrew Marowitz

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 10:44 AM
To: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ZĞ͗ƵƚŽŵĂƟĐƌĞƉůLJ͗^ĐŚĞĚƵůŝŶŐĂ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐĨŽƌLJŽƵƌƉƉĞĂů

tZE/E'͗dŚŝƐŝƐŶŽƚĂŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJĞŵĂŝů͘ŽŶŽƚĐůŝĐŬůŝŶŬƐŽƌĂƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐƵŶůĞƐƐLJŽƵƚƌƵƐƚ the sender and know the content is safe.

Ms. McNulty:
/ŚĂǀĞƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚƐĞǀĞƌĂůƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐĂŶĚƐŽƵŐŚƚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐŝƐƐƵĞƐŽĨƚŚĞ


compliance mandate, and you are considered as the Director of the EEE program. zŽƵŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚƚŚĂƚLJŽƵǁŽƵůĚďĞŽƵƚͬƵŶĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƵŶƟůƚŚŝƐǁĞĞŬ͘ ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐůLJ͕ĐŽƵůĚLJŽƵƉůĞĂƐĞĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŵLJƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ͘
/ĚŽŶΖƚƌĞŵĞŵďĞƌŚŽǁŵĂŶLJĂŶĚĞdžĂĐƚůLJǁŚŝĐŚƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ/ĂƐŬĞĚ͕ƐŽ/ǁŝůůƌĞƉĞĂƚƐŽŵĞͬĂůůŽĨ them.
ϭͿtŚĂƚŝƐƚŚĞ

ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĂŶĚƉƌŽƉĞƌƉƉĞĂůĨĞĞ͕ĨĂĐƚŽƌŝŶŐŝŶƚŽƚŚĂƚƋƵĞƐƟŽŶŝƐƚŚĞĂĚĚĞĚ priority in the EEE FAQs that the fee should not be so much , so as to deter a person or persons from Appealing?

ϮͿtŚLJǁĂƐŵLJŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚƚŽƉƉĞĂůĨŽƌǁĂƌĚĞĚƚŽDƌ͘>ŽƉĞnj͕ĂƐƵŝůĚŝŶŐKĸĐŝĂů͕ƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶ 'ĂůĂƌĞĂůƵƌƌĨŽƌǁĂƌĚŝŶŐŵLJĞŵĂŝůƐƚŽŚĞƌŝƌĞĐƚ^ƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŽƌ͕ǁŚŽƐŚĞƌĞĨƵƐĞĚƚŽŝĚĞŶƟĨLJ͕ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞŶDƌ͘:ĞŶƐĞŶ͕ĂƐŵĂŶĂŐĞƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŶzKh͕ĂƐŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͍ůůŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƉĞople ,apparently were by-ƉĂƐƐĞĚ͕ĂŶĚDƌ͘>ŽƉĞnjŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶĞĚ͕ĂŶĚŝŵƉŽƐĞĚŚŝƐƵŶůŝŵŝƚĞĚŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƟǀĞĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƟŽŶ ĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJƚŽĚŝƐĐƌĞƟŽŶĂƌŝůLJƚŽĚĞĐŝĚĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƉĞĂů&ĞĞƐŚĂůůďĞΨϭϬϬϬ͕ŶŽƚΨϮϱϬŵĂƐ referenced in the Fee Schedule Set by City Council on JƵůLJϭϳƚŚ͕ϮϬϮϱ͕ǁŚĞƌĞŝƚƐƚĂƚĞƐΗŶLJĨĞĞ not explicitly covered by this fee schedule, shall have a fee of $250, from the Fee schedule of ƌĞƐŽůƵƟŽŶηϳϭ͕ϴϯϰE͘^͘ŚĂƉƚĞƌys//DŝƐĐĞůůĂŶĞŽƵƐ͕WĂŐĞϱ͍͍͘

ϯͿdŚĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ

ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞŵĂŶĚĂƚĞƐ͕ďŽƚŚĞƌŬĞůĞLJĂŶĚ^ƚĂƚĞ>ĂǁǁĞƌĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶ ƚŚĞďĂůĐŽŶLJĐŽůůĂƉƐĞŽĨϮϬϭϱ͘dŚĞĮŶŐĞƌƉŽŝŶƟŶŐďůĂŵĞǁĂƐƉůĂĐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌĨŽƌŶŽƚ ĐĂƵůŬŝŶŐĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƟŽŶůĞĂĚŝŶŐƚŽǁŽŽĚƌŽƚ͘

Ƶƚ͕ĨŽƌƐŽŵĞĂďƐƵƌĚƌĞĂƐŽŶ͕EKŽŶĞ͕ŶŽƚŽŶĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĞǀĞƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ͕ƉƵďůŝĐůLJ͕ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ ƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĐĂƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞďĂůĐŽŶLJĐŽůůĂƉƐĞǁĂƐĚƵĞƚŽKs
Z>KŽĨǁĞŝŐŚƚĂŶĚƉĞƌƐŽŶƐĐĂƵƐŝŶŐ
extreme stresses on the balcony, a 4' x 8' balcony = 32 square feet. There were at least 13 ƉĞŽƉůĞŽŶƚŚĂƚďĂůĐŽŶLJ͕ƐŝdžŽĨǁŚŝĐŚĚŝĞĚŝŶƐƚĂŶƚůLJ͕ĂŶĚϳĐƌŝƟĐĂůůLJŝŶũƵƌĞĚ͘ϭϯƉĞŽƉůĞ͕ŵĂůĞĂŶĚ female, thin, medium and heavy weights, adds up to 2300 pounds of moving load, ( more than a

dKEͿŶŽƚĂƐƚĂŝĐůŽĂĚ͕ĂŶĚĨŽƌĂĚƵƌĂƟŽŶŽĨƟŵĞŽĨĂƚůĞĂƐƚϯϬŵŝŶƵƚĞƐ͘dŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƉĂƌƚLJĨŽůŬƐ ŝŶƐŝĚĞƚŚĞĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚǁŚŽĂůƐŽĐĂŵĞŽŶƚŽƚŚĞďĂůĐŽŶLJƚŽƐŵŽŬĞ͕ŶŽƚǁĂŶƟŶŐƐŵŽŬĞŝŶƐŝĚĞƚŚĞ ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͘ĚĚĂŶŽƚŚĞƌϳϬϬƉŽƵŶĚƐŽĨǁĞŝŐŚƚсϯϬϬϬƉŽƵŶĚƐĂƚŵŽŵĞŶƚƐ͕ concentrated in a ƟŐŚƚůLJĐŽŶĮŶĞĚƐƉĂĐĞ͘
/ŚĂǀĞĞŶŐĂŐĞĚŝŶƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐƚĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚϭϯ͕ŽƌŵŽƌĞƉĞŽƉůĞǁĞƌĞƉĂĐŬĞĚŝŶ ůŝŬĞƐĂƌĚŝŶĞƐ͕ĂŶĚĐƌĞĂƚĞĚĂĚĂŶŐĞƌŽƵƐĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶ͘/ĂƐŬĞĚDƌ͘>ŽƉĞnj͕ĂƐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐKĸĐŝĂůƚŽ ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĂůŽĂĚďĞĂƌŝŶŐƐƚƌĞƐƐĐĂůĐƵůĂƟŽŶ͘,ĞƌĞĨƵƐĞĚ͕ĂŶĚƐĞŶƚƚŚĞĞŵail to the Planning Direcotr, who instructed me to stop sending any further emails to Mr. Lopez,and who has refused to address the issue , whatsoever, of the balcony collapse and the over load of people ĂŶĚǁĞŝŐŚƚŽǀĞƌĂůŽŶŐĞƌĚƵƌĂƟŽŶŽĨƟŵĞ͘
They refuse to even speak on the topic, dodging all my repeated inquiries of this issue, which is a form of dishonesty by omission.

EEE and state law was based on that balcony collapse. Had it not occurred , there would never have been any EEE laws, rules, or requirements of any sort, much more a laundry list of ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ŶĚƚŚĞĂƌŐƵĞĚďĂƐŝƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽůůĂƉƐĞŝƐŵŝƐ-infoƌŵĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ ŵŝƐĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝnjĂƟŽŶ͕͕ĂƌŐƵĂďůLJĂƉĂĐŬŽĨůŝĞƐ͘
I believe this is why no one wants to speak on this issue of overload and related stresses. So, EKtƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂůĂƵŶĚƌLJůŝƐƚŽĨƌĞƵůĂƟŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƟŽŶƐĂůǁĂLJƐĐƌĞĂƚĞƐƌĞǀĞŶƵĞƐďLJĨĞĞƐĂŶĚ enforcemeŶƚƉĞŶĂůƟĞƐĨŽƌŶŽŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ͘
/ŚĂǀĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚƚŚĂƚĂŶLJďĂůĐŽŶLJďĞƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ
yd>zůŝŬĞĂŶĞůĞǀĂƚŽƌ͕ǁŝƚŚƉŽƐƚĞĚ
ǁĂƌŶŝŶŐƉůĂĐĂƌĚƐůŝŵŝƟŶŐǁĞŝŐŚƚĂŶĚŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞ͕ƚŽ͍͍͍ϰ-5 and 800-900 pounds. This ǁŽƵůĚ͕ĞīĞĐƟǀĞůLJƐŽůǀĞƚŚĞƉƌŽďůĞŵǁŝƚŚŽƵƚƚŚĞŶĞĞĚŽĨ

ŝŶƐƉĞĐƟŽŶƐ͕ĂŶd which generates
ĂůĂƌŐĞƐƵŵŽĨƌĞǀĞŶƵĞĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJ͕ĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞƐĂůĂƌŐĞĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůďƵƌĚĞŶŽŶŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐ͘'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĂƚŝƚƐǁŽƌƐƚ͘
^Ž͕ƚŚĞƋƵĞƐƟŽŶŝƐ͕ǁŚLJŝƐĞǀĞƌLJŽŶĞ͕ƉƌŽďĂďůLJŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐLJŽƵƌƐĞůĨ͕ŬŶŽǁŝŶŐůLJĂŶĚǁŝůůĨƵůůLJ ĂǀŽŝĚŝŶŐĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŝŶŐƚŚŝƐŝƐƐƵĞ͕ĂŶĞdžƚƌĞŵĞůLJƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚďĂƐŝƐĨŽƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶ͘/ƚŝƐƚĂŶƚĂŵŽƵŶƚƚŽ the EEE complaince mandate being based on a fruad by omission of the overload of stresses cusing the collapse. Even if there was some wood rot, if only 4-5 people would have been on that balcony, it would not have collapsed. If the 13 or more people were on that balcony for only a few minutes, the balcony would not have collapsed. According to my research, the ƐƉĂĐĞͬĂƌĞĂŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƚŽĮƚĂƐŝŶŐůĞƉĞƌƐŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐϮ͘ϲϳƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚ͘ŵƵůƟƉůLJƚŚĂƚďLJϭϯ͕ ƌĞƐƵůƚƐŝŶϯϰ͘ϳϭƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚ͕ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϯϮƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚ͕ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶƚŚĞďĂůĐŽŶLJĚŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶƐс ^Z/E
^ƟŐŚƚůLJƉĂĐŬĞĚ͘ĂŶŐĞƌŽƵƐĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶ͘
Had the building code required pressure treated wood to support those balconies, even if there ǁĂƐǁĂƚĞƌƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƟŽŶ͕ƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚŶĞǀĞƌŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶǁŽŽĚƌŽƚ͘

^Ž͕ĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞĐŽƌĚ͕/ĂƐŬLJŽƵ͕ǁŚLJŝƐ
s
ZzKE
ĚƵĐŬŝŶŐƚŚĞƋƵĞƐƟŽŶĂŶĚŝƐƐƵĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŝŵĂƌLJ
ƌĞĂƐŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽůůĂƉƐĞǁĂƐĚƵĞƚŽKs
Z>KƐƚƌĞƐƐĞƐŽĨϭϯƉƌŵŽƌĞƉĞŽƉůĞŽǀĞƌĂŶĞdžƚĞŶĚĞĚ
ƟŵĞƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘/ĨLJŽƵĚƵĐŬƚŚĞƋƵĞƐƟŽŶ͕ǁŚLJĂƌĞLJŽƵĚƵĐŬŝŶŐͬĂǀŽŝĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƋƵĞƐƟŽŶ͍ ϰͿ'ŝǀĞŶƚŚĂƚ/ĂŵƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽŚĂǀĞŵLJƉƉĞĂůƚŽďĞĂĚũƵĚŝĐĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJ ŽŵŝƩĞĞ͕ǁŚĂƚŝƐƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŽĨŵŽǀŝŶŐĨŽƌĚŝƐƋƵĂůŝĮĐĂƟŽŶŽĨŽŶĞ;ŽƌŵŽƌĞͿŽĨĂƉĞƌƐŽŶǁŚŽŝƐ ĂĐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞŵĞŵďĞƌ͍
I want to move to disqualify Ms. Leah-^ŝŵŽŶtĞŝƐďĞƌŐ͕&KZh^ ͕ĨŽƌďĞŝŶŐƐƵĐŚĂŶ
ĞdžƚƌĞŵĞůLJ/^
ĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĐĂůƚĞŶĂŶƚĂĚǀŽĐĂƚĞĨŽƌĚĞĐĂĚĞƐ͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽǁĂLJŝŶƚŚĞƌǁŽƌůĚƐŚĞ ĐĂŶďĞ&/ZE/DWZd/>ƚƌŝĞƌŽĨĨĂĐƚ͕ĂŶĚǁŽƵůĚŝŶŇƵĞŶĐĞƚŚĞƚŚŝŶŬŝŶŐĂŶĚdecision making of the other volunteers, padding their resume, many of which have zero direct knowledge of buildings and building codes,etc, being employed as tech oriented individuals.

PLEASE RESPOND, as you stated you would.

sĞƌLJdƌƵůLJzŽƵƌƐ͕ŶĚƌĞǁDĂƌŽǁŝƚnj

From: Klein, Jordan
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 9:38 AM
To: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Subject: Z
͗/ũƵƐƚƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽŵŵŝƩĞĞǀŽůƵŶƚĞĞƌƐ͕͘ĂŶĚĂƚůĞĂƐƚŽŶĞŝƐ ƐĞƌŝŽƵƐůLJ/^

хх/ƌĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJĚĞŵĂŶĚƚŚĂƚƐŚĞƐƚĞƉĂǁĂLJĨƌŽŵŵLJƉƉĞĂů͕ďĞĨŽƌĞEzd,/E'ƌĞůĂƟŶŐƚŽŵLJ Appeal begins.
zŽƵĐĂŶĂĚĚƌĞƐƐLJŽƵƌĚĞŵĂŶĚƚŽƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĂƚ[email protected] or to City Council at [email protected].
ххE/ĂƐŬLJŽƵ'/E͕ǁŚĂƚŝƐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƉƉĞĂůĨĞĞ͕ƐƵĐŚƚŚĂƚŝƚŝƐŶŽƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĞĚĂƐĂ ĚĞƚĞƌƌĞŶƚŽĨŝŶŝƟĂƟŶŐĂŶƉƉĞĂů͘͘/ĂŵŽĨƚŚĞďĞůŝĞĨĂŶĚŽƉŝŶŝŽŶƚŚĂƚΨϮϱϬ͕ĂƚŵŽƐƚ͕ƐŚŽƵůĚďĞ the proper amount for an Appeal FEE
As we have conveyed to you repeatedly, the appeal fee is set in our Council-adopted fee ƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞ͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶĨŽƌĂƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĨĞĞ͘ŶLJƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĨĞĞ ǁŽƵůĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂĐƟŽŶďLJŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝů͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐƚĂīǁŝůůŶŽƚƉƵƌƐƵĞŝŶƚŚŝƐĐĂƐĞ͘zŽƵŵĂLJƐĞŶĚĂ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌĂĨĞĞǁĂŝǀĞƌŽƌƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJƚŽŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝů͘

---------------------------

Jordan Klein
ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͕ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨWůĂŶŶŝŶŐΘĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJ
WŚŽŶĞ͗;ϱϭϬͿϳϳϰ-ϭϯϯϳ
ũŬůĞŝŶΛďĞƌŬĞůĞLJĐĂ͘ŐŽǀ

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2025 3:49 PM
To: Klein, Jordan <[email protected]>
Subject: /ũƵƐƚƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽŵŵŝƩĞĞǀŽůƵŶƚĞĞƌƐ͕͘ĂŶĚĂƚůĞĂƐƚŽŶĞŝƐ ƐĞƌŝŽƵƐůLJ/^


WARNING: dŚŝƐŝƐŶŽƚĂŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJĞŵĂŝů͘ŽŶŽƚĐůŝĐŬůŝŶŬƐŽƌĂƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐƵŶůĞƐƐLJŽƵƚƌƵƐƚ the sender and know the content is safe.

Dƌ͘<ůĞŝŶ͕ĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞĐŽƌĚ͕/ƌĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJĚĞŵĂŶĚƚŚĂƚDƐ͘>ĞĂŚ^ŝŵŽŶtĞŝƐďĞƌŐƌĞĐƵƐĞŚĞƌƐĞůĨ ĨƌŽŵŵLJƉƉĞĂů͕ĂƐ^
Z/Kh^>z/^
ĂƐĂƚŽƚĂůůLJd
EEdĨĂǀŽƌŝŶŐsŽůƵŶƚĞĞƌ͘

/ƚǁŽƵůĚďĞ/DWK^^/>
ĨŽƌŚĞƌƚŽďĞ&/ZE/DWZd/>ĂƚŵLJƉƉĞĂů͘^ŚĞDh^dZ h^

,
Z^
>&͘/ŚĂǀĞŚĞƌĞĞŶƟƌĞƌĞƐƵŵĞŝŶĨƌŽŶƚŽĨŵĞ͘^,
/^dKy/dKZ
Ed>,Kh^/E'
WZKs/
Z^͘^,
t/>>hEKhd
>z/E&>h
E
E^d

Z>>K&d,
KDD/^^/KE
Z^dK

/^
D, .

Ed,d/^/&d,
zZ
EKd>^K/^
d,
D^
>s
^͘

ƐLJŽƵŬŶŽǁ͕/ŚĂǀĞƌĞƉĞĂƚĞĚůLJĂƐŬĞĚLJŽƵǁŚĞƚŚĞƌƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽŵŵŝƩĞĞǁŝůůďĞ&/Z E/DWZd/>͘ŶĚLJŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞƉĞĂƚĞĚůLJĂǀŽŝĚĞĚƌĞƐƉŽŶĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĂƚƋƵĞƐƟŽŶ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĐƌĞĂŵƐ

>Kh>z͕ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽŵŵŝƩƚĞĞ͕ĂůůǀŽůƵŶƚĞĞƌƐ͕ŵŽƐƚŚĂǀŝŶŐůŝƩůĞƚŽŶŽ experience or direct knowledge in EEE compliance mandates, or hands on housing repairs and ƚŚĞůŝŬĞ͕ĂŶĚΗĂƉƉŽŝŶƚĞĚΗďLJƚŚĞƌĞƐƉĞĐƟǀĞŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůWĞƌƐŽŶŽĨƚŚĂƚƐƉĞĐŝĮĐŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘

/ĐŽƵůĚƌĂŝƐĞƐŽŵĞ^
Z/Kh^ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐŽĨDƌ͘ĂƌƚůĞƩΖƐĂƉƉŽŝŶƚĞĞ͕ďƵƚ/ǁŝůůƌĞƐĞƌǀĞƚŚĂƚĐŽŶĐĞƌŶ ƵŶƟů/ĂƐŬŚŝŵŽĨŚŝƐƋƵĂůŝĮĐĂƟŽŶƐĂŶĚĂďŝůŝƚLJƚŽďĞ&/ZE/DWZd/>͕ŚŝƐĚĞŐƌĞĞƐƚŚĂƚŚĞ acquired in prison, etc

Ƶƚ͕DƐ͘tĞŝƐďĞƌŐŝƐƐŽ
ydZ
D
͕ƚŚĂƚĂŶLJƉĞƌƐŽŶŝŶŵLJĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ͕ƌĞǀŝĞǁŝŶŐŚĞƌƌĞƐƵŵĞ͕ǁŽƵůĚ ƚŚŝŶŬĞdžĂĐƚůLJƚŚĞƐĂŵĞĂƐŵĞ͘^,
/^Z/>d
EEdsKd
͕ŝŶĞǀĞƌLJƐĞŶƐĞŽĨŚĞƌ
resume.

'/EфƚŚŝƐŝƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞĐŽƌĚ͕ĂŶĚ/ƌĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJĚĞŵĂŶĚƚŚĂƚƐŚĞƐƚĞƉĂǁĂLJĨƌŽŵŵLJƉƉĞĂů͕ ďĞĨŽƌĞEzd,/E'ƌĞůĂƟŶŐƚŽŵLJƉƉĞĂůďĞŐŝŶƐ͘

E/ĂƐŬLJŽƵ'/E͕ǁŚĂƚŝƐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƉƉĞĂůĨĞĞ͕ƐƵĐŚƚŚĂƚŝƚŝƐŶŽƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĞĚĂƐĂĚĞƚĞƌƌĞŶƚ ŽĨŝŶŝƟĂƟŶŐĂŶƉƉĞĂů͘͘/ĂŵŽĨƚŚĞďĞůŝĞĨĂŶĚŽƉŝŶŝŽŶƚŚĂƚΨϮϱϬ͕ĂƚŵŽƐƚ͕ƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌ amount for an Appeal FEE

ƐWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͕W>
^
Z
^WKE͘dŚŝƐŝƐĐĞƌƚĂŝŶůLJĂƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞƋƵĞƐƟŽŶ͕ĂŶĚĚĞƐĞƌǀĞƐƚŽ ďĞĂŶƐǁĞƌĞĚ͕ŝĨLJŽƵ͕LJŽƵƌƐĞůĨ͕ĂƌĞŶŽƚƚŽƚĂůůLJ/^
͘

Andrew Marowitz

Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813

From: Klein, Jordan
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 1:00 PM
To: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Subject: Z
͗ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞϮϬϭϱďĂůĐŽŶLJĐŽůůĂƉƐĞƚƌĂŐĞĚLJ

Dƌ͘>ŽƉĞnjŚĂƐĐŽƌƌĞĐƚůLJĂĚǀŝƐĞĚLJŽƵƚŚĂƚďĂƐĞĚŽŶĐŽĚŝĮĞĚƌĞŐƵůĂƟŽŶƐ͕ĂŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉǁĂŝǀĞƌĚŽĞƐ not apply to your case.

---------------------------

Jordan Klein
ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͕ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨWůĂŶŶŝŶŐΘĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJ
WŚŽŶĞ͗;ϱϭϬͿϳϳϰ-ϭϯϯϳ
ũŬůĞŝŶΛďĞƌŬĞůĞLJĐĂ͘ŐŽǀ

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 10:42 AM
To: Klein, Jordan <[email protected]>
Subject: ZĞ͗ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞϮϬϭϱďĂůĐŽŶLJĐŽůůĂƉƐĞƚƌĂŐĞĚLJ

Mr. Klein : /ũƵƐƚĚŝƐĐŽǀĞƌĞĚLJĞƚĂŶŽƚŚĞƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƚŚĂƚƌĞůĂƚĞƐƚŽƚŚĞďĂƐŝƐĨŽƌŵLJƉƉĞĂů͘/ĂƐŬĞĚ Mr. Lopez, what is ƚŚĞƵŶƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉĞdžĞŵƉƟŽŶĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂ͕ďĞĐĂƵƐĞ/ďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĂƚŵLJ income level would result in me being eligible.

Dƌ͘>ŽƉĞnjƐƚĂƚĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽĞdžĞŵƉƟŽŶĨŽƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͕ŽŶůLJĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘

tŚĂƚ/ĐůĞĂƌůLJĂůůƵĚĞĚƚŽŝƐŵLJĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůůŝŵŝƚĂƟŽŶƐ͕ŽĨǁŚŝĐŚDƌ͘>ŽƉĞnjƐŚŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞƌĞĐŽŐŶŝnjĞĚ ƚŚĂƚǁĂƐŵLJĐŽŶĐĞƌŶ͘,ĞƐŚŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚŵĞƚŽƚŚŝƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌǁĂŝǀĞƌŽĨƉĂLJŵĞŶƚ͘hd/ ŚĂǀĞŶŽƚďĞĞŶŝƐƐƵĞĚĂĐŝƚĂƟŽŶŽĨĂŶLJƐŽƌƚ͘Dƌ͘>ŽƉĞnjŝƐŶŽƚŝŶƚhe business of providing ĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞƚŽŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐ͘,ĞŝƐŝŶƚŚĞďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐŽĨŝŵƉŽƐŝŶŐŚŝƐĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJĂŶĚŐĞŶĞƌĂƟŶŐƌĞǀĞŶƵĞ for the City. Thank you very much.

/ũƵƐƚĚŝƐĐŽǀĞƌĞĚƚŚŝƐĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůŶĞĞĚƐΗZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌtĂŝǀĞƌŽĨWĞŶĂůƚLJWĂLJŵĞŶƚĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟǀĞ ŝƚĂƟŽŶ/ƐƐƵĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJΗ

dŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶƌĞƋƵĞƐƟŶŐƚŚĞǁĂŝǀĞƌǁŝůů͕ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŵƉůĞƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁďLJƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐ ĂŐĞŶĐLJĂŶĚͬŽƌƚŚĞŝƐƐƵŝŶŐĂŐĞŶĐLJ͕ďĞŵĂŝůĞĚƚŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐŽĨƚŚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁ͘WůĞĂƐĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƚŚŝƐĨŽƌŵ ĂŶĚƐƵďŵŝƚŝƚƚŽ͗ŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJŝƚLJDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͛ƐKĸĐĞϮϭϴϬDŝůǀŝĂ^ƚƌĞĞƚĞƌŬĞůĞLJ͕ϵϰϳϬϰ WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚLJŽƵĂƌĞŵĂŬŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶƵŶĚĞƌƉĞŶĂůƚLJŽĨƉĞƌũƵƌLJ͘ŶLJŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ ŽŵŝƩĞĚŵĂLJƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶƚŚĞĚĞŶŝĂůŽĨƚŚŝƐŵŽƟŽŶ͘/ŚĞƌĞďLJƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJǁĂŝǀĞƌŽĨƚŚĞ required deposit of penalty and that the City ŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJŝƚLJDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͛ƐKĸĐĞƉƌŽĐĞĞĚƚŽ ƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞƚŚĞĂƉƉĞĂůŽŶƚŚĞůŝƐƚĞĚĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟǀĞŝƚĂƟŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƌĞĂƐŽŶƐ͗ ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________
______________________________________________________________________________ _____________
______________________________________________________________________________ _____________ _______________________________________________________________ Date: _________________ Total Amount Due͗ΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺŝƚĂŶƚ͛ƐEĂŵĞ͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺdĞůĞƉŚŽŶĞ͗;ͿͺͺŝƚĂƟŽŶη͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ______________________ ____________________ ____________________ ______________________ ____________________ Address:
______________________________________________________________________________ ͺ^ƚƌĞĞƚŝƚLJ^ƚĂƚĞŝƉ^ŽĐŝĂů^ĞĐƵƌŝƚLJηͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ-______-_____________ CDL ηͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ&/EE/>/E&KZDd/KE͗
ŵƉůŽLJĞƌEĂŵĞ͗
__________________________________________________________________________ Employer Address:
_________________________________________________________________________ ^ƚƌĞĞƚŝƚLJ^ƚĂƚĞŝƉϭ͘
DW>KzD
EdϮ͘^hWWKZd
z͗ϯ͘W
Z^KE^^hWWKZd
͗ͺͺͺͺͺ
Employed _____ Self _____ Self _____ Full Time _____ Spouse _____ Spouse _____ Part Time ͺͺͺͺͺWĂƌĞŶƚƐͺͺͺͺͺŚŝůĚƌĞŶ;ηŽĨͿͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺhŶĞŵƉůŽLJĞĚͺͺͺͺͺtĞůĨĂƌĞͺͺͺͺͺKƚŚĞƌ _____________ _____ Student _____ S.S.I. _____ Total _____________ _____ Disabled _____ ͘&͘͘͘ͺͺͺͺͺ,ŽŵĞŵĂŬĞƌͺͺͺͺͺhŶĞŵƉůŽLJŵĞŶƚͺͺͺͺͺDŝůitary _____ Other:
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺKƚŚĞƌ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ&KZ/dzK& Z<
>
z/dzDE'
Z͛^
K&&/
h^
KE>z͗t/s
ZK&W
E>dz͗΀΁'ZEd
΀΁
E/

__________________________________________________ Date ____________________________ 4. Monthly gross income (include income from all earnings of

LJŽƵƌŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚͿΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺĂ͘WĂLJ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞ͗tĞĞŬůLJŝ-Weekly: Monthly ;WůĞĂƐĞĞŶƚĞƌƚŚĞĚĂƚĞĨŽƌŵŽŶƚŚůLJͿEKd
͗zKhDh^dWZKs/
Wz,
<^dh^&KZKE

DKEd,KZs
Z/&/d/KEK&Kd,
Z^KhZ
K&/EKD
͘ď͘WĂLJƌŽůůĚĞĚƵĐƟŽŶƐĂƌĞ;ƐƉĞĐŝĨLJ
purpose and amount): (1)________________________________________ $______________________ (2)________________________________________ $______________________ (3)________________________________________ $______________________ (4)________________________________________ $______________________ (5)________________________________________ ΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺdŽƚĂůWĂLJƌŽůůĞĚƵĐƟŽŶƐΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺĐ͘EĞƚ/ŶĐŽŵĞ (take home pay) $______________________ d. Other money received each month (specify source ĂŶĚĂŵŽƵŶƚͿ͗EKd
͗Dh^dWZKs/
K&&//>KhD
EdK&WZKK&K&/EKD
͘;ϭͿ
_______________________________________ $______________________ (2) _______________________________________ $______________________ TOTAL ΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺĞ͘dKd>DKEd,>z/EKD
;ĐнĚͿΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺϱ͘
^^
d^͗;sĂůƵĞͿDKEd,>z
yW
E^
^͗DŽƚŽƌsĞŚŝĐůĞ;ƐͿΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
ZĞŶƚͬDŽƌƚŐĂŐĞΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ,ŽŵĞΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺhƟůŝƟĞƐ ΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺWƌŽƉĞƌƚLJΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ>ŽĂŶƐͬƌĞĚŝƚĂƌĚ;ƐͿ $___ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐĐĐŽƵŶƚ;ƐͿΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ&ŽŽĚͬůŽƚŚŝŶŐ ΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺŚĞĐŬŝŶŐĐĐŽƵŶƚ;ƐͿΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶ ΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺĂƐŚŽŶ,ĂŶĚΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺDĞĚŝĐĂůͬĞŶƚĂůWĂLJŵĞŶƚƐ $_________________ All Other $____________________ All Other $_________________ dKd>^^
d^ΨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺdKd>
yW
E^
^Ψͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝĨ
I am found liable I will be required to pay the delinquent amount due. I further understand if I ĨĂŝůƚŽƌĞƐŽůǀĞƚŚŝƐŵĂƩĞƌ/ŵĂLJďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗ϭ͘ƚƌŝĂůŝŶĐŝǀŝůĐŽƵƌƚǁŝƚŚ subsequent garnishment of my earnings. 2. A lien placed against my California Franchise Tax ƌĞƚƵƌŶ͘ϯ͘dŚŝƐĐůĂŝŵĂƐƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽĂĐŽůůĞĐƟŽŶĂŐĞŶĐLJ͘^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗ ________________________________________________ Date _____

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 10:01 AM
To: Klein, Jordan <[email protected]>
Subject: ZĞ͗ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞϮϬϭϱďĂůĐŽŶLJĐŽůůĂƉƐĞƚƌĂŐĞĚLJ

Mr. Klein:

1) according to the guidelines for EEE Appeals, the Planning Commission is the proper Appeal ŚĞĂƌŝŶŐŽĸĐŝĂů͘/ƐƉĞĐŝĮĐĂůůLJƌĞĂĚƚŚĂƚ͘

ϮͿĂĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƚŚĞŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐƉƉĞĂůƐ͕ƚŚĞŝƌƐƉĞĐŝĮĐ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚLJĨŽƌŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƉƉĞĂůƐŝƐĨŽƌh/>/E's/K>d/KE^͕EKd

ƉƉĞĂůƐ͘/ĂŵŶŽƚ
ƉƉĞĂůŝŶŐĂďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽĚĞǀŝŽůĂƟŽŶ͕ŶŽƌĂŵ/ďĞŝŶŐƐƵďũĞĐƚĞĚƚŽĂďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽĚĞǀŝŽůĂƟŽŶ͕ďƵƚ ƚŚĞ

ŝŶƐƉĞĐƟŽŶŵĂŶĚĂƚĞ͘/Ĩ/ΖŵĐŽƌƌĞĐƚ͕ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌĂŶĚĐŽƌƌĞĐƚƚƌŝĞƌŽĨƉƉĞĂůƐŝƐƚŚĞ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͕ŶŽƚƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ͘

/ĨĞĞůůŝŬĞ/ΖŵďĞŝŶŐďƵůůŝĞĚďLJĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƟĞƐŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƟŶŐƌƵůĞƐĂŶLJǁĂLJƚŚĞLJĐŚŽŽƐĞ͘

Please review the EEE Appeals processes for the reference of Appeals to the Planning ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͘WĞƌŚĂƉƐLJŽƵĐĂŶĞŵĂŝůƚŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƌƵůĞƐƚŚĂƚƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĞƌĂŶĚͬŽƌďŽƚŚ͘

ŶĚǁŚLJĚŽLJŽƵĐŽŶƟŶƵĞƚŽƌĞĨƵƐĞƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐEzŽĨŵLJŽƚŚĞƌƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞŝŶƋƵŝƌŝĞƐĨŽƌ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶĂŶĚͬŽƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐƚŚĂƚ/ƐĞĞŬƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐƚŽ͍ƌĞŵLJƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐĂŶĚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐ unreasonable?

Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813

On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 09:48:05 AM PDT , Klein, Jordan <ũŬůĞŝŶΛďĞƌŬĞůĞLJĐĂ͘ŐŽǀ> wrote:

Mr. Marowitz:
zŽƵƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚĂŶĂƉƉĞĂůŽĨĂĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐKĸĐŝĂů͘WĞƌƚŚĞĞƌŬĞůĞLJDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů Code chapter 19.44, the Housing Advisory Commission and not the Planning Commission is ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌŚĞĂƌŝŶŐĂŶĚŵĂŬŝŶŐĂĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƟŽŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĂƉƉĞĂů͘ Jenny McNulty, ǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƵŶĚĞƌŵLJŽǀĞƌĂůůĚŝƌĞĐƟŽŶ͕ŝƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƟŶŐǁŝƚŚLJŽƵƚŽƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞƚŚĞ appeal hearing.

Jordan

---------------------------

Jordan Klein
ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͕ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨWůĂŶŶŝŶŐΘĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJ
WŚŽŶĞ͗;ϱϭϬͿϳϳϰ-ϭϯϯϳ
ũŬůĞŝŶΛďĞƌŬĞůĞLJĐĂ͘ŐŽǀ

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 9:31 AM
To: Klein, Jordan <[email protected]>
Subject: ZĞ͗ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞϮϬϭϱďĂůĐŽŶLJĐŽůůĂƉƐĞƚƌĂŐĞĚLJ

Mr. Klein:

A few days ago, you emailed me for the express purpose of scheduling my Appeal, presumably ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĞƌŬĞůĞLJWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͕ƉĞƌƚŚĞƌƵůĞƐŽĨƉƉĞĂůĨŽƌ

͘
Then, for some reason, the following day, Ms. McNulty emails me for the exact same purpose, ĂŶĚǁĂŶƚƐƚŽƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĂŶƉƉĞĂů^W͕ďƵƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐEKd the Planning Commission. Further, the Appeals that the Housing Advisory ŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ͕ŝƐĨŽƌ ƉƉĞĂůƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƵŝůĚŝŶŐsŝŽůĂƟŽŶƐ͕ŶŽƚ

ŝŶƐƉĞĐƟŽŶƐ͘
ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐůLJ͕ŚŽǁĂŶĚǁŚLJĚŝĚDƐ͘DĐEƵůƚLJ>^KŝŶŝƟĂƚĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŽĨĂŶƉƉĞĂů͕ ĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ͍ This is a duplicated event, and causes confusion, as well as more people involved.

Please address this concern and respond. Thank you for your expected response.

W>
^
KEKd^dz^/>
EdKEd,/^/^^h
͘

Sincerely, Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 10:59 PM
To: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Subject: ZĞ͗ƵƚŽŵĂƟĐƌĞƉůLJ͗^ĐŚĞĚƵůŝŶŐĂ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐĨŽƌLJŽƵƌƉƉĞĂů

WARNING: dŚŝƐŝƐŶŽƚĂŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJĞŵĂŝů͘ŽŶŽƚĐůŝĐŬůŝŶŬƐŽƌĂƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐƵŶůĞƐƐLJŽƵƚƌƵƐƚ the sender and know the content is safe.

Ms. McNulty:

/ƚũƵƐƚŽĐĐƵƌƌĞĚƚŽŵĞƚŚĂƚ͕ŶŽǁDƌ͘>ŽƉĞnjĐĂŶĂƌŐƵĞƚŚĂƚϰŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶŝŶĐŽŶƚĂĐƚ ǁŝƚŚŵĞ͕ĂŶĚǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞŶũƵƐƟĮĞƐŚĂǀĞϰƐƚĂīƉĞŽƉůĞĨŽƌƐĞǀĞƌĂůŚŽƵƌƐ͕ƚŽũƵƐƟĨLJƚŚĞΨϭϬϬϬ Appeal Fee.
^ŝŵƉůLJŚĂǀĞƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŝƌĞĐƚŽƌĂŶĚƚŚĞ

ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌŝŶŝƟĂƚĞĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƟŽŶ͕ƚŚĞƌĞďLJ
having an exchange , and thereby being a relevant witness. ĚDƌ͘>ŽƉĞnj͕ĂŶĚDƐ͘Ƶƌƌ͕ĂŶĚDƌ͘>ŽƉĞnjŚĂƐϰŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐ͘ Ƶƚ͕ŝƌŽŶŝĐĂůůLJ͕ŶŽƚŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĨŽƵƌŚĂǀĞĂŶƐǁĞƌĞĚĂŶLJŽĨŵLJƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĂŶLJŽĨ ŵLJďĂƐĞƐĨŽƌƉƉĞĂů͘^ŝůĞŶĐĞŝƐƚŚĞĂŐĞŶĚĂ͘ŽŶΖƚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĂŶLJƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐĨŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ͕ĂŶĚ ĚŽŶΖƚƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƚŽĂŶLJƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐŚĞŵŝŐŚƚĂƐŬ͘ Don't arm Marowitz wŝƚŚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ͘ /ŶƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚƐŽĨũƵƐƟĐĞ͕ I can only hope that I receive said responses and requests for ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ͕ŝŶĂ&/ZE/DWZd/>DEE
Z͘͘
I will not get angry. I will not get angry.

Sincerely, Andrew Marowitz

On Thursday, October 30, 2025 at 06:11:40 PM PDT , McNulty, Jenny <ũŵĐŶƵůƚLJΛďĞƌŬĞůĞLJĐĂ͘ŐŽǀ> wrote:

Thank you for your email. /ĂŵŽƵƚŽĨƚŚĞŽĸĐĞƌĞƚƵƌŶŝŶŐDŽŶĚĂLJEŽǀϯ and will respond to your message then.

ĞƐƚƌĞŐĂƌĚƐ͕

Jenny McNulty͕ZĞƐŝůŝĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐWƌŽŐƌĂŵDĂŶĂŐĞƌ
ŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJ͕ƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚ^ĂĨĞƚLJŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ
ϭϵϰϳĞŶƚĞƌ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕ϯrdŇŽŽƌ͕ĞƌŬĞůĞLJ͕ϵϰϳϬϰ
Phone:(510) 981-ϳϰϱϭ
Email: [email protected]

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 6:23 PM
To: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Scheduling a Hearing for your Appeal
Ms. McNulty:

I will add that the Appeal Fee check of $1000 has already been debited against my checking account. The fee, in my belief and opinion is obscenely high, and as already stated, was interpreted by Mr. Lopez, as a deterrent to Appealing, and apparently , you are not issuing any ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚŽŶƚŚŝƐƐƵďũĞĐƚŵĂƩĞƌ͘/ĐĂŶΖƚĂīŽƌĚƚŚĞΨϭϬϬϬĂƉƉĞĂůĨĞĞ͕ďƵƚ/ŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽƉƉĞĂů͘ dŚĞ

ƐLJƐƚĞŵŝƐĮůůĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶũƵƐƟĐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚ/ŶĞĞĚĨŽƌLJŽƵƚŽŬŶŽǁŝƚ͘ ůů/ĂŵƌĞƋƵĞƐƟŶŐŝƐƚƌƵƚŚ͕ŽƉĞŶĂŶĚĨŽƌƚŚĐŽŵŝŶŐ͘ůů/ǁĂŶƚŝƐƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞĂŶĚŚŽŶĞƐƚ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐƚŽŵLJƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ͘
Please respond.

Andrew Marowitz

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 6:14 PM
To: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Scheduling a Hearing for your Appeal

Ms. Mcnulty:
ŵ/ŶŽƚĞŶƟƚůĞĚƚŽƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐƚŽŵLJƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ͍ If not, why not? If so, then PLEASE respond to ŵLJƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ͕ĂƐŝƌĞĐƚŽƌŽĨƚŚĞ

ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘

Andrew Marowitz

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 6:11 PM
To: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Scheduling a Hearing for your Appeal

Ms. Mcnulty:

Is it unreasonable that I seek answers and responses? ƐĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͕ǁŚLJĐĂŶΖƚͬǁŽŶΖƚLJŽƵ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐƚŽŵLJƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ͍
zŽƵĚŽŶΖƚŬŶŽǁŵĞ͕ĂŶĚ/ĚŽŶΖƚŬŶŽǁLJŽƵ͘Ƶƚ͕/ƚƌƵůLJƚŚŝŶŬĂŶĚďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĂƚŵLJƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐĂƌĞ not unreasonable and seeks truths.

So, why are you not responding to them? Are we seeking the truth , or doing everything to avoid the truths? I had hoped that you would be FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. Not responding to my ƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐŝƐƐƵŐŐĞƐƟǀĞƚŚĂƚLJŽƵĂƌĞŶŽƚŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚŝŶďĞŝŶŐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟǀĞ͕&/ZE IMPARTIAL.. /ƚŝƐďĞĐŽŵŝŶŐĂƉĂƩĞƌŶŽĨ/^ĂŶĚ/ƐƵŐŐĞƐƚƚŚĂƚLJŽƵĂƌĞĨƵůůLJĂǁĂƌĞŽĨĞdžĂĐƚůLJ what I am speaking of.

May I request an Appeal by the Planning Commossion, or will you be forcing the Housing ŽŵŵŝƩĞĞĚŽǁŶŵLJƚŚƌŽĂƚ͍tŚŽĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞƐƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ͍ŵ/ĂůůŽǁĞĚƚŽŬŶŽǁ ƚŚĞŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐŽŶƚŚĂƚĐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ͍,ŽǁĂƌĞƚŚĞLJĚĞĞŵĞĚĂƐ&/ZE/DWZd/>͍ ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ͕LJŽƵĂƉƉĞĂƌƚŽďĞŽŶĂŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͘tŚĂƚŝƐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌĂŶĚĐŽƌƌĞĐƚĨĞĞĨŽƌĞŶŐĂŐŝŶŐŝŶ ĂŶƉƉĞĂůŽĨƚŚĞ

ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞŵĂŶĚĂƚĞ͍/ĨƚŚĂƚŝƐŶŽƚĂ&/ZEZ
^KE>
ƋƵĞƐƟŽŶ͕/
truly am unable to grasp why not?
WůĞĂƐĞƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƚŽĞĂĐŚŽĨŵLJƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ͕ŝĨLJŽƵĂƌĞĂďŽƵƚĨĂŝƌŶĞƐƐĂŶĚŝŵƉĂƌƟĂůŝƚLJ͘/ƐƚŚĞƌĞ ƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐŝŵƉƌŽƉĞƌĂďŽƵƚŵLJƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ͍

sĞƌLJdƌƵůLJzŽƵƌƐ͕ŶĚƌĞǁDĂƌŽǁŝƚnj 510-356-6813
On Thursday, October 30, 2025 at 03:09:09 PM PDT , McNulty, Jenny <ũŵĐŶƵůƚLJΛďĞƌŬĞůĞLJĐĂ͘ŐŽǀ> wrote:

Dear Mr. Marowitz,
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͘ĂƐĞĚŽŶLJŽƵƌƉƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ǁĞǁŝůůƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞLJŽƵƌŚĞĂƌŝŶŐĂƚƚŚĞ :ĂŶƵĂƌLJ,ŵĞĞƟŶŐ͘/ǁŝůůďĞŝŶƚŽƵĐŚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŵĞĞƟŶŐĚĂƚĞĂŶĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐĂƐǁĞŐĞƚĐůŽƐĞƌ͘

Sincerely,

Jenny McNulty

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 1:22 PM
To: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Scheduling a Hearing for your Appeal

WARNING: dŚŝƐŝƐŶŽƚĂŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJĞŵĂŝů͘ŽŶŽƚĐůŝĐŬůŝŶŬƐŽƌĂƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐƵŶůĞƐƐLJŽƵƚƌƵƐƚ the sender and know the content is safe.

Ms. Mcnulty:

First, it was my understanding from the rules of Appeals, that the body that hears Appeeals is ƚŚĞĞƌŬĞůĞLJWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͘dŚĞƌĞǁĂƐŶŽŵĞŶƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ͘

^ĞŽŶĚůLJ͕ĨŽƌƐŽŵĞƌĞĂƐŽŶ͕ƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐŽĨŵLJƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ďĂƐĞĚŽŶ'ĂůĂĚƌŝĞůƵƌƌ͕ĂŶĚŚĞƌƐƚĞƉƐ taken for Appeal was to forward my emails to her Supervisor, of which there was apparently a direct supervisor, followed by Mr. Jensen ,as EEE manager, followed by you, as the EEE director, ĂƐŝĚĞĨƌŽŵLJŽƵƌƟƚůĞĂƐZĞƐŝůŝĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐWƌŽŐƌĂŵDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͕LJĞƚ͕ƐŽŵĞŚŽǁ͕ĨŽƌƐŽŵĞƌĞĂƐŽŶ͕ ŵLJĞŵĂŝůƐĂŶĚŵLJŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƉƉĞĂůǁĂƐĨŽƌǁĂƌĚĞĚďLJƐŽŵĞŽŶĞƚŽDƌ͘ĂǀŝĚ>ŽƉĞnj͕ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ KĸĐŝĂů͘ ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ͕/ǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽĮŶĚ out exactrly how and why this bypassing of all of these intermediate supervisory personell occurred.

To me, this is very important, as I am inclined to believe that I was deprived of Procedural Due Process, by bypassing each of these intermediate Supervisory Personell, and going directly to Mr. Lopez.
dŚŝƌĚůLJ͕/ǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽŬŶŽǁǁŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌĂŶĚĐŽƌƌĞĐƚƉƉĞĂů&ĞĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶĚĞĮŶĞĚƚŽďĞďLJ City Council, as the $1000 Appeal Fee that Mr. Lopez arbitrarily decided is and was a deterrent

ĨƌŽŵƉƉĞĂůŝŶŐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚ/ďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĂƚDƌ͘>ŽƉĞnjŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ͕ŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŵŽƟǀĂƚĞŵĞƚŽĨĂůůŝŶŐŝŶ line with compliance of the EEE compliance mandate.
ƐƚŽĂůůŽǁŝŶŐŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶŽĨ
ĂƌůLJEŽǀĞŵďĞƌŽƌ
ĂƌůLJ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJ͕/ďĞůŝĞǀĞ/ǁŽƵůĚƉƌĞĨĞƌĂŶĞĂƌůLJ
January date, which provides me with an opportunity to more thoroughly prepare my Appeal , ƚŽŵĂŬĞŝŶƋƵŝƌŝĞƐǁŝƚŚĞĂĐŚƉĂƌƚLJĂďŽǀĞDƐ͘Ƶƌƌ͕ĂŶĚďĞůŽǁDƌ͘>ŽƉĞnj͕ƚŽĮŶĚŽƵƚĞdžĂĐƚůLJǁŚĂƚ and why Mr. Lopez involved himself.
ĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůůLJ͕/ǁŝƐŚƚŽĂƐŬLJŽƵ͕ĂƐŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJ

ĚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͕ƌĞŐĂƌĚůĞƐƐŽĨLJŽƵƌŽĸĐŝĂůƟƚůĞ͕ŝĨ
LJŽƵĂƌĞĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƚŚĂƚŝƚLJĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐ͕ƐƚĂī͕ĂŶLJƉƉĞĂůĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚ͕ĐĂŶďĞĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚdZh 
&/ZE
^^E/DWZd/>/dz͘/ĂŵŝŶĐůŝŶĞĚƚŽďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĂƚĂŶLJĂŶĚĞǀĞƌLJŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJ ĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞŚĂƐƵŶĚĞŶŝĂďůĞůŽLJĂůƚLJĂŶĚĂůůĞŐŝĂŶĐĞƚŽĂůůŽƚŚĞƌŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐ͕ ƐƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŽƌƐ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůƐ͕ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƉƌŽƚĞĐƟŶŐƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ ĞƌŬĞůĞLJŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚƐ͕ŶŽŵĂƩĞƌǁŚĂƚ͕ƚŚĂƚeach City employee will communicate with any and all ƐƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŽƌLJƉĞƌƐŽŶĞůů͕ƚŽĚĞĐŝĚĞŽŶĂĐŽƵƌƐĞŽĨĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶŵĂŬŝŶŐĂŶĚĂĐƟŽŶ thatr will almost ĐĞƌƚĂŝŶůLJƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĂŶĚďĞŶĞĮƚƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJĂŶĚŝƚƐƐƚĂī͘ ΗdŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝƐ a board that advises the City Council on housing issues͕ƌĞǀŝĞǁƐĂŶĚŵĂŬĞƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽŶŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͕ĂŶĚŚĞĂƌƐĂƉƉĞĂůƐ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽĐŽĚĞǀŝŽůĂƟŽŶƐ͘/ƚĂĚǀŝƐĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĂůůŽĐĂƟŽŶŽĨĨƵŶĚƐĨŽƌĂīŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ƐƵĐŚĂƐ the Housing Trust Fund, and handles appeals from tenants and property owners regarding ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽĚĞǀŝŽůĂƟŽŶƐ. The commission also reviews programs funded by grants like the ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚůŽĐŬ'ƌĂŶƚ ;'ͿĂŶĚŵĂŬĞƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐĨŽƌƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐƚŚĂƚ ƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƐŽĐŝĂůũƵƐƟĐĞĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŝŶĞƋƵŝƟĞƐŝŶŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘Η

Google Search

/ũƵƐƚƉƵůůĞĚƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞƐƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽŵŵŝƩĞĞĂďŽǀĞ͘ ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ͕DƐ͘DĐŶƵůƚLJ͕ĂƐŽĨƚŚŝƐŵŽŵĞŶƚ͕/ƋƵĞƐƟŽŶǁŚĞƚŚĞƌ/ŚĂǀĞĂŶLJŽĸĐŝĂůďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ĐŽĚĞǀŝŽůĂƟŽŶƐ͕ĂƐŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽ

ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǀŝŽůĂƟŽŶ͘ŐĂŝŶ͕ƚŚĞĞŶƟƌĞŝŶƚĞƌŵĞĚŝĂƚĞ
ƐƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŽƌLJƉĞƌƐŽŶĞůůǁĂƐďLJƉĂƐƐĞĚĂŶĚĨŽƌǁĂƌĚĞĚƚŽDƌ͘>ŽƉĞnj͘t,z͍ /ĂůƐŽŚĂǀĞŶŽƚƐŽƌĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJĚĞŵĂŶĚĞĚƚŚĂƚ/ƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĞŶƟƚůĞĚƚŽĂƉƉůLJƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůƐ͕ĂďĚ ďĞŶĞĮƚƐĂŶĚƌŝŐŚƚƐĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZĞŶƚĂů,ŽƵƐŝŶŐSafety WƌŽŐƌĂŵ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞďĞŶĞĮƚŽĨ ƐĞůĨĐĞƌƟĮĐĂƟŽŶ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞƌĞĨƌŽŵƌĞůŝĞǀĞƐƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJĨƌŽŵƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůůŝĂďŝůŝƚLJŝĨ

ĂƚĞŶĂŶƚŝƐ͕ƐŽŵĞŚŽǁŝŶũƵƌĞĚ͕ƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚƚŽĂƐƐĞƌƚKǁŶĞƌKĐĐƵƉĂŶĐLJ džĞŵƉƟŽŶĨŽƌŚŝƐͬŚĞƌ
ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŶŝƚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚŽƵŐŚ/ŚĂǀĞĂǀĞƌLJŽďǀŝŽƵƐďĂĐŬ-up. any vacant rental unit is also treated as exempt. The RHSP is a kinder, more liberal, more considerate set of protocols, while the EEE ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞŵĂŶĚĂƚĞƐĂƌĞ
ydZ
D
>zKs
ZͺZ
,/E'͕ĐƌĞĂƚĞƐǀŝĐƟŵƐŽƵƚŽĨĂŶLJĂŶĚĞǀĞƌLJ
ŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌͬƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌ͕ŚĂƐŶŽƌĞŐĂƌĚĨŽƌƚŚĂƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌŝŶƚĞƌŵƐŽĨ ĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůďƵƌĚĞŶ͘
zĞƚ͕Mr. Lopez refuses to recognize the RHSP in any way. I believe this is due, in part, to Mr' >ŽƉĞnjΖĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚĂƟǀĞĞŐŽ͕ŚŝƐƵŶĚĞŶŝĂďĞ/^͕ĂŶĚĂůƐŽ͕ŝŶƉĂƌƚ͕ďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞ

ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ
ŵĂŶĚĂƚĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐĂƚŽŶŽĨŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJƌĞǀĞŶƵĞ͕ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƚŚŽƵƐĂŶds of buildings that ĂƌĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞ

ŵĂŶĚĂƚĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐDƌ͘>ŽƉĞnj͕E s
Z
makes reference to.

WƌŝŽƌƚŽƚŚŝƐƐĞƚŽĨĞǀĞŶƚƐ͕/ŚĂĚƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚĂZ,^WĞdžĞŵƉƟŽŶĨŽƌŵ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐƚĂƚĞĚƚŚĂƚϭͿ ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚηϰŝƐŽĐĐƵƉŝĞĚďLJŵĞ͕ĂƐƐŽůĞKĐĐƵƉĂŶƚͬKǁŶĞƌKĐĐƵƉĂŶƚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ y
DWd͖
ϮͿĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJĂŶĚƚŚĞZĞŶƚŽĂƌĚŶĞǀĞƌĞŶĚŝŶŐůLJǀŝĐƟŵŝnjĞƐůĂndlords, from ǁŚŝĐŚ/ĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůLJŚĂƚĞďĞŝŶŐĂůĂŶĚůŽƌĚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJ͕/ŚĂǀĞĚĞĐŝĚĞĚƚŽŬĞĞƉŵLJƌĞŶƚĂů ƵŶŝƚƐǀĂĐĂŶƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƌĞŶĚĞƌƐƚŚĞƐĞƵŶŝƚƐĂƐ
y
DWd͕ƚŚŽƵŐŚƚŚĞLJŚĂǀĞŶŽ

ĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐŽǀĞƌϲ
ĨĞĞƚͬŶŽĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐĂƚĂůů͘ŶĚϯͿ/>Ks
ƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚͬďĞŶĞĮƚͬƉƌŝǀŝůĞŐĞŽĨƐĞůĨĐĞƌƟĮĐĂƟŽŶ͘/ŚĂǀĞ ďĞĞŶĂƌĞŵŽĚĞůĞƌĨŽƌϯϱLJĞĂƌƐ͕ĂŶĚƚƌƵůLJĂŵĐŽŵƉĞƚĞŶƚ͕ƐŽƐĞůĨĐĞƌƟĮĐĂƟŽŶŝƐƉĞƌĨĞĐƚĨŽƌŵLJ ŶĞĞĚƐĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚƐ͕ĂŶĚĐĂƵƐĞƐƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJƌĞůŝĞĨĨƌŽŵůŝĂďŝůŝƚLJ͘ dŚĞƐĞ
y
DWd/KE^ŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶŝŶƉůĂĐĞƐŝŶĐĞϮϬϮϬ͕ĂŶĚ/ŚĂǀĞĞŶũŽLJĞĚƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJĨƌŽŵ ďĞŝŶŐůĞŌĂůŽŶĞĂŶĚŝŶƉĞĂĐĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŽƉƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJ͘ />Ks 
/d͊͊͊͊͊͊
/ŚĂǀĞƐƉŽŬĞŶƚŽŶŐĞů^ŝŶĞǁĞŶ͕ǁŚŽǁŽƵůĚŶΖƚĚŝƐĂŐƌĞĞǁŝƚŚŵLJƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞ͕ďƵƚ͕ĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞ fact that he answers to his boss, Mr. Lopez,
he deferes to Mr. Lopez. dŚĞZ,^W͕ĚŽĞƐ͕ŝŶĨĂĐƚŵĂŬĞŵĞŶƟŽŶŽĨŚĂƉƚĞƌϭϵĨŽƌƚŚĞ džƚĞƌŝŽƌ
Elevated Elements guiidelines.
/ŚĂǀĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽƐƚĂīŽĨƐƚĂƚĞƐƐĞŵďůLJƉĞƌƐŽŶ͕:ĞƐƐŝĞƌƌŝŐƵŝŶ͘Ğdž- ĞƌŬĞůĞLJDĂLJŽƌ͕ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ ĂůĐŽŶLJŽůůĂƉƐĞǁĂƐƚƌĂŐŝĐ͕ďƵƚƚŚĂƚEKKE
͕EKdKE
W
Z^KEĞǀĞƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶĞĚƚŚĞƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚ
ŝƐƐƵĞŽĨ>ŽĂĚĞĂƌŝŶŐ^dZ
^^
^ŽŶƚŚĞĨĂƚĞĨƵůďĂůĐŽŶLJŝŶĐŝĚĞŶƚ͘ŌĞƌ ƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ͕/ŚĂǀĞ ĐŽŶĐůƵĚĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞďĂůĐŽŶLJĐŽůůĂƉƐĞǁĂƐWZ/DZ/>zĐĂƵƐĞĚďLJƚŚĞKs Z>KŽĨƉĞƌƐŽŶƐĂŶĚ
ǁĞŝŐŚƚďĞĂƌŝŶŐƐƚƌĞƐƐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƐƐƵĞŽĨĨĂŝůƵƌĞƚŽĐĂƵůŬ͕ĂŶĚƌĞƐŝĚƵĂůǁĂƚĞƌƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƟŽŶ ǁĂƐĂƐĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƟŶŐĨĂĐƚŽƌ

/ŚĂǀĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƚŚĞƐĞƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĚĞƚĂŝůƐƚŽKd,Dƌ͘>ŽƉĞnjĂŶĚƚŽDƌ͘:ŽƌĚĂŶ<ůĞŝŶ͕WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͕ďƵƚƐƵƌƉƌŝnjŝŶŐůLJ͕ŶĞŝƚŚĞƌǁĂŶƚƐƚŽĞŶŐĂŐĞŝŶĂůŽĂĚďĞĂƌŝŶŐĐĂůĐƵůĂƟŽŶƚŽĂƐĐĞƌƚĂŝŶ whether, or not, the stresses placed on that balcony, based on 12 young adults on a 32 square foot balcony was, in fact the primary cause of that fateful, tragic event.

ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ͕/ĮŶĚƐƵĐŚǁŝůůĨƵůĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĂƐůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶŚŽŶĞƐƚ͕ůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶƚƌƵƚŚĨƵů͕ůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶ&/Z AND IMPARTIAL.
/ŶĂŶLJĐĂƐĞ͕ǁŚĞŶ/ƐƉŽŬĞƚŽDƌ͘ƌƌŝŐƵŝŶΖƐƐƚĂīƉĞƌƐŽŶ͕ƐŚĞĂƐŬĞĚD ĨŽƌŵLJƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĚĞƚĂŝůƐ͕
ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐDzƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐƚŚĂƚŵŝŐŚƚĂĚũƵƐƚƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞ>t͕ǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůLJĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐ the law.

E^K͕/ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚŵLJƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚƚŚĂƚƐƚĂƚĞĚƚŚĂƚϭϮƉĞŽƉůĞ͕;ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJŵŽƌĞ͕ĂƐƉĞŽƉůĞǁĞƌĞ coming from the interior to the balcony , adding further weight and load bearing stresses, E/ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚƚŚĂƚϭͿdŚĞďĂůĐŽŶŝĞƐďĞƚƌĞĂƚĞĚ
yd>zůŝŬĞĂŶĞůĞǀĂƚŽƌ͕ŚĂǀŝŶŐƉŽƐƚĞĚ
placards that indicate weight and person limits, ie 4-ϱƉĞŽƉůĞŽŶƚŚĞďĂůĐŽŶLJĂƚŽŶĞƟŵĞ Dy/DhD͕сϳϬϬ- 900 pounds , which I believe would never have caused or resulted in that ďĂůĐŽŶLJĐŽůůĂƉƐĞ͖ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉůĂĐĂƌĚDh^d
WK^d
ďLJƚŚĞKǁŶĞƌŽƌ>ĂŶĚůŽƌĚ͕ĂŶĚĞŶĨŽƌĐĞĚďLJ
the City of berkeley,
EƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝŶƐƉĞĐƟŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚ

ďĞd
DWKZZ/>zŝŶ^ƵƐƉĞŶƐĞ͕
ǁŚŝůĞƚĞƐƟŶŐƚŚĞĞīĞĐƟǀĞŶĞƐƐŽĨƚŚĞ
ǁĞŝŐŚƚĂŶĚƉĞƌƐŽŶůŝŵŝƚďĞƉƵƚŝŶƚŽƉƌĂĐƟĐĞĨŽƌĂŐŝǀĞŶĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨƟŵĞ͘ I also added that the balcony structural beams be pressure treated lumber, to prevent wood ƌŽƚ͕ŝŶƚŚĞĞǀĞŶƚŽĨǁĂƚĞƌƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƟŽŶ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŇŽŽƌũŽŝŶƚƐŝŶƐŝĚĞŚĂǀĞĂ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚĂƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚďŽůƟŶŐƉĂƩĞƌŶ͕ĨŽƌŵĂdžŝŵƵŵƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ͘ /ƚŝƐŵLJŚŽƉĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞŽĨĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂǁŝůůƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂĚŽƉƟŶŐƚŚĞƐĞŵŽĚŝĮĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕ without trying to change the law.
/ǁŽƵůĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJŵŽĚŝĨLJŝƚƐƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůƐ͕ƚŽƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐƐŝŵŝůĂƌ͕ĂŶĚ ĚŝƐĐŽŶƟŶƵĞǀŝĐƟŵŝnjŝŶŐŽǁŶĞƌƐĂŶĚůĂŶĚůŽƌĚƐĐŽŶƐƚĂŶƚůLJƌĞĂĐŚŝŶŐŝŶƚŽŽƵƌǁĂůůĞƚƐ͕ĂŶĚƐŚŽǁŝŶŐ ƐŽŵĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĨŽƌůĞĂǀŝŶŐŽƵƌǁĂůůĞƚƐŝŶƚĂĐƚ;ĚŝƐĐƌĞƟŽŶĂƌLJŵŽŶĞLJŝŶŽƵƌ wallets = freedom.) /ďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĂƚƐŝŵŝůĂƌƉƌŽƚĞĐƟŽŶƐďĞĂƉƉůŝĞĚƚŽĚĞĐŬƐ͘ĞLJŽŶĚƚŚĂƚ͕/ďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĂƚĂŶLJĂŶĚĂůů ŽƚŚĞƌ

ŝŵƉŽƐĞĚĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐĂƌĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶĞdžƚĞŶƐŝŽŶƐĂŶĚKs ZZ
,ŽĨƚŚĞ
ďĂůĐŽŶŝĞƐĂŶĚ
<^͘dŚĂƚƐŽŵĞŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐĐŽůůĞĐƟǀĞůLJĚĞĐŝĚĞĚŵŽƌĞĂŶd more things that would cover any and every other scenario.

I also believe that the EEE compliance requirements have no regard for the cost burden on owners. If there are noteworthy wood rot issues, or handrail issues or other, the cost can ĐŽŵƉŽƵŶĚƚŽΨϭϬ͕ϬϬϬŽƌŵŽƌĞ͕ŶŽƚƚŽŵĞŶƟŽŶƚŚĞĐŽƐƚŽĨŝŶƐƉĞĐƟŽŶ;ΨϴϬϬ-$1000 for a mere contractor, not an architect or engineer) Most people hate spending money, and most people simply do not have that kind of money.

/ĐĞƌƚĂŝŶůLJĚŽŶΖƚŚĂǀĞƐƵĸĐŝĞŶƚĨƵŶĚƐ͘/ĂŵĂůŽǁŝŶĐŽŵĞƐĞŶŝŽƌ͕ŝŶůĂƌŐĞƉĂƌƚ͕because I will no ůŽŶŐĞƌƐƵďũĞĐƚŵLJƐĞůĨƚŽďĞŝŶŐĂůĂŶĚůŽƌĚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJ͘/ƚŝƐĂŵŽƐƚƚĞƌƌŝďůĞĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͕ ŽŶĞŝŶǁŚŝĐŚŶŽĞƌŬĞůĞLJĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƟĞƐƌĞĨƵƐĞƚŽĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŶĂ&Ăŝƌ-ŵŝŶĚĞĚƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞ͘ My agenda is to wait for interest rates to come back down, when it becomes a new seller market , E^
>>DzWZKW
Zdz͘dK
,KE
^d͕d,
/dzK&
Z<
>
z/^Z/s/E'WZKW
Zdz
KtE
Z^E>E>KZ^Khdt/d,d,
/Z
y,KZ/dEddy
^͕&

^EWZ
>dy
^
Es
ZzdtKz
Z^͕DK^dK&t,/,Wz^&KZ/dz
DW>Kz

Wz,
<^͕
E
&Kd^E
PENSIONS.

Can we be honest? Apparently NOT , as Mr. Lopez and Mr. Klein refuse to address the truth, that ƚŚĞzŽƵŶŐWĂƌƚLJĂƩĞŶĚĞŶƚƐĐĂƵƐĞĚƚŚĞŝƌŽǁŶĚĞŵŝƐĞ͕ŝŶŶŽĐĞŶƚůLJĂŶĚƌĞĐŬůĞƐƐůLJ͘ If they were ŚŽŶĞƐƚ͕ƚŚĞLJǁŽƵůĚĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĂůŽĂĚďĞĂƌŝŶŐƐƚƌĞƐƐĐĂůĐƵůĂƟŽŶ͘dŚĞƐĞ young adults ƉĂĐŬĞĚƚŚĞŵƐĞůǀĞƐŝŶůŝŬĞƐĂƌĚŝŶĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƐƚĂLJĞĚŽƵƚŽŶƚŚĂƚĚĞĐŬ͘DŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϮϬϬϬƉŽƵŶĚƐͬĂƚŽŶ͕ ŶŽƚĨŽƌĂĨĞǁŵŝŶƵƚĞƐ͕ďƵƚĨŽƌĂĚĞĐĞŶƚďůŽĐŬŽĨƟŵĞ͕ƚŚĞƌĞďLJŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƚƌĞƐƐĞƐ͕ŵŝŶƵƚĞďLJ ŵŝŶƵƚĞ͘ĂŶĚƚŚĞLJǁĞƌĞŶŽƚĂƐƚĂƟĐůŽĂĚ͕ďƵƚĂŵŽǀŝŶŐůŽĂĚ͕ĂĚĚŝŶŐƐƟůůŵŽƌĞůŽĂĚďĞĂƌŝŶŐ stresses. Had 12 people been out there for a few minutes, the collapse would likely never occurred.

And so, the EEE people want to mandate that every owner pay large sums of money to ŝŶƐƉĞĐƚ͕ƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJƐŚŽƵůĚĚŽ͕ĂŶĚďĞĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĂďůĞĨŽƌ͕ďƵƚƌĞĨƵƐĞ͕ ĐůĂŝŵŝŶŐůĂĐŬŽĨƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕ƐĂŵĞŽů͕ƐĂŵĞŽůĚŽĚŐĞďĂůůŐĂŵĞ͕ƉŽŝŶƟŶŐĮŶŐĞƌƐ everywhere but to themselves.
dŚĞůĂĐŬŽĨŚŽŶĞƐƚLJďLJDƌ͘>ŽƉĞnj͕ĂŶĚDƐ͘Ƶƌƌ͕ĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞƚŚĞ/^ĂŶĚ' E͕ďLJ>>ŝƚLJ
^d&&͕ĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƟŶŐǁŝƚŚĞĂĐŚŽƚŚĞƌ͕ƚŚĞƌĞďLJĂƌŐƵĂďůLJƵŶĂďůĞƚŽďĞ&/ZE/DWZd/>͘^ŝŵƉůLJ͕ ƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞƐĂŶĚƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůƐĂƌĞƌŝŐŐĞĚďLJ/^͘
Ƶƚ͕/DZ
Yh/Z
ƚŽĂǀĂŝůŵLJƐĞůĨŽĨĂůůĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟǀĞZĞŵĞĚŝĞƐ͕
&KZ
ĮůŝŶŐŝŶŽƵƌƚ͕
where there would be a FAIR and IMPARTIAL trier of fact.

ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJE,KE
^d>zzKhZ^͕ŶĚƌĞǁDĂƌŽǁŝƚnjϱϭϬ-356-6813

On Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 02:31:26 PM PDT , McNulty, Jenny <ũŵĐŶƵůƚLJΛďĞƌŬĞůĞLJĐĂ͘ŐŽǀ> wrote:

Dear Mr. Marowitz,
dŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚǀŝƐŽƌLJŽŵŵŝƩĞĞǁŝůůŶĞdžƚŵĞĞƚŽŶdŚƵƌƐĚĂLJEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϲth ĂƚϳƉŵĂŶĚĐĂŶ ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĂŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƚŽĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌLJŽƵƌĂƉƉĞĂůĂƚƚŚĂƚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͘dŚĞŵĞĞƟŶŐǁŝůůƚĂŬĞƉůĂĐĞĂƚƚŚĞ ^ŽƵƚŚĞƌŬĞůĞLJ^ĞŶŝŽƌĞŶƚĞƌůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚϮϵϯϵ
ůůŝƐ^ƚŝŶƚŚĞŵƵůƟƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƌŽŽŵŽŶƚŚĞϭƐƚŇŽŽƌ͘
dŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƚĞŶĚĂLJƐŶŽƟĐĞƚŽĂƉƉĞůůĂŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĞŽĨƚŚĞŝƌ ŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐ͘tŝƚŚLJŽƵƌĐŽŶƐĞŶƚ͕ǁĞĐĂŶƉƌŽĐĞĞĚǁŝƚŚĞŝŐŚƚĚĂLJƐŶŽƟĐĞ͕ƐŽLJŽƵĐĂŶďĞŚĞĂƌĚĂƐ ƋƵŝĐŬůLJĂƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ͘/ĨŶŽƚ͕ƚŚĞŝƌŶĞdžƚŵĞĞƟŶŐǁŝůůƚĂŬĞƉůĂĐĞŝŶĞĂƌůLJ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJ͘dŚĞĚĂƚĞĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌ :ĂŶƵĂƌLJŵĞĞƟŶŐǁŝůůďĞƐĞƚǁŚĞŶƚŚĞLJŵĞĞƚŽŶEŽǀϲƚŚ͘WůĞĂƐĞĞŵĂŝůŵĞƚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵLJŽƵƌ ƉƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͗ŵĞĞƟŶŐŽŶEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϲth ŽƌŵĞĞƟŶŐŝŶĞĂƌůLJ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϮϬϮϲĚĂƚĞd͘ Please email me by tomorrow at 10am if you would like for the appeal to take place on November 6th, as our response documents are due to the hearing body secretary tomorrow if you decide to meet on November 6
th.

Sincerely,

Jenny McNulty͕ZĞƐŝůŝĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐWƌŽŐƌĂŵDĂŶĂŐĞƌ
^ƉĞĐŝĂůWƌŽũĞĐƚƐͬƵŝůĚŝŶŐΘ^ĂĨĞƚLJŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ
Phone: (510) 981-ϳϰϱϭ
Email: [email protected]
On Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 01:54:29 PM PDT , Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Klein:

Today, I spoke to the analyst for the Senate Housing and Community Developement, and the ƉĂƌƚĞŵĞŶƚKǁŶĞƌΖƐƐƐŽĐĂƟŽŶ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞ^ƚĂīƉĞƌƐŽŶĨŽƌ^ƚĂƚĞƐƐĞŵďůLJ:ĞƐƐŝĞƌƌŝŐƵŝŶ͘ EŽŽŶĞĞǀĞƌĞǀĞŶƐƚĂƌƚĞĚĂƋƵĞƐƟŽŶŽĨůŽĂĚďĞĂƌŝŶŐƐƚƌĞƐƐĞƐŽŶƚŚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĨŽƌƚŚĂƚ collapsed balcony. And no one from legislators wants to even consider it now, not really. I am ĐŽŶƟŶƵŝŶŐƚŽƉƵƌƐƵĞƚŚŝƐ͕ĂƐ/ƚŚŝŶŬƚŚĞŵĂŶĚĂƚĞĚŝŶƐƉĞĐƟŽŶƉƌotocol is truly a " ƉĂƐƐŝŶŐƚŚĞďƵĐŬΗƚŽƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐƉƌŽƚŽĐŽů͕ƌĞŐĂƌĚůĞƐƐŽĨƚŚĞĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůďƵƌĚĞŶƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ͘ 'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƐĞĞŵƐƚŽĂůǁĂLJƐƌĞĂĐŚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌΖƐǁĂůůĞƚƟŵĞĂŶĚƟŵĞ͕ŝĞƉĂƌĐĞů taxes, and I have heard that property ƚĂdžĞƐŝŶĞƌŬĞůĞLJŚĂǀĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚďLJϮϰйŝŶƚŚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ year. If so, Is that obscene , of what?
/ƚŝƐƉĂƌƚŽĨŵLJƉƉĞĂů͕ĂŶĚ/ĞdžƉĞĐƚƚŚĂƚŶŽŽŶĞŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĐĂŶďĞ&/Z E/DWZd/>ŝŶŚĞĂƌŝŶŐŵLJƉƉĞĂů͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐǁŚLJ/ĂŵĞdžƉĞĐƟŶŐƚŽƉƉĞĂůƚŚŝƐŝŶ^ƵƉĞƌŝŽƌ͕ ŽƌƉĞƌŚĂƉƐ͕&ĞĚĞƌĂůŽƵƌƚ͕ĨŽƌĂŶ/ŶƉĂƌƟĂůƚƌŝĞƌŽĨĨĂĐƚ͘ /ƐƵƐƉĞĐƚ͕ŶŽǁƚŚĂƚ/ŚĂǀĞďĞŐƵŶƐŚĂƌŝŶŐŵLJŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂůƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐƐŽĐ͕͘ƚŚĞLJ will provide their support.
dŚŝƐƐƵďũĞĐƚŵĂƩĞƌDh^d
ŽE^/
Z
ĂƐƚŚĞƉƌŝŵĂƌLJďĂƐŝƐĨŽƌƚŚĂƚĂůĐŽŶLJŽůůĂƉƐĞ͘tĂƚĞƌ WĞŶĞƚƌĂƟŽŶǁŽƵĞĚůďĞĂĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƟŶŐĨĂĐƚŽƌ͘
,ĂĚƚŚĞƌĞďĞĞŶϱŽƌůĞƐƐƉĞŽƉůĞ͕ŽŶƚŚĂƚďĂůĐŽŶLJ͕ƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚŶĞǀĞƌŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĂĐŽůůĂƉƐĞсϴϳϱ ƉŽƵŶĚƐ͕ϭϬϬϬĨŽƌĂϱŽǀĞƌǁĞŝŐŚƚƉĞŽƉůĞ͘Dy͘
dŚĞďĂůĐŽŶLJĐŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞŚĞůĚƵƉǁŝƚŚϵϬϬƉŽƵŶĚƐ͘ƵƚϮϭϬϬƉŽƵŶĚƐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŝĨƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞ ŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌƉĂƌƚLJĂƩĞŶĚĂŶƚƐĐŽŵŝŶŐŽŶƚŽƚŚĞďĂůĐŽŶLJ͘͘͘͘͘
And you and Mr. Lopez refuse to address this issue , and be honest? ΖŵŽŶ͕ŐƵLJ͘ĞŚŽŶĞƐƚ͘Ž ĂůŽĂĚĐĂůƵĐůĂƟŽŶ͘ŵŽǀŝŶŐůŽĂĚĐĂůĐ͕ŶŽƚĂƐƚĂƟĐůŽĂĚĐĂůĐ͘tŚLJĂƌĞLJŽƵƌĞĨƵƐŝŶŐƚŽďĞŚŽŶĞƐƚ and truthful?
dŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJŝƐŵĂŬŝŶŐĂƚŽŶŽĨƌĞǀĞŶƵĞŽīƚŚĞ

ŵĂŶĚĂƚĞƐ͘,ŽǁŵĂŶLJďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĂƌĞ
being required to comply?

Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813

KŶDŽŶĚĂLJ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϳ͕ϮϬϮϱĂƚϬϱ͗ϮϮ͗ϯϬWDWd͕ŶĚƌĞǁDĂƌŽǁŝƚnj <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Klien:

As coincidence as may be, I had to meet someone for a lunch @ 11:30 this morning. What makes this noteworthy is that this individual actually spoke to someone from that Irish group.

ĂŌĞƌƚŚĞƚƌĂŐŝĐĞǀĞŶƚ͘^ŚĞǁĂƐƚŽůĚďLJŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞ/ƌŝƐŚŐƌŽƵƉ͕ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞ were actually several ŽƚŚĞƌƐͬĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůƉĞŽƉůĞĐŽŵŝŶŐŽƵƚƚŽƚŚĞďĂůĐŽŶLJĂŶĚŐŽŝŶŐďĂĐŬŝŶƐŝĚĞ͘/ƚǁĂƐĂƉĂƌƚLJ͕ ŝŶƐŝĚĞĂŶĚŽƵƚƐŝĚĞ͕ĂŶĚĂƐƐƵĐŚĂƚƟŵĞƐƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞĞǀĞŶŵŽƌĞŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐŽƵƚŽŶƚŚĂƚďĂůĐŽŶLJ͕͘ adding load bearing weight, a moving weight, ƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶĂƐƚĂƟĐǁĞŝŐŚƚ͘ /ĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚϮϬϬϬƉŽƵŶĚƐĨŽƌϭϮƉĞŽƉůĞ͕ďƵƚĂĚĚŝŶŐĞǀĞŶŵŽƌĞƉĞŽƉůĞǁŽƵůĚĂĚĚ͍͍͍͍ϳϬϬ poumds= 4 more people ????
What is amazing is that this issue was never even considered as the primary source of the ĐŽůůĂƉƐĞ͘ϭͬϮͬϯͬϰͬϱƉĞŽƉůĞŽƵƚŽŶƚŚĞĚĞĐŬǁŽƵůĚŶĞǀĞƌŚĂǀĞĐĂƵƐĞĚƚŚĞĐŽůůĂƉƐĞ͕/ƐƵďŵŝƚ͘ dŚŝƐĞǀĞŶƚŚĂƐĐĂƵƐĞĚŽǁŶĞƌƐĂĐƌŽƐƐĞƌŬĞůĞLJ͕ĂŶĚŶŽǁĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ͕ to be burdened with the ŝŶƐƉĞĐƟŽŶƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůƐ͘ŶĚĨŽƌĂŵĞƌĞƐĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJƌĞĂƐŽŶ͕ĐĂƵůŬŝŶŐĂŶĚĚƌĂŝŶŚŽůĞƐ͘/ŶƚĞƌĞƐƟŶŐůLJ͕ ƚŚĞŽŶůLJĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŽƚŚĞĞƌŬĞůĞLJďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽĚĞŝƐŝŶƐƉĞĐƟŽŶƐ͕ŶŽƚĂny changes to the building ĐŽĚĞĂƐƚŽǁĞŝŐŚƚůŝŵŝƚƐ͕ƚƌĞĂƟŶŐŝƚĞdžĂĐƚůLJ like elevators, or how about requiring that the ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůďĞĂŵƐĨŽƌƚŚĞďĂůĐŽŶLJďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽĂƩĂĐŚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůůLJƚŽƚŚĞŇŽŽƌũŽŝƐƚƐ͕ƚŚĞƌĞďLJ ĞdžƚĞŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞŇŽŽƌũŽŝƐƚƐďĞLJŽŶĚƚŚĞ building to the ends of the balcony? DŽƌĞĂŶĚŵŽƌĞ͕ƚŚŝƐďĞŐŝŶƐƚŽĂƉƉĞĂƌƚŚĂŐƚƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJŚĂƐĚŽŶĞůŝƩůĞďƵƚĮŶŐĞƌ ƉŽŝŶƟŶŐĂǁĂLJĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŵƐĞůǀĞƐ͕ƌĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ͘ŽĞƐŶΖƚƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJƚƌƵůLJǁĂŶƚƚŽŬŶŽǁ the truth? Or prefers to avoid the truth?
sĞƌLJƚƌƵůLJLJŽƵƌƐ͕ŶĚƌĞǁDĂƌŽǁŝƚnj

1 Burr, Galadriel
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2025 4:43 PM
To: Lopez, David
Subject: My timely submitted Appeal and Appeal fee of $1000( obscene) WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Lopez:

Under the circumstances, I submitted my Appeal and Appeal Fee to the assistant to Mr. Angel Sinewen(sp) , Supervising RHSP inspector, today, October 27th, 2025, at 11:35am.

Apparently, you were not in the office to accept the Appeal and Apeal Fee payment, so I submitted it to said lady, a lady with glasses, , stating she was the assistant for Angel Sinewen, and who came out to the public area, and took my Appeal and payment, and I could no longer wait for her to return , as I had another appointment at 11:30am and I was late, so I left the third floor. The counter person, refused to accept, and alerted his supervisor(s).

Accordingly, my Appeal and fee payment was timely submitted, per your time deadline of October 28th,2025. I submitted the Appeal on October 27th,2025
I will be waiting for my scheduled Appeal before the Planning Commission.

Thank you for your accountable attention to this matter.

Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813

1RWHLUUHOHYDQWDQGLQDSSURSULDWHFRQWHQWUHGDFWHGDERYH

KŶDŽŶĚĂLJ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϳ͕ϮϬϮϱĂƚϬϰ͗ϯϭ͗ϱϭWDWd͕ŶĚƌĞǁDĂƌŽǁŝƚnj <[email protected]> wrote:

M.Klein:
ƐLJŽƵŵƋĂLJŬŶŽǁ͕ĂƚĞdžĂĐƚůLJϭϭ͗͗ϭϱĂŵ͕ƚŽĚĂLJ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϳƚŚ͕ϮϬϮϱ/ĂƩĞŵƉƚĞĚƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚŵLJ Appeal AND the Appeal fee ŽĨΨϭϬϬϬĂƐŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚĞĚĂƌďŝƚƌĂƌŝůLJďLJDƌ͘>ŽƉ΀Ğnj͕ŽƌŝŶƚŚĞ ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚĐŽƵŶƚĞƌƉĞƌƐŽŶ͘ As it turns out , Mr. Lopez was not present, and the front counter person refused to accept the Appeal and Appeal fee payment. The front counter person then alerted several supervisors to come out and accept the Appeal and payment. I waited at least 5 minutes, and demanded that the front co8unter person hail a supervisor immediately for that task. Apparently, he summoned Angel Sineran ( sp). Instead of Mr.

Sinewen coming out to the front, a lady describing herself as Mr. Sinewen's assistant came out, and instructed me to wait to see if Mr. Sinewen would accept it. I had repeatedly stated to both ƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚĐŽƵŶƚĞƌƉĞƌƐŽŶĂŶĚƚŚĞůĂĚLJ͕ƚŚĂƚ/ĐŽƵůĚŶŽƚǁĂŝƚ͕ĂƐ/ŚĂĚĂŶŽƚŚĞƌŽďůŝŐĂƟŽŶ appointment at 11:30. /ǁĂŝƚĞĚ͕ĂŐĂŝŶ͕ĮǀĞŵŝŶƵƚĞƐ͕ĂŶĚŶŽŽŶĞĐĂŵĞŽƵƚ͘/ŚĂĚƚŽůĞĂǀĞĂŶĚ ƐŽ/ůĞŌ͘
&ŽƌLJŽƵƚŽ͕ĂƚϭϮ͗ϯϬ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƚŚĂƚ/ǁŽƵůĚďĞƐƵďŵŝƫŶŐŵLJƉƉĞĂůĂŶĚƉĂLJŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƉƉĞĂů͕ ƐĞĞŵƐŚŝŐŚůLJŝƌƌĞŐƵůĂƌ͘/ƚŝƐĂƐŝĨƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂĐŽŶƐƉŝƌĂƚŽƌŝĂůĚĂŶĐĞĂŵŽŶŐƐƚĂī͕ƚŽĚĞĐŝĚĞŚŽǁĂ ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚƉƉĞĂůĂŶĚƉĂLJŵĞŶƚǁŝůůŽƌǁŽŶΖƚďĞĂĐĐĞƉƚĞĚ͘/ĨDƌ͘>ŽƉez was not available to ĂĐĐĞƉƚƚŚĞƉƉĞĂůĂŶĚWĂLJŵĞŶƚ͕ƐŽŵĞŽŶĞDh^dĂĐĐĞƉƚƚŚĞƉƉĞĂůĂŶĚWĂLJŵĞŶƚ͘ŶĚ͕ĂŶŚŽƵƌ ůĂƚĞƌLJŽƵƐƚĂƚĞƚŚĂƚ/ǁŝůůďĞƐƵďŵŝƫŶŐŶŵLJƉƉĞĂůĂŶĚWƉĞĂůƉĂLJŵĞŶƚ͘ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ͕ĐΖŵŽŶ͕ ƉĞŽƉůĞŝŶƚŚŝƐŽĸĐĞĂƌĞĚĂŶĐŝŶŐĞǀĞĞƌLJǁŚŝĐŚǁĂy, playing , who will accept the Appeal, as if, no one wants to accept the Appeal and payment. What are you all afraid of? As such , I consider the Appeal and payment of Appeal fee served and accepted by the lady, who was about 5' 6" Ύ, and wore glasses, and presented herself as Mr. Sinewen's assistant.   Ύ/ƌƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚĂŶĚŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚƌĞĚĂĐƚĞĚ͘ As to the issue of the analysis of the load bearing weight of that balcony, that issue is a very ůŽŐŝĐĂůƋƵĞƐƟŽŶ͕ŽŶĞŝŶǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĸĐŝĂůƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞĂĚŝůLJŬŶŽǁ͘ůƐŽ͕ ƌĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ͕ŽŶĞŝŶǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐŚŽƵůĚŬŶŽǁ͕ĂƐǁĞll, I expect.. Now, why would ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽĸĐŝĂůƐĞŶĚLJŽƵƚŚĞƋƵĞƐƟŽŶŽĨůŽĂĚďĞĂƌŝŶŐǁĞŝŐŚƚĐĂůĐƵůĂƟŽŶƐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ an update , moment to moment, of the Appeal and $1000 Appeal fee, as interpreted by Mr.

Lopez.? Is that honesty, or what? When did you receive his email forwarding the load bearing weight?
Dƌ͘>ŽƉĞnj͕ŝŶŚŝƐĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJĂƐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽĸĐŝĂůƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƚŚĂƚŽŶŽƌďĞĨŽƌĞKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϴƚŚ͕/ĐŽƵůĚ ĐŽŵƉůLJ͕ŽƌƉƉĞĂů͕Žƌ/ǁŽƵŽůĚďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚĞĚƚŽĂΨϭϬϬϬƉĂŶĂůƚLJĨĞĞĨŽƌŶŽŶ-compliance. I ĂƩĞŵƉƚĞĚƚŽŝŶŝƟĂƚĞĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ͕ŚĂǀŝŶŐƚǁŽŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŽƌƐƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂƋƵŝĐŬǀŝƐƵĂůŝŶƐƉĞĐƟŽŶ͕dŚĞLJ

ƌĞƐƉĞĐƟǀĞůLJƐƚĂƚĞĚƚŚĞŝƌŝŶƐƉĞĐƟŽŶĨĞĞ;ƐͿǁŽƵůĚŚďĞΨϵϳϱĂŶĚΨϳϳϱ͘ŶĚƚŚĞƌĞŵŝŐŚƚďĞƐŽŵĞ ĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐŽŶƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŇŽŽƌƚŚĂƚĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞĚŝŶĚŝĐĂƟŽŶƐŽĨǁŽŽĚƌŽƚ͘ I live in the second ŇŽŽƌŇĂƚ͕ĂƐƚŚĞƐŽůĞŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚ͕ĂŶĚŚĂǀĞĚŽŶĞƐŽƐŝŶĐĞϮϬϭϴ͘ƐĂlow income senior, I do not ŚĂǀĞĨƵŶĚƐƚŽƉĂLJĨŽƌŵŝŶŝŵĂůĐŽƐƚƐ͕ŵƵĐŚŵŽƌĞĂŶLJŝƐƐƵĞƐŽĨ

ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ͘/ĂŵǁĂŶƟŶŐƚŽ
ĐůĂŝŵĂƉƉůŝĐĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨZ,^WƉƌŽƚĞĐƟŽŶƐĂŶĚƌŝŐŚƚƐ͕ŝĞ͕KǁŶĞƌKĐĐƵƉĂŶĐLJĞdžĞŵƉƟŽŶ͕ƐĞůĨ ĐĞƌƟĮĐĂƟŽŶĂŶĚǀĂĐĂŶĐLJƌĞŶƚĂůƵŶŝƚƐĂƐĞdžĞŵƉt, though they are also exempt, based on haveing no EEE elements over six feet, no elements at all.

In any case, I consider that my Appeal and obscenely high Appeal fee as served and accepted, by and fpor Angel Sinewen. RHSP supervising Housing Inspector. Mr . Sinewen has done EKd,/E'ŝŵƉƌŽƉĞƌ͘,ŝƐďŽƐƐŝƐĂǀŝĚ>ŽƉĞnj͕ĂŶĚŵƵƐƚĚĞĨĞƌĂŶLJŝƐƐƵĞƐƚŽŚŝƐďoss, Mr. Lopez. /ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌDƌ͘>ŽƉĞnj͕ĂƐĂďƵůůLJ͕ďĞŝŶŐƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŶŽĸĐŝĂůǁŝƚŚƵŶůŝŵŝƚĞĚŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚĂƟŽŶ authority, so he says.

DLJƉƉĞĂůĂŶĚŝƚΖƐƐƵďĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐĂƌĞďŽŶĂĮĚĞ͕ĂŶĚĂƌŐƵĂďůLJǀŝŽůĂƚĞϭϰĂŵĞĚŶŵĞŶƚĚƵĞ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƌŝŐŚƚƐ͕&ĂŝƌŶĞƐƐĂŶĚ/ŵƉĂƌƟĂůŝƚLJ͕ĂŵŽŶŐŽƚŚĞƌŝƐƐƵĞƐ͘ ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ͕ŶĚƌĞǁDĂƌŽǁŝƚnjϱϭϬ-356-6813

KŶDŽŶĚĂLJ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϳ͕ϮϬϮϱĂƚϭϮ͗ϯϮ͗ϭϮWDWd͕<ůĞŝŶ͕:ŽƌĚĂŶфũŬůĞŝŶΛďĞƌŬĞůĞLJĐĂ͘ŐŽǀ> wrote:

Mr. Marowitz:

I have directed David Lopez to stop responding to your messages. /ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚLJŽƵƉůĂŶƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚĂŶĂƉƉĞĂůŽĨĂĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐKĸĐŝĂů͘dŚĂƚ ǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞĚĂĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐůLJ͘/ĨLJŽƵǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚĂƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌƉƵďůŝĐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ͕LJŽƵ may do so here: ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬĐŝƚLJŽĩĞƌŬĞůĞLJĐĂ͘ŶĞdžƚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ͘ĐŽŵͬ /ĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶLJĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐLJŽƵĐĂŶƐĞŶĚƚŚĞŵƚŽŵĞĂŶĚ/ǁŝůůŵĂŬĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞLJŐĞƚ routed accordingly.

Jordan Klein
ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͕ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨWůĂŶŶŝŶŐΘĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJ
WŚŽŶĞ͗;ϱϭϬͿϳϳϰ-ϭϯϯϳ
ũŬůĞŝŶΛďĞƌŬĞůĞLJĐĂ͘ŐŽǀ

1 Burr, Galadriel
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2025 5:24 PM
To: Lopez, David
Cc: Andrew Marowitz; Bartlett, Ben
Subject: In light of my prsesent circumstances and your intentions...... I HAVE DECIDED TO FILE

AN APPEAL
WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Lopez:

Given that you intend to impose a $1000 non compliiance penalty fee on October 29th,2025, after substantial thought and consideration, I am NOW preparing to Appeal, regardlessof your truly obscene Appeal fee of $1000, which is arbitrary and capricious on yur part, as wewll as a undeniable deterrent to my original intentions to Appeal.

Accordingly, I will RE document and Re-Submit my Appeal and , I will pay the $1000 Appeal fee, though it will cause me to be unable to pay my property taxes in full. I will deliver the $1000 Appeal Fee, UNDER EMPHATIC PROTEST AND OBJECTION ON MONDAY OCTOBER 27TH, 2025, AND HAND IT TO YOU OR THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE FRONT COUNTER 3RD FLOOR, IF YOU AREUNABLE TO RECEIVE IT

I will now prepare the various basies , in the form of bullet points, to set forth the NUMEROUS issues that you have genrated, in addition to my bases for Appeal as tp the EEE enforement . You shall not mandate how the form of my Appeal should be prepared ,so that you can find fault with it.

1) I am Appealingt based on you ,as building dire3ctor have arrbitrarily decided that the Appeal fee shall be $1000, which is an overwhelming deterrent to anyone submitting an Appeal/. As previously statd by me, I discovered in your City Council Resolutio
n Fee Schedule 71, 834 N.S. , ,dated July 17,2025, on Page 5, Chapter XVII, under miscellanious, " Any Fee NOT Explicitly Covered in THis Fee Schedule, , shall have a Fee of $250. You willfully disregarded that documented component, and arbitrarily stated
that the Appeal would take hours and require 4 City employees. However, interestingly, I spoke only to Guilelead Burr AND You. . Yet here you are saying Four people. If Four People will be involved and take numerous hours, then Ms. Burr AND YOU deprived me of Full and Complete Due Process,as addressed by the U.S.

Constitution, under the 14th Amendment. However, this specific basis for Appeal will be addressed in detail later on in this Appeal.

2) I also asked you ,regarding 71,834 N.S. ,Page 5 Misscellanious XVII, the guidlines for " UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP EXCEPTION". iI asked you what was the criteria for eligibility, as I I believe that I was financially eligible, being a low income senior citizen.

You responded by stating in your email, that you would need 3-5 days to provide said criteria. If you were immediately aware of the criteria, you would have disclosed it immediately in a few sentences. However, 3- 5 days later, you responded
by email, that the criteria, whatever it was, was only for Commercial Properties, and not for Residential Properties. Why did you delay that simple response? Of course, as building director, you made it up / created it to deny any opportunity by me, to be eligible for said exceeption. And then you followed up by staating that you would not respond to any further emails. Ironically, you stated that ,simply, you follow the laws that the State and City ZCouncil provided to you. But tha5t was a lie. You fabricated this ele
igibility issue, and imposed it on me, to motivate me, along with the $1000 Appeal Fee, to falll in line and beggrudgingly comply with the EEE compliance mandate. You,sir, are abusing your authority, as City Council and the State laws, allow you to make ar
titrary and capricious determinations and interpretations, ANY WAY YOU WANT, without regard for the impact on the impacted propertyt owner.. As such, you come off as a bully.

3) I am a low income senior, retired,, refuse to rent out my Berkeley property, because the City of Berkeley knowingly victimizes landlords, in so many ways, that being a landlord in the City of Berkeley is a most terrible experience, and no one in the City will even address said topic. Tjhere is a Tenant Protection Ordinance, but no Landlord Protection Ordinance,. There are a expansive mine field of Ordinances that benefit tenants, but there are no ordinances that benefit landlords, AND statutory attorney fees against landlords, if they fail to do, or do in violation , while there are no such statutory attorney fees that protect landlords. There is no equal protection, there is nothing that aids and benefots landlords, so I have refused to rent out my units, and as far as City Council and State laws, mum's the word. Eviction

2 Moratorium? And then the Vacancy Parcel Tax, if a landlord was victimized. It is obscene and unjust, and no one addresses such injustices. It ought to be a crime, but it isn't.Tenants make up 65% of the voters, and our legislators cater to the majority of voters for re-election, so City Council will never raise a finger in support of landlords. Is that Corrrupti on?

4) I raised and relied on the issues of the Rental Housing SAFETY Program, for it benefits to landlords, specifically, the Owner Occupoancy Exemption if he resides in a subject unit. I addressed the Owner's right to seld certify his property, based on a cprinted checklist, which includes the same EEE components. However, I spoke to the Supervising Housing Inspector, Andre Sineran (sp), and he states that you are his boss, so whatever you disctate, he will defer to ( or you will descipline him) But that is an Abuse of Process, as the RHSP clearly provides an Owner with documented rights and protections, which you clearly refuse to recognize and willfully ignore as an arbitrary and capricious act, on your part, yet another arguable abuse and violation of Due Process.

5)
When being addressed by Galadriel Burr, "Community Services Specialist III, When I asked the process of Appeal and the cost of Appeal, she indicated that she would forward my emails to her supervisor. I then asked her the name and title of the supervisor who she forwarded my emails to, and sjhe repeatedly failed / refused to respond. Anmd I am certain you are not her direct supervisor, which means that her supervisor, her manager, and the director of EEE were, somehow bypassed , when I was intending on following through on my intended Appeal. I have heard the names Jenson , as manager, I have not heard the name of her direct supervisor. I have heard the name of the ddirector of EEE as Mcnulty(?) and all of them ,apparently have you as their booss. Accordingly, arguably, I was deprived of Due Process by Ms.. Burr's direct supervisor, , Mr. Jensen , and Ms. Mcnulty/ McNealy? of a name that sounds similar.

So, how and why did my intended Appeal wind up on your desk/ for the building official attention, without any Due Process from these intermediate supervisors, manager, and directir of EEE? Is it becauseonly YOU, as bui;lding official, with unlimited interpretation and determination to decide any way youwant , any fee you might decide on, and decide what is and isn't in the building services component of the City? I submit that the fact that I Ms. Burr, , her direct supervisor, Mr. Jensen as EEE manager, and the Director of EEE all refused to address my concerns, refused to address my rights and protections of RHSP, and refused to provide me with an Appeal fee, all relate to a deprivation of my rights to Due Process, while you arbitrarily and capriciously impose a $1000 Appeal fee, the same fee amount at non compliance penalty fee. . I respectfully believe that you regularly abuse your authority, because the City and State have decided to not create specfic detail of laws, ordinances and regulations, thereby allowing you to interpret any which way you want, and disregard the interests of the property owner , while benefitting the City, especially the revenues genrated by the EEE program.

6) I elect yto Appeal the fact that both the City and the State have arbitrarily chosen to disregard the truth, as it pertains t o
the tragic balcony collapse that occurred in 2015. The City sttled lawsuits for defective building standards, but no less significant , and perhaps more significant, the City and State never mentioned one word about the fact that the incident/ event occurred because there were at least 12 adults that were on that 4'x8' balcony at one time, a serious overload of load bearing weights, that, either in part ,or in whole, caused the collapse of that balcony . according to the news article , six people died instantly and 6 others were critically injued. The weight of those people were more than 2000 pounds. The load was simply too much that is was major component, of the failure of that balcony. Yet there was not one word of mention of this component. I expect that pointing to this component was too emotionally a n ugly issue, regardless of tsuch truths. So, the City and the news pointed to a lack of caulk, leading to entry of mositure, leading to structure weakness, which was also a component, but not the root cause. I honest;ly believe the root cause was too many people and too much weight. Had there been 1/2/3/4 people on that balcony, on that fateful day, the collapse would never have occurred. Just like elevators, there should be warning signs, stating person and weight limits, but to vthis day, no such warning signs are posted, unlike elevators. This then, is yet another arguable failure that led to the collapse.

And,as building official, you arbitrarily refuse to address this issue, despite my requests that you calculate the load bearing limits of said balcony. Should such a balcony be sufficient to support a lmoving load of 2000 poiunds, or more? Your refuslal to address this issue is yet further irresponsibility and arbitrary discretion of the building official.

If my assessment is correct, then property owners are being unjustly subjected to thousands of dollars of cost burden to comply with EEE mandates,. All the while, the EEE program is raking in millions of dollars of revenue to the general fund, allegedly to pay the cost of operation of the EEE program. But said costs are relatively minimal, but pays the salaries, benefits, and pensions of related city staff, as well as city wide staff general funding. I submit, this is one of dozens, if not hundred or more taxes, fees, and penalties for the City employee funding. . This is especially unjust, if the source reason for the tragic incident was in paart or in whole, the overload issue of that balcony..

It is unjust enrichment by the City to require property owners to pay and pay and pay for something that these well intended young adults unknowingly might have caused.

In fact, I inquired with you, as building official, why the Building Department refuses to engage in performing these same inspections. It would relieve property owners of the cost of hiring an independent 3rd party to inspect. You response was the City doesn't have the manpower to inspect the EEE program. II question if that is the real reason. The Building Department doesn't want to engage in inspectionds, for the potential liability, if the inspection is ,somehow less than effecitve. The building department could 1) spread the workload amongst the RHSP personaell, the biuilding inspectors,

3 or even hire another inspector, on a temorary basis, to accommodate the workload. Isn't that the truth? The City , time and time agqin, has no problem making the size and cost of government larger and more expensive. Suddenly, on this concern, they cannot add an employee? That sounds pretty far fetched to me, by itself.

You have stated that you rely on State laws, but the truth is that you mix, match, apply to either and both State law and City Ordinances, whichever provides you with full and complete authority , to do and say, whatever you choose, in maximizing your authority and discretion, and , the property owner and the cost burden, be damned. Who cares how much this costs the burdened property? Not the building official, that is for certain. And much of the cost finds its way to City revenues,as prviously stated, another revenue funding tool to pay for city staff, including , but not limited to, City employees having more paid holidays than any other city in the State, also dollar for dollar matching staff retirement funding, and also the benefit of working from home 2-3 days per week. Recently I observed a person , who was working from home, walking the dog 4 times a day, most likely to de-stress, but paid by the employer. Working from home, emloyees rarely pick up the phone when the public calls. calls back at THEIR convenience in 24/48 hours. And there is a ton of abuse, long breaks and lunches, bathroom breaks, cooking and washing, smoking whatever, drinking alcohol, naps, and the potential abuses are limitless.. As a City employee myself, decades ago, as a City emp loyee, just do the job, (4=5 hours a day maximum. Alll paid bgy taxpayers. iIn my opinion the City of Berkeley pampers and spoils City stafff, all paid by ever rising taxes., but that is only an educated opinion. City staff, always say they work long and hard. As ,an ex-City employee, Why do I tend to disbelieve that?

7) If I were allowed to apply certain components of the Rental Housing SAFETY Program, my second floor flat, Apt. #4, as Owner Occupied, would be exempt. If my second flloor flat were exempt, then the entire property would be exempt, as there are no EEE components on the first/ ground floor that exceed the six foot height limits. In fact, the ground floor units #1/#2/ and #3 have no EEE elements at all, being two feet about the soil. Accordingly, Iam Appealing on this basis. If I caused injury to myself as the sole occupant of #4, I couldn't and wouldn't file a lawsuit against myself.

Yet the EEE department is adament to mandate that I correct anything on the second floor, of which I am the sole occupant. All the while, the EEE program is gernerating millions of dollars in revenue. How many buildings are subjected to the mandates of the EEE program? Thousands? Fees, building permits, the cost of the 3rd party contractor, architect, engineer. I attempted tto have a 3rd party inspector come and do a visual inspection. For an official inspection, the inspectors charge $800-1000. The building Permit costs , minimum $365, repairs and materials? I refuse to rent out my units, and will never do so, and waiting for interests rates to come down, and sell my property . So, my income is low, and I
am a senior with low income? How can I afford these costs? I can't.. And what is depressing is the building official , and apparently, the City of Berkeley doesn't carein the least. What if there are some noteworthy corrections that are required to be addressed? What if the corrections cost $10,000 or more? How could I possibly have the money to pay for such costs? I can't.. Will the building department place a lien on my property? Will they take my property, because I cannot afford to make such exhorbitant corrections? This is also a basis for my Appeal.

8) The rules state that the Appeal Fee is non-refundable. But, what if the Building Official is arbitrarily charging anAppeal Fee that is obscenely too much. ie $260?
I ask that the the Administrative authority, apparently, the Berkeley Planning Commission consider and / or order my Appeal fee refunded/ returned, and state by Ordiinance, that the Appeal Fee shall be specifically and explicitly defined, and a reasonable fee, so that an Appeal is not detered, as the building official has arbitrarily and unilaterally has deicided.

I believe that THIS was why the intended Appeal bypassed all of the intermediate staff, and went straight to the building official; because he, and only he has the authority to impose whatever fee he deicides, and he calculates a deterent of any Appeal. The building official should never have been involved until the Appeal was already in process. Accoredingly, the supervisor, or the manager, or the EEE director should have set/decided on the amount of the Appeal fee, not the building Official.

I asked Mr. Lopez to recuse himself, and to allow an independent individual , who would not be BIASED, to referee the processes of my Appeal, but ,clearly, Mr. Lopez has refused. He enjoys his power, and his authority to decide any way and anyhow, that he chooses.

I wanted someone else who would be fair and impartial, as that is how the Due Process Rights work. But, Mr. Lopez, as Building Officiial, is anything BUT FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. It is a completely rigged game. Every employee within the building department answers toi him, including the Rental Housing SAFETY program supervising Housing Inspector, and that individual will never diagree with Mr. Lopez, the Building Official. Accordingly, he defers to anything the Building Official decides, every time. THAT..., is NOT FAIR and/OR IMPARTIAL.

I respectfully, inquire, is the Planning Commissiuon FAIR AND IMPARTIAL? Respec5tfully, under Due Process Rights, under the 14th Amendment, I am entited to a Fair and Impartial Hearing/Appeal.. Respectfully, I am unsure if the Planning Commission is/ can be Fair and Impartial?
Accordingly, this is a basis for my Appeal.
9). Does the City / the Planning Commission regulations have a basis for allowing the subject property owner some form of Low Income Senior exception /exemption, that provides avoidancer of the cost budens of this extremely expensive program? Does the XVII Miscellanious provision of "Unreasonable Hardhip Exception " as stated in the Fee Schedule of City Council, under 71, 834 N.S. apply to me, as the subject property owner, especially when factoring in the totolity of

4 the circumstnances of Apartments #1/#2/and #3 as exempt from EEE as having no EEE components and the owner occupying the 2nd floor #4?
Aside from having to pay property taxes , my recurring expenses are Food and Drink, Fuel, Insurance, Internet, Utilities, , Vehicle Registration, and some etc.....

10) Another arguable issue in this dispute, that is valid, is that I could/ were allowed, I would prefer to convert my 4plex into a single family dwelling, as I treat it currently, using the three vacant units as storage only. But , as alway the government runs the show, and my freedom to do what I wish with my property. But, instead, both the City and the WState refuse to allow me to downsize/ reduce to a single family dwelling, becaiuse of the housing shortage that the State has created, by housing the homeless who flooded California, housing early release jail inmates, because it costs the state too much money to maintain the prison stystem, anmd allowing/ require housing so many illegal immigrnats into the State of California. And so, government has taking control of my housing choices and opportunties. Freedom, or the lack thereof , just the way I pictured it. I I have no say in my property, Only to put my naame on the title , and to pay tax, afte r tax, after tax. Freedom? Where? Is this a Taking by over-regulation? The Courtshave interpreted , NOT unless such a taking has cause my property and property value to lose 90%. What a disgraceful system We/ I live in.

This is yet another basis formy Appeal, of course. I would very much choose to convert my building into a single family dwelling.

In closing, I just want to be left alone, in peace, in my property, that I live alone in, until I sell, or die, whichever com es first.

But, government is simply not ever going to leave me alone. Government is paid and authorized to make people miserable, in particular property owners, with the never ending parcel taxes, Government is the owner of my property, when one strips away all the pretense and get real. Freedom? Where. Local government taxes everything. There is no freedom.There is government authority , control, and a hundred different taxes, or fees, and/ or penalties for not complying with government control and taxation. The majority of people's wallets are constantly near empty/ ie living paycheck to paycheck.As such, life sucks, thanks to government.

This is a basis for Applealing, but no one in government is listening. or cares. Who is watching the watcher? Not the legislators. In my opinion, The legislators never say no to government Government is not the public interest, it is government serving the interests of government, and embedding itself in the public interest.

Respectfully, Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2025 12:45 PM
To: Lopez, David <[email protected]>
Subject: ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞϮϬϭϱďĂůĐŽŶLJĐŽůůĂƉƐĞƚƌĂŐĞĚLJ WARNING: dŚŝƐŝƐŶŽƚĂŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJĞŵĂŝů͘ŽŶŽƚĐůŝĐŬůŝŶŬƐŽƌĂƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐƵŶůĞƐƐLJŽƵƚƌƵƐƚ the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Lopez, as building director, I believe that you might know the weight limits of that balcony. dŚĞďĂůĐŽŶLJǁĂƐϰΖdžϴΖ͕ďĂƐĞĚŽŶŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ/ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚ͘ dŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞ;ĂƚůĞĂƐƚͿϭϮƉĞƉůĞ͕ŵĂůĞƐͬĨĞŵĂůĞƐ͕ůŝŐŚƚ͕ŵĞĚŝƵŵ͕ĂŶĚŚĞĂǀLJ͘ϲƉĞŽƉŬĞĚŝĞĚĂŶĚϲ ǁĞƌĞĐƌŝƟĐĂůůLJŝŶũƵƌĞĚ͘
dŚĞůŽĂĚŝƐƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůLJĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĚĂƚϭϲϬƚŽϭϳϱƉĞƌƉĞƌƐŽŶ;ĂƚůĞĂƐƚͿ;ŶŽƚŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĐůŽƚŚŝŶŐͿ that adds up to 1920-2100 pounds, not a dead load, but a movong load (somewhat) Are you able and willing to determine the load bearing weight of that balcony? And if you can, ǁŝůůLJŽƵĚŝƐĐůŽƐĞƚŚĂƚĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĚďĞĂƌŝŶŐůŽĂĚĨŽƌƚŚĂƚďĂůĐŽŶLJ͍ tŚLJǁĂƐŶΖƚƚŚŝƐŝƐƐƵĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚĂƐĞǀĞŶĂĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƟŶŐĨĂĐƚŽƌ͍ Kƌ͕ƉĞƌŚĂƉƐƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĞƌŬĞůĞLJŶĞǀĞƌǁĂŶƚĞĚƚŚĂƚŝƐƐƵĞƚŽďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ͕ŵŝŐŚƚƉůĂĐĞƚŚĞŝƚLJ ŝŶĂƉŽǁĞƌĨƵůůLJĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐĞĚƉŽƐŝƟŽŶ͍ To this day, that issue has never been addressed? Don't LJŽƵĮŶĚƚŚĂƚƌĞĂůŝƚLJƵŶƌĞĂů͍ Maybe no one wanted to point the ĮŶŐĞƌĂƚƚŚĞƉĞŽƉůĞŽŶƚŚĂƚ balcony?
The blame was placed on the owner for alllegedly not caulking? Could this incident have occurred if only 3 to 4 people were on that deck? 4 people brings a ůŽĂĚďĞĂƌŝŶŐǁĞŝŐŚƚŽĨϳϬϬƉŽƵŶĚƐ͘
/ĂŵƚƌƵůLJĂŶĚƐĞƌŝŽƵƐůLJĐƵƌŝŽƵƐǁŚLJƚŚĞǁĞŝŐŚƚŝƐƐƵĞǁĂƐŶĞǀĞƌĞǀĞŶŵĞŶƟŽŶĞĚ͘ /ŶĂŶLJĐĂƐĞ͕ĂƐƐƚĂƚĞĚĂĚŶĂƵƐĞƵŵ͕/ĚŽŶŽƚŚĂǀĞƐƵĸĐŝĞŶƚĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐƚŽƉĂLJĨŽƌ compliance , ĂŶĚƉĂLJƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚĂdžĞƐ͕ŶŽƚƚŽŵĞŶƟŽŶ͕ŵLJŶŽƌŵĂůďŝůůƐ͕ŝĞĨŽŽĚ͕ŐĂƐ͕ƵƟůŝƟĞƐ͕ ŝŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞ͕ǀĞŚŝĐůĞƌĞŐŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶŝƐƐŽŽŶĚƵĞ͕ŐĂƌďĂŐĞ͕ŝŶƚĞƌŶĞƚ͕ Is all of this totaly irrelevant to you?
Andrew Marowitz

/ƚƐĞĞŵƐƚŽŵĞƚŚĂƚ
ǀĞƌLJƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌŝƐƐƵīĞƌŝŶŐĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůůŽƐƐĞƐĨŽƌĞǀĞƌĂƐĂƌĞƐƵůt

1 Burr, Galadriel
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2025 5:28 PM
To: Lopez, David
Subject: Re: 1615 Fairview St. attempting to comply
WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Lopez:

Re: the second inspector. After conducting the visual inspection, he went back to his office and spoke to his lead guy. The lead guy indicated that the official inspection should take place AFTER I complete the minor repairs, so that the initial official inspection would be the final inspection, which, in turn would save me a decent amount of money.

I will be doing business with these people. But, as it is, there will be a deliberate delay in the official inspection. But the paperwork will not be generated on October 28th.

I expect that you will issue a non compliance penalty fee. But, I have shown good faith effort in compliance. I will undertake the minir repairs which I hope to complete in a week. or so.

Accordingly, I am requesting an extension of time to complete repairs and schedule an official inspection followed by eventual paperwork, which I will deliver, once the processes are complete.

You might consider me for the unreasonable hardship exception, unless you can show that your interpretation of exclusivity of commercial properties , is a rule that is codified.

I really want/ hope to pay my property taxes. As you know, paying one day late for property taxes is a 10% penalty. My taxes are approximated to be about $6500 per year.

Andrew Marowitz

On Friday, October 24, 2025 at 02:25:11 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Lopez:

I just had the seond contractor/ inspector complete a visual inspection.He is less expensive and found a few items.

He advised that the office manager will prepare the paperwork for the issues, the repairs, and the cost of the inspection. This paperwork is expected to be generated by email , and likely agreed to on Monday, October 28th.

I hope he and I will agree to the cost of inspection, of which I can afford a deposit, AND pay my property taxes, if he/ the company accepts only a deposit/ portion of the cost

Again, I cannot afford all the costs of EEE compliance. And I feel the building director and the City are heartless , when considering affordability and low income property owners. . You couldn't care less, in other words.Again, I reference 71,834 N.S. of unreasonab;le hardship exception, regardless of the made up interpretation you assert that that relates to only commercial buildings, not residential. This falsehood clearly demonstrates the revenues generated by the EEE is a top priority for the building official.

No one is talking about the fact that too many people were on that balcony collapse. That is the primary reason, that the tragedy occurred. I re-read the news article. 6 people died instantly, and 6 others were critically injured, meaning there were at least 12 people on that fateful balcony. They blame in on lack of caulk and water penetration, but the true reason was there were wayyyy too many people on that balcony.. If only 3 people, even with dry rot, there would never have

2 been a collapse. At least 12 people carries a weight of 2000 pounds, maybe more. Had there been weight/people limits on warning signs, this never would have occurred. But the politicians don't want to deal in that truth, so they keep quiet.

I hope that this inspection company will finaincially work with me. Great Escapes is the company name.

Andrew Marowitz

1 Burr, Galadriel
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2025 12:16 PM
To: Lopez, David
Subject: Re: 1615 Fairview Ave.

Mr. Lopez:

An inspector just came by and is/ was willing to write a proposal, but before he issues a dollar amount, he would need me to remove various pieces of shiplap and plywood to expose the structural components. He sees some woodrot underneath my porch , and if that bears out, he suggests a possible repair of up to $10,000, which I simply do not have.

As I have already disclosed to you, I can either pay the EEE fees or pay my property taxes, but not both. And certainly not $10,000. His fee is $950 for two elements, the stairs ( fully concrete) and the covered porch of my upper flat.

I called several contractors from the BPOA list. I am expecting another inspector to come by sometime today.

What if I cannot afford the cost of inspection, much more the repair? Will you punish for non compliance of $1000 for/ of
a low income senior who lives here alone? Clearly, City Council has provided you, in your role, with limitless interpretive determination and discretion.

That is punishing the low income person who can't afford the huge cost of EEE, and making me even more financially deeper in a hole.

Is that the ripple effect of the EEE requirements? To break the backs of limited income seniors?

Your thoughts. if you choose to offer them?

Andrew Marowitz

On Thursday, October 23, 2025 at 12:23:09 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Lopez:

I just spoke to the Supervising Housing Inspector of the RHSP , and he indicates that you are his boss, so he will defer
to anything you say. What a dam scandal.

He says this is about safety, but it more about revenue than safety, and you know it. Every building subject to EEE enforcement generates a huge amount of money for the building department and the City of Berkeley. All my mind and spirit are screaming "RIP OFF".

That said, I initiated a search of contractors listed on the EEE department list, and the City doesn't even list those qualif ied
contractors who are licensed for EEE inspection in the City of Berkeley. In other words the Building Dept /EEE is so lazy, they don't even list those contractors who are eligible to inspect. Since you are the GUY, who sets up this program, it is you who refuses to list eligible contractors to call. There is nothing legitimate about this EEE program. The true solution is to require Owners to post a person/ weight limit on any balcony /deck, etc, no differently from every elevator that exists and operates.

Then you make up rules for the Appeal fee , not explicitly listed, and you make up rules that invalidate the unreasonable hardship exemption.

Sir, as building director , you are exercising excessive discretion and interpretation, and hiding the truth, and unjustly forcing property owners to pay a large sum of money, which pays for City employees paychecks/ benefits and pensions,

2 for a City government that is constantly growing in size and cost, all paid by us taxpayers. This, to me is disgusting and despicable. And suddenly, you refuse to respond as these newly made up rules. This is barely more than a rip- off, hiding behind a safety concern.

I will now endeavor to call dozens of contractors to find out if they are licensed in the City of Berkeley, something that you should have done, and made readily available to us victims of the building departments greed.

What a con job. And you run it all.

I will initiate a compliance of the EEE program farce immediately. I will have a contractor lined up by October 28th, as you require.

What a con job. I bet you think you are honorable. I am a highly educated person and I can see clearly through this scam operation. This EEE program is a scam operation, hiding behind a safety concern, which can and should be accomplished with a weight/ person limit, no differently than any elevator. But, then, the building dept wouldn't generate any revenue, right?

I wish I could sue the city and you in court. You constantly victimize people for revenue. The building dept rakes in the cash for the City of Berkeley. Dam pick pockets.

Depressed, Andrew Marowitz

On Wednesday, October 22, 2025 at 09:03:23 AM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Lopez:

In your email on Tuesday, you referenced a line item in the City’s fee schedule regarding items that require review and are not explicitly listed, such as Alternate Method applications, Requests for Unreasonable Hardship Exceptions, and Requests for Determinations. Those items are not assigned fixed fees because they are project-specific and billed hourly. For example, an Alternate Method review may require dozens of staff hours, potentially totaling thousands of dollars.

Unreasonable Hardship Exceptions are specific to accessibility issues in non-residential properties. These items relate to design-based determinations on current proposed construction projects and are not considered appeals.

Respectfully, how do I know for sure that you didn't just make this stuff up so that you could continue to insist on a Building Official Determination?

PLEASE, SIR, PROVIDE ME THE BASIS FOR YOUR DETERMINATION AND INTERPRETATION. IF YOU CANNOT

SUPPORT THESE STATEMENTS WITHOUT DOCUMENTARY SUPPORT, IT MUST BE CONSIDERED THAT YOU

ARE MAKING THIS STUFF UP,AS YOU REPEATEDLY ASSERT THAT YOU FOLLOW THE LAWS, NOT MERELY INTERPRET THEM.

IF YOU FAIL OR REFUSE TO RESPOND, AS YOU HAVE STATED THAT YOU WILL NO LONGER RESPOND,

I WILL,

MOST CERTAINLY REFER THIS TO MY CITY COUNCIL PERSON, TO REQUEST HIS INVOLVEMENT, AND IF ANY INVOLVEMENT REQUIRES SUBSTANTIAL TIME THAT EXCEEDS THE OCTOBER 28TH DEADLINE TO SUBMIT AN

APPEAL, I WILL ADVOCATE THAT HE REQUEST/DEMAND THAT YOU EXTEND THAT DEADLINE IN LIGHT OF YOUR BIAS. AS YOU MAY RECALL, I REQUESTED THAT YOU DELEGATE SOMEONE WHO IS NOT BIASED/ NOT PART OF THE EEE DEPARTMENT, AND CLEARLY, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW THAT TO OCCUR.

PLEASE BEAR IN MIND, THAT I HAVE REPEATEDLY REQUESTED THAT ANGEL SINEYAN, THE SUPERVISING

HOUSING INSPECTOR FOR THE RHSP PROGRAM BE DELEGATED TO STEP IN, SINCE I HAVE REPEATEDLY

STATED THAT THE RHSP PROVIDES FOR EVERY EEE COMPONENT FOR SAFETY PURPOSES, WHICH YOU REFUSE TO CONSIDER.

RENTAL HOUSING SAFETY PROGRAM (RHSP) SELF-CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST (Formerly Schedule A) Website: http://www.berkeleyca.gov (Search: RHSP) Property Address: (Please print legibly and use one form per

3 address/unit.) Street Address: Unit #: DOOR LOCKS Pass N/A All exterior doors open and close properly, latch and lock and unlock easily. All individual apartment entry doors have working deadbolts and entry knobs with dead locking latches.

SMOKE DETECTORS Smoke alarms are installed in each sleeping room, outside of each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedroom(s), and on each occupiable story including basements and habitable attics. All smoke detectors work properly, are less than 10 years old, and the alarm sounds when tested. Hardwired smoke detectors have a functioning battery back-up. CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS & DETECTORS If the building contains a fossil fuel burning heater, appliance, fireplace or attached garage, carbon monoxide (CO) devices are required to be installed in accordance with local building standards and the manufacturer’s installation instructions. See the floor plan in the notes for guidance on location. Operational CO alarms are installed outside of all sleeping areas in the immediate vicinity of each bedroom, in a bedroom where a gas burning appliance is located and on each occupiable level inside the unit including basements and habitable attics. Alarms are current and have not expired per manufacturers date stamp on the unit. HEATING AND WATER HEATERS All heating equipment is operational, in safe working condition and properly maintained. The gas heater is operating normally and is provided with minimum combustion air. For buildings with a thermostat not under the control of the tenants, the temperature setting on the thermostat is set at 68°F minimum. All gas lines are free of leaks and any gaseous odors. (Immediately report gas leaks or gaseous odors to PG&E and owner/manager). All gas lines in the unit have accessible shut-off valves. Water heaters are installed correctly and meet the following requirements: (If the water heaters were installed prior to any of these code requirements, you may check N/A for those line items.) a) Earthquake straps are secured on the bottom ⅓ and the upper ⅓ portions; b) Water heater has a temperature and pressure relief valve. Rigid piping for the TPR valve is installed maintaining a downward slope terminating between 6 and 24 inches above grade; c) A drain pan is installed where damage from a leaking water heater may occur; d) The draft hood to the vent is secured with a minimum of 3 screws and the vent connector slopes upward maintaining a minimum slope of ¼ inch per foot; e) A bond wire is connected between the metal hot and cold water sup ply
lines and gas piping. VENTILATION / WINDOWS Windows open, close and lock easily and can remain open. The windows required for egress in sleeping rooms open completely. If there are security bars on the required emergency egress window, ensure there is
an operable quick release mechanism on the inside. All window glass is in good condition, free of damage and properly sealed at the edges. If bathrooms have fixed windows or no windows, verify the mechanical ventilation system is in working order. APPLIANCES All built-in appliances are in good working condition. Gas stoves are free of odors indicating a gas leak and all indicator lights are working on electric stoves. I RHSP Self-Certification Check List (Schedule A)
ELECTRICAL WIRING Pass N/A Accessible electrical outlets, junction boxes and light switches are functional, secure and all have faceplates in good condition. There are no unprotected exposed electrical wires or electrical cables. All receptacles that have been replaced in the kitchen, bathroom, laundry, garage or in exterior weatherexposed locations, are Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) protected outlets. PLUMBING All faucets are in working condition and all handles, valves, diverters are free of leaks and visible damage. Hot and cold water have sufficient flow. All plumbing and sewer piping drain properly and are free of leaks. Toilets are secure in place, in good working condition and free of leaks.

FIRE EXTINGUISHER (Building with 3 or more units only) Fire extinguishers are provided within a maximum travel distance of 75 feet. Each extinguisher has been tagged and serviced by a state licensed contractor within the last year.

Each fire extinguisher is fully charged, operable and readily available for use. WEATHER PROTECTION Exterior walls, roofs and ceilings are free from leaks. HANDRAIL & GUARDRAIL CONDITION Handrails and guardrails are tightly fastened, sound and in good condition.

INTERIOR STAIRWAY CONDITION Stairways, including treads, risers and landings, are in good condition, adequately fastened, with no damaged, missing or loose structural members.

EXTERIOR ELEVATED DECKS, BALCONIES, STAIRWAYS OR WALKWAYS All elevated wood-framed and steel- framed decks, balconies, landings, stairway systems, walkways, terraces, guardrails, handrails, or any parts thereof in weather-exposed areas at the subject building did not exhibit signs of deterioration, decay, corrosion or similar damage that could pose a safety concern and there was no evidence of active water intrusion in concealed spaces of the inspected elements.

WALKWAYS AND PATHWAYS All exit pathways and stairways are clear of open storage, trash and debris. All electrical fixtures providing lighting and directional signage for the common areas are in working condition. FLOORS & TRIP HAZARDS All floors and floor coverings are free of significant trip hazards due to damage or structural defect. The bathroom floor is finished with a non-absorbent material and is sealed to prevent moisture intrusion. ELECTRICAL PANELS WITH SCREW IN FUSES Are the fuses in the panel box that serve each unit rated at 15 amps or less? For fuse panels with 20 amps or larger fuses, the wiring is sized properly and is capable of handling the load or has been inspected by a licensed electrical contractor. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I certify I have inspected the aforementioned unit and the information above is true and correct. I acknowledge I am required to provide a copy of this Self-Certification Checklist to the tenant(s). I certify I was unable to inspect the aforementioned unit because the tenant(s) refused to allow entry. I agree to send a copy of this checklist to [email protected] or RHSP | 1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor | Berkeley, CA 94704. Name of Certifier (Please print): ___________________________________ Relationship to Property:

4 ________________________________ Owner or Manager
Name____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____ Mailing Address and Phone #:
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Signature and Date: _________________________________________________________

AS YOU CAN SEE, I HAVE COPIED AND HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD BLACK PRINT, THE EXACT SAFETY COMPONENTS AS THE EEE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS.

I WILL BE SENDING THIS LETTER TO MY CITY COUNCIL PERSON AND REQUESTING A MEETING ASAP, TO

DEMONSTRATE YOUR EXCESS OF INTERPRETATION, DETERMINATIONAL EXCESS, AND ABUSE OF EXCESS OF YOUR AUTHORITY, RESPECTFULLY, OF COURSE.

IN SHORT, YOU ARE PROVIDED TOO MUCH AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE ANYTHING YOU WANT, ANY WAY YOU WANT.

AGAIN, PLEASE PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR YOUR ASSERTIONS RELATING TO DISREGARD OF THE RHSP PROTOCOLS, THE UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP EXCEPTION, AND THE "NOT EXPLICITLY COVERED FEE OF $250, WHICH CAN BE ADDRESSED BY A SINGLE PERSON, NOT MULTIPLE STAFF PERSONS FOR MULTIPLE

HOURS, WHICH IS AN INTERPRETATION THAT I BELIEVE IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, RESPECTFULLY, OF COURSE.

VERY TRULY YOURS, ANDREW MAROWITZ 510-356-6813 [email protected] dated october 22nd,2025

On Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 09:39:36 AM PDT, Lopez, David <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Morning Mr. Marowitz,
As Manager, it is my responsibility to remain impartial and avoid providing preferential treatment to anyone, including yourself. What you are requesting would require me to alter established rules for your individual case, and that is not something I can do. My role is to enforce, to the best of my ability, the regulations adopted by the City and the State laws under my jurisdiction.

While the City and State have granted me the authority to administer and interpret these laws and regulations, you do have the right to appeal any determination I have made. Such an appeal is reviewed by an independent hearing body, which will determine whether my interpretation of the regulations in your specific case is correct.

I previously sent you a detailed email on October 9 outlining your available options. We also met recently to review this same information, during which I provided you with a copy of Resolution 71,834—an item you had asserted did not exist.

In your email on Tuesday, you referenced a line item in the City’s fee schedule regarding items that require review and are not explicitly listed, such as Alternate Method applications, Requests for Unreasonable Hardship Exceptions, and Requests for Determinations. Those items are not assigned fixed fees because they are project-specific and billed hourly.

For example, an Alternate Method review may require dozens of staff hours, potentially totaling thousands of dollars.

Unreasonable Hardship Exceptions are specific to accessibility issues in non-residential properties. These items relate to design-based determinations on current proposed construction projects and are not considered appeals.

There is, however, a clearly defined and specific fee titled “Appeal of Building Official Determination,” which applies to your case and represents the correct fixed fee for filing an appeal.

At this point, I believe I have provided you with a thorough explanation of both the E3 Program requirements and the appeal process. Additionally, I have granted an extension to allow you time to determine your next steps.

5 Please let me know which option you intend to pursue.

This will be my final communication on this matter. Continued lengthy or repetitive email exchanges will not be productive, and future correspondence on this subject will not receive a response.

Sincerely,

David A. Lopez
Chief Building Official/Building and Safety Manager
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone:510-981-7441

FRAUD ALERT! Do not provide payment information by telephone. City of Berkeley Building and Safety staff will NEVER call to ask for payment. If you receive such a call, please HANG UP! Email [email protected] about it, and report the fraud attempt to the Berkeley Police Dept. at (510) 981-5900.

This e-mail contains privileged information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken in response to this e-mail is prohibited and unlawful. If you have received this e- mail in error, please notify sender by e-mail and then discard. Thank you for your cooperation.

3 Please consider the environment before you print

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 1:00 PM
To: Lopez, David <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 1615 Fairview Ave.

6 Mr. Lopez: given your busy schedule, and my belief thayt you and perhaps everyone in the EEE department is biased to the EEE protocol, including Mr. Jensen who is the supervisor of Ms Burr, and ridiculos fees, can you consider delegating to an outside staff person, who might attempt to research independently thr answer to the hardship exception criteria?

That person wouldn't have a 3-5 day delay, and which could likely result in the two week period expiring.

That would not be fair, and I think you would agree.

Andrew Marowitz

On Wednesday, October 15, 2025 at 12:21:29 PM PDT, Lopez, David < [email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon Mr. Marowitz,

I appreciate your persistence and the thoroughness of your email communications. Please understand that my schedule is quite full with management responsibilities, and while I will respond as soon as I am able, my replies may take 3 to 5 working days.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Best regards,

David A. Lopez
Chief Building Official/Building and Safety Manager
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone:510-981-7441

FRAUD ALERT! Do not provide payment information by telephone. City of Berkeley Building and Safety staff will NEVER call to ask for payment. If you receive such a call, please HANG UP! Email [email protected] about it, and report the fraud attempt to the Berkeley Police Dept. at (510) 981-5900.

This e-mail contains privileged information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken in response to this e-mail is prohibited and unlawful. If you have received this e- mail in error, please notify sender by e-mail and then discard. Thank you for your cooperation.

3 Please consider the environment before you print

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 11:27 AM

7 To: Lopez, David <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 1615 Fairview Ave.

WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Lopez:

I know that you are trying to steer me to EEE compliance , and therefore not trying to provide full and open cooperation for my continued attempts to Appeal or other alternatives. But I ask that you cooperate with my attempts and be 100 % forthcoming and honest.

I now have , not one , but TWO avenues for strict EEE compliance, and I formally request you to respond appropriately, not biased.

They are as follows:

1) pursuant to your reliance to your City Resolution 71, 834 N.S. In Chapter XVII, on page 5, under Miscellaneous category of your Resolution there exists TWO apparent and obvious avenues of exception. The first being " Items that require review which are not otherwise explicitly covered in the Fee Schedule indicate a fee of $250.

In citing that /referencing that exception, it effectively eliminates you from engaging in interpretation or determination of a $1000 fee for land use. This EEE Appeal is NOT explicitly covered and therefore FALLS within the parameters of this alternate path and fee of $250.

2) The same exact alternate path of exception provides for a "Unreasonable Hardship Exception" appears to provide an alternate path for Exception or some form of either/ or exemption, or fee waiver in its entirety.

That said, what are the specific guidelines for this Exception? What is/are the criteria that creates and provides for that Exception/exemption?

I do not want to rely on any interpretation(s) that you may elect to exercise or implement. This should be documented and readily available.

If the specific criteria is not a specified as a part of this resolution, then I nwould ask that you delegate/assign this request for specific criteria to someone OTHER THAN YOU, as I see you as 100% biased, even with the 2 week pause, which is still rooted in unwavering insistence of compliance with the standard EEE provisions.

Please respond and do not defer or fail to respond to this request for information that will tend to lead to alternative paths from EEE compliance.

Because time is a important consideration, please respond ASAP.

Thank you, Andrew Marowitz [email protected]

On Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at 05:51:54 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz < [email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Lopez, ,I refer you to Chapter XVII on page 5 of the 71,834 N.S.

"not explicitly described service shall be a fee of $250 (and not allowq you the discretion or interpretation of the $1000 Appeal fee. )

Please respond to this basis for the Appeal.

I included that issue in the follow up email, of which you have not reviewed or responded to.

Andrew Marowitz
On Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at 05:37:34 PM PDT, Lopez, David < [email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon Mr. Marowitz,

8 Thank you for stopping by our offices. I believe we had a productive meeting.

As discussed in our meeting, I am writing to summarize our agreement and next steps.

Thank you for describing and confirming the existing E3 components of the building, and for acknowledging that State Law does not allow for owner self-certification or exemptions for owner-occupied units.

I will place a two-week hold on any further actions by the Building and Safety Division regarding potential citations. During this time, you may choose one of the following options:

1. Appeal the Building Officials determination regarding the applicability of the E3 Program to owner-occupied units (as outlined in my email sent Thursday, October 9, 2025, at 4:38 PM). o Please note that an appeal requires a $1,000 fee and a written letter containing the information specified in BMC 19.44.040.

2. Submit a completed Exterior Elevated Elements Inspection Program Certification Form. o As noted in my October 9 email, you must confirm that a licensed professional—compliant with State Law—has been retained to perform the inspection. This confirmation can be provided by either:
ƒ A copy of your signed contract with the licensed professional, or ƒ An email thread with the professional confirming the scheduled inspection date.

As we concluded our meeting, you mentioned that you would most likely retain the services of a contractor to perform the inspection and provide the required certification. Whichever option you decide, please confirm your intended course of action within the two-week hold period.

Sincerely,

David A. Lopez
Chief Building Official/Building and Safety Manager
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone:510-981-7441

FRAUD ALERT! Do not provide payment information by telephone. City of Berkeley Building and Safety staff will NEVER call to ask for payment. If you receive such a call, please HANG UP! Email [email protected] about it, and report the fraud attempt to the Berkeley Police Dept. at (510) 981-5900.

This e-mail contains privileged information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken in response to this e-mail is prohibited and unlawful. If you have received this e- mail in error, please notify sender by e-mail and then discard. Thank you for your cooperation.

3 Please consider the environment before you print

1 Burr, Galadriel
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 3:21 PM
To: Lopez, David
Subject: Re: 1615 Fairview
WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Lopez:

if you look at
Chapter XVII,page 5 Miscelaneous you will see a detail which states "For items that require review and which are not otherwise explicitly coveredin Fee Schedule, such as Altrnate method applications, Requests for Unreasonable Hardship Exceptions, Requests for Determinations ,etc." has/have a Fee of $250.

I submit that the Appeal is exctly a fit for this Appeal.

The Appeal is not explicitly addressed, not to mention hardship exceptions.

This is not an interpretation, by you as you have liberally exercised as Appeal of a land use hearing Appeal, It is not explicitly covered.

Andrew Marowitz

On Wednesday, October 8, 2025 at 03:27:53 PM PDT, Lopez, David <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon Mr. Marowitz,

I want to inform you that Ms. Burr has forwarded me all your communications. I will be responding to you in the next several days.

I know you are being insistent for a response but rest assured I will respond. Please discontinue sending emails to Ms.

Burr.

Regards,

2 David A. Lopez
Chief Building Official/Building and Safety Manager
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone:510-981-7441

FRAUD ALERT! Do not provide payment information by telephone. City of Berkeley Building and Safety staff will NEVER call to ask for payment. If you receive such a call, please HANG UP! Email [email protected] about it, and report the fraud attempt to the Berkeley Police Dept. at (510) 981-5900.

This e-mail contains privileged information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken in response to this e-mail is prohibited and unlawful. If you have received this e- mail in error, please notify sender by e-mail and then discard. Thank you for your cooperation.

3 Please consider the environment before you print

1 Burr, Galadriel
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 12:22 PM
To: Lopez, David
Subject: Re: E3 requirements for 1615 Fairview St.

Mr. Lopez:

It occurs to me,.and I will document for the record that 1) You stated that I admittred to EEE needs. I asked that you provide that email, and you refused (silently) 2) You stated that in my emails, I provided photographs of the EEE issues. I asked that you provide the email with the photos, and you refused to provide that email (silently). 3) You stated ,falsely that RHSP deals only with habitsability, when ,in fact the Rental Housing SAFETY program provides certification by Owner for SAFETY, including but not limited to vEEE and handrails, etc.

It is perfectly clear to me that you are staging your responses to slant any Appeal I submit. 4) You cited City of Berkeley rule 71,834 N.S. to impose a $1000 Appeal fee. And here, again, there is no such rule, and that you deliberately misled me, in your coercion to force me to pay $1000 for an Appeal Fee for a NON LAND USE APPEAL.

Clearly, you are BIASED and should be held strictly accountable for your unconscionable bad conduct.. You speak of respect, but, you have communicated cordially, but with lies, with fact manipulation, with misrepresentation, and if that is not disrespect and thuggery, I do not know the meaning of disrespect and deliberate misrepresentation. You should be apologetic and regretful of your contemptible conduct.

I will forward this to City Council, and you should be recused for providing false responses repeatedly

On Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at 09:20:46 AM PDT, Lopez, David <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Morning Mr. Marowitz,

You would submit the appeal letter at our office

1947 Center Street, 3
rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704

The appeal fee per City Council approved resolution 71,834 N.S. is $1000.00.

The code reference you provide is correct. The catalyst code section is in BMC 19.28.010 section 113.1 which then refers you to BMC 19.44.020 of which body will hear the appeal and then under the same BMC title is what is requried in an appeal letter BMC 19.44.040. A letter from you that has all the information you listed below is adequate.

2 When you arrive please let the welcome station person know your name and that I am expecting you. I am not available from 10 to noon.

Regards,

David A. Lopez
Chief Building Official/Building and Safety Manager
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone:510-981-7441

FRAUD ALERT! Do not provide payment information by telephone. City of Berkeley Building and Safety staff will NEVER call to ask for payment. If you receive such a call, please HANG UP! Email [email protected] about it, and report the fraud attempt to the Berkeley Police Dept. at (510) 981-5900.

This e-mail contains privileged information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken in response to this e-mail is prohibited and unlawful. If you have received this e- mail in error, please notify sender by e-mail and then discard. Thank you for your cooperation.

3 Please consider the environment before you print

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 8:05 PM
To: Lopez, David <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: E3 requirements for 1615 Fairview St.

3 WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Lopez:

As of NOW, I have completed preparation of the form for Appeal, specifically, the REQUEST FOR HEARING ON ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION.

IT INDICATES THAT I MUST PAY THE APPEAL FEE IN ADVANCE, BUT THUS FAR, I DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH THAT FEE IS, SINCE YOU NOR MS. BURR HAVE DISCLOSED THAT INFORMATION.

AGAIN, WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THE APPEAL HEARING, SO THAT I CAN INCLUDE A CHECK FOR THAT AMOUNT?

I WILL BE HAND DELIVERING THE HEARING REQUEST FOR APPEAL ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 15TH,. TO THE FINANCE CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER AT 1947 CENTER ST., AS REFERENCED IN THE FORM FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING REQUEST.

Form of Appeal. Any person entitled to service under Section 1101 of the Berkeley Housing Code may appeal any notice and order or any action of the Building Official under this code by filing at the Office of the Building Official a written appeal containing:

iT APPEARS THAT I AM TO SUBMIT MY APPEAL REQUEST TO THE OFFICE OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. APPARENTLY, THAT IS YOU.

AND ,APPRENTLY THE FORM I HAVE PREPARED IS NOT THE CORRECT FORM. PURSUANT TO BMC 1944.040, I AM SUPPOSED TO CREATE MY OWN APPEAL REQUEST FORM.

1. A heading in the words: "Before the Housing Advisory Commission of the City of Berkeley"

2. A caption reading: "Appeals of........," giving the names of all appellants participating in the appeal.

3. A brief statement setting forth the legal interest of each of the appellants in the building of the land involved in the notice and order.

4. A brief statement in ordinary and concise language of that specific order or action protested, together with any material facts claimed to support the contentions of the appellant.

5. A brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the relief sought and the reasons why it is claimed the protested order or action should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside.

4 6. The signatures of all parties named as appellants and their official mailing addresses.

7. The verification (by declaration under penalty of perjury) of at least one appellant as to the truth of the matters stated in the appeal.

I will be coming to 1947 Center St. on Tuesday, October 14th,2025. If you could update me as to the most appropriate room/suite/ office, so that I know exactly where to submit my request for Appeal. Thank you.

Very Truly Yours, Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813 Owner and Sole Occupant 1615 Fairview St. Berkeley CA 94703

8 Mr. Lopez:

I ask you again, how much is the Appeal Fee AND where or who do I submit my Appeal to? Time is of the essence now, since I am six days from the deadline and Monday is another holiday for the City of Berkeley.

Please inform me as soon as possible/ not later than Tuesday.

I believe that I'm being reasonable and honest. Are you?

Please respond.

Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813

On Friday, October 10, 2025 at 08:16:52 AM PDT, Andrew Marowitz < [email protected]> wrote:

What is the precise dollar amount for the fee imposed to file an Appeal in the EEE debate?

cer·ti·fi·ca·tion
/ˌsərdəfəˈkāSHən/
To help
po t e c t y o u
pv a c y
Mic o so ft
Office
pe v e ne d
au o ma c
download of
th i s p i c e
fo m t h
In e ne

noun

NORTH AMERICAN ENGLISH

1. 2.

3. the action or process of providing someone or something with an official document attesting to a status or level of achievement. "a fundamental requirement for organic certification"
o an official document attesting to a status or level of achievement. plural noun: certifications
"graduates who want to gain industry-recognized certifications o
o Why can't an Owner " Certify" the level of safety? Do you think an owner will lie and put himself in a position to be sued for falsifyiing and a serious accident occurs from a handrail disconnecting? o What are the odds of that occurring?
o About a 1000 times less than a balcony collapsing because 10 people are all in a balcony exceeding the limits of the structure. 10 people of adult size amounts to at least 1500 pounds, if not 1800 pounds, on one wood based balcony. Is that considered a safety hazard/ safe? How about a telephone booth?
o

9 o Why is a handrail which is located on the second floor landing , calculated as being above six feet from the ground? why not within 6 feet from the landing? Does that make sense? Not in my reality, but maybe in an agenda to impose authority and fees, such an interpretation is somehow justifiable.

4. Andrew Marowitz

On Thursday, October 9, 2025 at 10:06:32 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz < [email protected]> wrote:

Sorry, another point.

You state "The building at 1615 Fairview is considered an R-2 Occupancy building and, by your own admission on several occasions, you have confirmed that there are existing E3 components on the building that need to be certified. The pictures in one of your documents confirms that E3 elements exist on your building.

What about the fact that the City of Berkeley refuses to allow me to downsize to a single familiy dwelling? How unfair is that? Where is my control of my own property. It doesn't exist. I would downsize to R1.

What components did I confirm that need to be certified? What photods in one of my documents confirm that E3 elements exist in my building. Please provide ththose pictures ASAP. I do not recall ever providing pictures.

Andrew Marowitz

On Thursday, October 9, 2025 at 04:37:45 PM PDT, Lopez, David < [email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Mr. Marowitz,
Your numerous recent communications have been forwarded to me by staff. I understand that you were frustrated while awaiting my response.

First, I must address the tone of your communications to staff. Your messages have been unprofessional and discourteous. This is unacceptable. If similar communications continue, I will cease direct correspondence and refer the matter to my Director. City staff must be treated with respect.

Second, the information provided to you by Ms. Burr—both by email and in person—is accurate. She has reviewed your case with me, and I have confirmed that her guidance reflects the City’s interpretation of applicable codes.

To clarify the matter: this is my formal determination. If you disagree, you may appeal my interpretation of the code in accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Title 19.28.020, Section 113 and 19.44. The notice of appeal shall be filed, along with the payment of the appeal fee, at my office within 30 days of this email and must contain the information listed in BMC Section 19.44.40.

1. There seems to be some confusion and comingling of Berkeley Municipal Code programs in your communications. You frequently refer to RHSP when addressing E3 compliance concerns. The two programs are two different and distinct programs. Ms. Burr is not associated with RHSP. She is only associated with the E3 program.

a. The Rental Housing Safety Program is tasked with enforcing the housing code and the City requires that all rental units in the City of Berkeley be inspected for conformance to the housing code per BMC 19.40.

The authority is provided by the State under California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 1.5

10 Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation, Sections 17910, 17920, and 17970, and other housing related Codes as adopted by the City.

i. Owner-occupied units are exempt from RHSP inspections because the program’s intent is to protect tenants from substandard housing conditions.

b. The Exterior Elevated Elements Program is tasked with enforcing State law found under California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 1.5 Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation, Section 17973. The authority is given to us under BMC 19.40.040. The BMC requires, that all “projecting exterior elevated wood and metal decks, balconies, landings, stairway systems, guardrails, handrails, or any parts thereof in weather-exposed areas of Group R-1 and R-2 Occupancies, as defined in the most recent edition of the California Building Code, shall be inspected within six months of adoption of this section, and every six years thereafter…..” State law says, “Exterior elevated elements that include load-bearing components in all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units shall be inspected.” Multifamily dwelling unit building is defined as housing where multiple separate dwelling units for residential inhabitants are contained within one building. i. Buildings that contain three or more dwelling units are classified as R-2 occupancy buildings. The building at 1615 Fairview is considered an R- 2 Occupancy building and it has been confirmed that the building contains three or more dwelling units. ii. Both State law and City law do not exempt dwelling units that are owner occupied. Even condominium buildings with 3 or more condominiums, considered an R-2 occupancy, are required to certify that existing E3 elements are certified safe per California Civil Code Division 4, Part 5, Chapter 7, Article 3 Section 5551. Condominiums are for the most part owner occupied.

To answer your question of why aren’t the EEE protocols addressed exactly the same way?
Nowhere in the E3 laws does it give the City any authority to exempt owner occupied dwellings in an R-2 building. The history of the program started when the tragic incident occurred on June 16, 2015 when the exterior balcony collapsed and 6 young people died and 7 others were injured. Immediately after, the City passed an emergency ordinance to require all E3 components in R-2 buildings to be inspected and certified. The State followed suit, and California regulations were signed into law requiring that E3 elements in R-2 buildings be inspected and certified. When an E3 component fails it can kill or injure the person using the E3 component. For this reason, E3 protocols are not addressed in the manner you would like. RHSP guidelines do not apply to the E3 program.

Regarding your insistence that the building is not an R-2 building and should be considered a family building: all our records and by your own admission clearly indicate that your building is a 4 unit building which is considered an R2 occupancy. Berkeley law uses the definition in the Berkeley Building Code to define R-2 buildings. Dwelling units in R-2 buildings are not exempt regardless of who lives in the dwelling or whether the units are vacant.

Regarding your insistence that you, as an owner, should be able to self-inspect your own property: State law is clear in who is to perform the inspection. Per California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part

1.5 Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation, Section 17973, “The inspection shall be performed by a licensed architect; licensed civil or structural engineer; a building contractor holding any or all of the “A,” “B,” or “C-5” license classifications issued by the Contractors State License Board, with a

11 minimum of five years’ experience, as a holder of the aforementioned classifications or licenses, in constructing multistory wood frame buildings; or an individual certified as a building inspector or building official from a recognized state, national, or international association, as determined by the local jurisdiction.” State law prohibits the owner from self-certifying their E3 components.

In conclusion:

The building at 1615 Fairview is considered an R-2 Occupancy building and, by your own admission on several occasions, you have confirmed that there are existing E3 components on the building that need to be certified. The pictures in one of your documents confirms that E3 elements exist on your building. You have been issued a Citation Warning Letter for not complying with State and City laws. In the warning letter (attached) you have been given a deadline of October 16th to provide a completed and signed, by the retained professional, the Exterior Elevated Elements Inspection Program Inspection Certification form. If this does not occur, citations will be levied. I do have the authority to provide a onetime extension on when the form will be due. If you confirm that you have hired a licensed professional, compliant with State Law, by either sending me a copy of your signed contract with the licensed professional -or- an email thread with the professional confirming the date of their scheduled inspection and that you will be sending me a completed and signed inspection certification form, I will extend the due date for us receiving the form to November 14th.

If the certification does indicate that corrective work is required, then apply for a building permit within 120 days of the date signed on the form, respond to plan check comments within 10 days of the date of the correction letter, obtain a building permit within 10 days of notification of plan approval and complete all work within 120 days of permit issuance.

Regards,

David A. Lopez
Chief Building Official/Building and Safety Manager
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone:510-981-7441

FRAUD ALERT! Do not provide payment information by telephone. City of Berkeley Building and Safety staff will NEVER call to ask for payment. If you receive such a call, please HANG UP! Email [email protected] about it, and report the fraud attempt to the Berkeley Police Dept. at (510) 981-5900.

This e-mail contains privileged information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken in response to this e-mail is prohibited and unlawful. If you have received this e- mail in error, please notify sender by e-mail and then discard. Thank you for your cooperation.

3 Please consider the environment before you print

1 Burr, Galadriel
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:27 AM
To: Lopez, David
Subject: Re: E3 requirements for 1615 Fairview St.

Mr. Lopez:

I have forwarded our emails to a City Council staff person for review, while complaining on the arbitrary imposition of the Appeal Fee for a non land use EEE Appeal being $1000, the same on non compliance penalty.

She is reviewing, and depending on what she preliminarily concludes, will be calling you, and perhaps, the Planning Director, if and as needed.

Again, to impose a $1000 Appeal fee for EEE, a non-land use Appeal , and for a Rule that apparently doesn't exist, is the building director acting with Bias and bully like tactics.

Please respond. I will be delivering the Appeal WITHOUT a fee at this time, and we can decide what is appropriate. To reject my timely Appeal , due to no Appeal fee would not be fair, in light of the dispute of the amount of the Appeal fee .

Andrew Marowitz

On Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at 10:38:07 AM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Lopez:

There are clear indications that the City of Berkeley does not want to impose such a high sanction that it deters, and discourages an Appeal.

It appears by you imposing a $1000 Appeal fee, that you are willfully setting the table to discourage me from Appealing.

This is contrary to the City of Berkeley protocols not to deter Appeals. Further, this /my Appeal is NOT a land use Appeal, it is Appealing the protocols of thE EEE enforcement, not a land use Appeal. It is clear to me that you are unwaveringly BIASED, Prejudiced and cannot be trusted to be fair and impartial. You have ,again, misrepresented the truth, by referencing the fee for a land use Appeal. I request that you recuse yourself, and assign someone who can be fair, impartial AND HONEST.

Moreover, I researched your citation. It states "
------
"The claim that the City of Berkeley's appeal fee is $1,000 per Resolution 71,834 N.S. is misleading.

The $1,000 fee is the reduced cost for a specific type of land-use appeal, and the actual fee varies depending on the type of decision being appealed and who is filing the appeal. No record of Resolution 71,834 N.S. could be found, suggesting the reference is either outdated, incorrect, or applies to a different department".

Here are the accurate details on appeal fees for planning and land use decisions in Berkeley:

Land use and zoning appeals
For appeals regarding decisions made by the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) or the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), the fee structure for non-applicants is:

2 x Standard fee: $3,000.
x Reduced fee: $1,000. To qualify for this rate, the appeal must be signed by at least 50% of the parcels or dwelling units within 300 feet of the project site, or 25 such persons (excluding dependent children), whichever is less.

Other appeal types
The City of Berkeley lists several other appeal fees, all of which are subject to change by city council resolution:
x Administrative Use Permit (AUP) decisions:
o Standard fee: $2,000.
o Reduced fee: $800, which requires the signatures of at least 35% of the parcels or dwelling units within 300 feet of the project site, or 20 such people (whichever is less). x Design review decisions: $2,000 for non-applicants.
x Administrative citation appeals: To appeal a citation, you must pay an advanced deposit of the fine amount. Fee waivers are available for those with financial hardship. x Right-of-way permit appeals: The fee is set by a resolution of the City Council. Waivers can be requested to ensure equal access to the appeals process.

Key takeaways
x Resolution 71,834 N.S. is not the current source of authority for these fees. A more recent city council resolution amends the Land Use Planning Division fee schedule. x The $1,000 fee is a specific discounted rate for land-use appeals, not the default cost. x The applicable appeal fee depends on the type of decision and the number of people involved in the appeal.
x Always check the official City of Berkeley website for the most current fee information, as it is subject to change.
x Filing an Appeal on a Zoning or Land Use Decision
Filing an Appeal on a Zoning or Land Use Decision. Learn how to appeal a project. Discover the timeline and costs. Anyone may appe...

3 The City of Berkeley (.gov)
x 16.10.150 Appeals - Berkeley Municipal Code
This section is included in your selections. * A. An applicant for a PROW permit under this Chapter or any resident or owner of pr...

Berkeley Municipal Code
x Resolution - City Council Report ##-##-####
Mar 11, 2025 — This policy implements Council and community-identified goals to prevent and reverse displacement from Berkeley, as we...

The City of Berkeley (.gov)
Show all

On Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at 09:20:46 AM PDT, Lopez, David <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Morning Mr. Marowitz,

You would submit the appeal letter at our office

1947 Center Street, 3
rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704

The appeal fee per City Council approved resolution 71,834 N.S. is $1000.00.

The code reference you provide is correct. The catalyst code section is in BMC 19.28.010 section 113.1 which then refers you to BMC 19.44.020 of which body will hear the appeal and then under the same BMC title is what is requried in an appeal letter BMC 19.44.040. A letter from you that has all the information you listed below is adequate.

When you arrive please let the welcome station person know your name and that I am expecting you. I am not available from 10 to noon.

Regards,

4 David A. Lopez
Chief Building Official/Building and Safety Manager
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone:510-981-7441

FRAUD ALERT! Do not provide payment information by telephone. City of Berkeley Building and Safety staff will NEVER call to ask for payment. If you receive such a call, please HANG UP! Email [email protected] about it, and report the fraud attempt to the Berkeley Police Dept. at (510) 981-5900.

This e-mail contains privileged information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken in response to this e-mail is prohibited and unlawful. If you have received this e- mail in error, please notify sender by e-mail and then discard. Thank you for your cooperation.

3 Please consider the environment before you print

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 8:05 PM
To: Lopez, David <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: E3 requirements for 1615 Fairview St.

WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Lopez:

5 As of NOW, I have completed preparation of the form for Appeal, specifically, the REQUEST FOR HEARING ON ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION.

IT INDICATES THAT I MUST PAY THE APPEAL FEE IN ADVANCE, BUT THUS FAR, I DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH THAT FEE IS, SINCE YOU NOR MS. BURR HAVE DISCLOSED THAT INFORMATION.

AGAIN, WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THE APPEAL HEARING, SO THAT I CAN INCLUDE A CHECK FOR THAT AMOUNT?

I WILL BE HAND DELIVERING THE HEARING REQUEST FOR APPEAL ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 15TH,. TO THE FINANCE CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER AT 1947 CENTER ST., AS REFERENCED IN THE FORM FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING REQUEST.

Form of Appeal. Any person entitled to service under Section 1101 of the Berkeley Housing Code may appeal any notice and order or any action of the Building Official under this code by filing at the Office of the Building Official a written appeal containing:

iT APPEARS THAT I AM TO SUBMIT MY APPEAL REQUEST TO THE OFFICE OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. APPARENTLY, THAT IS YOU.

AND ,APPRENTLY THE FORM I HAVE PREPARED IS NOT THE CORRECT FORM. PURSUANT TO BMC 1944.040, I AM SUPPOSED TO CREATE MY OWN APPEAL REQUEST FORM.

1. A heading in the words: "Before the Housing Advisory Commission of the City of Berkeley"

2. A caption reading: "Appeals of........," giving the names of all appellants participating in the appeal.

3. A brief statement setting forth the legal interest of each of the appellants in the building of the land involved in the notice and order.

4. A brief statement in ordinary and concise language of that specific order or action protested, together with any material facts claimed to support the contentions of the appellant.

5. A brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the relief sought and the reasons why it is claimed the protested order or action should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside.

6. The signatures of all parties named as appellants and their official mailing addresses.

7. The verification (by declaration under penalty of perjury) of at least one appellant as to the truth of the matters stated i n the appeal.

6 I will be coming to 1947 Center St. on Tuesday, October 14th,2025. If you could update me as to the most appropriate room/suite/ office, so that I know exactly where to submit my request for Appeal. Thank you.

Very Truly Yours, Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813 Owner and Sole Occupant 1615 Fairview St. Berkeley CA 94703

9 On Friday, October 10, 2025 at 06:37:22 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz < [email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Lopez:

10 I ask you again, how much is the Appeal Fee AND where or who do I submit my Appeal to? Time is of the essence now, since I am six days from the deadline and Monday is another holiday for the City of Berkeley.

Please inform me as soon as possible/ not later than Tuesday.

I believe that I'm being reasonable and honest. Are you?

Please respond.

Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813

On Friday, October 10, 2025 at 08:16:52 AM PDT, Andrew Marowitz < [email protected]> wrote:

What is the precise dollar amount for the fee imposed to file an Appeal in the EEE debate?

cer·ti·fi·ca·tion
/ˌsərdəfəˈkāSHən/
To help
po t e c t y o u
pv a c y
Mic o so ft
Office
pe v e ne d
au o ma c
download of
th i s p i c e
fo m t h
In e ne

noun

NORTH AMERICAN ENGLISH

1. 2.

3. the action or process of providing someone or something with an official document attesting to a status or level of achievement. "a fundamental requirement for organic certification"
o an official document attesting to a status or level of achievement. plural noun: certifications
"graduates who want to gain industry-recognized certifications o
o Why can't an Owner " Certify" the level of safety? Do you think an owner will lie and put himself in a position to be sued for falsifyiing and a serious accident occurs from a handrail disconnecting? o What are the odds of that occurring?
o About a 1000 times less than a balcony collapsing because 10 people are all in a balcony exceeding the limits of the structure. 10 people of adult size amounts to at least 1500 pounds, if not 1800 pounds, on one wood based balcony. Is that considered a safety hazard/ safe? How about a telephone booth?
o
o Why is a handrail which is located on the second floor landing , calculated as being above six feet from the ground? why not within 6 feet from the landing? Does that make sense? Not in my reality, but maybe in an agenda to impose authority and fees, such an interpretation is somehow justifiable.

4. Andrew Marowitz

11 On Thursday, October 9, 2025 at 10:06:32 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz < [email protected]> wrote:

Sorry, another point.

You state "The building at 1615 Fairview is considered an R-2 Occupancy building and, by your own admission on several occasions, you have confirmed that there are existing E3 components on the building that need to be certified. The pictures in one of your documents confirms that E3 elements exist on your building.

What about the fact that the City of Berkeley refuses to allow me to downsize to a single familiy dwelling? How unfair is that? Where is my control of my own property. It doesn't exist. I would downsize to R1.

What components did I confirm that need to be certified? What photods in one of my documents confirm that E3 elements exist in my building. Please provide ththose pictures ASAP. I do not recall ever providing pictures.

Andrew Marowitz

On Thursday, October 9, 2025 at 04:37:45 PM PDT, Lopez, David < [email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Mr. Marowitz,
Your numerous recent communications have been forwarded to me by staff. I understand that you were frustrated while awaiting my response.

First, I must address the tone of your communications to staff. Your messages have been unprofessional and discourteous. This is unacceptable. If similar communications continue, I will cease direct correspondence and refer the matter to my Director. City staff must be treated with respect.

Second, the information provided to you by Ms. Burr—both by email and in person—is accurate. She has reviewed your case with me, and I have confirmed that her guidance reflects the City’s interpretation of applicable codes.

To clarify the matter: this is my formal determination. If you disagree, you may appeal my interpretation of the code in accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Title 19.28.020, Section 113 and 19.44. The notice of appeal shall be filed, along with the payment of the appeal fee, at my office within 30 days of this email and must contain the information listed in BMC Section 19.44.40.

1. There seems to be some confusion and comingling of Berkeley Municipal Code programs in your communications. You frequently refer to RHSP when addressing E3 compliance concerns. The two programs are two different and distinct programs. Ms. Burr is not associated with RHSP. She is only associated with the E3 program.

a. The Rental Housing Safety Program is tasked with enforcing the housing code and the City requires that all rental units in the City of Berkeley be inspected for conformance to the housing code per BMC 19.40.

The authority is provided by the State under California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 1.5 Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation, Sections 17910, 17920, and 17970, and other housing related Codes as adopted by the City.

i. Owner-occupied units are exempt from RHSP inspections because the program’s intent is to protect tenants from substandard housing conditions.

12 b. The Exterior Elevated Elements Program is tasked with enforcing State law found under California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 1.5 Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation, Section 17973. The authority is given to us under BMC 19.40.040. The BMC requires, that all “projecting exterior elevated wood and metal decks, balconies, landings, stairway systems, guardrails, handrails, or any parts thereof in weather-exposed areas of Group R-1 and R-2 Occupancies, as defined in the most recent edition of the California Building Code, shall be inspected within six months of adoption of this section, and every six years thereafter…..” State law says, “Exterior elevated elements that include load-bearing components in all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units shall be inspected.” Multifamily dwelling unit building is defined as housing where multiple separate dwelling units for residential inhabitants are contained within one building. i. Buildings that contain three or more dwelling units are classified as R-2 occupancy buildings. The building at 1615 Fairview is considered an R- 2 Occupancy building and it has been confirmed that the building contains three or more dwelling units. ii. Both State law and City law do not exempt dwelling units that are owner occupied. Even condominium buildings with 3 or more condominiums, considered an R-2 occupancy, are required to certify that existing E3 elements are certified safe per California Civil Code Division 4, Part 5, Chapter 7, Article 3 Section 5551. Condominiums are for the most part owner occupied.

To answer your question of why aren’t the EEE protocols addressed exactly the same way?
Nowhere in the E3 laws does it give the City any authority to exempt owner occupied dwellings in an R-2 building. The history of the program started when the tragic incident occurred on June 16, 2015 when the exterior balcony collapsed and 6 young people died and 7 others were injured. Immediately after, the City passed an emergency ordinance to require all E3 components in R-2 buildings to be inspected and certified. The State followed suit, and California regulations were signed into law requiring that E3 elements in R-2 buildings be inspected and certified. When an E3 component fails it can kill or injure the person using the E3 component. For this reason, E3 protocols are not addressed in the manner you would like. RHSP guidelines do not apply to the E3 program.

Regarding your insistence that the building is not an R-2 building and should be considered a family building: all our records and by your own admission clearly indicate that your building is a 4 unit building which is considered an R2 occupancy. Berkeley law uses the definition in the Berkeley Building Code to define R-2 buildings. Dwelling units in R-2 buildings are not exempt regardless of who lives in the dwelling or whether the units are vacant.

Regarding your insistence that you, as an owner, should be able to self-inspect your own property: State law is clear in who is to perform the inspection. Per California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part

1.5 Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation, Section 17973, “The inspection shall be performed by a licensed architect; licensed civil or structural engineer; a building contractor holding any or all of the “A,” “B,” or “C-5” license classifications issued by the Contractors State License Board, with a minimum of five years’ experience, as a holder of the aforementioned classifications or licenses, in constructing multistory wood frame buildings; or an individual certified as a building inspector or building official from a recognized state, national, or international association, as determined by the local jurisdiction.” State law prohibits the owner from self-certifying their E3 components.

In conclusion:

13 The building at 1615 Fairview is considered an R-2 Occupancy building and, by your own admission on several occasions, you have confirmed that there are existing E3 components on the building that need to be certified. The pictures in one of your documents confirms that E3 elements exist on your building. You have been issued a Citation Warning Letter for not complying with State and City laws. In the warning letter (attached) you have been given a deadline of October 16th to provide a completed and signed, by the retained professional, the Exterior Elevated Elements Inspection Program Inspection Certification form. If this does not occur, citations will be levied. I do have the authority to provide a onetime extension on when the form will be due. If you confirm that you have hired a licensed professional, compliant with State Law, by either sending me a copy of your signed contract with the licensed professional -or- an email thread with the professional confirming the date of their scheduled inspection and that you will be sending me a completed and signed inspection certification form, I will extend the due date for us receiving the form to November 14th.

If the certification does indicate that corrective work is required, then apply for a building permit within 120 days of the date signed on the form, respond to plan check comments within 10 days of the date of the correction letter, obtain a building permit within 10 days of notification of plan approval and complete all work within 120 days of permit issuance.

Regards,

David A. Lopez
Chief Building Official/Building and Safety Manager
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone:510-981-7441

FRAUD ALERT! Do not provide payment information by telephone. City of Berkeley Building and Safety staff will NEVER call to ask for payment. If you receive such a call, please HANG UP! Email [email protected] about it, and report the fraud attempt to the Berkeley Police Dept. at (510) 981-5900.

This e-mail contains privileged information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken in response to this e-mail is prohibited and unlawful. If you have received this e- mail in error, please notify sender by e-mail and then discard. Thank you for your cooperation.

3 Please consider the environment before you print

1 Burr, Galadriel
From: Lopez, David <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 9:21 AM
To: 'Andrew Marowitz'
Cc: Jensen, Jeff
Subject: RE: E3 requirements for 1615 Fairview St.

Good Morning Mr. Marowitz,

You would submit the appeal letter at our office

1947 Center Street, 3
rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704

The appeal fee per City Council approved resolution 71,834 N.S. is $1000.00.

The code reference you provide is correct. The catalyst code section is in BMC 19.28.010 section 113.1 which then refers you to BMC 19.44.020 of which body will hear the appeal and then under the same BMC title is what is requried in an appeal letter BMC 19.44.040. A letter from you that has all the information you listed below is adequate.

When you arrive please let the welcome station person know your name and that I am expecting you.

I am not available from 10 to noon.

Regards,

David A. Lopez
Chief Building Official/Building and Safety Manager
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone:510-981-7441

FRAUD ALERT! Do not provide payment information by telephone. City of Berkeley Building and Safety staff will NEVER call to ask for payment. If you receive such a call, please HANG UP! Email [email protected] about it, and report the fraud attempt to the Berkeley Police Dept. at (510) 981-5900.

This e-mail contains privileged information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken in response to this e-mail is prohibited and unlawful. If you have received this e- mail in error, please notify sender by e-mail and then discard. Thank you for your cooperation.

3 Please consider the environment before you print

1 Burr, Galadriel
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 8:57 AM
To: Lopez, David
Subject: Re: E3 requirements for 1615 Fairview St.

WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Lopez:

It is now 8:45 am on Tuesday, October 14th, 2025. I am preparing to hand deliver my completed Appeal for Request of Administrative Hearing, and do not know where I should deliver it, and here at my computer expecting you to provide instructions.

I have also included a copy of the RHSP self certification checklist, which includes the Elevated Exterior Decks, Balconies, landings and handrails on the rear page. This should provide a reasonable basis for Appeal.

Waiting for your email to advise me where to deliver my Appeal ASAP. If I do not receive any communication withoin one hour, I will go to the 3rd floor of 1947 Center street and ask the guy at the front counter. Maybe he will be able to advise me.

Please respond ASAP.

Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813

On Friday, October 10, 2025 at 08:04:43 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Lopez:

As of NOW, I have completed preparation of the form for Appeal, specifically, the REQUEST FOR HEARING ON ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION.

IT INDICATES THAT I MUST PAY THE APPEAL FEE IN ADVANCE, BUT THUS FAR, I DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH THAT FEE IS, SINCE YOU NOR MS. BURR HAVE DISCLOSED THAT INFORMATION.

AGAIN, WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THE APPEAL HEARING, SO THAT I CAN INCLUDE A CHECK FOR THAT AMOUNT?

I WILL BE HAND DELIVERING THE HEARING REQUEST FOR APPEAL ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 15TH,. TO THE FINANCE CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER AT 1947 CENTER ST., AS REFERENCED IN THE FORM FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING REQUEST.

Form of Appeal. Any person entitled to service under Section 1101 of the Berkeley Housing Code may appeal any notice and order or any action of the Building Official under this code by filing at the Office of the Building Official a written appeal containing:

iT APPEARS THAT I AM TO SUBMIT MY APPEAL REQUEST TO THE OFFICE OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. APPARENTLY, THAT IS YOU.

AND ,APPRENTLY THE FORM I HAVE PREPARED IS NOT THE CORRECT FORM. PURSUANT TO BMC 1944.040, I AM SUPPOSED TO CREATE MY OWN APPEAL REQUEST FORM.

2 1. A heading in the words: "Before the Housing Advisory Commission of the City of Berkeley"

2. A caption reading: "Appeals of........," giving the names of all appellants participating in the appeal.

3. A brief statement setting forth the legal interest of each of the appellants in the building of the land involved in the notice and order.

4. A brief statement in ordinary and concise language of that specific order or action protested, together with any material facts claimed to support the contentions of the appellant.

5. A brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the relief sought and the reasons why it is claimed the protested order or action should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside.

6. The signatures of all parties named as appellants and their official mailing addresses.

7. The verification (by declaration under penalty of perjury) of at least one appellant as to the truth of the matters stated i n

the appeal.

I will be coming to 1947 Center St. on Tuesday, October 14th,2025. If you could update me as to the most appropriate room/suite/ office, so that I know exactly where to submit my request for Appeal. Thank you.

Very Truly Yours, Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813 Owner and Sole Occupant 1615 Fairview St. Berkeley CA 94703

4 On Friday, October 10, 2025 at 06:37:22 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Lopez:

I ask you again, how much is the Appeal Fee AND where or who do I submit my Appeal to? Time is of the essence now, since I am six days from the deadline and Monday is another holiday for the City of Berkeley.

Please inform me as soon as possible/ not later than Tuesday.

I believe that I'm being reasonable and honest. Are you?

Please respond.

Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813

On Friday, October 10, 2025 at 08:16:52 AM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]> wrote:

What is the precise dollar amount for the fee imposed to file an Appeal in the EEE debate?

cer·ti·fi·ca·tion
/ˌsərdəfəˈkāSHən/

To help
po t e c t y o u
pv a c y
Mic o so ft
Office
pe v e ne d
au o ma c
download of
th i s p i c e
fo m t h
In e ne

noun

NORTH AMERICAN ENGLISH

1. 2.

3. the action or process of providing someone or something with an official document attesting to a status or level of achievement. "a fundamental requirement for organic certification"
o an official document attesting to a status or level of achievement. plural noun: certifications
"graduates who want to gain industry-recognized certifications o
o Why can't an Owner " Certify" the level of safety? Do you think an owner will lie and put himself in a position to be sued for falsifyiing and a serious accident occurs from a handrail disconnecting? o What are the odds of that occurring?
o About a 1000 times less than a balcony collapsing because 10 people are all in a balcony exceeding the limits of the structure. 10 people of adult size amounts to at least 1500 pounds, if not 1800 pounds, on one wood based balcony. Is that considered a safety hazard/ safe? How about a telephone booth?
o

5 o Why is a handrail which is located on the second floor landing , calculated as being above six feet from the ground? why not within 6 feet from the landing? Does that make sense? Not in my reality, but maybe in an agenda to impose authority and fees, such an interpretation is somehow justifiable.

4. Andrew Marowitz

On Thursday, October 9, 2025 at 10:06:32 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Sorry, another point.

You state "
The building at 1615 Fairview is considered an R-2 Occupancy building and, by your own admission on several occasions, you have confirmed that there are existing E3 components on the building that need to be certified. The pictures in one of your documents confirms that E3 elements exist on your building.

What about the fact that the City of Berkeley refuses to allow me to downsize to a single familiy dwelling? How unfair is that? Where is my control of my own property. It doesn't exist. I would downsize to R1.

What components did I confirm that need to be certified? What photods in one of my documents confirm that E3 elements exist in my building. Please provide ththose pictures ASAP. I do not recall ever providing pictures.

Andrew Marowitz

On Thursday, October 9, 2025 at 04:37:45 PM PDT, Lopez, David <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Mr. Marowitz,
Your numerous recent communications have been forwarded to me by staff. I understand that you were frustrated while awaiting my response.

First, I must address the tone of your communications to staff. Your messages have been unprofessional and discourteous. This is unacceptable. If similar communications continue, I will cease direct correspondence and refer the matter to my Director. City staff must be treated with respect.

Second, the information provided to you by Ms. Burr—both by email and in person—is accurate. She has reviewed your case with me, and I have confirmed that her guidance reflects the City’s interpretation of applicable codes.

To clarify the matter: this is my formal determination. If you disagree, you may appeal my interpretation of the code in accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Title 19.28.020, Section 113 and 19.44. The notice of appeal shall be filed, along with the payment of the appeal fee, at my office within 30 days of this email and must contain the information listed in BMC Section 19.44.40.

1. There seems to be some confusion and comingling of Berkeley Municipal Code programs in your communications. You frequently refer to RHSP when addressing E3 compliance concerns. The two programs are two different and distinct programs. Ms. Burr is not associated with RHSP. She is only associated with the E3 program.
a. The Rental Housing Safety Program is tasked with enforcing the housing code and the City requires that all rental units in the City of Berkeley be inspected for conformance to the housing code per BMC 19.40.

The authority is provided by the State under California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 1.5

1 Burr, Galadriel
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 9:58 PM
To: Lopez, David
Subject: Re: E3 requirements for 1615 Fairview St.

WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Sorry , one more point. Because of one and only one balcony tragedy, in which there have been none before or since, we, the thousands of owners are being imposed to pay this EEE fee set structure, a revenue generator for the City of Berkeley. Justice is blind deaf and dumb,

It tears me up inside that this fee/revenue structure silently exists. And City employees laugh straight to their bank with their paycheck.

On Thursday, October 9, 2025 at 09:52:10 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Lopez:

One added point. You want compliance and will provide an extension if I hire a contractor by October 16. But, I would need to pay him half or all by October 16. But what if my available money is dedicated for property taxes, including ongoing parcel taxes by the City of Berkeley? Does that matter? Not to the City. Authority and Control and Mandated Compliance.....

and a hundred revenue generating sources, including EEE and the contractor's business license and tax..

Government is my oppressor in life. My worst enemy in life.

Very honestly, Andrew marowitz

On Thursday, October 9, 2025 at 09:43:10 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Lopez:

Respectfully, Respect is a two way street. Ms. Burr had a duty to disclose the name of her supervisor, who she forwarded the emails to. She, in refusing that repeated request, was dishonest and totally disrespectful.

You probably know, but I should not automatically assume that, contained in the State Law, it defers their law to the local municipality laws, since State Law essentially rubber stamped the Berkeley law, but then went further.

In many ways, you pretty much carbon copied Ms. Burr,and also in omitting responses to my counterpoints, while re- directing to your points. Honestl;y, if I'm correct, I find that to be biased, disrespectful, and treats me like an ignorant person. It feels as if you are talking at me, citing your interpretation for the purpose of prevailing on Appeal, and warning me of the financial cost of that Appeal.

Respectfully, you are telling me that local ordinance provisions are what they are, and then telling me that there are no exemptions, , that RHSP deals with Habitability ( but you omit that there are inherent inclusions of safety, AS IT RELATES TO THE RENTAL UNITS, ie electrical, roofing, flooring, structure, etc . THE OWNER OCCUPANT SIGNS OFF ON ALL THOSE SAFETY INSPECTIONS IN EACH THE TENANT'S PREMISES.

Under RHSP, If the City/the EEE section had any concern from imposing this cost burden in the least, the City could advocate to City Council for the adoption of Owner Occupied Exemptions of their own units. Instead, you position your points as if that is impossible, when it is not, and the truth is that you/ the EEE section and the City couldn't care less about the cost burden imposed oon me/us.

2 " i. YOU STATE "Owner-occupied units are exempt from RHSP inspections because the program’s intent is to protect tenants from substandard housing conditions." BUT, That is only partially true and accurate.

In the RHSP, The owner in a fourplex is provided with Owner Occupied Exemption of his unit. not merely because the program's intent is to protect tenants, but the inferred detail is that the Owner-OCCUPANT TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS OWN SAFETY, IF HE HURTS HIMSELF. HE CAN'T SUE HIMSELF. The property Owner-Occupant states, under penalty of perjury, and
assures that all of these inherent safety concerns are in fact, not ONLY habitable, but also that there are no unsafe conditions that exist.. I truly do not understand why you appear to omit any reference to these safety assurances
. It is a significant basis for me advocating adoption of the protocols of the RHSP. I respectfully believe and assert that you insist on keeping the protocols without contemplation of the benefits of the protocols of the RHSP.

Moreover, the Owner Occupant assumes any and all liability if any safety based accident occurs, and releases the City from Liability, though Anyone can sue the City regardless of assignment of liability to the Owner.

You know very well, the underlying basis for the City's building inspectors not doing the EEE inspections and being accountable for such inspections is potential liability, and so the City burdens the Owner financially for paying for the services of a 3rd party licensed professional who assumes liability. So the City burdens me with $400 and up. Gotta love it. Can we be honest? The licensed contractor will likely cost $400. If a Building permit is required, that is another $350, If repair materials and labor are needed, then it goes to $1000. Just a low cost compliance program, to protect from accidents from balconies and decks.

If the City gave a damn about the property owner's money, they would implement that concern by reducing/ eliminating the cost burden. Instead, to protect the City from the balcony liability, the City requires us to pay as much as $1000 and sometimes more. As always, we property ,owners must pay, and pay,and pay,and pay..... fire extinguisher fees, RHSP, property taxes, parcel taxes, rent regisration fees, business tax, building permit fees, planning fees, penalty enforcement everywhere,

Moreover, the State Law langauge applies a focus on "LOAD BEARING ELEMENTS" . In my world, handrails are not load bearing elements, but balconies and decks are. In fact, my handrail going up to the second floor is NOT WOOD< BUT METAL, so no rotten or weathered wood.

It is so convenient to burden the Owner, and extend the reach and intention of the enforcement of the Ordinance. Why not include elements that are ground level and potentially hazardous? Lead Paint? When , if ever does the City stop extending its reach and authority, and leave the Owner and / or Owner Occupant in peace, and provide some benefits.

ANSWER, NEVER. That is what City Employees are paid to do.

And all of these taxes,fees, and penalties go to pay to the general fund, 80% paying for salaries, benefits, and pensions and colas for City Employees. Is it possible that Ordinances place regulations on Property Owners to generate revenue, the unspoken priority? I guess the fact that Berkeley City employees have more paid holidays than any other city in the state is irrelevant and not to be co-mingled with the revenue generating EEE fee generation. ie building permit, business license and tax on the licensed contractor, who must be registered business in the City of Berkeley, or cannot be hired.

Yes, the EEE program is a serious revenue generator when closely examining the entire structure. Government regulation and governmejnt revenue. General fund, salaries, benefits and pensions.

What is amazing is that government, in all of its forms, places no limits on their taxation that it takes from the citizens.

The government , in all of its forms is relatively unconcerned with what amount of money remains in the citizens wallet.

They are , more or less, only concerned with funding the ever increasing size and cost of government. But, in your mind, I have migrated away from the relevancy of this "debate". Or, maybe that is what underlies the various revenue generating taxes, fees and penalties???

And , sometimes the City is the negligent entity. Ironically, the City merely says Shortage of Resources and/ or manpower, so we can't provide that service . Like cleaning up the fallen/ windblown desiduous leaves leaves from the streets/sidewalks, and even inside my property. The City never cleans up this mess for months, along Alcatraz Ave.

Double Standard.

Why can't the citizens point the finger at the City, and it counts as much/ holds the City strictly accountable/ the same degree of accountability, as when the City points the finger at the citizens, nd holds us accountable? Double Standard.

Can we be honest and comprehensive? Wil you agree with anything I say in my emails, in this email response

3 Interestingly, I respect the extension ( if I hire a licensed contractor, but if I appeal, and continue to proceed to a Court o f lkaw, and the enforcement remains pending, compliance would be deferred by almost a year, if not longer.

If I present sound counterpoints, as I believe that I have done, I think, then the Planning Commission should not impose a high Appeal Fee, that I'm seeking a reasonable decision, one that is not so biased as Ms. Burr's or Your one sided interpretation.

Isn't it possible that the EEE section/YOU can recommend to City Council to approve of a change in EEE protocol, thereby providing an Owner Occupancy Exemption. YES OR NO? But, that Ms. Burr, and/ or you REFUSE to forward such a recommendation to City Council, thatnit is possible, but that the EEE section refuses to make any such proposed and recommended modificiation. ISN"T THAT THE ACCURATE TRUTH? yes or no?

ANDREW MAROWITZ 510-356-6813

On Thursday, October 9, 2025 at 04:37:45 PM PDT, Lopez, David <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Mr. Marowitz,
Your numerous recent communications have been forwarded to me by staff. I understand that you were frustrated while awaiting my response.

First, I must address the tone of your communications to staff. Your messages have been unprofessional and discourteous. This is unacceptable. If similar communications continue, I will cease direct correspondence and refer the matter to my Director. City staff must be treated with respect.

Second, the information provided to you by Ms. Burr—both by email and in person—is accurate. She has reviewed your case with me, and I have confirmed that her guidance reflects the City’s interpretation of applicable codes.

To clarify the matter: this is my formal determination. If you disagree, you may appeal my interpretation of the code in accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Title 19.28.020, Section 113 and 19.44. The notice of appeal shall be filed, along with the payment of the appeal fee, at my office within 30 days of this email and must contain the information listed in BMC Section 19.44.40.

1. There seems to be some confusion and comingling of Berkeley Municipal Code programs in your communications. You frequently refer to RHSP when addressing E3 compliance concerns. The two programs are two different and distinct programs. Ms. Burr is not associated with RHSP. She is only associated with the E3 program.
a. The Rental Housing Safety Program is tasked with enforcing the housing code and the City requires that all rental units in the City of Berkeley be inspected for conformance to the housing code per BMC 19.40.

The authority is provided by the State under California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 1.5 Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation, Sections 17910, 17920, and 17970, and other housing related Codes as adopted by the City.

i. Owner-occupied units are exempt from RHSP inspections because the program’s intent is to protect tenants from substandard housing conditions.

b. The Exterior Elevated Elements Program is tasked with enforcing State law found under California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 1.5 Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation, Section 17973. The authority is given to us under BMC 19.40.040. The BMC requires, that all “projecting exterior elevated wood and metal decks, balconies, landings, stairway systems, guardrails, handrails, or any parts

4 thereof in weather-exposed areas of Group R-1 and R-2 Occupancies, as defined in the most recent edition of the California Building Code, shall be inspected within six months of adoption of this section, and every six years thereafter…..” State law says, “Exterior elevated elements that include load-bearing components in all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units shall be inspected.” Multifamily dwelling unit building is defined as housing where multiple separate dwelling units for residential inhabitants are contained within one building. i. Buildings that contain three or more dwelling units are classified as R-2 occupancy buildings. The building at 1615 Fairview is considered an R- 2 Occupancy building and it has been confirmed that the building contains three or more dwelling units. ii. Both State law and City law do not exempt dwelling units that are owner occupied. Even condominium buildings with 3 or more condominiums, considered an R-2 occupancy, are required to certify that existing E3 elements are certified safe per California Civil Code Division 4, Part 5, Chapter 7, Article 3 Section 5551. Condominiums are for the most part owner occupied.

To answer your question of why aren’t the EEE protocols addressed exactly the same way?
Nowhere in the E3 laws does it give the City any authority to exempt owner occupied dwellings in an R-2 building. The history of the program started when the tragic incident occurred on June 16, 2015 when the exterior balcony collapsed and 6 young people died and 7 others were injured. Immediately after, the City passed an emergency ordinance to require all E3 components in R-2 buildings to be inspected and certified. The State followed suit, and California regulations were signed into law requiring that E3 elements in R-2 buildings be inspected and certified. When an E3 component fails it can kill or injure the person using the E3 component. For this reason, E3 protocols are not addressed in the manner you would like. RHSP guidelines do not apply to the E3 program.

Regarding your insistence that the building is not an R-2 building and should be considered a family building: all our records and by your own admission clearly indicate that your building is a 4 unit building which is considered an R2 occupancy. Berkeley law uses the definition in the Berkeley Building Code to define R-2 buildings. Dwelling units in R-2 buildings are not exempt regardless of who lives in the dwelling or whether the units are vacant.

Regarding your insistence that you, as an owner, should be able to self-inspect your own property: State law is clear in who is to perform the inspection. Per California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part

1.5 Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation, Section 17973, “The inspection shall be performed by a licensed architect; licensed civil or structural engineer; a building contractor holding any or all of the “A,” “B,” or “C-5” license classifications issued by the Contractors State License Board, with a minimum of five years’ experience, as a holder of the aforementioned classifications or licenses, in constructing multistory wood frame buildings; or an individual certified as a building inspector or building official from a recognized state, national, or international association, as determined by the local jurisdiction.” State law prohibits the owner from self-certifying their E3 components.

In conclusion:

The building at 1615 Fairview is considered an R-2 Occupancy building and, by your own admission on several occasions, you have confirmed that there are existing E3 components on the building that need to be certified. The pictures in one of your documents confirms that E3 elements exist on your building. You have been issued a Citation

5 Warning Letter for not complying with State and City laws. In the warning letter (attached) you have been given a deadline of October 16th to provide a completed and signed, by the retained professional, the Exterior Elevated Elements Inspection Program Inspection Certification form. If this does not occur, citations will be levied. I do have the authority to provide a onetime extension on when the form will be due. If you confirm that you have hired a licensed professional, compliant with State Law, by either sending me a copy of your signed contract with the licensed professional -or- an email thread with the professional confirming the date of their scheduled inspection and that you will be sending me a completed and signed inspection certification form, I will extend the due date for us receiving the form to November 14th.

If the certification does indicate that corrective work is required, then apply for a building permit within 120 days of the date signed on the form, respond to plan check comments within 10 days of the date of the correction letter, obtain a building permit within 10 days of notification of plan approval and complete all work within 120 days of permit issuance.

Regards,

David A. Lopez
Chief Building Official/Building and Safety Manager
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone:510-981-7441

FRAUD ALERT! Do not provide payment information by telephone. City of Berkeley Building and Safety staff will NEVER call to ask for payment. If you receive such a call, please HANG UP! Email [email protected] about it, and report the fraud attempt to the Berkeley Police Dept. at (510) 981-5900.

This e-mail contains privileged information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken in response to this e-mail is prohibited and unlawful. If you have received this e- mail in error, please notify sender by e-mail and then discard. Thank you for your cooperation.

3 Please consider the environment before you print

1 Burr, Galadriel
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 5:40 AM
To: Lopez, David
Subject: Re: 1615 Fairview
WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Lopez:

I am unsure how to respond to you.

Ms. Burr indicated that she forwarded my emails to " her supervisor". Initially and based on numerous attempts to " motivate" a response from Ms. Burr, she unwavering refused to provide the name and title of her supervisor. Then, you show up, the top official in the Building sub-division, not just a mere supervisor. It might seem as if there is a serious jump in authority , not a mere supervisor. And here might be a serious agenda in the works, from someone far more authoritative, not a mere supervisor, given that I have disclosed my intentions to Appeal.

It feels like there has been a deception by Ms. Burr, and her (mere) Supervisor who decided to forward this to you,as Chief Building Official, one with the highest authority. I tend to not believe that you are her direct supervisor, but the top authority, with the most expertise and authority, one in which will carry extreme weight in the Appeal process and with the Planning Commission. I suspect the mere mention of an Appeal has caused the direct supervisor to decide to bring you into the debate/ dispute of interprettions of contradicting protocols of the EEE and the RHSP protocols.

Lastly, as the Building Director, I am of the notion that the Chief Building Official may tend to not be fair-minded and open to ( reasonable) counterpoints, but may provide a position to unwaveringly support and defend the EEE protocols, rather than provide reasonable legitimacy to the legitimacy of the protocols of the Rental Housing Safety Program.

If all/ most of my suspicions are close to accurate, then you will chew me up , and spit me out. A mere supervisor doesn't have your authority , nor level of knowledge and expertise. And it would seem you will structure your position such that EEE will not be contradicted by the protocols of the RHSP , which are far more preferable and favorable to the property owner and Owner Occupant, both in serving the interests of the Owner Occupant, as well as cost burden to the Owner and/ or Owner Occupant, as well as create/ facilitate a mechanism to protect/release the City of Berkeley from potential liability, in the event of a hypothetical injury. This, in turn, alleviates the Owner Occupant from spending about $1000 for a third party contractor, the building permit component for some repairs.

As absurd as this may sound, as an Owner Occupant, wanting an exemption from EEE, I just want to be left alone, and the RHSP protocols, generally provide such an Exemption.

My three rental units, all on the ground floor are all vacant/ not being rented and will remain so until I sell this building .

Further, these ground floor rental units have no EEE components above six feet, or even 3 feet. Accordingly, these three units should be exempt from EEE.

Because of Rent Control, Just Cause, Attorney Fees by Statute, and $45,000 buy-out mandates, and Tenant Protection Ordinances ( but no equal landlord protection Ordinance or any protections/ rights) AND MORE.

I hate being a landlord in the City of Berkeley,
and no one wants to discuss, why it is terrible for landlords to be landlords. Landlords have zero rights , protections or control of his business or possession of his property, once he rents it out. Why would anyone want to be a landlord? I do not want to wear a sign on my back that says " Victim, Please kick me.".

And the punishing City of Berkeley, instead of being tolerant of my preference to keep my rental units vacant willfully, now have the vacancy parcel tax, to punish owners who hate being landlords, who were massively victimized by the Eviction Moratorium and refuse to continue to be victimized. The City of Berkeley has regulated all avenues , thereby the Owner is not really the Owner, but merely the name of the deed. The City owns the property, via the never ending regulations, despite what the 5th and 14th Amendment say.

But, as Owner Occupant, I am exempt from the Vacancy Parcel Tax.

2 So, I suppose you will state that you are Ms. Burr's Supervisor, despite what appears to be a sizable authority jump, which may be fact manipulation, and the rest of the agenda, given my intentions to Appeal. Clearly, to me, there is BIAS and City Employees fully supporting each other and the City of Berkeley, to defend the EEE protocols, no matter what. But the RHSP protocols provide a win-win, for both the EEE/ the City, and the Owner/ Owner Occupant.

Respectfully, Andrew Marowitz, Owner and Owner Occupant/ sole Occupant of my building.

No one will be occuping space in my building until I sell m building. That is how much I hate being a landlord in the City of

Berkeley. Nothing but a pain in my reality, It's( the headaches) are not worth the rental income. Thre is so much more to being a landlord than simply the money. I have been a landlord for 35 years. I know all of the ugly truths. Interest rates are beginning to come down.

On Wednesday, October 8, 2025 at 03:27:53 PM PDT, Lopez, David <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon Mr. Marowitz,

I want to inform you that Ms. Burr has forwarded me all your communications. I will be responding to you in the next several days.

I know you are being insistent for a response but rest assured I will respond. Please discontinue sending emails to Ms.

Burr.

Regards,

David A. Lopez
Chief Building Official/Building and Safety Manager
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone:510-981-7441

3 FRAUD ALERT! Do not provide payment information by telephone. City of Berkeley Building and Safety staff will NEVER call to ask for payment. If you receive such a call, please HANG UP! Email [email protected] about it, and report the fraud attempt to the Berkeley Police Dept. at (510) 981-5900.

This e-mail contains privileged information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken in response to this e-mail is prohibited and unlawful. If you have received this e- mail in error, please notify sender by e-mail and then discard. Thank you for your cooperation.

3 Please consider the environment before you print

1 Burr, Galadriel
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2025 8:42 PM
To: Burr, Galadriel
Subject: Re: City Response to Owner Letter Received 2025-09-25_1615 Fairview St Berkeley Ms. Burr:

Additionally , you knowingly, willfully and deliberately qavoided and omitted any reference and inconsistency of the protocols that I submitted to you, AND YOUR BOSS, REGARDING THE RENTAL HOUSING SAFETY PROGRAM, which provides an exemption for Owner Occupied Units and self inspected and stated habitabily and safety of all components and oiperations of the building. Why shouldn't the EEE have the exact same protocols and procedures?

As such, you omitted any comment on the compaison of EEE and RHSP/

You have conducted yourself , not with "best regards" for me, but to omit any of my counterpoints and reasonable arguments in contradiction to EEE and protocols. By omitting so many /all of my counterpoints, you refused to concede on any of my logic. You didn't conduct yourself or the boss, with willingness to grant any of my points, thereby you were even remotely fair and reasonable, but with the agenda to impose your position regardless of its weaknesses.

You truly conducted this exchange by way of FRAUD BY OMISSION. This is hardly different than a crook trying to get away with a crime.

The government is supposed to be fair and honest, and let the chips fall where they may. But, not in the City of Berkeley/ This EE department. In Berkeley, Complete Authority/ Control, and as always $$$$$, even by lies by Omission.

But, instead you acted with complete dishonesty by Omission. To me, this / your frequent omissions of my points are dishonest and despicable. You should be willing to admit to such conduct. But, I expect you to avoid any mention of your conduct and my points and the comarison of the RHSP.

Do you consider/ believe that , by omission, you were completely honest and fair?

Do you believe that honesty requires addressing the opposing point of view, not just your biased , one sided position?

Please RESPOND, and address my points , not by re-directing the reader to your points, but by directly addressing MY POINTS.

Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813

On Sunday, October 5, 2025 at 04:43:05 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Ms. Burr:

After having reviewed the entire series of documents, please disregard the prior request for the exemption documents.. I see them and have reviewed them.

Please provide the names and titles of those persons that advised or instructed you.

I will now review the state laws that you have referenced, though the state law(s) have made it perfectly clear that the state law defers to the local law(s), which ,effectively renders the state law(s) as moot. I will research and provide the specific law that advises deference to local laws.

Depending on what I research, I am recovering from my hip replacements and need some added time for good cause. I can re-attach the handrail, and will attempt to screw the few loose stair treads on the back stairs. AND/BUT I do not have

2 available funds to pay for a contractor and have dedicated my funds to property taxes due on December 10th or before. I suppose that your relentless protocols provide no tolerance for disables and low income individuals and that property taxes are irrelevant to the timeline, is that correct?

Again, the rental units aside from being vacant and unrented, have no EEE components 6 feet or over, and all three are on the ground floor will is 2 feet above the ground. Interestingly, you clearly omitted any commentary as to that component, Should that omission be construed as dishonest by omission? I specifically request a comment as to this disputed omission, immediately.

You also omitted any commentary as to my referencing that the second floor unit is exclusively Owner Occupied, and not a rental. I have repeatedly referenced this issue , asserting that I should be provided with an Owner Occupancy exemption, and would Appeal , based on said Owner Occupancy. Why did you omit any commentary as to this assertion.

As I previously stated in researching the original enactment of this issue by Nancy Skinner and Jerry Hall, Ms Skinner refused to include Owner Occupancy Exemptions claiming to "protecting the public", but that appears to be hypocritical/ "arbitrary and capricious", since she expressed no concern for the public in SFRs , Duplexes and Tri-Plexes.

Accordingly, I would respectully demand a response as to your/ your bosses interpretation mof these seeming contradictions of enforcement and exemptions . It would seem that Skinner elected to base the legislation on the building, which has no rights or protections, while Owner's/ persons have rights and protections. Please provide a response, since it appears that you omitted any commentary of anything that provides a contraversy of any sort, which may tend to weaken your/ your bosses/ the City's position.

Also , you omitted the distinction of the definitions of Multi-Unit as opposed to Multi-Family. What does it take for you to provide full and complete honest answers and responses, Ms. Burr, and you boss? As I have repeatedly stated, I am the only Occupant, and therefore a single family occupant, and I use all 4 units for my personal use, effectively making this a SFR. I cannot control the fact that the State and the City refuse to allow me to re-classify my Multi-Unit building as a SFR, though being the Owner and Occupant. It is not my fault , or agenda that government has decided to refuse any legal conversion to a SFR, because the State and City have taken away my rights to use my property as a legal SFR, due to their reckless creation of shortage of available housing to illegal immigrants, early release prisioners, and the homeless.

The City and State , by self serving regulatory power, has refused my right to use my property as a single family dwelling. In other words, the government is toxic to my rights to use my property as a asingle family dwelling, and now states that I must pay fees for my use of the vacant rental units. When, if ever, do we/ society question or challenge government as self serving and disregards my 5th and 14th Amendment rights of ownership? NEVER? When, if ever, is government viewed as toxic? NEVER, unfortunately. Maybe , the Courts should ask such questions, rather than granting unquestioned authority over the citizens and property owners and owner Occupants????? PLEASE RESPOND.

I respectfully believe and suggest that your frequent use of omissions could be construed as fraud by Omission. What do you think and say about your frequent use of City / self serving practice of selective omissions. Is it/ should it be considered as honest , or dishonest?

I strongly believe that the Planning Commission or the Courts should consider and decide on the possibility of providing Owner Occupancy Rights and , in this case, Exemptions if the particular set of facts clearly demonstrate that Owner Occupancy Exemption is , or should be, a legitimate right, protection, and benefit provided to Owner Occupants in their own property. Clearly, the relationship to protecting the public , is a convenient , but inconsistent with the same reasoning for SFR's Duplexes and Tri-Plexes, and "arbitrary and capricious" justification to deny Owner Occupancy status any rights, protections, or exemptions. And it should be viewed as such

Any further and continued avoidance of responses by willful and de liberate omission should and will be viewed as fraud by Omission, and will be argued as such , in my expected Appeal and any Court filing for a Judge to consider.

Government constantly endeavors to reduce the rights of Property Owners and Owner Occupants until they have no rights, that all rights are merely hollow words. I am profoundly offended by the elimination of virtually all rights and protections of Owned Real Estate and Owner Occupancy.

Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813

On Sunday, October 5, 2025 at 03:38:52 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]> wrote:

3 Ms. Burr:

As of now, I have NOW read the first attachment of your series of documents/ emails.

My first response is, you should provide the names and titles of anyone who assisted you, or advised you, or instructed you such that you prepared this/these documents. They should not stay anonymous for the purposes of this series of letters, anmd of course you should include the names anmd titles of your supervisor and manager, Mr Jensen,as I recall.

You elected to make statements without providing the actual exemption application documents, thereby slightly mistating what I stated , or you did not state. Accordingly, per your statements of those documents, please provide me with the actual exemption documents, which will indicate the boxes I checked, the basis for my claimed exemptions, as well as exactly what the form states. Please provide these immediately, since the timimg of the Appeal, if submitted, must be submitted on or before October 16th,2025.

More to come,as I review these series of documents as well as your cited state laws.

Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813

On Friday, October 3, 2025 at 04:02:34 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]> wrote:

Ms. Burr:

I just got to my computer, seeing your series of responses, but have not read them as yet.

It occurs to me that , with respect to the EEE protocol, there is no reason why the EEE protocol cannot resemble the RHSP protocol, in which the Owner inspects, repairs , verifies under penalty of perjury, that there is no indications of EEE violations, and that he is/will be responsible, as he presumably is in the RHSP protocols, thereby removing / arguably removing the City from any potential future liability.

It works/ functions/ operates no differently than the RHSP protocols, and potentially saves the Owner(Occupant) hundreds of dollars by eliminating the 3rd party delegate, and potentially any permits. It is a Win-Win scenario. Would you agree or disagree?

Please respond ASAP.

Now, I will review the attachments, maybe tomorrow.

Andrew Marowitz

On Friday, October 3, 2025 at 01:20:50 PM PDT, Burr, Galadriel <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Andrew,

Please find attached my response to your letter received September 25, 2025 in-person at the Permit Service Center, along with the corresponding attachments.

Kind regards,
Galadriel

4 Galadriel Burr
Community Services Specialist III
Resilient Buildings and Seismic Programs
City of Berkeley
Building & Safety Division
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone: 510.981.7475
Email:| [email protected]

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 8:45 AM
To: Burr, Galadriel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: EEE inspection and enforcement 1615 Fairview St Berkeley

xx Permits are not required for ordinary repairs to structures performed for the purpose of maintenance. The repair work is limited to work on the affected item and does not include reframing, replacement or any other alteration or new work.
x Permits are required for any code regulated activities, including but not limited to the following: cutting, notching or replacement of any structural framing elements or structural supports; replacement of membranes; replacement of exterior finishes; guardrail replacements; installation of ventilation openings; and similar activities.

On Thursday, October 2, 2025 at 08:20:08 AM PDT, Burr, Galadriel < [email protected]> wrote:

Hello Mr. Marowitz,

My apologies for the delay. I will have a response to your letter received September 25, 2025 by tomorrow.

5 To be clear, I did not make sure to advise you that “the minor repairs do not require a permit”, but rather provided you with additional information regarding when a permit is required for E3 corrective work, as stated in my email below.

Please note that my refrain from responding to your general negative thoughts and opinions about government in prior emails and voicemails does not constitute agreement on my part.

Kind regards,
Galadriel

Galadriel Burr
Community Services Specialist III
Resilient Buildings and Seismic Programs
City of Berkeley
Building & Safety Division
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone: 510.981.7475
Email:| [email protected]

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 2:43 PM
To: Burr, Galadriel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: EEE inspection and enforcement 1615 Fairview St Berkeley

Ms. Burr:

I am concerned that you will not be issuing a definitive response regarding my informail appeal/ of the arbitrary and capricious postion of EEE and its mandate of refusal of Owner Occupancy exemption on the second floor flat. The RHSP contradicts the policies and protocols of EEE 100%.

You made sure to advise me that the minor repairs do not require a permit, but I'm not , nor am I in a fiscal comfort level t o pay for a third party inspection and approval, given the expected cost of $350-400, because the City refuses to be accountable for inspections and potential liability if it's employees are less than competent.

Acordoingly, in your most recent email, you indicated that you would be responding soon, but no response as of this date.

Respectfully, I will not Appeal , at least until Monday, October 6th, thereby allowing you and your boss to compare and decie issues for 4 business days. After October 7th, if no definitive response is sent to me, I will process a formal Appeal thereafter.

In responding, if you do, please do not omit or withhold detail(s), as your position should be comprehensive and sufficient to address all of my counterpoints.

Yours very truly, Andrew marowitz.

P.S a reason for not even trying to do the repairs immediately is due to my recovery period for my hip replacement surgery. It doesn't matter to you, but it is vitally important to me/ my health.

On Tuesday, September 30, 2025 at 01:57:53 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz < [email protected]> wrote:

Ms. Burr:

The problem with government is that government endeavors to give itself authority and control over everything, and thereby regulates everything and attaches fees,taxes, and penalties on everything. You mentioned fresh air is free. After further thought, , aside from requiring smog checks from vehicle owners, the government reaches further, by taxing the test shops and the repair shops for smog, taxing the business income and parts.

6 Government taxes .fees and penalizes everything in life. They do so, by regulating the freedom of citizens in every nuance in life.

In short, government is toxic and hostile to citizens, We are merely wallets, to fund government employees paychex, benefits and pensions. It is a total con job. The biggest pick pocket on earth. I challenge you to challenge this set of beliefs, and look not just at the surfact, but throughout the 1000 txes,fees and penalties. Then question the productivity of government , with longer breaks, lunches, paid holidays. Did you know thhat the City of Berkeley employees have more paid holidays than any other city in the State of Californiia, all paid by us taxpayers. We, the citizens/taxpayers are being ripped off at every angle/vantage point.

Then they screw all property owners with parcel taxes every two years, to pay for COLAS, and new taxes, like the vacancy parcel tax, even when an owner chooses to not be victimized over and over again, by putting himself in the role of landlord.

Government is the citizen's worst enemy, and you know it. But government refuses to be honest. Embedding themselves in the "Public Interest. What a con game !!!

Back on topic, why does the RHSP provide Owner Occupancy Exemptions, while the EEE completely disregards Owner Occupancy Exemptions. It is arbitrary and capricious. This is a legal phrase that addresses the self serving con games of government.

EEE rules place total control and discretion on government, disregards Owwner Occupancy Exemptions because it serves the interests and benefit of government. I should be allowed to make such repairs on my own , or not at qall, until I decide when, how, how much, . But, then, we wouldn't need so many government employees, or laws/ regulations. We'd have more discretionary money in our wallets. Government never ever limits the extent of taxation. It just keeps taxing to fund its operations, no matter if it is waste, excessive spending,etc..

I will be mindful of the suggested repairs, without permits, if the toxic City of Berkeley insists that they have authority o f my owner occupied flat, AKA , the ownetr's unit. This is EXACTLY WHY LEGISLATOR'S LIKE SKINNER AND HALL REFUSED TO PROVIDE OWNER'S AND LANDLORDS WITH RIGHTS. ACCORDINGLY, THEY CREATE LEGISLATION ON THE BUILDING, WHICH HAS NO RIGHTS. . TO ME, ALL OF THIS IS DISGUSTING AND DESPICABLE!!! FREEDOM IS AN EMPTY , HOLLOW WORD. i BET YOUR BOSS DISAGREES, BUT HE WOULD BE SERIOUSLY CHALLENGED IN DISPUTING MY POINTS AND , 4ESPECIALLY MY FINANCIAL COMPONENTS OF TRUTH AND GOVERNMENT.

As owner Occupant, I should not have government hovering over my back , telling what to do in my own residence.

Freedom? Where? Government over-reach? Everywhere, because it provides ample workload for government and numerous avenues of taxation, fees, and enforcement penalties. TOXICITY AND CONTROL. Government should be serving the taxpayers,. Instead, the citizens / taxpayers, serve the interests of government. If government trul served the interests of the taxpayers, then government would be constantly striving to reduce taxation, and the size of cost of government. Government, is strving to constantly get larger and more cowstly to the taxpayers= our worst enemy. in life.

It is not just my opinion, it is 100% truth.

Your bias as a taxpayer funded employee prevents you from embracing these truths.

Andrew Marowitz

On Tuesday, September 30, 2025 at 11:14:08 AM PDT, Burr, Galadriel < [email protected]> wrote:

Hello Andrew,

I will soon be responding to your letter received September 25, 2025, but I wanted to provide you with copies of the most recent State legislation for exterior elevated elements, per your request. Please find Health and Safety Code Section 17973 and Civil Code Section 5551 (Condos).

Also, when we met in the Permit Serve Center you had some questions about when a permit is required to do E3 corrective work. The following information can be found in our Frequently Asked Questions document on the City’s website:

7 x Permits are not required for ordinary repairs to structures performed for the purpose of maintenance. The repair work is limited to work on the affected item and does not include reframing, replacement or any other alteration or new work. x Permits are required for any code regulated activities, including but not limited to the following: cutting, notching or replacement of any structural framing elements or structural supports; replacement of membranes; replacement of exterior finishes; guardrail replacements; installation of ventilation openings; and similar activities.

For more information about the E3 Inspection Program, please visit https://berkeleyca.gov/doing-business/operating- berkeley/landlords/exterior-elevated-elements-inspection-program-e3 .

Regards,
Galadriel

Galadriel Burr (she/her)
Community Services Specialist III
Resilient Buildings and Seismic Programs
City of Berkeley
Building & Safety Division
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone: 510.981.7475
Email:| [email protected]

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2025 4:28 PM
To: Burr, Galadriel <[email protected]>
Subject: EEE inspection and enforcement 1615 Fairview St Berkeley

WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Ms. Burr:

I am to ask you what is the most recent State Legislation and the other request is ? Can't remember

BUT, after further thought the protocols of the Rental Housing Safety Progrqm is the perfect supporting example, regardless of the amount of the fees.

The required documentation is that I, as Owner/landlord, am required to inspect, repair, and sign off under oath, the long list of tenant premises conditions, ie the building, and sign off on those items listed in the lengthy list. I am required to sign under penalty of perjury. And subject to enforcement and penalty if there becomes a tenant complaint/problem.

As to the same list, sign off,etc for owner occupied premises, I, as Owner Occupant, am exempt,as is the premises of my owner ocupied unit.

In other words, the RHSP guidelines and protocol protects the building AND the tenants premises. BUT, simultaneously exempts the Owner Occupied premises.and conditions.

The question that looms is why isn't the EEE protocols addressed EXACTLY the same way?

Further ,I reviewed Skinner and Hill's legislation/ AB 721, the balcony bill for Berkeley., and it addresses , numerous times the phrase " Multi-Unit, but never, ever combines the phrase " Multi_unit/Multifamily" as contained in the exemption application form. Combining the two as if Multi Family is the same as Multi-Unit is not only a improper redundancy, it is wholly unnecessary. The phrase "Multi-family is, or should address the assumption/inference that Multi-Unit is housed by "Multi Families". Assum
ing my belief and argument are accurate, I, as, Owner Occupant is considered a Family, and thus, if I personally use all 4 Multi-units, I must be considered as a Single Family Resident/Occupant in the Multi-Unit building.

Accordingly, the building is Multi Unit, providing housing and use to a Single Family/ AKA Owner Occupant= Exempt

8 And the guidelines and protocols of the RHSP are perfectly consistent with that approach, in which the building conditions are addressed and the tenants protected, while the Owner Occupant's unit is exempt from any involvement by the Housing Inspectors , in the event that they elect to inspect.

This is part and parcel of my argument NOW, in support of the Owner Occupant's Exemption from enforcement. Please raise this comparable to your supervisor and the Planning Official.

Again, I can provide access to demonstrate no tenants, as confirmed by the RHSP paperwork and affidavid, signed under penalty of perjury.

To do otherwise from the EEE protocols are inconsistent and contradictory.

Andrew Marowitz

From: Numainville, Mark L.

To: Andrew Marowitz
Subject: RE: Appeal Notice for 1615 Fairview
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 11:20:14 AM
Andrew,

Nobody “instructed” me to send the letter noticing the appeal hearing. I am required to send the notice by BMC 19.44.090, which reads, in part, “The City Clerk shall provide the Council with the written appeal or appeals, and shall set the matter for a public hearing before the Council in consultation with the Building Official, and give notice of the time and place of said hearing…”

Mark Numainville
City Clerk, City of Berkeley
(510) 981-6909
[email protected]

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 11:07 AM
To: Numainville, Mark L. <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Appeal Notice for 1615 Fairview

Mr. Numainville:

I am herein documenting that since you stated that you would not devulge who instructed you to write this letter of scheduling my EEE Appeal, per the rules, and needed to consult the City Attorney , FIRST.

That was about 10-12 days ago. You then indicated you would be out of the office from April 4th to April 12th.

Today is April 15th, 2026, and you have continued to refuse to state who directed you to send the scheduled Appeal of June 9th with City Council.

However, I am ,essentially CERTAIN that it was Mr. David Lopez, Building Official, who drafted the letter and instructed you to put your name on it. The reason I know this is that he omitted himself to be included in the CC's of the City Attorney, the City Manager, and the Planning Director. Mr. Lopez has a habit of making effort to be anonymous, by having others do his dirty work. And had you actually drafted the letter, SURELY, you would have included his name. But , there was no CC to Mr Lopez.

AND , inconjunction with this anonymity , he has broken numerous rules of the Administrative Appeal of my EEE Appeal to City Council.

The rules clearly and unequivacably state that IF CITY COUNCIL wishes to consult City Staff, they may do so at their discretion. This infers that City Staff are not to initiate any contact, including the staff report that Mr. Lopez is forcing into the record, AGAINST THE RULES. That.... is the reason that he is inserting the added staff report, in which YOU SENT HIM my Appeal and documents to be routed directly to City Council.

AGAINST the Rules , You sent him my City Council Appeal, stating that you sent him my Appeal, pursuant to Planning Dept. rules, but refused to provide me with any such rule. THERE IS NO SUCH

RULE. You violated Due Process.. And now , Mr Lopez is circumventing and violating Due Process.

As previously stated by me, this is a unequivocal violation of the Brown Act, which dictates that Government staff must proceed with adherence to rules, must be transparent and honest.

Further, the housing Advisory Commission violated numerous rules of strict adherence of Fairness and Impartiality, not to mention , violation of the Brown Act. I asked the HAC to address my concern of Fairness and Impartiality, but they ignored my concern and changed the subject matter.

Further, the HAC has jurisdiction or authority to address ONLY the Housing Code, not the Building Code, yet another violation of Due Process.

As previously stated by Me, this is tantamount to City staff , behind closed doors, collaborating , and when addressing my Civil Rights, are conspiring to deprive me of those protected and guaranteed Civil Rights.

As I perceive this conduct, I see City staff acting like crooks and con artists, in the performance of their positions, and EVIL in their biased intentions.

And still, you continue to refuse to state, for the record, who drafted the content of my scheduled City Council EEE Appeal.

Further, you stated that you had already sent City Council a copy of my EEE Appeal and request for scehduling PREVIOUSLY. I would ask that you provide ME with a copy of that previously submission to City Council. Or will you refuse/ fail to send me that document as a record? dID YOU EVER ACTUALLY SEND IT TO CITY COUNCIL? I RESPECTFULLY DEMAND THAT YOU PROVIDE ME WITH A COPY OF THAT NOTIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL, ASAP !!!!

And , I expect that you will send Mr. Lopez my emails and further documents? That is what you do, in violation of FAIR DEALING

Mr. Lopez, is knowingly and willfully defying the rules, to WIN< NO MATTER WHAT? He should be terminated for good cause, for his obscenely BAD CONDUCT.

IF YOU CONTINUE TO BE NON RESPONSIVE TO MY REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION, YOU MAY BE DISCIPLINED AS WELL.

PLEASE RESPOND.

Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813.

On Friday, April 3, 2026 at 05:51:07 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected] > wrote:

Mr. Numainville:

After further thought and consideration, it occurs that I concluded the wrong person who instructed and advised you as to your letter of a scheduled City Council Appeal.

I have revisited the facts. And I now conclude that Mr. Lopez, Building Official is/was involved. I instructed and demanded that he stay out of this,as he had already stated his position. He is attempting to change the rules of this Appeal, and violating the rule in which he should provide staff reports ONLY if consulted and advised by City Council, PER THE RULES. He believes that he can change/ violate/ re-interpret the rules in any manner he chooses. I will be objecting to any inclusion of staff reports, as a matter of rule/ law. He is knowingly / willfully violating the rules/ law , in an effort to undermine my Appeal. He has ZERO ethics, and MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. There is little difference than that of a criminal trying to get away with a civil/ administrative crime.

To more fully support this belief and contention, it was him, that you forwarded my City Council Appeal

papers to, violating the Appeal rules/ laws, despite what the Appeal Rules state, and you stated that you were adhering to Planning Rules, but stated no specific rule, of which I believe there is no such rule.

Accordingly, Mr. Lopez was then fully informed of the nature of my Appeal. And , having experienced Mr.

Lopez' tactics, he never puts his own name on things. He used Galadriel Burr, and Mr. Klein, Planning Director. Then, the HAC consulted and collaborated with Deputy City Attorney, Ms. Madagu, and Mr.

Uberti, as Secratary of the HAC.

Here, he never includes his own name, but includes Mr. Klein, Ms. Farimah Brown, and the City Manager. all directors of their departments. And directs you to send the letter, which you sent by email, and now by Certified Mail, and First Class Mail.

His tactics leave none of his fingerprints, or so he thinks. He abuses his discretion, and my Civil Rights.

AND he changes the rules , so that he can include his staff preparations, His tactics are despicable, foul, underhanded, unethical, and yet , per City standards, is allowed to get away with this evil. He should be terminated,for cause.

And NOW, you are refusing to divulge then individual, who prepared the letter, who instructed YOU to send the letter and be in the middle of all this. And his name doesn;t appear anywhere. Do you admit this, or do you deny this?

Yes, I will be litigating this entire deceitful set of events. You can either tell me NOW who directed you, or you can state these facts in a court of law, and perhaps place your job at risk. The City Attorney cannot prevent me from calling you to testify in a court of law, under penalty of perjury. You have no protections in the court of law.

My claim will be based on my civil rights being deprived and violated , under CCP 1983, and there exists a growing conspiracy relating to these issues. My stress levels are in overdrive, trying to maintain my sense of handling all of this abuse and conspiracy by City of Berkeley staffers. You all collaborate and cooperate, against me as an individual who pays my taxes to employ all of you.

This is nothing less than evil. and you as a group are administrative con artists and crooks. This is a demonstration of how the underbelly of government works.

Mr. Numainville: Consult the City Attorney, but I think you might consider getting ahead of this, and be honest, transparent, and forthcoming. I intend to wreak havoc on anyone who I can prove is involved.

And unless you come clean, and disclose what information I seek, you are , most definitely vulnerable.

After the final resolution of my Appeal, I will file that CCP 1983 lawsuit. And once you testify, you will be required to disclose that same information, under penalty of perjury.

Like it or not, you have been designated to be in the middle of all of this.

It was not my preference to involve you, but it is what it is, and I have been abused and deprived of a fair and impartial legal proceeding.

Andrew Marowitz

On Wednesday, April 1, 2026 at 01:57:32 PM PDT, Numainville, Mark L. <[email protected]
> wrote:

Andrew,

Since you have referenced legal action in your email, I will need to consult with the City

Attorney on any potential response.

The process for the appeal and relevant deadlines are included in the letter/notice sent previously.

Mark Numainville
City Clerk, City of Berkeley
(510) 981-6909
[email protected]

From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 1:49 PM
To: Numainville, Mark L. <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Appeal Notice for 1615 Fairview

WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Numainville:

I have not received ANY response by you regarding my questions and concerns. This is in contradiction to the instruction that I should contact you if I have any questions or concerns.

YET, another clear irregularity is that I have already submitted my evidentiary documents to you/ your office for City Council Appeal,as provided for in the instructions and rules for my City Council Appeal, which I had to follow the rules and timeliness per those Appeal rules. I should not be required to re- submit the same exact evidentiary documents.

Had these documents been provided to City Council in a timely manner BY YOU, when originally submitted, this clear escalation of events would not be occurring. I repeatedly asked you if you had already submitted my Appeal and documents to City Council. You assured me that you had sent them to City Council, You even verified by email that you had sent them the documents and Appeal. If you did, in fact, send them to City Council, why was there no apparent scheduling of my Appeal at or near that time?

YET, your instructions in THIS instruction letter states that I have until May 29th,2026. THIS IS ALSO A MISTAKE BY YOU , or whoever instructed you to send me this document.

I have asked you to respond as to who instructed you about this letter, and you have refused to respond, despite my submitted questions and concerns. I have also , in my response, stated, for the record, that "The FIX IS IN".

I also notice that you cc'ed the City Attorney, the Planning Director, the City Manager, and the City Council, though no specific City Council Person, or the nine City Council Persons. Who instructed you to CC these people?

Accordingly, this letter ,effectively disregards the rules of the Appeal Process,as documented in the Appeal Process for the HAC and City Council. in conjunction with the HAC, and the continuing City Council Appeal.

BUT, what it does accomplish is circumventing the rules of Appeal, as they relate to City Staff including a copy of City Staff, which ,according to the rules, specifically states that there should not be a City staff

report, unless and until City Council consults the city staff. , which was never done. This, effectively violates the rules of Appeal/ or ignores the rules of Appeal.

Someone directed you to send this instruction letter, and I have already requested that you disclose who insrtucted you to prepare and send this letter, including the various CC's. This , per my perception is a gang up on Marowitz tactic.

Why contact /CC , the Planning Dorector, Jordan Klein? Why contact/CC the City Manager, Paul Buddenhagen? Why Cc the City Attorney, Farimah Brown?

I am asking these questions and I am entitled to reasonable responses BY YOU, sir. You are the go- between.

As I have preveiously stated, the Planning Director and the Building Official have already issued their positions, which is the basis for the Appeal to City Council.

The fact of the matter is that City staff, perhaps , the City Manager, are forcing this re0direction, and ganging up on me, as was done in the HAC Appeal. THis is the tactical strategy of the City and City Staff, to collaborate and conspire to deprive me of Proper Due Process.

So, I ask you, Mr. Numainville, why is this Abuse of Process occurring, with you in the middle/ the contact person?

Who instructed you with this re-direction of the Appeal process? Who prepared the letter of instruction? Who have you spoken to regarding this letter of instruction? Who directed you to CC each of these City Staff?

Again, in the instruction letter, it states that I am to ask any questions TO YOU. I did so, and you refused to respond, sir.

PLEASE RESPOND<ACCORDINGLY. Do not refuse to respond, as you refused to respond previously.

These emails will be a part of the record, for the Superior Court, if this escalates beyond City Council Appeal.

Andrew Marowitz

On Monday, March 30, 2026 at 04:34:33 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected] >
wrote:

Mr. Numainville:

It is NOW the end of business on Monday, March 30 th,2026, and you failed to respond to any of my questions, which suggests that you are not at work, OR you refuse to answer any of my questions of fair due process, and proper citation of the rules of HAC Appeals, of which the City of Berkeley has set up.

Accordingly, it appears that the City of Berkeley staff breaks these rules whenever and however it sees fit, without explanation.

As previously stated by me, the City of Berkeley and its staff have zero transparency and accountability, and cooperate and collaborate behind the scenes, robbing/ depriving me, as the Appellant , of FAIR AND IMPARTIAL DUE PROCESS, DEPRIVATION OF MY CIVIL RIGHTS.

I am simply describing and characterizing the events that City Staff have seemingly engaged in, and how deplorable the truth of this abuse of process truly is.

Andrew Marowitz ,Appellant of my EEE/ HAC Appeal, and now City Council Appeal.

On Saturday, March 28, 2026 at 05:32:17 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected] >
wrote:

Mr. Numainville:

It occurs to me that I didn't receive any notification of City Council sending me the scheduled date of the Appeal. Why is that? Who was the individual who sent you the scheduled date of the Appeal? What rule(s) provide that you, AND ONLY YOU , will receive the scheduled date of Appeal? Why didn't I get that same scheduled date from City Council?

There are many questions that I have that are going unanswered. Why is that? Who did you send your inquiry of the status of the City Council Appeal before the date was scheduled? Why didn't I receive a copy of that inquiry?

I expect to have many additional questions upon further thought and concern for transparency and accountability.

Thus far, you are the ONLY person(s) I have exchanged emails with? Why is that?

Andrew Marowitz

On Saturday, March 28, 2026 at 12:11:01 PM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected] >
wrote:

Mr. Numainville:

"A copy of the staff report and a City Council agenda will be available from this office upon request after 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 29, 2026 or can be viewed on our website at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas".

It now occurs to me to demand that you should show me the actual RULE and Rule Number of the City Council Appeal process and protocol that explicitly states that a copy of the staff report is to be made available.

If you cannot, then you are part of the "FIX". Where did you get this provision, ie from the Building Official or the Planning Director? As previously stated, they are NOT to provide any further "assistance" in the Appeal process, unless specifically requested. And if requested, then I should be entitled to a copy of that specific request.

This inclusion is EXACTLY like the effort that you initiated by providing the Building Official witrh a copy, who ,presumably then prepared this staff report with collaboration of the Burr and the Deputy City Attorney. EXACTLY..... And you, in response, stated that Planning Dept rules require you to send it to them, though you provided no such rule, and I presume there is no such rule and rule number.

If you fail to provide any of these, then you are part of that operation. Loyal to the city staff, as your paycheck dictates.

Andrew Marowitz

I respectfully demand that you respond to this letter, point for point.

On Saturday, March 28, 2026 at 09:45:16 AM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected] >

wrote:

"A copy of the staff report and a City Council agenda will be available from this office upon request after 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 29, 2026 or can be viewed on our website at:
berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas".

And there is the basis for favoring the HAC, the Buoilding Official, and the City Attorney staff, all colllectively working with each other behind and in front of the camera and paperwork.

BIAS and collaboration to work for the City interest, and against the public interest. And City Council always favors the interests of the City staff, unless there is gross errors. Procedural erros will be disregarded/ forgiven.

In Superior Court, Review gives no weight to City of Berkeley administrative processes. This is exactly what City Council should do. No weight to the staff report"

The table is set before the meal begins.

Andrew Marowitz

On Saturday, March 28, 2026 at 09:05:29 AM PDT, Andrew Marowitz <[email protected] >
wrote:

Mr. Numainville:

Got it.

BUT, as before to me, this method of presentation is ineffective and EXTREMELY TIME LIMITED, as well as biased, as I expect that the same protocols will be in play.

The City Council will ask me few, if any questions, and there will likely be no exchange of thoughts, communications, or proof, and there will possibly be the same counter attendees.

Seven minutes is an ineffective justice system, and the City Council has a different undisclosed agenda, perhaps.

In any case, I will engage ,as I exhaust all administtrative remedies, before seeking a Superior Court judge, where justice places no time limits. And I can make motions tp question ajd challenge procedure, fairness and impartiality, bias, seeing all of the opposing evidence, etc.

Andrew Marowitz

On Wednesday, March 25, 2026 at 02:19:20 PM PDT, Numainville, Mark L. <[email protected]
> wrote:

Andrew,

Please see the attached notice for the hearing regarding your property at 1615 Fairview.

The notice has also been sent via certified mail as the code requires.

Mark Numainville
City Clerk, City of Berkeley
(510) 981-6909
[email protected]

Attachment 9

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL OF HOUSING ADVISORY COMMISSION DECISION FOR 1615 FAIRVIEW STREET REGARDING E3 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

The Department of Planning and Development is proposing adoption of a Resolution affirming the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) decision to (1) deny the Appeal and affirm the Building Official’s determination that 1615 Fairview Street is not in compliance with the Exterior Elevated Elements (E3) Inspection Program; and (2) uphold the associated fees consistent with Council-adopted policy and State law.

The hearing will be held on June 9, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of May 29, 2026. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

For further information, please contact Jeff Jensen at (510) 981-7427.

Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or e-mailed to
[email protected] in order to ensure
delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.

Posted: May 29, 2026
Notice pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code 19.44.090.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on May 29, 2026.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
Tel: (510) 981-7100
TDD: (510) 981-6903
[email protected]

ACTION CALENDAR
June 9, 2026
To: Members of the City Council
Submitted by: Mayor Adena Ishii
Subject: Discussion about the desired qualifications for the next Director of Police Accountability.

RECOMMENDATION
Enter into a discussion between WBCP Inc. (Recruiter), and the Mayor and City Council to determine the ideal candidate profile for the next director of Office of the Director of Police Accountability for the City of Berkeley.

SUMMARY
The Office of Police Accountability requires executive leadership to: (1) oversee complaint intake, investigations, and findings; (2) manage reporting to the Police Accountability Board; (3) coordinate with the Berkeley Police Department on policy review and training recommendations; and (4) ensure timely public communications and case tracking. To recruit and hire a new director for the Office of the Director of Police Accountability, the Mayor and Council Search Subcommittee (Councilmembers Lunaparra and Humbert) are working with a recruiter, WBCP Inc. WBCP is working with the subcommittee to develop a transparent community process to recruit candidates and select the person who will best fit the needs of the City of Berkeley. For this recruiter to be most effective, she needs a better understanding of what stakeholders, community, and Council would like to see in these candidates. To provide this detail, the Mayor will hold a public discussion with the City Council about the ideal qualifications and characteristics for a candidate for this position. The outcome of this discussion, in tandem with feedback from the community, will govern the recruitment, interview and selection process.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There are no fiscal impacts of this recommendation.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Director of Police Accountability independently investigates complaints against sworn Berkeley Police Department (BPD) officers, recommends corrective actions, and audits police practices to ensure transparency. The Director also acts as Secretary to the Police Accountability Board (PAB). The City is conducting an active, publicly posted recruitment for the permanent

Director of Police Accountability, which became vacant in February 2026. On March 24, 2026, the City appointed Ms. Kathy Lee as interim Director, which enabled the City to maintain continuity during recruitment and onboarding of a new permanent Director.

As part of the recruitment process for the Director of Police Accountability, the recruiter, WBCP Inc., will engage with the full City Council to discuss the technical and professional competencies, ideal background, and experience, as well as the opportunities, priorities, and challenges for an incoming Director. This information will inform the ideal candidate profile and screening process.

Some questions that the Council should consider for discussion include:

1. What do you believe to be the most critical priorities for the new Director to focus on in their first 12-18 months?

2. What would you identify as the biggest challenges and areas of opportunity for a candidate stepping into this role?

3. What are the technical competencies, background and experience you see as critical to success in this role?

4. What are the interpersonal and leadership competencies you see as critical to success in this role?
Other engagement undertaken as part of the recruitment process has included a community meeting open to the public on May 26th, an online survey open to the public until June 10th, and individual meetings conducted by the recruiter with internal and external stakeholders identified by the Council Subcommittee, which consists of the Mayor, Councilmember Lunaparra and Councilmember Humbert.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
In order for the needs of the Office of the Director of Police Accountability to be addressed, the Mayor and Council must develop a set of criteria that they would like to see in an ideal candidate for Director of Police Accountability. This time for discussion will help to facilitate the generation of this list of criteria with Recruiter. The feedback elicited from this discussion between WBCP and the Mayor and City Council is instrumental to the generation of this list of criteria.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
No environmental impacts from this recommendation.

CONTACT PERSON
Adena Ishii, Mayor (510) 981-7100

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

PUBLIC HEARING
June 9, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Maricar Dupaya, Budget Manager
Subject: Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Proposed Five-Year CIP Public Hearing No. 1

RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Proposed Five-Year (FY 2027 - FY 2031) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for review and consideration by the City Council, conduct Public Hearing No. 1 on the Proposed Five-Year CIP, and final adoption for June 23, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The Proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) outlines planned citywide capital projects for Fiscal Years 2027–2031. It provides proposed budget for FY 2027 and FY 2028 and is part of the biennial budget, covering capital project expenditures across the Capital Improvement Program Fund, Enterprise Funds, Grant Funds, Internal Service Funds, and Special Revenue Funds. Planned projects and anticipated funding sources for FY 2029–2031 are also provided.

Fiscal impacts may change based on Council direction and will be finalized with budget adoption on June 23, 2026.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Proposed Five‑Year CIP provides a comprehensive plan to address the City’s infrastructure needs. It identifies specific capital projects and associated funding sources for the FY 2027 and FY 2028 Biennial Budget, as well as projected funding and planned projects for FY 2029–2031. The CIP also outlines the City’s significant unfunded capital needs.

Following the presentation on the Proposed Five-Year CIP, staff requests that the City Council conduct the first public hearing on the CIP. Subsequently, the Budget and Finance Policy Committee and the City Council will continue deliberations on the Proposed Five-Year CIP and the Proposed Biennial Budget prior to final adoption on June 23, 2026.

Proposed Five-Year CIP and Proposed Five-Year CIP Public Hearing #1 PUBLIC HEARING June 9, 2026

The Proposed Five-Year (FY 2027 - FY 2031) CIP is a Strategic Plan Priority Project and supports the goals of providing an efficient and financially-healthy City government and providing state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Actions included in the CIP will be developed and implemented in alignment with the City’s environmental sustainability goals and requirements.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This recommendation presents the Proposed Five-Year (FY 2027 - FY 2031) CIP to City Council and begins the first of several public hearings and discussions pertaining to the CIP and the Biennial budget, leading to final adoption on June 23, 2026.

The sequence of upcoming meetings below provides for public input, Committee and Council direction, and refinement of the Proposed Five-Year CIP and Biennial budget prior to adoption.
 May 28, 2026 - Budget and Finance Policy Committee: Proposed 5-Year CIP  June 11, 2026 - Budget and Finance Policy Committee: Mayor’s Budget  June 9, 2026 – City Council: Public Hearing No. 1 on Proposed 5-Year CIP  June 16, 2026 – City Council: Potential Discussion on Proposed Biennial Budget and 5-Year CIP
 June 23, 2026 – City Council: Public Hearing No. 2 and Adoption of Proposed Biennial Budget and 5-Year CIP

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions have been considered.

CONTACT PERSON
Maricar Dupaya, Budget Manager, City Manager’s Office, 981-7000 Attachments:
1: Public Hearing Notice

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
PROPOSED FY 2027 - FY 2031 CIP PUBLIC HEARING #1
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

The City Manager’s Office is proposing a public hearing for the Proposed FY 2027-FY 2031 Capital Improvement Program, which is being presented to the City Council.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 9, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, 1231 Addison Street.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at www.CityofBerkeley.info as of May 29, 2026. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for the public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

For further information, please contact Maricar Dupaya at (510) 981-7000.

Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.

Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.

Posted: May 29, 2026
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on May 29, 2026.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Communications

All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900

Records Online
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/

To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:

1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”

2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting

3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)

4. Click the “Search” button

5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned

6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF