Dear City Councilmembers.
We are writing to you prior to our appearance at the upcoming City Council meeting in order to provide some background, the petition of support from the local community (Attachment A), and seek your assistance in putting this matter to a close through our request that you place the matter on a future Council agenda so the Council may way in. We understand that future options could include a Council determination that the Wall is built in accordance with the Code or if the Council feels it is not built to standards of the Code then the Council could hear a zone variance request and approve with conditions acceptable to the Council or it could deny the request; regardless of the ultimate decision this is fundamentally a policy matter for your Council.
Needless time, money and energy has been spent building to this moment but in respect for your very valuable time this letter will avoid going into minute detail. Suffice to say, the Halls used their very limited retirement savings to build a six foot high privacy wall enclosing the side yard of their property and that wall abuts a 2 foot planter box that abuts the sidewalk. (Attachment B) The wall was constructed at a time when both are disabled because of sever medical conditions to provide security for Mrs. Hall as there had been numerous issues related to the drug rehab facility that is now located in the neighborhood. Issues included finding drugs stashed in the landscaping directly abutting the Halls home and what appear to be drug deals conducted on the streets abutting the Halls home. This home has been in the Halls family more than 4 decades; almost since it was originally built. The Halls placed the wall closer to the home than the original fence built the tract developer and the Halls went with considerably more expensive option of a wall with matching stucco coat as they felt that design fits the neighborhood better and would be more aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors than a simple wood fence. Evidently the Halls were right as the entire neighborhood has been very supportive.
This privacy wall is parallel to a mature line of trees that are at least 4 decades old on the neighbor property directly abutting the Halls. Likewise, the privacy wall is parallel to the retaining wall on the neighbor property directly abutting the Halls and that wall is roughly 4 feet from the sidewalk.
Measured from the sidewalk, the Halls wall is two feet away, the abutting retaining wall on the neighbor's property is four feet away from the sidewalk and the outer edge of mature tree line is less than two feet away from the sidewalk. The Halls and the abutting neighbor share a retaining wall that divides their backyards and the corner of this shared retaining wall is four feet from the sidewalk. The Halls wall was constructed using their very limited retirement savings at a time when both are disabled because of sever medical conditions to provide security for Mrs. Hall as there had been numerous issues related to the drug rehab facility that is now located in the neighborhood, including finding drugs stashed in the landscaping directly abutting the Halls home and what appear to be drug deals conducted on the streets abutting the Halls home.
Prior to the construction of this wall, Mr. Hall came into the City and visited the Planning Counter twice to ascertain what if any permits would be required for this construction and to pull those permits. Both times, the initial check and the subsequent double check, he was informed by the planning staff member he talked to that he was good to go, no permits would be required and that this was a common improvement in the City and is allowed by the Code as a matter or right. In fact, the City Code has several sections of the zoning code, including an entire Chapter 19.38, which expressly regulate the location of walls in the City and those sections without exception all expressly provide that the Hall's privacy wall may be located where it presently is.
In fact, section 19.38.010 expressly provides that the purpose of Chapter 19.38 is to "[regulate the location and height of walls, fences and landscaping, so as to provide for the beneficial use of private property, while protecting the public safety of persons using sidewalks and streets from visibility impacts." (emphasis added). The specific controlling section in this matter is 19.38.020(A) which expressly provides that "[w]all and fences not exceeding six feet in height shall be permitted along all side and rear yard lot lines" (emphasis added). Additionally, 19.14.090 expressly provides that a "fence, wall or hedge, not to exceed six feet in height, may be located or maintained along the side or rear lot lines... " (emphasis added). And in Planned Development Zones, 19.16.140 expressly provides that a "fence or wall not to exceed six feet in height may be required to be located and maintained along the side or rear lot lines... (emphasis added).
City staff maintains that the wall "must be demolished" although at this point the reasoning is unclear at best. Initially, the City asserted that the wall was a sightline violation and was therefore a dangerous condition and it must be removed. In support of this claim, the City has provided the Halls with attached picture showing a "sight triangle" area that it was claimed must be kept free from any visual obstruction over a certain height. (Attachment C) With that said, the City's assertion was in error because the "sight triangle" was based on a Code section that did not apply to the Halls home. Section 19.38.050(A)(1) applies to the Halls home and the home across Corte Castano from the Halls as those homes are corner lots "[a]t intersections where traffic is not required to stop on any approach,..." Notably, the Code only mentions the word "sight triangle" three times and in each instance, it is in direct reference to "controlled intersection" which Corte Castano is not. Importantly under this "sight triangle" the Halls would have no ability to provide privacy fencing in their property at all, the original development fencing would have been a violation and if it was applied to other residential homes in Camarillo they too would be unable to have privacy fencing in their side yards.
The City provided sightline is from 19.38.050(B) and it would apply to the homes on the corner of Avenida Del Manzano and Calle Portilla as those homes are on the corner of controlled intersections. While it may simply be an aesthetic choice it could be that walls at these homes that directly abut the sidewalk on Avenida Del Manzano are less than 6 feet high because the sight triangle only applies to obstructions of a particular height. Regardless, since these walls do not extend into a reverse corner lot and they are not in the front yard once the wall is past the corner of the home, there is no height restriction on them aside from the "sight triangle". (19.38.020(D) limiting height if the wall extends into a reverse corner lot; 19.38.020(A) limiting height in "front yards" and in corner cutbacks.) Their location along the lot line is allowed and called out by the Code as is the Halls. Simply put, if these walls are permitted at their location directly abutting the sidewalk then so is the Halls wall because the Halls wall is located further back from the sidewalk by 2 feet, it is not in the front yard, and it does not extend into a reverse corner lot; setting aside that the Halls wall is further away from the side walk the only other difference between these walls is the height and there is nothing in the Code that would limit the height of the Hall's wall.
If the City's position is that the wall must be demolished because it is in the dedicated but presently unused right of way area the city is lacking any Code authority for such a decision. As already mentioned, there are several code sections that expressly allow for walls along the lot lines and none of these sections provide for, or in anyway hint, that the lot line is somehow defined as to not include the dedicated right of way area. Moreover, per well settled case law and Civil Code section 801 a "right of way" is an easement attached to the land and as such the "lot line" by definition would include the area of the easement. Moreover, if this dedicated right of way area was not on the Halls "lot" then the City would be completely responsible for this areas upkeep, maintenance, and tort liability like the City is with the sidewalk itself.
It's worth noting that at times City staff have asserted this dedicated but presently unused area must have landscaping maintained by the home owner and that this area is considered in the homes yard. Both of these assertions support the Halls position that this area may include the Wall as the definition of residential landscaping in 19.04.431 includes screen walls and fences and the definition of yard in 19.04.820 allows for walls and fences. (Attachment D showing several similar walls)
Additionally, it should be noted that the Halls are under no illusion here. If this wall is in a dedicated right of way area, the Halls know that the City may take that land for future expansion of the City property be that for wider sidewalk, bike lane or roadway expansion and the Halls will have no recourse and the cost for removing the improvements will lie with the Halls. The Halls have made this clear to City attorney and offered to sign a recorded covenant so stating as a solution to this matter but it is understood that the offer was not presented to your Council for reasons unknown to the Halls.
Of course, we do not need to look at just the Code to determine what is meant by the authorization to place a fence or wall on the lot line. As already mentioned, the home immediately abutting the Halls home has a retaining wall that extends into the area staff claims is a dedicated right of way area by a foot; 20% of the claimed area. Likewise, the home immediately across the street on Corte Castano has a retaining wall that extends into the area staff claims is a dedicated right of way area.
It's worth noting that since these are retaining walls they require footers that extend even further into the area staff claims is a dedicated right of way area. In fact, the Halls wall is set to the location of the abutting retaining wall's footer.
Both homes on the corner of Avenida Del Manzano and Calle Portilla have walls along the side lot line that immediate abuts the sidewalk while the Halls wall is back a full 2 feet from the sidewalk.
While corner lots are of course somewhat rare, the community has countless homes that have walls and fences in the front yard that immediately abut the sidewalk. In fact, the Halls have three neighbors with such walls or fences. Two homes are across from them on Avenida Del Manzano while a third is their abutting neighbor on Corte Castano. Moreover, one only needs to drive up Avenida Del Manzano to see numerous other walls that extend to and directly abut the sidewalk.
And yet there is nothing in 19.38.020 or any other code section that would hint at a special treatment for these walls and fences in relation to the claimed dedicated right of way area. (Attachment E)
In closing, we should note that for the reasons stated herein the Halls have repeatedly believed that the City had dropped the matter to only be surprised with nuisance hearing notices posted without any warning. The City did this in May only to call off the hearing on a few hours' notice because the Halls complained about the complete lack of any staff report and evidence being provided to them in advance. The City took several weeks to eventually provide some evidence in response to a public records request. Three months later the City again called for a hearing which the Halls had less than 4 day's notice of because they were out of town at the time. It is worth noting that the City had phone numbers and emails but made no effort to reach out before calling the hearing and again for all the reasons stated herein the Halls believed that the City would have dropped the matter because the wall is permitted as a matter of right at its location under the Code. It is also worth noting that at the hearing the City cited to code sections that were not included in the hearing notice at all and as such the Halls were denied the ability to property prepare for the hearings. Moreover because the hearing was held on such short notice over the Halls objections, the Halls were unable to retain and call witnesses that it would have otherwise called to the hearing. As example, if the Halls were permitted the time to prepare the Halls would have made arrange to call land use professionals. Importantly, it was only once the Halls got to the hearing that they were informed that the entire witness portion of the hearing would be conducted within three hours of time regardless of what the issues the Halls wished to raise and how long the City took in presenting its case.
Nonetheless, in an effort to move this along to the Council, the Halls filed for an encroachment permit prior to the hearing with the knowledge that in doing so if the permit was denied the Halls had a right to take this matter before your Council on appeal. For reasons only known to the City, the City refused to take this less costly avenue and instead proceeded with a hearing even though the Halls had asked for a continuance to properly prepare for the hearing and allow the permit to be acted upon. The hearing was held before a City appointed hearing officer that admits to having no prior experience in administrative nuisance hearings and limited knowledge of land use law.
While this is not the proper place to attack the decision and we will not here, we have asked what if any reconsideration process there is in part because the decision orders the Halls to demolish portions of the retaining wall shared with the neighbor, the express reasoning on setbacks is contrary to the clear depiction on the parcel map, while the hearing officer finds there is no sightline violation he nonetheless orders the demolition of the wall, and he fails to expressly address whether the placement of the wall is permitted by the Code sections mentioned in this letter. These latter two issues are crucial as it is axiomatic that if the sections provided allow for the wall then there can be no nuisance because "nothing done under the express authority of a statute or within a city by authority of an ordinance can be deemed a nuisance." (Monterey Club v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (1941) 48 Cal.App.2d 131, 147; Civil Code 3482.) Puzzling while the Halls have repeatedly sought to address this matter and the issues herein without the need for costly judicial review, the City Attorney has objected asserting that the Halls should seek judicial review rather than having the hearing officer (or presumably your Council) reevaluate this decision. Importantly, this decision by the City Attorney places the Halls in the position that if this matter is not resolved in the next 2 months, the Halls will have no other option than file an action against the City to protect their rights and investment; an action that Halls are not eager to do as they and their family have been a part of this community for 5 decades.
Finally, the City did not act on the encroachment permit for nearly four months and on December 14th staff denied the permit for the wall stating simply that the wall was in the right-of-way. It should be noted that 13.04.040 provides that the City staff may deny a permit for encroachment in the right of way but in doing so it needs to find that the issuing the permit "is not in the best interests of the general public" or "it will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare"; the denial did not contain any such findings it simply stated that wall "was located within the public right of way", which is puzzling because the permit itself is only needed for an encroachment in the right of way. Staff also made insurance demands in that denial which simply cannot be met for construction that as already occurred. The Halls have until Friday to file an appeal of that denial but so far staff has not explained the insurance conundrum and has not provided the amount if any that the City demands to file the appeal. We are also reaching out to you to assist in moving the staff along so that we can file the appeal to this denial.
It is sincerely hoped that your Council will take this opportunity to become invested in this matter before this matter continues to spiral into further waste of time and resources and the potential for judicial review which your attorney seems desirous of. The matter is simple does the cited Code sections allow for the walls current placement and if not then why not and why is this wall an issue but the other walls within visual distance of this wall are not. These are not factual issues and they are not issues for staff and attorneys. These are policy issues related to the meaning and wording the City's zoning code that your Council adopts and accordingly the proper venue for this matter is an appeal before your Council with an agenda item so the Halls and the community and address what is really a simple matter but has become so convoluted that common sense has been lost.
Thanks you for your time and consideration.
Pittal
ATTACHMENT A
To Whom it May Concern,
Recently, our neighbor Mr. Phil Hall had a walled addition built on his property. He explained that it was erected for storage, and most importantly to give his family privacy (by keeping assersby from looking into his back yard and living room and constantly alarming his dogs ue to the addition of a Sober Living Facility next door to him, sidewalk traffic has increase significantly. The whole neighborhood watched the process of the walls being built by a professional company. Mr. Hall did everything he could to make sure that the workmanship was top notch and that the end result was aesthetically pleasing.
The reason for this letter/petition is to let the City of Camarillo know that the Hall's neighbors, y signing below, declare that we do not have complaints or issues with the addition. In fact, we think the overall aesthetic adds to the beauty of our neighborhood. We feel very lucky to have the Halls as our neighbors, and we'd like to show support for excellent members of our community.
Signed,
Name Address Signature E-Mail
Rontedson 1590 Aila 2l
And f. Wale oñtrone yahoo. com
Manzanu
142Л 1590 Ave do
Andersen Munano Karandersen@ gmat
STAN + 1506 Ave del STANgoNzAles @symanl
LYNDA GONZAleS MANZANO [email protected]
• illite erotis
591 Cote Carten DeliLatey [email protected]
Veronicakauschenberger 575 Colte Castino UNDO rauschenberger@gmalem Dominic 543 farto ReTah doninic cord isco @yaho
Cordisco Sara Recto Lam Laura Kurdisco@
CamariloCA grail. Com
M. Budget Cordice 543 Maratan Cardico bern 50o yahoo. com Tracey MaTigue 542 Cartine
CorinneBed 558 Corte Catano
To Whom it May Concern,
Recently, our neighbor Mr. Phil Hall had a walled addition built on his property. He explained that it was erected for storage, and most importantly to give his family privacy (by keeping passersby from looking into his back yard and living room and constantly alarming his dogs).
Due to the addition of a Sober Living Facility next door to him, sidewalk traffic has increased significantly. The whole neighborhood watched the process of the walls being built by a professional company. Mr. Hall did everything he could to make sure that the workmanship was top notch and that the end result was aesthetically pleasing.
The reason for this letter/petition is to let the City of Camarillo know that the Hall's neighbors, by signing below, declare that we do not have complaints or issues with the addition. In fact, we think the overall aesthetic adds to the beauty of our neighborhood. We feel very lucky to have the Halls as our neighbors, and we'd like to show support for excellent members of our community.
Signed,
Name Address
Signature E-Mail
Ons witck 653 Calk Paria Cla fir harden chris" gmil.com Stephen Lager 50 Cure items Michelle the us call patria luith michelle.witbrcbe
jmakl.com
1562 Avenida
sane Big. Del Manzan [email protected]
Marty bonse cos Calle Portilla, Camerlto marty jensen maico.
Steve JENsen ço69 calle Portilla, camarillo drisjensene yahoo. 1520 Are. Del
Michelle Spruiel manzano [email protected]
R. raig Spruell marital coul [email protected] manzano Haway Carol webs castante ZawyR. ashe [email protected] City of Camarillo
Code Enforcement Phone Call
Narrative
On Monday, October 24, 2022, between 11:00 a.m. and 12 Noon I received a call from an employee representing the Building Dept. of the City of Camarillo. He asked for "Carol Sue" and identified himself as J.D. Sotelo. I was surprised, as no one in our family or friends calls my wife "Carol Sue" even though her full name is Carol Sue Webb. I told him she was not home and asked what he wanted.
J.D. asked if my wife had called Code Enforcement complaining about a "block wall". I told him that to my knowledge she had not. It then occurred to me that there is a block wall and fence on the NE corner of Avenida Manzano and Las Posas that is in disrepair and unsightly. Several years ago we did take pictures of that wall and submitted them to Code Enforcement. Some repair and clean up resulted, but since then it has deteriorated much further. Carol and I had actually discussed how bad the corner looks as recently as a few days ago. I asked J.D. if he was aware of the corner and was this what he was referring to. My thought was that perhaps my wife had called Code Enforcement without my knowledge. I told J.D. that I would have my wife call him back. He gave me his cell phone number.
I forgot to tell my wife when she came home, but remembered a couple of hours later. She told me she had not called Code Enforcement and was unsure how to file a complaint anyway. I called J.D. back on the cell number he had given me and left a message to return my call. He clid later that afternoon.
During our conversation, 1 emphasized that neither of us had called Code Enforcement regarding a block wall. He told me that someone from our address called and left a wrong telephone number. He told me he had used utility records to get our correct phone number. I assume that's why he asked for "Carol Sue" since that's how our utility billing reads. He intimated that the wall in question was, in fact, the wall that Phill Hall had constructed several months ago at his home at 651 E. Corte Castano. I informed him that we had absolutely no objection to his wall's appearance or aesthetics and that it conformed to similar walls in the surrounding neighborhoods.
We ended our conversation cordially.
Code Enforcement Rep.: J. D. Sotelo, (805) 625-1899
Prepared by: Harvey R. Webb, 574 E. Corte Castano, Camarillo, CA 93010, October 30, 2022
Harrys. Mate
May 1, 2023
City of Camarillo,
Unfortunately, we are not able to participate in person today, however we still want our voices heard regarding the Hall's and their property located at 651 Corte Castano, Camarillo.
I would like to start with the fact that we purchased our home and moved to the City of Camarillo back in 2005 because we loved the quality of life and sense of community here. The Hall's are a part of that as long-time members in our neighborhood. Anytime that a neighbor puts money back into their homes, improving their property, is good for all of us including the community itself. The improvements made by the Hall's with the exterior wall on the south-east side of their property in NO WAY impedes driving or any sightline going up Ave del Manzano. Not only is the wall beautifully done, but it also provides much needed privacy and security for the Hall's while enjoying their home.
We find it very disheartening to hear that this wall is causing such an issue against the Hall's and the City is losing sight of its people. There is NO reason they should be required to make ANY changes to the improvements already made. Again, those improvements were very well done and increase the curb appeal to the neighborhood. We walk our neighborhood daily and personally enjoy the improvements they made, and the wall is of NO consequence. We put everything we have into our homes and look to that as our nest eggs, it's very unsettling to think that the city can threaten to try and take that all away. I would hate for our neighborhood to question improving their properties and continue to have our neighborhood thrive simply because of fear of backlash from the city. That scenario does not benefit the community or the city.
There is NO issue with driving on Ave del Manzano as a result of the wall. Not to mention the Hall's wall is much lower than the wall to the house behind them. Again, the wall has ZERO impact on the drivability of that street.
I know there are much bigger and more important topics the city can focus on for the betterment of our community. We look forward to moving this issue behind us as our entire neighborhood will be happy to get back to business as usual and we can continue to enjoy the Hall's "wall" for many years to come.
Thank you for your time.
Chris & Michelle Witbeck
653 Calle Portilla, Camarillo
5/1/2023
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this in reference to the structural improvement made by my neighbor on his property at 651 Corte Castano.
My name is Jason Penalba and I own the adjacent property at 1563 Avenida Del Manzano. We share a common wall which is an extension of the existing wall in question. Philip, my neighbor, spent a lot of time developing this addition and he did an excellent job constructing the wall in my opinion. The wall is aesthetically pleasing, it fits the neighborhood, and has functional value providing added security from what I understand.
My apologies for not being to attend the hearing in person, although I do ask that you please consider leaving the wall as is for the aforementioned reasons.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly should you have any questions or concerns.
Respectfully,
Jason Penalba
1563 Avenida Del Manzano, Camarillo, CA 93010
(818) 921-2086
5/3/2023
Dear City of Camarillo Officlals,
I am writing to appeal the decision to deny my neighbors, Mr. and Mrs Hall at 651 Corte Castano, request to keep their block wall on the easement located on their property. I understand the importance of maintaining the safety and visibility of the neighborhood traffic, but I assure you that the proposed wall does not obstruct any sight lines or safety as it is a wide road.
The easement in question is located on the outer edge of the Hall family property and does not interfere with any city-owned utility lines. Previous to the installation of the wall, this was the only home with an open sight line into their backyard. I believe that this wall not only enhances the aesthetic appeal of my neighborhood but also provides a necessary barrier from noise, unwanted traffic and provides an added level of security and privacy for my neighbor's family and home.
I understand that the city has concerns about the potential impact of the wall on the neighborhood, but I assure you that the proposed wall does not pose any danger to the community; in fact the flowers in the planter boxes add to the aesthetics and help to maintain property values in the nelghborhood.
In conclusion, I respectfully request that the city allow the Hall's to keep the wall in its current location on their property.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Verohica Rauschenberger, homeowner
575 Corte Castano
Camarillo, CA 93010
ATTACHMENT B
May 16, 2022 at 11:22:06 AM
May 16, 2022 at 11:22:15 AM
May 25, 2022 at 2:31:11 PM
May 2, 2023 at 12:29:06 PM
May 2, 2023 at 12.28:03 PM
1562 Avenida Del Manzano
Camarilie, California
Google Siteel View
Sep 2022 See more dates
Sausalito Dr
uno Caster I.
Calle Portilla Las Posas Rd
Google
Image capture:
5PL
ATTACHMENT C
250 ft
AVENIDA DEL MANZANO
250 iL
CORTE CASTANO
ATTACHMENT D
599 Calle Converse X
Camarilla Califomia
Gonge Sueet Viewi
Sep 2022 See more dates
eration Colle Cor
gement
LB Interiors
Google
Image capture:
1601 N Calle La Cumbre
Cantatillo, Callforniz
Google Street View
Sep 2022 See more dates
LB Interiors Califa
Sausalito Dr
Google
Image capture
- 1699 Calle La Cumbre
Camarillo, Callfornia
Google Street View
See more dates
anagement
LB Interior
Google
Image caplu
423 E Calle La Sombra
Comarillo, California
coogle Street View
Jan 2021 See more dates
E Calle La Guerra
-esh Fare Google
mage capture © 20
364 E Calle La Sombra
Camarilio, California
Google Street View
Sep 2022 See more dates
E Calle La Guerra
Barton Ave
.esh Fare Google
image capture
376 E Calle La Sombra
Camatillo, California
Google Street View
Sep 2022 See more dates
E al ese
E Calle La Guerra
esh Fare Google
Image ca
466 N Calle La Sombra
camarillo, california
Google Street View
Sep 2022 See more dates
E Calle La Guerra
Barton AVC
. . esh Fare
Google
901 Comanche Ct X
Camarillo, California
Google Streel Vies
Sep 2022 see more dates
Valle
Dr Lindo Park
Aileen St
Ave
Jav
Google
mage capture: Sep 2022 © 2023 Google Under States
Port a problem
1581 Avenida Del Manzano
Camarillo. California
Google Street View
May 20F1
Avend ie
Sausalito Dr
amino Caster
Calle Portilla Las Posas Rd
Google
ATTACHMENT E