From: Laurie alderman < >
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 8:43 PM
To: Laura Sparks <[email protected]>; George Barich < >; Damien O'Bid <[email protected]>; Noah Housh <[email protected]>; Susan Harvey <[email protected]>; Ben Ford <[email protected]>; Kay Rivers <[email protected]>; Sylvia Lemus <[email protected]>; John Bakker <[email protected]>; Robert Smith <[email protected]>
Cc: Craig Scott <[email protected]>; Jeremy Hay <[email protected]>; Michael Hilber < >; Carleton L. Briggs Attorney at Law <[email protected]>; David Rabbitt <[email protected]>; Michael Ceremello Ceremello < >; John H. Scott <[email protected]>; Chris Simmons <[email protected]>; Kevin Patterson <[email protected]>; Angela Courter <[email protected]>; John Savage <[email protected]>; Autumn Buss <[email protected]>; Jon-Paul Harries <[email protected]>
Subject: Retaliation against George on code enforcement, and how it relates to the upcoming joint meeting of the council and planning commission.
CAUTION:EXTERNAL SENDER
If suspicious, do not click on links, open attachments, or provide credentials and report it by using the "Phish Alert Report" button.
(Kevin this is my public comment for the 4:00 joint meeting of the council and the planning commission on 4/28/2024)
Well, now with the publication of the agenda for plex housing next week, it now makes sense why George Barich has been selectively enforced for the last year over code violations. It's all connected to the housing development interests, meeting the State housing requirements no matter the cost to the citizens of Cotati. As usual, the City has used George Barich, and to a lesser degree me, to meet their needs, no matter what the costs to citizens including their basic human rights and civil rights.
Most of the code enforcement actions that George is facing over $900k in fines according to the city's paperwork and have cost the city about $80k for attorney fees to pursue the 8 supposed violations are part of this reasons for the city to develop new standards in this housing design standards workshop. Over and over again, the City said it possessed the 1990s building codes, but Public Comment
would never provide the 1990s codes to George's legal team. A key defense for George, is that he shouldn't be held to current codes, set backs, because his house was built in 1982 and bought in 1994. The code enforcement attorney and the City staff would not ever address or provide the information why George was not grandfathered in.
Ever since November, George has been pursued using new codes with the City dragging out this, costing George buckets of money in attorney fees for almost a year to defend against. He is doing so to protect his home, which according to the City's paperwork, the accumulated fines are over $900k which is more than the worth of his home. George has been working two jobs to pay for attorney fees to defend himself against the code violations. I keep saying the City is going overboard and setting a precedent that a citizen better be wealthy or pay up to code enforcement, as the process has become where an attorney is needed to contest code violations by the average citizen. It is setting a precedent that if a citizen is too poor to pay attorney fees for endless required legal briefs, etc., the citizen would be forced to just pay and be in violation of the codes.
A key component of this is the City has had these codes and design standards, as evidenced in this meeting packet
(attached).
As you can read from this, that the city has the codes and knows that they were optional in 1990 Residential Design Criteria when George bought his home, which was constructed a dozen years before when George's property was zoned rural residential, and the codes were optional. During this past year, the City has intentionally withheld these 1990's codes and pursued George, not allowing him his rights to a defense even, that he was
grandfathered in with his property, when codes were optional.
All of these new housing standards and George's alleged code violations are intertwined on multiple prongs, but I shall focus on one of the supposed violations, over 40% lot coverage due to George's pavement and structures counted in. In preparation for the November code enforcement hearing, one of the discoveries I made was the difference in wording on the 40% lot coverage issue. In 2004 when the City majorly revamped its standards and codes, the City added "pavement" to what was in the 1990s and before, just structures. By 2004, it was changed to structures and pavement. George is being cited at $500 a day since September on this violation, because of his pavement and structures are debatable over 40% by a little according to the City. A professional independent expert found that the pavement and structures according to state standards, was 37% lot coverage even including the pavement. The City while having been asked repeatedly over the last year will not provide how it calculated that George's property was over 40%.
Now, this is how the City is using that information....to remove the "pavement" in the new design standards from your 2004 codes.
The City of Cotati used my discovery of the change in wording by 2004; that impacted development with the calculations having both pavement and structures and it now results with trying to eliminate pavement in the calculation.
The City is using George, and his attorney and legal team for its own interests, meanwhile pursuing George selectively. On May 29th, George's next code enforcement hearing will have him defending against both the pavement and structures
calculation. Which is the same issue that the City will have proposed eliminating in the joint council and planning commission meeting on May 28th, the day before. George's code enforcement hearing additionally was moved from May 22nd to May 29th by his side, which if it had been held on the 22nd, would have had George being held to the "structures and pavement" code at the May 22nd hearing. Meanwhile, the next week, the City would then propose to eliminate the "pavement" phrase the following week. So one week one code used against George, and then the next week, eliminating the code to foster stack em and pack em housing.
This is just one of the multiple intertwined issues of the design standards and the City's development of housing standards and the selective enforcement of George, evident in the agenda packet for the May 28th meeting. I'd suggest postponing this meeting until this is all resolved in a civilized manner, and outright addressing what happened to George and the city's reasons and need for selective enforcement against George. I'd also cancel the proposed code enforcement meeting against George on May 29th, until this is resolved. I'd outwardly would let realities known that the City has been under Federal Court review for years now and is committed to change its ways. But maybe I am too much of an optimist to think that the City staff and council would face reality and be open to change....the current dysfunctional status quo enriches the city's coffers.
This is also related to what I have been telling the City and council for years. That the citizens are not showing up to city council meetings, because there are known consequences for speaking out against the City in any way. It's known it is all about money and finances to the City. A few of us citizens have been brave enough to take this all on....with deep personal consequences for doing so.
Please consider all of this and whether the council supports using citizens for their own means and breaking their basic human rights (and civil rights too) in the process.
Sincerely,
Laurie Alderman