CITY OF OAKLAND
250 FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA ▪ SUITE 2340 ▪ OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-2031 (510) 238-3381
TDD: (510) 238-3254
Planning and Building Department
Bureau of Building
Code Enforcement Services
[email protected]
APPEAL OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION
Instructions:
Decisions made by Independent Hearing Officers on Building Code Enforcement appeals may be appealed to City Council. (O.M.C. 15.04.1.125G). The non-refundable filing fee for appeals to City Council is $3,349.00 The appellant has the burden of establishing that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer’s decision or that the decision is based on an error of law. Council’s consideration will be limited to the record established by the Hearing Officer. No new evidence may be considered unless the proponent shows that the evidence was both newly discovered and could not, with reasonable diligence, have been produced before the Hearing Officer.
Complete this form and return it, along with the required filing fee, to the Bureau of Building, at 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2nd Floor, Cashiering, Oakland, CA 94612. Appeals forms may be submitted in person or by mail but must be received by the Bureau of Building no later than 14 days from the date of the Notice of Decision. Appeals forms submitted without the required filing fee will be rejected.
Filing Date: Complaint No.
Property Address: APN
Name of
Appellant:
Appellant
Mailing Address:
Phone Number: Email Address:
Property Owner: Phone
(if different) Number:
Property Owner
Mailing Address:
Representative/ Phone
Attorney (if any) Number:
Representative’s
Mailing Address:
NON-ATTORNEY REPRESENTATIVES MUST PROVIDE NOTARIZED AUTHORIZATION 2/7/2024
1303679
955 57th St. / 5655 Lowell St.
015 129800900
Miguel Jara
955 57th St. Oakland, CA 94608
510-654-9282
[email protected]
Michael McGrew
9166625936
2729 Turk Blvd. San Francisco, CA 94118
Attachment M
Please indicate the grounds for your appeal:
☐ There is no substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer’s decision. ☐ The Hearing Officer’s decision is based on an error of law.
Please explain below the grounds for your appeal. You may use this form to write your explanation and/or attach supplemental pages as needed.
I Declare under Penalty of Perjury that the information given herewith in all respects is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
__________________________ ___________ _____________________________ ___________ Appellant Signature Date Representative Signature Date _________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Print Name Clearly Print Name Clearly
Office Use Only
Receive Date: Appeal Fee: $
Fees are subject to change without prior notice. The fees charged will be those that are in effect at the time of application submittal.
All fees are due at submittal of application.
February 2024
See attached Summary and two Closing Arguments.
2/7/24
Michael McGrew
APPELLANT’S GROUNDS FOR APPEAL This Appeal is in regards to the Notice to Abate (“NTA”) as well as the subsequent Declaration of Public Nuisance (“DPN”) for the property at 955 57th St. and 5655 Lowell St. As listed in the notice of decision issued on January 24th, 2024, these two matters of Abatement and Nuisance are combined within the complaint, and as such the arguments put forth in all three of the hearing dates are applicable, May 23 and 24th, 2023 and October 19th, 2023. The Hearing Officer admitted all evidence of the previous matters in the most recent hearing. Michael Roush was the Hearing Officer in both hearings. The Notice to Abate, ("NTA"), required city to issue a compliance plan within 30 days and on the last page warned in bold letters: Corrections may not commence without issuance of a Compliance Plan. The city, however, failed to issue the compliance plan. In his Decision, the Hearing Officer relies on the fact that the DPN contained a clause allowing the Appellant to request a Compliance Plan as sufficient to prove that the onus was on the Appellant to request a Compliance Plan. This completely ignores the earlier issued NTA’s verbiage and requirements. As such, Appellant was in the confusing situation as to whether or not he was supposed to be obtaining permits and correcting the premises or not. In his decision Hearing Officer Roush said that Appellant had not applied for permits before 2021, however, Appellant’s architect, Craig Miers (incorrectly referred to as Fred Miers by the Hearing Officer in the Decision) testified as to numerous permits had been applied for and received prior to the City’s deadline of 10/4/2021. Permit 2002151 was filed on 8/21/2020, and became finalized. The City’s witness Inspector Carillo testified that the building itself and all of the second floor remodel had passed inspection and the work listed in the nuisance and abatement orders had been resolved relative to the interior of Appellant’s building. Permit OB2101124 had been obtained on 6/14/21. This permit allowed for a long term obstruction for the scaffolding to attempt to allow the premises to come into accordance with City standards. The City’s Order to Abate and Notice of Public Nuisance discuss the issue of electrical, plumbing, or mechanical work. However, it was not specified the specific location of the premises as to where this work was done. Mr. Carillo testified that the second floor alterations had been completed and there were no issues as to mechanical, plumbing, and mechanical work . Yet the Hearing Officer alleged that the inspection was not sufficient to clear the issue, despite the City at no point claiming that there was any issue in regards to these matters outside of the second story alteration. The errors regarding the NTA and DPN issued within the Decision are sufficient to void it entirely. Throughout the last ten years, Appellant has faced an uphill battle in managing their property and business at 955 57th Street. Miguel Jara is the son of immigrants and has lived in the bay area his entire life. He has owned and operated his business in Oakland for decades, and has been a meat distributor for many of the bay area and Oakland’s taquerias and other restaurants. Appellant’s business employs over 30 Oakland residents and he distributes over $100 million dollars of product per year throughout the bay area and Oakland. Appellant has regularly attempted to bring his property and business up to the correct standards. Permits are currently under review to correct the unpermitted work on the loading dock, canopy and driveway gate (Permits BW23002670 and BW23003601 filed 7/20/23 and 9/26/23 respectively). Despite these continuing efforts, Appellant is faced with continuing fines that make the future of his business remaining in Oakland precarious. Appellant hopes for an amicable solution to this matter so as to bring his property and business up to the proper standards and to continue his operations in Oakland. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
Steven J. Hassing, WSB #152125
Attorney at Law
425 Calabria Court
Roseville, CA 95747
(916) 677-1776
[email protected]
Attorney for Appellant, 955 57th LLC
IN RE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF ) May 23, 24, 2023 Administrative Hearing )
955 57th LLC ) Appellant's Closing Argument
I
INTRODUCTION
The city's own 10/04/21 Notice to Abate, (Ex "C"), required the city to issue a compliance plan to address improvements constructed in 2013 by licensed contractors which had moved forward without permits or who had obtained permits but failed to call for finals.
The city threatens penalties of $1000.00 per day for non-compliance. For the following reasons Appellant seeks a decision finding error or abuse of discretion on the part of the city. Based on the evidence, it would also be appropriate for the decision to include an order requiring Appellant to continue using its best efforts to complete the permitting process.
Appellant's closing argument focuses on the following:
1. The Notice to Abate, ("NT A"), required city to issue a compliance plan within 30 days and on the last page warned in bold letters in bold letters; Corrections may not commence without issuance of a Compliance Plan.
The city, however, failed to issue the compliance plan.
2. On 01/13/20, the city's inspection manager, without authority, issued a wrongful notice, voiding the parties existing 10/20/14 compliance plan. (See Ex "H").
3. The NT A was issued in violation of appeal stays.
4. Some of the permits of which the city complains, were obtained but terminated by the city prior to final inspection. Appellant's architect attempted to apply for other permits only to be turned away because of the city's election to refrain from processing them until an unrelated conditional use permit and variance application had been acted upon.
5. Many of the permitting issues were resolved prior to the hearing. 1 CITY OF OAKLAND NUISANCE APPEAL HEARING City of Oakland v. 955 57th LLC Hearing Date: October 19, 2023 APPELLANT’S WRITTEN CLOSING ARGUMENT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction……………………………………………..……………………………2 II. Background………………………………………………………………….……….3 III. Argument……………………………………………………………………………..5 a. The City acted in bad faith when it never issued or proposed a Compliance Plan for Appellant to execute bringing alleged violations into compliance with city standards. ……………………………………………………………………6 b. The City acted in bad faith when revoking the former Compliance Plan that allowed Appellant to seek permits for previous improvements……………….7 c. The City’s Declaration of Public Nuisance and Order to Abate were in error due to permits existing for alleged violations and permits being issued later to further prevent violations. ……………………………………………………8 d. The City committed error when it misapplied habitability standards of the municipal code to a non-residential building in error. ………………………..10 IV. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..…11 2 INTRODUCTION 955 57, LLC, (“Appellant”), hereby presents its closing argument following an October 19, 2023 administrative appeal hearing. Appellant seeks to overrule and reverse City of Oakland’s, (“the City”), June 27, 2022 Notice of Declaration of Public Nuisance. Appellant has established that issuance of the Declaration of Public Nuisance constituted error. Based on the record no fines are warranted. The Notice of Declaration of Public Nuisance is the result of an October 4, 2021 Order to Abate – Habitability Standards issued by the City to Appellant. Below, Appellant will show the following: 1. The City’s Declaration of Public Nuisance and Order to Abate were in error due to permits existing for alleged violations and permits being issued later to further prevent violations. 2. The City acted in bad faith when it never issued or proposed a Compliance Plan for Appellant to execute bringing alleged violations into compliance with city standards. 3. The City acted in bad faith when revoking the former Compliance Plan that allowed Appellant to seek permits for previous improvements. 4. The City applies habitability standards to a non-residential building in error. RELIEF REQUESTED Appellant seeks an order Granting its appeal and including the following findings: 1. Finding that the City acted in bad faith when voiding the 2014 Compliance Plan. 2. Finding that the City acted in bad faith when not drafting or proposing a new Compliance Plan to Appellant in light of the 2021Order to Abate. 3. Finding that no penalties are warranted as Appellants have abated and have been abating applicable violations. 3 4. Order to City to draft and propose a Compliance Plan for consideration of Appellant.
BACKGROUND
On October 20, 2014, Appellant entered into a Compliance Plan with the City in part to correct unpermitted improvements on the premises of 955 57 Street. App. Ex. 1. Appellant hired architect Craig Miers to assist in correcting violations and obtain permits for past and future projects. Mr. Miers was in regular communications with City planning and building officials in 2015. App. Ex. 6, 7, & 9. In a January 24, 2015 email, Mr. Miers discusses that the permit for window replacement had been approved, and that Appellant still sought permits for the inclusion of plaster repair to improve the image of the building. App. Ex. 7. In this email, Mr. Miers also discusses the issues with the process and timing of obtaining permits, as the neighbors to their building were appealing approved projects. App. Ex. 7.
The 2014 Compliance Plan gave numerous deadlines to obtain permits and legalize the property. Appellant made various attempts to conform with the Compliance Plan, including a proposal to legalize the canopy, loading dock, fences/gates, and second -floor exterior improvements. App. Ex. 2. This proposal included a Minor Variance to reduce the side yard setback from five feet to 0 feet. Id. On February 7, 2018, the Appellant Zoning Manager’s decision on this proposal approved the Minor Conditional Use Permit and the Regula r Design Review for the unpermitted improvements . The Zoning Manager found specifically that the improvements would, “reduce traffic, noise and air quality impacts, and nuisances on neighbors.” Despite this, the Minor Variance was denied, solely due to the Zoning Manager’s logic of the HBX zoning of the land required a setback and the extending canopy to be reduced by five feet. Appellant appealed the denied portion of this decision. However, hearing the appeal, the City’s Planning Commission denied the Appellant’s proposal in its entirety. On January 13, 2020, the City voided the Compliance Plan, citing the Planning Commission’s decision as the sole reason. Despite the Planning Commission’s voiding of the Compliance Plan, Appellant still attempted to obtain permits for the violations.
Throughout 2020 through 2021, Appellant and their architect were in communication with City employees while attempting to obtain permits. App. Ex. 12, 16, & 17. This included discussions about plans under review with the plan checker in 2020, and submittals of planning 4 packages through 2021. App. Ex. 12 &17. Appellant was able to receive review and acceptance on their permit for their repair, replacement of siding and windows. App. Ex. 15.
On October 4, 2021, the City issued an Order to Abate – Habitability Hazards. The Order delineated the following violations:
Substandard Buildings/Improper Occupancy:
1. Unpermitted alteration/construction of the loading dock, dock door and canopy.
2. Unpermitted alteration/removal/construction of windows and window openings.
3. Unpermitted removal/installation of interior wall partitions.
4. Lack of/Inadequate natural light and ventilation in partitioned areas.
5. Unpermitted Installation of CMU wall.
6. Lack of/inadequate fire and sound separation in unpermitted wall partitions.
Electrical:
1. Installation of refrigeration equipment, electric motors, circulation/distribution systems and the alteration to the electrical system without required permit.
Plumbing:
1. Unapproved plumbing work.
2. Unpermitted installation of sump pump and drainage.
Mechanical:
1. Unpermitted air circulation /distribution system with electric motor units, hoses and ducts attached to the building rafters, posts and on top of masonry wall along property line.
Faulty Materials of Construction:
1. Unpermitted installation of interior partitions.
2. Unpermitted removal and framing of windows and window openings. 5 3. Lack of fire rated drywall and non-fire rated intumescent sealers used for sealing penetrations in partitioned areas. Not included in the Order to Abate was any section including options to meet for a compliance plan. The Order included the requirement that within 30 days of the Order Appellant execute a Compliance Plan for the rehabilitation of the property. Appellant did not receive or draft any communications regarding a Compliance Plan and unsuccessfully appealed the Order to Abate. On June 27, 2022, the City issued the Notice of Declaration of Public Nuisance. The notice delineated the same violations of the Order to Abate, and referenced the Order to Abate in support of the declaration. This Notice contained a section with the option to meet for a compliance plan. ARGUMENT Throughout the last ten years, Appellant has faced an uphill battle in managing their property and business at 955 57th Street. Miguel Jara is an immigrant from Mexico and English is not his first language. He has owned and operated his business in Oakland for decades, and has been a meat distributor for many of the Bay Area’s taquerias and other restaurants. Over that time, the property has been rezoned leading to issues with neighbors and necessary changes to how Mr. Jara ran his business. Included in these changes, was the need to improve facilities that were originally created from 1944 to 1955. App. Ex. 6. Mr. Jara was unprepared for and unaware of the complexity of the process one has to go through for obtaining permits in modern day Oakland. In 2014, The City offered Appellant a Compliance Plan, to help simplify this process. However, difficulties in obtaining permits and continual appeals by begrudged neighbors would hinder this process. Through numerous complications and oversights, the City acted in bad faith when it voided the Compliance Plan and never provided a new Compliance Plan. In addition, the City committed error in their Declaration of Nuisance in light of previous permits and wrongfully applied codes. As such, the City should be directed to draft and propose a new Compliance Plan to Appellants, so that they can enforce said plan and rehabilitate their property. 6 A. The City acted in bad faith when it never issued or proposed a Compliance Plan for Appellant to execute and bring alleged violations into compliance with city standards. In reference to municipal corporations, good faith suggests a moral quality; its absence is equated with dishonesty, deceit or unfaithfulness to duty. Guntert v. City of Stockton (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 203, 211. The California Supreme Court has stated that ‘[t]he phrase “good faith” in common usage has a well-defined and generally understood meaning, being ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of purpose, freedom from intention to defraud, and, generally speaking, means being faithful to one's duty or obligation.’ People v. Nunn (1956) 46 Cal.2d 460. A right may be legitimately acquired or otherwise vest by administrative action. Los Alamitos Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Lackner (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 417, 424. The City did not act in good faith when they directed a parent to execute a compliance plan, without giving them a compliance plan to execute. Due to this lack of good faith, appellant was left with no reasonable standard, as to abate violations, and come into compliance with the appropriate standards. Section 13 of the 2014 Compliance Plan states, “the City and Owner agree to work in good faith for the purpose of completing the improvements, repairs, and rehabilitation of the property.” App. Ex. 1. It goes further to require the City to, “act in accordance with its ordinary custom and practice respect to issuing planning approvals, building permits, inspection sign-offs, time extensions, and other approvals.” Id. In his testimony, Mr. Miles explains that it is not typical for the owner of the property at issue to draft original Compliance Plans. Mr. Miles explains that customarily the City drafts the original Compliance Plan. In explaining why it is not typical, Mr. Miles informs that the Compliance Plan would include milestones and the consequences of incompletion. This inaction by the City directly conflicts with the previous Compliance Plan’s requirement for the City to act in accordance with its ordinary custom and practice of issuing first drafts of compliance plans. Appellant was never offered a revised or new Compliance Plan to bring their property into compliance. Rather, the Order to Abate informed Appellant they were required to “execute” a contract within a certain time. The Order to Abate did not contain any section with information about meeting for or requesting a Compliance Plan. Further, the Oakland Municipal Code is mute upon the distribution of Compliance Plans. Execution of the plan would consist of carrying out the requirements that the plan would propose or require. It is baseless to assume the execution required 7 by the Order to Abate, required Appellant to somehow draft and start a new compliance plan when that is not the norm. Good faith requires being faithful to one’s duty. After the City voided the Compliance Plan, it issued an Order to Abate which required the execution of a new plan. However, the City then never drafted nor sought a new plan with the Appellant. Witnesses testified that typically the City drafts compliance plans. Despite this, they never contacted Appellant with a draft. As evidenced in the Declaration of Nuisance, the City can and does include sections in their notices with the option to meet for a compliance plan. The 2014 Compliance Plan gave lengthy periods of time to obtain and complete the permits and work required. Not including City response and review time, sections six through eleven of the Plan gave Appellant up to 17 months to complete the rehabilitation. Mr. Miers testified that if a new Compliance Plan had been received, that Appellant could realistically rehabilitate their premises within that time frame. Good faith would require the City to propose a new Compliance Plan rather than order Appellant to execute a plan that at the time did not exist. City’s counsel asked Mr. Miles in his questioning if he was aware of any attempt to meet and confer for a compliance plan, referring to the Declaration of Public Nuisance. However, it is improper for Appellant to consider this before the appeal of the Declaration is completed. As such, the City’s non-issuance of a compliance plan and subsequent Declaration of Nuisance are void for being in bad faith and the City should be ordered to submit a draft of a new Compliance Plan upon the Appellant. B. The City acted in bad faith when revoking the former Compliance Plan that allowed Appellant to seek permits for previous improvements. Compliance Plans are authorized by Oakland Municipal Code §15.08.370. Under subsection B, the OMC states extensions to obtain may be granted as may be considered reasonable under the circumstances. Section 14 of the 2014 Compliance Plan entails the City’s and Owner’s rights as to withdrawing or voiding the plan. The City’s only right to terminate the plan is if the Appellant withdraws from any Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application. Further, termination only occurs if the City determines that any appeal of the CUP are based on non-material conditions. The Plan also requires the City to act in accordance with customary practices relating to time-extensions of requirements, however, no extensions were ever considered. Here, Appellant never withdrew from the Compliance Plan or CUP application. Rather, 8 their application was first confirmed and denied in part, then denied entirely. Appellant never withdrew and never intended to withdraw, rather they sought to receive a writ on the decision or complete a new application for the permitting of the improvements. They have continued to be in contact with Oakland planning officials via their architect and have sought to obtain the Cup still. Further, they have continued to obtain and apply for the permits that the 2014 Compliance Plan required of them. Mr. Miers testified that even the day before the hearing, Appellant had submitted a design review package concerning the loading docks and canopy. Mr. Miers further testified that it is not rare to have resubmittals required in order to get a permit package approved. When the City voided the Compliance Plan after only the first attempt at getting their plans approved, they acted without consideration of the ordinary custom and practice. As such, they acted in bad faith as to not let Appellant attempt to resubmit their proposal for a CUP and variance. The Appellant had a right to try again to comply with the Plan and rehabilitate their property. Rather than void the Plan, the City should have held to customary practices relating to time extensions, and allowed the Appellant an opportunity to submit their proposal again. The cure to this issue is readily available in the form of a new Compliance Plan drafted by the City for Appellant to execute. Appellant has continued to seek permits and reviews and inspections to bring their property into compliance. Appellant has long been a fixture at this location and has served the businesses and people of Oakland for decades. With a new Compliance Plan, Appellant can continue to do so and properly rehabilitate their building. C. The City’s Declaration of Public Nuisance and Order to Abate were in error due to permits existing for alleged violations and permits being issued later to further prevent violations. In the City’s Notice of Declaration of Public Nuisance (NDPN), the City claimed City of Oakland’s Code Enforcement Services (CES) inspected the property for the last time pertaining to this matter on April 26, 2022. CES confirmed in this inspection violations of the Oakland Municipal and Planning Codes. The Declaration included the following violations: 1. Alteration without required permit, windows removed and opening reframed, interior walls removed and new wall framed in violation of O.M.C. §§ 15.08.050:15.08.120. 2. Exterior alterations, windows changed, without planning department approval in violation of O.M.C § 15.08.050.” … 9 1. Alteration without required permit, windows removed and opening reframed, interior walls removed and new wall framed in violation of O.M.C. §§ 15.08.050:15.08.120.” However, prior to this inspection, permits were already being sought by Appellant and had been approved. SM EX. 15. Appellant’s exhibit 15 shows planning permit approval, and other exhibits showcase ongoing conversations of various plans and approvals between City officials and Appellant’s architect, Craig Miers. SM EX. 6, 7, 12, 15, 16, & 17. Mr. Bears had David Carrillo testify, the Specialty Combination Inspector that performed the January 12, 2023 inspection. In his testimony, Mr. Carillo did not discuss the various code violations, habitability issues, or substandard building. Rather, Mr. Carillo presented that Suprema had obtained permits and that the entirety of their second-floor remodel was in compliance. He testified that a previous inspection had been approved by a colleague. 32:58. He then testified he inspected again in April of 2023, and that the project had become final by that date. Mr. Carillo made clear that the second story remodel including all walls, windows, and siding was in compliance. This second-floor remodel was permitted and finalized and makes moot large portions of the Order to Abate and Declaration of Nuisance. Mr. Carillo’s inspection revealed no violations relating to the windows, inadequate light or ventilation, drywall on the interior walls, as well as weatherproofing of the exterior walls. Of the 13 numbered violations in the Order to Abate, Mr. Carillo’s inspection showed that 7 of them were now permitted and cured.1 Mr. Bears attempted to limit the scope of the inspection in regards to the City’s Order to Abate, stating the Order may have referenced other places in the property outside of the second-floor remodel. However, the City Inspector simply says that the Order to Abate is not specific. Mr. Carillo said that those portions of the Order did in fact pertain to the second floor, although he was 1 Inspection revealed second story no violations of the following: Substandard Building: 2. Unpermitted alteration/removal/construction of windows and window, 3. Unpermitted removal/installation of interior wall partitions. 4. Lack of/Inadequate natural light and ventilation in partitioned areas. 6. Lack of/inadequate fire and sound separation in unpermitted wall partitions. Faulty Materials of Construction: 1. Unpermitted installation of interior partitions. 2. Unpermitted removal and framing of windows and window openings. 3. Lack of fire rated drywall and non-fire rated intumescent sealers used for sealing penetrations in partitioned areas. 10 unaware if they could apply elsewhere. Any attempt to claim that there were some additional walls or partitions outside the scope of the inspection and thus unpermitted is baseless. Accordingly, the Declaration should be void as it is in error concerning previously permitted and proper rehabilitated portions of the premises, including to all of the second floor and exterior window renovations. D. The City committed error when it misapplied habitability standards of the municipal code to a non-residential building in error. The OMC defines Habitable Space as space in a residential building or structure intended or used for living, sleeping, eating, or cooking. OMC §15.08.170. In §15.08.190, the OMC clarifies that Article V only applies to all residential buildings and structures and to non-residential buildings and structures as specifically indicated.2 However, throughout Title 15 relating to buildings and construction, the OMC refers to different regulations to be applied to habitable spaces. In the Order to Abate, the City references OMC sections 15.08.220, 15.08.230 D, E, G, N, and 15.08.240. All of these sections fall within the application solely to habitable spaces and require specific indication within the code to be applied to non-residential buildings. Appellant’s building is not and has never been considered a habitable space as indicated by the OMC. The building is solely used as a business and is not intended for use of sleeping, living, eating, or cooking. Further, the building is non-residential in nature. Mr. Miers testified that residential buildings have different standards as opposed to residential. Due to this error and misapplied codes, Appellant did not have the ability to correct any specific issue regarding these matters as there was no clarity concerning the issues. 2 Article V is sections 15.08.170 through 15.08.240 11 CONCLUSION
The City has violated its duty to act in good faith throughout its dealings with the Appellant in the rehabilitation of their building. The City failed to exercise good faith when they voided the 2014 Compliance Plan, and again when they ordered Appellant to execute a nonexistent Compliance Plan. The City failed to consider the ongoing abatement that Appellant undertook in response to the original Order.
DATED this 30th day of November 2023 ________________________ Michael-Ryan McGrew
Representative for Appellant
City of Oakland
City of Oakland
Transaction Receipt# 5479542
Record ID: 1303769
250 FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA OAKLAND,
CALIFORNIA 94612-2031
Date: 02/08/2024
955 57TH ST, OAKLAND, CA
015 129800900
ADDRESS:
PARCEL:
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DUE TRAN AMOUNT
Appeal to City Council $ 2,919.00$ 2,919.00
Recrd Mangmnt & Tech Enhancement Fee $ 430.00$ 430.00
$ 3,349.00$ 3,349.00
PAYORPAYMENT TYPE AMOUNT NOT ALLOCATEDPAYMENT AMOUNT
Michael McGrewCredit Card $ 0.00$ 3,349.00
1588298-3
Comments: Michael McGrew
$ 0.00$ 3,349.00
TOTAL TRANSACTION AMOUNT: $ 3,349.00