And please stand up and um state your name for the record.

You'll have three minutes for your comment and a countdown timer will alert you at the conclusion of that period.

No public comments.

We'll be moving to the elections.

So the first one would be the electing of the chair.

We'll ask for someone to make a motion for the nomination of chair and call for a second.

One item has a second, you will call for a vote.

So I guess I'm looking for nominations for chairman.

I'm an eight, I nominate Mr.

Cooper as chair.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

Further nominations or comments.

Nominations are closed.

Uh all in favor of David Cooper being the chairman.

Okay.

Now we're moving on to the vice chair elections.

Do we have a nomination for vice chairman?

Yeah, I'll nominate awesome.

We have a second.

Second.

Further nominations.

All in favor?

All opposed?

There we are.

The next scheduled item is item number six, which are the appeal hearings.

We're going to the first scheduled item.

We'll have equal time as code enforcement to present to the board.

On February 5th, 2016, the City of Santa Rosa Code Enforcement Division received a complaint regarding living conditions at 2371 Corby Avenue Unit 15.

Excuse me.

Yes, sir.

Would you repeat?

Was that 2016?

23, yeah, 2026.

Oh, sorry.

Did I say 16?

I might have.

February 5th, 2026.

Thank you.

I'll restate, I'll just restate.

On February 5th, 2026, the City of Santa Rosa Code Enforcement Division received a complaint regarding living conditions at 2371 Corby Avenue Unit 15.

The complaint was submitted in Spanish and was translated using Google Translate by one of our senior administrative assistants.

The complainant alleged that four living conditions had existed since 2022 and have been reported to the individual responsible for managing the apartment complex.

The complaint described excessive humidity, walls that were black with mold and green micro microbial growth, cockroach infestation, the presence of rats, and a lack of functioning heat.

Additional allegations were included in the complaint.

However, those issues were determined to be a civil matter outside the jurisdiction of code enforcement.

On February 6, 2026, I was assigned to inspect the property in response to the complaint.

Because the occupants were Spanish speaking, code enforcement technician Nancy Reyes Fernandez accompanied me to provide translation services during the inspection.

Based on our inspection and photographs taken at the time, Unit 15 was just was determined.

Sorry, Unit 15 was determined to be substandard and presented an immediate threat to life, health, and safety of the occupants.

As a code of code enforcement officers, our primary responsibility is to protect the public health safety and welfare by ensuring compliance with local ordinances.

The California Health and Safety Code, applicable building codes, and property maintenance standards.

Our duties include conducting inspections, investigating complaints involving unsafe and substandard housing conditions, documenting findings through photographs and inspection reports, and taking appropriate enforcement action when necessary to protect occupants.

The issuance of a notice in order to vacate is one of the most significant enforcement actions available to the city.

Its purpose is to protect the occupants from conditions that present an immediate or substantial threat to life, health, and safety.

Such an order is issued only after an inspection determines that a structure or dwelling unit is unsafe or unfit for human occupancy.

In accordance to California Health and Safety Code 17920.

Unit 15 was declared to be a substandard unit under subsection A6, lack of adequate heating.

So we can get to this.

Okay, I can see that.

So the wall heater serving the unit was inoperable with wires hanging loosely from the bottom of it of the unit, consistently consisting, I'm sorry, constituting an electrical hazard.

As you can see, here's the wall heater, and below it are the actual wires that are exposed.

And at the time of the inspection, I did check with the thermostat, and it was not clicking on or off.

And in accordance with subsection A 11, dampness in the habitable rooms.

They were elevated moisture readings that were taken and recorded on the walls, baseboards, and windows of all three bedrooms in the living room.

There are photos probably gonna have to go backwards here.

So this is bedroom number one behind the bedroom door.

You'll see a little area towards the bottom corner that had a significant amount of what could be mold.

We're not mold experts, and that's why we ask for a report from a mold specialist.

But as you can see in the reading that I had taken, the moisture in the wall was 100%.

There we go.

Right here is another area within bedroom one where the moisture reading under the window is a hundred percent as well, and within the window, the caulking around the window has failed, and you could see where water could be some type of moisture could be coming through because there's no caulking around the window.

Also in bedroom one is live roaches that were on the bedroom curtain.

In bedroom two, another area that had some showings of high moisture 100% and condensation under the bed.

She has the it's under the bed, and the bed's being held up by blocks.

As well as wall texture around the bedroom door is peeling.

Sorry, I can't get this to work very well.

Blackish area here with a hundred, it's like a hundred percent there, and a live roaches crawling on that wall as well.

And the high readings around the window, so in that room as well.

And condensation on the floor.

So in the living room, there was an area in the corner that had some blackish buildup in the corner, and the moisture reading in that area was about 77%, which is high as well.

This is another uh same area, just making sure that the I believe the picture was and then according to California Health and Safety Codes 17920.3, subsection A12 is the infestation of insects burden vermin rodents as determined by the health officer.

And um that one also shows that the live roaches and the rodent feces.

Um roaches and a rat tail or mouse tail.

It also shows um several holes have been patched, and then it's it's been chewed through as well.

And this is the heat sensor for the um for the sprinkler system that required securing as well as testing to make sure that it's working properly.

Once a building has been determined to be substandard, uh the California Health and Safety Code 17980.6 provides the enforcement authority for the local enforcement agency to require corrective action, including the issuance of a notice in order to vacate when occupancy present an immediate danger to the health and safety of the occupants.

When preparing a notice in order to vacate, the city is also required to determine whether displacement excuse me, displacement tenants are eligible for relocation benefits under health and safety code section 17975 through 17975.10.

Accordingly, when the city of Santa Rosa issues an order to vacate because of substandard conditions posing an immediate threat to the occupants, health and safety, the code enforcement building division must determine the tenant's eligibility for relocation as required by state law.

This determined is time sensitive because it must be made in conjunction with the issuance of the notice in order to vacate.

In making that determination, the code enforcement officer considers the facts and circumstances of the case, including the occupancy stick occupancy status of the residents, whether any tenant substantially contributed to the conditions resulting in the order to vacate, and other relevant evidence.

So there was not that much rain at that time, so that would have nothing to consider in that point.

Based on the inspection findings, photographic evidence, register ratings, and prohibitions observed within the unit, the city determined that unit 15 constituted a substandard building under health.

Sorry, under California Health and Safety Code 17920.

And that continued occupancy presented an immediate threat to the health and safety of its occupants.

Accordingly, the issuance and posting of the notice in order to vacate was authorized under health and safety code section 17980.

Based on the evidence presented, the City of Santa Rosa recommends that the board by resolution deny the appeal and uphold the city of Santa Rosa building officials' decision to issue the notice in order to vacate for two three seven one Corby Avenue Unit 15, including the determination that the tenant is entitled to relocation benefits.

Thank you.

Any questions?

They could open and close.

One of them, um, the first bedroom though, uh, I did notice on the notice in order to uh notice the violation didn't have the insect screen.

So that would have to be replaced.

And I believe he did that after.

Were you able to to uh determine a cause of the excess of moisture?

Well, at that point, the only thing that there was no heat, and during the time there was periods where the morning and evenings were like 30 to 40 degrees, and then the the um the heat in the afternoon was around 60 to 70.

So during the you know, early periods and then in the evening, I would say it was pulled in there, but without having the ability to turn on a heater to you know to regulate everything.

Did you find any um SS or maybe a plumbing leak somewhere?

There was a leak under the the kitchen sink.

There's uh in my photo.

There's a photo in the kitchen where there was a plumbing leak.

This just doesn't show it correctly, so it was leaking right up in here, and you could see the water, the condensation here, and actually in my notice of violation, he didn't use the proper plumbing as well.

So that could have caused to the leak.

Yeah.

Do we know if the tenant contacted the landlord about the heater?

As far as I've been told, according to the the submission of the uh the complaint, the property manager was reported, was being told, and this was an ongoing issue since they moved in.

Is that a third-party management company?

Not part of the ownership.

It's a part of, I believe, who he had hired.

You'd have to verify with the but it's a third-party company.

Yes.

So there is documentation.

That these deficiencies were brought to the landlord's attention.

We have copies of that documentation.

These deficiencies were literally I do not have copies.

What it happened was after the fact we had asked them to send over emails uh with all of the documentation and all of a sudden.

They said that they had to get a new phone and their emails were lost.

Which the tenant or the landlord?

The tenant.

And out of curiosity, did you ever talk to the property management company?

No, sir.

Didn't know who it was.

We couldn't find out who it was.

They said that what the person does is he's on a different, he usually is located on a different property by this the same landlord, and that's where they just they take their money, and he's only there periodically.

Because I asked before I left to you know, present the notice in order before my inspection was over.

I'd asked where he would was located on the property or not.

And they say it was a totally different property.

All right.

So now it sounds like we are ready for the presentation by the appellant.

Could you remind me um which section of the exhibits?

Uh Mr.

Greenberg will be referring to.

Yes.

Okay.

Sure, thank you.

Attachment four, the mold report with the color photographs.

So that was the two minutes.

Okay, great.

All right.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Cooper, Vice Chair Lawson, and members of the board.

My name is Michelle Zairobsky, and I'm an attorney at Zaromsky Connor Sack, downtown Santa Rosa over on 4th Street in the press building.

With me here's our paralegal Elizabeth Arbayo and Mr.

Greenberg, Jeff Greenberg is also present.

He would be here, although he had knee replacement surgery and doctors' orders, and thank you to the board and everyone to let him appear by Zoom.

But he'll be filling in some of the factual details for you.

I'd like to thank you for your consideration of our appeal this afternoon.

And the focus of the appeal is a legal question that must be decided by evaluating the pertinent facts.

Contrary to the assertion of the city in the staff report, the landlord tenant principles do come into play here and they're critical, and they must be considering and answering the question of whether the notice should have been issued in the first place and whether the owner has to pay relocation benefits to the tenants.

Even in the staff report at page three of 10, um, it cites to the International Property Maintenance Code Section 18-20.301.2 says responsibility.

There are highlighted sentences in the staff report, but what's not highlighted is the language that follows that that says occupants of a dwelling unit, rooming unit, or housekeeping unit are responsible for keeping in a clean sanitary and safe condition that part of the dwelling unit, rooming unit, housekeeping unit or premises that they occupy and control.

So it's not nearly merely a landlord tenant dispute, as I say refers to it at page eight, number four in the report, but it's a requirement of that very code section that the city does cite.

And as we point out in our brief, which is part of the documents that we have submitted, I referred to California state law, which is codified in Civil Code Section 1929 and 1946.2.

Those laws require that the tenants maintain the premises in a clean and safe condition.

So the tenants have a legal duty to repair damage and deterioration that is caused by their own acts.

The legislature has enacted these legal obligations.

It's not the city's prerogatives or my office to decide what they're supposed to do.

That's the law.

That if the landlord doesn't know about it, they don't have the obligation to do something.

They can't be held responsible for something they don't know.

A corollary to this is that a tenant has exclusive right to possession of the premises, the interior of the unit.

Landlord can't just walk in the door and see what's happening.

The landlord doesn't know, the landlord's not responsible.

And we will all have a testimony from Mr.

Greenberg this afternoon that he did not know about these issues.

When they were brought to his attention in the staff report, for example, he'll tell you the heater was fixed in a day, something like that.

So if he had known, he would have fixed it.

So the question for this board to decide is whether the tenant's actions caused or substantially contributed to the conditions for which for which Mr.

Greenberg was cited.

Our facts and our law are set forth in our briefs and our exhibits, which are part of the record, and we request that you review.

And Mr.

Greenberg is here to provide additional factual testimony so that you can get the whole picture of what the tenants did and did not do.

Under civil code section 1797 5.4, the tenants are not entitled to relocation benefits if they have caused or substantially contributed to the condition giving rise to the order to vacate.

Under the legal principles that we've raised in our papers and here at the hearing this afternoon, applied to the facts that will laid out, as a matter of law, these tenants are not entitled to relocation benefits.

It's not a case of strict liability.

It doesn't work like that.

There has to be a determination of what the tenants did or did not do, and just a visual observation does not tell the story.

It can't.

It's impossible.

So there's no investigation done, no adequate investigation asking who people like the mold, the mold company, Mr.

Greenberg, what he did or didn't do that the tenants actually caused and contributed to the issues that they complained about.

So we appreciate your your consideration of our appeal, and I will turn over my time to Mr.

Greenberg.

Mr.

Greenberg, you have been promoted to panelists.

You can go ahead and proceed to enable your microphone and video.

And I am prepared to share the screen for the attachment four from the staff report.

Hi, can you guys hear me?

Yes.

Great.

So thank you for listening to this.

And let me acknowledge that this apartment clearly had numerous issues that aren't disputable.

What I am disputing is who caused them and whether the tenants who created the problems should be paid for that.

And also, thank you for allowing me to do this virtually.

I just had my knee reposed, and I'm not mobile yet.

So my name is Jeff Greenberg.

I've built more than 20 very nice homes in Renn over the past 20 years.

And I own and have remodeled several several hundred apartments in Sonoma County over the same time using the same crew.

I purchased the subject apartment complex in 2019 and performed more than a million dollars in major renovations over the course of the next 12 months, including installation of a new roof that does not leak, installation of new hardy plank siding on top of the house wrap that creates a moisture barrier and prevents leaks, and installation of new double pane windows that were properly flashed to prevent leaks.

It should be noted that when the testing, the repair, and the reading remediation were performed recently, there were no signs of water intrusion at any of the mold growth areas where drywall was removed, thus indicating that these were interior issues solely within the tenant's control and not something resulting from exterior water intrusion.

You'll see the pictures in the exterior still looks great.

And Jenny even said she didn't believe it was from rain.

So it's unlikely that this was an exterior type of occurrence.

In fact, it's impossible.

Code enforcement issued the notice to vacate on February 6.

This was the first notification I had there was any issue.

The tenants never once contacted me or my crew regarding any of the things on the list.

And my maintenance crew is at this property fixing stuff almost weekly.

There are 20 units between, you know, people clogging sinks, clogging toilets, you know, whatever.

We we just were there a lot to fix stuff.

Never once did anybody mention any issues.

As soon as I learned about the issuance of the notice of violation, I took steps to secure alternative accommodations for the tenants so I could hire someone to do the remediation work.

First, I booked a hotel room, I booked multiple rooms at the extended stay down the street, but the tenants wouldn't move.

I paid 2300 for two weeks at a three-bedroom Airbnb several miles away, the tenants wouldn't move.

I offered up a two-bedroom unit that became available in the same complex, the tenants wouldn't move.

And finally, I paid a tenant to move from their three-bedroom to the vacant two-bedroom so they could have a three-bedroom, but they still wouldn't move.

They didn't move for 11 weeks after the notice to vacate was served, and only after we served the three-day notice, which is the last document in our exhibits.

I mean, that's crazy.

The violation says, quote, failed weatherproofing and caulking around failed windows.

This is possibly the most important and inaccurate piece of information in the report.

As you will clearly see from the pictures, there's no caulking on the interior windows.

None's required or recommended by the manufacturer.

In fact, caulking is not commonly done with window installation on the inside, except for cosmetic purposes.

And there's zero supporting evidence that the windows failed and let water in.

So let me just take a minute to describe how windows are properly installed and why these windows aren't the issue.

First, you frame the opening.

Next, you installed a house wrap, which is required moisture barrier along the siding and plywood.

Then you put polyethylene, polyurethane sealant on the window fin before installing the window.

You put the window in, you nail it with galvanized nails so they don't rust.

You put Ford of Flash around the exterior perimeter of the window to complete the weather proofing.

As an extra step, we like to put Z-flashing above the window as additional protection.

And then the exterior trim is installed around the window.

The flashing and water pruning proofing was inspected and signed off by the building inspector on 227 2020 for these 35 windows I installed.

No cock is applied on the inside of a window, like the port report states.

In 20 years of building houses, I've never caulked the interior of a window except if required for painting.

If there's a significant gap between the windows and the finish, the manufacturer recommends using expandable phone.

You prevent water intrusion by properly installing the windows from the outside.

You can't prevent water from the inside.

What I think the inspector may have been looking at on the interior of the window was wet drywall delaminating from the condensation caused by the high humidity.

Twenty units were remodeled with 35 windows installed.

19 units don't have any issues with their 32 windows.

I know because I checked every unit after this happened.

This unit's windows are also fine.

No failure at all.

They were just dripping condensation from the high humidity that Jenny pointed out.

The windows in question were inspected by the remediation company, by the testing company, by the building inspector, and by me.

And everybody agreed the windows are fine.

If the information about the windows in their weatherproofing was accurate in that report, which it's not, the windows would have had to be replaced in order to remedy the problem.

And they weren't replaced, and the problem's been remedied.

There are also multiple locations on the interior baseball board and walls that had mold.

And Jenny showed you those pictures.

That couldn't have anything to do with the windows or water intrusion.

They're interior walls, nowhere near the windows.

And again, it's condensation from humidity.

So this negates the theory that the windows are the issue.

I hired the professional mold company, and they came out and they said the indoor humidity in the unit was exceptionally high at the time of the inspection.

Mold needs a moisture source and a food source in order to be present.

Dust is often a food source.

Limiting dust and moisture will help contribute to a lower mold count.

Moisture sources can include steam from showers and bath, condensation build-up, high humid humidity levels as well as cooking condensation.

It's important to keep humidity levels below 55%.

In these rooms, not the wall where she was measuring, just the air in the rooms was 82 to 87% humidity at the time of the inspection.

High humidity can be contributed from some of the falling.

We just went through that.

So apparently, even though only three individuals were authorized to live in this apartment, there were either nine, eight or nine people living there, causing and contributing to issues for which the city cited me.

They had placed their couches, dressers, boxes, and personal items up against the walls, preventing airflow.

They had fixed heavy curtains over the windows to make a living room into a sleeping area, which trap air and cause condensation on the windows.

I don't have the pictures, I can just see the uh hangars, but Jenny showed pictures of the very heavy velvet uh curtains.

They also allowed dust to accumulate, which is a precursor to mold conditions, if not removed on a regular basis.

They failed to ventilate while cooking, which resulted in the accumulation of grease all over the walls and the ceilings and inside and outside of the cabinets.

And even some made it to the bathroom.

That many people is a lot of cooking, a lot of showers, and without airflow causes high humidity, which everyone noticed.

Mold doesn't just appear overnight.

This condition took months of neglect to create.

So I'd like to just point out a couple of the pictures, which frankly are similar to what you already saw.

But if you can pull up uh page two of the mold report, you can see how the exterior of the building looks.

Can somebody show that?

Yes, I'm pulling that up right now.

Thank you.

And these are pictures from the certified mold testing company who came out after the uh notice.

So you can see that the building still looks pretty darn nice.

I mean, it's nice hardy siding, nice new vinyl windows.

And then if you go to page four, you can start to see the level of dust that is rampant throughout the apartment.

So one more picture down where you can see in the windowsill, this is the door jam.

I mean, there's just dust everywhere.

It doesn't look like these people ever cleaned.

Um, if you look at the next picture on number five, there's dust visible right at the front door and all around that.

And if you keep scrolling up, that's grease on the ceiling, grease in the cabinets.

Uh and then the next picture on page six, you'll see that's the uh heater, the heater.

There's dust in every single crevice.

It doesn't look like these people ever cleaned once.

You can see on page seven that if you go to the window, see there is no caulking around the window.

We don't caulk the insides of the windows.

We do a high-end professional job where the drywall meets the window.

And you can see we even do special corners.

We do metal corners, which are nice, but that's what we've been doing in multi-million dollar houses for decades.

We do the same thing in our apartments.

Uh, if you look at, if you scroll down to page uh seven further, you can see that by the door, that's an interior wall.

It has mold.

And if you go to uh page eight, you can even see the interior closet wall has mold.

So clearly, this is absolutely nothing to do with windows failing, as the report states, weatherproofing failing.

That's not proven and it's completely inaccurate based upon everybody that looked at this.

If you look at page nine, you can see the humidity sensor, but Jenny already showed us the humidity is off the charts uh all the way in all of these rooms.

Page 10 shows stuff all over the all over the walls everywhere, which prevents you know airflow.

And then if you look at the back of on page 11, you can see their bed frame, and there's dust everywhere on the back of the on page 11.

Go up one more, a little bit more.

I mean, there's just dust everywhere.

It's you know, clear that not a lot of cleaning was done.

And the last picture on page 14, which is just unbelievable to me.

You look, well, here, scroll back up on 13 one second.

Uh, one more up, that's grease on the ceiling of the bathroom by the fan, cooking grease, which is boggles my mind.

I I replaced that fan because I was concerned that it wouldn't work anymore because of all the grease.

But if you scroll down a little bit further to 14, you can see the condensation right here on the toilet.

They're not using the fan.

There's no ventilation.

There's actually water dripping off of the toilet, and you can see how dirty the outside of the toilet is.

So that's the situation that I was completely unaware of until I was served this notice.

As for the other things on the list, I had no idea the heater wasn't working.

I was never notified.

The day I rent the read this report, I sent over my uh my maintenance guy, and it took him 10 minutes to get the heater working.

Those wires that Jenny showed you a picture of, the heaters are gas heaters.

Those are low voltage thermostat wires, so they're not dangerous.

Um, but we did just put the wire back on, and that was the issue as to why the heater wasn't working.

The holes in the drywall and cracked tiles were definitely caused by the tenant.

The building department would have never signed off on my remodel permit with these conditions.

And again, the tenant never notified me regarding any of the issues.

And frankly, I didn't patch those holes.

I wouldn't do a shitty job like that.

And I didn't do the plumbing under the sink.

I mean, that's substandard.

That's a cheap flex line from Home Depot, which, you know, I don't know who did it, but for sure we didn't do that.

So are we running out of time?

Um, I'm almost there.

Bear with me one more minute.

Managing pests is difficult.

I sent the I sent all the tenors, tenants at the uh building letters about leaving uh food out in front of the apartments for their cats, removing their barbecues.

The pest company wrote, it's noted that prior infestation was significantly impacted by the previous tenant sanitation practices, which contributed to conducive conditions for pest activity.

We cleaned the unit for two days while the tenants were gone and the pests are no longer present, according to the pest company.

Code enforcement has closed this case.

At no time prior to the issuance of notice did anybody at the city ask me, anybody who worked for me, the mold inspector, or anybody about the cause of this problem.

If you read the mold report, you clearly can ascertain that it was high humidity from the tenants.

In fact, I recently added a new sentence into all of my leases requiring a biannual health and safety inspection in an effort to prevent this from ever happening again.

Like uh Michelle said, I can't just go into a tenant's place and check and make sure that they're doing the right things.

So the work is now finished with no further violations.

It's been signed off by the building inspector who finaled the remediation permit and the code enforcement manager who closed the case.

I know it's difficult to believe someone would live in conditions like this and not report them, but realize these people stayed in this place knowing there was mold from which they had been hospitalized.

And it still took them 11 weeks to move out, despite me giving them numerous options.

And of course, they didn't pay any rent during that period.

The issues cost me almost 50,000 and was caused by the tenants.

I didn't cause it, and I wasn't notified about any of it.

I resolved everything, but it's not reasonable that the tenant should be rewarded by being paid a relocation benefit for something they caused.

Thank you for listening to me.

I think we're at the point where we can we're asking questions from the board.

I have a question.

Do you have a property manager for these apartments?

I do.

And did you speak to that person?

Yes, he's worked for me for more than 20 years.

He I talked to him five times a day every day.

And did a tenant every tenant never contacted him.

May I ask if you have uh maintenance records and logs for all your units for all the the complaints that do come in and the maintenance that is done on the property?

You said that there are several per week and you always have crew on location.

We don't.

So the I have a platform called App Folio.

Um, which if a tenant sends a maintenance request on App Folio, then you know it's logged in.

But usually what happens is Byron shows up to, or one of the guys shows up to mow the lawn and somebody says, Oh, my sink's clogged or my faucet stopped working, or this.

And they we have a storage uh shed at the property there that has a bunch of faucets in it and stuff like that, and they just replace it.

So, no, I don't keep specific uh uh, you know, log entries of each and every thing unless the tenant actually reports it to me, which the lease states that they have to report their issue in writing.

But a lot of the Spanish speaking tenants don't use the app folio platform and you know, don't send me emails.

They just wait till Byron's there and then they ask him.

And he doesn't keep a log of his time or his own.

Well, he keeps a log, he keeps a log of his time, but he doesn't keep a log specifically of I fixed the sink in number 13 and I plunge the toilet in number 12.

He just says, my the log I get is I spent four hours at 2371 Corby on Monday the 13th.

Do you have any other pictures of any other units showing that these these conditions do not exist in those units?

No, I'd be happy to get them.

I mean, I actually went through all 20 units.

And if there was an issue, we would have remedied any issues that were there.

Um the you know, I spent a million dollars on the place.

I like it to look nice.

If you looked at the outside, you can see it looks really nice.

And you know, I'm not a I'm not a slum lord.

We like our places, it's why I employ four people full time to just fix things at my apartments.

Just out of curiosity, are the tenants that are there the same tenants who signed a lease?

They are not, actually.

I didn't so apparently these tenants' sister was in the place, and the sister moved out without telling me.

And I didn't even know who these people were, nor that they moved, you know, several families in without telling me.

I only discovered that when they when they were moving out, they said, we want you to put a lease together for us so we can move back in when it's all fixed.

And so I printed out the original lease and I gave it to them.

They said, no, that's not us.

And that's how I knew that they were different people.

Do you have a prohibition about the number of people that can occupy certain residents?

Um I've discussed this with Michelle, my attorney.

It's a little tricky in the state.

I mean, obviously, I pay for water, sewer, and gas.

So, you know, the idea of having nine people in a three-bedroom is, you know, high wear and tear and uh not a great business decision.

But my understanding is it's bedroom count times two plus one.

So uh a three bedroom should max out at seven people, not eight or nine, like they had in.

And you said relocation services were offered to these tenants and were denied.

Not only offered, I mean, I have the reservation for the extended stay.

I actually physically paid 2300 to Airbnb, which wasn't refunded.

I offered them unit number two.

I paid a tenant several thousand dollars to move from their unit into the two bedrooms so these people could move there.

And they didn't move to any of those until we served them a three-day notice, and then they moved into another recently vacated vacated three-bedroom apartment where they were living up until last week when they just moved back into their original apartment.

Are there records of any of those um acquisitions of places for them to move to or stay or communication with the tenants that you do?

I have the I have the reservation for the extended stay.

I have the payment to the Airbnb.

Byron even drove with them to the Airbnb to look at it.

They I have communications with them about unit two.

They didn't want that because they wanted a three-bedroom, which is why I paid somebody to move.

They then said they didn't want to move into the three-bedroom unit because they thought there was mold in there.

I drove out, looked at it, there was no mold in there.

Michelle and uh one of her partners drove out there to look at it, and we all concluded the unit was fine, but they still wouldn't move.

May I add something very quickly too?

Um detailed facts about what happened are included in the three-day notice, which is part of the packet.

It's exhibit D.

And it went through everything and the dates and what Mr.

Greenberg tried to do and what he paid for and all of that.

So there's a little detail in that notice, like a factual timeline.

I have a question for legal on her side.

She cited several government section codes.

Are you in agreement with those?

So, yes, I all of the case law and statutes provided by their counsel are accurate, and I we don't dispute any of them.

I will just point out that I think there's a tension between a lot of the case laws cited is good law when it comes to liability under the warranty of habitability and general civil code as to landlord tenant issues.

The health and safety code and the regulatory scheme, that code enforcement issues the notice in order to vacate is separate and distinct.

So, for instance, um, the Peterson versus Superior Court case requiring notice as to landlord tenant liability, it's absolutely the correct law in that context.

However, in the health and safety statutory scheme, notice it's not required.

And there have been cases locally where someone is a uh landlord genuinely unknowing is required to pay relocation benefits under the statutory regulatory scheme that doesn't have this notice requirement, but then defeats it in the civil context under the lack of notice defense.

So I completely understand that there's two kind of there's a little bit of tension there, but what code enforcement operates under has a very specific regulatory scheme outlined by the health and safety code.

Was this rented as a furnished or unfurnished apartment?

Unfurnished.

And then the bathroom fan is that that's a separate switch to the bathroom light.

Yes.

Okay.

So you can see the better option to use the fan or not.

Yeah, it's so we have tried wiring the fans to this light switch, but a lot of these tenants are ultra conscious about their PGE bill.

And even though a fan doesn't draw much, they get very unhappy and try to disconnect it themselves.

It's why a lot of the tenants don't report that their heater's not working because they don't want to use it because they don't want to pay for the heat bill, which I don't pay for.

I only pay for water, sewer, and gas for the water heaters.

Are there humidistats associated with the exhaust fans in the bathroom?

Yeah, so the new fans have the humidity sensors on them.

But you know, I mean, the for a three-bedroom apartment that has high humidity, they're designed like that 70 CFM ceiling fan in the bathroom is designed for the bathroom, not for the whole apartment.

Um you differentiate the gas bill from the wall heater and the uh the water heater.

Uh each unit is individually metered for gas and electric.

So each tenant's responsible for their gas for their range and their wall heater and the laundry room and the water heaters are on a common meter, which I pay for common gas and common electric meter.

Stoves are electric?

No, stoves are gas.

Oh, okay.

So you would you wouldn't notice if the heater wasn't working by by examining the gas bills.

Um, I mean I'm not saying you have to, you should or even should, but it just yeah.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, no, I don't I don't see any of those gas bills because those go to the tenants.

Right, gotcha.

Do we have any further questions?

I can um I see something about uh this is option of public comment for this item.

Do we have any public comment for this item here or somewhere else?

And and I don't know if you have instructions.

Uh there's no no one here or public comments.

Um I have a general question here.

Um we have a uh a notice to vacate, and then a is it separate from the the uh relocation benefits?

Or there are they connected so the board can make findings and a termination as to the notice in order to vacate as a whole.

You also have the ability to uphold the notice in order to vacate, but deny the granting of relocation benefits.

You can grant the appeal in its whole, so you have the ability to determine that.

Okay, and how much are the relocation benefits that we're talking about?

Money wise, I believe it's five thousand dollars.

That's what it stated in the okay.

I didn't see that.

Okay.

What about I gonna uh what about the fact that he did relocate them and and repay do the repairs and then place them back in the unit?

They're back in the original unit, it sounds like that's correct.

Okay, and there were and no rent was charged for the 11 weeks before while they were not leaving the original unit.

That's correct, also for the two units they were occupying, no rent was charged because there was their unit that was being remediated, and then the unit I was holding trying to get them to move into, which they finally did.

I'm a little confused.

So you relocated them, yet they're still trying to get relocation fees.

That's correct.

Okay, but have they paid why I'm spending more than five thousand dollars in legal fees trying to prevent this from happening?

We got something.

Um, in the in the um your um appeal, it states that they haven't paid any rent since this correct.

Your um appeal, it states that they haven't paid any rent since this incident.

That's correct.

They haven't even paid the July rent, even though they moved back into their apartment, which is a whole different issue, but and did they sign a new lease?

They were provided a new lease.

They haven't signed it, and I wasn't giving them the key initially.

And then Michelle said I I had another tenant that was had been waiting to move into the other apartment, and it took these guys an extra week to move in, and then I lost that tenant.

And Michelle said, under the circumstances, just let them move without the lease.

So I don't have uh a lease with these guys.

I don't have rent for them, but they're back in their original apartment.

But that's necessarily beyond our the question would be done.

That's beyond you and me.

All right.

Um further questions, or do we have enough thing to create a motion?

I don't have any more questions.

I don't have any more questions.

Uh can we get a motion on how to resolve this issue?

I don't think that well, we need a motion.

Can we discuss how we're gonna we move?

We have the motion, then we discuss it, and then we vote off.

Motion to discuss it.

Well, no.

Um I have a motion.

All right, why don't we try that?

I would like to uh move to state that the issue is resolved and not have this gentleman pay any more money out of pocket, and then he needs to resolve his tenant issue and either get them to sign their lease or any of them.

That's outside our our well, but but like he I don't think he owes them any more money.

How's that?

I don't know how that but if you guys want to volunteer to help on the lease or payment, I'd love it.

Yeah, how about how about let me try something different?

Sure.

How about I move that we uphold the notice in order to vacate, but uh deny any further relocation fees?

I like that.

Second the motion.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second discussion.

Okay, uh legal comments.

No, I just want to clear for the record upholding the notice in order to vacate, but overturning the determination that the property owner or that the tenant is entitled to relocation.

And let's go okay, and let's throw the word further relocation vote.

Is that okay?

Everybody ready to vote?

I call a vote.

Well, can Michelle can you weigh in?

Because if you put further, I mean, they've had plenty of benefits, but nothing paid directly to them, which this uh asks for.

So I'd actually, if you're gonna do that, prefer not to have the word further in there.

Yes, and if I can clarify, I think that's what I was trying to do with my last comment.

So I think there's a distinction between the notice in order to vacate the property, but then also the determination as to the tenants' entitlement to relocation benefits.

So that is the component that you are either upholding or denying, or denying.

So okay, so shall I remake the motion?

Uh let's do it in two pieces here.

Okay.

So I moved.

Okay.

So we got a motion on the table.

Uh can I take back the motion?

Can I withdraw the motion?

Okay, let's do it this way.

Yes, let's vote down the motion.

Okay.

Okay.

So all in favor of the motion say aye.

All right, the motion say nay.

Okay.

Okay.

So first motion.

Uh I want to uh move that we uphold the code enforcement divisions notice in order to vacate.

Period.

Seconds.

Okay.

Okay.

Discussion.

Let's shall we vote on that one?

Yes.

Okay.

So everybody all in favor, say yes.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Okay.

All opposed.

Okay.

Second motion.

Uh I uh helping the phrase determination that the displaced units are eligible for relocation benefits.

Determination that the displaced units are eligible for relocation benefits.

Yeah.

So we deny the determination.

I like that.

Determine deny the determination that the displaced tenants are eligible for relocation benefits.

Second motion.

Okay.

Discussion.

I feel like they've received them though.

That's that's my hangout.

I feel like they've already.

We haven't received any monetary.

No, but they received relocation benefits, not necessarily monetary ones.

But they were relocated.

So I don't believe they deserve any more, but I believe they've already received those.

We asked for some of it back.

So you are gonna help me.

I love it.

I've been trying to get the money.

I believe what we're trying to say here is that he does not have to pay them any money.

No, any money.

Any money.

He hasn't paid them any money to start with, but he has they haven't paid him any money either.

That's true.

But the point is that we're just saying that he does not have to pay them any money for local.

Is that accurate?

That is correct.

And are you comfortable with that?

You mean?

I am.

Okay.

Are we ready to vote?

Yes.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Pose.

Okay.

That settles that one.

Baker, Ms.

Greenford.

Thank you guys for having so much fun with me.

Okay.

Um anything else we need to do before adjournment.

Nothing further.

Uh this meeting of the board of building reelection and appeals is now adjourned.

Thank you very much.