16-16437 - 3539 Calandria PDF

Page 1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com>

5/11/2015 9:34:45 AM
FW: complaint # 1501141 3539 Calandria / CITY REPLY
From: Michael Hector [mailto:psmhector@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:07 AM
To: Taylor, Marie (Allene); Smith, Sandra M; Hunt, Michael; Flynn, Rachel; Low, Tim
Cc: Suzy clark; michael hector
Subject: complaint # 1501141 3539 Calandria / CITY REPLY
N.O.V. 1501141, for 3539 Calandria.

Ms. Taylor,
Your offer for ANOTHER COMPLAINT INSPECTION OF OUR PROPERTY leaves me speechless. At least eight
different city employees have performed fourteen complaint inspections of our property in last nine months, your offer to be
the NINTH city employee performing the FIFTEENTH COMPLAINT INSPECTION seems unnecessary. (see below) I
provided Ms. Flynn with 11 x 17 photos of our property last week. Our permit history is in your record keeping system;
as is the OMC.
Complaint 1501141 was made by Mr. Heanue - the same person that received February 2011 NOVs for a wall behind his
house, that he agreed to clear in March 2011. Then he did nothing for 50 months. Incase you are not aware, The Heanues
and some other neighbors are mounting a campaign of harassment to prevent us from improving our property - their primary
tool are city complaints. The city is cooperating.
Please allow me to summarize the facts:
a. 3539 Calandria has obtained 16 oakland permits in the last 4+ years, including open active permits.
b. 3539 Calandria is a 12,000 parcel. Construction material is not visible from the street and occupies less than 1% of
the parcel. The right to store material and equipment on site is permitted under the OMC / CBC.
c.
Complaint 1501141 was made by the Heanues, one of many.
d. Complaint 1501141 contains a recycling blight NOV for an active, permitted construction site.
e. Complaint 1501141 is regarding the same prior complaints reviewed by inspectors Baron and Espinosa on 4 separate
visits between July and September 2014 f.
Mr. Baron wrote to Mr. Hector on September 16, 2014, where he stated no violations.
g. Oakland took no action on the February 2011 NOV at 3521 Calandria for 52 months - 52 months!
h. Now you want to be the NINTH Oakland inspector, to look at our property for the fifteenth time - THE FIFTEENTH
VIOLATION INSPECTION - in nine months! Ive also had communication with Mr. Wilson and Ms. Sandercock
on these subjects.
i.
the complaint site inspectors are 1. Baron, 2. Espinosa, 3. Ramirez, 4. Carthan, 5. Brown, 6. Kennedy, 7. Grande,
and 8. an unnamed city employee who inspected our property on 9/19/2014 (caught on security video)
We request a review of the facts and documentation surrounding complaint 1501141, with a reasonable application of the
Code.
7. Look at the complaint history from The Heanues and Chaneys against 3539 Calandria over the past 52 months.
8. Speak with or the review the communication with inspectors Baron, Espinosa, Wilson & Sandercock regarding
complaints at 3539 Calandria.
9. Look at the photos given to Ms. Flynn
10. Read the OMC definitions of BLIGHT.
11. Review the permit history from 2011 for 3539 Calandria.
8/16/2016
Page 2
Adjacent property owners have bombarded us with complaints - by the same scofflaw that ignored an Abatement order for
1560 days. Your solution is the FIFTEENTH INSPECTION IN 270 DAYS. We ask you be reasonable - thats all
Regards,
Michael Hector & Suzanne Clark
8/16/2016
Page 3
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Michael Hector" <psmhector@gmail.com>

"Hunt, Michael" <MHunt@oaklandnet.com>
5/18/2015 9:49:30 AM
Fwd: complaints 1501623 & 1501624
Mr. Hunt,
We are NOT getting equal treatment from Oakland Building and planning.
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com >
Date: Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM
Subject: complaints 1501623 & 1501624
To: "Sandercock, Deborah" <DSandercock@oaklandnet.com >, "Smith, Sandra M" <SSmith@oaklandnet.com
"Taylor, Marie (Allene)" <MTaylor2@oaklandnet.com >, "Low, Tim" <TLow@oaklandnet.com >
Cc: Suzy clark <suzanneclark@rocketmail.com >, michael hector <psmhector@gmail.com >
>,
complaints 1501623 & 1501624
Ms. Flynn,
I'm having difficulty understanding how your office is managed...
From July 20, 2014, to October 10, 2014, (some 82 days) we had at least 13 different "complaint" inspections of our
property. Another complaint inspector in April 2015, Ms. Taylor requesting even more complaint inspections - and more
than a dozen complaint inspectors between January 2011 and July 2014. In total, close to 30 complaint inspectors in 52
months.
On Friday, May 15, I submitted two complaints for code violations, (you have the emails already), including building a
storage shed in the front setback, and building a wall on top of a retaining wall - all without permits. I found out this
morning, these were assigned to "representative", Traci Campbell, not an inspector. I spoke with Ms. Campbell, she
said, no inspection, just a letter will be sent. Really.
My neighbors were able to get 30 inspectors to my property. But when we complain, you only write a letter. Fabulous.
I've reattached pictures of our property, 3539 Calandria, from 2011 and 2015. Blighted property per OMC 8.24? We've
paid for 16 Oakland permits / process. Failure to maintain - abandoned property???
Might it be apparent why we are - unhappy - with your office and staff? Does it a appear your staff are treating ALL
residents equally and fairly applying and interpreting the OMC?
Very unhappy in Oakland...

Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 4
8/16/2016
Page 5
8/16/2016
Page 6
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

5/19/2015 6:53:01 PM
calandria wall & tree history
Ms. Flynn,
Here is the Calandria wall & tree history with dates and reference numbers. I don't have any confidence in your staff. I
have all the supporting documents from the Superior Court litigation RG14742490.
RB 0304307
#0401557
sept 3, 2003
june 2004
3529 Calandria building permit to replace parkside retaining wall

3529 Calandria complaint for leftover construction debris
#2004534709
Dec 2, 2004
3529 Calandria priority lien filed, non payment of fees. released 7/28/05.
#1101035
Feb 18, 2011
3539 Calandria complaint from Heanue and Chaney about retaining wall
#1101036
Feb 18, 2011
3521 Calandria, pointed out to inspector, that our wall only replicated wall
at 3521 Calandria. If one was ok, so was the other. I agreed to PROMPTLY
remove ours IF 3521 was required to remove theirs and could landscape /
grade similar to what 3529 Had done in 2003. (increased grade from 30% to
45%. Agreed. Inspector saw our wall removed in two days, gave 3539
Calandria a no violation.
tree
T100013
Feb 25, 2011

Feb 22, 2013
Requested from planning permission to remove two monterey pine granted

applied to remove 5 cedars and other trees, leaning, causing retaining wall and
fences to fail. Received several documents that read permit to remove 5
cedars.
Cedars removed. A month later, a tree inspector shows up, says we only received
an application, not a permit - regardless of what the documents said.
RB1301623
exempt
May 3, 2013
July 2014
3521 Calandria, permit to add new bath $20,000

began installing and replacing retaining walls, exempt under CBC and OMC, less
than 4 high from base. Ran into problems with 2003 / 2004 concrete pour at 3529
Calandria that was over the property line and not parallel. this caused difficulty
with my new wall. 3529 Calandria UNCOOPERATIVE.
#1402816
July 21, 2014
Inspector Barron responds to complaint from 3529 & 3521 Calandria about my
new EXEMPT retaining wall. Barron finds no problem. While explaining the
dispute Mr. Barron, 3529 Calandria was claiming ownership of our fence
(because it was there when they purchased). The fence was one foot inside
our property. I pointed out the property line marked in 1931. Mr. Barron said
he didnt where the property line was. I call that remark stupid. Mr Barron said
he was going to write me up. Cited for failing retaining walls on calandria,
leaning 13 degrees, built per code, on our property. Also cited us for the mess
we were making removing vegetation and removing a storage shed.
THATS CORRECT. Violation for work in progress.
follow up
August 20, 2014 +/- reinspection with Barron.
complaint
Sept 6, 2014
Inspector Espinosa shows. new complaint about exempt wall from 3521 & 3529
Calandria (heanue and chaney). Leaves me a stop work order. Barron and
Sandercock overrule espinoza - exempt work. Other issues raised, including
8/16/2016
Page 7
covered patio at 3539 Calandria. Why are we required to follow the rules
when 3521 does not???
email
Sept 25, 2014
from Barron, no violations
1402816
sep 19, 2014
3521 Calandria, new violation issued for uncorrected retaining wall per Sandercock.
1305434 & 1302254
8/16/2016
Page 8
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Flores, Herbert" <HFlores@oaklandnet.com>
5/19/2015 7:49:59 PM
3539 Calandria
Herb, This is the information the owner of 3539 Calandria just sent to me. Can you confirm what is in your records?
Scott, Can you do the same? Looks like we took in applications. Did we approve anything?
T100013
Feb 25, 2011

Feb 22, 2013
Applied to Planning to remove two Monterey pines. Granted.

Applied to Planning to remove 5 cedars and other trees.
Received several documents that read permit to remove 5 cedars. Cedars removed.
One month later, a tree inspector shows up, says we only received an application, not a permit,
regardless of what the documents said.
From: Flynn, Rachel
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 7:26 PM
To: Flores, Herbert
Cc: Taylor, Marie (Allene)
Subject: 3539 Calandria
Hi Herb, Its my understanding that Mitch Thomson retired from the City recently and that you are now handling cases that he
would have.
Weve received complaints about large cedars that were cut down on the property at 3539 Calandria Avenue (see attached photo
of trees prior to removal).
Can you tell us if the owner of 3539 got any permit(s) for the removal of these trees? Are permits required? The site is
completely devoid of trees now.
I dont know when they were removed, but mostly likely in 2012 or 2013. Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
Director l Planning & Building Department
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 9
8/16/2016
Page 10
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

5/21/2015 11:02:37 AM
Fwd: Job Description Request
COMMUNICATION SKILLS OF OAKLAND STAFF

Mr. Hunt,
Please review my email to Oaklands HR dept, and city response below. Prompt: reply within 1 hour and 15
minutes of starting work today. Detailed and specific: not just where to looks for answers, but HTML links.
Compare this to the untimely and poor quality of communication from the Planning and Building department;
specifically the May 8, 2015, email I received from Marie Taylor where she voided two abatement orders, made
a legal conclusion on real estate ownership and transfer, granted an exclusive easement of an Oakland park
without City Council approval and gave no code or regulatory citations for her decisions.
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
oakland
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Chak, Victoria <VChak@oaklandnet.com>

Date: Thu, May 21, 2015 at 9:49 AM
Subject: Job Description Request
To: "psmhector@gmail.com " <psmhector@gmail.com
Cc: "Comelo, Anil" <AComelo@oaklandnet.com>
>
Good morning, Mr. Hector:

Per your request to Director Comelo, please find information responsive to your inquiry. For your
convenience, please be advised that job descriptions for all City positions can be found
alphabetically or via the Search tool at the Job Description link on the Human Resources
Management page: http://agency. governmentjobs
.com/ oaklandca /default. cfm ?
action=agencyspecs .
Director of Planning and Building: http://agency. governmentjobs
default.cfm ?
action=viewclassspec & classSpecID =880331&agency=2209&
.com/
oaklandca
viewOnly
=yes
Exempt Limited Duration Employee: Exempt Limited Duration Employee does not have a job
description. Please see notes below
Management Assistant: http://agency. governmentjobs .com/ oaklandca /
default.cfm ?
action=viewclassspec
& classSpecID =852994&agency=2209&
viewOnly
Engineer, Civil Principal: http://agency.
default.cfm ?
& classSpecID
Deputy Director/Building Official:
governmentjobs
.com/
=817997&agency=2209&
http://agency. governmentjobs
8/16/2016
oaklandca
viewOnly
.com/
=yes
/
=yes
oaklandca
Page 11
default.cfm ?
&
classSpecID
=876086&agency=2209&
viewOnly
=yes
Specialty Combination Inspector, Senior: http://agency. governmentjobs .com/

oaklandca /default. cfm ?
action=viewclassspec & classSpecID =813426&agency=2209& viewOnly =yes
************************************
Per the Civil Service Rules/ Personnel Manual:
Exempt Limited Duration Employees: The Personnel Director may appoint an employee to the
exempt limited duration employee classification to meet the Citys need to fill positions with: (1)
limited funding cycles of one year or less; (2) special projects that are longer than 6 months in
duration, yet still short-term; or, (3) positions where the duties and responsibilities have not been
fully defined. Exempt limited duration appointments may not exceed one year.
Should you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Thank you.
Victoria C. Chak
Executive Assistant
City of Oakland | Human Resources Management
150 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza | 3rd Floor | Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-7292
vchak
Office| (510) 238-2976
oaklandnet
Fax
.com
From: Michael Hector <psmhector @gmail.com >

Date: May 21, 2015 at 7:17:29 AM PDT
T o : <acomelo @ oaklandnet .com >
Subject: job descriptions
Mr. Comelo,
May I please have copies of the following job descriptions / positions. I'm not requestioning confidential
information, just the published information when these positions were last filled.
Director Building and Planning. Currently held by Rachel Flynn
exempt, limited duration employee. Marie Taylor (Allene)
management assistant. Sandra Smith
engineer, principle. Tim Low
"building official". Debroah Sandercock

8/16/2016
Page 12
specialty engineer, senior. Ed labayog
Many thanks
Michael HEctor
3539 CAlandria
Oakland
8/16/2016
Page 13
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Smith, Sandra M" <SSmith@oaklandnet.com>
"Low, Tim" <TLow@oaklandnet.com>
"Taylor, Marie $Allene$" <MTaylor2@oaklandnet.com>
"Labayog, Edward" <ELabayog@oaklandnet.com>
"Sandercock, Deborah" <DSandercock@oaklandnet.com>
"Rivera, Leonardo" <LRivera@oaklandnet.com>
"Barron, Hugo" <HBarron@oaklandnet.com>
"Ramirez, Ivan" <IRamirez2@oaklandnet.com>
5/21/2015 4:03:04 PM
unpleasant being bombarded by complaints?
Ms. Flynn,
At last you see my point of view.
You now have some sense how my wife and I felt having almost 30 city complaint inspectors show up at our
property over the past four years - including 13 inspectors and 9 police officers - just last summer in the span of
80 days. Not pleasant. You can appreciate why I was unreceptive to Ms. Taylor's offer to be #31.
sincerely,
Michael hector
3539 calandria
8/16/2016
Page 14
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Brenyah-Addow, Maurice" <Brenyah-Addow@oaklandnet.com>

"Miller, Scott" <SMiller@oaklandnet.com>
5/22/2015 12:36:34 PM
RE: 3539 Calandria
April 30, 2015.

Thanks
-M
Maurice Brenyah-Addow, MBA Planner III | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa, Suite
2114 |Oakland, CA 94612 | Phone: (510)238-6342 | Fax: (510) 238-4730 | Email: mbrenyah@oaklandnet.com |
Website: www.oaklandnet.com/planning
-----Original Message----From: Flynn, Rachel
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 12:36 PM
To: Miller, Scott
Cc: Brenyah-Addow, Maurice
Subject: RE: 3539 Calandria
Thanks Scott. What was the date of application filing?
-----Original Message----From: Miller, Scott

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:18 AM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Cc: Brenyah-Addow, Maurice
I just reviewed the file with Maurice. No trees were shown on the plans. As is routine, the standard conditions of
approval that we place on such permits includes a condition that says that tree removal/protection permits are
required to remove protected trees or build within 10 feet of them.
Scott
Scott Miller, Zoning Manager I Bureau of Planning I 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114 I Oakland, CA 94612
I Phone: (510) 238-2235 I Fax: (510) 238-4730 I Email: smiller@oaklandnet.com I Website:
www.oaklandnet.com/planning

To: Miller, Scott
Did he indicate on his plans that he would be removing several mature trees?
To: Flynn, Rachel
8/16/2016
Page 15

There were no Zoning permits for the wall and patio work from many years ago, so there was no Planner for
that. Unrelated to that, the owner in April came in for a small project design review for a new gazebo in the
backyard. That was handled over the counter (as is typical for very minor cases) by Maurice (case DS150160).
Scott
To: Miller, Scott
Scott -- Who was the Planner for 3539 Calandria?
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:25 AM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Cc: Flores, Herbert; Taylor, Marie (Allene)
Subject: Re: 3539 Calandria
Hi, Rachel, Zoning takes in Tree Permit applications, but does not issue Tree Permits. They are placed into the
routing bin to be picked up by Tree Services staff for review and decision.
Scott
> On May 19, 2015, at 7:50 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
>
> Herb, This is the information the owner of 3539 Calandria just sent to me. Can you confirm what is in your
records?
>
> Scott, Can you do the same? Looks like we took in applications. Did we approve anything?
>
>
>
> Feb 25, 2011 Applied to Planning to remove two Monterey pines. Granted.
>
> T100013 Feb 22, 2013 Applied to Planning to remove 5 cedars and other trees.
>
> Received several documents that read permit to remove 5 cedars. Cedars removed.
>
> One month later, a tree inspector shows up, says we only received an application, not a permit, regardless of
what the documents said.
>
> From: Flynn, Rachel
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 7:26 PM
> To: Flores, Herbert
8/16/2016
Page 16
> Cc: Taylor, Marie (Allene)

> Subject: 3539 Calandria
>
> Hi Herb, Its my understanding that Mitch Thomson retired from the City recently and that you are now
handling cases that he would have.
>
> Weve received complaints about large cedars that were cut down on the property at 3539 Calandria Avenue
(see attached photo of trees prior to removal).
>
> Can you tell us if the owner of 3539 got any permit(s) for the removal of these trees? Are permits required?
The site is completely devoid of trees now.
>
> I dont know when they were removed, but mostly likely in 2012 or 2013. Thanks, Rachel
>
> Rachel Flynn AIA
> Director l Planning & Building Department City of Oakland
> 510 . 238 . 2229
>
>
>
> <PICT0384 (1).JPG>
8/16/2016
Page 17
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
"Lu, Alan" <ALu@oaklandnet.com>

5/22/2015 1:27:27 PM
RE: 3539 Calandria
3539 Calandria Ave.pdf
Here are all the permits applied for on this address. Please note that there was a tree permit applied for in 2013 (T1300013 Tree Permit to remove 5 cedars and several smaller trees that are causing retaining wall failure at house)
Thank you.
Alan Lu
Public Service Representative
City of Oakland / Bureau of Building
(P) 510.238.6731
(F) 510.238.6445
This message may contain confidential and/or restricted information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose,
or take any action based on this message or any information herein. This information should only be forwarded or distributed on a "need to know basis". If you have received this
message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: Lu, Alan
Alan, I only need applications/permits PRIOR to 2014. Thanks again, Rachel

From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Lu, Alan (ALu@oaklandnet.com )
Hi Alan, Do we have any site plans in the file for permits approved for 3539 Calandria? He cut down several mature trees
without approval from Urban Forestry and Id like to know what the application included.
He built a patio and wall in his back yard (1 st permit I believe) and then he later built a gazebo (2nd permit?). Thanks for anything
you can find.
Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 18
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Lu, Alan" <ALu@oaklandnet.com>

5/22/2015 1:40:23 PM
RE: 3539 Calandria
The application comes in at the zoning counter if its development related and goes to the tree division at 7101 Edgewater Drive
for approval.
Dave Valeska took in that particular application.
Alan Lu
(P) 510.238.6731
(F) 510.238.6445
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: Lu, Alan
Thanks Alan, When someone submits an application for tree removal, do they submit that to our department or do they submit it
to OPW?
Do you know who took in the permit?
From: Lu, Alan
To: Flynn, Rachel
Thank you.
Alan Lu
(P) 510.238.6731
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Lu, Alan

From: Flynn, Rachel
you can find.
8/16/2016
Page 19
Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 20
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Valeska, David" <DValeska@oaklandnet.com>

5/27/2015 8:10:16 AM
RE: 3539 Calandria Tree Removal
Accela shows an application for a permit but no record of an issued tree permit. Tree Division has
No record of a tree permit application received by them, or issued by them.
Dave Valeska, Planner II | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa, Suite 2214 |Oakland, CA 94612 | Phone: (510)2382075 | Fax: (510) 238-4730 | Email: dvaleska@oaklandnet.com
| Website: www.oaklandnet.com/planning
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: Valeska, David
Cc: Miller, Scott; Brenyah-Addow, Maurice
Subject: Re: 3539 Calandria Tree Removal
Thanks Dave,
Yes, the trees are long gone and I'm responding to citizen concerns that they were removed without permits.
Regarding the "Permit T13-000013" you cite below, was that an application for a permit or an actual permit?
Thanks, Rachel
On May 26, 2015, at 12:34 PM, "Valeska, David" <DValeska@oaklandnet.com
> wrote:
On 2-22-13 (2 years 3 months ago) the owner filed for a DRX small project design review at a house, and a tree
Permit T13-000013 to remove cedars and other trees that were causing a retaining wall to fail. Photos in the
(approved) DRX file show the trees causing the wall to fail.
Accela shows an entry from 2-22-13 that I referred the case to Tree Division. This is usually done by interoffice
Mail, with the Division taking over at that point. On 5-26-15 I contacted Gay Luster at Tree Division, she e-mailed
That they have no record of it; however, one of their staff is looking into a citizen call about it.
In almost all cases, after this much time has expired, the owner removes the trees. Google Earth photos look
Like the trees are gone. Please advise if there is additional followup, thanks.
Dave Valeska, Planner II | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa, Suite 2214 |Oakland, CA 94612 | Phone:
(510)238-2075 | Fax: (510) 238-4730 | Email: dvaleska@oaklandnet.com
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: Valeska, David
Subject: 3539 Calandria Tree Removal
Hi Dave, A tree removal application was submitted on 2/22/2013 for the residential property at 3539 Calandria
Avenue. You were the Planner who took in the application (Record ID T1300013). The APN is 043A-4692-006-00.
Do you know what happened with this app? Thanks for any information you can provide. Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 21
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Flynn, Rachel (RFlynn@oaklandnet.com)" <rflynn@oaklandnet.com>
5/28/2015 11:32:50 AM
3539 Calandria Retaining Wall
Michael Hectors e-mail of May 15, 2015 had a typo. This case was 035, NOT 032.
Complaint #1101035 3539 Calandria. Complaint regarding encroachment onto City-owned park land. No violations found by
Inspector Leonardo Rivera on February 18, 2011. Case closed.
Complaint # 1101032 2640 74th Avenue. Complaint for overgrown vegetation.
From: Taylor, Marie (Allene)
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 8:17 AM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: RE: 3539 Calandria Retaining Wall
Rachel,
Mr. Hector has never had a case for the retaining wall he removed in the photo the complaint #1101032 is not even for his
property. Unless it was something the city had in place in 04/05 which was 5 years before Mr. Hector bought his property. The
earliest complaint for Mr. Hector was #110135 for moving dirt onto the city easement.
It is my understanding Mr. Hector is filing lawsuits against his neighbors Im not sure what the reasons are Mr. Heanue
mentioned it when I went out to look at the wall. I didnt get into the details with him.
Marie
From: Flynn, Rachel
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 8:18 PM
To: Taylor, Marie (Allene)
Cc: Sandercock, Deborah
Subject: 3539 Calandria Retaining Wall
Hi Marie I mentioned today during our meeting that Michael Hector removed the retaining wall in his backyard that was on
City-owned property.
This is the e-mail that indicates the removal (see highlighted portion below). I havent reviewed Complaint 1101032 yet, but
perhaps the documentation is in our records.
Also, do you know what three lawsuits he is referring to? Thanks, Rachel
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: calandria retaining wall history
Ms. Flynn,
Do you know the history of retaining walls for 3539, 3529. 3521 & 3511 Calandria? It's in Oakland's records, but I'll help a
little:
Of these 4 adjacent properties, 3521 (heanue) is the only property that has NOT replaced / removed retaining walls.
Building permits for 3511 & 3521 are in your database.
Oakland liened 3529 Calandria in 2004/05 for debris from their 2003/04 wall / fence project.
3539 Calandria removed 100' of park side retaining wall in February 2011 as a result of complaint 1101032. And 90' of
street side retaining wall in 2014, as a result of Inspector Barons NOV to us dated July 21, 2014. We have removed /
replaced 190' feet wall because of complaints originated by Mr. & Mrs. Heanue.
Here is a picture of the park side of our property from February 2011.
Three lawsuits have already been filed regarding the Heanue retaining wall.
Respectfully
8/16/2016
Page 22
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Suzy clark" <suzanneclark@rocketmail.com>
"michael hector" <psmhector@gmail.com>
6/2/2015 9:49:03 PM
complaints 1501141, 1402816, 1305434, 1302254 & tree permit t1300013
Director Flynn,
New subjects
a. complaints 1501141, 1402816, 1305434, 1302254, stop work order dated 9/4/14.
b. tree permit t1300013.
c. open permits for 3539 Calandria
d. OMC 8.24 violations for permitted job sites / exempt work.
e. violations for preexisting permitted conditions
f. the unusual way complaint inspectors are applying the code to exempt work and permitted job site.
g. lack of record keeping / tracking for complaint inspections w/o violations.
h. complaint inspectors not checking permit records before field visits.
We have pictures, Oakland documents and code citations I'd like you to review. If your schedule permits, we'd
like this to be a face-to-face meeting - tired of emails. We'd also like the "building official" present for
interpretations of OMC 8.24, especially .050;
We request inspectors Barron, Espinoza, and Ivan Ramirez presence because we will be raising questions
regarding their conduct that we think was unprofessional (threats, lies and failure to document complaints we
made). You might want Mr. Zahn present for the tree permit issue. We will provide an agenda, and list of our
specific questions / concerns in advance once you schedule a meeting. Suzanne requests an afternoon
meeting (after 3) so she can attend. Our presentation will be less than 30 minutes.
We ask that your final response to these issues be in writing.
We look forward to resolving these issues so we can complete our outstanding permits and submit our
application for an addition. We've put everything on hold for the last year trying to end the countless barrage of
complaint inspections.
We will end with four requests:

1. The Planning Director use their authority to extend our open permits for 60 days.
2. The Planning Director use their authority to note the records of the four listed complaints / violations as
issued in error, inspector abuse of discretion / misinterpretation / application of the code.
3. Some guidelines for inspectors on two points: permitted or exempt job sites & OMC 8.24, and documenting
no violation complaint inspections in the record / database.
4. An apology for the way B & P complaint inspectors have threaten us and abused their authority in citing us
8/16/2016
Page 23
for questionable violations.
All the best,

8/16/2016
Page 24
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

6/10/2015 2:59:25 PM
Re: complaints 1501141, 1402816, 1305434, 1302254 & tree permit t1300013
Director Flynn
Two months is fine; sometime in July - August.
I hope you'll hold off any enforcement until you have time to meet and confer. Written reply would be desirable
for any of your staff that show up at our door.
Regards,
Michael hector & Suzanne Clark
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Michael, I've received your emails. I don't know when I can get to reviewing the numerous issues you have
asked me to review -- probably 2 months.
I just finished my review and assessment of the 3521 on May 29th, which required an inordinate amount of my
time -- as it was new to me and I wanted to ensure that my response was thorough and accurate. That
requires a lot of time and coordination. Your cases will also require a lot of time and attention.
As you can imagine, I am dealing with hundreds of cases and we are extremely short staffed.
I'd be glad to meet with you, I just don't know when I can, probably in 1-2 months. I also have to find the time
to respond to your Public Records Request, which is due this week.
On Jun 10, 2015, at 1:09 PM, "Michael Hector" <psmhector@gmail.com
> wrote:
Director Flynn,
3RD REQUEST to meet regarding multiple notices of violation issued to 3539 Calandra
over the past several years.
A timely reply is the professional and courtesy response to a request from the public. I
don't want to write another 77 emails; I'm certain you don't want to receive them. You said
on May 15, 2015, you were "reviewing our complaints". Four weeks already; how much
more time is required?
a. A prompt acknowledgement that you've received our request is appreciated.
b. A time estimate for a decision on meeting or document review would be welcomed - as
opposed to being ignored.
c. Your willingness for a meeting would be nice. I have about 20+ documents, and photos
as part of the evidence / proof of our point of view. Your email is limited and I want to
ensure each document is considered. If you prefer, I could send each document as a
separate email, numbered, with an explanation for your consideration.
SIX EXAMPLES OF QUESTIONABLE APPLICATION OF THE RULES:
8/16/2016
Page 25
1. OMC 8.24 Blight ordinance. Prohibits car washes and auto repair business in
residential areas; but allows persons to wash and repair their own cars. Demonstates
intent to allow for personal improvement. Does not address home repair, exempt work, or
permitted work. But obviously, a person working on their property may have some
material related to those improvements. Your staff have repeatedly cited us for
construction material, when we have permitted and exempt work on going. Seem
inconsistent with the intent of the code.
2. On 9/4/2014, your inspector Espinoza handed me a "stop work order" for work
already reviewed and approved by Mr. Barron. Subsequently vetoed by Barron and
Sandercock. But no reference of this of the other 24 inspectors who visited our property
and found no violations. Seems sloppy. Also, if one could review the records and see that
more the TWO DOZEN COMPLAINTS WERE MADE, it might be helpful.
3. Mr. Barron's N.O.V. of 7/24/2014. The middle of the day, we're clearing brush, and
removing and clearing out a storage shed. Cited for trash and debris - while doing the
work. Seems to inconsistent with intent of code. I have a broader field of view picture that
shows a wide perspective.
4. Mr. Barron's N.O.V. of 7/24/2014, also cites us for the original retaining wall built about
1931. No standard given, no damage to persons or property. N.O.V. seems inconsistent
with the intent of the code. NOTE more than a dozen building inspectors had come to our
property over the past 42 months, walked right past the retaining wall, and seen no
issue. We have received several correction notices for our improvements, but nothing on
this wall - until Mr. Barron... See #5
5. Tree permit T 1300013. The documents we received from the city say "Permit to
remove 5 trees..." causing retaining wall failure. We also agreed to remove / replace the
failing retaining walls. Oakland staff dispute the documents we have. Remains
unresolved.
6. Mr. Ramirez's N.O.V. of April 2015 - duplicates previously issues addressed by Barron,
Espinsoza, Wilson and Sandercock. The complaint was made by Mr. Taylor Heanue of
3521 Calandra, who has multiple open, unresolved N.o.v. and abatement orders for four
years. Seems odd that the city would enforce against one party, while allowing the
complaining party to ignore an abatement order for years.
we have more points with city documents and photos.
A prompt reply would be nice.

3539 Calandria
Oakland
8/16/2016
Page 26
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com

Director Flynn,
> wrote:
New subjects
a. complaints 1501141, 1402816, 1305434, 1302254, stop work order dated 9/4/14.
b. tree permit t1300013.
c. open permits for 3539 Calandria
d. OMC 8.24 violations for permitted job sites / exempt work.
e. violations for preexisting permitted conditions
f. the unusual way complaint inspectors are applying the code to exempt work and permitted job site.
g. lack of record keeping / tracking for complaint inspections w/o violations.
h. complaint inspectors not checking permit records before field visits.
We have pictures, Oakland documents and code citations I'd like you to review. If your schedule
permits, we'd like this to be a face-to-face meeting - tired of emails. We'd also like the "building
official" present for interpretations of OMC 8.24, especially .050;
We request inspectors Barron, Espinoza, and Ivan Ramirez presence because we will be raising
questions regarding their conduct that we think was unprofessional (threats, lies and failure to
document complaints we made). You might want Mr. Zahn present for the tree permit issue. We will
provide an agenda, and list of our specific questions / concerns in advance once you schedule a
meeting. Suzanne requests an afternoon meeting (after 3) so she can attend. Our presentation will
be less than 30 minutes.
We ask that your final response to these issues be in writing.
We look forward to resolving these issues so we can complete our outstanding permits and submit our
application for an addition. We've put everything on hold for the last year trying to end the countless
barrage of complaint inspections.
We will end with four requests:

1. The Planning Director use their authority to extend our open permits for 60 days.
2. The Planning Director use their authority to note the records of the four listed complaints /
violations as issued in error, inspector abuse of discretion / misinterpretation / application of the code.
3. Some guidelines for inspectors on two points: permitted or exempt job sites & OMC 8.24, and
documenting no violation complaint inspections in the record / database.
4. An apology for the way B & P complaint inspectors have threaten us and abused their authority in
citing us for questionable violations.
All the best,

8/16/2016
Page 27
8/16/2016
Page 28
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

6/30/2015 8:54:15 AM
RE: 3539 Calandria Complaints
They have been told not to proceed with any actions until they hear from me.
Marie
From: Flynn, Rachel
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:40 PM
Cc: Labayog, Edward; Smith, Sandra M
Subject: 3539 Calandria Complaints
Marie, I received the list of new complaints that you left for me today (regarding 3539 Calandria).
Please do NOT send any inspectors out to respond to these complaints until we have all met to review this property.
These cases are:
1501813 filed on 05-29-15 pending inspection
1502220 filed on 6-29-15 pending inspection
Case # 1502213 Chris Candell conducted an inspection today. I have spoken with Chris about this case and will follow up with
him.
Ill send you all an invite for this week to discuss all the cases related to 3539 Calandria. Michael Hector wants a meeting to
review all of the citations. Id like to schedule that for next week.
Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 29
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Candell, Chris" <CCandell@oaklandnet.com>
6/30/2015 5:28:54 PM
Re: inspector Chris Candell
Director Flynn,
What are you going to do regarding the endless line of your inspectors knocking on our door - while we wait to
meet with you and your staff?
such as Chris Candell on 6/29/2015.
Waiting in Oakland,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
Oakland
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
What about the continued harassment by your inspectors while we wait to meet with you?
i.e. Chris Crandell from your office at our property on 6/29/2015 @ 11:15 AM?
When will this BS end?
Michael & Suzanne

3539 Calandria

Date: Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:36 AM
Subject: inspector Chris Candell
To: "Flynn, Rachel" <rflynn@oaklandnet.com >, ccandell@oaklandnet.com , "Low,
Tim" <TLow@oaklandnet.com >, "Hunt, Michael" <MHunt@oaklandnet.com >, Office of the Mayor
<officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com >, City Administrator's Office
<CityAdministrator'sOffice@oaklandnet.com >
Director Flynn,
Another of your inspectors showed up this morning, a Mr. Chris Candell. Zoning complaint about business
operated from home - Mr. Candell claims my maintaining and renovating our own property constitutes a
"business from the home" and requires a business license.
Still waiting for our meeting,
3539 calandria
8/16/2016
Page 30
8/16/2016
Page 31
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/1/2015 1:40:52 PM
Re: I hate to be a P.I.T.A.; what about the endless inspectors...
Director Flynn,
Help. A note from you while we wait for your schedule to open up and resolve any issues at 3539 Calandria. Please.
Note the pictures. Our lovely neighbors make sport of complaints. These are from the last 10 months, and not everyone
gave me a card. Note the stop work order. no record in Oakland database...
Please,
regards,
Michael & Suzy
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
Director Flynn,
I hate to be a P.I.T.A.; but what about the endless inspectors... such as zoning inspector Candell, while we wait for your
schedule to open up?
If you could write me a simple note, on your letterhead, to show any of your staff that might knock on our door, it would
be appreciated.
example:
Oakland Staff:
I am reviewing all matters related to 3539 Calandra. Please take no further action and depart this
property.
Rachel Flynn....
Regards,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 32
8/16/2016
Page 33
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/1/2015 3:45:53 PM
Re: Meeting
Sure.
On Jul 1, 2015, at 3:28 PM, "Michael Hector" <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
Hello,
Can we make it a little latter, say 4:00. Suzy will be coming from silicone valley.
Regards,
Michael & Suzy
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com
> wrote:
I informed staff yesterday to hold on any more inspections of your property until we all meet.
Are you and Suzy available next Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 3:30 in our offices (next to City Hall)?
From: Michael Hector [mailto:psmhector@gmail.com ]

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 1:41 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Re: I hate to be a P.I.T.A.; what about the endless inspectors...
Director Flynn,
Help. A note from you while we wait for your schedule to open up and resolve any issues at 3539
Calandria. Please.
Note the pictures. Our lovely neighbors make sport of complaints. These are from the last 10 months,
and not everyone gave me a card. Note the stop work order. no record in Oakland database...
Please,
regards,
Michael & Suzy
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com

Director Flynn,
8/16/2016
> wrote:
Page 34
I hate to be a P.I.T.A.; but what about the endless inspectors... such as zoning inspector Candell, while
we wait for your schedule to open up?
If you could write me a simple note, on your letterhead, to show any of your staff that might knock on our
door, it would be appreciated.
example:
Oakland Staff:
I am reviewing all matters related to 3539 Calandra. Please take no further action and
depart this property.
Rachel Flynn....
Regards,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 35
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/8/2015 8:17:39 AM
2 items - confirm meeting and record details
Director Flynn,
Just wanted to confirm todays meeting at 4:00 pm at your office, 3rd floor.
Also, I'd like copies of the intake forms from all the prior complaints about 3539 Calandria that your inspectors use when
they go into the field. It's an intake form, possibly called "Record Details", a copy of Mr. Ramirez form is attached as an
example.
I'm most interested in Hugo Barron's form from July 2014; Mr. Espinsoza's form from September 2014 and Mr. Crandell's
form from June 2015.
Thanks
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 36
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/8/2015 2:20:53 PM
7/8/15 meeting @ 1600 - adjenda
Director Flynn,
Here is our adjenda for todays meeting. See ya soon.
Meeting with Planning Director and Michael Hector and Suzanne CLark
re: 3539 Calandria
inspectors Barron
Espinoza
Ramirez
& Randall
What Hector / Clark want:
a.
Tree permit
t1300013 from Feb 2013, issued and finaled.
b. Notice of Violations (NOV) 1501141, 1402816, 1305434 & 1302254 marked no violation found / issued in error, per
Director B & P Flynn.
c. Letter of apology for inspectors misapplication of the code, misrepresentations and threats and Espinoza's stop work
order threat.
d. No action on gazebo pending new permits for addition or at least 4 years - the same consideration given the
Heanues at 3521 Calandria
e.
record details / cap summary for NOVs in b and Espinoza 9/4/14 visit.
Presentation
1. Suzanne Clark - general complaint about conduct of inspectors and allowing themselves to be used as instruments of
harassment.
2.
Michael Hector 2.1 OMC 8.24

2.2 Oakland construction hours.
2.3 When a permit is not needed from Oaklands website
2.4 Oakland Stop Work Notice handout
2.4 OMC 15.04.080 powers and duties of building official
2.5 OMC 17.152
2.6 pics of 3539 Calandria on 7/21/14 - Barrons 1st visit
2.7 pics of storage and work in progress
2.8 pic of new retaining wall
2.9 pic of 3500 calandria
2.10 pic of stored vehicles 3529 Calandria on 7/21/14 (Barron's 1st visit) 8.24 violation
2.11 pic of sidewalk 3514 Calandria on 7/21/14
2.12 pics of 3511 Calandria - decapitated trees and fence, deck and wall built over the property line on city park
8/16/2016
Page 37
land
8/16/2016
Page 38
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/9/2015 11:43:37 AM
disapointed in meeting of 7/8/15
Rachel,
I repeat my requests of 7/8/15. I understand and accept your displeasure with me. However, if
you can take a moment - or a few days - to reconsider the fairness of my requests, in light of the
very reasonable consideration you and your department have shown the Heanue's, that will be
the end it as far as we're concerned. A clear, fresh start is our request, not more arrows, as you
phrased it yesterday. I hope to hear back from you by early next week.
Everything below just summarizes prior statements and actions: I included it for completeness
and clarity. I know this is not the only item on your plate, so some of the details might be handy
below, instead of referring back to other communications.
On the grand scale of building and planning we are no Brooklyn Basin; but the issues we raised
are important to us. You don't seem to understand why we don't appreciate six visits from your
complaint inspectors in the last eleven months; complaints generated in whole or part by a
neighbor who has had open uncorrected violations for 1600 days.
You're applying a very tolerant, reasonable standard to 3521 Calandria's "Notice to Abate
1101036", issued on February 28, 2011, for a wall built on public land to enlarge their
backyard. The property owners notified Oakland they accepted responsibility for removing the
wall on March 23, 2011. The wall remained in place for the next four years despite our repeated
complaints to your staff. Title 17 of the OMC states every day of uncorrected violation is a
separate violation. Yet your department levied no fees or fines as prescribed by a strict reading
of the OMC and abatement order 1101036.
We finally began contacting you directly on April 24, 2015, about "Notice to Abate 1101036". You
took six weeks to decide if Oakland was going to enforce a correction of this violation - in spite of
the property owners March 2011, letter agreeing to abate the violation. Then you gave the
property owners the option of submitting a compliance plan in place of prompt compliance, even
though that is not an option in a strict reading of "Notice to Abate 1101036". Furthermore, you
choose to disregard the final paragraph:
..." Reinspections made after the compliance due day will be fee-charged at $396.00 per
reinspection until compliance is achieved: Compliance due date: March 25, 2011."
I believe nine reinspections related to 1101036, have taken place by City staff after March 25,
2011. You waived many, many thousands of dollars of fees, levies, and liens for 3521
Calandria. When we request reciprocity by extending our existing building and electrical permits
for 60 days because of all the issues with 3521 Calandria - you refused.
Consider that Taylor Heanue claims not to know where his property boundary is - yet he
professes to know exactly where our property lines are in his complaint of 4/3/15, to Mr. Ramirez
regarding our "enclosed structure". Bit of a double standard.
8/16/2016
Page 39
Subsequently, your May 29, 2015, letter to the Heanues, and subsequent communications,
extended compliance of Notice to Abate 1101036 a further 4 & 1/2 months until October 15,
2015 - which will be almost 6 months after our first email to you on April 24, 2015. In total you
and your agency permitted 3521 Calandria 56 months to abate the wall built on city land - and
waived all applicable fees and levies. Very reasonable and generous interpretation and
application of the OMC.
Yet, your actions and decision against us and 3539 Calandria are in stark contrast - very strict
and literal. You REFUSED our request to extend our permits 60 additional days - two months
(yet granted 3521, 56 months to comply while waiving all OMC prescribed fees). You REFUSED
our request to mark the last four notices of violation issued by your department against 3539
Calandria as "no violation found", for what I consider petty interpretations of the OMC for a
property undergoing renovation. You did not decide our request to issue and final the three
permit applied for at the beginning of 2013 - but you scepticism or aversion was clear - even
though a strict reading of the documents given to us by planning reads: "permit to remove five
ceders and smaller trees".
It's up to you: If you show us the same, very reasonable and generous interpretation and
application of the OMC you've shown the Heanue's, we will be content. Our complaints to and
about your department will cease. We'll let the Superior Court sort out our difference's with our
neighbors. But, it's up to you; fair and reasonable or strict and literal? Are you willing to clear the
table and start fresh?
regards,
Michael
8/16/2016
Page 40
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
"Carthan, Brian" <BCarthan@oaklandnet.com>

7/13/2015 3:25:04 PM
FW: Massive encroachment in city park / 3539 Calandria
FW: 3521 Calandria Avenue.msg
Hello Rachel,
I'm sure you are aware of the issues surrounding the two properties 3521 and 3529 Calandria. They are two separate issues, but
involve accusations from both property owners.
The email below from Taylor Heanue asserts that the owner of 3529 is aggressively taking City Of Oakland park property. As I
mentioned to James, Parks and Tree Services maintain park property but the Office of Parks and Recreation (OPR) has the
oversight of parks and open space areas. If City Of Oakland property is being adversely affected, what would be the correct
process to stop this? should a land survey be done to determine the boundaries of the city property?
In past emails I believe the City Attorney was in the chain and Audree Jones-Taylor with OPR.
Please let me know what you think is the best approach to solve this ongoing issue.
Thank you.
Brian Carthan, PWLF

Manager, Park and Tree Services Division
Bureau of Facilities & Environment
City of Oakland | Oakland Public Works Department | APWA Accredited Agency
7101 Edgewater Dr, Bldg 2 | Oakland, CA 94621
(510) 615-5510 | (510) 927-2658 Fax
bcarthan@oaklandnet.com
Report A Problem | Public Works Call Center | (510) 615-5566
www.oaklandpw.com | pwacallcenter@oaklandnet.com | Mobile app: SeeClickFix
Brian Carthan
Manager, Park and Tree Services
From: Carthan, Brian
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 10:43 AM
To: Golde, James
Cc: Low, Tim
Subject: FW: Massive encroachment in city park / 3539 Calandria
James,
Please look at the email below. OPW maintains park space, but does not manage boundary or building issues. According to Mr.
Heanue, the property owner at 3539 is encroaching on City Of Oakland property. I do not know where the exact property line is
so, I dont know if the property owner is encroaching. This has been going on for some time and we must work together to
resolve. Please let me know when you have time to conference or meet at the site.
Tim; I would like you to be present as well.
Thank you
Brian Carthan
From: Taylor [mailto:taylorheanue@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 9:44 PM
To: Carthan, Brian
Cc: Low, Tim
Subject: Massive encroachment in city park / 3539 Calandria
Mr Carthan,
A neighbor on my street (Michael Hector & Suzanne Clark / 3539 Calandria) has built far beyond their property
line into King's Estate Park, a city open space park. I was given your name by Tim Low as the person who could
help to stop this and make him remove his buildup. There are many other neighbors who are outraged by Mr
8/16/2016
Page 41
Hector's activities and many who would be happy to share their personal experiences.
Mr Hector is ruining the park by regrading and terraforming, building multiple retaining walls fully on park land,
bringing in non-native plants for his personal enjoyment. He has removed trees from the park to improve his
view and has cut many tree limbs from the park as well. He stores large amounts of his personal materials in the
park and has for years.
PDF summary document:
I have prepared a document which summarizes main offenses and contains several before/after photos and
other data. Please see the link below to view the file:
http://www.funkyb3.com/Calandria/3539_Calandria_Land_Grab.pdf
VIDEO:
One particularly damning video can be downloaded here, which is a walk through the park behind 3539
Calandria from September 2014. At around 3 minutes in you will see where it gets really bad:
http://www.funkyb3.com/Calandria/3539-Calandria_9-19-2014_low.mp4
I would like very much to talk to you in person about this issue. I would be happy to come in to meet you or to
speak over the phone. Please let me know the best way to move forward on this.
thanks very much,
Taylor Heanue
3521 Calandria Ave, Oakland, CA
(415) 990-2275
8/16/2016
Page 42
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Golde, James" <JGolde@oaklandnet.com>

FW: 3521 Calandria Avenue
Brian,
See the email chain below. We are working with Building department with
regards 3521 Calandria Avenue. Ed Kawamoto is the R.E. agent assigned
to provide the owner a right of entry to the city property to be able to
demolish and rebuild the retaining wall on his own property.
You might want to reach out to Tim Low or Rachel Flynn to see if they
are yet involved with 3529 Calandria.
Regards,
JamesGolde
Manager | Real Estate Services
510-238-6354

Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 11:24 AM
To: Flynn, Rachel; Kawamoto, Edwin; Low, Tim; Golde, James
Subject: Re: 3521 Calandria Avenue
Hello Rachel -
Sorry the email didn't go through as an attachment. I have uploaded a

signed/scanned copy onto my personal website so you can download it. I
also dropped off a copy with a wet signature with Ed Kawamoto.
Here is a link:
http://www.bsharpdesign.net/Response_Calandria_062515.PDF
Mr. Kawamoto was able to view the original attachment and called me to
discuss yesterday. We spoke for a bit about logistics and he told me
that he thought the response was reasonable, although the final decision
8/16/2016
Page 43
to approve the plan is yours.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
regards,
taylor
________________________________
From: Taylor <taylorheanue@yahoo.com>
To: "Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com>
Cc: "Low, Tim" <TLow@oaklandnet.com>; "Kawamoto, Edwin"
<EKawamoto@oaklandnet.com>; "Golde, James" <JGolde@oaklandnet.com>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 12:49 PM
Hi Rachel -
Please see the attached compliance plan. I also intend to drop off a
signed copy downtown today.
With the definitive ruling you have provided in your May 29th letter,
we are excited to finally clear this matter up.
The attached document is our response. We intend to fully comply with

your ruling and we are already working away at this project, meeting
contractors, etc.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for the
cross-departmental coordination your office has enabled.
regards,
8/16/2016
Page 44
Taylor & Mica Heanue

3521 Calandria Ave, Oakland 94605
(415) 990-2275
________________________________
From: "Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com>
To: "taylorheanue@yahoo.com" <taylorheanue@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 8:26 PM
Subject: 3521 Calandria Avenue
Taylor, Thanks for your prompt response and your willingness to work
closely with the City on addressing the removal of the wall.
We look forward to seeing your Compliance Plan later this month after
your return. Have a great trip! Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
From: Taylor [mailto:taylorheanue@yahoo.com

<mailto:taylorheanue@yahoo.com> ]
To: Flynn, Rachel; Kawamoto, Edwin
Cc: Low, Tim; Golde, James
Subject: Re: 3521 Calandria - NOV (meeting with Tayor Heanue)
8/16/2016
Page 45
Hi Rachel -
Yes I am leaving for Japan in a few hours. I'll be back on 6/17. It's my
plan to get a framework of a plan together and rough schedule before
your deadline, but I really won't be able to work on anything until I
get back on the 17th.
Some other things came out of the meeting with Ed which I had hoped to
go into in a bit more detail, but I am swamped getting out the door for
this trip so I'll try to summarize:
Many of the details that Ed is requesting for the "compliance plan" are
very specific (i.e., what tools are to be used, how many workers, what
hours, etc) and will not be known until after a contractor is
identified/vetted and the project is very planned out. This level of
detail will not be possible in the 30 day time frame, but I plan to
identify the various parts of the project and give a scope and time
estimate for each and an overall time frame within the requested 30
days.
Also, there are multiple reasons why we intend to build a replacement

wall as part of the same project, including: (1) needing the same access
in order to build the replacement wall, and (2) Ed's stated desire that
we retain all existing fill material behind the wall at 3521 Calandria
and not in the park to be used for grading because it is unknown fill
which has not been tested for toxicity. This just means it's not a
simple knock down and re-grade.
We have been honest and open throughout this process and are glad to see
this coming towards closure, but there is still much work to be done. As
I have stated throughout this process, it is our desire to continue to
move forward in the most correct way possible, follow all required
rules, and work in compliance with the city at all stages. We don't want
to fight this; we want to resolve it. It is also our hope to wrap this
up in the most expedient manner possible. To whit: on the first business
day after receiving your letter, I have already met in person with Ed
about the compliance plan.
We have attempted to generate goodwill at all stages of this process,

and we are hoping that Oakland can be reasonable when we present a time
frame for this project. Please expect our compliance plan estimate, and
some progress on the planning steps, inside of your 30 day timeframe
(i.e. by Friday June 26). Once I get back from Japan, I will do the very
best I can to gather all the information I can between 6/18-6/25 and
make the best presentation possible when your deadline hits on June 26.
8/16/2016
Page 46
Thanks again for helping us get all the required parties together
finally so we can resolve this issue once and for all.
regards,
taylor
From: "Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com

<mailto:RFlynn@oaklandnet.com> >
To: "Kawamoto, Edwin" <EKawamoto@oaklandnet.com

<mailto:EKawamoto@oaklandnet.com> >
Cc: "Low, Tim" <TLow@oaklandnet.com <mailto:TLow@oaklandnet.com> >;
"Golde, James" <JGolde@oaklandnet.com <mailto:JGolde@oaklandnet.com> >;
"taylorheanue@yahoo.com <mailto:taylorheanue@yahoo.com> "
<taylorheanue@yahoo.com <mailto:taylorheanue@yahoo.com> >
Subject: RE: 3521 Calandria - NOV (meeting with Tayor Heanue)
Thanks for the follow-up, Ed.
8/16/2016
Page 47
Taylor, As stated in the attached letter, if you cannot remove the wall
within the 30-day timeframe, then you will need to submit a Compliance
Plan within that timeframe for my review and approval. Ed Kawamoto has
provided most items needed in the Plan. You should also add items like
the hiring of a Civil Engineer to prepare the permit documents and the
hiring of a contractor to perform the work. The more specific you can
be, the better, so that we are all clear on how and when the wall will
be removed.
Thanks, Rachel
From: Kawamoto, Edwin

To: Flynn, Rachel
Cc: Low, Tim; Golde, James; taylorheanue@yahoo.com
<mailto:taylorheanue@yahoo.com>
To Rachel:
This concerns your letter dated May 29, 2015 to Taylor and Mica Heanue
(Letter) and status report of my meeting with Taylor Heanue on June 1,
2015.
When I met with Taylor Heanue, we discussed the Right of Entry

Agreement (Agreement) and the compliance plan (Plan), which are both
referenced in your Letter.
With respect to Agreement, I informed Mr. Heanue that the Agreement

(among other provisions) will include the Plan. The Plan, which will be
attached as an exhibit to the Agreement, should include the following:
1. Scope of work for the encroachment abatement (including the
work for the removal of the existing retaining wall, disposal of any
soil, and the concrete debris) from Mr. Heanues contractor.
2. Map showing the following:
a. Existing retaining wall (encroachment area) on the City owned
property.
8/16/2016
Page 48
b. Work area on the City owned property beyond the encroachment

area for encroachment abatement.
c. Access area ( if required for egress and ingress) for equipment
and tools, and for the removal of soil and concrete debris.
3. Scope of access use, if required, listing all equipment, tools
and vehicles traversing over the access area.
4. Daily time schedule and hours of operation for the encroachment
abatement work.
5. Plan for the disposal of any excess soil and concrete debris.
6. Time to complete all encroachment abatement work. (beginning and
ending dates of project).
7. Security plan, if needed
I also informed Mr. Heanue that Agreement will require the following:
1. Administrative processing fee of $1,178.32
2. Security Deposit of $3,000 (refundable)
3. Certificate of Insurance naming the City as an additional named
insured for liability coverage
Since Mr. Heanue is leaving for Japan, he informed me that the 30 day
period commencing from the date of your letter is not enough time to
complete the project and that he would ask you for time extension.
Again, for me to complete the Agreement, I will need to obtain a copy of
the approved Plan. The approved Plan will then be attached as exhibit
to the Agreement.
Please let me know whether you have any questions.
Ed
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: taylorheanue@yahoo.com <mailto:taylorheanue@yahoo.com>
Cc: Low, Tim; Kawamoto, Edwin
Subject: 3521 Calandria - NOV
Taylor, I just realized that I had a typo in regards to the address of
your property. I incorrectly typed 3921 Calandria Avenue and have
corrected that typo to 3521 Calandria Avenue. Please see the attached
corrected letter. Thanks, Rachel
8/16/2016
Page 49
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: 'taylorheanue@yahoo.com'
Taylor, Attached please find the letter we discussed today regarding
the concrete block wall that abuts your back yard. Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA

Director l Planning & Building Department City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 50
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

7/13/2015 7:42:15 PM
Parkland Encroachments
FW: 3521 Calandria Avenue.msg
Hi Brian, We met last week with the owners of 3539 Calandria, Michael Hector and Suzanne Clarke. They informed me, Tim Low,
and Ed Labayog that they have already surveyed their property. Tim and Ed are going to meet with them (this week or next) to
confirm where their property line is located. We will get back to you after that site visit and let you know what, if anything, needs
to be done. If they have built anything on City-owned parkland, they must remove it, at their expense. We can issue an NOV for
building illegally on City-owned land. They are required to work with Real Estate Services to obtain a right of entry for the
demolition of any illegally built items (just as the owners of 3521 Calandria are doing).
Taylor Heanue also claims that Michael Hector has re-graded earth and planted on City-owned parkland. First, we have to
determine where the property line is, to validate this complaint. Again, well get back to you after Tims site visit.
Regarding the tree on City-owned parkland, that Taylor Heanue claims Michael Hector trimmed you will have to review the
photos/videos he has sent you. I believe he has before and after images.
Thanks, Rachel
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 3:25 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Hello Rachel,
I'm sure you are aware of the issues surrounding the two properties 3521 and 3529 Calandria. They are two separate issues, but
involve accusations from both property owners.
The email below from Taylor Heanue asserts that the owner of 3529 is aggressively taking City Of Oakland park property. As I
mentioned to James, Parks and Tree Services maintain park property but the Office of Parks and Recreation (OPR) has the
oversight of parks and open space areas. If City Of Oakland property is being adversely affected, what would be the correct
process to stop this? should a land survey be done to determine the boundaries of the city property?
Thank you.
Brian Carthan, PWLF
(510) 615-5510 | (510) 927-2658 Fax
Brian Carthan
To: Golde, James
Cc: Low, Tim
James,
Please look at the email below. OPW maintains park space, but does not manage boundary or building issues. According to Mr.
Heanue, the property owner at 3539 is encroaching on City Of Oakland property. I do not know where the exact property line is
so, I dont know if the property owner is encroaching. This has been going on for some time and we must work together to
resolve. Please let me know when you have time to conference or meet at the site.
Thank you
Brian Carthan
8/16/2016
Page 51
To: Carthan, Brian
Cc: Low, Tim
Mr Carthan,
A neighbor on my street (Michael Hector & Suzanne Clark / 3539 Calandria) has built far beyond their property
line into King's Estate Park, a city open space park. I was given your name by Tim Low as the person who could
help to stop this and make him remove his buildup. There are many other neighbors who are outraged by Mr
Hector's activities and many who would be happy to share their personal experiences.
Mr Hector is ruining the park by regrading and terraforming, building multiple retaining walls fully on park land,
bringing in non-native plants for his personal enjoyment. He has removed trees from the park to improve his
view and has cut many tree limbs from the park as well. He stores large amounts of his personal materials in the
park and has for years.
I have prepared a document which summarizes main offenses and contains several before/after photos and
other data. Please see the link below to view the file:
VIDEO:
I would like very much to talk to you in person about this issue. I would be happy to come in to meet you or to
speak over the phone. Please let me know the best way to move forward on this.
thanks very much,
Taylor Heanue
(415) 990-2275
8/16/2016
Page 52
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

FW: 3521 Calandria Avenue
Brian,
See the email chain below. We are working with Building department with
regards 3521 Calandria Avenue. Ed Kawamoto is the R.E. agent assigned
to provide the owner a right of entry to the city property to be able to
demolish and rebuild the retaining wall on his own property.
You might want to reach out to Tim Low or Rachel Flynn to see if they
are yet involved with 3529 Calandria.
Regards,
JamesGolde
Manager | Real Estate Services
510-238-6354

Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 11:24 AM
To: Flynn, Rachel; Kawamoto, Edwin; Low, Tim; Golde, James
Hello Rachel -
Sorry the email didn't go through as an attachment. I have uploaded a

signed/scanned copy onto my personal website so you can download it. I
also dropped off a copy with a wet signature with Ed Kawamoto.
Here is a link:
http://www.bsharpdesign.net/Response_Calandria_062515.PDF
Mr. Kawamoto was able to view the original attachment and called me to
discuss yesterday. We spoke for a bit about logistics and he told me
that he thought the response was reasonable, although the final decision
8/16/2016
Page 53
to approve the plan is yours.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
regards,
taylor
________________________________
From: Taylor <taylorheanue@yahoo.com>
To: "Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 12:49 PM
Hi Rachel -
Please see the attached compliance plan. I also intend to drop off a
signed copy downtown today.
With the definitive ruling you have provided in your May 29th letter,
we are excited to finally clear this matter up.
The attached document is our response. We intend to fully comply with

your ruling and we are already working away at this project, meeting
contractors, etc.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for the
cross-departmental coordination your office has enabled.
regards,
8/16/2016
Page 54
Taylor & Mica Heanue

3521 Calandria Ave, Oakland 94605
(415) 990-2275
________________________________
To: "taylorheanue@yahoo.com" <taylorheanue@yahoo.com>
Taylor, Thanks for your prompt response and your willingness to work
closely with the City on addressing the removal of the wall.
We look forward to seeing your Compliance Plan later this month after
your return. Have a great trip! Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
From: Taylor [mailto:taylorheanue@yahoo.com

<mailto:taylorheanue@yahoo.com> ]
To: Flynn, Rachel; Kawamoto, Edwin
Subject: Re: 3521 Calandria - NOV (meeting with Tayor Heanue)
8/16/2016
Page 55
Hi Rachel -
Yes I am leaving for Japan in a few hours. I'll be back on 6/17. It's my
plan to get a framework of a plan together and rough schedule before
your deadline, but I really won't be able to work on anything until I
get back on the 17th.
Some other things came out of the meeting with Ed which I had hoped to
go into in a bit more detail, but I am swamped getting out the door for
this trip so I'll try to summarize:
Many of the details that Ed is requesting for the "compliance plan" are
very specific (i.e., what tools are to be used, how many workers, what
hours, etc) and will not be known until after a contractor is
identified/vetted and the project is very planned out. This level of
detail will not be possible in the 30 day time frame, but I plan to
identify the various parts of the project and give a scope and time
estimate for each and an overall time frame within the requested 30
days.
Also, there are multiple reasons why we intend to build a replacement

wall as part of the same project, including: (1) needing the same access
in order to build the replacement wall, and (2) Ed's stated desire that
we retain all existing fill material behind the wall at 3521 Calandria
and not in the park to be used for grading because it is unknown fill
which has not been tested for toxicity. This just means it's not a
simple knock down and re-grade.
We have been honest and open throughout this process and are glad to see
this coming towards closure, but there is still much work to be done. As
I have stated throughout this process, it is our desire to continue to
move forward in the most correct way possible, follow all required
rules, and work in compliance with the city at all stages. We don't want
to fight this; we want to resolve it. It is also our hope to wrap this
up in the most expedient manner possible. To whit: on the first business
day after receiving your letter, I have already met in person with Ed
about the compliance plan.
We have attempted to generate goodwill at all stages of this process,

and we are hoping that Oakland can be reasonable when we present a time
frame for this project. Please expect our compliance plan estimate, and
some progress on the planning steps, inside of your 30 day timeframe
(i.e. by Friday June 26). Once I get back from Japan, I will do the very
best I can to gather all the information I can between 6/18-6/25 and
make the best presentation possible when your deadline hits on June 26.
8/16/2016
Page 56
Thanks again for helping us get all the required parties together
finally so we can resolve this issue once and for all.
regards,
taylor
From: "Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com

<mailto:RFlynn@oaklandnet.com> >
To: "Kawamoto, Edwin" <EKawamoto@oaklandnet.com

<mailto:EKawamoto@oaklandnet.com> >
Cc: "Low, Tim" <TLow@oaklandnet.com <mailto:TLow@oaklandnet.com> >;
"Golde, James" <JGolde@oaklandnet.com <mailto:JGolde@oaklandnet.com> >;
"taylorheanue@yahoo.com <mailto:taylorheanue@yahoo.com> "
<taylorheanue@yahoo.com <mailto:taylorheanue@yahoo.com> >
Thanks for the follow-up, Ed.
8/16/2016
Page 57
Taylor, As stated in the attached letter, if you cannot remove the wall
within the 30-day timeframe, then you will need to submit a Compliance
Plan within that timeframe for my review and approval. Ed Kawamoto has
provided most items needed in the Plan. You should also add items like
the hiring of a Civil Engineer to prepare the permit documents and the
hiring of a contractor to perform the work. The more specific you can
be, the better, so that we are all clear on how and when the wall will
be removed.
Thanks, Rachel
From: Kawamoto, Edwin

To: Flynn, Rachel
Cc: Low, Tim; Golde, James; taylorheanue@yahoo.com
<mailto:taylorheanue@yahoo.com>
To Rachel:
This concerns your letter dated May 29, 2015 to Taylor and Mica Heanue
(Letter) and status report of my meeting with Taylor Heanue on June 1,
2015.
When I met with Taylor Heanue, we discussed the Right of Entry

Agreement (Agreement) and the compliance plan (Plan), which are both
referenced in your Letter.
With respect to Agreement, I informed Mr. Heanue that the Agreement

(among other provisions) will include the Plan. The Plan, which will be
attached as an exhibit to the Agreement, should include the following:
1. Scope of work for the encroachment abatement (including the
work for the removal of the existing retaining wall, disposal of any
soil, and the concrete debris) from Mr. Heanues contractor.
2. Map showing the following:
a. Existing retaining wall (encroachment area) on the City owned
property.
8/16/2016
Page 58
b. Work area on the City owned property beyond the encroachment

area for encroachment abatement.
c. Access area ( if required for egress and ingress) for equipment
and tools, and for the removal of soil and concrete debris.
3. Scope of access use, if required, listing all equipment, tools
and vehicles traversing over the access area.
4. Daily time schedule and hours of operation for the encroachment
abatement work.
5. Plan for the disposal of any excess soil and concrete debris.
6. Time to complete all encroachment abatement work. (beginning and
ending dates of project).
7. Security plan, if needed
I also informed Mr. Heanue that Agreement will require the following:
1. Administrative processing fee of $1,178.32
2. Security Deposit of $3,000 (refundable)
3. Certificate of Insurance naming the City as an additional named
insured for liability coverage
Since Mr. Heanue is leaving for Japan, he informed me that the 30 day
period commencing from the date of your letter is not enough time to
complete the project and that he would ask you for time extension.
Again, for me to complete the Agreement, I will need to obtain a copy of
the approved Plan. The approved Plan will then be attached as exhibit
to the Agreement.
Please let me know whether you have any questions.
Ed
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: taylorheanue@yahoo.com <mailto:taylorheanue@yahoo.com>
Taylor, I just realized that I had a typo in regards to the address of
your property. I incorrectly typed 3921 Calandria Avenue and have
corrected that typo to 3521 Calandria Avenue. Please see the attached
corrected letter. Thanks, Rachel
8/16/2016
Page 59
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: 'taylorheanue@yahoo.com'
Taylor, Attached please find the letter we discussed today regarding
the concrete block wall that abuts your back yard. Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA

Director l Planning & Building Department City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 60
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/13/2015 8:43:24 PM
Re: Parkland Encroachments
Rachel,
Thank you for he update. The community has been very concerned regarding Mr. Hector's actions and will be
glad that there is some movement on the city's part.
Let me know if you need any information or assistance from me.
Brian
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 13, 2015, at 7:42 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Hi Brian, We met last week with the owners of 3539 Calandria, Michael Hector and Suzanne Clarke. They informed me, Tim
Low, and Ed Labayog that they have already surveyed their property. Tim and Ed are going to meet with them (this week or
next) to confirm where their property line is located. We will get back to you after that site visit and let you know what, if
anything, needs to be done. If they have built anything on City-owned parkland, they must remove it, at their expense. We
can issue an NOV for building illegally on City-owned land. They are required to work with Real Estate Services to obtain a
right of entry for the demolition of any illegally built items (just as the owners of 3521 Calandria are doing).
Taylor Heanue also claims that Michael Hector has re-graded earth and planted on City-owned parkland. First, we have to
determine where the property line is, to validate this complaint. Again, well get back to you after Tims site visit.
Regarding the tree on City-owned parkland, that Taylor Heanue claims Michael Hector trimmed you will have to review
the photos/videos he has sent you. I believe he has before and after images.
Thanks, Rachel
To: Flynn, Rachel
Hello Rachel,
I'm sure you are aware of the issues surrounding the two properties 3521 and 3529 Calandria. They are two separate
issues, but involve accusations from both property owners.
The email below from Taylor Heanue asserts that the owner of 3529 is aggressively taking City Of Oakland park
property. As I mentioned to James, Parks and Tree Services maintain park property but the Office of Parks and Recreation
(OPR) has the oversight of parks and open space areas. If City Of Oakland property is being adversely affected, what would
be the correct process to stop this? should a land survey be done to determine the boundaries of the city property?
Thank you.
Brian Carthan, PWLF
(510) 615-5510 | (510) 927-2658 Fax
Brian Carthan
To: Golde, James
Cc: Low, Tim
8/16/2016
Page 61
James,
Please look at the email below. OPW maintains park space, but does not manage boundary or building issues. According
to Mr. Heanue, the property owner at 3539 is encroaching on City Of Oakland property. I do not know where the exact
property line is so, I dont know if the property owner is encroaching. This has been going on for some time and we must
work together to resolve. Please let me know when you have time to conference or meet at the site.
Thank you
Brian Carthan
To: Carthan, Brian
Cc: Low, Tim
Mr Carthan,
A neighbor on my street (Michael Hector & Suzanne Clark / 3539 Calandria) has built far beyond their
property line into King's Estate Park, a city open space park. I was given your name by Tim Low as the
person who could help to stop this and make him remove his buildup. There are many other neighbors who
are outraged by Mr Hector's activities and many who would be happy to share their personal experiences.
Mr Hector is ruining the park by regrading and terraforming, building multiple retaining walls fully on park
land, bringing in non-native plants for his personal enjoyment. He has removed trees from the park to
improve his view and has cut many tree limbs from the park as well. He stores large amounts of his
personal materials in the park and has for years.
I have prepared a document which summarizes main offenses and contains several before/after photos
and other data. Please see the link below to view the file:
VIDEO:
I would like very much to talk to you in person about this issue. I would be happy to come in to meet you or
to speak over the phone. Please let me know the best way to move forward on this.
thanks very much,
Taylor Heanue
(415) 990-2275
<mime-attachment>
8/16/2016
Page 62
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/14/2015 12:22:54 PM
fresh start or more arrows
Rachel,
Are you willing to start fresh with a clean slate?
We request the last four N.O.V.'s issued to 3539 Calandria be corrected as "no violation or
issued in error", and extend our building and electrical permit 30 days? If yes, we will
consider, the matter resolved and settle our differences with our neighbors in Superior
Court. Consider the irony of your inspector Ramirez issuing us an NOV, from a complaint
made by Taylor Heanue - who, at the time was 4 years and 2 months with his own uncorrected
notice to abate... Pot calling the kettle black...
You demonstrated your willingness to exercise your authority and discretion to waive fees and
apply a lenient interpretation of the rules towards 3521 Calandria; we ask you do the same for
3539 Calandria. 3521 Calandria was granted 1700+ days, no fines, no reinspection fees, no
priority liens, even though the order said 30 days to correct, extended another 90 days. You
granted time for a compliance report after 4+ years of continuous violations, even though that
is not an option on the notice to abate. Your staff even said 3521 Calandria was no violation
in October 2014 and May 2015. You even obtained bids for the city to remove the Heanues
wall. It finally took a legal opinion from the City Attorney, for you to enforce a 4 &1/2 year old
order to abate.
Your choice; reasonable or strict interpretation of the OMC for 3539 Calandria?
Respectfully,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 63
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/14/2015 4:11:32 PM
Meeting of 7/8/15
Michael, I have reviewed your request that I reconsider the decisions I rendered last week, during our meeting on July 8th. My
decisions remain unchanged. The last four (4) NOVs issued to you will not be revised to no violation or issued in error". The
NOVs were not issued in error. We will not be extending your building and electrical permit 30 days, as they have already
expired.
You have compared your Notices of Violation (NOVs) to that of the Heanues in 2011, for the wall built by a previous owner on
City-owned parkland. As you know, the Heanues responded in writing to the 2011 NOV within the required timeline. At that point
Jim Ryugo, with Public Works, sent an e-mail to Taylor Heanue dated June 13, 2011 (I provided a copy of this through your Public
Records Request). Jim Ryugo wrote, I have not found a reasonable solution to this encroachment problem and the City does not
have a consistent policy pertaining to park encroachments. Im copying [Leonardo] Rivera [the Inspector for 3521 Calandria] so
the pressure will not be on you to correct his problem because of the magnitude of the cost and it appears the previous property
owner created this issue, not you. Well be in contact. Taylor Heanue responded on the same day, stating, We will continue to
wait for a response from you. Public Works never responded further to the Heanues.
Therefore, they were not responsible for further follow-up on the NOV, prior to my letter of 5/29/15. As you know, in 2015 the
case was brought to my attention and I asked the City Attorneys Office for a legal opinion on the matter. They determined that
the Heanues were responsible for the removal of the wall from City-owned parkland. I required that the Heanues issue a
Compliance Plan within 30-days of my letter dated May 29, 2015. The Heanues provided a Compliance Plan on June 26, 2015. I
have approved their revised Compliance Plan. Therefore, their situation is different than yours as you were not informed by the
City to wait for further directive, as was the case with the Heanues.
Regarding the not more arrows quote you referenced. You may recall that I referenced the numerous complaints that you and
your neighbors have filed with the Department of Planning & Building. I advised that your pursuit of the sidewalk complaint you
filed against your neighbor would most likely result in more ill-will (more arrows) amongst you and your neighbors. As I told
you, Public Works informed me that the slightly shifted sidewalk was not a serious safety concern, but that if they cited one
neighbor on the block they would have to cite everyone on the block with similar sidewalk conditions.
Regarding your request that tree permits be issued and finaled for the 7(+/-) trees that you cut down without permits, the
Department of Planning & Building does not have the authority to issue Tree Permits. Those are issued by Public Works. I
believe that Robert Zahn is out on medical leave, but you could contact the Tree Division to see who can address your request.
Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 11:44 AM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: disapointed in meeting of 7/8/15
Rachel,
I repeat my requests of 7/8/15. I understand and accept your displeasure with me. However, if you can take a
moment - or a few days - to reconsider the fairness of my requests, in light of the very reasonable consideration you
and your department have shown the Heanue's, that will be the end it as far as we're concerned. A clear, fresh start is
our request, not more arrows, as you phrased it yesterday. I hope to hear back from you by early next week.
Everything below just summarizes prior statements and actions: I included it for completeness and clarity. I know this
is not the only item on your plate, so some of the details might be handy below, instead of referring back to other
communications.
On the grand scale of building and planning we are no Brooklyn Basin; but the issues we raised are important to us.
You don't seem to understand why we don't appreciate six visits from your complaint inspectors in the last eleven
months; complaints generated in whole or part by a neighbor who has had open uncorrected violations for 1600 days.
You're applying a very tolerant, reasonable standard to 3521 Calandria's "Notice to Abate 1101036", issued on
8/16/2016
Page 64
February 28, 2011, for a wall built on public land to enlarge their backyard. The property owners notified Oakland
they accepted responsibility for removing the wall on March 23, 2011. The wall remained in place for the next four
years despite our repeated complaints to your staff. Title 17 of the OMC states every day of uncorrected violation is a
separate violation. Yet your department levied no fees or fines as prescribed by a strict reading of the OMC and
abatement order 1101036.
We finally began contacting you directly on April 24, 2015, about "Notice
to Abate 1101036". You

took six weeks to decide if Oakland was going to enforce a correction of this
violation - in spite of the property owners March 2011, letter agreeing to abate the
violation. Then you gave the property owners the option of submitting a compliance
plan in place of prompt compliance, even though that is not an option in a strict
reading of "Notice to Abate 1101036". Furthermore, you choose to disregard the
final paragraph:
..." Reinspections made after the compliance due day will be fee-charged at
$396.00 per reinspection until compliance is achieved: Compliance due date:
March 25, 2011."
I believe nine reinspections related to 1101036, have taken place by City staff after March 25, 2011. You waived
many, many thousands of dollars of fees, levies, and liens for 3521 Calandria. When we request reciprocity by
extending our existing building and electrical permits for 60 days because of all the issues with 3521 Calandria - you
refused.
Consider that Taylor Heanue claims not to know where his property boundary is - yet he professes to know exactly
where our property lines are in his complaint of 4/3/15, to Mr. Ramirez regarding our "enclosed structure". Bit of a
double standard.
Subsequently, your May 29, 2015, letter to the Heanues, and subsequent communications, extended compliance of
Notice to Abate 1101036 a further 4 & 1/2 months until October 15, 2015 - which will be almost 6 months after our
first email to you on April 24, 2015. In total you and your agency permitted 3521 Calandria 56 months to abate the
wall built on city land - and waived all applicable fees and levies. Very reasonable and generous interpretation and
Yet, your actions and decision against us and 3539 Calandria are in stark contrast - very strict and literal. You
REFUSED our request to extend our permits 60 additional days - two months (yet granted 3521, 56 months to
comply while waiving all OMC prescribed fees). You REFUSED our request to mark the last four
notices of violation issued by your department against 3539 Calandria as "no

violation found", for what I consider petty interpretations of the OMC for a property
undergoing renovation. You did not decide our request to issue and final the three
permit applied for at the beginning of 2013 - but you scepticism or aversion was clear
- even though a strict reading of the documents given to us by planning reads: "permit
to remove five ceders and smaller trees".
application of the OMC you've shown the Heanue's, we will be content. Our
complaints to and about your department will cease. We'll let the Superior Court sort
out our difference's with our neighbors. But, it's up to you; fair and reasonable or
strict and literal? Are you willing to clear the table and start fresh?
regards,
8/16/2016
Page 65
Michael
8/16/2016
Page 66
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/14/2015 4:16:51 PM
Calandria Issues
Michael, One correction on the highlighted portion of your e-mail below. I did not obtain bids for the City to remove the
Heanues wall. I obtained one bid for a structural analysis of the wall. This was provided to you as part of your public records
request.
Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 12:23 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel; Suzy clark; michael hector
Subject: fresh start or more arrows
Rachel,
We request the last four N.O.V.'s issued to 3539 Calandria be corrected as "no violation or issued in
error", and extend our building and electrical permit 30 days? If yes, we will consider, the matter
resolved and settle our differences with our neighbors in Superior Court. Consider the irony of your
inspector Ramirez issuing us an NOV, from a complaint made by Taylor Heanue - who, at the time
was 4 years and 2 months with his own uncorrected notice to abate... Pot calling the kettle black...
You demonstrated your willingness to exercise your authority and discretion to waive fees and apply
a lenient interpretation of the rules towards 3521 Calandria; we ask you do the same for 3539
Calandria. 3521 Calandria was granted 1700+ days, no fines, no reinspection fees, no priority liens,
even though the order said 30 days to correct, extended another 90 days. You granted time for a
compliance report after 4+ years of continuous violations, even though that is not an option on the
notice to abate. Your staff even said 3521 Calandria was no violation in October 2014 and May
2015. You even obtained bids for the city to remove the Heanues wall. It finally took a legal opinion
from the City Attorney, for you to enforce a 4 &1/2 year old order to abate.
Respectfully,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 67
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/14/2015 4:39:57 PM
RE: Meeting of 7/8/15
Should we not wait for his response to your email before fee charging?
P.S. He is opposing to my inspection to verify the violation as discussed with Ed today.
Comment
7-14-15 During the meeting in our office on Wednesday July 8 2015. Mr. Hector agreed to allow myself and Tim Low to come to the property located at
3539 Calandria Ave. to inspect the concrete retaining walls between the properties of 3539 Calandria and 3529 Calandria to verify the height and
possible surcharge. Also, we may possibly verify the property line from the markers that he mentioned. I called Mr. Hector today around 10:45 AM to
schedule an appointment for July 15, 2015 and he stated that he spoke to his wife after the meeting with our department and they decided to oppose the
inspection. He said that they feel that they are still being singled out by the City. He also said that he did not have the actual survey, the neighbor next to
him has it and they placed the markers. E. Labayog
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: Michael Hector
Cc: Low, Tim; Labayog, Edward
Subject: Meeting of 7/8/15
Michael, I have reviewed your request that I reconsider the decisions I rendered last week, during our meeting on July 8th. My
decisions remain unchanged. The last four (4) NOVs issued to you will not be revised to no violation or issued in error". The
NOVs were not issued in error. We will not be extending your building and electrical permit 30 days, as they have already
expired.
You have compared your Notices of Violation (NOVs) to that of the Heanues in 2011, for the wall built by a previous owner on
City-owned parkland. As you know, the Heanues responded in writing to the 2011 NOV within the required timeline. At that point
Jim Ryugo, with Public Works, sent an e-mail to Taylor Heanue dated June 13, 2011 (I provided a copy of this through your Public
Records Request). Jim Ryugo wrote, I have not found a reasonable solution to this encroachment problem and the City does not
have a consistent policy pertaining to park encroachments. Im copying [Leonardo] Rivera [the Inspector for 3521 Calandria] so
the pressure will not be on you to correct his problem because of the magnitude of the cost and it appears the previous property
owner created this issue, not you. Well be in contact. Taylor Heanue responded on the same day, stating, We will continue to
wait for a response from you. Public Works never responded further to the Heanues.
Therefore, they were not responsible for further follow-up on the NOV, prior to my letter of 5/29/15. As you know, in 2015 the
case was brought to my attention and I asked the City Attorneys Office for a legal opinion on the matter. They determined that
the Heanues were responsible for the removal of the wall from City-owned parkland. I required that the Heanues issue a
Compliance Plan within 30-days of my letter dated May 29, 2015. The Heanues provided a Compliance Plan on June 26, 2015. I
have approved their revised Compliance Plan. Therefore, their situation is different than yours as you were not informed by the
City to wait for further directive, as was the case with the Heanues.
Regarding the not more arrows quote you referenced. You may recall that I referenced the numerous complaints that you and
your neighbors have filed with the Department of Planning & Building. I advised that your pursuit of the sidewalk complaint you
filed against your neighbor would most likely result in more ill-will (more arrows) amongst you and your neighbors. As I told
you, Public Works informed me that the slightly shifted sidewalk was not a serious safety concern, but that if they cited one
neighbor on the block they would have to cite everyone on the block with similar sidewalk conditions.
Regarding your request that tree permits be issued and finaled for the 7(+/-) trees that you cut down without permits, the
Department of Planning & Building does not have the authority to issue Tree Permits. Those are issued by Public Works. I
believe that Robert Zahn is out on medical leave, but you could contact the Tree Division to see who can address your request.
Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: disapointed in meeting of 7/8/15
Rachel,
8/16/2016
Page 68
I repeat my requests of 7/8/15. I understand and accept your displeasure with me. However, if you can take a
moment - or a few days - to reconsider the fairness of my requests, in light of the very reasonable consideration you
and your department have shown the Heanue's, that will be the end it as far as we're concerned. A clear, fresh start is
our request, not more arrows, as you phrased it yesterday. I hope to hear back from you by early next week.
Everything below just summarizes prior statements and actions: I included it for completeness and clarity. I know this
is not the only item on your plate, so some of the details might be handy below, instead of referring back to other
communications.
On the grand scale of building and planning we are no Brooklyn Basin; but the issues we raised are important to us.
You don't seem to understand why we don't appreciate six visits from your complaint inspectors in the last eleven
months; complaints generated in whole or part by a neighbor who has had open uncorrected violations for 1600 days.
You're applying a very tolerant, reasonable standard to 3521 Calandria's "Notice to Abate 1101036", issued on
February 28, 2011, for a wall built on public land to enlarge their backyard. The property owners notified Oakland
they accepted responsibility for removing the wall on March 23, 2011. The wall remained in place for the next four
years despite our repeated complaints to your staff. Title 17 of the OMC states every day of uncorrected violation is a
separate violation. Yet your department levied no fees or fines as prescribed by a strict reading of the OMC and
abatement order 1101036.
We finally began contacting you directly on April 24, 2015, about "Notice
to Abate 1101036". You

took six weeks to decide if Oakland was going to enforce a correction of this
violation - in spite of the property owners March 2011, letter agreeing to abate the
violation. Then you gave the property owners the option of submitting a compliance
plan in place of prompt compliance, even though that is not an option in a strict
reading of "Notice to Abate 1101036". Furthermore, you choose to disregard the
final paragraph:
..." Reinspections made after the compliance due day will be fee-charged at
$396.00 per reinspection until compliance is achieved: Compliance due date:
March 25, 2011."
I believe nine reinspections related to 1101036, have taken place by City staff after March 25, 2011. You waived
many, many thousands of dollars of fees, levies, and liens for 3521 Calandria. When we request reciprocity by
extending our existing building and electrical permits for 60 days because of all the issues with 3521 Calandria - you
refused.
Consider that Taylor Heanue claims not to know where his property boundary is - yet he professes to know exactly
where our property lines are in his complaint of 4/3/15, to Mr. Ramirez regarding our "enclosed structure". Bit of a
double standard.
Subsequently, your May 29, 2015, letter to the Heanues, and subsequent communications, extended compliance of
Notice to Abate 1101036 a further 4 & 1/2 months until October 15, 2015 - which will be almost 6 months after our
first email to you on April 24, 2015. In total you and your agency permitted 3521 Calandria 56 months to abate the
wall built on city land - and waived all applicable fees and levies. Very reasonable and generous interpretation and
Yet, your actions and decision against us and 3539 Calandria are in stark contrast - very strict and literal. You
REFUSED our request to extend our permits 60 additional days - two months (yet granted 3521, 56 months to
comply while waiving all OMC prescribed fees). You REFUSED our request to mark the last four
notices of violation issued by your department against 3539 Calandria as "no

violation found", for what I consider petty interpretations of the OMC for a property
undergoing renovation. You did not decide our request to issue and final the three
8/16/2016
Page 69
permit applied for at the beginning of 2013 - but you scepticism or aversion was clear
- even though a strict reading of the documents given to us by planning reads: "permit
to remove five ceders and smaller trees".
application of the OMC you've shown the Heanue's, we will be content. Our
complaints to and about your department will cease. We'll let the Superior Court sort
out our difference's with our neighbors. But, it's up to you; fair and reasonable or
strict and literal? Are you willing to clear the table and start fresh?
regards,
Michael
8/16/2016
Page 70
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/14/2015 8:08:09 PM
Re: Calandria Issues
Rachel,
Received. Yes, I read all 300+ documents and emails that you forward to me as part of the records
request. Thank you.
Michael
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Michael, One correction on the highlighted portion of your e-mail below. I did not obtain bids for the City to remove the
Heanues wall. I obtained one bid for a structural analysis of the wall. This was provided to you as part of your public
records request.
Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
From: Michael Hector [mailto:psmhector@gmail.com

Subject: fresh start or more arrows
Rachel,
We request the last four N.O.V.'s issued to 3539 Calandria be corrected as "no violation or issued in
error", and extend our building and electrical permit 30 days? If yes, we will consider, the matter
resolved and settle our differences with our neighbors in Superior Court. Consider the irony of
your inspector Ramirez issuing us an NOV, from a complaint made by Taylor Heanue - who, at the
time was 4 years and 2 months with his own uncorrected notice to abate... Pot calling the kettle
black...
You demonstrated your willingness to exercise your authority and discretion to waive fees and
apply a lenient interpretation of the rules towards 3521 Calandria; we ask you do the same for
3539 Calandria. 3521 Calandria was granted 1700+ days, no fines, no reinspection fees, no priority
liens, even though the order said 30 days to correct, extended another 90 days. You granted time
for a compliance report after 4+ years of continuous violations, even though that is not an option on
the notice to abate. Your staff even said 3521 Calandria was no violation in October 2014 and May
2015. You even obtained bids for the city to remove the Heanues wall. It finally took a legal
8/16/2016
Page 71
opinion from the City Attorney, for you to enforce a 4 &1/2 year old order to abate.
Respectfully,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 72
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/14/2015 9:07:48 PM
extension of time to correct NOV from April 2015
Mr. Labayog,
I request an extension to comply with the NOV issued by Mr. Ramirez in April of 2015, to 3539
Calandria. I request the extension be of similar duration to that effectively granted to 3521
Calandria on abatement 1101036.
Sincerely,
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 73
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

7/15/2015 4:42:29 PM
3539 Calandria Ave.
3539 Calandria Ave County Assessor Property Information.pdf
3539 Calandria Ave Notice of Violation Complaint 1402816.pdf
3539 Calandria Notice of Violation Complaint 1501141.pdf
Hi Rachel,
Attached are the Notice of Violations for Complaint 1501141 and 1402816. The Complaint 1501813 is pending inspection, no
notice has been mailed.
8/16/2016
Page 74
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/16/2015 1:51:51 PM
Re: extension of time to correct NOV from April 2015
2nd request
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
Mr. Labayog,
> wrote:
I request an extension to comply with the NOV issued by Mr. Ramirez in April of 2015, to 3539
Calandria. I request the extension be of similar duration to that effectively granted to 3521
Calandria on abatement 1101036.
Sincerely,
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 75
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Chen, Celena" <CChen@oaklandcityattorney.org>

7/16/2015 3:12:01 PM
FW: do uncorrected Building code Violations expire?
Hi Rachel,
Thanks for taking the time to chat with me yesterday. FYI, Im forwarding the e-mail I sent to Michael Hector this afternoon. I
checked with Rich Illgen and he confirmed that, even though there is no express statement in the OMC or State law, building code
violations remain outstanding until corrected.
Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Thanks very much.
Celena
Celena H. Chen
Deputy City Attorney
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
tel: (510) 238-7040 (direct)
fax: (510 238-6500
http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org
PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this transmission is intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the transmission and may contain
information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient or the intended recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the information
contained in this transmission is prohibited. You are further asked to notify us of the error as soon as possible at the telephone number shown above
and to return any attachments to this office immediately. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Chen, Celena
To: 'psmhector@gmail.com'
Subject: FW: do uncorrected Building code Violations expire?
Dear Mr. Hector,

Barbara Parker forwarded your e-mail and asked that I respond to you. Although our Office does not provide legal advice to
members of the public, I would like to direct you to Building Services to help resolve your issue. My understanding is that you
have been working very closely with Director Rachel Flynn. Please continue to contact Director Flynn with any questions you may
have relating to Building Code violations.
Regards,
Celena Chen
Celena H. Chen
City of Oakland
Oakland, CA 94612
tel: (510) 238-7040 (direct)
fax: (510 238-6500
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:03 AM
To: Parker, Barbara; Parker, Barbara; michael hector
Subject: Re: do uncorrected Building code Violations expire?
3rd request
8/16/2016
Page 76
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com

Ms. Parker,
> wrote:
Is there an Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) section or California statute that states uncorrected building code violations
expire? Or one that says they remain in force until corrected?
I've read OMC sections 17.152 & 15.04.030 that deal with violations of building and planning. Neither address
expiration.
your assistance is appreciated,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
This is a confidential attorney-client communication. This email contains confidential attorney-client privileged information and is for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email

[v1.03]
8/16/2016
Page 77
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/16/2015 3:54:16 PM
appeal to planning commission
Rachel,
I'm going to appeal your 7/14/2015 written decision to the Planning commission. Can you
please tell me what the fee is per 17.01.080?
Regards,
Michael Hector
17.01.080 Appeal of Director's determination.
A. Within ten (10) calendar days of a written determination by the Director of City Planning pursuant to Section 17.01.070,
an appeal of such determination may be taken to the City Planning Commission by the applicant or any other interested
party. Such appeal shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed in the city master fee schedule, and shall
be processed in accordance with the administrative appeal procedure in Chapter 17.132
8/16/2016
Page 78
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Office of the Mayor" <OfficeoftheMayor@oaklandnet.com>
"City Administrator's Office" <CityAdministrator'sOffice@oaklandnet.com>
"Woo, Winnie" <WWoo@oaklandnet.com>
7/16/2015 4:06:49 PM
17.01.080 B appeal to city council
Rachel,
We're going to appeal your 7/14/2015 written decision to the City Council. Can you please tell
me what the fee is per 17.01.080 B? Can you please also provide the prescribed form?
There is a statutory time limit to file our appeal, so time is of the essence.
Regards,
Michael Hector

B. Within ten (10) calendar days of a written determination by the Director of City Planning pursuant to Subsection
17.01.120.C. an appeal of such determination may be taken to the City Council by the applicant or any other interested
party. Such appeal shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed in the City master fee schedule. In event the last
date of appeal falls on a weekend or holiday when City offices are closed, the next date such offices are open for
business shall be the last date of appeal. Such appeal shall be made on a form prescribed by the Director and
shall be filed with the City Clerk. The appeal shall state specifically wherein it is claimed there was an error or abuse
of discretion by the Planning Director or wherein his or her decision is not supported by the evidence in the record. Upon
receipt of such appeal, the Council shall set the date for consideration thereof. After the hearing date is set, the Planning
Director shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission for its review and advice. The Planning Commission shall
consider the matter at its next available meeting. Such referral shall be only for the purpose of issue clarification and
advice to the City Council. The City Clerk shall not less than seventeen (17) days prior to the Council hearing, give written
notice of the date and place of the hearing on the appeal to the applicant; the appellant in those cases where the applicant
is not the appellant; adverse party or parties, or to the attorney, spokesperson, or representative of such party or parties;
other interested groups and neighborhood associations who have requested notification; and to similar groups and
individuals as the Secretary deems appropriate. In considering the appeal, the Council shall determine whether the
proposal conforms to the provisions of Subsection 17.01.120.C., and may approve or disapprove the proposed
determination. The decision of the City Council shall be made by resolution and shall be final.
8/16/2016
Page 79
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Illgen, Richard" <rillgen@oaklandnet.com>
7/16/2015 9:05:38 PM
Appeal of Director's Determination
Rich, Can you please advise on how OMC 17.01.080 applies to Code Enforcement and Building Code cases? Here is the
background:
I met with this citizen (and his domestic partner) last week. He asked that I declare four old NOVs null and void. I told him I
would not do that. He also wanted me to extend various building permits that expired many months ago. I told him I would not
do that either. The next day, he sent an e-mail repeating the same requests. We request the last four N.O.V.'s issued to
3539 Calandria be corrected as "no violation or issued in error", and extend our building and electrical permit 30
days.
This was my response, I have reviewed your request that I reconsider the decisions I rendered last week, during our meeting on
July 8 th. My decisions remain unchanged. The last four (4) NOVs issued to you will not be revised to no violation or issued in
error". The NOVs were not issued in error. We will not be extending your building and electrical permit 30 days, as they have
already expired. [They expired in 2013 and 2014]
One of the so-called NOVs, was actually a Courtesy Notice. The details are as follows:
Case # 1302254 04/26/2013 NOV for trash, debris and cars in yard, for a leaning retaining wall, and for a tent erected in the
front yard (without permits). Violations abated. Case closed.
Case # 1305434 11/05/2013 Courtesy Letter for tools, materials, construction debris scattered in yard and for two (2) shacks.
I believe the issues were abated, but there was no formal follow-up.
Case # 1402816 07/24/2014 NOV issued for a brick retaining wall in disrepair and for trash and debris in front yard.
Violations abated. Case closed.
Case # 1501141 04/15/2015 NOV issued for an enclosed structure built without permits and for open storage construction
materials and misc. objects. Case still open.
My understanding is that OMC Section 17.01.080 Appeal of Directors determination is in reference to 17.01.070
Determination of General Plan conformity by Director of City Planning.
My legal opinion: A citizen cannot appeal a Code Enforcement or Building Code issue based on the General Plan sections of the
OMC. Even if a citizen could, the appeal time has expired on these cases from 2013, 2014, and April 2015.
Also, I dont believe I have that authority to declare old NOVs/Courtesy Letter as no violation or issued in error. Particularly
when they were not.
I dont believe that he can appeal my decision not to resurrect expired permits. What is to appeal?
Thanks for any advice you can offer as to how I should respond. Rachel
Cc: Low, Tim; Labayog, Edward; Taylor, Marie (Allene)
Subject: appeal to planning commission
Rachel,
I'm going to appeal your 7 /14/2015 written decision to the Planning commission. Can you please tell me what the
fee is per 17 .01.080?
Regards,
Michael Hector

To: Flynn, Rachel; Suzy clark; michael hector; Hunt, Michael; Office of the Mayor; City Administrator's Office; City Administrator's Office; Woo,
8/16/2016
Page 80
Winnie
Cc: Reid, Larry; Kalb, Dan; Guillen, Abel; Campbell Washington, Annie; McElhaney, Lynette; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Kaplan, Rebecca
Subject: 17.01.080 B appeal to city council
Rachel,
We're going to appeal your 7 /14/2015 written decision to the City Council. Can you please tell me what the fee is
per 17.01.080 B? Can you please also provide the prescribed form?
Regards,
Michael Hector
8/16/2016
Page 81
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Espinosa, Thomas" <TEspinosa@oaklandnet.com>
7/16/2015 10:11:55 PM
Inspector Tom Espinsoza is a great guy! ironic, but true...
Rachel,
I had a great experience with building inspector T. Espinoza today in the lobby between B & P.
This is how the city should work! So I wanted to pass along my compliments to Mr. Espinoza.
I was there to start the process of obtaining current permits so I could final my much delayed
renovations; Building Desk person said I need to clear old prior work to submiting new plans. Mr.
Espinoza was helping several other people, so I asked him for assistance. What a pleasant
experience. Of course, not meeting on Calandria probably helped and he didn't recognise me
from our September 2014, disagreement.
MY POINT: I wish inspectors behaved the same in the field as they do in the office. Inspectors to
often greet residents at complaint sites with their claws out... Complaint inspectors act differently
than job site inspectors, or OPD responding to a citizen complaint or report of crime. Just my
observation based on to many experiences over the past couple of years.
KUDOS TO TOM ESPINOZA!
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 82
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/17/2015 8:17:43 AM
Re: 17.01.080 B appeal to city council
Rachel,
2nd request. Time is very short.
fee and form for city council appeal, please.
Regards,
Michael & Suzy
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
Rachel,
We're going to appeal your 7/14/2015 written decision to the City Council. Can you please
tell me what the fee is per 17.01.080 B? Can you please also provide the prescribed form?
Regards,
Michael Hector

shall be filed with the City Clerk. The appeal shall state specifically wherein it is claimed there was an error or
abuse of discretion by the Planning Director or wherein his or her decision is not supported by the evidence in the
record. Upon receipt of such appeal, the Council shall set the date for consideration thereof. After the hearing date is
set, the Planning Director shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission for its review and advice. The Planning
Commission shall consider the matter at its next available meeting. Such referral shall be only for the purpose of issue
clarification and advice to the City Council. The City Clerk shall not less than seventeen (17) days prior to the Council
hearing, give written notice of the date and place of the hearing on the appeal to the applicant; the appellant in those
cases where the applicant is not the appellant; adverse party or parties, or to the attorney, spokesperson, or
representative of such party or parties; other interested groups and neighborhood associations who have requested
notification; and to similar groups and individuals as the Secretary deems appropriate. In considering the appeal, the
Council shall determine whether the proposal conforms to the provisions of Subsection 17.01.120.C., and may approve
or disapprove the proposed determination. The decision of the City Council shall be made by resolution and shall be
final.
8/16/2016
Page 83
8/16/2016
Page 84
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/17/2015 8:26:25 AM
Re: extension of time to correct NOV from April 2015
Mr. Labayog,
3rd Request.
Extension of time on NOV 1501141. I have to final my WIP, before the building counter will accept my new
plans, which need to be reviewed and approved, prior to issuing a building permit. Building wants a different
design that complies with the UBC.
Thank you,
Michael & Suzy
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
2nd request
Mr. Labayog,
> wrote:
> wrote:
I request an extension to comply with the NOV issued by Mr. Ramirez in April of 2015, to
3539 Calandria. I request the extension be of similar duration to that effectively granted to
3521 Calandria on abatement 1101036.
Sincerely,
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 85
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/17/2015 8:35:46 AM
Re: appeal to planning commission
Rachel,
disregard.
Appeal to City Council (CC) goes through planning commission prior to CC automatically.
thanks
michael
Rachel,
> wrote:
I'm going to appeal your 7/14/2015 written decision to the Planning commission. Can you
please tell me what the fee is per 17.01.080?
Regards,
Michael Hector
A. Within ten (10) calendar days of a written determination by the Director of City Planning pursuant to Section
17.01.070, an appeal of such determination may be taken to the City Planning Commission by the applicant or any other
interested party. Such appeal shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed in the city master fee
schedule, and shall be processed in accordance with the administrative appeal procedure in Chapter 17.132
8/16/2016
Page 86
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

psmhector@gmail.com
7/17/2015 10:03:02 AM
RE: 17.01.080 B appeal to city council
Michael, Please direct all correspondence to me in regards to your interest to appeal. Thanks, Rachel
From: Miller, Scott
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 9:57 AM
To: psmhector@gmail.com
Cc: Campbell Washington, Annie; Flynn, Rachel
Subject: FW: 17.01.080 B appeal to city council
Hello, Mr. Hector, please confirm what determination you wish to appeal, and I can then better assist you. The code section you
referenced is specifically in regard to General Plan Determinations (as opposed to Planning Commission decisions or
Administrative project decisions from staff). Thanks for clarifying what decision you wish to appeal. Thanks.
Scott
Scott Miller, Zoning Manager I Bureau of Planning I 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114 I Oakland, CA 94612 I Phone: (510)
I Website: www.oaklandnet.com/planning
238-2235 I Fax: (510) 238-4730 I Email: smiller@oaklandnet.com
From: Campbell Washington, Annie
To: Miller, Scott
Subject: Fwd: 17.01.080 B appeal to city council
Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:
From: Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com >
Date: July 17, 2015 at 8:17:43 AM PDT
To: "Flynn, Rachel" <rflynn@oaklandnet.com >, Suzy clark <suzanneclark@rocketmail.com >, michael hector
<psmhector@gmail.com >, "Hunt, Michael" <MHunt@oaklandnet.com >, Libby Schaaf
<officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com >, <cityadministrator@oaklandnet.com >, "City Administrator's
Office" <CityAdministrator'sOffice@oaklandnet.com >, "Woo, Winnie" <wwoo@oaklandnet.com >
Cc: lreid <lreid@oaklandnet.com >, <dkalb@oaklandnet.com >, <aguillen@oaklandnet.com >,
<acampbellwashington@oaklandnet.com >, <lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com >, <ngallo@oaklandnet.com >,
<dbrooks@oaklandnet.com >, <rkaplan@oaklandnet.com >
Subject: Re: 17.01.080 B appeal to city council
Rachel,
Regards,
Michael & Suzy
Rachel,
> wrote:
8/16/2016
Page 87
Regards,
Michael Hector

17.01.120.C. an appeal of such determination may be taken to the City Council by the applicant or any other
interested party. Such appeal shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed in the City master fee schedule. In
event the last date of appeal falls on a weekend or holiday when City offices are closed, the next date such offices
are open for business shall be the last date of appeal. Such appeal shall be made on a form prescribed by
the Director and shall be filed with the City Clerk. The appeal shall state specifically wherein it is claimed
there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Director or wherein his or her decision is not supported by
the evidence in the record. Upon receipt of such appeal, the Council shall set the date for consideration thereof.
After the hearing date is set, the Planning Director shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission for its review
and advice. The Planning Commission shall consider the matter at its next available meeting. Such referral shall be
only for the purpose of issue clarification and advice to the City Council. The City Clerk shall not less than
seventeen (17) days prior to the Council hearing, give written notice of the date and place of the hearing on the
appeal to the applicant; the appellant in those cases where the applicant is not the appellant; adverse party or
parties, or to the attorney, spokesperson, or representative of such party or parties; other interested groups and
neighborhood associations who have requested notification; and to similar groups and individuals as the Secretary
deems appropriate. In considering the appeal, the Council shall determine whether the proposal conforms to the
provisions of Subsection 17.01.120.C., and may approve or disapprove the proposed determination. The decision of
the City Council shall be made by resolution and shall be final.
8/16/2016
Page 88
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/17/2015 10:22:15 AM
Fwd: appeal NOV's 1502220 & 1501813
Celena H. Chen
City of Oakland
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Ms. Chen,
I'm forwarding you a copy of a recent email to Building and Planning (B&P), regarding to recent Notices
of Violation (NOV's).
I believe B&P staff are incorrectly applying the Oakland Municipal Code. Specifically:
1. marking an NOV as "abated" when no proof exists of a violation, such as breaching a 72 hour
limitation on a permitted activity.
2. marking as "debris", or "junk" material permitted by the OMC, such as construction material and
outdoor furniture.
please see attached email to Mr. Layayog at B&P.
I've attached several pictures of 3539 Calandria, taken over the past year. On first impression, do these
pictures show what you think meets the legal definition of a blighted, neglected or abandon property? See
attachments.
Sincerely,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605.
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:51 AM
Subject: appeal NOV's 1502220 & 1501813
To: "Labayog, Edward" <ELabayog@oaklandnet.com >, "Low, Tim" <TLow@oaklandnet.com >, "Taylor, Marie
(Allene)" <MTaylor2@oaklandnet.com
>, "Flynn, Rachel" <rflynn@oaklandnet.com >
Mr. Labayog,
We appeal NOV's 1502220 & 1501813. We were not sent
8/16/2016
Page 89
either of these NOV', but discovered them during a visit to

B&P offices on 7/16/2015. These NOV's should be marked
"no violation found".
I suggest you consult with the City Attorney on the legality of
these NOV's marked as "abated" and "pending 1st inspection"
1. Trailer parked on property. It is permitted under
8.24.020 (F.2) & (G.1a) to park trailers on ones property for
upto 72 hours. There is no evidence that the time limit was
breached. Lacking proof of violating the "72 hour" provision of
the OMC, "no violation found" is the only appropriate ruling.
"abated" implies a violation was found and corrected; which is
NOT the case!
2. Construction debris and junk. It is permitted under
8.24.020 (F.1)
"...items may be temporarily kept within or upon
residential property for the time required for the
construction of installation of improvements or facilities
on the property."
We are making permitted and permit exempt improvements to
our property as evidenced by our multiple permits, including
DS150160, and other documents and statements made
previously to B & P staff. None of 8.24.020 definitions "AH" and CCC 3480 are violated.
The "Junk" reference may apply to exterior furniture or scrap
firewood, which may be stored outside and in contact with the
ground per 8.24.020 (F.4.b).
8/16/2016
Page 90
CCC 3480 A public nuisance
is one which affects at the same time an entire community or

neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the
extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be
unequal.
CCC 3482. Nothing which is done or maintained under the express
authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance.
Improving one's property is permitted by statute. Therefore,

things related to actions permitted under statute cannot be
cited as a nuisance, unless the City is alleging a violation as
defined under 8.24.080 A-H, such as abandoned
property, public health, safety or general welfare or any
condition of deterioration or disrepair which substantially
impacts on the aesthetic or economic value of neighboring
properties. NONE OF WHICH ARE APPLICABLE.
Your prompt correction with copies to 3539 Calandria,
Oakland, 94605, is appreciated.
Regards,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 91
8/16/2016
Page 92
8/16/2016
Page 93
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Illgen, Richard" <RIllgen@oaklandcityattorney.org>

7/17/2015 10:26:48 AM
RE: Appeal of Director's Determination
Rachel,
These decisions are long since done and the period to appeal has passed. In the future I suggest when you are asked to
relook at a matter on which the appeal period has expired, you should state that up front and say you will do so only as a
courtesy, or simply decline to do so. And you are correct on 17.01.080, it applies to the general plan. There is no appeal for
NOVs except to a hearing officer.
Richard
From: Flynn, Rachel [mailto:RFlynn@oaklandnet.com]
To: Illgen, Richard
Subject: Appeal of Director's Determination
Rich, Can you please advise on how OMC 17.01.080 applies to Code Enforcement and Building Code cases? Here is the
background:
I met with this citizen (and his domestic partner) last week. He asked that I declare four old NOVs null and void. I told him I
would not do that. He also wanted me to extend various building permits that expired many months ago. I told him I would not
do that either. The next day, he sent an e-mail repeating the same requests. We request the last four N.O.V.'s issued to
3539 Calandria be corrected as "no violation or issued in error", and extend our building and electrical permit 30
days.
This was my response, I have reviewed your request that I reconsider the decisions I rendered last week, during our meeting on
July 8 th. My decisions remain unchanged. The last four (4) NOVs issued to you will not be revised to no violation or issued in
error". The NOVs were not issued in error. We will not be extending your building and electrical permit 30 days, as they have
already expired. [They expired in 2013 and 2014]
One of the so-called NOVs, was actually a Courtesy Notice. The details are as follows:
Case # 1302254 04/26/2013 NOV for trash, debris and cars in yard, for a leaning retaining wall, and for a tent erected in the
front yard (without permits). Violations abated. Case closed.
Case # 1305434 11/05/2013 Courtesy Letter for tools, materials, construction debris scattered in yard and for two (2)
shacks. I believe the issues were abated, but there was no formal follow-up.
Case # 1402816 07/24/2014 NOV issued for a brick retaining wall in disrepair and for trash and debris in front
yard. Violations abated. Case closed.
Case # 1501141 04/15/2015 NOV issued for an enclosed structure built without permits and for open storage construction
materials and misc. objects. Case still open.
My understanding is that OMC Section 17.01.080 Appeal of Directors determination is in reference to 17.01.070
Determination of General Plan conformity by Director of City Planning.
My legal opinion: A citizen cannot appeal a Code Enforcement or Building Code issue based on the General Plan sections of the
OMC. Even if a citizen could, the appeal time has expired on these cases from 2013, 2014, and April 2015.
Also, I dont believe I have that authority to declare old NOVs/Courtesy Letter as no violation or issued in error. Particularly
when they were not.
I dont believe that he can appeal my decision not to resurrect expired permits. What is to appeal?
Thanks for any advice you can offer as to how I should respond. Rachel
Cc: Low, Tim; Labayog, Edward; Taylor, Marie (Allene)
Subject: appeal to planning commission
Rachel,
I'm going to appeal your 7 /14/2015 written decision to the Planning commission. Can you please tell me what the
fee is per 17 .01.080?
Regards,
Michael Hector
8/16/2016
Page 94

Winnie
Rachel,
We're going to appeal your 7 /14/2015 written decision to the City Council. Can you please tell me what the fee is
per 17.01.080 B? Can you please also provide the prescribed form?
Regards,
Michael Hector
This is a confidential attorney-client communication. This email contains confidential attorney-client privileged information
and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). A ny unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
and any attachments.

[v1.03]
8/16/2016
Page 95
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/17/2015 10:58:28 AM
Re: FW: 17.01.080 B appeal to city council
Mr. Miller,
There was an "error or abuse of discretion" by Director Flynn in responding to three requests made by the owners of 3539
Calandria. Director Flynn responded "no" to all requests made by the owners of 3539 Calandria.
This is in stark contrast to the way B&P staff, including Director Flynn, responded to Notice to abate 1101036, dated
February 28, 2011, for a property located at 3521 Calandria. Multiple B&P staff waived and or extended compliance,
multiple times in 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2015 for 3521 Calandria. Violation 1101036 remains uncorrected even
today! Director Flynn personally extended the correction until at least 10/15/2015, which will be 1700 days after this
violation was issued! Director Flynn personally waived all fees, levies and liens prescribed by the Notice and OMC!
Director Flynn has broad authority. We do not dispute that. However, for Director Flynn to grant almost every request and
consideration to one property, 3521 Calandria - then refuse every similar request to a neighboring property, 3539
Calandria, constitutes a material "error or abuse of discretion" by Director Flynn.
The Director of Planning should be consistent in the application of the OMC. To apply the OMC strictly to 3539 Calandria
and leniently to 3521 Calandria is an "error or abuse of discretion".
SPECIFFICALLY:
1.Refusal to extend time limits to 3539 Calandria, while granting them to 3521 Calandria.
2. Refusal to issue tree permit T1300013, when planning staff issued documents to applicant stating "permit to
remove trees".
3. Refusal to mark Notices of Violation 1501141, 1402816, 1305434 & 1302254, as "no violation found", when
B&P staff waived compliance for 3521 Calandria, NOV 1101036 in June 2011, October 2014 and
again May 2015.
Sincerely,
3539 Calandria
Oakland 94605
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Miller, Scott <SMiller@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Hello, Mr. Hector, please confirm what determination you wish to appeal, and I can then better assist you. The code section
you referenced is specifically in regard to General Plan Determinations (as opposed to Planning Commission decisions or
Administrative project decisions from staff). Thanks for clarifying what decision you wish to appeal. Thanks.
Scott
Scott Miller, Zoning Manager I Bureau of Planning I 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114 I Oakland, CA 94612 I Phone:
I Fax: (510) 238-4730
I Email: smiller@oaklandnet.com
I Website: www.oaklandnet.com/planning
(510) 238-2235
From: Campbell Washington, Annie

To: Miller, Scott
Subject: Fwd: 17.01.080 B appeal to city council
8/16/2016
Page 96
Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:
Date: July 17, 2015 at 8:17:43 AM PDT
T o : "Flynn, Rachel" <rflynn@oaklandnet.com >, Suzy clark <suzanneclark@rocketmail.com >, michael
hector <psmhector@gmail.com >, "Hunt, Michael" <MHunt@oaklandnet.com >, Libby Schaaf
<officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com >, <cityadministrator@oaklandnet.com >, "City Administrator's
Office" <CityAdministrator'sOffice@oaklandnet.com >, "Woo, Winnie" <wwoo@oaklandnet.com >
Cc: lreid <lreid@oaklandnet.com >, <dkalb@oaklandnet.com >, <aguillen@oaklandnet.com >,
<acampbellwashington@oaklandnet.com >, <lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com >,
<ngallo@oaklandnet.com >, <dbrooks@oaklandnet.com >, <rkaplan@oaklandnet.com >
Subject: Re: 17.01.080 B appeal to city council
Rachel,
Regards,
Michael & Suzy
> wrote:
Rachel,
Regards,
Michael Hector
8/16/2016
Page 97
17.01.120.C. an appeal of such determination may be taken to the City Council by the applicant or any other
interested party. Such appeal shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed in the City master fee schedule.
In event the last date of appeal falls on a weekend or holiday when City offices are closed, the next date such
offices are open for business shall be the last date of appeal. Such appeal shall be made on a form
prescribed by the Director and shall be filed with the City Clerk. The appeal shall state specifically
wherein it is claimed there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Director or wherein his or her
decision is not supported by the evidence in the record. Upon receipt of such appeal, the Council shall set the
date for consideration thereof. After the hearing date is set, the Planning Director shall refer the matter to the
Planning Commission for its review and advice. The Planning Commission shall consider the matter at its next
available meeting. Such referral shall be only for the purpose of issue clarification and advice to the City Council.
The City Clerk shall not less than seventeen (17) days prior to the Council hearing, give written notice of the date
and place of the hearing on the appeal to the applicant; the appellant in those cases where the applicant is not the
appellant; adverse party or parties, or to the attorney, spokesperson, or representative of such party or parties;
8/16/2016
Page 98
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/17/2015 11:09:47 AM
RE: appeal NOV's 1502220 & 1501813
Dear Mr. Hector,

Thank you for your e-mail. Building staff is responsible for interpreting the provisions of the Oakland Municipal Code, and it is
not our Offices role to question Building staffs interpretation or to make decisions relating to the application of those
standards. Please continue to work with Building staff and Director Flynn to resolve your appeal.
Regards,
Celena Chen
Celena H. Chen
City of Oakland
Oakland, CA 94612
tel: (510) 238-7040 (direct)
fax: (510 238-6500
To: Chen, Celena
Cc: Flynn, Rachel; Labayog, Edward; Low, Tim; Taylor, Marie (Allene)
Subject: Fwd: appeal NOV's 1502220 & 1501813
Celena H. Chen
City of Oakland
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Ms. Chen,
I'm forwarding you a copy of a recent email to Building and Planning (B&P), regarding to recent
Notices of Violation (NOV's).
2. marking as "debris", or "junk" material permitted by the OMC, such as construction material and
outdoor furniture.
I've attached several pictures of 3539 Calandria, taken over the past year. On first impression, do
these pictures show what you think meets the legal definition of a blighted, neglected or abandon
property? See attachments.
Sincerely,
8/16/2016
Page 99

3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605.
To: "Labayog, Edward" <ELabayog@oaklandnet.com >, "Low, Tim" <TLow@oaklandnet.com
(Allene)" <MTaylor2@oaklandnet.com >, "Flynn, Rachel" <rflynn@oaklandnet.com >
>, "Taylor, Marie
Mr. Labayog,
We appeal NOV's 1502220 & 1501813. We were not sent
either of these NOV', but discovered them during a visit to B&P
offices on 7/16/2015. These NOV's should be marked "no
violation found".
I suggest you consult with the City Attorney on the legality of
these NOV's marked as "abated" and "pending 1st inspection"
1. Trailer parked on property. It is permitted under 8.24.020
(F.2) & (G.1a) to park trailers on ones property for upto 72
hours. There is no evidence that the time limit was
breached. Lacking proof of violating the "72 hour" provision of
the OMC, "no violation found" is the only appropriate ruling.
"abated" implies a violation was found and corrected; which is
NOT the case!
2. Construction debris and junk.
under 8.24.020 (F.1)
It is permitted

construction of installation of improvements or
facilities on the property."
We are making permitted and permit exempt improvements to
8/16/2016
Page 100
our property as evidenced by our multiple permits, including

DS150160, and other documents and statements made
previously to B & P staff. None of 8.24.020 definitions "AH" and CCC 3480 are violated.
The "Junk" reference may apply to exterior furniture or scrap
firewood, which may be stored outside and in contact with the
ground per 8.24.020 (F.4.b).

unequal.
Improving one's property is permitted by

statute. Therefore, things related to
actions permitted under statute cannot be cited as a
nuisance, unless the City is alleging a violation as defined
under 8.24.080 A-H, such as abandoned
property, public
health, safety or general

welfare or any condition of
deterioration or disrepair which
substantially impacts on the
aesthetic or economic value of
neighboring properties. NONE OF
WHICH ARE APPLICABLE.
8/16/2016
Page 101
Regards,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605

[v1.03]
8/16/2016
Page 102
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/17/2015 11:11:39 AM
Re: appeal NOV's 1502220 & 1501813
received.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Chen, Celena <CChen@oaklandcityattorney.org > wrote:
Dear Mr. Hector,
Thank you for your e-mail. Building staff is responsible for interpreting the provisions of the Oakland Municipal Code, and it is
not our Offices role to question Building staffs interpretation or to make decisions relating to the application of those
standards. Please continue to work with Building staff and Director Flynn to resolve your appeal.
Regards,
Celena Chen
Celena H. Chen
City of Oakland
Oakland, CA 94612
tel: (510) 238-7040
(direct)
fax: (510 238-6500


To: Chen, Celena
Cc: Flynn, Rachel; Labayog, Edward; Low, Tim; Taylor, Marie (Allene)
Subject: Fwd: appeal NOV's 1502220 & 1501813
Celena H. Chen
City of Oakland
Oakland, CA 94612
8/16/2016
Page 103
Dear Ms. Chen,
I'm forwarding you a copy of a recent email to Building and Planning (B&P), regarding to recent
Notices of Violation (NOV's).
2. marking as "debris", or "junk" material permitted by the OMC, such as construction material
and outdoor furniture.
I've attached several pictures of 3539 Calandria, taken over the past year. On first impression, do
these pictures show what you think meets the legal definition of a blighted, neglected or abandon
property? See attachments.
Sincerely,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605.
8/16/2016
Page 104

To: "Labayog, Edward" <ELabayog@oaklandnet.com >, "Low, Tim" <TLow@oaklandnet.com >, "Taylor,
Marie (Allene)" <MTaylor2@oaklandnet.com >, "Flynn, Rachel" <rflynn@oaklandnet.com >
Mr. Labayog,
We appeal NOV's 1502220 & 1501813. We were not
sent either of these NOV', but discovered them during
a visit to B&P offices on 7/16/2015. These NOV's
should be marked "no violation found".
I suggest you consult with the City Attorney on the
legality of these NOV's marked as "abated" and
"pending 1st inspection"
1. Trailer parked on property. It is permitted under
8.24.020 (F.2) & (G.1a) to park trailers on ones
property for upto 72 hours. There is no evidence that
the time limit was breached. Lacking proof of violating
the "72 hour" provision of the OMC, "no violation
found" is the only appropriate ruling. "abated" implies
a violation was found and corrected; which is NOT the
case!
8/16/2016
Page 105
It is
permitted under 8.24.020 (F.1)
2. Construction debris and junk.

construction of installation of improvements or
facilities on the property."
We are making permitted and permit exempt
improvements to our property as evidenced by our
multiple permits, including DS150160, and other
documents and statements made previously to B & P
staff. None of 8.24.020 definitions "A-H" and CCC
3480 are violated.
The "Junk" reference may apply to exterior furniture or
scrap firewood, which may be stored outside and in
contact with the ground per 8.24.020 (F.4.b).
unequal.
Improving one's property is permitted

by statute. Therefore, things related
8/16/2016
Page 106
to actions permitted under statute cannot be cited
as a nuisance, unless the City is alleging a violation as

defined under 8.24.080 A-H, such as abandoned
property, public
health, safety or general

welfare or any condition of
deterioration or disrepair which
substantially impacts on the
aesthetic or economic value of
neighboring properties. NONE OF
WHICH ARE APPLICABLE.
Regards,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 107
This is a confidential attorney-client communication. This email contains confidential attorney-client privileged
information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the
original message and any attachments.
P l e a se consider the e nvironm ent before printing this em ail

[v1.03]
8/16/2016
Page 108
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/17/2015 1:23:03 PM
it's never to late...
Rachel,
We're not angry or vindictive. It's never to late for anyone to admit a mistake or to correct an error - or even
make a better decision. If at any time you want to make a conciliatory offer to resolve our complaints, we'd
almost certainly accept. And the whole debate over 3539 Calandria would end.
We admitted building our temporary "enclosed structure" without permits that are required. However, we've
subsequently received planning and zoning approval for a new "enclosed structure". Once I final the old work,
we can submit new plans. Problem solved.
I think you can agree that B&P staff could have done a better job on NOV 1101036 for the wall and yard
extension north of 3521 Calandria. And that prior to May 29, 2015, B&P's enforcement of the violation was ...
limited. If I had not... insisted... on proper enforcement, noting would have been done in 2015. If you want to be
angry with anyone, it should be Taylor Heanue!
Mr. Heanue is his own worst enemy! We never started the complaints to any agency. We only raised the issue
of fairness in applying the rules equally to all. Complaint 1101036, regarding 3521 Calandria, followed their
complaint 1101035, about 3539 Calandria. The difference was our rapid compliance resulted on "no violation
found". Mr. Heanue roping off the park in September 2014, and placing "private property" on what he knew
was public land resulted in the September 2014 complaints and NOV; which he subsequently successfully
appealed... Oddly, Mr. Heanue was telling the OPD and Courts in September and October 2014, that the park
land was his - while he was telling B&P staff "not mine". The fracas of April and May 2015, was again ignited by
Mr. Heanue walking behind our property on 4/3/15 at 0730. Then Mr. Ramirez showing up with Mr. Heanues
complaint on 4/6/15, raised the temperature. Mr. Heanue's April 2015 actions may be the result of a court
ruling on February 20, 2015, that "complaints to government officials may be protected free speech"? So, be
angry with Mr. Heanue, or as my wife said... People in glass houses...
Negotiation is always our preferred method of resolving disputes. Appealing to the City Council, goes through
the Planning Commission. The whole process will take many months - maybe a year. Or, if you choose, you
can end the matter at any time. As Ben Franklin said, "the pen is mightier than the sword". Your pen is pretty
powerful when you choose to use it. You might consider rereading your 5/29/2015 letter to the Heanues, then
read your 7/14/2015 email to me: not only are your decisions materially different, so is your tone. Not a
complaint, just an opinion.
All the best and enjoy your weekend!

Michael
8/16/2016
Page 109
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/17/2015 3:27:42 PM
everyone's time is valuable...
Rachel,
You commented previously on how much of your time was consumed by our neighborhood squabble. You began the 7/8/
15 meeting by mentioning the expensive staff time used by the meeting.
Have you considered how much more of your time, and your staff's time, will be consumed by additional complaints,
appeals, claims etc...
What is the cost of showing us a little consideration?
The tree permit is largely moot. The trees have been gone for 2 & 1/2 years. If the city were to attempt to seek punitive
action against us, we'd file a lawsuit against the City and licensed contractor we hired to remove the trees in accordance
with the rules. Any penalty would flow to the contractor - if the penalty was upheld? Civil claim juries only require a
preponderance of evidence and a 75% majority. What would a reasonable Juror think about the city issuing documents in
2011 and 2013, that say "permit to remove"? Not only that, but a state licensed arborist and contractor will testify they
believed the documents provided by Oakland allowed for the trees to be legally removed. Who knows, but convincing a
jury to side with the city is not assured. Let's not forget to consider city staff time, which concerns you as a manager.
Marking the NOV's "no violation found", does it really cost you anything or create a significant problem? Two are already
marked that way. Now there are six, not four NOV's that we object to. Is it really worth your time to argue furniture and
firewood, construction material and trailers? Argue the intent of OMC 8.24 to the planning commission and City Council?
I know you have better things to do, but it's your decision.
We'll drop our request to extend our expired building and electrical permits. Small cost to renew and final.
I'm retired, so I can make the time to press our objections. But I'd rather final our existing work, build a new conforming
enclosed sunroom to enjoy our view and do a small addition.
Do you really want to spend part of the next year on these same subjects?
As I write these emails today, the Heanues are having windows replaced. They've had a truck blocking the sidewalk all
day - a violation of the CA VC 22500. I didn't complain, just documented it for future reference.
22500. No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle
whether attended or unattended,....:
.....
(f) On any portion of a sidewalk,.....
One of my problems is my neighbors think the rules only apply to us, and they're exempt.
Anyway, time is wasting...

Michael
8/16/2016
Page 110
8/16/2016
Page 111
8/16/2016
Page 112
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/17/2015 5:15:53 PM
RE: 17.01.080 B appeal to city council
Michael, The deadline to appeal these cases has passed. The NOVs were issued on the following dates.
Case # 1302254 04/26/2013
Case # 1305434 11/05/2013
Case # 1402816 07/24/2014
Case # 1501141 04/15/2015
The notices included the following statement:
You have a right to appeal this Notice of Violation. You must complete the enclosed Appeal form and return it with supporting
documentation in the enclosed envelope. If the Code Enforcement Division does not receive your written Appeal within 30 days of
the date of this notice, you will waive your right for administrative review.
Therefore, your 30-day appeal limit for these NOVs has expired and you can no longer appeal these cases.

Winnie
Rachel,
We're going to appeal your 7/14/2015 written decision to the City Council. Can you please tell me
what the fee is per 17.01.080 B? Can you please also provide the prescribed form?
Regards,
Michael Hector
8/16/2016
Page 113
8/16/2016
Page 114
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

psmhector@gmail.com
7/17/2015 5:24:20 PM
Appeal NOV's 1502220 & 1501813
Michael,
Cases 1502220 and 1501813 are not Notices of Violations. The cases reflect complaints received. Therefore, there is nothing to
appeal.

To: Labayog, Edward; Low, Tim; Taylor, Marie (Allene); Flynn, Rachel
Mr. Labayog,
We appeal NOV's 1502220 & 1501813. We were not sent either of these NOV', but discovered them during a visit to B&P offices
on 7/16/2015. These NOV's should be marked "no violation found".
I suggest you consult with the City Attorney on the legality of these NOV's marked as "abated" and "pending 1st inspection"
1. Trailer parked on property. It is permitted under 8.24.020 (F.2) & (G.1a) to park trailers on ones property for upto 72 hours.
There is no evidence that the time limit was breached. Lacking proof of violating the "72 hour" provision of the OMC, "no
violation found" is the only appropriate ruling. "abated" implies a violation was found and corrected; which is NOT the case!
2. Construction debris and junk. It is permitted under 8.24.020 (F.1) "...items may be temporarily kept within or upon residential
property for the time required for the construction of installation of improvements or facilities on the property."
We are making permitted and permit exempt improvements to our property as evidenced by our multiple permits, including
DS150160, and other documents and statements made previously to B & P staff. None of 8.24.020 definitions "A-H" and CCC 3480
are violated.
The "Junk" reference may apply to exterior furniture or scrap firewood, which may be stored outside and in contact with the
ground per 8.24.020 (F.4.b).
is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although
the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.
CCC 3482. Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance.
Improving one's property is permitted by statute. Therefore, things related to actions permitted under statute cannot be cited as
a nuisance, unless the City is alleging a violation as defined under 8.24.080 A-H, such as abandoned property, public health,
safety or general welfare or any condition of deterioration or disrepair which substantially impacts on the aesthetic or economic
value of neighboring properties. NONE OF WHICH ARE APPLICABLE.
Your prompt correction with copies to 3539 Calandria, Oakland, 94605, is appreciated.
Regards,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 115
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/17/2015 5:26:37 PM
Planner Assignment
Thanks Maurice. Did he provide a survey of his property? The neighbors have disputed the location of the rear
property line and the building department does not have a survey on file.
Does the owner have to provide a survey when they apply for a building permit or at the zoning/planning
approval phase?
-----Original Message----From: Brenyah-Addow, Maurice
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 4:50 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: RE: Planner Assignment
Zero setback on the rear and five feet on the right side property line.
Accessory structures the fit certain parameters are allowed zero rear and side setbacks if located within 35 feet
of the rear PL, not taller than 9 feet with a flat roof or 12 feet with a pitched roof, does not contain any living
quarters, and does not cover more than 50% of required rear yard.
Thanks
-M

To: Brenyah-Addow, Maurice
Thanks Maurice. How far is new enclosed structure from the property lines?
-----Original Message----From: Brenyah-Addow, Maurice
To: Flynn, Rachel
Hi Rachel,
I was the planner on it. It was an over the counter Small Project Design Review for a New 480 SF shed/
enclosed gazebo
Thanks
-M
8/16/2016
Page 116

Subject: Planner Assignment
> Do you know which Planner handled the latest application for 3539 Calandria? I believe they got zoning signoff yesterday.
> Thanks, Rachel
8/16/2016
Page 117
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

"Suzy clark (suzanneclark@rocketmail.com)" <suzanneclark@rocketmail.com>
psmhector@gmail.com
7/17/2015 7:03:52 PM
Extension of time to correct NOV from April 2015
3539 Calandria NOV 1501141.pdf
Suzanne and Michael, See attached letter. A hard copy will be mailed to you.
To: Labayog, Edward; Ramirez, Ivan
Cc: Flynn, Rachel; Suzy clark; michael hector
Subject: extension of time to correct NOV from April 2015
Mr. Labayog,
I request an extension to comply with the NOV issued by Mr. Ramirez in April of 2015, to 3539 Calandria. I request
the extension be of similar duration to that effectively granted to 3521 Calandria on abatement 1101036.
Sincerely,
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 118
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Boyd, Karen" <KBoyd@oaklandnet.com>
"Cappio, Claudia" <CCappio@oaklandnet.com>
"Cotton, Chantal" <CCotton@oaklandnet.com>
"DeVries, Joe" <JDeVries@oaklandnet.com>
"Eve-Fisher, Saundra D." <SEve-Fisher@oaklandnet.com>
"Garcia, Mai-Ling" <MGarcia@oaklandnet.com>
"Hom, Donna" <DHom@oaklandnet.com>
"Johnson, Bradley" <BJohnson@oaklandnet.com>
"Kek, Michael" <MKek@oaklandnet.com>
"Kirkpatrick, Tiffany" <TKirkpatrick@oaklandnet.com>
"Landreth, Sabrina" <SLandreth@oaklandnet.com>
"Marcus, Nancy" <NMarcus@oaklandnet.com>
"Minor, Gregory" <GMinor@oaklandnet.com>
"Orologas, Alexandra" <AOrologas@oaklandnet.com>
"Raya, Marisa" <MRaya@oaklandnet.com>
"Salinas, Victoria" <VSalinas@oaklandnet.com>
"Soares, Michelle" <MSoares@oaklandnet.com>
"Todd, Amber" <ATodd@oaklandnet.com>
7/17/2015 10:17:11 PM
appeal to City Council re: abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in 7/14/2015 written ruling
Ms. Woo, and City Administrator's staff;

We want to appeal to City Council the abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in 7/14/2015
written ruling. Director Flynn refuses to provided the prescribed form and fee
needed for filing with the City Clerk, for an appeal to the City Council. We believe
there is a time limit of 10 days from the written ruling, so we must file by Friday July 24,
2015. Time is very short.
Can you or anyone on your staff provide us with the form to file an appeal to the City
Council and the fee due the City Clerk.
Thank you,
Michael Hector and Suzanne Clark
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 119
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Simmons, LaTonda" <LSimmons@oaklandnet.com>
7/17/2015 10:22:02 PM
Ms. Simmons:
Thank you,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 120
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Schaaf, Libby" <LSchaaf@oaklandnet.com>
7/17/2015 10:26:39 PM
Honorable Mayor Shaaf:

We want to appeal to City Council the abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in a 7/14/2015
Thank you,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 121
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Chen, Celena $CChen@oaklandcityattorney.org$" <CChen@oaklandcityattorney.org>
7/17/2015 10:34:02 PM
RE: appeal to City Council re: abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in 7/14/2015 written ruling
Hello all Rich Illgen and Celena Chen are familiar with this case if anyone needs background.
I have fully explained to Michael Hector the situation and why he has no more recourse to appeal. Thanks, Rachel
To: City Administrator's Office; City Administrator's Office; Woo, Winnie; Boyd, Karen; Cappio, Claudia; Cotton, Chantal; DeVries, Joe; Eve-Fisher,
Saundra D.; Garcia, Mai-Ling; Hom, Donna; Johnson, Bradley; Kek, Michael; Kirkpatrick, Tiffany; Landreth, Sabrina; Marcus, Nancy; Minor,
Gregory; Orologas, Alexandra; Raya, Marisa; Salinas, Victoria; Soares, Michelle; Todd, Amber
Cc: Flynn, Rachel; Taylor, Marie (Allene); Smith, Sandra M; Low, Tim; Labayog, Edward; Ramirez, Ivan; Barron, Hugo
Subject: appeal to City Council re: abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in 7/14/2015 written ruling

We want to appeal to City Council the abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in 7/14/2015 written
ruling. Director Flynn refuses to provided the prescribed form and fee needed for filing
with the City Clerk, for an appeal to the City Council. We believe there is a time limit of 10 days
from the written ruling, so we must file by Friday July 24, 2015. Time is very short.
Can you or anyone on your staff provide us with the form to file an appeal to the City Council
and the fee due the City Clerk.
Thank you,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 122
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Simmons, LaTonda" <LSimmons@oaklandnet.com>
7/17/2015 10:35:49 PM
Hi LaTonda, Rich Illgen and Celena Chen are both familiar with this issue. I have fully explained to Michael Hector why he has
no more recourse to appeal.
Thanks, Rachel
To: Simmons, LaTonda
Cc: Flynn, Rachel; Labayog, Edward; Low, Tim; Taylor, Marie (Allene); Smith, Sandra M; Ramirez, Ivan
Ms. Simmons:
Thank you,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 123
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/17/2015 10:39:19 PM
Mayor and Michael, I have fully explained to Michael Hector why he has no more recourse to appeal his Notice of Violation
(NOV) case.
Rich Illgen and Celena Chen are aware of this request and can provide background if needed.
He basically wants to appeal four NOVs long after the 30-day appeal time has expired and use the General Plan Section of the
Ordinance to appeal a Code Enforcement Code issue. Thanks, Rachel
To: Schaaf, Libby; Hunt, Michael
Cc: Flynn, Rachel; Low, Tim; Labayog, Edward; Smith, Sandra M; Taylor, Marie (Allene); Ramirez, Ivan

We want to appeal to City Council the abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in a 7/14/2015 written
Thank you,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 124
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Chen, Celena $CChen@oaklandcityattorney.org$" <CChen@oaklandcityattorney.org>
7/17/2015 10:40:40 PM
FW: appeal to City Council re: abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in 7/14/2015 written ruling
From: Flynn, Rachel

Cc: Low, Tim; Labayog, Edward; Smith, Sandra M; Taylor, Marie (Allene); Ramirez, Ivan
Subject: RE: appeal to City Council re: abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in 7/14/2015 written ruling
Mayor and Michael, I have fully explained to Michael Hector why he has no more recourse to appeal his Notice of Violation
(NOV) case.
Rich Illgen and Celena Chen are aware of this request and can provide background if needed.
He basically wants to appeal four NOVs long after the 30-day appeal time has expired and use the General Plan Section of the
Ordinance to appeal a Code Enforcement Code issue. Thanks, Rachel
Cc: Flynn, Rachel; Low, Tim; Labayog, Edward; Smith, Sandra M; Taylor, Marie (Allene); Ramirez, Ivan

We want to appeal to City Council the abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in a 7/14/2015 written
Thank you,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 125
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/20/2015 8:40:30 AM
RE: Registered Mail
No problem. I will retrieve the letter and get it in the mail this morning.
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Smith, Sandra M
Cc: Labayog, Edward
Subject: Registered Mail
Sandi, I left a hard copy of this letter on LaTishas chair to mail as certified/registered. If she is not in on Monday, can you
please retrieve the letter from her chair and mail it out on Monday?
On the green card, please put my name in the name/address box where the card is to be returned. My suite # is 3315. When it
comes in, I will give it to you for our records downstairs.
I want this mailing to be consistent with what I did for 3521 Calandria. Thanks, Rachel
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Suzy clark (suzanneclark@rocketmail.com ); psmhector@gmail.com
Subject: Extension of time to correct NOV from April 2015
Suzanne and Michael, See attached letter. A hard copy will be mailed to you.
To: Labayog, Edward; Ramirez, Ivan
Cc: Flynn, Rachel; Suzy clark; michael hector
Subject: extension of time to correct NOV from April 2015
Mr. Labayog,
I request an extension to comply with the NOV issued by Mr. Ramirez in April of 2015, to 3539 Calandria. I request
the extension be of similar duration to that effectively granted to 3521 Calandria on abatement 1101036.
Sincerely,
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 126
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/20/2015 10:56:56 AM
Re: appeal to City Council re: abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in 7/14/2015 written ruling
2nd request. time is short.

> wrote:
Thank you,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 127
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/20/2015 10:57:09 AM
Re: appeal to City Council re: abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in 7/14/2015 written ruling

> wrote:
We want to appeal to City Council the abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in a 7/14/2015
Thank you,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 128
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Brooks, Desley" <DBrooks@oaklandnet.com>
"Campbell Washington, Annie" <ACampbellWashington@oaklandnet.com>
"Gallo, Noel" <NGallo@oaklandnet.com>
"McElhaney, Lynette" <lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com>
"Guillen, Abel" <AGuillen@oaklandnet.com>
"Jones, Andre" <AJones@oaklandnet.com>
"Kalb, Dan" <DKalb@oaklandnet.com>
"Kaplan, Rebecca" <RKaplan@oaklandnet.com>
"Reid, Larry" <LReid@oaklandnet.com>
7/20/2015 12:10:41 PM
Re: Appeal NOV's 1502220 & 1501813
Ms. Flynn,
Director of Building and Planning,
Your recording keeping is consistent, if nothing else. I've pasted several prior communications to refresh your
memory. Your July 17, email demonstrates why we need the City Council to review your repeated
abuses of discretion.
1. A neighboring property walled off 1,000 square feet of a City Park; the current owner posed "PRIVATE
PROPERTY SIGNS" on city land and made multiple claims of trespass into his private park. YOU and your staff
gave them multiple extensions total 1,700 days on violation 1101036 - so far - and the violation is still there,
UNCORRECTED going on FIVE YEARS.
2. Our property, 50 feet away, has received FIVE notices of violation for construction work and material cited
as "BLIGHT" and 47 visits from city employees in the last TWELVE MONTHS.
You believe you and your staff have acted reasonably. We need the City Council to review your
repeated abuses of discretion.
Regards
3539 Calandria
attachments
pic one: violation 1101036, walled off 1,000 square feet of city park, and posted private property signs. UNCORRECTED for
1700 days. Actual property lines is to the left with the wooden fence
pics 2-4, 3539 calandria, multiple citations for 8.24 violations.
SAMPLE EMAIL 1
Fl ynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com
May 15
>
to me, Marie, Sandra, Tim, Edward, Suzy
HI Michael, ....
In the meantime, I am reviewing the complaints filed against your property to see how we can bring closure to these case(s). Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
8/16/2016
Page 129
510 . 238 . 2229
SAMPLE EMAIL 2
Sandercock, Deborah <DSandercock@oaklandnet.com
>
9/29/14
to me
Mr. Hector,
I have been getting updates from the inspector and was under the impression that the questions you had were either answered or resolved in the
field. Please send me the list of your unanswered questions and I will do my best to answer them. If possible, it is helpful if you can reference which
code you are referring to (i.e. Municipal, Building, Health and Safety, etc) and the section within the code so I can review the code language which
will assist me in answering your questions most accurately.
Thank you,
Deborah Sandercock
SAMPLE EMAIL 3
Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
9/27/14
>
to tespinosa, Isaac, Hugo

Mr. Espinsoa,
We met at 3539 Calandria on or about September 4, 2014. You said you were responding to complaints from four women.
Could I please have the names of the people who made the complaint or were present?
Could I have a copy of the complaint or any notes you made?
Could I have copies of the photos you showed me?
We've filed a civil complaint against our neighbors, and would appreciate the information.
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
SAMPLE EMAIL 4
May 8
>
to Sandra, Rachel, Marie, Tim, Hugo, lreid, lrivera, ELabayog, Michael, iramirez2, Suzy
3 of 4:
RE: N.O.V. 1501141 &

problems with bureau of building inspection department (BBID); &
BBID staff applying City procedures, rules, policies and the Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) in a questionable manner.
8/16/2016
Page 130
WE REQUEST N.O.V. 1501141 BE VOIDED AS ISSUED IN ERROR

Dear City officials,
SAMPLE EMAIL 5
Barron, Hugo <HBarron@oaklandnet.com
9/16/14
>
to me
I did not find any code violations at this field inspection, however as we discussed, the detached roofed patio at the rear yard has been enclosed
without permit. According to your statement, this enclosure is temporary until you submit plans for your rear addition. An inspection to monitor this
has been scheduled by 11/21/14. Concerning the CMU retaining wall at rear yard of 3521 Calandria Av. I will coordinate with my supervisor Mr. Wilson
for follow up actions. Thanks. Hugo Barron, building inspector.
SAMPLE EMAIL 6
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com

Michael,
> wrote:
Cases 1502220 and 1501813 are not Notices of Violations. The cases reflect complaints received. Therefore, there is nothing
to appeal.

To: Labayog, Edward; Low, Tim; Taylor, Marie (Allene); Flynn, Rachel
Mr. Labayog,
We appeal NOV's 1502220 & 1501813. We were not sent either of these NOV', but discovered them during a visit to B&P
offices on 7/16/2015. These NOV's should be marked "no violation found".
I suggest you consult with the City Attorney on the legality of these NOV's marked as "abated" and "pending 1st inspection"
1. Trailer parked on property. It is permitted under 8.24.020 (F.2) & (G.1a) to park trailers on ones property for upto 72
hours. There is no evidence that the time limit was breached. Lacking proof of violating the "72 hour" provision of the OMC, "no
violation found" is the only appropriate ruling. "abated" implies a violation was found and corrected; which is NOT the case!
8/16/2016
Page 131
2. Construction debris and junk. It is permitted under 8.24.020 (F.1) "...items may be temporarily kept within or upon residential
property for the time required for the construction of installation of improvements or facilities on the property."
We are making permitted and permit exempt improvements to our property as evidenced by our multiple permits, including
DS150160, and other documents and statements made previously to B & P staff. None of 8.24.020 definitions "A-H" and CCC
3480 are violated.
The "Junk" reference may apply to exterior furniture or scrap firewood, which may be stored outside and in contact with the
ground per 8.24.020 (F.4.b).
is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although
the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.
CCC 3482. Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance.
Improving one's property is permitted by statute. Therefore, things related to actions permitted under statute cannot be cited as
a nuisance, unless the City is alleging a violation as defined under 8.24.080 A-H, such as abandoned property, public health,
safety or general welfare or any condition of deterioration or disrepair which substantially impacts on the aesthetic or economic
value of neighboring properties. NONE OF WHICH ARE APPLICABLE.
Your prompt correction with copies to 3539 Calandria, Oakland, 94605, is appreciated.
Regards,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 132
8/16/2016
Page 133
8/16/2016
Page 134
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/20/2015 1:04:33 PM
3539 Calandria
Hi Claudia, The city Attorney's Office (Rich Illgen) has advised me on this matter. All deadlines for appeals have
expired.
I explained this to Michael Hector in detail last week. There is nothing more we can do for him at this point.
Give me a call if you need more information. Thanks, Rachel
From: Simmons, LaTonda

To: Cappio, Claudia; Illgen, Richard (RIllgen@oaklandcityattorney.org )
Cc: Woo, Winnie
Subject: FW: appeal to City Council re: abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in 7/14/2015 written ruling
Hi Claudia - We need your assistance with this matter.

Ms. Simmons:
needed for filing with the City Clerk, for an appeal to the City Council. We believe there
is a time limit of 10 days from the written ruling, so we must file by Friday July 24, 2015. Time
is very short.
Thank you,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 135
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/20/2015 1:31:48 PM
RE: 3539 Calandria
Claudia,
We need someone in administration to send a letter to Mr. Hector (who I understand may not be the property owner),
telling him there is no appeal to the City Council, that his appeals to the administrative process expired. Some of these
violations are years old.
Richard
To: Cappio, Claudia
Cc: Simmons, LaTonda; Illgen, Richard
Hi Claudia, The city Attorney's Office (Rich Illgen) has advised me on this matter. All deadlines for appeals have expired.
I explained this to Michael Hector in detail last week. There is nothing more we can do for him at this point.
Give me a call if you need more information. Thanks, Rachel
From: Simmons, LaTonda
To: Cappio, Claudia; Illgen, Richard (RIllgen@oaklandcityattorney.org )
Cc: Woo, Winnie
Hi Claudia - We need your assistance with this matter.

Ms. Simmons:
We want to appeal to City Council the abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in 7/14/
2015 written ruling. Director Flynn refuses to provided the prescribed
form and fee needed for filing with the City Clerk, for an appeal to the City
Council. We believe there is a time limit of 10 days from the written ruling, so we
must file by Friday July 24, 2015. Time is very short.
Can you or anyone on your staff provide us with the form to file an appeal to
the City Council and the fee due the City Clerk.
Thank you,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605

[v1.03]
8/16/2016
Page 136
8/16/2016
Page 137
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

7/20/2015 3:09:59 PM
3539 Calandria Ave
DOC072015.pdf
Hi Rachel,
Please find attached the scanned plans for 3539 Calandria Ave.
Thanks
-M
8/16/2016
Page 138
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Rachel,

7/20/2015 3:44:28 PM
FW: 17.01.080 B appeal to city council
I think this is the email you referred to.

Richard

To: Michael Hector; Suzy clark; Office of the Mayor; City Administrator's Office
Cc: Campbell Washington, Annie; Miller, Scott; Low, Tim
Subject: RE: 17.01.080 B appeal to city council
Case # 1302254 04/26/2013
Case # 1305434 11/05/2013
Case # 1402816 07/24/2014
Case # 1501141 04/15/2015

Winnie
Rachel,
Regards,
Michael Hector
8/16/2016
Page 139

[v1.03]
8/16/2016
Page 140
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
FYI.

7/22/2015 12:12:37 PM
FW: appeal to City Council re: abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in 7/14/2015 written ruling
Richard
From: Simmons, LaTonda [mailto:LSimmons@oaklandnet.com]

To: Illgen, Richard; Cappio, Claudia

Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 7:19 AM
Cc: michael hector; Suzy clark
Subject: Re: appeal to City Council re: abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in 7/14/2015 written ruling
4th request
Ms. Simmons,
Oakland City Clerk,
Please, we need the information, including the fee, on filing an appeal to the City Council regarding
Planning Director Flynn abuse of discretion in a July 14, 2015 and July 17, 2015 written ruling.
The code sections are 8 & 15.
Time is very short, we must file the appeal by Friday the 24th.
Thank you,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Simmons, LaTonda <LSimmons@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Hi Michael and Suzanne - I received both prior emails sent Friday at 10:24 pm and Saturday at 8:41pm. However, I have no
information on the kind of appeal youd be filing. Is it possible for you to provide the code section and subject of the
determination in question?
-= LaTonda Simmons
Subject: Re: appeal to City Council re: abuse of discretion by Director Flynn in 7/14/2015 written ruling

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
Ms. Simmons
Oakland City Clerk
> wrote:
8/16/2016
Page 141
Thank you,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605

[v1.03]
8/16/2016
Page 142
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Claudia,

7/22/2015 12:15:16 PM
RE: Appeal Request
I would add a line to the effect that there is no appeal to the City Council for these types of violations.
Richard

Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:32 AM
To: Cappio, Claudia
Cc: Illgen, Richard
Subject: Appeal Request
Claudia, Here is a draft for you to send to Michael Hector . . .

Michael, The deadline to appeal the cases listed in your email to Rachel Flynn has passed. The NOVs were issued on the
following dates.
Case # 1302254 04/26/2013
Case # 1305434 11/05/2013
Case # 1402816 07/24/2014
Case # 1501141 04/15/2015
In addition, the Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.01.080 B, which you cited in your email to Ms. Flynn, refers to
the Oakland General Plan and the Director of Planning's decisions related to the Plan. However, the NOV's for which you
were cited are related to OMC Section 15.08, the Building Maintenance Code. Therefore, OMC Section 17.01.080 does not
apply to your cases.
I hope this clarifies City regulations, in regards to your particular situation.
Thanks, Claudia Cappio
Winnie
Rachel,
Regards,
Michael Hector
8/16/2016
Page 143
This is a confidential attorney-client communication. This email contains confidential attorney-client privileged information and is for the
sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments.

[v1.03]
8/16/2016
Page 144
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

psmhector@gmail.com
7/22/2015 3:54:20 PM
IMPORTANT: Letter dated July 22, 2015
DOC072215.pdf
On behalf of the Assistant City Administrator, Claudia Cappio, please find the attached letter.
Thank you.
Winnie Woo
8/16/2016
Page 145
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Harlan, David" <DHarlan@oaklandnet.com>

7/23/2015 11:32:17 AM
RE: Planning Submittal
I added a condition with a notice to the parcel indicating that any building permit application needs confirmation of
compliance with DS150160.
David Harlan
Engineering Manager
Bureau of Building
Planning and Building Department
City of Oakland
(510) 238-6321
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Harlan, David
Subject: Planning Submittal
Hi Dave, Attached are the drawings submitted for 3539 Calandria Avenue.
Before any building permits are issued, please discuss with Tim and Ed. There is an active CE case related to an illegally
built structure.
I believe the structure shown on the drawings is that illegal structure and may be over the property line on City-owned
parkland.
If it's a new structure shown on his drawings, then he'll need to demo the existing building.
Can we place a hold on this permit app until we get a certified survey?
Thanks, Rachel
From: "Brenyah-Addow, Maurice" <Brenyah-Addow@oaklandnet.com >
Date: July 20, 2015 at 6:09:59 PM EDT
To: "Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com >
Subject: 3539 Calandria Ave
Hi Rachel,
Maurice Brenyah-Addow, MBA Planner III
8/16/2016
Page 146
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Emily Weinstein" <EW.Oakland@gmail.com>
"Adhi Nagraj" <nagrajplanning@gmail.com>
"Coleman, Michael" <michael@mbcarch.com>
"Jahmese Myres" <jmyres.oakplanningcommission@gmail.com>
"Jahaziel Bonilla" <jahazielbonillaoaklandpc@gmail.com>
"Moore, Jim" <jmoore.ocpc@gmail.com>
"Pattillo, Chris" <pattillo@pgadesign.com>
7/23/2015 2:43:01 PM
Re: IMPORTANT: Letter dated July 22, 2015
City Council Members

Planning Commission Member
Claudia Cappio
Assistant City Administrator
Tomiquia Moss
Mayors Chief of Staff
RE: error or abuse of discretion by B&P Director Flynn

We are appealing an "error or abuse of discretion" in Director Flynn's actions; including the written responses,
dated 7/14/2015, 7/17/2015 and letter received 7/21/2015.
3521 Calandria, multiple major, clear violations of OMC and CBC: 1700 days without correction granted by
Director Flynn. Neighboring property, 50 feet away.
3539 Calandria, 51 complaint contacts from Oakland employees in the last year! Multiple citations for blight,
all sustained by Director Flynn. (see attached pictures show what B&P staff consider a "blighted Property").
Dear Oakland Officials & Ms Cappio,
We are in receipt of your letter dated July 22, 2015; thank you. However, it appears we haven't been clear on what we're appealing or
why. Some of the facts cited in your letter are inconsistent with the record. As you will see by the references below, weve had
many contacts with B&P staff over the past year, including timely appeals. Director Flynn personally agreed to review our concerns
that the B&P staff were not properly following, applying, or interpreting the OMC. In a related complaint, 1101036, dated February
28, 2011, Director Flynn and B&P staff bent over backwards to accommodate the violator - 1700 days of extensions - so far (even
though OMC section 15, appears to limit the B&P Director to extensions not exceeding 365 days in total); plus all REQUIRED
fees and levies waived. We only requested similar consideration; and were subsequently told NO on July 14, 2015, "NO" again
on July 17, 2015 and "NO" again on July 21, 2015.
1) On May 15, 2015 Director Flynn sent us the following email:
8/16/2016
Page 147
...In the meantime, I am review ing the complaints filed against your property to see how w e can bring closure to these case(s). Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
2) regarding complaint 1501141, dated April 15, 2015: We filed an appeal, sent to Director Flynn and her staff, prior to the 30 time
limit.
May 8
>
3 of 4:
RE: N.O.V. 1501141 &
WE REQUEST N.O.V. 1501141 BE VOIDED AS ISSUED IN ERROR...
3) regarding complaint 1402519, dated July 24, 2014: We had extensive communication, phone conversations and meetings with
Inspector Barron, Supervisor Wilson and Building Official Sandercock, before the time limit expired. The Stop Work Order dated 9/
4/2014 was voided.
4) Director Flynn and her staff, at her direction, are showing benevolent favoritism to one property, while applying a harsh and very
narrow application of the OMC to a neighbor 50 feet away. The documents and photos we have to support our claim against
Director Flynn total more than 100 pages, so please allow me two brief examples:
5) benevolent favoritism 3521 Calandria. Walled off 1000 sq feet of City park, posted private property signs claiming exclusive
ownership, with a retaining wall 6' high. All without the required permits. Violations of multiple sections of the OMC & CBC.
Violation 1101036 issued FEBRUARY 2011. Multiple extensions totaling 1700 days. Violation remains uncorrected. Director
Flynn WAIVED ALL STATUTORY FEES AND LEVIES, even though OMC and violation order say they "SHALL" apply. OMC
appears to limit extensions to a maximum of 1 year.
6) harsh and very narrow application of the OMC to 3539 Calandria. (see picture) Permitted and permit exempt work. 51 city
employees responding to complaints in the last year. B&P have issued a Stop Work Order, 6 notice of violations, and multiple other
inspections, for "blight" regarding work in progress and construction material, and for specifically "permit exempt" work that the
OMC appears to permit.
7) from Oakland's website
Were here for you!

The City of Oakland is committed to delivering courteous, efficient and responsive services. We treat our
customers and employees with fairness, dignity and respect.
8)
Open Government Program

Implicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions... Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise
of official power and secrecy in the political process.
California Supreme Court
An email does not permit us to provide you with all the facts. An appeal to the City Council, goes first through the Planning
Commission, who submits recommendations to the City Council. This process allows for us to present all the facts regarding B&P
staff interpreting and applying the OMC. It is the City Council that drafted the various Oakland Ordinances, and is well placed
to review the conduct of B&P director Flynn.
8/16/2016
Page 148
Please allow us to appeal the error or abuse of discretion in Director Flynn's recent written finding.
Respectfully,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 149
8/16/2016
Page 150
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/23/2015 11:02:10 PM
8TH REQUEST
Claudia Cappio
Planning Commission Members
Tomiquia Moss
RE: We are appealing an "error or abuse of discretion" in Director Flynn's actions; including the written responses, dated 7/14/2015, 7/17/2015
and letter received 7/21/2015.
This is our 8th attempt to obtain the form and fee requirement to appeal multiple written rulings from the
Director of Building and Planning. You can see from the coorespondance below, Director Flynn's statements
that appeas were not timely are false. Might you be concerned that there other error and misstatements by
Director Fylnn?
Your prompt assistance is requested !
Michael & Siuzanne
SAMPLE EMAIL 1
Fl ynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com
May 15
>
HI Michael, ....
8/16/2016
Page 151
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
SAMPLE EMAIL 2
Sandercock, Deborah <DSandercock@
oaklandnet.com
>
9/29/14
to me
Mr. Hector,
Thank you,
Deborah Sandercock
SAMPLE EMAIL 3
9/27/14
>

Mr. Espinsoa,
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
SAMPLE EMAIL 4
8/16/2016
Page 152
May 8
>
3 of 4:
RE: N.O.V. 1501141 &


SAMPLE EMAIL 5
9/16/14
>
to me
without permit. According to your statement, this enclosure is temporary until you submit plans for your rear addition. An inspection to monitor this
has been scheduled by 11/21/14. Concerning the CMU retaining wall at rear yard of 3521 Calandria Av. I will coordinate with my supervisor Mr. Wilson
for follow up actions. Thanks. Hugo Barron, building inspector.
> wrote:

Claudia Cappio
Tomiquia Moss

We are appealing an "error or abuse of discretion" in Director Flynn's actions; including the written responses, dated 7/
14/2015, 7/17/2015 and letter received 7/21/2015.
3539 Calandria, 51 complaint contacts from Oakland employees in the last year! Multiple citations for blight, all
sustained by Director Flynn. (see attached pictures show what B&P staff consider a "blighted Property").
8/16/2016
Page 153
We are in receipt of your letter dated July 22, 2015; thank you. However, it appears we haven't been clear on what we're appealing or why.
Some of the facts cited in your letter are inconsistent with the record. As you will see by the references below, weve had many contacts
with B&P staff over the past year, including timely appeals. Director Flynn personally agreed to review our concerns that the B&P staff were
not properly following, applying, or interpreting the OMC. In a related complaint, 1101036, dated February 28, 2011, Director Flynn and
B&P staff bent over backwards to accommodate the violator - 1700 days of extensions - so far (even though OMC section 15, appears to limit
the B&P Director to extensions not exceeding 365 days in total); plus all REQUIRED fees and levies waived. We only requested similar
consideration; and were subsequently told NO on July 14, 2015, "NO" again on July 17, 2015 and "NO" again on July 21, 2015.
...In the meantime, I am reviewing the complaints filed against your property to see how we can bring closure to these case(s). Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
2) regarding complaint 1501141, dated April 15, 2015: We filed an appeal, sent to Director Flynn and her staff, prior to the 30 time limit.
May 8
>
3 of 4:
RE: N.O.V. 1501141 &
3) regarding complaint 1402519, dated July 24, 2014: We had extensive communication, phone conversations and meetings with Inspector
Barron, Supervisor Wilson and Building Official Sandercock, before the time limit expired. The Stop Work Order dated 9/4/2014 was voided.
4) Director Flynn and her staff, at her direction, are showing benevolent favoritism to one property, while applying a harsh and very narrow
application of the OMC to a neighbor 50 feet away. The documents and photos we have to support our claim against Director Flynn total
more than 100 pages, so please allow me two brief examples:
5) benevolent favoritism 3521 Calandria. Walled off 1000 sq feet of City park, posted private property signs claiming exclusive ownership,
with a retaining wall 6' high. All without the required permits. Violations of multiple sections of the OMC & CBC. Violation 1101036
issued FEBRUARY 2011. Multiple extensions totaling 1700 days. Violation remains uncorrected. Director Flynn WAIVED ALL
STATUTORY FEES AND LEVIES, even though OMC and violation order say they "SHALL" apply. OMC appears to limit extensions to a
maximum of 1 year.
inspections, for "blight" regarding work in progress and construction material, and for specifically "permit exempt" work that the OMC
appears to permit.
7) fromOakland's website
Were here for you!

The City of Oakland is committed to delivering courteous, efficient and responsive services. We treat our customers and
employees with fairness, dignity and respect.
8/16/2016
Page 154
8)

Implicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions... Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the
political process.
An email does not permit us to provide you with all the facts. An appeal to the City Council, goes first through the Planning Commission,
who submits recommendations to the City Council. This process allows for us to present all the facts regarding B&P staff interpreting and
applying the OMC. It is the City Council that drafted the various Oakland Ordinances, and is well placed to review the conduct of B&P
director Flynn.
Respectfully,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 155
From :
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/24/2015 9:14:35 AM
9th request
8TH REQUEST
> wrote:
Claudia Cappio
Planning Commission Members
Tomiquia Moss
RE: We are appealing an "error or abuse of discretion" in Director Flynn's actions; including the written responses, dated 7/14/2015, 7/17/2015
and letter received 7/21/2015.
This is our 8th attempt to obtain the form and fee requirement to appeal multiple written rulings from the
Director of Building and Planning. You can see from the coorespondance below, Director Flynn's statements
that appeas were not timely are false. Might you be concerned that there other error and misstatements by
Director Fylnn?
Your prompt assistance is requested !
Michael & Siuzanne
SAMPLE EMAIL 1
Fl y n n , R a c h e l <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com
May 15
>
HI Michael, ....
8/16/2016
Page 156
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
SAMPLE EMAIL 2
Sandercock, Deborah <D S a n d e r c o c k @
oaklandnet.com
>
9/29/14
to me
Mr. Hector,
field. Please send me the list of your unanswered questions and I will do my best to answer them. If possible, it is helpful if you can reference
which code you are referring to (i.e. Municipal, Building, Health and Safety, etc) and the section within the code so I can review the code language
which will assist me in answering your questions most accurately.
Thank you,
Deborah Sandercock
SAMPLE EMAIL 3
Mi chael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
9/27/14
>

Mr. Espinsoa,
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
SAMPLE EMAIL 4
8/16/2016
Page 157
Mi chael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
May 8
>
3 of 4:
RE: N.O.V. 1501141 &


SAMPLE EMAIL 5
9/16/14
>
to me
without permit. According to your statement, this enclosure is temporary until you submit plans for your rear addition. An inspection to monitor
this has been scheduled by 11/21/14. Concerning the CMU retaining wall at rear yard of 3521 Calandria Av. I will coordinate with my supervisor Mr.
Wilson for follow up actions. Thanks. Hugo Barron, building inspector.
> wrote:

Claudia Cappio
Tomiquia Moss

8/16/2016
Page 158
with B&P staff over the past year, including timely appeals. Director Flynn personally agreed to review our concerns that the B&P staff
were not properly following, applying, or interpreting the OMC. In a related complaint, 1101036, dated February 28, 2011, Director Flynn
and B&P staff bent over backwards to accommodate the violator - 1700 days of extensions - so far (even though OMC section 15, appears to
limit the B&P Director to extensions not exceeding 365 days in total); plus all REQUIRED fees and levies waived. We only requested similar
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
May 8
>
3 of 4:
RE: N.O.V. 1501141 &
problems w ith bureau of building inspection department (BBID); &
Barron, Supervisor Wilson and Building Official Sandercock, before the time limit expired. The Stop Work Order dated 9/4/2014 was
voided.
ownership, with a retaining wall 6' high. All without the required permits. Violations of multiple sections of the OMC & CBC. Violation
1101036 issued FEBRUARY 2011. Multiple extensions totaling 1700 days. Violation remains uncorrected. Director Flynn WAIVED
ALL STATUTORY FEES AND LEVIES, even though OMC and violation order say they "SHALL" apply. OMC appears to limit
extensions to a maximum of 1 year.
appears to permit.
Were here for you!

The City of Oakland is committed to delivering courteous, efficient and responsive services. We treat our customers
and employees with fairness, dignity and respect.
8)

political process.
8/16/2016
Page 159
director Flynn.
Respectfully,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 160
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/24/2015 10:28:40 AM
10th request to appeal Director's Flynn's apparent abuse of discretion.

Should City Council insist on Fairness in the application of the OMC?
Should the City Council hold Government (staff) accountable for their
actions?
Should the City Council permit checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power?
We've tried - unsuccessfully - for years to resolve our complaints through the system.
Please do the right thing, and permit a review of the conduct of B&P Director Flynn: remember, one property with multiple
violation 1700 days of extensions, all penalties waived. 50 feet away, the same staff refused all requests for reasonable
accommodation.
Sincerely,
3539 Calandria
Fl ynn, Rachel
<RFlynn
oaklandnet
.com
>
May 15

HI Michael, ....
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
SAMPLE EMAIL 2
8/16/2016
Page 161
Sandercock, Deborah <DSandercock
oaklandne
t.com
>
9/29/14
to me
Mr. Hector,
Thank you,
Deborah Sandercock
Claudia Cappio
Tomiquia Moss

with B&P staff over the past year, including timely appeals. Director Flynn personally agreed to review our concerns that the B&P staff were
not properly following, applying, or interpreting the OMC. In a related complaint, 1101036, dated February 28, 2011, Director Flynn and
B&P staff bent over backwards to accommodate the violator - 1700 days of extensions - so far (even though OMC section 15, appears to limit
the B&P Director to extensions not exceeding 365 days in total); plus all REQUIRED fees and levies waived. We only requested similar
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 162
May 8
Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com >

3 of 4:
RE: N.O.V. 1501141 &
5) benevolent favoritism 3521 Calandria. Walled off 1000 sq feet of City park, posted private property signs claiming exclusive ownership,
with a retaining wall 6' high. All without the required permits. Violations of multiple sections of the OMC & CBC. Violation 1101036
issued FEBRUARY 2011. Multiple extensions totaling 1700 days. Violation remains uncorrected. Director Flynn WAIVED ALL
STATUTORY FEES AND LEVIES, even though OMC and violation order say they "SHALL" apply. OMC appears to limit extensions to a
maximum of 1 year.
appears to permit.
7) fromOakland's website
Were here for you!

The City of Oakland is committed to delivering courteous, efficient and responsive services. We treat our customers and
employees with fairness, dignity and respect.
8)

political process.
director Flynn.
Respectfully,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 163
From :
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/24/2015 11:31:06 AM

If Director Flynn's actions were within the parameters of the OMC, Planning and Building codes, why has she worked so hard to
prevent our appeal to the City Council?
Waiting for reasonable people to make a reasonable decision...
Michael & Suzanne

3539 Calandria
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com

> wrote:

actions?
accommodation.
Sincerely,
3539 Calandria
Fl y n n , R a c h e l
<RFlynn
oaklandnet
.com
>
May 15

HI Michael, ....
8/16/2016
Page 164
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
SAMPLE EMAIL 2
Sandercock, Deborah <D S a n d e r c o c k
oaklandne
t.com
>
9/29/14
to me
Mr. Hector,
field. Please send me the list of your unanswered questions and I will do my best to answer them. If possible, it is helpful if you can reference
which code you are referring to (i.e. Municipal, Building, Health and Safety, etc) and the section within the code so I can review the code language
which will assist me in answering your questions most accurately.
Thank you,
Deborah Sandercock
Claudia Cappio
Tomiquia Moss

Rachel Flynn AIA
8/16/2016
Page 165
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
May 8
>
3 of 4:
RE: N.O.V. 1501141 &
Barron, Supervisor Wilson and Building Official Sandercock, before the time limit expired. The Stop Work Order dated 9/4/2014 was
voided.
ALL STATUTORY FEES AND LEVIES, even though OMC and violation order say they "SHALL" apply. OMC appears to limit
extensions to a maximum of 1 year.
appears to permit.
Were here for you!

8)

political process.
director Flynn.
Respectfully,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 166
8/16/2016
Page 167
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/24/2015 12:20:27 PM
12th request for form and fee to appeal to City Council - i n t e r e s t i n g u p d a t e - s o m e t h i n g i s r o t t e n i n p l a n n i n g . . .

Complaint 1101036, against 3521 Calandria from 2011, still uncorrected. Last entry into Oakland's automated, online tracking
system was June 2011: there is no record of our multiple subsequent complaints, additional city inspections or actions - nothing
for 53 months despite over 100 complaints from us about this uncorrected violation and multiple city reinspections and
extensions...
Complaint 1101035, against 3539 Calandria from 2011 - NO VIOLATION FOUND.

SOMEONE IN PLANNING ENTERED A "NOTICE" ON JULY 23, 2015,
"CONFIRM COMPLAINCE WITH DS150160"
Someone in Planning, LINKED THIS "NO VIOLATION" COMPLAINT FROM 53 MONTHS AGO, TO A RECENT
SMALL PROJECT DESIGN REVIEW THAT WAS APPROVED ON APRIL 30, 2015...
This is an example of why we're unhappy with Planning Director Flynn.
Regards,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
> wrote:
If Director Flynn's actions were within the parameters of the OMC, Planning and Building codes, why has she worked so hard to
prevent our appeal to the City Council?
Michael & Suzanne

3539 Calandria

> wrote:

actions?
8/16/2016
Page 168
accommodation.
Sincerely,
3539 Calandria
Flynn, Rachel
<RFlynn
oaklandnet
.com
>
May 15

HI Michael, ....
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
SAMPLE EMAIL 2
oaklandne
t.com
9/29/14
>
to me
Mr. Hector,
I have been getting updates from the inspector and was under the impression that the questions you had were either answered or resolved in
the field. Please send me the list of your unanswered questions and I will do my best to answer them. If possible, it is helpful if you can
reference which code you are referring to (i.e. Municipal, Building, Health and Safety, etc) and the section within the code so I can review the
code language which will assist me in answering your questions most accurately.
Thank you,
Deborah Sandercock
> wrote:

Claudia Cappio
Tomiquia Moss

We are appealing an "error or abuse of discretion" in Director Flynn's actions; including the written responses, dated
7/14/2015, 7/17/2015 and letter received 7/21/2015.
8/16/2016
Page 169
We are in receipt of your letter dated July 22, 2015; thank you. However, it appears we haven't been clear on what we're appealing or
why. Some of the facts cited in your letter are inconsistent with the record. As you will see by the references below, weve had many
contacts with B&P staff over the past year, including timely appeals. Director Flynn personally agreed to review our concerns that the
B&P staff were not properly following, applying, or interpreting the OMC. In a related complaint, 1101036, dated February 28, 2011,
Director Flynn and B&P staff bent over backwards to accommodate the violator - 1700 days of extensions - so far (even though OMC
section 15, appears to limit the B&P Director to extensions not exceeding 365 days in total); plus all REQUIRED fees and levies waived.
We only requested similar consideration; and were subsequently told NO on July 14, 2015, "NO" again on July 17, 2015 and
"NO" again on July 21, 2015.
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
May 8
>
3 of 4:
RE: N.O.V. 1501141 &
3) regarding complaint 1402519, dated July 24, 2014: We had extensive communication, phone conversations and meetings with
Inspector Barron, Supervisor Wilson and Building Official Sandercock, before the time limit expired. The Stop Work Order dated 9/4/
2014 was voided.
4) Director Flynn and her staff, at her direction, are showing benevolent favoritism to one property, while applying a harsh and very
narrow application of the OMC to a neighbor 50 feet away. The documents and photos we have to support our claim against Director
Flynn total more than 100 pages, so please allow me two brief examples:
ownership, with a retaining wall 6' high. All without the required permits. Violations of multiple sections of the OMC & CBC.
Violation 1101036 issued FEBRUARY 2011. Multiple extensions totaling 1700 days. Violation remains uncorrected. Director
Flynn WAIVED ALL STATUTORY FEES AND LEVIES, even though OMC and violation order say they "SHALL" apply. OMC
appears to limit extensions to a maximum of 1 year.
appears to permit.
Were here for you!

8/16/2016
Page 170
8)

Implicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions... Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in
the political process.
An email does not permit us to provide you with all the facts. An appeal to the City Council, goes first through the Planning
Commission, who submits recommendations to the City Council. This process allows for us to present all the facts regarding B&P staff
interpreting and applying the OMC. It is the City Council that drafted the various Oakland Ordinances, and is well placed to review the
conduct of B&P director Flynn.
Respectfully,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 171
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/24/2015 4:26:27 PM
13th request: Should the City Council and Planning Commission review Director Flynn for "abuse of discretion" and "arbitrary exercise
of official power"?
Allowing a private property claim of city owned land to go

uncorrected for 1700 days, with no records of additional complaints
or inspections; then to reopen a "no violation found" complaint
of the same age, on a property 50 feet away, because they
complained about the Director - looks like arbitrary exercise of
official power to me.....
regards,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
12th request for form and fee to appeal to City Council - interesting update - something is rotten in planning...
Complaint 1101036, against 3521 Calandria from 2011, still uncorrected. Last entry into Oakland's automated, online tracking system was
June 2011: there is no record of our multiple subsequent complaints, additional city inspections or actions - nothing for 53 months despite over
100 complaints from us about this uncorrected violation and multiple city reinspections and extensions...
Complaint 1101035, against 3539 Calandria from 2011 - NO VIOLATION FOUND.

SOMEONE IN PLANNING ENTERED A " N O T I C E " O N J U L Y 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ,
"CONFIRM COMPLAINCE WITH DS150160"
Someone in Planning, LINKED THIS "NO VIOLATION" COMPLAINT FROM 53 MONTHS AGO, TO A
RECENT SMALL PROJECT DESIGN REVIEW THAT WAS APPROVED ON APRIL 30, 2015...
This is an example of why we're unhappy with Planning Director Flynn.
Regards,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
> wrote:
If Director Flynn's actions were within the parameters of the OMC, Planning and Building codes, why has she worked so hard to prevent our
8/16/2016
Page 172
appeal to the City Council?
Michael & Suzanne

3539 Calandria
> wrote:

actions?
Please do the right thing, and permit a review of the conduct of B&P Director Flynn: remember, one property with multiple violation 1700
days of extensions, all penalties waived. 50 feet away, the same staff refused all requests for reasonable accommodation.
Sincerely,
3539 Calandria
Flynn, Rachel
<RFlynn
oaklandnet
.com
>
May 15

HI Michael, ....
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
SAMPLE EMAIL 2
oaklandne
t.com
9/29/14
>
to me
Mr. Hector,
I have been getting updates from the inspector and was under the impression that the questions you had were either answered or resolved in
the field. Please send me the list of your unanswered questions and I will do my best to answer them. If possible, it is helpful if you can
reference which code you are referring to (i.e. Municipal, Building, Health and Safety, etc) and the section within the code so I can review the
code language which will assist me in answering your questions most accurately.
Thank you,
Deborah Sandercock

8/16/2016
> wrote:
Page 173

Claudia Cappio
Tomiquia Moss

Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
May 8
Michael Hector <psmhector@gm ail.com
>
3 of 4:
RE: N.O.V. 1501141 &
8/16/2016
Page 174
ALL STATUTORY FEES AND LEVIES, even though OMC and violation order say they "SHALL" apply. OMC appears to limit extensions
to a maximum of 1 year.
appears to permit.
Were here for you!

The City of Oakland is committed to delivering courteous, efficient and responsive services. We treat our
customers and employees with fairness, dignity and respect.
8)

Implicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions... Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and
secrecy in the political process.
director Flynn.
Respectfully,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 175
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

"Moss, Tomiquia" <TMoss@oaklandnet.com>
7/25/2015 7:00:59 AM
Fwd: Public Records Request 9393: A response has been added to the request.
3539 calandria pictures.pdf
Ms Cappio, Asst City Admin,

Your 7/23/2015, letter deigning us the right to appeal our case to the city council was based on information you
received, from Director Flynn, that we had NOT raised our appeal timely. Hear is one of the email-chains that
prove that the data provided to you was knowingly false. This false information was provided by Director Flynn.
Your decision, on behalf of the City, refusing our appeal request, was based on lies. You can see that our
request, and Marie Tayor's (B&P manager), both cc'd Director Flynn.
Thank you for thoroughly investigating our request and confirming the information given to you was accurate.
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria

Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:10 AM
Subject: Fwd: Public Records Request 9393: A response has been added to the request.
To: "Taylor, Marie (Allene)" <MTaylor2@oaklandnet.com >, "Smith, Sandra M" <SSmith@oaklandnet.com
"Flynn, Rachel" <rflynn@oaklandnet.com >, "Low, Tim" <TLow@oaklandnet.com >, "Hunt,
Michael" <MHunt@oaklandnet.com >
>,
3rd request
Re: complaint 1501141 - 3539 Calandria
Ms. Taylor,
We request complaint / NOV 1501141 be marked as issued in error.
This duplicates previously resolved issues. We had and have open construction permits, so some construction
material is normal and expected. And, after all, the city took no action on a adjacent property violation for 1560
days...
please note approval gazebo 4/30/15
complaint 1402816, abated 7/21/14 - includes the shed / accessory structure issue. PLEASE NOTE: we had a
120 sq foot storage shed, that Mr. Baron wanted removed...
Also note Mr. Barons email to me dated September 16, 2014 - no violations
Regards,
Michael Hector
8/16/2016
Page 176
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: <publicrecordsrequest@oaklandnet.com>

Date: Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:50 AM
Subject: Public Records Request 9393: A response has been added to the request.
To: psmhector@gmail.com
You can view the request and take any necessary action at the following webpage: http://records.
oaklandnet.com/request/9393
You can always choose to unfollow
this request
if you don't want to receive more emails about it.
If you'd like to unsubscribe and stop receiving all emails from this application, click here
The City of Oakland

1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone Number: (510) 444-CITY
8/16/2016
Page 177
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/28/2015 2:01:30 PM
15th request
Ms. Cappio, asst city administrator;
We are still waiting for an explanation of the inaccurate statements contained in your letter of July 23,
2015. Speciffically, that we had failed to raise the issue of appeal within 30 days.
We provided you with emails from 4 B&P staff showing that we did raise the issue within the time prescribed.
Waiting for clarification,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 CAlandria
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Woo, Winnie <WWoo@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Thank you.
Winnie Woo
8/16/2016
Page 178
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/28/2015 4:17:34 PM
Fwd: IMPORTANT: Letter dated July 22, 2015
Claudia, As an FYI, the owner of record, Suzanne Clark (who the NOV's were issued to) never filed any
appeals. Instead, Michael Hector, her domestic partner, sent various emails to staff requesting that they be
"found to be issued in error".
Those emails are not appeals. Suzanne Clark was provided with our official appeal forms with each NOV. She
did not submit any.
T o : "Cappio, Claudia" <ccappio@oaklandnet.com >
Cc: "Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com >, "Simmons,
LaTonda" <LSimmons@oaklandnet.com >, "Illgen, Richard" <rillgen@oaklandnet.com >, "Hunt,
Michael" <MHunt@oaklandnet.com >, "Campbell Washington,
Annie" <acampbellwashington@oaklandnet.com >, <aguillen@oaklandnet.com >,
<ajones@oaklandnet.com >, <dbrooks@oaklandnet.com >, <dkalb@oaklandnet.com >, Emily
Weinstein <EW.Oakland@gmail.com >, michael hector <psmhector@gmail.com >, Suzy clark <
suzanneclark@rocketmail.com>, "Woo, Winnie" <wwoo@oaklandnet.com >
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: Letter dated July 22, 2015
15th request
We provided you with emails from 4 B&P staff showing that we did raise the issue within the time
prescribed.
Michael & Suzanne
3539 CAlandria
Thank you.
Winnie Woo
8/16/2016
Page 179
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/29/2015 11:46:44 AM
16th request
Please correct the facts in your letter of 7/23/2015. We provided proof that we were in contact with the following city staff regrading
our objections to complaints / notices of violation:
Ms. Sandercock,
Mr. Wilson
Mr. Barron,
Mr. Espinoza
Ms. Flynn,
Ms. Smith,
Ms. Taylor
Mr. Rameriz
Awaiting a reply,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
15th request
Michael & Suzanne
3539 CAlandria
Thank you.
Winnie Woo
8/16/2016
Page 180
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/30/2015 7:52:20 AM
17th request
A prompt reply, explaining the factual errors in your July 23, 2015 letter, would be the professional thing to do.
Regards,
Michael & Suzy
3539 Calandria
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
16th request
Please correct the facts in your letter of 7/23/2015. We provided proof that we were in contact with the following city staff
regrading our objections to complaints / notices of violation:
Ms. Sandercock,
Mr. Wilson
Mr. Barron,
Mr. Espinoza
Ms. Flynn,
Ms. Smith,
Ms. Taylor
Mr. Rameriz
Awaiting a reply,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
15th request
> wrote:

Michael & Suzanne
3539 CAlandria
Thank you.
Winnie Woo
8/16/2016
Page 181
8/16/2016
Page 182
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/31/2015 8:38:16 AM
18th request.....
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
17th request
A prompt reply, explaining the factual errors in your July 23, 2015 letter, would be the professional thing to do.
Regards,
Michael & Suzy
3539 Calandria
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com

16th request
> wrote:
Please correct the facts in your letter of 7/23/2015. We provided proof that we were in contact with the following city staff
regrading our objections to complaints / notices of violation:
Ms. Sandercock,
Mr. Wilson
Mr. Barron,
Mr. Espinoza
Ms. Flynn,
Ms. Smith,
Ms. Taylor
Mr. Rameriz
Awaiting a reply,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
15th request
> wrote:

We provided you with emails from 4 B&P staff showing that we did raise the issue within the time
prescribed.
Michael & Suzanne
3539 CAlandria
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Woo, Winnie <WWoo@oaklandnet.com
8/16/2016
> wrote:
Page 183
Thank you.
Winnie Woo
8/16/2016
Page 184
From:
To:

8/3/2015 6:48:40 AM
Date:
Subject:
19th request
> wrote:

Claudia Cappio
Tomiquia Moss

We are appealing an "error or abuse of discretion" in Director Flynn's actions; including the written
responses, dated 7/14/2015, 7/17/2015 and letter received 7/21/2015.
3521 Calandria, multiple major, clear violations of OMC and CBC: 1700 days without
correction granted by Director Flynn. Neighboring property, 50 feet away.
3539 Calandria, 51 complaint contacts from Oakland employees in the last year! Multiple citations
for blight, all sustained by Director Flynn. (see attached pictures show what B&P staff consider a
"blighted Property").
We are in receipt of your letter dated July 22, 2015; thank you. However, it appears we haven't been clear on what we're
appealing or why. Some of the facts cited in your letter are inconsistent with the record. As you will see by the
references below, weve had many contacts with B&P staff over the past year, including timely appeals. Director Flynn
personally agreed to review our concerns that the B&P staff were not properly following, applying, or interpreting the
8/16/2016
Page 185
OMC. In a related complaint, 1101036, dated February 28, 2011, Director Flynn and B&P staff bent over backwards to
accommodate the violator - 1700 days of extensions - so far (even though OMC section 15, appears to limit the B&P
Director to extensions not exceeding 365 days in total); plus all REQUIRED fees and levies waived. We only requested
similar consideration; and were subsequently told NO on July 14, 2015, "NO" again on July 17, 2015 and "NO" again on
July 21, 2015.
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
2) regarding complaint 1501141, dated April 15, 2015: We filed an appeal, sent to Director Flynn and her staff, prior to
the 30 time limit.
May 8
>
3 of 4:
RE: N.O.V. 1501141 &
BBID staff applying City procedures, rules, policies and the Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) in a questionable
manner.
3) regarding complaint 1402519, dated July 24, 2014: We had extensive communication, phone conversations and
meetings with Inspector Barron, Supervisor Wilson and Building Official Sandercock, before the time limit expired. The
Stop Work Order dated 9/4/2014 was voided.
4) Director Flynn and her staff, at her direction, are showing benevolent favoritism to one property, while applying a harsh
and very narrow application of the OMC to a neighbor 50 feet away. The documents and photos we have to support our
claim against Director Flynn total more than 100 pages, so please allow me two brief examples:
5) benevolent favoritism 3521 Calandria. Walled off 1000 sq feet of City park, posted private property signs claiming
exclusive ownership, with a retaining wall 6' high. All without the required permits. Violations of multiple sections of the
OMC & CBC. Violation 1101036 issued FEBRUARY 2011. Multiple extensions totaling 1700 days. Violation
remains uncorrected. Director Flynn WAIVED ALL STATUTORY FEES AND LEVIES, even though OMC and violation
order say they "SHALL" apply. OMC appears to limit extensions to a maximum of 1 year.
6) harsh and very narrow application of the OMC to 3539 Calandria. (see picture) Permitted and permit exempt
work. 51 city employees responding to complaints in the last year. B&P have issued a Stop Work Order, 6 notice of
violations, and multiple other inspections, for "blight" regarding work in progress and construction material, and for
specifically "permit exempt" work that the OMC appears to permit.
Were here for you!

The City of Oakland is committed to delivering courteous, efficient and responsive services. We treat
our customers and employees with fairness, dignity and respect.
8/16/2016
Page 186
8)

Implicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions... Such access permits checks against the arbitrary
exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process.
An email does not permit us to provide you with all the facts. An appeal to the City Council, goes first through the
Planning Commission, who submits recommendations to the City Council. This process allows for us to present all the
facts regarding B&P staff interpreting and applying the OMC. It is the City Council that drafted the various Oakland
Ordinances, and is well placed to review the conduct of B&P director Flynn.
Respectfully,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 187
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

8/4/2015 4:53:17 PM
Planning Submittal
DOC072015.pdf
ATT00001.htm
Hi Dave, What is the status of this submittal? Did we receive a survey? Thanks, Rachel
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Harlan, David
Before any building permits are issued, please discuss with Tim and Ed. There is an active CE case related to an illegally
built structure.
I believe the structure shown on the drawings is that illegal structure and may be over the property line on City-owned
parkland.
Thanks, Rachel
From: "Brenyah-Addow, Maurice" <Brenyah-Addow@oaklandnet.com >
Hi Rachel,
8/16/2016
Page 188
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

8/5/2015 11:14:15 AM
3539 Appeal Request
3539 Calandria Notice of Violation Complaint 1501141.pdf
From: Smith, Sandra M

To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: RE: Public Records Request 9393: A response has been added to the request.
Good Morning Rachel,

We have no record of a Violation Appeal filed. I attached a copy of the Notice of Violation.
From: Flynn, Rachel
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 8:03 AM
To: Smith, Sandra M
Subject: 3539 Appeal Request
Hi Sandi,
Can you check to see if the owner of 3539 Calandria, Suzy Clark, filed any appeals for the NOV's issued in 2015?
From: Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com <mailto:psmhector@gmail.com>>
Date: Wed, May 13, 201
To: "Taylor, Marie (Allene)" <MTaylor2@oaklandnet.com <"Smith, Sandra M" <SSmith@oaklandnet.com
Cc: Suzy clark <suzanneclark@rocketmail.com
Re: complaint 1501141 - 3539 Calandria
Ms. Taylor,
We request complaint / NOV 1501141 be marked as issued in error.
This duplicates previously resolved issues. We had and have open construction permits, so some construction material is
normal and expected. And, after all, the city took no action on a adjacent property violation for 1560 days...
please note approval gazebo 4/30/15
complaint 1402816, abated 7/21/14 - includes the shed / accessory structure issue. PLEASE NOTE: we had a 120 sq foot
storage shed, that Mr. Baron wanted removed...
Also note Mr. Barons email to me dated September 16, 2014 - no
8/16/2016
Page 189
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

8/6/2015 8:22:07 AM
RE: Planning Submittal
Rachel,
Still no building permit application submitted as of today.
A survey should be required as part of the application when it is submitted.
David Harlan
Engineering Manager
Bureau of Building
City of Oakland
(510) 238-6321
From: Flynn, Rachel
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 4:53 PM
To: Harlan, David
Hi Dave, What is the status of this submittal? Did we receive a survey? Thanks, Rachel
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Harlan, David
Before any building permits are issued, please discuss with Tim and Ed. There is an active CE case related to an illegally built
structure.
I believe the structure shown on the drawings is that illegal structure and may be over the property line on City-owned parkland.
Thanks, Rachel
From: "Brenyah-Addow, Maurice" <Brenyah-Addow@oaklandnet.com
8/16/2016
>
Page 190
Hi Rachel,
8/16/2016
Page 191
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

8/28/2015 2:15:15 PM
Asst. Cappio and Dir B&P Flynn
Ms. Landreth
Oakland City Administrator
We are experiencing problems with Building and Planning Director Flynn and your assistant Ms.
Cappio. Since you administer city staff and departments, we're requesting your assistance. We
seek a meeting of 20-30 minutes to show you documents, photos and emails
regarding our issues with your staff.
From Oakland's published Website: The City Administrator's Office has many responsibilities,
including:
Enforcing all laws, ordinances and policies of the Council
Fair and reasonable enforcement of all laws, ordinances and policies of the Council is our
objective..
PLEASE REVIEW THE ALAMEDA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORTS FOR 1999 AND 2011 citing abusive practices of Oakland's CEDA.
We are experiencing the same abuses in 2015, as previously verified by two Alameda Grand
Juries - 16 years and continuing....
1. Inconsistent application of the rules.
2. Retaliation.
3. Ineffective appeals process.
BACKGROUND:
a. We've paid for over 25 various permits for our Oakland properties over the past eight years,
8/16/2016
Page 192
including 15 for 3539 Calandria, the property at the center of this dispute.
b. We've had a "Letter of Agency" dated January 19, 2011, on file with Oakland since purchase;
Director Flynn unilaterally voided this on July 17, 2015.
c. 3521 Calandria, a neighboring property has open uncorrected violations from 2011 #1101036
- 1600 days without correction or enforcement by B&P staff. (walled of part of a city park and
posted it as his private property)
d. Someone in B&P reopened a closed "NO VIOLATION" complaint on July 23, 2015, for our
property from 2011 #1101035.
e. We've received 6 N.O.V.s in the last year because of complaints from the scofflaw at 3521
Calandria, for work and conditions permitted under OMC and CBC.
f. We met with Ms. Flynn and staff on July 8, 2015. Ms. Flynn issued a written ruling on 7/15
& 7/17/2015. We objected.
g. We requested to appeal Director Flynn's actions and ruling to the City Council, but the
process requires Ms. Flynn's consent - which she refused.
h. Your assistant Ms. Cappio, supported Director Flynn, and incorporated Ms. Flynn's incorrect
facts in her letter of refusal.
Succinctly: we are being hounded by B&P staff while neighboring properties are given a free
pass. Ms. Flynn is upset, because I criticized her and her staff for failing to enforce the rules on
N.O.V. 1101036 - for 4+ years. FYI: OMC section 15 & 17 say maximum compliance extension
1 year total; Director Flynn 4.5 years of extensions & all levies and fees associated with N.O.V.
1101036 waived by Director Flynn, even though OMC wording is "SHALL APPLY". All our
requests for similar consideration refused by Director Flynn.
We thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

3539 Calandria
Oakland 94605
8/16/2016
Page 193
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/1/2015 9:18:18 AM
Re: Asst. Cappio and Dir B&P Flynn
2nd request
meeting regarding problems with C. Cappio and R. Flynn.
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calaedria
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
Ms. Landreth
> wrote:
Cappio. Since you administer city staff and departments, we're requesting your
assistance. We seek a meeting of 20-30 minutes to show you documents, photos
and emails regarding our issues with your staff.
including:
objective..
8/16/2016
Page 194
2. Retaliation.
BACKGROUND:

3539 Calandria
Oakland 94605
8/16/2016
Page 195
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

9/1/2015 12:01:17 PM
RE: 3539 Calandria complaints
Hector ltr re appeal final 150722.docx
Hi Sabrina Mr. Hector remains at odds with the Building Department after years of notices, meetings and various other
communications. After a prolonged process, Rachael made a final determination he did not agree. I followed up with the
attached letter from City Administrators office he did not agree. Please let me know your desires on this I can write an email
or another letter for your signature however you would like to work. It is a timeliness issue after numerous notices of
violation. Im not sure if there is another approach that would work here I think Rachel has gone the mile. One missing piece
for me is what his intentions are does he want to fix the violations, sell the property, simply be heard out, etc.? Standard
practice dictates that some sort of remedial action plan is established with milestones for correction, etc. Obviously that was
not successful.
Rachel has recently indicated to me that his neighbors are concerned as well. Regards, C
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 9:18 AM
To: Landreth, Sabrina; Suzy clark; michael hector; Flynn, Rachel; Cappio, Claudia
Subject: Re: Asst. Cappio and Dir B&P Flynn
2nd request
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calaedria
Ms. Landreth
> wrote:
We are experiencing problems with Building and Planning Director Flynn and your assistant Ms. Cappio. Since you
administer city staff and departments, we're requesting your assistance. We seek a meeting of 20-30 minutes to
show you documents, photos and emails regarding our issues with your staff.
From Oakland's published Website: The City Administrator's Office has many responsibilities, including:
Fair and reasonable enforcement of all laws, ordinances and policies of the Council is our objective..
PLEASE REVIEW THE ALAMEDA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORTS FOR 1999 AND 2011 - citing
abusive practices of Oakland's CEDA.
We are experiencing the same abuses in 2015, as previously verified by two Alameda Grand Juries - 16 years and
continuing....
8/16/2016
Page 196

2. Retaliation.
BACKGROUND:
a. We've paid for over 25 various permits for our Oakland properties over the past eight years, including 15 for 3539
Calandria, the property at the center of this dispute.
b. We've had a "Letter of Agency" dated January 19, 2011, on file with Oakland since purchase; Director Flynn
unilaterally voided this on July 17, 2015.
c. 3521 Calandria, a neighboring property has open uncorrected violations from 2011 #1101036 - 1600 days
without correction or enforcement by B&P staff. (walled of part of a city park and posted it as his private
property)
d. Someone in B&P reopened a closed "NO VIOLATION" complaint on July 23, 2015, for our property from
2011 #1101035.
e. We've received 6 N.O.V.s in the last year because of complaints from the scofflaw at 3521 Calandria, for work
and conditions permitted under OMC and CBC.
f. We met with Ms. Flynn and staff on July 8, 2015. Ms. Flynn issued a written ruling on 7/15 & 7/17/2015. We
objected.
g. We requested to appeal Director Flynn's actions and ruling to the City Council, but the process requires Ms.
Flynn's consent - which she refused.
h. Your assistant Ms. Cappio, supported Director Flynn, and incorporated Ms. Flynn's incorrect facts in her letter of
refusal.
Succinctly: we are being hounded by B&P staff while neighboring properties are given a free pass. Ms. Flynn is
upset, because I criticized her and her staff for failing to enforce the rules on N.O.V. 1101036 - for 4+
years. FYI: OMC section 15 & 17 say maximum compliance extension 1 year total; Director Flynn 4.5 years of
extensions & all levies and fees associated with N.O.V. 1101036 waived by Director Flynn, even though OMC
wording is "SHALL APPLY". All our requests for similar consideration refused by Director Flynn.
3539 Calandria
Oakland 94605
8/16/2016
Page 197
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/2/2015 11:04:09 AM
Ms. Landreth
City Administrator
3rd request
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calaedria
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
2nd request
> wrote:

Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calaedria
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
Ms. Landreth
We are experiencing problems with Building and Planning Director Flynn and your assistant
Ms. Cappio. Since you administer city staff and departments, we're requesting your
including:
objective..
8/16/2016
Page 198
2. Retaliation.
BACKGROUND:

3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 199
Oakland 94605
8/16/2016
Page 200
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/3/2015 7:38:20 AM
4th request.
Ms. Landreth,
If I don't receive a response today, I'll just have to raise the question tonight at Oakland Safe Speaker series. I'll
bring a copy of the 1999 & 2011 Alameda Grand Jury report on problems with the Oakland Building Services
Inspectors.
Warm regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
Ms. Landreth
City Administrator
> wrote:
3rd request
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calaedria
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
2nd request
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calaedria
Ms. Landreth
We are experiencing problems with Building and Planning Director Flynn and your assistant
Ms. Cappio. Since you administer city staff and departments, we're requesting your
8/16/2016
Page 201
From Oakland's published Website: The City Administrator's Office has many
responsibilities, including:
objective..
2. Retaliation.
BACKGROUND:
8/16/2016
Page 202

3539 Calandria
Oakland 94605
8/16/2016
Page 203
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/3/2015 1:27:08 PM
RE: Asst. Cappio and Dir B&P Flynn
Mr. Hector,
Please note that my office is looking into the issue and will get back to you.
Thanks,
Sabrina
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 7:38 AM
4th request.
Ms. Landreth,
If I don't receive a response today, I'll just have to raise the question tonight at Oakland Safe Speaker series. I'll bring a copy
of the 1999 & 2011 Alameda Grand Jury report on problems with the Oakland Building Services Inspectors.
Warm regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Ms. Landreth
City Administrator
> wrote:
3rd request
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calaedria
2nd request
> wrote:

Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calaedria
Ms. Landreth
We are experiencing problems with Building and Planning Director Flynn and your assistant Ms. Cappio. Since you
administer city staff and departments, we're requesting your assistance. We seek a meeting of 20-30 minutes to
8/16/2016
Page 204
show you documents, photos and emails regarding our issues with your staff.
We are experiencing the same abuses in 2015, as previously verified by two Alameda Grand Juries - 16 years and
continuing....
2. Retaliation.
BACKGROUND:
a. We've paid for over 25 various permits for our Oakland properties over the past eight years, including 15 for 3539
Calandria, the property at the center of this dispute.
b. We've had a "Letter of Agency" dated January 19, 2011, on file with Oakland since purchase; Director Flynn
unilaterally voided this on July 17, 2015.
property)
2011 #1101035.
e. We've received 6 N.O.V.s in the last year because of complaints from the scofflaw at 3521 Calandria, for work
and conditions permitted under OMC and CBC.
f. We met with Ms. Flynn and staff on July 8, 2015. Ms. Flynn issued a written ruling on 7/15 & 7/17/2015. We
objected.
g. We requested to appeal Director Flynn's actions and ruling to the City Council, but the process requires Ms.
Flynn's consent - which she refused.
h. Your assistant Ms. Cappio, supported Director Flynn, and incorporated Ms. Flynn's incorrect facts in her letter of
refusal.
Succinctly: we are being hounded by B&P staff while neighboring properties are given a free pass. Ms. Flynn is
upset, because I criticized her and her staff for failing to enforce the rules on N.O.V. 1101036 - for 4+
years. FYI: OMC section 15 & 17 say maximum compliance extension 1 year total; Director Flynn 4.5 years of
extensions & all levies and fees associated with N.O.V. 1101036 waived by Director Flynn, even though OMC
wording is "SHALL APPLY". All our requests for similar consideration refused by Director Flynn.
8/16/2016
Page 205

3539 Calandria
Oakland 94605
8/16/2016
Page 206
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/8/2015 7:03:03 AM
Re: long term solutions, not quick fixes? Asst. Cappio and Dir B&P Flynn
Ms. Landreth,
San Jose Mercury News wrote you look for "long term solutions, not quick fixes". Our complaint
and request is simple: fair and reasonable application of the rules by Building and Planning for
everyone, with a clear path for independent review for complaints of City Staff misconduct. 16
years of the same problems with Building and Planning. Why? Lack of oversight. The city
Administrator is empowered to correct these long term problems.
OMC 2.29.090 ...The powers, functions, and duties of said Department shall be those assigned,
authorized, and directed by the City Administrator....
City Charter 504 (a) To execute and enforce all laws and ordinances and policies of the Council
and to administer the affairs of the City.
Please consider the following facts:

1. 1999 Alameda Grand Jury Report on problems with Oakland Building Planning.
2. 2011 Alameda Grand Jury Report on problems with Oakland Building Planning.
3. My problems with Oakland Building Planning 2014 - 2015.
all these involve more than 16 years of the same complaints of inconsistent application of the
OMC, retaliation, ineffective appeal process.
4. My neighbor at 3521 Calandria, has receivced 1700 days of extensions for Notice of Violation
(NOV) 1101036.
5. When I complained. We received seven NOV complaint investigations and a threatened stop
work order at 3539 Calandria - IN 12 MONTHS.
6. An NOV was issued to us on April 15, 2015. I immediately appealed to B & P staff. After
multiple written appeals, on May 15, 2015, Ms. Flynn wrote she would look into the complaints
against our property.
7. We had a hearing with B & P staff, including Director Flynn, on July, 8, 2015. Director Flynn's
hostility was apparent.
8. Director Flynn issued a written finding regarding the 7/8/15 hearing on 7/15/15. Director Flynn
ruled against all our complaints.
8/16/2016
Page 207
9. On 7/15/2015, I requested an extension of time on our already corrected April 15, 2015,
NOV. I wanted Director Flynn's reply for the record. I anticipared a negative response based on
Director's Flynn's demeanor at the 7/8/15 hearing and subsequent 7/15/15 ruling. Ms. Flynn was
consistent.
10. We have a noterized City Of Oakland Letter of Agency on file since January 2011. Ms.
Flynn, voided our Letter of Agency in her letter of July 17, 2015, and refused to accept any
communication from me as valid, even though I had handed all communication with B & P for 4
& 1/2 years.
11. On 7/18/15, I requested the form and fee to appeal the 7/15/15 ruling to the city council. The
form and fee must be provided by B & P. Director Flynn refused, claiming untimely
request. Your assistant Ms. Cappio repeated Ms. Flynn's position verbatim.
12. On July 23, 2015, someone in B & P reopened a closed, no violation found NOV from 2011,
and linked it to new planning approved construction project.
B & P acts as Judge, Jury, and Executioner, without oversight. Complaints result in retaliation. If
this were a complaint of Police misconduct, there would be a clear process for independent
review. But B & P, even though the have "police powers", they lack any oversight of intentional
misconduct.
Very unhappy on Calandria Ave.,

3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Landreth, Sabrina <SLandreth@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Mr. Hector,
Thanks,
Sabrina

4th request.
Ms. Landreth,
8/16/2016
Page 208
If I don't receive a response today, I'll just have to raise the question tonight at Oakland Safe Speaker
series. I'll bring a copy of the 1999 & 2011 Alameda Grand Jury report on problems with the Oakland Building
Services Inspectors.
Warm regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
> wrote:
Ms. Landreth
City Administrator
3rd request
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calaedria
> wrote:
2nd request
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calaedria
Ms. Landreth
8/16/2016
> wrote:
Page 209
seek a meeting of 20-30 minutes to show you documents, photos and emails regarding
our issues with your staff.
including:
objective..
We are experiencing the same abuses in 2015, as previously verified by two Alameda Grand Juries 16 years and continuing....
2. Retaliation.
BACKGROUND:
8/16/2016
Page 210
c. 3521 Calandria, a neighboring property has open uncorrected violations from 2011 #1101036 1600 days without correction or enforcement by B&P staff. (walled of part of a city park and posted it
as his private property)
f. We met with Ms. Flynn and staff on July 8, 2015. Ms. Flynn issued a written ruling on 7/15 & 7/17/
2015. We objected.
g. We requested to appeal Director Flynn's actions and ruling to the City Council, but the process
requires Ms. Flynn's consent - which she refused.
h. Your assistant Ms. Cappio, supported Director Flynn, and incorporated Ms. Flynn's incorrect facts
in her letter of refusal.
pass. Ms. Flynn is upset, because I criticized her and her staff for failing to enforce the rules on N.O.V.
1101036 - for 4+ years. FYI: OMC section 15 & 17 say maximum compliance extension 1 year total;
Director Flynn 4.5 years of extensions & all levies and fees associated with N.O.V. 1101036 waived
by Director Flynn, even though OMC wording is "SHALL APPLY". All our requests for similar
consideration refused by Director Flynn.

3539 Calandria
Oakland 94605
8/16/2016
Page 211
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

9/8/2015 5:14:02 PM
Re: phone call
letter of agency Jan 2011.pdf
Mr. Labayog,
Please note that my neighbors violation at 3521 Calandria, N.O.V., #1101036, did not receive any reinspections for 4
years! Thank you for this special treatment...
I've attached a scan of the January 2011 City Of Oakland Letter Of Agency, designating Michael Hector as Suzanne
Clark's authorized agent for 3539 Calandria renovations.
I've also attached a photo showing what I called a gazebo, and Ms. Flynn called an enclosed building, was dismantled.
WARNING: do not trespass on our property. We have two protective dogs and do not want a bite claim.
Regards,
Michael Hector
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Labayog, Edward <ELabayog@oaklandnet.com
> wrote:
I wanted to inform you as a courtesy that I am scheduling a re-inspection of your property this Friday, September 11 to verify if
the violations stated in case number 1501141 have been abated. Please refer to the letter dated July 17, 2015 from Rachel Flynn
where she stated that she will grant the legal owner Suzannet L. Clark an additional thirty (30) days from the date of the letter
(July 17,2015) to abate the violations or to submit a compliance plan that explains how the violations will be abated etc. for
review and approval. You can be present when I re-inspect If you want to show me around but Im sure I can see the violations
mentioned and verify abatement without trespassing on your property. Please review the letter from Ms. Flynn and let me
know if there are developments I am not aware of.
Edward J. Labayog
Sr. Specialty Combination Inspector
Building Bureau
(510) 238-4793
elabayog@oaklandnet.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 1:22 PM
To: Labayog, Edward; Suzy clark; michael hector
Subject: phone call
Mr. Labayog,
Response to your phone call. You did not say what you wanted or why you were calling other than NOV 1501141???
8/16/2016
Page 212
We prefer written communication, for clarity and the record.
Michael H
8/16/2016
Page 213
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/9/2015 6:10:13 AM
Re: phone call
Building and Planning - retaliation for complaints

Honorable Mayor Libby Shaaf,
I received a reply from city administrator, Ms. Landreth, last week - this week we're noticed for an
inspection. My neighbor at 3521 Calandria, did not receive any reinspections for 4+ years on violation
1101036.
HOW RACHEL FLYNN ENFORCES ALL LAWS ORDINANCES AND POLICIES OF THE
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL
Violation 1101036, 3521 Calandria:
multiple extensions totaling 1700 days.
ZERO REINSPECTIONS 1400 DAYS
Violation 1501141 3539 Calandria

inspections in 400 days
one extension for 30 days
2 reinspections in 130 days, 11 B & P
Your family has lived in Oakland for generations. Warts and all, is this unequal application of the law you
envision for the citizens of Oakland????
disappointed in oakland's leadership! FYI: I've attached a photo of our property so you can see the blighted
conditions - a picture being worth a 1000 words...
3539 Calandria
Oakland,
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Labayog, Edward <ELabayog@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
I wanted to inform you as a courtesy that I am scheduling a re-inspection of your property this Friday, September 11 to verify if
the violations stated in case number 1501141 have been abated. Please refer to the letter dated July 17, 2015 from Rachel Flynn
where she stated that she will grant the legal owner Suzannet L. Clark an additional thirty (30) days from the date of the letter
(July 17,2015) to abate the violations or to submit a compliance plan that explains how the violations will be abated etc. for
review and approval. You can be present when I re-inspect If you want to show me around but Im sure I can see the violations
mentioned and verify abatement without trespassing on your property. Please review the letter from Ms. Flynn and let me
know if there are developments I am not aware of.
Edward J. Labayog
Building Bureau
(510) 238-4793
8/16/2016
Page 214
From: Michael Hector [mailto:psmhector@gmail.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 1:22 PM
To: Labayog, Edward; Suzy clark; michael hector
Subject: phone call
Mr. Labayog,
Response to your phone call. You did not say what you wanted or why you were calling other than NOV 1501141???
We prefer written communication, for clarity and the record.
Michael H
8/16/2016
Page 215
8/16/2016
Page 216
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

9/10/2015 12:59:17 PM
RE: Last Inspection
3521 Calandria Ave inspection results Complaint 1501653.pdf
Yes.
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Smith, Sandra M
Subject: RE: Last Inspection
Thanks Sandi. Can you please send me the record of Greg Clarke going to the site?
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: RE: Last Inspection
Hi Rachel,
The last inspection was conducted by Greg Clarke, 05/19/15 and was closed as Non-Actionable. There is no record of Ed and
Marie going to the site.
From: Flynn, Rachel
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:16 PM
To: Smith, Sandra M
Subject: Last Inspection
Hi Sandi, Do you know when the last inspection was conducted at 3521 Calandria Avenue?
I seem to recall that Marie and Ed went there a few months ago. Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 217
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/11/2015 10:59:17 AM
5th request for a meeting...

Ms. Landreth,
It's been a week since you said you were looking into 16 YEARS of complaints of misconduct by Building and
Planning staff. You have the authority to direct city staff and fulfill the intent of City Council ordinances.
Awaiting your reply,
Respectfully,
3539 Calandria
Mr. Hector,
Thanks,
Sabrina

4th request.
Ms. Landreth,
Warm regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 218
> wrote:
Ms. Landreth
City Administrator
3rd request
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calaedria
> wrote:
2nd request
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calaedria
> wrote:
Ms. Landreth
including:
8/16/2016
Page 219
objective..
2. Retaliation.
BACKGROUND:
2015. We objected.
8/16/2016
Page 220


3539 Calandria
Oakland 94605
8/16/2016
Page 221
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/14/2015 2:12:30 PM
6th request for a meeting

Ms. Landredth,
In addition to my 6th request for a meeting regarding problems with Building and Planning Director R. Flynn, I've attached
a photo of 3500 Calandria, taken Friday 9/11/2015 about 2 pm. I'm not complaining about this property; I'm complaining
about building and planning and their targeting our property to the exclusion of all other violations.
On 9/11/2015 @ 1215, two B & P inspectors came and took multiple photos of our property located at 3539
Calandria. They also went right past 3500 and 3521 Calandria multiple times but took no photos of obvious violations in
clear public view.
B & P inspectors are so myopically focused on our property at the direction of Director Flynn, that they go right past clear
violations.
unhappy in Oakland,
Michael & Suzy
3539 Calandria
Ms. Landreth
Cappio. Since you administer city staff and departments, we're requesting your assistance. We seek a
meeting of 20-30 minutes to show you documents, photos and emails regarding our issues
with your staff.
8/16/2016
Page 222
We are experiencing the same abuses in 2015, as previously verified by two Alameda Grand Juries - 16
years and continuing....
2. Retaliation.
BACKGROUND:
a. We've paid for over 25 various permits for our Oakland properties over the past eight years, including 15
for 3539 Calandria, the property at the center of this dispute.
b. We've had a "Letter of Agency" dated January 19, 2011, on file with Oakland since purchase; Director
Flynn unilaterally voided this on July 17, 2015.
property)
2011 #1101035.
e. We've received 6 N.O.V.s in the last year because of complaints from the scofflaw at 3521 Calandria, for
work and conditions permitted under OMC and CBC.
2015. We objected.
g. We requested to appeal Director Flynn's actions and ruling to the City Council, but the process requires
Ms. Flynn's consent - which she refused.
h. Your assistant Ms. Cappio, supported Director Flynn, and incorporated Ms. Flynn's incorrect facts in her
letter of refusal.
Succinctly: we are being hounded by B&P staff while neighboring properties are given a free pass. Ms.
Flynn is upset, because I criticized her and her staff for failing to enforce the rules on N.O.V. 1101036 - for
4+ years. FYI: OMC section 15 & 17 say maximum compliance extension 1 year total; Director Flynn 4.5
years of extensions & all levies and fees associated with N.O.V. 1101036 waived by Director Flynn, even
though OMC wording is "SHALL APPLY". All our requests for similar consideration refused by Director
Flynn.

3539 Calandria
Oakland 94605
8/16/2016
Page 223
8/16/2016
Page 224
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/16/2015 3:44:01 PM
5/28/15 email @ 1240
Director Flynn,
I have a question regarding two documents you sent me as part of a public records request response.
1. An email from Sandra Smith to you dated 5/28/2015 @ 12:40
SUBJECT: 3521 Calandria reinspection notice.
4th section: "I will notify Diana to prepare the invoice to charge the reinspection fee of $2,045.00"
2. accompanying re-inspection notice for 3521 Calandria, in the amount of $2,045.00 - appears incomplete.
MY QUESTION: It does not appear from public records that a fee was ever assessed. Please clarify.
Thanks,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 225
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/16/2015 3:47:04 PM
Letter of Agency
Director Flynn,
Could you please clarify the code section for the "Letter of Agency" that your office uses? No one at City
Hall can seem to find any basis for its use.
Thank you,
Michael & Suzy
8/16/2016
Page 226
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

9/17/2015 8:29:30 AM
FW: owner and/or their authorized agent only
Letter of Agency code enforcement 2015.docx

In response to the authority for requesting the Letter of Agency the Oakland Municipal Code addresses Owner-Builder
authorization requirements as indicated below.
For Code Enforcement Administrative Appeals OMC 1.080.080 we utilize the Letter of Agency that is included in the appeal
notification to allow Persons other than attorneys representing an absent appellant must provide a notarized proxy before the
scheduled hearing authorizing their appearance on behalf of the appellant, provided in the procedures we follow for
Administrative Hearings.
From: Low, Tim

To: Smith, Sandra M
Subject: owner and/or their authorized agent only
All permits should be associated with owner and/or their authorized agent only.
OMC 15.04.035 - Application for permit.
Every permit and application for a permit shall contain the information required by California Health and Safety Code,
Division 13, Part 3, Chapter 9 , Section 19825.
A.
Agreement. Every permit shall also contain an agreement as follows which shall be executed by the permit holder as a
condition of issuance:
"I hereby agree to save, defend, indemnify and keep harmless the City of Oakland and its officials, officers, employees,
representatives, agents, and volunteers from all actions, claims, demands, litigation, or proceedings, including those for
attorneys' fees, against the City in consequence of the granting of this permit or from the use or occupancy of the public
right-of-way, public easement, or any sidewalk, street or sub-sidewalk or otherwise by virtue thereof, and will in all things
strictly comply with the conditions under which this permit is granted I further certify that I am the owner of the property
involved in this permit or that I am fully authorized by the owner to access the property and perform the work authorized by
this permit."
8/16/2016
Page 227
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

9/17/2015 10:50:12 AM
RE: Letter of Agency
Letter of Agency for Building Permits.pdf
Yes the form for permits is similar (attached).

From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Smith, Sandra M
Subject: Letter of Agency
Thanks Sandi. Do we also have a Letter of Agency for getting building permits?
For example, if someone comes in and says that they are authorized by the owner to get a permit, how do we know that? Is there
a form they have to fill out that is signed by the owner?
Thanks, Rachel
To: Flynn, Rachel
Cc: Low, Tim
Subject: FW: owner and/or their authorized agent only

In response to the authority for requesting the Letter of Agency the Oakland Municipal Code addresses Owner-Builder
authorization requirements as indicated below.
For Code Enforcement Administrative Appeals OMC 1.080.080 we utilize the Letter of Agency that is included in the appeal
notification to allow Persons other than attorneys representing an absent appellant must provide a notarized proxy before the
scheduled hearing authorizing their appearance on behalf of the appellant, provided in the procedures we follow for
Administrative Hearings.
From: Low, Tim

To: Smith, Sandra M
Subject: owner and/or their authorized agent only
All permits should be associated with owner and/or their authorized agent only.
A.
Agreement. Every permit shall also contain an agreement as follows which shall be executed by the permit holder as a
this permit."
8/16/2016
Page 228
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

9/17/2015 11:20:25 AM
FW:
Document.pdf
Maurice Brenyah-Addow, MBA Planner III | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa, Suite 2114 |Oakland, CA 94612 |
Phone: (510)238-6342 | Fax: (510) 238-4730 | Email: mbrenyah@oaklandnet.com
From: MBRENYAH@OAKLANDNET.COM [mailto:mbrenyah@oaklandnet.com]

Subject:
8/16/2016
Page 229
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

9/17/2015 11:20:35 AM
FW:
Document.pdf
Maurice Brenyah-Addow, MBA Planner III | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa, Suite 2114 |Oakland, CA 94612 |
Phone: (510)238-6342 | Fax: (510) 238-4730 | Email: mbrenyah@oaklandnet.com
From: MBRENYAH@OAKLANDNET.COM [mailto:mbrenyah@oaklandnet.com]

Subject:
8/16/2016
Page 230
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/17/2015 2:16:06 PM
Ms. Landreth,
Since you've been unwilling to respond to my pleas for assistance for several weeks, I will raise
these problems before the City Council at the 9/21/2015, council hearing at 4 pm, during the
open forum time.
I will reference and provide copies of:
a. the 1999 and
b. 2011 Alameda Grand Jury Findings of abuses in the Building and Planning Departments:
inconsistent application of the rules; retaliation for complaints; ineffective appeals process.
c. I will provide photos of our property which was cited multiple times in the last year under the
blight ordinance;
d. NOV 1101036, or neighbor's property, uncorrected for 4 & 1/2 years with multiple extensions
personally by B&P Director Flynn;
e. Director's Flynn's 7/17/2015 refusal to grant extensions to our 4/15/2015 NOV and refusal to
honor our letter of Agency filed with B&P.
f. I will provide Ms. Cappio's letter refusing an appeal because of untimely request;
g. copies of my multiple timely requests for appeal and
h. Building Official Sandercocks reply's and;
i. Director Flynn's 5/5/2015 email acknowledgement and agreement to look into our requests and
seek a resolution.
j. I will provide copies of the appeal from my neighbor, submitted two days late, but approved by
B&P on 3/18/2015.
k. I will provide a copy showing that someone in B&P accessed the City's records database on 7/
23/2015 and reopened a closed, no violation found NOV, 1101035 for our property and linked it
to a permit recently approved by B&P for our property.
I will ask the Council to adopt a resolution clarifying their intent that:
1. Building and Planning rules, regulations, and policies shall be applied uniformly in
neighborhoods.
2. Retaliation by B&P staff against property owners and their agents for making complaints is
against city policy.
3. There shall be a clear process for property owners and their agents to appeal adverse actions
to an independent 3rd party, such as the Planning commission or City Administrator.
4. The City Administrator is responsible for insuring The Director of Building and Planning
complies with #1-3.
8/16/2016
Page 231
5. Oakland should adopt the B&P appeal process in the CBC.
Respectfully,
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
Mr. Hector,
Thanks,
Sabrina

4th request.
Ms. Landreth,
Warm regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria

Ms. Landreth
City Administrator
3rd request

8/16/2016
> wrote:
Page 232
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calaedria
> wrote:
2nd request
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calaedria
> wrote:
Ms. Landreth
including:
objective..
8/16/2016
Page 233
2. Retaliation.
BACKGROUND:
2015. We objected.
8/16/2016
Page 234

3539 Calandria
Oakland 94605
8/16/2016
Page 235
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
"Merkamp, Robert" <RMerkamp@oaklandnet.com>

9/17/2015 2:59:12 PM
RE: Application
Basic Application w Specific Plan, 10-29-14.pdf
Here you go
Robert D. Merkamp, Development Planning Manager | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa, Suite 2214 | Oakland,
| Email: rmerkamp@oaklandnet.com
| Website: www.oaklandnet.com/
CA 94612 | Phone: (510) 238-6283 | Fax: (510) 238-4730
planning
From: Flynn, Rachel

Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 2:58 PM
To: Merkamp, Robert
Subject: Application
Hi Robert, Do you have a blank Basic Application for Development Review that you can e-mail to me? Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 236
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

9/17/2015 4:35:42 PM
3539 Calandria Dr Design Review Approval April 2015.pdf
Hi Rachel,
I found the copy of the Design Review Approval Letter but it is unsigned. I will talk with Scott and Robert tomorrow to provide
further information. If he was issued a Building Permit the Letter of Agency would be attached and there is no permit. We also do
not have a record of a Violation Appeal submitted so no Letter of Agency was provided to the property owner.
I will get back to you tomorrow after talking with Scott and Robert.
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Smith, Sandra M
Hi Sandi See Michael Hectors e-mail below. Does he have a Letter of Agency filed with Building & Planning? Thanks, Rachel
To: Landreth, Sabrina
Cc: Suzy clark; Flynn, Rachel; Cappio, Claudia; michael hector; Hunt, Michael
Ms. Landreth,
a. Director's Flynn's 7/17/2015 refusal to grant extensions to our 4/15/2015 NOV and refusal to honor our Letter of
Agency filed with B&P.
8/16/2016
Page 237
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

9/17/2015 6:15:20 PM
Document.pdf
Document (1).pdf
Sandi, Attached are pages 1 and 2 of the Basic Application for Development Review that Michael Hector filled out and signed.
However, I still cannot find any Letter of Agency related to 3539 Calandria Avenue. Does the Building side of the house have any
Letter of Agency on file? Thanks, Rachel
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: RE: Letter of Agency
Hi Rachel,
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Smith, Sandra M
Ms. Landreth,
8/16/2016
Page 238
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

9/18/2015 10:50:46 AM
3539 Calandria Building permit RB1300709.pdf
Hi Rachel,
I checked all of the records for 3539 Calandria Ave. and we found one Letter of Agency for a permit issued in 2013 (copy
attached). The Letter of Agency is valid for 180 days and for the described work. We dont have a current record on file of a Letter
of Agency for a Building Permit and we have not received a Violation Appeal or Billing Appeal to schedule an Administrative
Hearing which would include a Letter of Agency form for the property owner.
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Smith, Sandra M
To: Flynn, Rachel
Hi Rachel,
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Smith, Sandra M
Ms. Landreth,
8/16/2016
Page 239
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/21/2015 8:02:27 AM
Yes, right under the title, Letter of Agency for Property Owners.
From: Flynn, Rachel
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 9:20 PM
To: Smith, Sandra M
Thanks Sandi. Do you know where it says that the Letter of Agency is valid for only 180 days?
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 10:51 AM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Hi Rachel,
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Smith, Sandra M
To: Flynn, Rachel
Hi Rachel,
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Smith, Sandra M
Ms. Landreth,
8/16/2016
Page 240
8/16/2016
Page 241
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/21/2015 1:08:20 PM
city council Sept 21, 2015 open forum - problems with Building and Planning
Ms Landreth, et al,
Below are the remarks I'll be making today at the 4:00 PM council hearing.
Regards,
Michael Hector
Members of the City Council and city staff:
My name is Michael Hector, my wife, Suzanne Clark and I reside at 3539 Calandria, Oakland, 94605 district 5.
There are significant problems with Building and Planning code enforcement inspectors, procedures and
the Director, Rachel Flynn. The problems are not new - theyve been going on more than 20 years. Ive
tried to appeal through the system, but it requires the B & P Directors approval, which she refused. I
contacted the City Administrators office, but they rubber stamped B&P refusal. The Mayors office
is non responsive. The City Council is my only hope...
(pictures of property)
email from Director Flynn,
letter from Cappio
I ask permission to submit the following request and supporting facts to the City Council:
That the Oakland City Council to adopt a resolution clarifying their intent in the Oakland Municipal
Code:
neighborhoods.
2. Retaliation by B&P staff against property owners and their agents for making complaints is against
city policy.
3. There shall be a clear process for property owners and their agents to appeal adverse actions to the
Planning commission.
4. The City Administrator is responsible for insuring The Director of Building and Planning complies
with #1-3.
8/16/2016
Page 242
SUPPORTING FACTS:
a. 1999 Alameda Grand Jury Findings of abuses in the Building and Planning Departments: inconsistent
application of the rules; retaliation for complaints; ineffective appeals process.
b. 2011 Alameda Grand Jury Findings of abuses in the Building and Planning Departments: inconsistent
application of the rules; retaliation for complaints; ineffective appeals process.
c. photos of our property which was cited multiple times in the last year under the blight ordinance;
e. Director's Flynn's 7/17/2015 refusal to grant extensions to our 4/15/2015 NOV and refusal to honor
our letter of Agency filed with B&P.
i. Director Flynn's 5/5/2015 email acknowledgement and agreement to look into our requests and seek
a resolution.
j. I will provide copies of the appeal from my neighbor, submitted two days late, but approved by B&P
on 3/18/2015.
k. I will provide a copy showing that someone in B&P accessed the City's records database on 7/23/
2015 and reopened a closed, no violation found NOV, 1101035 for our property and linked it to a
permit recently approved by B&P for our property.
Respectfully,
3539 Calandria, Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 243
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Merriouns, Iris" <ILMerriouns@oaklandnet.com>
9/21/2015 5:45:06 PM
Re: city council Sept 21, 2015 open forum - problems with Building and Planning
1 of 9 regarding problems with Building and Planning and Director Rachel Flynn
Iris,
Thank you for speaking with me today. The coal protesters occupied the council chambers, so I
couldn't get in. I'll try the next council meeting - I show September 30 @ 5:30 PM, is that
correct?
regards,
Michael HEctor & Suzanne Clark
3539 Calandria, Oakland 94605
415-971.1133
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
Ms Landreth, et al,
Below are the remarks I'll be making today at the 4:00 PM council hearing.
Regards,
Michael Hector
Members of the City Council and city staff:
My name is Michael Hector, my wife, Suzanne Clark and I reside at 3539 Calandria, Oakland, 94605 district 5.
There are significant problems with Building and Planning code enforcement inspectors, procedures
and the Director, Rachel Flynn. The problems are not new - theyve been going on more than 20
years. Ive tried to appeal through the system, but it requires the B & P Directors approval, which she
refused. I contacted the City Administrators office, but they rubber stamped B&P refusal. The
Mayors office is non responsive. The City Council is my only hope...
(pictures of property)
email from Director Flynn,
letter from Cappio
I ask permission to submit the following request and supporting facts to the City Council:
8/16/2016
Page 244
That the Oakland City Council to adopt a resolution clarifying their intent in the Oakland Municipal
Code:
neighborhoods.
2. Retaliation by B&P staff against property owners and their agents for making complaints is
against city policy.
3. There shall be a clear process for property owners and their agents to appeal adverse actions to
the Planning commission.
4. The City Administrator is responsible for insuring The Director of Building and Planning complies
with #1-3.
SUPPORTING FACTS:
a. 1999 Alameda Grand Jury Findings of abuses in the Building and Planning Departments:
b. 2011 Alameda Grand Jury Findings of abuses in the Building and Planning Departments:
c. photos of our property which was cited multiple times in the last year under the blight ordinance;
e. Director's Flynn's 7/17/2015 refusal to grant extensions to our 4/15/2015 NOV and refusal to
honor our letter of Agency filed with B&P.
i. Director Flynn's 5/5/2015 email acknowledgement and agreement to look into our requests and
seek a resolution.
j. I will provide copies of the appeal from my neighbor, submitted two days late, but approved by B&P
on 3/18/2015.
k. I will provide a copy showing that someone in B&P accessed the City's records database on 7/23/
2015 and reopened a closed, no violation found NOV, 1101035 for our property and linked it to a
permit recently approved by B&P for our property.
8/16/2016
Page 245
Respectfully,
3539 Calandria, Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 246
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/21/2015 5:53:46 PM
problems with building & Planning
Iris,
Thank you for speaking with me today. These are the pictures of our property - 7 citations from building and
planning for blight.
regards,
415-971.1133
8/16/2016
Page 247
8/16/2016
Page 248
8/16/2016
Page 249
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"City Administrator's Office" <CityAdministratorsOffice@oaklandnet.com>
"City Administrator's Office" <CityAdministratorsOffice@oaklandnet.com>
"Ranelletti, Darin" <DRanelletti@oaklandnet.com>
"Sandercock, Deborah" <DSandercock@oaklandnet.com>
9/21/2015 6:05:39 PM
Re: 99 communications on ENFORCEMENT of complaint 1101036 - still no clear answer
Iris,
Thank you for speaking with me today.
This is a sample of the daily emails I was sending to Director Flynn, to maintain pressure on her
and her office to enforce violations against my neighbor. This is why director Flynn is angry and
retaliating against me today.
regards,
415-971.1133
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
Director Flynn,
> wrote:
Is the building and planning department going to enforce complaint 1101036, as

stated in the Notice To Abate dated February 28, 2011?
This is not a difficult question: The property owners at 3521 Calandria have taken a
portion of City land, laid claim to it, marked city land as their private property and
walled it off with a 6'+ high masonry retaining wall - all WITHOUT THE REQUIRED
PERMITS.
This is our
77th
email since April 24, 2015; my 99th communication since
February 2011 on enforcement of complaint 1101036. We've been waiting one

8/16/2016
Page 250
thousand five hundred and twenty two days - 1 , 5 2 2 days for enforcement! We still have not
received a definitive response.
The inability to receive a clear, prompt answer is silly.
Regards,
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 251
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/21/2015 6:13:05 PM
Re: 17.01.080 B appeal to city council
Iris,
Thank you for speaking with me today.
This is the email where Director Flynn refuses our request for an appeal based on time
expiring. Ms. Cappio rubber stamped this on 7/22/2015 in her refusal. Niether address Director
Flynn's April and May 2015 emails where she agreed to look into our complaints of inconsistent
application of the rules.
Niether Ms. Flynn of Ms Cappio address the fact that we wanted to appeal director Flynn's
7/15/2015 & 7/17/2015 rulings regarding the July 8, 2015 meeting held at planning.
regards,
415-971.1133
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Case # 1302254 04/26/2013

Case # 1305434 11/05/2013
Case # 1402816 07/24/2014
Case # 1501141 04/15/2015

You have a right to appeal this Notice of Violation. You must complete the enclosed Appeal form and return it with
supporting documentation in the enclosed envelope. If the Code Enforcement Division does not receive your written Appeal
within 30 days of the date of this notice, you will waive your right for administrative review.
8/16/2016
Page 252

Winnie
Rachel,
Regards,
Michael Hector

shall be filed with the City Clerk. The appeal shall state specifically wherein it is claimed there was an error or
abuse of discretion by the Planning Director or wherein his or her decision is not supported by the evidence in the
record. Upon receipt of such appeal, the Council shall set the date for consideration thereof. After the hearing date is
set, the Planning Director shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission for its review and advice. The Planning
Commission shall consider the matter at its next available meeting. Such referral shall be only for the purpose of issue
clarification and advice to the City Council. The City Clerk shall not less than seventeen (17) days prior to the Council
hearing, give written notice of the date and place of the hearing on the appeal to the applicant; the appellant in those
cases where the applicant is not the appellant; adverse party or parties, or to the attorney, spokesperson, or
representative of such party or parties; other interested groups and neighborhood associations who have requested
notification; and to similar groups and individuals as the Secretary deems appropriate. In considering the appeal, the
Council shall determine whether the proposal conforms to the provisions of Subsection 17.01.120.C., and may approve
or disapprove the proposed determination. The decision of the City Council shall be made by resolution and shall be
final.
8/16/2016
Page 253
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/21/2015 6:18:39 PM
Re: 3521 calandria finding #1101036
9 of 9
Iris,
This is the kicker - Director Flynn's email agreeing to review our complaints. Then she became angry.
In the meantime, I am reviewing the complaints filed against

your property to see how we can bring closure to these
case(s). Thanks, Rachel
Thanks for listening,
Michael & Suzy
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
HI Michael, I have a call into Taylor Heanue to discuss the letter dated March 23, 2011. Thanks for sending this. The only
number I have is 415-990-2275 (Taylors cell). If you have other numbers, please forward them on.
In the meantime, I am reviewing the complaints filed against your property to see how we can bring closure to these
case(s). Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229

Cc: Flynn, Rachel; Smith, Sandra M; Low, Tim; Labayog, Edward; Suzy clark; michael hector
Subject: 4th request: seven questions - 3521 calandria finding #1101036
8/16/2016
Page 254
4th request
Ms. Taylor,
In your May 8 email you made four statements / conclusions that I don't comprehend.
Mr. Hector,
re: Complaint #1101036,
1. it has been determined that the owners of 3521 Calandria Ave. are not responsible
for the wall
2. The new owners cannot be held responsible for something they did not purchase.
3. The wall does not appear to be failing

4. or to any danger to anyone.
Since I don't understand how you reached your conclusions, I have a few questions.
1. How did you reach the conclusion that the Heanues did not purchase the wall in question?
2. If you possess some document that disavows the Heanues ownership claim to the
wall in question, I would appreciate a copy.
3. Why did you disregard the Heanues letter of March 2011 (see attached), where they
accepted ownership and responsibility for the 2011 violation?
4. Please reference the section of the OMC or CBC, or California Statute / code that supports your
conclusion that a property owner is not responsible for prior violations?
5. You said the wall is not failing. The wall is cracked top to bottom and has gaps and movement in
three separate locations. The largest gap is 6.5". The wall is out of plumb 11 degrees. (sse
pics) How are you defining failure / failing / failed etc?
8/16/2016
Page 255
6. Heanue retaining wall NOT a danger? The Heanues have a two year old son; the property owners
at 3500 & 3529 have 10 year old boys that play in the park near and around the Heanue retaining
wall. I walk my dogs in the park near and around this wall that is cracked and leaning ON PUBLIC
PROPERTY. Trip / fall hazard. collapse hazard in or after heavy rain / earth quake. Most quake
injuries occur from falling / failing unreinforced masonry. HOW DID YOU DETERMINE NO DANGER
TO ANYONE?
6. If the wall is not owned by the Heanues, it is abandon property or waste dumped on city land?
Awaiting your detailed reply.
Regards,
Michael hector
8/16/2016
Page 256
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/21/2015 7:48:04 PM
Re: Letter of Agency
10 of 10 building and planning

Iris,
I asked Director Flynn about the "letter of Agency" used by building and planning. Director Flynn never
responded.
Thanks
Michael Hector
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
Director Flynn,
> wrote:
Thank you,
Michael & Suzy
8/16/2016
Page 257
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

9/21/2015 8:38:53 PM
Letter of Agency
For Building Permits, all permits should be associated with owner and/or their authorized agent only.
Every permit and application for a permit shall contain the information required by California Health and Safety Code, Division
13, Part 3, Chapter 9 , Section 19825.
A. Agreement. Every permit shall also contain an agreement as follows which shall be executed by the permit holder as a
attorneys' fees, against the City in consequence of the granting of this permit or from the use or occupancy of the public right-ofway, public easement, or any sidewalk, street or sub-sidewalk or otherwise by virtue thereof, and will in all things strictly comply
with the conditions under which this permit is granted I further certify that I am the owner of the property involved in this permit
or that I am fully authorized by the owner to access the property and perform the work authorized by this permit."
For Code Enforcement Administrative Appeals, OMC 1.080.080, we utilize the Letter of Agency, that is included with the appeal
notification. It states, Persons other than attorneys representing an absent appellant must provide a notarized proxy, before the
scheduled hearing, authorizing their appearance on behalf of the appellant.
Also, your Letter of Agency (see attached), dated 7-22-13 expired in January 2014. Please note that under the title, LETTER OF
AGENCY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS, it states, VALID UP TO 180 DAYS

Director Flynn,
> wrote:
Could you please clarify the code section for the "Letter of Agency" that your office uses? No one at City Hall can seem to
find any basis for its use.
Thank you,
Michael & Suzy
8/16/2016
Page 258
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

9/21/2015 10:12:24 PM
Director Flynn,
Thank you for your reply. Suzanne and I are willing to drop our complaints to the City Council if your willing to
return to a more positive communication in keeping with your May 15, 2015, email.
"In the meantime, I am reviewing the complaints filed against your property to see how we can bring closure to
these case(s). Thanks, Rachel"
I've attached the January 2011 "letter of agency" filed with B & P: it does not contain a 180 day expiration.
Regardless, Michal Hector is listed as an authorized agent in multiple places in the documents you
attached. The documents you attached are to remove a garage and create a patio; the gazebo is not
mentioned. Michael Hector had many communications with B&P staff between 2011 and July 2015, including
several with you. Considering that B&P personnel failed multiple times over 4+ years to enforce violation
1101036, and the still unexplained May 5, 2015, finding of your assistant, Marie Taylor, Michael Hector's
daily persistence in seeing the rules were equally applied to all, appears justified...
You personally granted the Heanues two additional extensions through October 15, 2015, and waived all
statutory fees. Yet your July 17, 2015, states "No extensions for Michael hector"; Your actions appear bias,
and an unequal application of the OMC.
When I received our approval from planning to permit what we call our "gazebo" at the end of April 2015, (DS150160), consultation with Building counter staff and the duty Engineer made it clear the existing design would not
pass current code. So ,I immediately removed the roof and patio sliding glass doors which constituted the
"walls"; no point in leaving it standing when the design was not acceptable to current standards. This is a
difference between Mr Hector and Mr Heanue: Mr. Hector complies promptly, within the noticed initial time
frame.
The July request for an extension was just to demonstrate your apparent animosity and bias against Suzanne
Clark and Michael Hector that you showed at the July 8, 2015 hearing held at your office. You did not
disappoint. The B&P staff altered closed complaints on 7/23/2015. Appears retaliatory.
can bring closure to these case(s). ? Yes we can - if your willing to be fair.
Taylor Heanue, the person to avoided complying with violation 1101036 for almost 5 years, is behind these
complaints. The interpretation of what is blight is... petty... I don't think that's what the city council had in
mind. Did you notice that B&P approved Taylor's appeal on the September 2014 NOV, on March 18, 2015. Then
Taylor, feeling embolden, is behind our house of 4/3/15 & 0730. Your inspector shows up on 4/6/15. Did you
notice that Taylor's appeal was two days late? Neither Taylor or your inspectors reference the February 2011
violation or March 23, 2011 letter from the Heanues to be responsible for removing the wall?????
You and your staff repeatedly interpreted the rules in the Heanues favor - for years. As a matter of fairness, in
consideration for all we've been through, and the multiple lapses in your department over several years, please
mark the requested NOV's no violation found or issued in error. Four + years of the rules going in the Heanues
favor. We want one NOV marked in error for each of those years. 4 NOV's marked in error or no violation. Our
request is that simple. This will bring closure.
8/16/2016
Page 259
Thanks for your time,

Michael & Suzy
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com
> wrote:

attorneys' fees, against the City in consequence of the granting of this permit or from the use or occupancy of the public rightof-way, public easement, or any sidewalk, street or sub-sidewalk or otherwise by virtue thereof, and will in all things strictly
comply with the conditions under which this permit is granted I further certify that I am the owner of the property involved in
this permit or that I am fully authorized by the owner to access the property and perform the work authorized by this permit."
notification. It states, Persons other than attorneys representing an absent appellant must provide a notarized proxy, before
the scheduled hearing, authorizing their appearance on behalf of the appellant.
> wrote:
Director Flynn,
Thank you,
Michael & Suzy
8/16/2016
Page 260
8/16/2016
Page 261
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

9/22/2015 9:05:33 AM
Letter of Agency
Hi Sandi, Can you please add this to our files? It does not have the 180 day expiration listed, but does it go with a particular
permit? I couldnt find it on the Letter of Agency. Thanks, Rachel
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:12 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel; Merriouns, Iris; Reid, Larry
Cc: Suzy clark
Subject: Re: Letter of Agency
Director Flynn,
Regardless, Michal Hector is listed as an authorized agent in multiple places in the documents you attached. The documents
you attached are to remove a garage and create a patio; the gazebo is not mentioned. Michael Hector had many
communications with B&P staff between 2011 and July 2015, including several with you. Considering that B&P personnel
failed multiple times over 4+ years to enforce violation 1101036, and the still unexplained May 5, 2015, finding of your
assistant, Marie Taylor, Michael Hector's daily persistence in seeing the rules were equally applied to all, appears justified...
8/16/2016
Page 262
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/22/2015 11:05:58 AM
Hi Rachel,
We found that the Letter of Agency provided by Mr. Hector was issued for a Certificate of Compliance CC130057 to certify that
the subdivision was in compliance.
The Building Permit issued for the remodel work Permit RB1100335 expired 4/1/12 and a Completion Permit #RB1300904 is
also expired (the last inspection was 4/14/14).
Tim said the form provided by Mr. Hector was revised in 2011.
We will scan the copy you provided for our records.
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 10:51 AM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Hi Rachel,
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Smith, Sandra M
To: Flynn, Rachel
Hi Rachel,
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Smith, Sandra M
Ms. Landreth,
8/16/2016
Page 263

8/16/2016
Page 264
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/23/2015 10:10:28 PM
2nd request
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
Director Flynn,
> wrote:
Thank you for your reply. Suzanne and I are willing to drop our complaints to the City Council if your willing to
return to a more positive communication in keeping with your May 15, 2015, email.
mentioned. Michael Hector had many communications with B&P staff between 2011 and July 2015, including
several with you. Considering that B&P personnel failed multiple times over 4+ years to enforce violation
1101036, and the still unexplained May 5, 2015, finding of your assistant, Marie Taylor, Michael Hector's
daily persistence in seeing the rules were equally applied to all, appears justified...
statutory fees. Yet your July 17, 2015, states "No extensions for Michael hector"; Your actions appear bias,
and an unequal application of the OMC.
When I received our approval from planning to permit what we call our "gazebo" at the end of April 2015,
(DS15-0160), consultation with Building counter staff and the duty Engineer made it clear the existing design
would not pass current code. So ,I immediately removed the roof and patio sliding glass doors which
constituted the "walls"; no point in leaving it standing when the design was not acceptable to current
standards. This is a difference between Mr Hector and Mr Heanue: Mr. Hector complies promptly, within the
noticed initial time frame.
The July request for an extension was just to demonstrate your apparent animosity and bias against Suzanne
Clark and Michael Hector that you showed at the July 8, 2015 hearing held at your office. You did not
disappoint. The B&P staff altered closed complaints on 7/23/2015. Appears retaliatory.
mind. Did you notice that B&P approved Taylor's appeal on the September 2014 NOV, on March 18,
2015. Then Taylor, feeling embolden, is behind our house of 4/3/15 & 0730. Your inspector shows up on 4/
6/15. Did you notice that Taylor's appeal was two days late? Neither Taylor or your inspectors reference the
February 2011 violation or March 23, 2011 letter from the Heanues to be responsible for removing the wall????
?
You and your staff repeatedly interpreted the rules in the Heanues favor - for years. As a matter of fairness,
in consideration for all we've been through, and the multiple lapses in your department over several years,
8/16/2016
Page 265
please mark the requested NOV's no violation found or issued in error. Four + years of the rules going in the
Heanues favor. We want one NOV marked in error for each of those years. 4 NOV's marked in error or no
violation. Our request is that simple. This will bring closure.

Michael & Suzy
> wrote:

this permit."
For Code Enforcement Administrative Appeals, OMC 1.080.080, we utilize the Letter of Agency, that is included with the
appeal notification. It states, Persons other than attorneys representing an absent appellant must provide a notarized
proxy, before the scheduled hearing, authorizing their appearance on behalf of the appellant.
Also, your Letter of Agency (see attached), dated 7-22-13 expired in January 2014. Please note that under the title, LETTER
OF AGENCY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS, it states, VALID UP TO 180 DAYS
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
Director Flynn,
8/16/2016
Page 266
Thank you,
Michael & Suzy
8/16/2016
Page 267
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/27/2015 4:45:27 PM
Director Flynn,
I require the procedures / guidelines for the document call "Letter of Agency", used by
Oakland Building & Planning. I'm involved in three lawsuits presently with my neighbors, so I
can send you a subpoena requiring you to produce the documents in court and it does not cost
me anything additional. However, you're already mad at me, and dragging you to court with
a subpoena is not going to improve our communication.
Your reference, Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 3, Chapter 9 , Section 19825, does
not contain the information I require: it only states what should be in the form and when to
use the form. Does not define or address local changes. As an example, Oakland added 180
day expiration sometime after February 2011. This and other aspects of Oaklands' "Letter of
Agency" don't conform to H&S 19825. Our Letter of agency filed in January 2011 appears still
valid. Is Oakland following the rules, or not? I can't say???
Please provide me with the OMC, CBC, California Statue etc, that defines, explains
and governs the use of the Oakland "Letter of Agency" by Tuesday, September 29, 2015 by
1400 (2pm). Our next court appearance is scheduled for October 14, 2015 @ 14:30, and I
need to allow sufficient time for the City Attorney to process your Subpoena, if your unwilling
to provide voluntary cooperation.
I need this information. I've asked several times. I prefer cooperation over litigation, but the
decision is yours.
all the best,
Michael Hector
2nd request
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
Director Flynn,
> wrote:
> wrote:
Thank you for your reply. Suzanne and I are willing to drop our complaints to the City Council if your willing
to return to a more positive communication in keeping with your May 15, 2015, email.
I've attached the January 2011 "letter of agency" filed with B & P: it does not contain a 180 day
expiration.
mentioned. Michael Hector had many communications with B&P staff between 2011 and July 2015,
including several with you. Considering that B&P personnel failed multiple times over 4+ years to enforce
violation 1101036, and the still unexplained May 5, 2015, finding of your assistant, Marie Taylor, Michael
8/16/2016
Page 268
Hector's daily persistence in seeing the rules were equally applied to all, appears justified...
statutory fees. Yet your July 17, 2015, states "No extensions for Michael hector"; Your actions appear
bias, and an unequal application of the OMC.
When I received our approval from planning to permit what we call our "gazebo" at the end of April 2015,
(DS15-0160), consultation with Building counter staff and the duty Engineer made it clear the existing design
would not pass current code. So ,I immediately removed the roof and patio sliding glass doors which
constituted the "walls"; no point in leaving it standing when the design was not acceptable to current
standards. This is a difference between Mr Hector and Mr Heanue: Mr. Hector complies promptly, within
the noticed initial time frame.
The July request for an extension was just to demonstrate your apparent animosity and bias against
Suzanne Clark and Michael Hector that you showed at the July 8, 2015 hearing held at your office. You did
not disappoint. The B&P staff altered closed complaints on 7/23/2015. Appears retaliatory.
mind. Did you notice that B&P approved Taylor's appeal on the September 2014 NOV, on March 18,
2015. Then Taylor, feeling embolden, is behind our house of 4/3/15 & 0730. Your inspector shows up on 4/
6/15. Did you notice that Taylor's appeal was two days late? Neither Taylor or your inspectors reference the
February 2011 violation or March 23, 2011 letter from the Heanues to be responsible for removing the wall??
???
You and your staff repeatedly interpreted the rules in the Heanues favor - for years. As a matter of fairness,
in consideration for all we've been through, and the multiple lapses in your department over several years,
please mark the requested NOV's no violation found or issued in error. Four + years of the rules going in
the Heanues favor. We want one NOV marked in error for each of those years. 4 NOV's marked in error
or no violation. Our request is that simple. This will bring closure.

Michael & Suzy
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com > wrote:

8/16/2016
Page 269
involved in this permit or that I am fully authorized by the owner to access the property and perform the work authorized
by this permit."
For Code Enforcement Administrative Appeals, OMC 1.080.080, we utilize the Letter of Agency, that is included with the
appeal notification. It states, Persons other than attorneys representing an absent appellant must provide a notarized
proxy, before the scheduled hearing, authorizing their appearance on behalf of the appellant.
Also, your Letter of Agency (see attached), dated 7-22-13 expired in January 2014. Please note that under the title,
LETTER OF AGENCY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS, it states, VALID UP TO 180 DAYS
Director Flynn,
Thank you,
Michael & Suzy
8/16/2016
Page 270
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

"Parker, Barbara (BParker@oaklandcityattorney.org)" <BParker@oaklandcityattorney.org>
"Moreno, Doryanna $DMoreno@oaklandcityattorney.org$" <DMoreno@oaklandcityattorney.org>
"McGee, Jr., Otis" <OMcGeeJr@oaklandcityattorney.org>
9/27/2015 5:35:30 PM
Letter of Agency
Barbara ,
Rich Illgen is out for several days and Im not sure who can a ssist me with this issue about Oaklands ability to require a Letter
of Agency.
I sent this citizen the Code sections that we think give us the authority to require a Letter of Agency. See 2 nd e-mail below, dated
9/21/15 and the attachment I included.
Thanks, Rachel
Director Flynn,
I require the procedures / guidelines for the document called "Letter of Agency ", used by Oakland Building
& Planning. I'm inv olved in three lawsuits presently with my neighbors, so I can send you a subpoena requiring you to
produce the documents in court and it does not cost me anything additional.
Your reference, Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 3, Chapter 9 , Section 19825, does not contain the
inform ation I require: it only states what should be in the form and when to use the form. Does not define or address local
changes. As an example, Oakland added 180 day expiration sometim e after February 2011. This and other aspects of
Oaklands' "Letter of Agency" don't conform to H&S 19825. Our Letter of agency filed in January 2011 appears still
valid. Is Oakland following the rules, or not? I can't say ???
Please provide me with the OMC, CBC, California Statue etc, that defines, explains and governs the use of the Oakland
"Letter of Agency" by Tuesday, September 29, 2015 by 1400 (2pm). Our next court appearance is scheduled for October
14, 2015 @ 14:30, and I need to allow sufficient time for the City Attorney to process y our Subpoena, if your unwilling to
provide voluntary cooperation.
I need this inform ation. I've asked several tim es. I prefer cooperation over litigation, but the decision is y ours.
all the best,
Michael Hector
> wrote:
attorneys' fees, against the City in consequence of the granting of this permit or from the use or occupancy of the public right-ofway, public easement, or any sidewalk, street or sub-sidewalk or otherwise by virtue thereof, and will in all things strictly
comply with the conditions under which this permit is granted I further certify that I am the owner of the property involved in this
permit or that I am fully a uthorized by the owner to access the property and perform the work authorized by this permit."
For Code Enforcement Administrative Appeals, OMC 1.080.080, we utilize the Letter of Agency, tha t is included with the appeal
notification. It states, Persons other than attorneys representing an absent a ppellant must provide a notarized proxy, before
the scheduled hearing, authorizing their appearance on behalf of the appellant.
Also, your Letter of Agency (see attached), dated 7-22-13 expired in January 2014. Please note that under the title, LETTER OF AGENCY FOR
PROPERTY OWNERS, it states, VALID UP TO 180 DAYS
Director Flynn,
Could you please clarify the code section for the "Letter of Agency" that your office uses? No one at City Hall can seem to find any basis for its
8/16/2016
Page 271
use.
Thank you,
Michael & Suzy
8/16/2016
Page 272
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

"Fielding, Rich" <RFielding@oaklandnet.com>
9/27/2015 6:55:28 PM
Letter of Agency
Rich, Could you please send me our Standard Operating Procedure for using the Letter of Agency.
Director Flynn,
I require the procedures / guidelines for the document called "Letter of Agency", used by Oakland Building
& Planning. I'm involved in three lawsuits presently with my neighbors, so I can send you a subpoena requiring
you to produce the documents in court and it does not cost me anything additional.
Your reference, Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 3, Chapter 9 , Section 19825, does not contain the
information I require: it only states what should be in the form and when to use the form. Does not define or
address local changes. As an example, Oakland added 180 day expiration sometime after February 2011. This and
other aspects of Oaklands' "Letter of Agency" don't conform to H&S 19825. Our Letter of agency filed in January
2011 appears still valid. Is Oakland following the rules, or not?
Please provide me with the OMC, CBC, California Statue etc, that defines, explains and governs the use of the
Oakland "Letter of Agency" by Tuesday, September 29, 2015 by 1400 (2pm). Our next court appearance is
scheduled for October 14, 2015 @ 14:30, and I need to allow sufficient time for the City Attorney to process your
Subpoena, if your unwilling to provide voluntary cooperation.
I need this information. I've asked several times. I prefer cooperation over litigation, but the decision is yours.
all the best,
Michael Hector
> wrote:
Director Flynn,
Thank you,
8/16/2016
Page 273
Michael & Suzy
8/16/2016
Page 274
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

"Wald, Mark (MWald@oaklandcityattorney.org)" <MWald@oaklandcityattorney.org>
9/28/2015 12:55:25 PM
Letter of Agency
Mark, Let me know if you can open this attachment.

From: Flynn, Rachel
To: 'Michael Hector'; Suzy clark

Director Flynn,
> wrote:
Thank you,
Michael & Suzy
8/16/2016
Page 275
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

"Wald, Mark (MWald@oaklandcityattorney.org)" <MWald@oaklandcityattorney.org>
9/28/2015 1:00:55 PM
Response -- Letter of Agency
This was Michael Hectors response to my e-mail.

Cc: Suzy clark
Director Flynn,
Regardless, Michal Hector is listed as an authorized agent in multiple places in the documents you attached. The documents
you attached are to remove a garage and create a patio; the gazebo is not mentioned.
Michael & Suzy
> wrote:

Director Flynn,
> wrote:
Thank you,
Michael & Suzy
8/16/2016
Page 276
8/16/2016
Page 277
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

9/28/2015 1:21:20 PM
Our standard operating procedure is to comply with State Law. It is Health and Safety Code 19825 Specified Declarations:
See page 4, AUTHORIZATION OF AGENT TO ACT ON PROPERTY OWNERS BEHALF
8/16/2016
Page 278
8/16/2016
Page 279
8/16/2016
Page 280
8/16/2016
Page 281
8/16/2016
Page 282
8/16/2016
Page 283
Our Letter of Agency provides a verification of owners authorization:
8/16/2016
Page 284
It would need to have an expiration date, as an agent should not expect the term of agency to be open ended. The 180 days would coincide with the date of expiration for permits when no major inspection has been approved.
As with permits, an extension could be effected by executing a new Letter of Agency.
Why does he attach a demolition permit with authorization to him as agent for that work? How does that apply to the present day and issues at hand? If it is the owner that is being Noticed for a violation, any legal actions
should not be with him until he is authorized to speak regarding the issues by Suzanne L Clark.
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: Fielding, Rich
Cc: Smith, Sandra M
Rich, Could you please send me our Standard Operating Procedure for using the Letter of Agency.
8/16/2016
Page 285
Director Flynn,
I require the procedures / guidelines for the document called "Letter of Agency", used by Oakland Building & Planning. I'm involved in three lawsuits presently with my neighbors, so I can send you a subpoena
requiring you to produce the documents in court and it does not cost me anything additional.
Your reference, Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 3, Chapter 9 , Section 19825, does not contain the information I require: it only states what should be in the form and when to use the form. Does not define
or address local changes. As an example, Oakland added 180 day expiration sometime after February 2011. This and other aspects of Oaklands' "Letter of Agency" don't conform to H&S 19825. Our Letter of
agency filed in January 2011 appears still valid. Is Oakland following the rules, or not?
Please provide me with the OMC, CBC, California Statue etc, that defines, explains and governs the use of the Oakland "Letter of Agency" by Tuesday, September 29, 2015 by 1400 (2pm). Our next court appearance
is scheduled for October 14, 2015 @ 14:30, and I need to allow sufficient time for the City Attorney to process your Subpoena, if your unwilling to provide voluntary cooperation.
I need this information. I've asked several times. I prefer cooperation over litigation, but the decision is yours.
all the best,
Michael Hector
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Every permit and application for a permit shall contain the information required by California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 3, Chapter 9
, Section 19825.
A. Agreement. Every permit shall also contain an agreement as follows which shall be executed by the permit holder as a condition of issuance:
"I hereby agree to save, defend, indemnify and keep harmless the City of Oakland and its officials, officers, employees, representatives, agents, and volunteers from all actions, claims, demands, litigation, or proceedings,
including those for attorneys' fees, against the City in consequence of the granting of this permit or from the use or occupancy of the public right-of-way, public easement, or any sidewalk, street or sub-sidewalk or otherwise by
virtue thereof, and will in all things strictly comply with the conditions under which this permit is granted I further certify that I am the owner of the property involved in this permit or that I am fully authorized by the owner to
access the property and perform the work authorized by this permit."
For Code Enforcement Administrative Appeals, OMC 1.080.080, we utilize the Letter of Agency, that is included with the appeal notification. It states, Persons other than attorneys representing an absent appellant must provide
a notarized proxy, before the scheduled hearing, authorizing their appearance on behalf of the appellant.
Also, your Letter of Agency (see attached), dated 7-22-13 expired in January 2014. Please note that under the title, LETTER OF AGENCY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS, it states, VALID UP TO 180 DAYS
> wrote:
Director Flynn,
Could you please clarify the code section for the "Letter of Agency" that your office uses? No one at City Hall can seem to find any basis for its use.
Thank you,
Michael & Suzy
8/16/2016
Page 286
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Amanda Monchamp" <amandamonchamp@gmail.com>
10/28/2015 3:10:51 PM
Re: July 8, 2015 meeting... deja vu' all over again...
4th request
Director Flynn,
Awaiting an explanation of why code enforcement inspectors
Barron and Labayog searched my property - again - on 10-222015, LOOKING FOR VIOLATIONS, thereby contradicting
your July 8, 2015, policy statement that inspectors are
overwhelmed and do not search for violations, but only
respond to complaints.
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 287
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com

4th request
> wrote:
Director Flynn,
Awaiting an explanation of why code enforcement inspectors Barron and Labayog searched my property - again - on 10-22-2015, LOOKING
FOR VIOLATIONS, thereby contradicting your July 8, 2015, policy statement that inspectors are overwhelmed and do not search for violations,
but only respond to complaints.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com

3rd request
> wrote:
Director Flynn,
Awaiting an explanation of why code enforcement inspectors Barron and Labayog searched my property - again - on 10-22-2015, LOOKING
FOR VIOLATIONS, thereby contradicting your July 8, 2015, policy statement that inspectors are overwhelmed and do not search for
violations, but only respond to complaints.
Sincerely,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com

2nd request
> wrote:
Director Flynn,
I don't want to write you another 77 emails. I'm certain your tired of receiving emails from me.
Please explain why code enforcement inspectors Barron and Labayog searched my property - again - on 10-222015, LOOKING FOR VIOLATIONS, when there were no open complaints against 3539 Calandria? This is after Mr.
Labayog's and Mr. Walkers inspection of 9-11-2015. I remind you that you stated in our July 8, 2015,
meeting which was attended by Mr. Labayog, that inspectors are overwhelmed and do not search for violations, but
only respond to complaints. The actions of your inspectors directly contradict your policy statement of 7-8-2015.
If its retaliation, just say so. After all, you personally gave my neighbor 1700+ of extensions on violation 1101036
from 2011. Then wrote me on July 14, 2015, saying I would not receive any extensions for a cured violation - I just
wanted your anticipated response for the record. Retaliation and disparaging treatment seems to be the norm in
your department - which you set for your staff by example.
May I remind you that the 1999 and 2011 Alameda Grand Jury report contains extensive accusations against
Oakland Building and Planning for retaliatory conduct against property owners and inconsistent application of codes
among many other... questionable pratices. Pointedly, no other Planning and Building department in Alameda
County received similar recognition. Rhetorically, I wonder why that's the case? Possibly an endemic culture of
absolute power causing an absolute corrupting effect???
Awaiting an explanation of inspectors Barron and Labayog contradicting your July 8, 2015, policy statement and
searching our property for violations when there were no open complaints?
Sincerely,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
July 8, 2015 meeting... deja vu' all over again...
8/16/2016
> wrote:
Page 288
Director Flynn,
Please be so kind as to explain why inspector Barron and Labayog searched our property - again LOOKING FOR VIOLATIONS - when there were no complaints on file? This seems especially odd
considering Mr. Labayog and Mr. Walker were at our property on 9-11-2015...
If you recall our 7-8-15 meeting, you took offense with my complaint that code enforcement
inspectors walk past clear violations... You responded they're overwhelmed, and therefore only
respond to complaints. Your thesis is not supported by the facts:
I've forwarded you multiple emails complaining about 3444, 3500, 3511, 3514, 3521 & 3529 Calandria
violations for years - without action. If I hadn't made myself a pest in April and May of this year, your
staff would have again failed to enforce corrective action regarding violation 1101036... when you say
one thing, then your staff contradict your statements, or you treat neighboring property owners with
starkly contrasting application of official actions... I become discontented.
Administration and staff management is a small but important function of your position. A timely
explanation of Mr. Barron's and Mr. Labayog's search of our property on 10-22-2015, will forestall my
tendency for repetitive requests.
Enjoy your weekend and I hope to see you at the State-of-the-City...
regards,
michael hector
3539 calandria
8/16/2016
Page 289
8/16/2016
Page 290
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

10/29/2015 8:29:55 AM
5th request
Director Flynn,
Please be so kind as to explain why inspector
Barron and Labayog searched our property - again LOOKING FOR VIOLATIONS - when there were no
complaints on file? This seems especially odd
considering Mr. Labayog and Mr. Walker were at
our property on 9-11-2015...
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
> wrote:
Director Flynn,
Please be so kind as to explain why inspector Barron and Labayog searched our property again - LOOKING FOR VIOLATIONS - when there were no complaints on file? This seems
especially odd considering Mr. Labayog and Mr. Walker were at our property on 9-11-2015...
inspectors walk past clear violations... You responded they're overwhelmed, and therefore only
respond to complaints. Your thesis is not supported by the facts:
8/16/2016
Page 291
I've forwarded you multiple emails complaining about 3444, 3500, 3511, 3514, 3521 & 3529
Calandria violations for years - without action. If I hadn't made myself a pest in April and May
of this year, your staff would have again failed to enforce corrective action regarding violation
1101036... when you say one thing, then your staff contradict your statements, or you treat
neighboring property owners with starkly contrasting application of official actions... I become
discontented.
Administration and staff management is a small but important function of your position. A
timely explanation of Mr. Barron's and Mr. Labayog's search of our property on 10-22-2015, will
forestall my tendency for repetitive requests.
regards,
michael hector
3539 calandria
8/16/2016
Page 292
From:
To:

"Amanda Monchamp" <amandamonchamp@gmail.com>
Taylor <taylor@funkyb3.com>
"Taylor Heanue" <taylorheanue@yahoo.com>
"Mica Heanue" <micamatsumoto@yahoo.com>
"Kawamoto, Edwin" <EKawamoto@oaklandnet.com>
"Walker, Robert L" <RWalker@oaklandnet.com>
"Verschuur, Joanneke" <JVerschuur@oaklandnet.com>
"Albee, Alan" <AAlbee@oaklandnet.com>
"Bernal, Robert L" <RBernal@oaklandnet.com>
"Brandeberry, Steve" <SBrandeberry@oaklandnet.com>
"Delagrange, Joe" <JDelagrange@oaklandnet.com>
"Kato, Janice" <JKato@oaklandnet.com>
"Kellogg, Suiling" <SKellogg@oaklandnet.com>
"Kattchee, Susan" <skattchee@oaklandnet.com>
"Candell, Chris" <CCandell@oaklandnet.com>
"Casey, Jean" <JCasey@oaklandnet.com>
melendez@oaklandnet.com
"Schimm, Randy" <RSchimm@oaklandnet.com>
"Lai, Benjamin" <BLai@oaklandnet.com>
"Pham, Hai V" <HPham@oaklandnet.com>
"Harbaugh, Anthony L" <AHarbaugh@oaklandnet.com>
"Miles, David" <DMiles@oaklandnet.com>
8/16/2016
Page 293
Date:
Subject:
"McPherson, David" <DMcPherson@oaklandnet.com>

"Coleman, Jessica" <JColeman@oaklandnet.com>
"Clarke, Gregory M" <GClarke@oaklandnet.com>
"Steven Wolvek" <steve@wolveklaw.com>
"Shaw, Kamao" <Kamao.Shaw@bryancave.com>
"Millicent Morris Chaney" <mmc@dslextreme.com>
"Jim Chaney" <jchaney@dslextreme.com>
10/29/2015 8:30:55 AM
Re: Cal OSHA complaint filed - job site safety
3rd request
Director Flynn,
Why does your agency allow immediate public safety hazard by permitting a large jobsite full of
debris and an open trench - ON PUBLIC LAND - to remain unfenced to the public?
safety first!
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
Director Flynn,
> wrote:
Why does your agency allow immediate public safety hazard by permitting a large jobsite full of debris and an
open trench - ON PUBLIC LAND - to remain unfenced to the public?
safety first!
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
Cal OSHA complaint filed - job site safety
> wrote:
Taylor and Mica Heanue

3521 Calandria Ave
RB 150 3495
Director Flynn,
I filed a complaint Cal OSHA - unsafe job site. A large open trench and large debris
field on public land, unfenced represents a public hazard. The entire job site
should have a temporary fence for public safety.
If an injury occurs, the City may be liable for allowing a dangerous public works condition:
The next City council meeting has to settlements for Council approval:
RG 147 44 830 Dickens v. Oakland Public works dangerous conditions $40,000
RG 147 19 094 Linn v, Oakland
Public works dangerous conditions $65,000
Safety first!
8/16/2016
Page 294
8/16/2016
Page 295
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

10/29/2015 7:58:38 PM
6th request
Director Flynn,
Why do your inspectors search our property - again
- LOOKING FOR VIOLATIONS?
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
5th request
> wrote:
Director Flynn,
Please be so kind as to explain why inspector
Barron and Labayog searched our property - again
- LOOKING FOR VIOLATIONS - when there were
no complaints on file? This seems especially odd
considering Mr. Labayog and Mr. Walker were at
our property on 9-11-2015...
Michael Hector
8/16/2016
Page 296
3539 Calandria
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
Director Flynn,
Please be so kind as to explain why inspector Barron and Labayog searched our property again - LOOKING FOR VIOLATIONS - when there were no complaints on file? This seems
especially odd considering Mr. Labayog and Mr. Walker were at our property on 9-11-2015...
inspectors walk past clear violations... You responded they're overwhelmed, and therefore
only respond to complaints. Your thesis is not supported by the facts:
I've forwarded you multiple emails complaining about 3444, 3500, 3511, 3514, 3521 & 3529
Calandria violations for years - without action. If I hadn't made myself a pest in April and May
of this year, your staff would have again failed to enforce corrective action regarding violation
1101036... when you say one thing, then your staff contradict your statements, or you treat
neighboring property owners with starkly contrasting application of official actions... I become
discontented.
Administration and staff management is a small but important function of your position. A
timely explanation of Mr. Barron's and Mr. Labayog's search of our property on 10-22-2015,
will forestall my tendency for repetitive requests.
regards,
michael hector
3539 calandria
8/16/2016
Page 297
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

psmhector@gmail.com
1/27/2016 4:28:44 PM
3539 Calandria Ave.
Mr. Hector,
We have a complaint that you have built a structure at the rear of your property that may need planning/zoning approvals and/
or a building permit. We are going to be in that area possibly by this Friday or early next week to investigate, Im sure we can
view the structure from the park land at the rear. We will let you know the outcome of our investigation so you can address the
issues if necessary. If youd like to meet us at the site just let us know what day and time you are available.
Edward J. Labayog
Building Bureau
(510) 238-4793
8/16/2016
Page 298
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

1/27/2016 7:00:29 PM
Re: 3539 Calandria Ave.
Mr. Labayog,
Please send me a copy of the complaint.
Michael Hector
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Labayog, Edward <ELabayog@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Mr. Hector,
We have a complaint that you have built a structure at the rear of your property that may need planning/
zoning approvals and/or a building permit. We are going to be in that area possibly by this Friday or early
next week to investigate, Im sure we can view the structure from the park land at the rear. We will let you
know the outcome of our investigation so you can address the issues if necessary. If youd like to meet us at
the site just let us know what day and time you are available.
Edward J. Labayog
Building Bureau
(510) 238-4793
8/16/2016
Page 299
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

1/28/2016 6:04:47 PM
3rd request for a copy of the complaint. I'll submit a public records request.
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
2nd request for a copy of the complaint
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
Mr. Labayog,
> wrote:

Michael Hector
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Labayog, Edward <ELabayog@oaklandnet.com

Mr. Hector,
> wrote:
know the outcome of our investigation so you can address the issues if necessary. If youd like to meet us
at the site just let us know what day and time you are available.
Edward J. Labayog
Building Bureau
(510) 238-4793
8/16/2016
Page 300
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

1/28/2016 8:42:20 PM
RE: 3539 Calandria Ave.
Michael, This was a verbal complaint so there is no paper or electronic copy of the complaint to provide. Ed contacted you
via e-mail to let you know about the complaint and that he would be in that area. He just wanted to know if youd like to meet on
site and if so when you would be available. Let him know if you would like to meet. There is no obligation to do so.
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 6:05 PM
To: Labayog, Edward
Cc: Fielding, Rich; Smith, Sandra M; Low, Tim; Flynn, Rachel; Suzy clark; michael hector
Subject: Re: 3539 Calandria Ave.
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
Mr. Labayog,
> wrote:
> wrote:

Michael Hector

Mr. Hector,
> wrote:
We have a complaint that you have built a structure at the rear of your property that may need planning/zoning approvals
and/or a building permit. We are going to be in that area possibly by this Friday or early next week to investigate, Im sure
we can view the structure from the park land at the rear. We will let you know the outcome of our investigation so you can
address the issues if necessary. If youd like to meet us at the site just let us know what day and time you are available.
Edward J. Labayog
Building Bureau
(510) 238-4793
8/16/2016
Page 301
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

1/29/2016 7:37:29 AM
Director Flynn,
Thank you for the reply.
The significant unequal application of rules and codes by you and your staff is distressing. In 2014 & 2015, I made
complaints about violations at 3444, 3514, 3511, 3521 (trash and debris dumped on city land) and 3529 Calandria. I
personally showed these violations to inspectors Barron, Labayog, Espinoza and Ramirez. No violation notices were
issued, and no corrective action was taken.
THEREFORE WE REFUSE TO ALLOW YOUR INSPECTORS ON OUR PROPERTY. But thanks for the offer.
3521 Calandria retaining wall encroachment: 4 years and 11 months - still not completely corrected.
In 2014 and 2015, your agency sent more than a dozen inspectors to our property because of complaints by the Chaneys
and Heanues, and issued us with multiple violations notices.
WHEN INSPECTORS LABAYOG AND BARRON CAME TO CALANDRIA IN OCTOBER 2015 TO INVESTIGATE THE
COMPLAINTS AGAINST 3444, 3514, 3511, 3521 (trash and debris dumped on city land) and 3529 Calandria, THEY
ALSO INSPECTED OUR PROPERTY AT 3539 CALANDRA - even though there were no open complaints. See the
picture of Mr. Barron and Labayog on our property... These inspectors walked right past debris, including a jacuzzi
dumped in the city park by the Heanues - but issued no violations?
I'm still recovering from a severe injury I received in November 2015, because of the dangerous
conditions on the sidewalk in front of 3511 Calandria - because your agency and inspectors repeatedly
failed to enforce existing codes and require corrective action. Claim submitted to Oakland City
Attorney.
As you know, because you linked to prior complaints, we received planning approval for a 480 sq ft enclosure on the
north side of our property. However, we did not build this structure. We did build a playhouse which has a roof less than
120 square feet, less than 12' high, and is therefore permit exempt. I also have a temporary canopy up over our patio i'm building a cabinet for our kitchen - and the temporary canopy is to protect the wood from the weather during
fabrication.
Is 2016 going to be a repeated of 2015 and 2014?
All the best,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Michael, This was a verbal complaint so there is no paper or electronic copy of the complaint to provide. Ed contacted you
via e-mail to let you know about the complaint and that he would be in that area. He just wanted to know if youd like to meet
on site and if so when you would be available. Let him know if you would like to meet. There is no obligation to do so.
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland

Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 6:05 PM
To: Labayog, Edward
Cc: Fielding, Rich; Smith, Sandra M; Low, Tim; Flynn, Rachel; Suzy clark; michael hector
8/16/2016
Page 302
Subject: Re: 3539 Calandria Ave.
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
> wrote:
> wrote:
Mr. Labayog,
Michael Hector
> wrote:
Mr. Hector,
We have a complaint that you have built a structure at the rear of your property that may need planning/zoning
approvals and/or a building permit. We are going to be in that area possibly by this Friday or early next week to
investigate, Im sure we can view the structure from the park land at the rear. We will let you know the outcome of our
investigation so you can address the issues if necessary. If youd like to meet us at the site just let us know what day
and time you are available.
Edward J. Labayog
Building Bureau
(510) 238-4793
8/16/2016
Page 303
8/16/2016
Page 304
8/16/2016
Page 305
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

2/1/2016 11:10:16 AM
no trespassing on 3539 Calandria
Mr. Labayog,
Please acknowledge that we request you and your staff respect our private property rights, and will not trespass
at 3539 Calandria.
Regards,
Michael & Suzy
3539 Calandria
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 306
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Parker, Barbara" <BParker@oaklandcityattorney.org>
2/1/2016 11:11:59 AM
Re: complaint 3521 calandria wall removal NOT COMPLETED
4th request
Director Flynn,
What action will the City of Oakland staff take to ensure
Taylor and Mica Heanue comply with the respective
orders, agreements, licenses and permits for complete
removal of the encroaching wall and removal of the
associated concrete and debris from the city park?
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
3rd request
Director Flynn,
What action will the City of Oakland staff take to
ensure Taylor and Mica Heanue comply with the
respective orders, agreements, licenses and permits
for complete removal of the encroaching wall and
removal of the associated concrete and debris from the
city park?
8/16/2016
Page 307
We all know how important the letter of the law, or

OMC is to you, your staff and the Heanue's - at least
when it applies to 3539 Calandria. Everyone is entitled
to equal protection under the laws. Therefore, please
apply your strict standard, that you've been so kind as
to share with us, with everyone on Calandria
respectfully,
michael hector
3539 calandria
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
Director Flynn,
Taylor and Mica Heanue of 3521 Calandria did NOT completely remove the concrete wall and
debris behind their house as required by the February 2011 Notice to Abate, and your May
2015 letter ordering complete removal of the encroaching unpermitted concrete retaining wall,
and RB 1503495. Please see attached pictures.
note 1: These photos are of the concrete and rebar that is the north-east corner of the
offending encroaching unpermitted concrete retaining wall. Mica Heanue is in the
photo filming me the park.
note 2: In exposing the buried lower portion of the concrete wall, removing less the 2 cubic
feet of earth, I also exposed two plastic water bottles and seven large pieces of concrete.
The Heanue left the lower portion of the wall in situ, and with tonnes of concrete debris and
trash in the City of Oakland Park, buried under a thin layer of clean dirt from their pier
excavations. I previously sent multiple photos in September and October of the DUMPING on
city land.
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY OAKLAND INSPECTORS PERMITTED THIS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY,
8/16/2016
Page 308
AND WHAT CORRECTIVE ACTION WILL BE TAKEN.

Sincerely,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
Mr. Laboyog,
Taylor and Mica Heanue did NOT comply with the 2011 Notice to Abate and the 2015 order
to completely remove the wall built on public land behind their house.
The Heanues buried the lower portion of the concrete wall in situ and some
concrete wall debris under a mound of dirt fill and spoil from their old retaining wall and
new construction.
COMPLETE REMOVAL OF THE CONCRETE WALL BUILT ON PUBLIC LAND would be
appreciated.
regards,
Michael Hector
8/16/2016
Page 309
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

2/1/2016 2:05:55 PM
3539 Calandria
FYI,
Here are the pictures of the structure that Hector built, it is clearly more than 120 square feet. He has zoning
approval to build a structure in the rear yard but there are no permits issued. When we saw it in September he
said he was only putting post in the ground and he was defining a space. When we were investigating other
properties he complained about in October he was continuing to build on it, we told him to make sure that gets
permits for it if it's going to be more than 120 square feet. The reason we went onto his property that day was
we requested to walk through because it was closer to the street and he agreed. He was also with us (hence the
photo with me and Hugo) We were not investigating anything on his property, the structure is in plain sight, the
current photos are taken from the parkland (you can see a reference photo of me next to the tree). Now it looks
like he's enclosed the walls and roof and installed windows and sliding doors (see photos).
Please advise how to proceed and how to communicate with him.
I need your help with 3511 Calandria, he claimed in October that they built the retaining walls on the left and
rear into the park land too. Can you ask the city surveyor to confirm this?
Thanks,
Edward J. Labayog
Building Bureau
(510) 238-4793
8/16/2016
Page 310
8/16/2016
Page 311
8/16/2016
Page 312
8/16/2016
Page 313
8/16/2016
Page 314
8/16/2016
Page 315
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Parker, Barbara" <BParker@oaklandcityattorney.org>
2/4/2016 5:41:14 AM
Re: complaint 3521 calandria wall removal NOT COMPLETED
CONCRETE DEBRIS AND TRASH BURIED ON CITY PARK LAND, BEHIND 3521
CALANDRA - BY TAYLOR AND MICA HEANUE, THE OWNERS OF
3521 CALANDRA, 94605.
I HAVE PHOTOS AND DOCUMENTATION THAT YOUR EMAIL SERVER WILL NOT
ACCEPT
Dear Law Corps Attorneys:

In May 2015, The Oakland City Attorney issued an opinion (at the request of Rachel Flynn,
Director of Oakland Building and Planning) that Taylor and Mica Heanue of 3521 Calandria, were
required to remove a concrete retaining wall built behind their home at 3521 Calandria,
constructed on city park land (to enlarge their back yard).
Taylor and Mica Heanue were issued a "NOTICE TO ABATE" in February 2011. They did not
comply for 1700 days. On May 29, 2015, Rachel Flynn, Director of Oakland Building and
Planning issued a letter ordering Taylor and Mica Heanue to remove the concrete retaining wall
at the expense of the Heanues. The Heanues completed a compliance plan and received
building permits and permission from Oakland's Real Estate division and Parks Department in
August 2015, to remove the encroaching concrete retaining wall and install a new retaining wall
on their land. During demolition significant amounts of concrete debris were left on the ground on
city park land. The Heanues used existing fill that was behind the old retaining wall and spoil from
bore holes for their new wall to cover and bury this debris in situ - on city park land - in violation of
the law.
I have repeatedly communicated this violation to Oakland's building and planning department,
without response. Your assistance in correcting these violations would be appreciated
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
8/16/2016
Page 316
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
5th request - removal of the concrete wall, concrete debris and trash BURIED behind 3521
Calandria in the city park.
Director Flynn,
What will be done about the remaining concrete and trash Taylor and Mica Heanue buried in
the park behind their home - on city owned park property? I really don't want to have to write
another 109 emails to the city council, etc. A simple response will end my enquires.
Before you answer:
OMC
8.11.310 - Illegal dumping and littering unlawful.
A. It is unlawful and a violation of this Code and this chapter for any person to illegally dump or not dispose of waste matter, or
cause waste matter not to be disposed of as otherwise provided by this Code or State or Federal law.
1. Nothing.
2. Grant encroachment permit for the buried concrete debris and trash.
3. Require the overburden be cleaned of buried trash and concrete debris and the
remaining in situ concrete wall and foundation removed from city property and
properly disposed of in accordance with the OMC.
Your May 29,2015 letter to Taylor and Mica Heanue, last paragraph, states they must remove
the concrete wall constructed to enlarge their back yard. Although your letter does not contain
the word "complete", or "properly dispose of the debris" or address the concrete debris
resulting from demolition, it is implied? After all, if portions of the wall remain buried in the park
- then the concrete wall wasn't removed - is was buried on city property.
I know you and you staff are obsessed with a strict interpretation and application of the OMC to
3539 Calandria. Please apply that same standard to other properties on Calandria.
Sincerely,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 317
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
4th request
Director Flynn,
removal of the associated concrete and debris from
the city park?
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
3rd request
Director Flynn,
removal of the associated concrete and debris from
the city park?
We all know how important the letter of the law, or
OMC is to you, your staff and the Heanue's - at least
when it applies to 3539 Calandria. Everyone is
entitled to equal protection under the
laws. Therefore, please apply your strict standard,
8/16/2016
Page 318
that you've been so kind as to share with us, with

everyone on Calandria
respectfully,
michael hector
3539 calandria
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
Director Flynn,
Taylor and Mica Heanue of 3521 Calandria did NOT completely remove the concrete wall
and debris behind their house as required by the February 2011 Notice to Abate, and your
May 2015 letter ordering complete removal of the encroaching unpermitted concrete
retaining wall, and RB 1503495. Please see attached pictures.
note 1: These photos are of the concrete and rebar that is the north-east corner of the
offending encroaching unpermitted concrete retaining wall. Mica Heanue is in the
photo filming me the park.
note 2: In exposing the buried lower portion of the concrete wall, removing less the 2
cubic feet of earth, I also exposed two plastic water bottles and seven large pieces of
concrete.
The Heanue left the lower portion of the wall in situ, and with tonnes of concrete debris
and trash in the City of Oakland Park, buried under a thin layer of clean dirt from their pier
excavations. I previously sent multiple photos in September and October of the
DUMPING on city land.
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY OAKLAND INSPECTORS PERMITTED THIS ILLEGAL
ACTIVITY, AND WHAT CORRECTIVE ACTION WILL BE TAKEN.
Sincerely,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 319
Mr. Laboyog,
> wrote:
Taylor and Mica Heanue did NOT comply with the 2011 Notice to Abate and the 2015
order to completely remove the wall built on public land behind their house.
The Heanues buried the lower portion of the concrete wall in situ and some
concrete wall debris under a mound of dirt fill and spoil from their old retaining wall
and new construction.
COMPLETE REMOVAL OF THE CONCRETE WALL BUILT ON PUBLIC LAND would
be appreciated.
regards,
Michael Hector
8/16/2016
Page 320
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

"Avila, Cesar" <CAvila@oaklandnet.com>
"Rose, Aubrey" <ARose@oaklandnet.com>
2/5/2016 8:55:18 AM
RE: fire marshal approval for large membrane structure (tent) at 3539 Calandria Ave
exempted permits.doc
Planning (Maurice Brenyah-Addow) approved on 4/30/15 a New 480 SF shed/ enclosed gazebo at rear.
It is not exempted from permits (see attached). He built it without permits/inspections.
He is searching for the answer to avoid abatement charges.
From: Avila, Cesar
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:54 AM
To: Michael Hector
Cc: Trujillo, Miguel; Marshall, Thomas; McKee, Marshall; Deloach Reed, Teresa; Suzy clark; Low, Tim
Subject: Re: fire marshal approval for large membrane structure (tent)
All,
Temporary tents and canopies in excess of 400 sq feet require a Fire Department permit.
Owner should come to our office counter and request an inspection.
Cesar Avila
Assistant Fire Marshal
City of Oakland Fire Dept.
250 Frank H Ogawa Plaza Suite 3341
(O)510-238-7054
(C)510-755-5310
On Feb 4, 2016, at 9:50 AM, "Michael Hector" <psmhector@gmail.com
> wrote:
Mr. Trujillo,
Received. Building code does not seem to apply. The C.R.C., section R 107 is for temporary structures. However,
the nature and size of my temporary canopy - very large umbrella - appears exempt, I just wanted to check. My
canopy is open on all sides, less than 700 sq ft and more the 12' from all other structures on all sides. Please see
below. I'll check with Mr. Low.
Thanks,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Scope. This applies to temporary tents, air-supported, air-inflated or tensioned membrane structures as defined by the
fire code having an area in excess of 400 sq. ft. that will be erected for a period not to exceed 180 days within a
12-month period on a single premise. Structures that will be erected in excess of 180 days are regulated by the
California Building Code.
Exceptions:
1. Tents used exclusively for recreational camping purposes.
2. Tents open on all sides which comply with all of the following:
2.1 Individual tents having a maximum size of 700 sq. ft.
8/16/2016
Page 321
2.2 The aggregate area of multiple tents placed side by side without a fire break clearance of 12 feet, not
exceeding 700 sq. ft. total
2.3 A minimum clearance of 12 ft. to all structures and other tents.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Trujillo, Miguel <MTrujillo@oaklandnet.com
Michael,
> wrote:
Thank you for forwarding your question to Chief Reed. Basically, you will need to start with the Building Department. Now
that you have zoning approval, you will need to submit detailed plans or obtain a Building permit for the final installation
of the new structure. The Building department will then forward the plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau. We cannot review
the tent structure permit or plans until the Building department approves the tent/membrane structure.
Once Building approval has taken place, you can submit plans to Oakland Fire to insure the final structure meets all Fire
Code requirements.
I have included the Building Official on this email, Tim Low (510-238-6315 ), if you would like to contact him for details
on Building Department permit requirements.
Thank you,
Miguel Trujillo
Fire Marshal
City of Oakland Fire Department
Fire Prevention Bureau
510-238-3851 Main Line
510-238-4051 Desk
mtrujillo@oaklandnet.com
<image001.png>
It is the mission of the Oakland Fire Prevention Bureau to protect all citizens within the City of Oakland from natural or man-made hazards which
may cause both injury and loss of property. This is accomplished by providing highly-trained professionals for education, oversight, and inspection
of fire and environmental hazards throughout the City.

Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:22 AM
To: Avila, Cesar <CAvila@oaklandnet.com >; Trujillo, Miguel <MTrujillo@oaklandnet.com >; Marshall, Thomas
<TMarshall@oaklandnet.com >; McKee, Marshall <MMcKee@oaklandnet.com >; Deloach Reed, Teresa
<TDeloachReed@oaklandnet.com >; michael hector <psmhector@gmail.com >; Suzy clark
<suzanneclark@rocketmail.com >
Subject: fire marshal approval for large membrane structure (tent)
Chief Reed:
I recently learned the California Building Code requires Fire Marshal approval for large tent / membrane
structures. We have a large open Gazebo in our back yard - 32' x 16', 480 sq ft +/-. We have zoning
approval. During inclement weather, we occasionally cover this gazebo with a large tarp, so we can continue to
enjoy the great outdoors.
What forms or process do we need to complete so that we comply with Fire Code regulations?
Thanks,
Michael & Suzanne
3539 Calandria Ave
Oakland, 94605
8/16/2016
Page 322
California Building Code: 2403.2 Approval required. Tents and membrane structures having an area in excess
of 400 square feet (37 m2) shall not be erected, operated or maintained for any purpose without first obtaining a
permit and approval from the fire code official.
8/16/2016
Page 323
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

2/8/2016 6:31:39 PM
Director Flynn,
Any possibility you will extend a similar level of courtesy to Suzanne and I at 3539 Calandria, regarding
"SIGNIFICANT AND SUBSTANTIAL" compliance with the applicable rules that you showed Taylor Heanue in
your email of February 4, 2016.
1. Taylor took almost 5 years to comply - and only because I forced the issue.
2. When your staff wrote us a violation, even when I disagreed, I always corrected within the prescribed time
limits.
3. We have planning approval for a large unbuilt structure in our back yard.
4. Canopy's, umbrellas and other temporary membrane covers don't appear in the building code.
5. The canopy is entirely on our property.
6. Our property corners are marked by surveyors.
7. The complaint is one of many made by Taylor Heanue over the last three years.
Never hurts to ask....

Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Mr. Hector,
> wrote:
know the outcome of our investigation so you can address the issues if necessary. If youd like to meet us at
the site just let us know what day and time you are available.
Edward J. Labayog
Building Bureau
8/16/2016
Page 324
(510) 238-4793
8/16/2016
Page 325
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

2/23/2016 2:38:10 PM
complaint 1600550
Director Flynn,
Another complaint by my lovely neighbors: # 1600550 filed 2/18/2016 against 3539
Calandria. This is the 5th complaint regarding vehicles since 2013. I've pasted OMC 8.24.020
(F) for your review.
All vehicles parked on our property comply with the California Vehicle Code registration
requirements. I will provide copies of current CA DMV registration if requested. I would remind
you that our property is 12,000 sq ft. The existing house footprint is only 1850 sq ft, for a lot
coverage ratio of .15, when .40 is permitted. We do have a permit exempt play room with a roof
less than 120 sq. ft. Total lot coverage is less than 2000 sq ft on a 12,000 sq foot lot.
We would your office marking this complaint "non actionable".
Regards,
Michael Hector
OMC 8.24.020
F. Parking, Storage or Maintenance of the Following in Areas Zoned for Residential Use.
1. Any construction or commercial equipment, machinery, material, truck or tractor or trailer or other vehicle
having a weight exceeding seven thousand (7,000) pounds, or recyclable materials, as defined in this
chapter, except that such items may be temporarily kept within or upon residential property for
the time required for the construction of installation of improvements or facilities on the
property,
2. Trailers, campers, recreational vehicles, boats, and other mobile equipment for a period of time in excess
of seventy-two (72) consecutive hours in front or side yard areas.
a. Any parking, keeping or storing of these items in the side or rear yard areas shall be either in an
accessory building constructed in accordance with the provisions of this code or in an area which
provides for a five-foot setback from any property line.
b. In addition to the setback requirement, fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet or at least sixty (60)
percent of the remaining rear yard area, whichever is less, must be maintained as usable
outdoor recreational space.
c. No item shall be parked, stored or kept within five feet of any required exit, including existing windows,
8/16/2016
Page 326
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

Taylor <taylorheanue@yahoo.com>
2/24/2016 12:52:11 PM
RE: Letter showing complaint is closed.
I believe an Inspector went to the property to investigate, but I dont know if an NOV went out yet. Ill check.
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 12:48 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Re: Letter showing complaint is closed.
Thanks for the quick reply!

I had thought you said that a letter would be going on on Monday regarding the complaints on his property.
That's what I was referring to. When I go back in my emails I see this. I guess I mis-remembered.
"I will discuss with our Code Enforcement Supervisor the complaints regarding vehicles, construction debris, and the
illegal structure. I believe he is aware of these issues. When the Notice of Violation (NOV) goes out, Ill let you know."
FYI there are 12 vehicles currently parked on his lawn plus 2 illegal accessory structures (one front, one rear).
I'm worried it's bringing down the value of the houses in our neighborhood. I have photos of you want them.
thanks
taylor
From: "Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com >

To: Taylor <taylorheanue@yahoo.com >
Subject: RE: Letter showing complaint is closed.
Hi Taylor Sure, Id be glad to send a letter regarding the closure of the NOVs related to your property.
What letter to M. Hector are you referring to? I have sent him e-mails, but do not recall a letter.
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: Letter showing complaint is closed.
HI Rachel On May 29, 2015, you sent me an official letter explaining your involvement and view on the wall.
Now that we are done, could you please send me a second letter on your letterhead saying that the violation is
closed? This will "tie the loop" on closing out first letter and will be an important standalone document for our
upcoming legal case with Mr Hector.
thanks very much,
Taylor Heanue
3521 Calandria
PS how can I get a copy of letter you recently sent to Hector?
8/16/2016
Page 327
8/16/2016
Page 328
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
3/1/2016 9:52:55 PM
3539 Calandria - Trees cut without permits
Rachel,
I'm sure you are well acquainted in the matter of the 60ft tall protected cedars that were cut without permits at
3539 Calandria. Hector admits cutting them. I and others have made complaints, but have not seen any
enforcement.
Can you please assist us in this matter?
Shouldn't trees have to be re-planted to replace the ones that were illegally cut?
regards,
Taylor Heanue
3521 Calandria Ave
Oakland
8/16/2016
Page 329
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/2/2016 11:21:44 AM
Tree Removal - 3539 Calandria
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: Flores, Herbert
Cc: Taylor, Marie (Allene); Miller, Scott
Herb, This is the information the owner of 3539 Calandria just sent to me. Can you confirm what is in your records?
Scott, Can you do the same? Looks like we took in applications. Did we approve anything?
T100013
Feb 25, 2011

Feb 22, 2013
Applied to Planning to remove two Monterey pines. Granted.

Applied to Planning to remove 5 cedars and other trees.
Received several documents that read permit to remove 5 cedars. Cedars removed.
One month later, a tree inspector shows up, says we only received an application, not a permit,
regardless of what the documents said.
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Flores, Herbert
Cc: Taylor, Marie (Allene)
Hi Herb, Its my understanding that Mitch Thomson retired from the City recently and that you are now handling cases that he
would have.
Weve received complaints about large cedars that were cut down on the property at 3539 Calandria Avenue (see attached photo
of trees prior to removal).
Can you tell us if the owner of 3539 got any permit(s) for the removal of these trees? Are permits required? The site is
completely devoid of trees now.
I dont know when they were removed, but mostly likely in 2012 or 2013. Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 330
8/16/2016
Page 331
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

3/2/2016 11:22:11 AM
3539 Calandria Ave.pdf
From: Lu, Alan

To: Flynn, Rachel
Thank you.
Alan Lu
(P) 510.238.6731
(F) 510.238.6445
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: Lu, Alan

From: Flynn, Rachel
you can find.
Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 332
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/2/2016 11:22:53 AM
From: Valeska, David

Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 8:10 AM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Subject: RE: 3539 Calandria Tree Removal
Accela shows an application for a permit but no record of an issued tree permit. Tree Division has
No record of a tree permit application received by them, or issued by them.
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: Valeska, David
Subject: Re: 3539 Calandria Tree Removal
Thanks Dave,
Yes, the trees are long gone and I'm responding to citizen concerns that they were removed without permits.
Regarding the "Permit T13-000013" you cite below, was that an application for a permit or an actual permit?
Thanks, Rachel
> wrote:
On 2-22-13 (2 years 3 months ago) the owner filed for a DRX small project design review at a house, and a tree
Permit T13-000013 to remove cedars and other trees that were causing a retaining wall to fail. Photos in the
(approved) DRX file show the trees causing the wall to fail.
Accela shows an entry from 2-22-13 that I referred the case to Tree Division. This is usually done by interoffice
Mail, with the Division taking over at that point. On 5-26-15 I contacted Gay Luster at Tree Division, she e-mailed
That they have no record of it; however, one of their staff is looking into a citizen call about it.
In almost all cases, after this much time has expired, the owner removes the trees. Google Earth photos look
Like the trees are gone. Please advise if there is additional followup, thanks.
Dave Valeska, Planner II | City of Oakland | Bureau of Planning | 250 Frank H. Ogawa, Suite 2214 |Oakland, CA 94612 | Phone:
(510)238-2075 | Fax: (510) 238-4730 | Email: dvaleska@oaklandnet.com
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: Valeska, David
Hi Dave, A tree removal application was submitted on 2/22/2013 for the residential property at 3539 Calandria
Avenue. You were the Planner who took in the application (Record ID T1300013). The APN is 043A-4692-006-00.
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 333
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

"Damonte, Giacomo" <GDamonte@oaklandnet.com>
3/2/2016 6:27:10 PM
3539 Calandria Ave - Removal of Trees
Rachel's doc - App for Development Review - 3-2-16.pdf
Rachel's doc- additional photo - 3-2-16.pdf
Rachel's doc- photos- 3-2-16.pdf
DOC030216.pdf
DOC030216 (1).pdf
Hi Giacomo This is a tree issue that dates back to 2013 and that I discussed with Robert in 2015. I see that Robert is out for
several days, so I thought Id bring this to your attention.
Background:
Several mature cedars and two small trees were removed in 2013 on private property at 3539 Calandria Avenue. Michael Hector
and Suzanne Clark are the property owners. They applied to the Planning & Building Department for removal of these trees on 222-13, Permit Application # T13-000013. The Planner who took in the application, Dave Valeska, informed me that he forwarded
the application to the Tree Division. However, your office has no record of this application. Michael Hector informed me that he
assumed the application was the permit to remove the trees and that is why he removed them.
Robert and I discussed possible enforcement options, i.e., fines and/or the planting of replacement trees, but came to no
definitive conclusions.
The neighbors have followed up with me by asking what enforcement the City will apply to this case. In the attached photos, you
can see the cedar trees before they were removed. You will also see that most of the trees were not affected by the retaining wall,
as there was no retaining wall adjacent to five (5) of the seven (7) trees removed. Four (4) of them were next to a fence (side yard)
and one (1) small tree was about 8 back from the retaining wall (front yard).
Attached are: the original permit application, photos, and permit status reports.
Can you please call me to discuss enforcement options? The neighbors would like a definitive response. Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
Director l Planning & Building Department l City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
> wrote:
On 2-22-13, the owner filed for a DRX small project design review at a house, and a tree permit T13-000013 to remove cedars and
other trees that were causing a retaining wall to fail. Photos in the (approved) DRX file shows the trees causing the wall to fail.
Accela shows an entry from 2-22-13 that I referred the case to Tree Division. This is usually done by interoffice mail, with the
Division taking over at that point. On 5-26-15 I contacted Gay Luster at Tree Division. She e-mailed that they have no record of it;
however, one of their staff is looking into a citizen call about it.
In almost all cases, after this much time has expired, the owner removes the trees. Google Earth photos look like the trees are
gone. Please advise if there is additional follow-up, thanks.
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: Valeska, David
Hi Dave, A tree removal application was submitted on 2/22/2013 for the residential property at 3539 Calandria Avenue. You
were the Planner who took in the application (Record ID T1300013). The APN is 043A-4692-006-00.
Rachel Flynn AIA
8/16/2016
Page 334
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 335
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

3/4/2016 12:31:05 PM
June 2015 Letter + Photos
DOC030416.pdf
Ed, Here is the letter with photos send last year. Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 336
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/21/2016 6:16:31 AM
Notice of violation 1600550 dated 3-3-2016
Notice of violation 1600550 dated 3-3-2016 - RECEIVED MARCH 15, 2016 - INCORRECT
ADDRESS.
Mr. Barron,
I just received the referenced violation on March 15, 2016.
1. The address you're sending the notice is incorrect. You have the notice addressed to
9859 Stanley avenue. We sold that property in 2015. Please correct your records to reflect the
correct address.
2. Your 1st noticed violation of 8.24.020 F: "unapproved open storage." I don't see that
wording in this section. This section has six subsections of 476 words. It is unclear what your
issue is. From my reading, I don't see a violation. Please clarify
however 8.24.020 F 1 "...such items may be temporarily kept within or upon residential
property for the time required for the construction of installation of improvements or
facilities on the property,"
2.a "any parking, ... shall be .... a five-foot setback from any property line"
3. Your 2nd noticed violation of 17.08.140 B: "fence over 42 in the front setback". I don't show
section "17.08". I see 17.07 & 17.09. NO "17.08." Please send me a copy of the referenced
section or a corrected code reference.
However, the fence is not in the front setback. For our zoning the front setback is 20
feet. The solid fence begins 22 feet from the front property line, and is therefore NOT IN THE
FRONT SETBACK. I would also refer you to CRC 105.2 exempt structures #2 fences not over
7 feet are EXEMPT.
4. Your 3rd violation "wire fencing damaged". You reference 8.24.020 C4, .A Building or
Structure Which is in a State of Disrepair, which reads "...fences... substantially defaced to
the extent that the disrepair visually impacts on neighboring property or presents a risk
to public safety."
Our property perimeter is 440 feet. I have no idea where you see a "substantial disrepair that
visually impacts the neighboring property OR PRESENTS A RISK TO PUBLIC
SAFETY". This is pointed, because I pointed out the neighboring properties for debris in
8/16/2016
Page 337
October 2015 through February 2016, and you took no action.

5. Your 4th violation unapproved stretcher over 120 sq feet. This is an exempt "L" shaped
Playhouse less than 120 sq feet. We do have a retractable membrane canopy covering our
patio, which is building code exempt per CRC & CBC based on limited size.
When a Building Permit is not needed

S o m e m inor projects are allowed without obtain ing build ing perm its. However, depending upon the project, other permits
( p l a n n i n g p e r m its, sp ecial activities perm its, etc.) may be required. In either case, the construction of such projects should
be in conformance with all applicable codes.
S o m e of the projects which do not require a building permit are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Retaining walls or planter boxes which are no m ore than 4' in he ight (me asured from the bottom of the footing to the
top of the wall) and d o not support another structure, fence, or take on additional loads.
W ood or chain link fences not greater than 6' h igh (or n ot greater than 3' high if m asonry).
Decks and platform s less than thirty in ches above grade and not within six feet of any oth er building or structure
which require s (or req uired) a building perm it for its construction.
Exte rior stairs that are no greater than 30" above grade , and are not a part of an exiting system . NOTE: Some
e x c e p t i o n s m ay apply. See a Permit Technician at the P erm it Ce nter.
Side walks an d driveways not more than 30 inch e s a b o v e a d j a c e n t g r a d e , a n d n o t o v e r a n y b a s e m ent or story below
and are not part of an accessible route.
T e m porary m otion picture, television a nd theater stage sets and scenery.
Prefabricated above-ground pools accessory to a single fam ily dwelling that are less than 24 inches deep and have a
m a x i m um capacity of 5,000 gallons.
Swin g s a n d o t h e r p l a y g r o u n d e q u i p m e n t a c c e s s o r y t o d e t a c h e d o n e - a n d t w o - f a m ily dwellings.
Sing le story detached building s which do not exceed 12 feet in h e i g h t u s e d a s t o o l o r s t o r a g e s h e d s , p l a y h o u s e s ,
e t c . , a s l o n g a s t h e p r o j e c t e d r o o f a r e a d o e s n o t e x c e e d 1 2 0 s q u a r e f e e t a n d d o e s n o t h a ve plum bing or electricity.
6. We have planning approval for a 480 building at the current location of our patio, which we
have not build yet.
Awaiting clarification,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
8/16/2016
Page 338
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Parker, Barbara" <bjparker@oaklandnet.com>
"Katz, Rebecca" <RKatz@oaklandnet.com>
"Wilson, Isaac" <iwilson@oaklandnet.com>
3/21/2016 9:28:45 AM
Re: Notice of violation 1600550 dated 3-3-2016
REQUEST TO MEET AND CONFER - NOTICE OF PENDING LITIGATION

Misconduct and violations of civil law, State and Federal constitutional protections by City Of Oakland staff supervised
directly by the City Administrator.
DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATIONS
Honorable Sabrina Landreth,

City Administrator
City Of Oakland California
I REQUEST 30 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME, IN AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID LITIGATION. I have made multiple efforts to
resolve misconduct by Oakland Employees over the past year without success. I even spoke to the City Council in
October 2015 - you were present eating in the Council Chambers. The Oakland Charter, section 504, requires you to
"enforce all laws and ordinances", and "investigate affairs of the City under (your) jurisdiction." YOU HAVE
REPEATEDLY FAILED IN THESE PRIMARY DUTIES.
All I request is equal treatment under the law and application of the law as written. When Oakland Staff REFUSE to
follow written Oakland Codes, it is your Duty to supervise staff and enforce the laws and ordinances.
Oakland City Charter Section 504. Duties. The City Administrator shall have the power and it shall be his duty:
(a) To execute and enforce all laws and ordinances and policies of the Council and to administer the affairs of the City.
...
(d) To investigate affairs of the City under his supervision, or any franchise or contract for the proper performance of any
obligation running to the City within his jurisdiction.
I'd prefer to resolve these issues administratively, if possible. I'm completing a Civil Complaint, HECTOR V.
LANDRETH, that will be filed in Alameda Superior Court, by March 29, 2016. This suit lists, multiple violations of the
State Constitution, including Article 1, Section 1, 7, 13, 19, 24, and 31. Clear, fundamental and repeated violations of
equal protection and due process for Michael Hector by Oakland employees under your supervision. City employees are
not entitled to Qualified Immunity for clear and knowing violations of Constitutional rights. However, I can only compel
your response through litigation, if you remain unwilling to address the offending conduct of your staff administratively.
8/16/2016
Page 339
I'm involved in a civil dispute with several neighbors - 12 lawsuits filed in the last 19 months. These neighbors are smart
and are coordinating making official complaints to Oakland Staff - more than 100 over the last 3 years. I appreciate that
Oakland staff are obligated to investigate complaints. But the misconduct of Oakland staff when responding to
complaints and clear inconsistent application of the law is staggering. Rachel Flynn, Hugo Barron, Rebecca Katz
and Gregory Minor are particular problems.
There are two basic problems:
1) Oakland staff DO NOT follow the written law.
2) Oakland Staff DO NOT apply the laws equally to adjacent properties and persons
Allow me to give you five examples of the problem with Oakland Staff under your supervision:
1. Chapter 1.08 CIVIL PENALTIES; Unsupervised functionaries are allowed to assess civil penalties unto $365,000
without any hearing, proof or advanced notice. This is SEVEN times the median Oakland household income. This
Chapter totally abrogates the presumption of innocence and the right to confront accusers. On it's face, this violates
State and Federal Constitutional protections - taking of property without any due process.
2. Chapter 6 ANIMALS; Potentially dangerous dogs. This Chapter spells out specific REQUIRED steps the City MUST
take to declare a dog "Potentially Dangerous Dogs (PDD)". Your staff failed to comply with OMC title 6, as written and
they made up their own rules, and refused repeated requests to follow OMC 6. Rebecca Katz, a licensed attorney,
acknowledged she has authority to correct Oakland's Animal Control error, but refuses to do so. This is compounded by
Gregory Minor who made a "Public Nuisance" determination, based on the improper and unlawful application of the
PDD designation of my dogs.
3. Chapter 8.11 ILLEGAL DUMPING; Strange interpretation and inconsistent application regarding adjacent properties.
I'm shown on video taking debris from my vehicle and placing it in a trash can and carrying poles to my property. Yet
Greg Minor accused me of a misdemeanor and issued a fine without notice or hearing. OMC 8.11 defines "illegal
dumping" as improper disposal. How is putting debris into a trash can "improper disposal"? Yet my neighbor dumped
and buried tonnes of debris into the adjacent park, including burying some, without consequence???
4. Chapter 8.24 PROPERTY BLIGHT Same strange and inconsistent application regarding adjacent properties by Hugo
Barron. I'm repeatedly cited for OMC 8.24 violations while working on my property in the middle of the day - even
though OMC 8.24 specifically permits improvements. More than 10 searches of my property - looking for violations - over
the past 18 months
5. Rachel Flynn: Gave my neighbor 5 years to correct a major building code and encroachment onto a City Park,
violation #1101036. Yet, Ms. Flynn refused all my requests for extensions? One person receives 5 years of extensions a neighbor ZERO extensions?
I would appreciate a response - even if you decline to meet and confer. I've attached a recent perspective
photo of my home, so you can visualize our blighted property.
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria Ave,
Oakland, CA 94605
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:16 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com
> wrote:
Notice of violation 1600550 dated 3-3-2016 - RECEIVED MARCH 15, 2016 - INCORRECT ADDRESS.
Mr. Barron,
8/16/2016
Page 340

1. The address you're sending the notice is incorrect. You have the notice addressed to 9859
Stanley avenue. We sold that property in 2015. Please correct your records to reflect the correct address.
2. Your 1st noticed violation of 8.24.020 F: "unapproved open storage." I don't see that wording in this
section. This section has six subsections of 476 words. It is unclear what your issue is. From my
reading, I don't see a violation. Please clarify
however 8.24.020 F 1 "...such items may be temporarily kept within or upon residential property for
the time required for the construction of installation of improvements or facilities on the property,"
3. Your 2nd noticed violation of 17.08.140 B: "fence over 42 in the front setback". I don't show section
"17.08". I see 17.07 & 17.09. NO "17.08." Please send me a copy of the referenced section or a
corrected code reference.
However, the fence is not in the front setback. For our zoning the front setback is 20 feet. The
solid fence begins 22 feet from the front property line, and is therefore NOT IN THE FRONT SETBACK. I
would also refer you to CRC 105.2 exempt structures #2 fences not over 7 feet are EXEMPT.
4. Your 3rd violation "wire fencing damaged". You reference 8.24.020 C4, .A Building or Structure Which is
in a State of Disrepair, which reads "...fences... substantially defaced to the extent that the disrepair
visually impacts on neighboring property or presents a risk to public safety."
Our property perimeter is 440 feet. I have no idea where you see a "substantial disrepair that visually
impacts the neighboring property OR PRESENTS A RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY". This is
pointed, because I pointed out the neighboring properties for debris in October 2015 through February
2016, and you took no action.
5. Your 4th violation unapproved stretcher over 120 sq feet. This is an exempt "L" shaped Playhouse less
than 120 sq feet. We do have a retractable membrane canopy covering our patio, which is building
code exempt per CRC & CBC based on limited size.

Some minor projects are allowed without obtaining building permits . However, depending upon the project, other permits (planning
permits, special ac tivities permits, etc.) may be required. In either c as e, the cons truc tion of such projec ts should be in conformanc e
with all applicable codes.
Some of the projects whic h do not require a building permit are:
1 . Retaining walls or planter boxes which are no more than 4 ' in height (meas ured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the
wall) and do not s upport another structure, fenc e, or take on additional loads.
Wood or chain link fences not greater than 6' high (or not greater than 3' high if masonry).
Decks and platforms less than thirty inches above grade and not within six feet of any other building or structure
which requires (or required) a building permit for its construction.
Exterior stairs that are no greater than 30" above grade, and are not a part of an exiting system. NOTE: Some
exceptions may apply. See a Permit Technician at the Permit Center.
Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches above adjacent grade, and not over any basement or story below
Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery.
Prefabricated above-ground pools accessory to a single family dwelling that are less than 24 inches deep and have a
maximum capacity of 5,000 gallons.
Swings and other playground equipment accessory to detached one- and two-family dwellings.
8/16/2016
Page 341
Single story detached buildings which do not exceed 12 feet in height used as tool or storage sheds, playhouses,
etc., as long as the projected roof area does not exceed 120 square feet and does not have plumbing or electricity.
6. We have planning approval for a 480 building at the current location of our patio, which we have not build
yet.
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
8/16/2016
Page 342
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/21/2016 9:55:50 AM
Notice of violation 1600550 dated 3-3-2016
Sabrina, You can speak with Claudia about this case. She has met with Michael Hector and knows the background. Thanks,
Rachel
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 9:29 AM
To: Barron, Hugo; Flynn, Rachel; Suzy clark; michael hector; Landreth, Sabrina; Schaaf, Libby; Office of the Mayor; Parker, Barbara; Katz,
Rebecca; Minor, Gregory; Low, Tim; Wilson, Isaac; Espinosa, Thomas; Ramirez, Ivan; Smith, Sandra M; Cappio, Claudia; Woo, Winnie
Subject: Re: Notice of violation 1600550 dated 3-3-2016

Misconduct and violations of civil law, State and Federal constitutional protections by City Of Oakland staff supervised directly by
the City Administrator.

City Administrator
I REQUEST 30 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME, IN AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID LITIGATION. I have made multiple efforts to resolve
misconduct by Oakland Employees over the past year without success. I even spoke to the City Council in October 2015 - you were
present eating in the Council Chambers. The Oakland Charter, section 504, requires you to "enforce all laws and ordinances", and
"investigate affairs of the City under (your) jurisdiction." YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY FAILED IN THESE PRIMARY DUTIES.
All I request is equal treatment under the law and application of the law as written. When Oakland Staff REFUSE to follow written
Oakland Codes, it is your Duty to supervise staff and enforce the laws and ordinances.
(a) To execute and enforce all laws and ordinances and policies of the Council and to administer the affairs of the City.
...
(d) To investigate affairs of the City under his supervision, or any franchise or contract for the proper performance of any
obligation running to the City within his jurisdiction.
I'd prefer to resolve these issues administratively, if possible. I'm completing a Civil Complaint, HECTOR V. LANDRETH, that will
be filed in Alameda Superior Court, by March 29, 2016. This suit lists, multiple violations of the State Constitution, including Article
1, Section 1, 7, 13, 19, 24, and 31. Clear, fundamental and repeated violations of equal protection and due process for Michael
Hector by Oakland employees under your supervision. City employees are not entitled to Qualified Immunity for clear and knowing
violations of Constitutional rights. However, I can only compel your response through litigation, if you remain unwilling to address
the offending conduct of your staff administratively.
I'm involved in a civil dispute with several neighbors - 12 lawsuits filed in the last 19 months. These neighbors are smart and are
coordinating making official complaints to Oakland Staff - more than 100 over the last 3 years. I appreciate that Oakland staff are
obligated to investigate complaints. But the misconduct of Oakland staff when responding to complaints and clear inconsistent
application of the law is staggering. Rachel Flynn, Hugo Barron, Rebecca Katz and Gregory Minor are particular problems.
8/16/2016
Page 343
1. Chapter 1.08 CIVIL PENALTIES; Unsupervised functionaries are allowed to assess civil penalties unto $365,000 without any
hearing, proof or advanced notice. This is SEVEN times the median Oakland household income. This Chapter totally abrogates the
presumption of innocence and the right to confront accusers. On it's face, this violates State and Federal Constitutional protections
- taking of property without any due process.
2. Chapter 6 ANIMALS; Potentially dangerous dogs. This Chapter spells out specific REQUIRED steps the City MUST take to
declare a dog "Potentially Dangerous Dogs (PDD)". Your staff failed to comply with OMC title 6, as written and they made up their
own rules, and refused repeated requests to follow OMC 6. Rebecca Katz, a licensed attorney, acknowledged she has authority to
correct Oakland's Animal Control error, but refuses to do so. This is compounded by Gregory Minor who made a "Public
Nuisance" determination, based on the improper and unlawful application of the PDD designation of my dogs.
3. Chapter 8.11 ILLEGAL DUMPING; Strange interpretation and inconsistent application regarding adjacent properties. I'm shown
on video taking debris from my vehicle and placing it in a trash can and carrying poles to my property. Yet Greg Minor accused me
of a misdemeanor and issued a fine without notice or hearing. OMC 8.11 defines "illegal dumping" as improper disposal. How is
putting debris into a trash can "improper disposal"? Yet my neighbor dumped and buried tonnes of debris into the adjacent park,
including burying some, without consequence???
4. Chapter 8.24 PROPERTY BLIGHT Same strange and inconsistent application regarding adjacent properties by Hugo Barron. I'm
repeatedly cited for OMC 8.24 violations while working on my property in the middle of the day - even though OMC 8.24 specifically
permits improvements. More than 10 searches of my property - looking for violations - over the past 18 months
5. Rachel Flynn: Gave my neighbor 5 years to correct a major building code and encroachment onto a City Park, violation
#1101036. Yet, Ms. Flynn refused all my requests for extensions? One person receives 5 years of extensions - a neighbor ZERO
extensions?
I would appreciate a response - even if you decline to meet and confer. I've attached a recent perspective photo of my home, so you
can visualize our blighted property.
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria Ave,
Oakland, CA 94605
> wrote:
Mr. Barron,
1. The address you're sending the notice is incorrect. You have the notice addressed to 9859 Stanley
avenue. We sold that property in 2015. Please correct your records to reflect the correct address.
2. Your 1st noticed violation of 8.24.020 F: "unapproved open storage." I don't see that wording in this section. This
section has six subsections of 476 words. It is unclear what your issue is. From my reading, I don't see a
violation. Please clarify
however 8.24.020 F 1 "...such items may be temporarily kept within or upon residential property for the
time required for the construction of installation of improvements or facilities on the property,"
3. Your 2nd noticed violation of 17.08.140 B: "fence over 42 in the front setback". I don't show section "17.08". I see
17.07 & 17.09. NO "17.08." Please send me a copy of the referenced section or a corrected code reference.
8/16/2016
Page 344
However, the fence is not in the front setback. For our zoning the front setback is 20 feet. The solid fence begins
22 feet from the front property line, and is therefore NOT IN THE FRONT SETBACK. I would also refer you to
CRC 105.2 exempt structures #2 fences not over 7 feet are EXEMPT.
4. Your 3rd violation "wire fencing damaged". You reference 8.24.020 C4, .A Building or Structure Which is in a
State of Disrepair, which reads "...fences... substantially defaced to the extent that the disrepair visually
impacts on neighboring property or presents a risk to public safety."
Our property perimeter is 440 feet. I have no idea where you see a "substantial disrepair that visually impacts the
neighboring property OR PRESENTS A RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY". This is pointed, because I pointed out
the neighboring properties for debris in October 2015 through February 2016, and you took no action.
5. Your 4th violation unapproved stretcher over 120 sq feet. This is an exempt "L" shaped Playhouse less than 120 sq
feet. We do have a retractable membrane canopy covering our patio, which is building code exempt per CRC
& CBC based on limited size.

Some minor projects are allowed without obtaining building permits . However, depending upon the project, other permits (planning permits,
s p e c ial activities permits, etc .) may be required. In either case, the c onstruction of s uch projects s hould be in c onformance with all
applicable codes.
Some of the projects whic h do not require a building permit are:
1 . Retaining walls or planter boxes which are no more than 4 ' in height (meas ured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall)
and do not s upport another structure, fence, or take on additional loads .
2 . Wood or c hain link fenc es not greater than 6 ' high (or not greater than 3 ' high if mas onry).
3 . D e c ks and platforms less than thirty inc hes above grade and not within six feet of any other building or s tructure which requires (or
required) a building permit for its cons truction.
4 . E xterior s tairs that are no greater than 3 0" above grade, and are not a part of an exiting s ys tem. NO T E : Some exc eptions may apply.
See a P ermit T ec hnic ian at the Permit C enter.
5 . Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches above adjac ent grade, and not over any basement or story below and are not part
of an acc es sible route.
6 . T emporary motion picture, television and theater s tage sets and sc enery.
7 . P refabric ated above-ground pools acc ess ory to a single family dwelling that are less than 24 inches deep and have a maximum
capacity of 5 ,0 0 0 gallons .
8 . Swings and other playground equipment access ory to detached one- and two-family dwellings .
9 . Single s tory detac hed buildings whic h do not exceed 1 2 feet in height used as tool or s torage sheds, playhouses, etc., as long as the
projected roof area does not exc eed 12 0 s quare feet and does not have plumbing or elec tric ity.
6. We have planning approval for a 480 building at the current location of our patio, which we have not build yet.
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
8/16/2016
Page 345
8/16/2016
Page 346
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/21/2016 9:42:01 PM
2ND REQUEST.
Mr. Barron,
PLEASE CLARIFY 6 ITEMS IN Notice of violation 1600550 dated 3-3-2016 - RECEIVED
MARCH 15, 2016 - INCORRECT ADDRESS.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:16 AM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
ADDRESS.
Mr. Barron,
9859 Stanley avenue. We sold that property in 2015. Please correct your records to reflect
the correct address.
FRONT SETBACK. I would also refer you to CRC 105.2 exempt structures #2 fences not
over 7 feet are EXEMPT.
8/16/2016
Page 347
to public safety."
Our property perimeter is 440 feet. I have no idea where you see a "substantial disrepair
that visually impacts the neighboring property OR PRESENTS A RISK TO PUBLIC

( p l a n n i n g p e r m its, sp ecial activities perm its, etc.) may be required. In either case, the construction of such projects
should be in conformance with all applicable codes.
1.
Retaining walls or planter boxes which are no m ore than 4' in he ight (me asured from the bottom of the footing to
the top of the wall) and do not support another structure, fence, or take on additional loads.
Decks and platforms less than thirty inches above grade and not within six feet of any other building or
structure which requires (or required) a building permit for its construction.
Exterior stairs that are no greater than 30" above grade, and are not a part of an exiting system. NOTE:
Some exceptions may apply. See a Permit Technician at the Permit Center.
Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches above adjacent grade, and not over any basement or
story below and are not part of an accessible route.
Prefabricated above-ground pools accessory to a single family dwelling that are less than 24 inches deep
and have a maximum capacity of 5,000 gallons.
Single story detached buildings which do not exceed 12 feet in height used as tool or storage sheds,
playhouses, etc., as long as the projected roof area does not exceed 120 square feet and does not have
plumbing or electricity.
have not build yet.
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
8/16/2016
Page 348
8/16/2016
Page 349
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Parker, Barbara" <bjparker@oaklandnet.com>
"Katz, Rebecca" <RKatz@oaklandnet.com>
"Wilson, Isaac" <iwilson@oaklandnet.com>
3/21/2016 9:43:21 PM
2ND REQUEST
Ms. Landreth,

Misconduct and violations of civil law, State and Federal constitutional protections by City Of Oakland staff supervised directly by the City
Administrator.
> wrote:

Misconduct and violations of civil law, State and Federal constitutional protections by City Of Oakland staff
supervised directly by the City Administrator.

City Administrator
8/16/2016
Page 350
I REQUEST 30 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME, IN AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID LITIGATION. I have made multiple
efforts to resolve misconduct by Oakland Employees over the past year without success. I even spoke to the
City Council in October 2015 - you were present eating in the Council Chambers. The Oakland Charter,
section 504, requires you to "enforce all laws and ordinances", and "investigate affairs of the City under (your)
jurisdiction." YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY FAILED IN THESE PRIMARY DUTIES.
All I request is equal treatment under the law and application of the law as written. When Oakland Staff
REFUSE to follow written Oakland Codes, it is your Duty to supervise staff and enforce the laws and
ordinances.
(a) To execute and enforce all laws and ordinances and policies of the Council and to administer the affairs of
the City.
...
(d) To investigate affairs of the City under his supervision, or any franchise or contract for the proper
performance of any obligation running to the City within his jurisdiction.
I'd prefer to resolve these issues administratively, if possible. I'm completing a Civil Complaint, HECTOR
V. LANDRETH, that will be filed in Alameda Superior Court, by March 29, 2016. This suit lists, multiple
violations of the State Constitution, including Article 1, Section 1, 7, 13, 19, 24, and 31. Clear, fundamental
and repeated violations of equal protection and due process for Michael Hector by Oakland employees under
your supervision. City employees are not entitled to Qualified Immunity for clear and knowing violations of
Constitutional rights. However, I can only compel your response through litigation, if you remain unwilling to
address the offending conduct of your staff administratively.
I'm involved in a civil dispute with several neighbors - 12 lawsuits filed in the last 19 months. These neighbors
are smart and are coordinating making official complaints to Oakland Staff - more than 100 over the last 3
years. I appreciate that Oakland staff are obligated to investigate complaints. But the misconduct of Oakland
staff when responding to complaints and clear inconsistent application of the law is staggering. Rachel
Flynn, Hugo Barron, Rebecca Katz and Gregory Minor are particular problems.
1. Chapter 1.08 CIVIL PENALTIES; Unsupervised functionaries are allowed to assess civil penalties unto
$365,000 without any hearing, proof or advanced notice. This is SEVEN times the median Oakland household
income. This Chapter totally abrogates the presumption of innocence and the right to confront accusers. On
it's face, this violates State and Federal Constitutional protections - taking of property without any due
process.
2. Chapter 6 ANIMALS; Potentially dangerous dogs. This Chapter spells out specific REQUIRED steps the
City MUST take to declare a dog "Potentially Dangerous Dogs (PDD)". Your staff failed to comply with OMC
title 6, as written and they made up their own rules, and refused repeated requests to follow OMC 6.
Rebecca Katz, a licensed attorney, acknowledged she has authority to correct Oakland's Animal Control
error, but refuses to do so. This is compounded by Gregory Minor who made a "Public
Nuisance" determination, based on the improper and unlawful application of the PDD designation of my dogs.
3. Chapter 8.11 ILLEGAL DUMPING; Strange interpretation and inconsistent application regarding adjacent
properties. I'm shown on video taking debris from my vehicle and placing it in a trash can and carrying poles
to my property. Yet Greg Minor accused me of a misdemeanor and issued a fine without notice or
hearing. OMC 8.11 defines "illegal dumping" as improper disposal. How is putting debris into a trash can
8/16/2016
Page 351
"improper disposal"? Yet my neighbor dumped and buried tonnes of debris into the adjacent park, including
burying some, without consequence???
4. Chapter 8.24 PROPERTY BLIGHT Same strange and inconsistent application regarding adjacent
properties by Hugo Barron. I'm repeatedly cited for OMC 8.24 violations while working on my property in
the middle of the day - even though OMC 8.24 specifically permits improvements. More than 10 searches of
my property - looking for violations - over the past 18 months
5. Rachel Flynn: Gave my neighbor 5 years to correct a major building code and encroachment onto a City
Park, violation #1101036. Yet, Ms. Flynn refused all my requests for extensions? One person receives 5
years of extensions - a neighbor ZERO extensions?
I would appreciate a response - even if you decline to meet and confer. I've attached a recent
perspective photo of my home, so you can visualize our blighted property.
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria Ave,
Oakland, CA 94605
> wrote:
ADDRESS.
Mr. Barron,
1. The address you're sending the notice is incorrect. You have the notice addressed
to 9859 Stanley avenue. We sold that property in 2015. Please correct your records to
reflect the correct address.
3. Your 2nd noticed violation of 17.08.140 B: "fence over 42 in the front setback". I don't
show section "17.08". I see 17.07 & 17.09. NO "17.08." Please send me a copy of
the referenced section or a corrected code reference.
8/16/2016
Page 352
feet. The solid fence begins 22 feet from the front property line, and is therefore NOT IN
THE FRONT SETBACK. I would also refer you to CRC 105.2 exempt structures #2 fences
not over 7 feet are EXEMPT.
Structure Which is in a State of Disrepair, which reads "...fences... substantially defaced
to the extent that the disrepair visually impacts on neighboring property or presents a
risk to public safety."

S o m e m inor projects are allowed without obtain ing build ing perm its. However, depending upon the project, other
permits (planning permits, special activities permits, etc.) may be required. In either case, the con struction of such
projects should be in conform ance with all applicable codes.
1.
Retaining walls or planter boxes which are no m ore than 4' in he ight (me asured from the bottom of the footing
to the top of the wall) and do not support another structure, fence, or take on additional loads.
have not build yet.
Michael Hector
8/16/2016
Page 353
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
8/16/2016
Page 354
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/23/2016 4:06:01 PM
Notice of violation 1600550
2ND REQUEST
6 QUESTIONS / CLARIFICATIONS
ADDRESS.
Mr. Barron,
9859 Stanley avenue. We sold that property in 2015. Please correct your records to reflect the
correct address.
FRONT SETBACK. I would also refer you to CRC 105.2 exempt structures #2 fences not over
7 feet are EXEMPT.
to public safety."
Our property perimeter is 440 feet. I have no idea where you see a "substantial disrepair that
visually impacts the neighboring property OR PRESENTS A RISK TO PUBLIC
8/16/2016
Page 355

( p l a n n i n g p e r m its, sp ecial activities perm its, etc.) may be required. In either case, the construction of such projects should
be in conformance with all applicable codes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Retaining walls or planter boxes which are no m ore than 4' in he ight (me asured from the bottom of the footing to
W ood or chain link fences not greater than 6' h igh (or n ot greater than 3' high if m asonry).
Decks and platform s less than thirty in ches above grade and not within six feet of any oth er building or structure
Exte rior stairs that are no greater than 30" above grade , and are not a part of an exiting system . NOTE: Some
Side walks an d driveways not more than 30 inch e s a b o v e a d j a c e n t g r a d e , a n d n o t o v e r a n y b a s e m ent or story below
T e m porary m otion picture, television a nd theater stage sets and scenery.
Prefabricated above-ground pools accessory to a single fam ily dwelling that are less than 24 inches deep and have
a m a x i m u m capacity of 5,000 gallons.
Swin g s a n d o t h e r p l a y g r o u n d e q u i p m e n t a c c e s s o r y t o d e t a c h e d o n e - a n d t w o - f a m ily dwellings.
Sing le story detached building s which do not exceed 12 feet in h e i g h t u s e d a s t o o l o r s t o r a g e s h e d s , p l a y h o u s e s ,
have not build yet.
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
8/16/2016
Page 356
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/24/2016 9:13:34 PM
Re: Notice of violation 1600550
3rd request
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
2ND REQUEST
ADDRESS.
Mr. Barron,
9859 Stanley avenue. We sold that property in 2015. Please correct your records to reflect
the correct address.
FRONT SETBACK. I would also refer you to CRC 105.2 exempt structures #2 fences not
over 7 feet are EXEMPT.
to public safety."
8/16/2016
Page 357

( p l a n n i n g p e r m its, sp ecial activities perm its, etc.) may be required. In either case, the construction of such projects
should be in conformance with all applicable codes.
1.
Retaining walls or planter boxes which are no m ore than 4' in he ight (me asured from the bottom of the footing
to the top of the wall) and do not support another structure, fence, or take on additional loads.
have not build yet.
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
8/16/2016
Page 358
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/25/2016 10:02:41 AM
RE: Notice of violation 1600550
Mr. Hector,
Please see below for my comments in red. If you disagree with our violation findings, you are welcome to file a violation appeal.
The appeal form should have been included with the notice of violation you received.
Hugo Barron, Specialty Combination Inspector.
Mr. Barron,
We mailed the notice to the mailing address recorded with the county, you have to let the county know
that your mailing address has changed.
section. This section has six subsections of 476 words. It is unclear what your issue is. From my reading, I don't
see a violation. Please clarify
Temporary storage of these items are allowed as long as you can prove that they are associated with a
project you are working on. Based on our field observations, it seems that some of the construction
materials were used to build the unapproved rear detached structure in your property.
however 8.24.020 F 1 "...such items may be temporarily kept within or upon residential property
for the time required for the construction of installation of improvements or facilities on the
property,"
3. Your 2nd noticed violation of 17.08.140 B: "fence over 42 in the front setback". I don't show section "17.08". I
see 17.07 & 17.09. NO "17.08." Please send me a copy of the referenced section or a corrected code reference.
The section was noted in error as 17.08.140.B, but the correct code section is 17.108.140.B. We
would like to meet you at the site to further talk about the compliance of this code section and verify
the front setback distance of 20 feet associated to the application of the requirement.
However, the fence is not in the front setback. For our zoning the front setback is 20 feet. The solid fence
begins 22 feet from the front property line, and is therefore NOT IN THE FRONT SETBACK. I would also refer
you to CRC 105.2 exempt structures #2 fences not over 7 feet are EXEMPT.
(see above)
4. Your 3rd violation "wire fencing damaged". You reference 8.24.020 C4, .A Building or Structure Which is in
a State of Disrepair, which reads "...fences... substantially defaced to the extent that the disrepair
Under our interpretation of this section mentions fences that are broken and a visual impact on the
neighboring properties, which is your case.
Our property perimeter is 440 feet. I have no idea where you see a "substantial disrepair that visually impacts
the neighboring property OR PRESENTS A RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY". This is pointed, because I pointed
out the neighboring properties for debris in October 2015 through February 2016, and you took no action.
8/16/2016
Page 359
5. Your 4th violation unapproved stretcher over 120 sq feet. This is an exempt "L" shaped Playhouse less than 120
sq feet. We do have a retractable membrane canopy covering our patio, which is building code exempt per
CRC & CBC based on limited size.
Based on our limited observation from the front and rear outside of the property, we determined that
your detached structure located in the rear exceeds 120 SF, however we can meet on site to verify full
compliance of the exemption of this code section as you claim.

( p l a n n i n g p e r m its, sp ecial activities perm its, etc.) may be required. In either case, the construction of such projects should b e
in conform ance with all applicable codes.
1 . Retaining walls or planter boxes which are no m ore than 4' in he ight (me asured from the bottom of the footing to the
top of the wall) and d o not support another structure, fence, or take on additional loads.
2 . W ood or chain link fences not greater than 6' h igh (or n ot greater than 3' high if m asonry).
3 . Decks and platform s less than thirty in ches above grade and not within six feet of any oth er building or structure wh ich
requires (or required) a building perm it for its construction.
4 . Exte rior stairs that are no greater than 30" above grade , and are not a part of an exiting system . NOTE: Some
5 . Side walks an d driveways not more than 30 inch e s a b o v e a d j a c e n t g r a d e , a n d n o t o v e r a n y b a s e m ent or story below
6 . T e m porary m otion picture, television a nd theater stage sets and scenery.
7 . Prefabricated above-ground pools accessory to a single fam ily dwelling that are less than 24 inches deep and have a
8 . Swin g s a n d o t h e r p l a y g r o u n d e q u i p m e n t a c c e s s o r y t o d e t a c h e d o n e - a n d t w o - f a m ily dwellings.
9 . Sing le story detached building s which do not exceed 12 feet in h e i g h t u s e d a s t o o l o r s t o r a g e s h e d s , p l a y h o u s e s , e t c . ,
a s l o n g a s t h e p r o j e c t e d r o o f a r e a d o e s n o t e x c e e d 1 2 0 s q u a r e f e e t a n d d o e s n o t h a v e p l u m bing or electricity.
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605

Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 9:14 PM
To: Barron, Hugo; Flynn, Rachel; Low, Tim; Landreth, Sabrina; Office of the Mayor; Schaaf, Libby
Subject: Re: Notice of violation 1600550
3rd request
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
2ND REQUEST
Mr. Barron,
section. This section has six subsections of 476 words. It is unclear what your issue is. From my reading, I don't
see a violation. Please clarify
however 8.24.020 F 1 "...such items may be temporarily kept within or upon residential property
for the time required for the construction of installation of improvements or facilities on the
8/16/2016
Page 360
property,"
3. Your 2nd noticed violation of 17.08.140 B: "fence over 42 in the front setback". I don't show section "17.08". I
see 17.07 & 17.09. NO "17.08." Please send me a copy of the referenced section or a corrected code reference.
However, the fence is not in the front setback. For our zoning the front setback is 20 feet. The solid fence
begins 22 feet from the front property line, and is therefore NOT IN THE FRONT SETBACK. I would also refer
you to CRC 105.2 exempt structures #2 fences not over 7 feet are EXEMPT.
4. Your 3rd violation "wire fencing damaged". You reference 8.24.020 C4, .A Building or Structure Which is in
a State of Disrepair, which reads "...fences... substantially defaced to the extent that the disrepair
Our property perimeter is 440 feet. I have no idea where you see a "substantial disrepair that visually impacts
the neighboring property OR PRESENTS A RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY". This is pointed, because I pointed
out the neighboring properties for debris in October 2015 through February 2016, and you took no action.
5. Your 4th violation unapproved stretcher over 120 sq feet. This is an exempt "L" shaped Playhouse less than 120
sq feet. We do have a retractable membrane canopy covering our patio, which is building code exempt per
CRC & CBC based on limited size.

( p l a n n i n g p e r m its, sp ecial activities perm its, etc.) may be required. In either case, the construction of such projects should b e
in conform ance with all applicable codes.
1 . Retaining walls or planter boxes which are no m ore than 4' in he ight (me asured from the bottom of the footing to
2 . W ood or chain link fences not greater than 6' h igh (or n ot greater than 3' high if m asonry).
3 . Decks and platform s less than thirty in ches above grade and not within six feet of any oth er building or structure
4 . Exte rior stairs that are no greater than 30" above grade , and are not a part of an exiting system . NOTE: Some
5 . Side walks an d driveways not more than 30 inch e s a b o v e a d j a c e n t g r a d e , a n d n o t o v e r a n y b a s e m ent or story below
6 . T e m porary m otion picture, television a nd theater stage sets and scenery.
7 . Prefabricated above-ground pools accessory to a single fam ily dwelling that are less than 24 inches deep and have a
8 . Swin g s a n d o t h e r p l a y g r o u n d e q u i p m e n t a c c e s s o r y t o d e t a c h e d o n e - a n d t w o - f a m ily dwellings.
9 . Sing le story detached building s which do not exceed 12 feet in h e i g h t u s e d a s t o o l o r s t o r a g e s h e d s , p l a y h o u s e s ,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
8/16/2016
Page 361
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/25/2016 4:03:44 PM
#2 Notice of violation 1600550 dated 3-3-2016
Rachel Flynn
Director of Building and Planning
City Of Oakland
Mr. Barron did NOT respond to the issue of "canopies" and "membrane" structures in his email reply of 3-242016.
CBC and CRC allow "PERMIT EXEMPT" "canopies" and "membrane" structures; yard umbrella's, "EZ
up" canopies as examples up to 700 sq ft?
We have planning design approval for something in our backyard: DS 15-0160. What's the problem if we chose
to have a large canopy for shade and inclement weather that's retractable when it's nice outside?
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
8/16/2016
Page 362
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/28/2016 8:14:03 PM
Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601071 & 1600550.
Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601071 & 1600550.

Ms. Landreth
Oakland City Manager
Repeated violations of constitutional rights by you and your staff. For some reason, you're unable to control your staff
and protect the constitutional rights of citizens to equal protection under the law.
Your inspectors took photos of ongoing work on my property, and walked right past my neighbors property with the same
issues - wood and material on the property. Which your staff classify as "significant blight causing a public safety hazard
or significant effect on adjacent properties", in violation of OMC 8.24. This is even though OMC 8.24 permits property
improvements.
more to follow,
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland
8/16/2016
Page 363
8/16/2016
Page 364
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/28/2016 10:25:32 PM
code enforcement complaints
Director Flynn,
I know how important enforcing every minor violation is to you and your staff. I'll help point
out some violations. My goal is 1,000 by summer.
1. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601071, OMC 8.24 blight violation, 3529 Calandria
2. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601072, OMC 17.108 fence violation,

3500 Calandria.
3. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601073 OMC 17.108 fence violation, 3562 Calandria.
4. Code Enforcement Case Number is 16ROW00011 , OMC 17.108 fence violation and
blocking the sidewalk with a garden and fence, 3400 Margarita
5. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601074, 8.24 blight, failure to maintain, retaining wall
leaning over sidewalk 3493 Margarita Ave, Oakland, CA 94605
6. Code Enforcement Case Number is 16ROW00012, retaining wall built in the public right of
way, 9520 Granada Ave., Oakland 945605.
7. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601075. blight, 3521 Calandria.

Ave, 94605
9527 Granada
9. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601077, 8.24 violation, boat / trailer / covered vehicle
in yard, 3549 Mirassol, Oakland
10. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601078,
Oaks Way, 94605
OMC 17.108 fence violation, 3845 Twin
11. Code Enforcement Case Number is 16ROW00013, OMC 17.108 fence violation in the
public right of way, 4050 FairWay ave, 94605.
8/16/2016
Page 365
12. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601079, OMC 17.108 masonry fence violation in the
front and side setback, 4055 FairWay ave, 94605.
13. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601080 , OMC 17.108 masonry fence violation in the
front and side setback, 4055 Sequoyah ave, 94605.
14.
Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601081, OMC 17.108 masonry fence violation in the
front and side setback, 4067 Sequoyah ave, 94605.
15. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601082, OMC 17.108 masonry fence / wall violation
in the front and side setback, 4150 Sequoyah ave, 94605.
in the side setback, 4283 Sequoyah ave, 94605.
17. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601084, OMC 17.108 fence violation in the front
setback, 4438 Sequoyah ave, 94605.
& side setback, 4525 Sequoyah ave, 94605.
21. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601088, OMC 8.24 vehicle covered with a tarp in
driveway
4641 Sequoyah ave, 94605.
23. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601090, OMC 17.108 fence violation in the side
8/16/2016
Page 366
8/16/2016
Page 367
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/29/2016 10:58:05 AM
RE: #2 Notice of violation 1600550 dated 3-3-2016
Mr. Hector,
We responded your question about the code violation No. 4 in my previous e-mail, however as additional information and
according to the chapter 2 of 2013 CBC page 50, the Canopy is defined as A permanent structure or architectural
projection of rigid construction over which a covering is attached that provides weather protection, identity or decoration. A
canopy is permitted to be structurally independent or supported by attachment to a building on one or more sides We believe
under our interpretation that this definition does not fall in any of the work exempt from a permit as stated in 2013 CBC section
105.2(A) for any detached accessory structure not greater than 120 square feet. Therefore permits are required.
As I stated in my previous e-mail, you are welcome to file a violation appeal.
Hugo Barron, Specialty/Combination Inspector 510-238-6612.

Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 4:04 PM
To: Barron, Hugo; Flynn, Rachel; Landreth, Sabrina; Schaaf, Libby; Office of the Mayor; Low, Tim
Subject: #2 Notice of violation 1600550 dated 3-3-2016
Rachel Flynn
City Of Oakland
Mr. Barron did NOT respond to the issue of "canopies" and "membrane" structures in his email reply of 3-24-2016.
CBC and CRC allow "PERMIT EXEMPT" "canopies" and "membrane" structures; yard umbrella's, "EZ up" canopies as
examples up to 700 sq ft?
We have planning design approval for something in our backyard: DS 15-0160. What's the problem if we chose to have a
large canopy for shade and inclement weather that's retractable when it's nice outside?
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
8/16/2016
Page 368
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/29/2016 12:37:13 PM
Re: #2 Notice of violation 1600550 dated 3-3-2016
Mr. Barron,
Thank you for your incomplete reply. You don't address removable temporary membrane
coverings, such as umbrellas and other canopies which are exempt to 400 or 700 square feet per
State codes.
I will retract my canopy to comply with your unlawful Notice of Violation issued under color
of authority, dated March 4, 2016. Then I will litigate the matter as a violation of my
constitutional equal protection, due process and other guarantees under the State
and Federal Constitutions. You and others, should receive several additional claims for
damages in the next day or two, as required, prior to filing the lawsuit.
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the
United States that added behavior that "shocks the conscience " into tests of what
violates due process
.
What I find shocking is the number of times you and your comrades have conducted warrantless
searches of my property - looking for violations - over the past two years; while ignoring violations
of neighboring properties. How many times have Mr. Barron, Espinoza, Ramirez, Low and
others inspectors been to my home under color of authority, in violation of my constitutional
protections?
Five facts: Violations at 3521 Calandria in February 2011 with no followup inspections for four
& half years. Another violation at the same address by you in September 2014 - again without
followup. Then two supervisors, Mr Wilson and Ms. Taylor in March 2014 and May 2014, voided,
canceled or approved appeals for the substantial violations at 3521 Calandria. Only to have the
City attorney over rule Code Enforcement Inspectors in May 2015. Then Ms Flynn wrote in her
February 2016 email to the same property about "substantial and significant" violations, while
excluding things she considered minor - but not for me... I believe a Court and Oakland Jury will
be shocked by your conduct.
No Qualified Immunity for you. Since your actions have been repeated and intentional violations
of my constitutional protections, under color of authority, you, and the others, are personally
named in the claim for damages and pending litigation.
AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED: STAY OFF MY PROPERTY UNLESS YOU HAVE A SEARCH
WARRANT. I'M REQUIRED BY COURT ORDER TO WARN YOU OF
POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS ON MY PROPERTY. We'll sort out your conduct in
a court of law.
regards,
Michael Hector
8/16/2016
Page 369
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Barron, Hugo <HBarron@oaklandnet.com

Mr. Hector,
> wrote:
canopy is permitted to be structurally independent or supported by attachment to a building on one or more sides We
believe under our interpretation that this definition does not fall in any of the work exempt from a permit as stated in 2013
CBC section 105.2(A) for any detached accessory structure not greater than 120 square feet. Therefore permits are required.
Hugo Barron, Specialty/Combination Inspector 510-238-6612 .

Rachel Flynn
City Of Oakland
We have planning design approval for something in our backyard: DS 15-0160. What's the problem if we
chose to have a large canopy for shade and inclement weather that's retractable when it's nice outside?
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
8/16/2016
Page 370
8/16/2016
Page 371
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/29/2016 12:52:56 PM
Mr. Baron,
California Codes, chapter24, temporary membrane structures. canopies are building code exempt ???

Mr. Hector,
> wrote:
Hugo Barron, Specialty/Combination Inspector 510-238-6612

Rachel Flynn
City Of Oakland
8/16/2016
Page 372
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
8/16/2016
Page 373
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/29/2016 2:33:40 PM
Membrane canopies
Ms. Flynn,
I can't find the subject of "membrane" tents and canopies covered in the OMC? Is this correct?
Below is your Feb 4, 2016 email To the Heanues at 3521 Calandria. This is in stark contrast to
communication by you and your staff regarding my home 3539 Calandria.
Interesting set of facts. My neighbor pours concrete in a city park - you don't consider that
significant or substantial, even though it violates the letter of OMC 8.11. I have planning
approval for a building in our back yard, but elected for a retractable canopy. You and your
staff issue another set of violations for codes that don't exist, for permitted activities, that Mr.
Barron says I must "prove", and so on.
Oakland Mission Statement

The City of Oakland is committed to the delivery of effective, courteous and responsive services.
Citizens ... shall be treated with fairness, dignity and respect.
I am presumed to be in violation until I prove otherwise. While neighbors violations discounted
as neither significant or substantial, even though apparent.... interesting facts. FAIRNESS???
Anyway, are "membrane" tents and canopies covered in the OMC?
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland
Mr. Barron wrote to me on March 25, 2016, and said I must "prove" no violation.
From: Flynn, Rachel

Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:48 PM
To: taylorheanue@yahoo.com
Cc: Hayes, Gil
Subject: 3521 Calandria Wall - City Survey
Hi Taylor, Attached please find a letter from Oakland's City Surveyor confirming the following:
8/16/2016
Page 374
1. The new wall that you have had constructed is substantially within the boundary of your property at 3521 Calandria;
2. There is no encroachment of the surface elements of the wall; and
3. While there may be encroachments of the footings or the wall, these are not considered significant and, if any, they are buried
and will not interfere with the enjoyment of the land by the general public.
Thank you for working cooperatively with the City to remove the old wall from the City park and to construct a replacement wall on your property.
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229

Mr. Hector,
> wrote:
Hugo Barron, Specialty/Combination Inspector 510-238-6612

Rachel Flynn
City Of Oakland
8/16/2016
Page 375
Regards,
Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
Oakland, CA 94605
8/16/2016
Page 376
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/29/2016 2:52:32 PM
Re: code enforcement complaints
Director Flynn,
I'm going to end up with carpoltunnel reporting all the "fence" violations in oakland. Oaklanders seem to love
their fences - violations on every block driven. The residents of Montclair will love OMC 17.108.
25. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601092, OMC 17.108 fence violation in the front or side setback, 4102
Seacor, 94605.
26. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601094, OMC 17.108 fence violation in the side setback, 4136
Kentwood ave, 94605.
27. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601095, OMC 17.108 fence violation in the side setback, 4129
Kentwood ave, 94605.
Seacor, 94605.
29. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601105, OMC 8.24 blight, abandon wrecked vehicle covered by tarp,
4128 Seacor, 94605.
Seacor, 94605.
Seacor, 94605.
Seacor, 94605.
Kentwood, 94605.
Kentwood, 94605.
8/16/2016
Page 377
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com > wrote:
Director Flynn,
I know how important enforcing every minor violation is to you and your staff. I'll help point
out some violations. My goal is 1,000 by summer.
1. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601071, OMC 8.24 blight violation, 3529 Calandria

3500 Calandria.
3. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601073 OMC 17.108 fence violation, 3562
Calandria.
4. Code Enforcement Case Number is 16ROW00011 , OMC 17.108 fence violation and
blocking the sidewalk with a garden and fence, 3400 Margarita
5. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601074, 8.24 blight, failure to maintain, retaining
wall leaning over sidewalk 3493 Margarita Ave, Oakland, CA 94605
6. Code Enforcement Case Number is 16ROW00012, retaining wall built in the public right of
way, 9520 Granada Ave., Oakland 945605.
7. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601075. blight, 3521 Calandria.

Granada Ave, 94605
9527
9. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601077, 8.24 violation, boat / trailer / covered
vehicle in yard, 3549 Mirassol, Oakland
8/16/2016
Page 378
10. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601078,

Oaks Way, 94605
OMC 17.108 fence violation, 3845 Twin
11. Code Enforcement Case Number is 16ROW00013, OMC 17.108 fence violation in the
public right of way, 4050 FairWay ave, 94605.
12. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601079, OMC 17.108 masonry fence violation in
the front and side setback, 4055 FairWay ave, 94605.
13. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601080 , OMC 17.108 masonry fence violation in
the front and side setback, 4055 Sequoyah ave, 94605.
14.
Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601081, OMC 17.108 masonry fence violation in
the front and side setback, 4067 Sequoyah ave, 94605.
15. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601082, OMC 17.108 masonry fence / wall
violation in the front and side setback, 4150 Sequoyah ave, 94605.
violation in the side setback, 4283 Sequoyah ave, 94605.
21. Code Enforcement Case Number is 1601088, OMC 8.24 vehicle covered with a tarp in
driveway
4641 Sequoyah ave, 94605.
8/16/2016
Page 379

8/16/2016
Page 380
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/29/2016 3:47:00 PM
Re: Calandria Update / Survey Monuments
Hi Taylor, We sent an NOV to 3539 on March 18th. I'll let you know the results when we have them.
The Surveyors did not place monuments at your property. They will be surveying the other properties sometime
in April -- but will not be placing monuments.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 24, 2016, at 7:26 AM, Taylor <taylorheanue@yahoo.com > wrote:
Hi Rachel 1) I was hoping you could provide me with an enforcement update regarding the blight enforcement, park
encroachment, and illegal structures at 3539 Calandria. There are definitely still violations. Perhaps there
is somebody you can refer me to?
2) You said your city surveyor came out and verified we were within our lot at 3521 Calandria. Did they
leave monuments? If so I cannot find them,
3) Also curious if the survey ever occurred at 3539 Calandria? If so, what were the results, and were
monuments placed?
thanks
Taylor Heanue
3521 Calandria
Oakland CA
8/16/2016
Page 381
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/30/2016 3:54:59 PM
exact wording
exact wording
Mr. Barron,
You asked me in an email for the exact wording in the California building and residential code
regarding membrane canopies...
Since we're on the subject of exact wooding:
You and the Complaint Inspectors and Supervisors allowed Taylor & Mica Heanue of 3521
Calandria to dump tonnes of concrete and wood debris, including their old Jacuzzi, in a City
park for weeks: From October 2015 through February 2016. I made multiple complaints,
sent email and photos - you took not action. Then Rachel Flynn permitted Taylor Heanue to
pour new concrete footings in a city park. Here is the exact wording of the OMC.
8.11.310 - Illegal dumping and littering unlawful.
A.
It is unlawful and a violation of this Code and this chapter for any person to illegally dump or not dispose of waste matter, or cause
waste matter not to be disposed of as otherwise provided by this Code or State or Federal law...
8.11.320 - Illegal dumping and littering as public nuisances.

The City Council hereby declares and finds that illegal dumping and littering are public nuisances subject to abatement, remedies, and
penalties according to the provisions and procedures contained in this Code and this chapter.
You've convoluted OMC 8.24 "Blight" ordinance to encompance every minor

item AND PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS. You cited me for a fence in the front
setback, but referenced an incorrect code. You claim the violation is in the
setback, but don't know the distance. Yet Ms. Flynn stated in a February 4,
2016 email to the Heanues at 3521 Calandria, than
8.24.010 - Purpose of chapter.
The purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safety, and general welfare .... and which will also protect the public from the health and
safety hazards and the impairment of property values which results from the neglect and deterioration of property.
8/16/2016
Page 382
8.24.020 - Blighted property defined.

Any property on which there exists any one or more of the following conditions or activities is a blighted property for the purpose of this chapter:
A.
Abandoned Building or Structure.
B.
Attractive Nuisance.
C.
A Building or Structure Which is in a State of Disrepair.
D.
Property Inadequately Maintained.
E.
Property Which Creates a Dangerous Condition...

General Conditions.
1. Any condition which is detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or which constitutes a public
nuisance as defined in California Civil Code Section 3480,
California Civil Code 3480. A public nuisance is one which, affects at the same time an entire community or
neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.
California Civil Code 3482. Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance.
Exact wording. HAH !

Michael Hector
3539 Calandria
8/16/2016
Page 383
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/31/2016 2:37:15 PM
membrane coverings
Mr. Barron,
here is a property that has 1000 + square feet on membrane covering. I checked building records. NO PERMITS.
hmmmmmm
8/16/2016
Page 384
8/16/2016
Page 385
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

3/31/2016 3:03:53 PM
OMC 8.24 blight - 3521 Calandria

Mr. Barron,
You should have your vision checked. You walk right past my neighbors violations and only have eyes for my home....
This property has wood stacked 4 feet high, from the property line to the house, completely blocking the east side of the
property. Wood stored outside, in the open, o the ground. It's been like this since August 2015.
YOU closed out the complaints with no action. Only recently sent a "courtesy letter", while issuing me "notice of
violation" while I'm working, for things that are permit exempt or I have permits for.
SHAME ON YOU.
Michael Hector
3539 calandria
Record 1600550:
Blight - Facility Complaint
Record Status: Violation Verified and Posted

3521 Calandria
Record 1601075:
Record Status: Courtesy Letter Sent
Case Description:
blight, wood and material in the open, and

on the ground
Record 1503875:
Blight - Facility
Complaint
Record Status: Closed
Record 1503825:
Record Status: Closed
8/16/2016
Page 386
8/16/2016
Page 387
8/16/2016
Page 388
8/16/2016
Page 389
F rom:
T o:
Date:
Subject:

4/4/2016 9:13:16 AM
Re: OMC 8.24 blight - 3521 Calandria
Mr. Barron,
Your photos of the back of my property was directly over the rear yards of 3521 & 3529 Calandria. You only see what you.
When I complained about Tayor Heanue (3521 Calandria) dumping debris, including his jacuzzi, in the city park, you and Mr. Low did nothing. You walked pasted the debris.
Instead, you and Mr. Low "searched" my property, even though there were no complaints.
Strange choice that you prefer to violate my constitutional protections of equal protection under the law and due process.
Your repeated violations of the OMC, and my constitutional protections force me to litigate the issues in state and federal court.
Michael Hector
3539 CAlandria
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Barron, Hugo <HBarron@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Our walking path on the day of the re inspection did not allow us to see what you show in the pictures. All your concerns were answered in previous e-mails, please file an appeal as part of the city
procedure if you disagree.

Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 3:04 PM
To: Barron, Hugo; Flynn, Rachel; Fielding, Rich; Low, Tim; Landreth, Sabrina; Schaaf, Libby; Labayog, Edward; michael hector
Subject: OMC 8.24 blight - 3521 Calandria
Mr. Barron,
You should have your vision checked. You walk right past my neighbors violations and only have eyes for my home....
This property has wood stacked 4 feet high, from the property line to the house, completely blocking the east side of the property. Wood stored outside, in the open, o the
ground. It's been like this since August 2015.
YOU closed out the complaints with no action. Only recently sent a "courtesy letter", while issuing me "notice of violation" while I'm working, for things that are permit exempt or
I have permits for.
SHAME ON YOU.
Michael Hector
3539 calandria
Record 1600550:
Record Status: Violation Verified and Posted
8/16/2016
Page 390
3521 Calandria
Record 1601075:
Record Status: C ourtesy Letter Sent
Case Description:
blight, wood and material in the open, and on the ground
Record 1503875:
Record Status: C l o s e d
Record 1503825:
Blight - F a c i l i t y C o m p l a i n t
Record Status: C l o s e d
8/16/2016
Page 391
8/16/2016
Page 392
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

4/4/2016 9:19:28 AM
membrane covering
5th request
Mr. Barron,
Since Oakland has no regulation specifically addressing "membrane" canopies or "membrane
covering's, what regulations are you using?
Michael Hector
3539 calandria
8/16/2016
Page 393
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

4/4/2016 1:23:43 PM
RE: June 2015 Letter + Photos
Hello Rachel,
As you are aware, Ed, Hugo, and (recently) Aubrey are addressing the unapproved construction and storage on Mr. Hectors
friends property. If the forwarding of the complaint, photos, and documents from 6/15 to Eds attention in March, was to bring
the property line and the encroachment issues for his attention to address, there are some problems that we have with moving
forward on these matters.
We would need a formal survey to pinpoint the p.l. definitively. As were speaking about City property, would it be appropriate to
employ the services of Public Works? Could we request the City Surveyor (Gil Hayes) to locate the boundary? Could City
Properties/ Parks and Rec address the complaint of encroachment and PW issue the NOV (with ramifications for noncompliance)? If there is the need for an encroachment permit, wouldnt that go through Planning first and then Public Works for
the requirements (insurance, etc.) for the permit issuance from the PW department?
Please advise?
From: Labayog, Edward
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 9:30 AM
To: Fielding, Rich
Subject: FW: June 2015 Letter + Photos
Please review the attached and help me respond to Rachel.

Thanks,
Ed
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Labayog, Edward
Subject: June 2015 Letter + Photos
Ed, Here is the letter with photos send last year. Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 394
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
"Harding, Jerron" <JHarding@oaklandcityattorney.org>
4/11/2016 6:31:46 AM
Continually blighted property at 3539 Calandria plus MAJOR dumping
3539_Calandria_Land_Grab.docx
Hello Mr Harding I am writing to you this morning as a followup to a discussion we had last Wednesday at the beat 35X meeting
regarding massive blight and dumping at 3539 Calandria.
I am also cc'ing Rachel Flynn, director of building services for the city, as well as several neighbors who are
concerned about this property. For brevity's sake, I am not including all of the neighbors who are affected.
Rachel Flynn is well acquainted with this property and with Mr Hector and can give you some more backstory.
3539 Calandria (owners Suzanne Clark & Michael Hector) is a nuisance property. The owners have violated all
number of city ordinances from blight to illegal buildings to cutting down protected trees to having viscous dogs
loose on their property that have attacked other citizens including my wife. Please help our neighborhood and
the city by enforcing the laws. Calandria Ave is a very nice area, and 3539 Calandria stands out like a sore
thumb.
Here is a brief summary of the offenses:
1) Blight
Mr Hector owns around a dozen vehicles and another half dozen trailers. They are all junkers. He bought them
all in 2015 to annoy the neighborhood by blocking all the parking on the street. One of the neighbors was able
to get a restraining order against Mr Hector and since then, he is no longer allowed to park his cars on the
street so he just parks them all over his property. They are parked right on the dirt, not on a paved area. It's an
eyesore. There are 5 cars parked on his lawn right now. He often works on the cars on his property and some of
them have lapsed registrations. I can provide a list and descriptions of vehicles with photos and license plates.
In addition, the entire property is littered with construction debris and other trash. We have tried complaining to
the city about this property, but after YEARS of complaining, nothing has come of it and we are still forced to
endure living next to this terribly blighted property.
2) Dumping & building improvements on park land
3539 Calandria abuts an open space called "King's Estates" at the rear and Mr Hector uses this as his personal
storage and dumping ground. He has also constructed retaining walls and trellises in the park and has planted
large numbers of non-native species in the park including a raised-bed vegetable garden and a fruit tree. His
blight and buildup in the park is so bad it is visible from outer space. I am not kidding or
exaggerating. Please see the attached document with satellite imagery detailing the illegal dumping in the park.
I and other neighbors have video of him pushing literally TONS of dirt into the park with a backhoe in order to
level out the downslope at the rear of his property as is abuts with the park. When he was doing this I confronted
him and recorded video of the incident wherein he admits he is dumping dirt in the park.
3) Illegal cutting of protected trees
In Oakland, Cedars over 9" in diameter are protected and may not be cut without a tree removal permit.
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PWA/o/FE/o/TreeServices/OAK023047
Mr Hector removed 5 cedar trees from his property and several of those trees were over 18" in diameter and
over 50' tall. These trees were removed without permits. They were home to red-tailed hawks and a great
horned owl. Those beautiful animals are now gone from the area and we are now seeing a rise in mouse and
gopher activity. On top of that, these were by far the tallest trees in the area and a beautiful part of our
neighborhood is now gone.
8/16/2016
Page 395
Why did he cut the trees? Mr Hector hopes to divide his lot and build a house in that spot. Now he just uses it as
a parking lot for his junker cars.
I and my family have endured personal attacks and harassment from Mr Hector in an attempt to intimidate me
and stop me from complaining about the issues at his property. Fortunately, we have received a temporary
restraining order against Mr Hector which has helped with the harassment. In addition, the Oakland District
Attorney is pursuing four(!) separate charges against Mr Hector related to his retaliatory actions and he may end
up seeing jail time. This guy is BAD NEWS. We need the city to step up and enforce the laws and force him to
bring this property back into compliance.
The irony of the situation is that Mr Hector is a viscous complainer when it comes to issues on other peoples'
property, even falsely reporting issues when there are none. He does this as a way to intimidate people and
prevent them from interfering with his Machiavellian plans to illegally improve his property. Rachel Flynn can
attest to that. The city has sent enforcement teams to virtually every other property on the street based on his
complaints, yet where is the action against the real offender???
My wife and I have had to retain an attorney to defend ourselves against Mr Hector's attacks and a lawsuit for
damages is in the works. At this point, we are also considering filing a lawsuit against the City of Oakland for
failing to protect our civil rights in their failure to enforce their own blight, dumping, and tree ordinances. Please
take some action here so that we can avoid that outcome.
Thank you very much,
Taylor Heanue
3521 Calandria Avenue
Oakland, CA
415-990-2275 (cell)
8/16/2016
Page 396
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

4/11/2016 4:23:28 PM
FW: 3539 Calandria
From: Harding, Jerron [mailto:JHarding@oaklandcityattorney.org]

To: Fielding, Rich
Mr. Fielding,
I was informed by my colleague that all future inquires to Code Enforcement should go through you first. My name is Jerron
Harding and I am the new NCL attorney assigned to Police Area 5. I am inquiring about the property located at 3539 Calandria. I
have attached an email from a concerned citizen to highlight some of the issues that have been going on with this property. I am
not too familiar with Accela, however, I believe the property was inspected for a second time on April 4, 2016 by Ed Labayog and
Hugo Barron. Apparently, they verified that the illegal activity has not been abated (Record ID 1600550). Is this correct? I guess
I am wondering what would be the next step with regards to Building Code Enforcements involvement with this particular
property. Actually, I was wondering if you could give me a brief overview of the process involved with dealing with blighted
properties so I can better informed. For example, the process for levying fines or transferring nuisance cases to the City
Administrators office would be helpful. I will be sure to pass this information along so you will not be inundated with the same
inquires by new attorneys. Finally, if there is any way I can be of service to you with regards to this property or any other matter,
please let me know. I look forward to working with you.
Jerron Harding
Neighborhood Law Corps Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
Oakland, CA 94612
510-238-3865 (office)
jharding@oaklandcityattorney.org

To: Harding, Jerron
Cc: Brian Smalley; Phil Dow; Millicent Morris Chaney; Flynn, Rachel; Mica Matsumoto
Subject: Continually blighted property at 3539 Calandria plus MAJOR dumping
thumb.
8/16/2016
Page 397
1) Blight
Taylor Heanue
8/16/2016
Page 398

Oakland, CA
415-990-2275 (cell)
and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
and any attachments. [v1.3]
8/16/2016
Page 399
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Brian Smalley" <briansma@sbcglobal.net>

4/11/2016 9:38:55 PM
Re: Continually blighted property at 3539 Calandria plus MAJOR dumping
Taylor,
Great letter and super photos. I will send an email to Rachel Flynn in support and urge others to do so.
Pax Obama,
Brian
On Monday, April 11, 2016 6:32 AM, Taylor <taylorheanue@yahoo.com> wrote:
thumb.
1) Blight
8/16/2016
Page 400
Taylor Heanue
Oakland, CA
415-990-2275 (cell)
8/16/2016
Page 401
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

4/12/2016 8:15:48 AM
RE: 3539 Calandria
Hello Jerron,
Please call me Rich. I was speaking to our Director yesterday and mentioned your interest in the rather complex property issues
at this address. She asked me to forward your e-mail to her attention and that she intends to speak with you. Our Director of the
Department of Planning and Building is Rachel Flynn.
From: Harding, Jerron [mailto:JHarding@oaklandcityattorney.org]
To: Fielding, Rich
Mr. Fielding,
I was informed by my colleague that all future inquires to Code Enforcement should go through you first. My name is Jerron
Harding and I am the new NCL attorney assigned to Police Area 5. I am inquiring about the property located at 3539 Calandria. I
have attached an email from a concerned citizen to highlight some of the issues that have been going on with this property. I am
not too familiar with Accela, however, I believe the property was inspected for a second time on April 4, 2016 by Ed Labayog and
Hugo Barron. Apparently, they verified that the illegal activity has not been abated (Record ID 1600550). Is this correct? I guess
I am wondering what would be the next step with regards to Building Code Enforcements involvement with this particular
property. Actually, I was wondering if you could give me a brief overview of the process involved with dealing with blighted
properties so I can better informed. For example, the process for levying fines or transferring nuisance cases to the City
Administrators office would be helpful. I will be sure to pass this information along so you will not be inundated with the same
inquires by new attorneys. Finally, if there is any way I can be of service to you with regards to this property or any other matter,
please let me know. I look forward to working with you.
Jerron Harding
Neighborhood Law Corps Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
Oakland, CA 94612
510-238-3865 (office)
jharding@oaklandcityattorney.org

To: Harding, Jerron
thumb.
8/16/2016
Page 402

1) Blight
8/16/2016
Page 403

Taylor Heanue
Oakland, CA
415-990-2275 (cell)
and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
and any attachments. [v1.3]
8/16/2016
Page 404
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

"Zahn, Robert" <RZahn@oaklandnet.com>
4/12/2016 4:28:16 PM
3539 Calandria Ave - Removal of Trees
DOC030216.pdf
DOC030216 (1).pdf
Hi Giacomo Sorry for the phone tag weve been playing. Can you give me another call so that we can decide next steps? Thanks,
Rachel
From: Flynn, Rachel
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 6:27 PM
To: Damonte, Giacomo
Cc: Zahn, Robert
Subject: 3539 Calandria Ave - Removal of Trees
Background:
Rachel Flynn AIA
510 . 238 . 2229
> wrote:
From: Flynn, Rachel

8/16/2016
Page 405
To: Valeska, David
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 406
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

4/12/2016 8:49:10 PM
RE: Continually blighted property at 3539 Calandria plus MAJOR dumping
Hi Taylor Here is the status of the issues you raise:

1.
2.
We will send out an inspector to address the vehicles parked on the yard at 3539 Calandria.
I am working with the City Surveyor to get a date when he can confirm the location of the City Park property line. I hope
that will happen in 2-3 weeks.
3. I have notified the Citys Urban Forester to see how he wants to deal with the removal of the mature cedars without
permits. I left him another e-mail today and should get some answers within the next week.
Thanks, Rachel
To: Harding, Jerron
thumb.
1) Blight
8/16/2016
Page 407
Taylor Heanue
Oakland, CA
415-990-2275 (cell)
8/16/2016
Page 408
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

4/12/2016 11:26:07 PM
Re: Continually blighted property at 3539 Calandria plus MAJOR dumping
Rachel,
Thank you for your response. You should be aware that Michael Hector/Susan Clark have split the property at
3539 Calandria (It is a double lot) and offered the vacant portion (6000 sq. ft.), designated 3535 Calandria Ave.,
for sale at $299,000. The realtor is Susan Clark. In addition, the vacant lot was bordered by the cedars which
were illegally cut down.
Your prompt assistance in dealing with the 3539 Calandria Ave. issues is much appreciated.
Pax Obama,
Brian Smalley, Co-Captain, Calandria/Crest Neighborhood Watch
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 9:00 PM, "Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com> wrote:

1.
2.
I am working with the City Surveyor to get a date when he can confirm the location of the City Park property
line. I hope that will happen in 2-3 weeks.
3.
I have notified the Citys Urban Forester to see how he wants to deal with the removal of the mature cedars
without permits. I left him another e-mail today and should get some answers within the next week.
Thanks, Rachel
To: Harding, Jerron
thumb.
1) Blight
8/16/2016
Page 409
Taylor Heanue
Oakland, CA
415-990-2275 (cell)
8/16/2016
Page 410
8/16/2016
Page 411
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
"mmc dslextreme.com" <mmc@dslextreme.com>

4/13/2016 9:29:22 AM
Continually blighted property at 3539 Calandria - plea for support on behalf of 3529 Calandria
Picture History of Issues with 3539.docx
Dear Rachel
Thank you so much for your support of our proud Oakland neighborhood. I have received your most recent
update on proceedings for addressing the ongoing issues at 3539 Calandria and thank you for the update.
As the homeowner at 3529 Calandria, living right next to Hector and Clark, please know we have real fear of
what Hector and Clark are capable of. They have employed multiple harmful tactics to keep us from contacting
the City. One of those tactics is actively suing my household for harassment accusing me of collaborating with
neighbors to purposely thwart their development of their property. Please know that is emphatically not the case
but I fear that my hesitancy to contact you directly out of caution has also continued the great harm to our
neighborhood from Hector/Clarks actions, not only due to their continually blighted property but their relentless
harassment of neighbors and City officials without any apparent repercussions for their actions. I deeply
appreciate other neighbors coming forward and especially thank Taylor Heanue for being able to articulate the
very real issues our neighborhood is suffering.
Our household has tried to bring to the Citys attention, when appropriate, what we believe are violations of the
Citys building codes. In brief, since 2011 we have asked City inspectors to review:
Hector/Clarks aggressive grading of their lot onto city park space and toward our lot, which resulted in the
failure of our fence
Hector/Clarks illegal removal of the Cedar trees
During their grading their use of construction debris as landfill with absolutely no evidence of appropriate soil
conditioning that would provide a stable, buildable lot
Hector then constructed a wall compound that, at the time of its construction, appeared to just barely comply
with the citys 4 wall height that would avoid the requirement of a permit, but, post-inspection by Inspector
Hector Barron, now is a precarious structure that is dangerous and blighted
Now that Hector/Clark have stated they are moving toward splitting this lot and have put it up for sale as a
buildable lot, please understand as the neighboring property we are very concerned that whoever purchases
this lot will not be aware of the history of the soil movement and will believe they can build on this lot without
establishing an appropriate retaining wall.
Meanwhile, we have also suffered living directly next door to a property that is continually blighted, with various
un-permitted structures being under construction at various times, with no plans and no honest communication
with the neighborhood. He has continually manipulated, intimidated and lied to City officials and neighbors. We
continue to have vehicles parked right up to our property line pointed at our bedroom window. The car parking
concerns me directly because, as I stated, we do not know what Hector/Clark are capable of. I have a fear that
one night they will accidentally hit the gas pedal instead of the brake and allow their vehicle to crash into our
house. They already had a small bulldozer topple onto our property which took out our fence within the first
month of their ownership.
How can it be reasonable per City of Oakland Building standards that the soil grading and structures Hector/
Clark have built are permissible according to City of Oakland codes? (see attached photo montage)
Please know we appreciate the challenges of dealing with Mr. Hector and Ms. Clark. As the directly neighboring
property, we seek the Citys support in reviewing the grading, tree removal, wall building, car parking and
consistent blight that have occurred over the last 4 years.
8/16/2016
Page 412
Please let me know what I can do the support you in helping our neighborhood restore peace and stability. We
have extensive photographic evidence of the changes Hector/Clark have made to the property. The attachment
is a brief overview. My cell phone is 510-917-2192.
Gratefully yours, Millicent Morris Chaney
8/16/2016
Page 413
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

4/15/2016 2:31:07 PM
3539 Calandria plus MAJOR dumping
Rich, Can you please call me about this case?

From: Flynn, Rachel
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:55 PM
To: Fielding, Rich
Cc: Labayog, Edward
Subject: 3539 Calandria plus MAJOR dumping
Hi Rich and Ed, We received a new complaint on 3539 Calandria. There are apparently numerous vehicles parked on the lawn of
this property.
Is this permitted? If so, how many vehicles can an owner park on the dirt/grass of their parcel? Please send an inspector out to
the site this week.
Also, what is the status of the NOV we issued for debris in the yard? Did the owner appeal that NOV? If not, when is the
deadline?
Thanks, Rachel
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: 'Taylor'; Harding, Jerron
Cc: Brian Smalley; Phil Dow; Millicent Morris Chaney; Mica Matsumoto
Subject: RE: Continually blighted property at 3539 Calandria plus MAJOR dumping

1.
2.
I am working with the City Surveyor to get a date when he can confirm the location of the City Park property line. I hope
that will happen in 2-3 weeks.
3. I have notified the Citys Urban Forester to see how he wants to deal with the removal of the mature cedars without
permits. I left him another e-mail today and should get some answers within the next week.
Thanks, Rachel
To: Harding, Jerron
thumb.
8/16/2016
Page 414

1) Blight
8/16/2016
Page 415
Taylor Heanue
Oakland, CA
415-990-2275 (cell)
8/16/2016
Page 416
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

4/17/2016 6:03:14 PM
3539 Calandria Av - Removal of Trees
DOC030216.pdf
DOC030216 (1).pdf
Giacomo Id like to resolve this issue next week, as I continue to get complaints from the neighbors.
The best way to reach me is via cell phone @ 326-2709?
Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Damonte, Giacomo; Zahn, Robert
Rachel
From: Flynn, Rachel
Cc: Zahn, Robert
Background:
Rachel Flynn AIA
510 . 238 . 2229
> wrote:
8/16/2016
Page 417
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: Valeska, David
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 418
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

4/17/2016 6:10:36 PM
3539 Calandria - 3529 Calandria
Millicent and Taylor, We cited the owners of 3539 Calandria in March 2016 for the materials in the yard, the illegal structure,
etc. I will check with staff on the re-inspection date and next steps. Thanks, Rachel
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:08 AM
To: mmc dslextreme.com; Flynn, Rachel
Cc: Harding, Jerron; mica matsumoto; Doreen Hazel; Ed Marsh; Mia Boggs; jchaney @dslextreme.com; Brian Smalley; Pat Chew; Phil Dow
Subject: Re: Continually blighted property at 3539 Calandria - plea for support on behalf of 3529 Calandria
How awful. Imagine if these broke a window! Or hurt somebody! I can attest to the fact that stuff is piled up 10
feet high all along the property line between the two properties.
On Monday, 2 months will have passed without action since the latest complaint. And these items that blew into
Millicent's yard have been there since the other complaint dated 5/29/15, which was "closed" without actually
addressing the debris all over his backyard.
Are these timeframes normal for the city, or is this just taking so long because Mr Hector is so difficult to deal
with?
taylor
From: mmc dslextreme.com <mmc@dslextreme.com >

To: rflynn@oaklandnet.com
Cc: jharding@oaklandcityattorney.org ; Taylor <taylorheanue@yahoo.com >; mica matsumoto <micamatsumoto@yahoo.com >; Doreen Hazel
<casacalandria@mindspring.com >; Ed Marsh <ed.marsh08@gmail.com >; Mia Boggs <mia.s.boggs@gmail.com >; "jchaney
@dslextreme.com" <jchaney@dslextreme.com >; Brian Smalley <briansma@sbcglobal.net >; Pat Chew <yourmarketedge@aol.com >; Phil
Dow <pdow@mindspring.com >
Dear Rachel As a quick followup to my email 4/13/16, please know several large pieces of Hector/Clark's siding they have
propped up to act as some sort of fence blew down into our yard last night (photos attached). We have put up
No Trespassing signs so the area is safer but we will not move these pieces as they are Hector/Clark's property
and we don't dare interfere. Please advise on next steps. Thank you so much.
Also, please know our property has received a Blight notice, Case No. 1601071, which we must respond to by 4/
21/16. Gratefully yours, Millicent Morris Chaney, 3529 Calandria Avenue
----- Original Message ----From: "mmc @dslextreme.com" <mmc@dslextreme.com >
Cc: jharding@oaklandcityattorney.org , "Taylor" <taylorheanue@yahoo.com >, "mica
matsumoto" <micamatsumoto@yahoo.com >, "Doreen Hazel" <casacalandria@mindspring.com >, "Ed
Marsh" <ed.marsh08@gmail.com >, "Mia Boggs" <mia.s.boggs@gmail.com >, "jchaney
@dslextreme.com" <jchaney@dslextreme.com >, "Brian Smalley" <briansma@sbcglobal.net >, "Pat
Chew" <yourmarketedge@aol.com >, "Phil Dow" <pdow@mindspring.com >
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 9:29:22 AM
Subject: Continually blighted property at 3539 Calandria - plea for support on behalf of 3529 Calandria
Dear Rachel
8/16/2016
Page 419
Thank you so much for your support of our proud Oakland neighborhood. I have received your most recent
update on proceedings for addressing the ongoing issues at 3539 Calandria and thank you for the update.
As the homeowner at 3529 Calandria, living right next to Hector and Clark, please know we have real fear of
what Hector and Clark are capable of. They have employed multiple harmful tactics to keep us from contacting
the City. One of those tactics is actively suing my household for harassment accusing me of collaborating with
neighbors to purposely thwart their development of their property. Please know that is emphatically not the case
but I fear that my hesitancy to contact you directly out of caution has also continued the great harm to our
neighborhood from Hector/Clarks actions, not only due to their continually blighted property but their relentless
harassment of neighbors and City officials without any apparent repercussions for their actions. I deeply
appreciate other neighbors coming forward and especially thank Taylor Heanue for being able to articulate the
very real issues our neighborhood is suffering.
Our household has tried to bring to the Citys attention, when appropriate, what we believe are violations of the
Citys building codes. In brief, since 2011 we have asked City inspectors to review:
Hector/Clarks aggressive grading of their lot onto city park space and toward our lot, which resulted in the
failure of our fence
Hector then constructed a wall compound that, at the time of its construction, appeared to just barely comply
with the citys 4 wall height that would avoid the requirement of a permit, but, post-inspection by Inspector
Hector Barron, now is a precarious structure that is dangerous and blighted
Now that Hector/Clark have stated they are moving toward splitting this lot and have put it up for sale as a
buildable lot, please understand as the neighboring property we are very concerned that whoever purchases
this lot will not be aware of the history of the soil movement and will believe they can build on this lot without
establishing an appropriate retaining wall.
Meanwhile, we have also suffered living directly next door to a property that is continually blighted, with various
un-permitted structures being under construction at various times, with no plans and no honest communication
with the neighborhood. He has continually manipulated, intimidated and lied to City officials and neighbors. We
continue to have vehicles parked right up to our property line pointed at our bedroom window. The car parking
concerns me directly because, as I stated, we do not know what Hector/Clark are capable of. I have a fear that
one night they will accidentally hit the gas pedal instead of the brake and allow their vehicle to crash into our
house. They already had a small bulldozer topple onto our property which took out our fence within the first
month of their ownership.
How can it be reasonable per City of Oakland Building standards that the soil grading and structures Hector/
Clark have built are permissible according to City of Oakland codes? (see attached photo montage)
Please know we appreciate the challenges of dealing with Mr. Hector and Ms. Clark. As the directly neighboring
property, we seek the Citys support in reviewing the grading, tree removal, wall building, car parking and
consistent blight that have occurred over the last 4 years.
Please let me know what I can do the support you in helping our neighborhood restore peace and stability. We
have extensive photographic evidence of the changes Hector/Clark have made to the property. The attachment
is a brief overview. My cell phone is 510-917-2192.
8/16/2016
Page 420
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Zahn, Robert" <RZahn@oaklandnet.com>

4/18/2016 3:01:09 PM
RE: 3539 Calandria Av - Removal of Trees
Rachel,
With the information you provided we are going to start the process for an illegal tree removal(s). I will keep you updated during
the process.
Robert
From: Flynn, Rachel
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 6:04 PM
Cc: Zahn, Robert; Kattchee, Susan
Subject: 3539 Calandria Av - Removal of Trees
Giacomo Id like to resolve this issue next week, as I continue to get complaints from the neighbors.
The best way to reach me is via cell phone @ 326-2709?
Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Damonte, Giacomo; Zahn, Robert
Rachel
From: Flynn, Rachel
Cc: Zahn, Robert
Background:
Rachel Flynn AIA
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 421
> wrote:
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: Valeska, David
Rachel Flynn AIA
City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 422
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

4/18/2016 5:02:33 PM
3539 Tree Removal
Taylor, Robert Zahn, the Citys Urban Forester, will begin the process for illegal tree removal. He is copied on this e-mail.
Thanks, Rachel
To: Harding, Jerron


Taylor Heanue
Oakland, CA
415-990-2275 (cell)
8/16/2016
Page 423
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

4/18/2016 5:13:42 PM
Re: 3539 Tree Removal
Rachel,
Thank you for following up on this. We look forward to a speedy resolution.
Pax Obama,
Brian Smalley
Co-Captain, Calandria/Crest Neighborhood Watch
Member, OKNIA Board of Directors
Member, Glenn Daniel/King Estate Park Committee
Treasurer, NCPC Beat 35X
On Monday, April 18, 2016 5:02 PM, "Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Taylor, Robert Zahn, the Citys Urban Forester, will begin the process for illegal tree removal. He is copied on this e-mail. Thanks,
Rachel
To: Harding, Jerron

Mr Hector removed 5 cedar trees from his property and several of those trees were over 18" in diameter and over 50' tall.
These trees were removed without permits. They were home to red-tailed hawks and a great horned owl. Those beautiful
animals are now gone from the area and we are now seeing a rise in mouse and gopher activity. On top of that, these were
by far the tallest trees in the area and a beautiful part of our neighborhood is now gone.
Why did he cut the trees? Mr Hector hopes to divide his lot and build a house in that spot. Now he just uses it as a parking
lot for his junker cars.
Taylor Heanue
Oakland, CA
415-990-2275 (cell)
8/16/2016
Page 424
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
"Philip Dow" <pdow@mindspring.com>

4/18/2016 5:32:26 PM
Carthan_ltr_090314.pdf
Good Afternoon Ms. Flynn,

Ive been copied on a number of emails related to 3535 and 3539 Calandria Avenue (APN: 43A-4692-6). The Oak Knoll Neighborhood Improvement
Association (OKNIA) has been dealing with the issue of encroachment into the King Estate Open Space (KEOS) since 2011, when the first episode
began (complaint No. 1101035). My conversations with OPW staff were very disappointing. Because there were no monuments determining the
property lines it seemed the best they could do was request materials be removed from the park. Nothing further could be achieved.
Again, in 2014, an even more aggressive encroachment into KEOS, by the same property owner prompted our letter to Brian Carthan. I met with
Mr. Carthan, in KEOS, to view the extent of the encroachment. Unfortunately, because it was impossible for city staff to confidently determine the
location of the property line the results were the same as in 2011.
In both cases, city staff was told that the encroachment was temporary and would be corrected.
Now that the city has surveyed all the properties on Calandria that abut KEOS, there should be nothing deterring city staff from defending the
KEOS property line. All non-native landscaping, grading spoils, retaining walls, construction materials, and construction equipment must be
removed from park property.
Thank you,
Philip Dow
Chair, OKNIA
www.oknia.org
510.427.4496
Cc: OKNIA Board
8/16/2016
Page 425
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

4/18/2016 5:57:32 PM
RE: 3539 Calandria Avenue
Carthan_ltr_090314.pdf
Philip, Im sorry this has all taken so long to address. I got involved in the Calandria cases/complaints about a year ago and
have gradually been working to address the complaints and associated violations. As you know, there have been many
complaints related to Calandria properties and these cases have been complex.
I have been working closely with the City Surveyor, Gil Hayes, to confirm property line locations and 3539 is next on their
list. Our goal is to have the survey crew get out there this month or next, at the very latest.
Thanks for your patience. Ill get back to you within thirty (30) days to provide an update and next steps. Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
510 . 238 . 2229
From: Philip Dow [mailto:pdow@mindspring.com]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 5:32 PM
To: Flynn, Rachel
Cc: Art Clark; Brian Smalley; Dorrie Slutsker; Marshall Hasbrouck; Moselle Hindle; Pamm Baker; Sohini Chan; Tamara Torrey
Thank you,
Philip Dow
Chair, OKNIA
www.oknia.org
510.427.4496
Cc: OKNIA Board
8/16/2016
Page 426
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
"Campbell, Traci" <TCampbell@oaklandnet.com>

4/19/2016 7:37:46 AM
DOC041916.pdf

Here is the NOV dated 03/03/2016, the pictures didnt scan well so I am going to inter office them to you.
Traci
8/16/2016
Page 427
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

4/19/2016 8:01:51 AM
Re: 3539 Calandria - 3529 Calandria
Dear Rachel Thank you again for your attention to issues on Calandria. Please know that because our address, 3529 Calandria, has
blight complaint 1601071 that had a due date of 4/20/16 I visited the City 2nd floor permit counter on Monday, 4/18/16. I
spoke directly with Traci as she was attending the front counter. I deeply appreciate her commitment to a very challenging
job. Here is the latest update from my visit Traci and requests for follow up:
1) Regarding Blight Complaint 1601071, which was likely placed by Mr. Hector due to the wood that is on our property
while the work for Building Permits RB1503495 (for wall construction on 3521) and RB1503495 (for wall construction on
3529). During my visit to the City on 4/18/16 Traci agreed to extend our deadline for compliance to 5/2/16. Subsequently,
though, I confirmed with Taylor Heanue that the final phase of building the railing for RB1503495/RB1503495 will not be
completed until the end of May 2016.
Traci C-B had recognized that the Blight
Complaint #1601075 issued against 3521 Calandria was NON-ACTIONABLE due to the ongoing build between 3529/3521.
Because our project is directly tied to the progress of 3521 we ask that Blight Complaint 1601071 also be deemed
Non-Actionable. Please know both our households are moving steadily toward completing the progress on our shared
boundaries, we will be using the wood for completion of the fence and railing for the retaining wall in progress, and will
continue to maintain an orderly jobsite atmosphere (see attached photos of our yard facing west toward 3521)
2) Regarding debris that was blown on our yard from 3539 on 4/14/16. Traci C-B advised that our household should write a
certified letter to Hector/Clark asking that they remove their debris from our property immediately (see photo of white
siding that has blown down from 10 foot pile of construction debris on 3539). Because this debris has blown down from
one of the illegal structures that your office is pursuing action from 3539 per Record No. 1600550 please know our
household will leave this debris in place where it blew down until your follow up inspection of 3539 conditions.
I would be most grateful if one of your staff could supervise any removal of this debris by Mr. Hector. Per the
Record Detail for 1600550 Mr. Labayog has scheduled an inspection sometime in the future and, if possible, I
would like to be informed of when that inspection is scheduled so I can be at home at the time.
I can be reached on my cell phone at 510-917-2192 at any time. We truly appreciate your commitment to the City of
Oakland. Gratefully yours, Millicent Morris Chaney, 3529 Calandria Avenue
To: "Taylor" <taylorheanue@yahoo.com>, "mmc @dslextreme.com" <mmc@dslextreme.com>
Cc: "Harding, Jerron" <JHarding@oaklandcityattorney.org>, "mica matsumoto" <micamatsumoto@yahoo.com>, "Doreen
Hazel" <casacalandria@mindspring.com>, "Ed Marsh" <ed.marsh08@gmail.com>, "Mia
Boggs" <mia.s.boggs@gmail.com>, "jchaney @dslextreme.com" <jchaney@dslextreme.com>, "Brian
Smalley" <briansma@sbcglobal.net>, "Pat Chew" <yourmarketedge@aol.com>, "Phil Dow" <pdow@mindspring.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 6:10:37 PM
Subject: 3539 Calandria - 3529 Calandria
Millicent and Taylor, We cited the owners of 3539 Calandria in March 2016 for the materials in the yard, the illegal structure,
etc. I will check with staff on the re-inspection date and next steps. Thanks, Rachel
To: mmc dslextreme.com; Flynn, Rachel
Cc: Harding, Jerron; mica matsumoto; Doreen Hazel; Ed Marsh; Mia Boggs; jchaney @dslextreme.com; Brian Smalley; Pat Chew; Phil Dow
How awful. Imagine if these broke a window! Or hurt somebody! I can attest to the fact that stuff is piled up 10 feet high
all along the property line between the two properties.
On Monday, 2 months will have passed without action since the latest complaint. And these items that blew into
Millicent's yard have been there since the other complaint dated 5/29/15, which was "closed" without actually addressing
the debris all over his backyard.
Are these timeframes normal for the city, or is this just taking so long because Mr Hector is so difficult to deal with?
8/16/2016
Page 428
taylor
From: mmc dslextreme.com <mmc@dslextreme.com >

Cc: jharding@oaklandcityattorney.org ; Taylor <taylorheanue@yahoo.com >; mica matsumoto <micamatsumoto@yahoo.com >; Doreen
Hazel <casacalandria@mindspring.com >; Ed Marsh <ed.marsh08@gmail.com >; Mia Boggs <mia.s.boggs@gmail.com >; "jchaney
@dslextreme.com" <jchaney@dslextreme.com >; Brian Smalley <briansma@sbcglobal.net >; Pat Chew <yourmarketedge@aol.com >; Phil
Dow <pdow@mindspring.com >
Dear Rachel As a quick followup to my email 4/13/16, please know several large pieces of Hector/Clark's siding they have propped up
to act as some sort of fence blew down into our yard last night (photos attached). We have put up No Trespassing signs
so the area is safer but we will not move these pieces as they are Hector/Clark's property and we don't dare interfere.
Please advise on next steps. Thank you so much.
Also, please know our property has received a Blight notice, Case No. 1601071, which we must respond to by 4/21/16.
Gratefully yours, Millicent Morris Chaney, 3529 Calandria Avenue
----- Original Message ----From: "mmc @dslextreme.com" <mmc@dslextreme.com >
Cc: jharding@oaklandcityattorney.org , "Taylor" <taylorheanue@yahoo.com >, "mica
matsumoto" <micamatsumoto@yahoo.com >, "Doreen Hazel" <casacalandria@mindspring.com >, "Ed
Marsh" <ed.marsh08@gmail.com >, "Mia Boggs" <mia.s.boggs@gmail.com >, "jchaney
@dslextreme.com" <jchaney@dslextreme.com >, "Brian Smalley" <briansma@sbcglobal.net >, "Pat
Chew" <yourmarketedge@aol.com >, "Phil Dow" <pdow@mindspring.com >
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 9:29:22 AM
Subject: Continually blighted property at 3539 Calandria - plea for support on behalf of 3529 Calandria
Dear Rachel
Thank you so much for your support of our proud Oakland neighborhood. I have received your most recent update on
proceedings for addressing the ongoing issues at 3539 Calandria and thank you for the update.
As the homeowner at 3529 Calandria, living right next to Hector and Clark, please know we have real fear of what Hector
and Clark are capable of. They have employed multiple harmful tactics to keep us from contacting the City. One of those
tactics is actively suing my household for harassment accusing me of collaborating with neighbors to purposely thwart
their development of their property. Please know that is emphatically not the case but I fear that my hesitancy to contact
you directly out of caution has also continued the great harm to our neighborhood from Hector/Clarks actions, not only
due to their continually blighted property but their relentless harassment of neighbors and City officials without any
apparent repercussions for their actions. I deeply appreciate other neighbors coming forward and especially thank Taylor
Heanue for being able to articulate the very real issues our neighborhood is suffering.
Our household has tried to bring to the Citys attention, when appropriate, what we believe are violations of the Citys
building codes. In brief, since 2011 we have asked City inspectors to review:
Hector/Clarks aggressive grading of their lot onto city park space and toward our lot, which resulted in the failure of
our fence
Hector then constructed a wall compound that, at the time of its construction, appeared to just barely comply with the
citys 4 wall height that would avoid the requirement of a permit, but, post-inspection by Inspector Hector Barron, now is a
precarious structure that is dangerous and blighted
Now that Hector/Clark have stated they are moving toward splitting this lot and have put it up for sale as a buildable lot,
8/16/2016
Page 429
please understand as the neighboring property we are very concerned that whoever purchases this lot will not be aware of
the history of the soil movement and will believe they can build on this lot without establishing an appropriate retaining
wall.
Meanwhile, we have also suffered living directly next door to a property that is continually blighted, with various unpermitted structures being under construction at various times, with no plans and no honest communication with the
neighborhood. He has continually manipulated, intimidated and lied to City officials and neighbors. We continue to have
vehicles parked right up to our property line pointed at our bedroom window. The car parking concerns me directly
because, as I stated, we do not know what Hector/Clark are capable of. I have a fear that one night they will accidentally
hit the gas pedal instead of the brake and allow their vehicle to crash into our house. They already had a small bulldozer
topple onto our property which took out our fence within the first month of their ownership.
How can it be reasonable per City of Oakland Building standards that the soil grading and structures Hector/Clark have
built are permissible according to City of Oakland codes? (see attached photo montage)
Please know we appreciate the challenges of dealing with Mr. Hector and Ms. Clark. As the directly neighboring property,
we seek the Citys support in reviewing the grading, tree removal, wall building, car parking and consistent blight that
have occurred over the last 4 years.
Please let me know what I can do the support you in helping our neighborhood restore peace and stability. We have
extensive photographic evidence of the changes Hector/Clark have made to the property. The attachment is a brief
overview. My cell phone is 510-917-2192.
8/16/2016
Page 430
8/16/2016
Page 431
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

4/19/2016 10:20:54 AM
RE: 3539 Calandria Avenue
Rachel,
My apologies, I thought all the properties along the Calandria/KEOS boundary had been surveyed. At least we know its going to
be done, which should end the years of uncertainty.
Thanks,
Phil

To: Philip Dow <pdow@mindspring.com>
Cc: Art Clark <Ac3361@aol.com>; Brian Smalley <briansma@sbcglobal.net>; Dorrie Slutsker <dorrie@sonic.net>; Marshall
Hasbrouck <mhasbrouck@yahoo.com>; Moselle Hindle <moselle.hindle@yahoo.com>; Pamm Baker <bakern21@yahoo.com>;
Sohini Chan <chan2ski@comcast.net>; Tamara Torrey <tatorrey@sbcglobal.net>; taylorheanue@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: 3539 Calandria Avenue
Philip, Im sorry this has all taken so long to address. I got involved in the Calandria cases/complaints about a year ago and
have gradually been working to address the complaints and associated violations. As you know, there have been many
complaints related to Calandria properties and these cases have been complex.
I have been working closely with the City Surveyor, Gil Hayes, to confirm property line locations and 3539 is next on their
list. Our goal is to have the survey crew get out there this month or next, at the very latest.
Rachel Flynn AIA
510 . 238 . 2229
To: Flynn, Rachel
Thank you,
Philip Dow
Chair, OKNIA
www.oknia.org
510.427.4496
Cc: OKNIA Board
8/16/2016
Page 432
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

4/29/2016 10:16:02 AM
3539 Calandria Ave
Good morning,
We did an intake via citizens access for Mr. Hectors property on 4/12. I recall you requesting that such issues be brought to
your attention. The description reads:
Cinder block retaining wall over 4 high at rear of property without building permits or design review. Total wall height is
approx. 10 feet from lowest point over continuous structure. Wall is over property line at side and rear. Illegal unsecured
fence made of building supplies is constructed on top of wall.
We have some close in photos of this area from February.
How shall we proceed?
Thank you
8/16/2016
Page 433
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

4/29/2016 10:24:10 AM
Re: 3539 Calandria Ave
I believe that Gil is surveying the site to see where the wall is locating.
Let me check with him before you take any action.
On Apr 29, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Fielding, Rich <RFielding@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Good morning,
We did an intake via citizens access for Mr. Hectors property on 4/12. I recall you requesting that such issues be brought
to your attention. The description reads:
Cinder block retaining wall over 4 high at rear of property without building permits or design review. Total wall height is
approx. 10 feet from lowest point over continuous structure. Wall is over property line at side and rear. Illegal unsecured
fence made of building supplies is constructed on top of wall.
We have some close in photos of this area from February.
How shall we proceed?
Thank you
8/16/2016
Page 434
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

5/13/2016 9:44:51 AM
RE: Retaining walls
I believe Hugos eyeball estimate should suffice.

From: Flynn, Rachel
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 4:16 PM
To: Fielding, Rich; Labayog, Edward; Barron, Hugo
Subject: Retaining walls
I checked with Gary Lim and he said that any stepping of retaining walls must be at least a 1:1 ratio. I believe that Hugo said that
horizontal distance between the 4 high CMU walls is 4. If thats correct, then they are in compliance.
Do you think that Hugo should actually measure the horizontal distance or do the photos make clear the 4 distance? Thanks,
Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 435
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

6/9/2016 3:43:53 PM
Re: 3539 Calandria Avenue
Hi Taylor, Sorry for my delayed response. Here is the status: 1) the survey is done and the NOV will be issued
next week for encroaching on City land and 2) we will conduct a formal reinspection for the illegal structure and
then fee charge if it is still there (with attached/dated photos of structure).
Regarding the build-up and dumping on park land, I'm in discussions with our City Attorney about options on
enforcement. I'll let you know the outcome. I also told staff to issue an NOV for the cars parked on the lawn.
I'll send you a copy of the NOV's, etc., once they are issued.
Thanks, Rachel
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 9, 2016, at 11:04 AM, Taylor <taylorheanue@yahoo.com > wrote:
hi Rachel I was hoping you might be able to give us an update on the status of the violations at 3539 Calandria at the
rear property line.
1) What is the status of the survey at the rear property line?
2) What is the status of the enforcement of buildup and dumping on park land behind 3539 Calandria?
3) What is the status of the enforcement of the illegal accessory structure at the rear of the 3539 Calandria
Lot?
There has been additional building activity there lately.
thank you,
Taylor Heanue
3521 Calandria Ave
From: "Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com >

To: Philip Dow <pdow@mindspring.com >
Cc: Art Clark <Ac3361@aol.com >; Brian Smalley <briansma@sbcglobal.net >; Dorrie Slutsker <dorrie@sonic.net >; Marshall
Hasbrouck <mhasbrouck@yahoo.com >; Moselle Hindle <moselle.hindle@yahoo.com >; Pamm Baker <bakern21@yahoo.com >; Sohini
Chan <chan2ski@comcast.net >; Tamara Torrey <tatorrey@sbcglobal.net >; "
taylorheanue@yahoo.com" <taylorheanue@yahoo.com >
Subject: RE: 3539 Calandria Avenue
Philip, Im sorry this has all taken so long to address. I got involved in the Calandria cases/complaints about a year
ago and have gradually been working to address the complaints and associated violations. As you know, there have
been many complaints related to Calandria properties and these cases have been complex.
I have been working closely with the City Surveyor, Gil Hayes, to confirm property line locations and 3539 is next
on their list. Our goal is to have the survey crew get out there this month or next, at the very latest.
Rachel Flynn AIA
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 436

To: Flynn, Rachel
Ive been copied on a number of emails related to 3535 and 3539 Calandria Avenue (APN: 43A-4692-6). The Oak Knoll Neighborhood
Improvement Association (OKNIA) has been dealing with the issue of encroachment into the King Estate Open Space (KEOS) since 2011,
when the first episode began (complaint No. 1101035). My conversations with OPW staff were very disappointing. Because there were
no monuments determining the property lines it seemed the best they could do was request materials be removed from the park. Nothing
further could be achieved.
Again, in 2014, an even more aggressive encroachment into KEOS, by the same property owner prompted our letter to Brian Carthan. I met
with Mr. Carthan, in KEOS, to view the extent of the encroachment. Unfortunately, because it was impossible for city staff to confidently
determine the location of the property line the results were the same as in 2011.
Now that the city has surveyed all the properties on Calandria that abut KEOS, there should be nothing deterring city staff from defending
the KEOS property line. All non-native landscaping, grading spoils, retaining walls, construction materials, and construction equipment must
be removed from park property.
Thank you,
Philip Dow
Chair, OKNIA
www.oknia.org
510.427.4496
Cc: OKNIA Board
8/16/2016
Page 437
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

6/14/2016 2:02:14 PM
RE: 3539 Calandria
No, this has not gone out. I see that corrections must be made and will have Hugo affect this. I will discuss with Ed as well our
understanding of this notice (as a new case with different violations noted) v. the case conditions noted on the 3/3 NOV and how
they differ.
On another matter, I have information you requested yesterday. Are you available for a hand delivery?
From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Fielding, Rich
Rich, The attached notice that you sent me last week is a Reinspection Notice dated 6-9-16. I am assuming this has NOT gone
out?
From: Fielding, Rich
To: Flynn, Rachel
It wont go out w/o your approval.

I believe the current notice is not a re-inspection notice, but a new opened case. I sent you the new case file from the Accela
record. Ill have Hugo make the correction to this new NOV (he put the former case file # on this new NOV). When he returns
tomorrow, Ill verify this understanding as a standalone new case.
From: Flynn, Rachel
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:30 AM
To: Fielding, Rich
Then we need to remove that item from the Re-Inspection Notice. Please revise and resend to me for my review BEFORE it goes out.
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 8:01 AM
To: Flynn, Rachel
It was not part of an NOV.

From: Flynn, Rachel
To: Fielding, Rich
Rich, The DRAFT Re-Inspection Notice (that you sent me on Friday) indicates that we issued an NOV for "Vehicles being parked on
landscaping. Remove." However, I don't see this citation on the attached NOV. Was that sent as a separate NOV?

To: Flynn, Rachel
What I find is that the NOV attached was the only notice under case file 16000550 (no fees). A new case file was logged in on 4/
15/16 per new conditions found. I attach the Accela print out of case #1601326. A notice was not sent as we were under your
orders to take no action until you approved of it.
We are now at the point of the draft of this as you are in receipt. It is clear that this draft should be under the new file
#1601326. The draft should be corrected and the NOV should stand alone of the file #1600550. Do you agree?
8/16/2016
Page 438
8/16/2016
Page 439
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

6/15/2016 2:09:18 PM
Calandria
DOC061516.pdf
Hi,
I hope this Notice will meet with your approval?
Please Note:
1. It is an "AMENDED NOV" and not a re-inspection notice.
2. It notes original violations and notes if they have been abated.
3. It notes violations found on 4/4/16 as new items found to be in violation.
The photos are available at your request, of 4/4 and (for present status) 6/6. These will be sent as an
attachment.
As I will be out until next Friday, please work with Ed for directions forward.
-----Original Message----From: Building Services [mailto:BuildingServices_Toshiba32412@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:54 PM
To: Fielding, Rich
Subject: Send data from MFP11219019 06/15/2016 13:53
Scanned from MFP11219019
Date:06/15/2016 13:53
Pages:4
Resolution:300x300 DPI
---------------------------------------Document sent from Toshiba copier. Please do not reply to this message
8/16/2016
Page 440
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:

6/16/2016 5:37:28 PM
FW: 3539 Calandria
DOC061316.pdf
From: Flynn, Rachel

To: Fielding, Rich
Rich, The DRAFT Re-Inspection Notice (that you sent me on Friday) indicates that we issued an NOV for "Vehicles being parked on
landscaping. Remove." However, I don't see this citation on the attached NOV. Was that sent as a separate NOV?

To: Flynn, Rachel
What I find is that the NOV attached was the only notice under case file 16000550 (no fees). A new case file was logged in on 4/
15/16 per new conditions found. I attach the Accela print out of case #1601326. A notice was not sent as we were under your
orders to take no action until you approved of it.
We are now at the point of the draft of this as you are in receipt. It is clear that this draft should be under the new file
#1601326. The draft should be corrected and the NOV should stand alone of the file #1600550. Do you agree?
8/16/2016
Page 441
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

taylorheanue@yahoo.com
7/6/2016 8:10:57 PM
Update
Hi Taylor, Here is an update on our enforcement efforts at 3539:

1.
Issued a Re-Inspection Notice on 6/22/16 for the unapproved open storage and for the unapproved structure in the
backyard. If either of these violations are not abated by July 15th, then we will fine the owner (Suzanne Clark).
2. Issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) on 6/23/16 for the vehicles parked in the front/side yard and for the unpermitted
encroachments in the rear yard (steps, pavers, walls, etc.). The reinspection date is July 18th and Ill let you know the
outcome.
Thanks, Rachel
Rachel Flynn AIA
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 442
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/13/2016 8:21:47 PM
two years of problems with B & P / inspection services 1 of 3
two years of problems with B & P / code enforcement services
Honorable Mayor Schaaf;
This is a final attempt to resolve my problems regarding two years of harassment by Building & Planning prior to litigation. I've already filed one lawsuit against the City of Oakland and Oakland Staff; RG 16813095,
I'm prepared to file additional lawsuits. I'm making a good faith attempt to resolve these disputes
without litigation. An acknowledgement of receipt of this email would be appreciated.
Succinctly my problem with B & P applies a double standard: one unrealistic interpretation of the OMC for
me, another generous interpretation for my neighbors; then retaliatory enforcement actions against me for
complaints of inaction to enforce clear "black letter" violations on neighboring properties.
What will resolve my claim without litigation? Direction from you or the City Administrator to Director of B
& P, Rachel Flynn:
1. Treat neighboring properties on the same street with the same application and interpretation of the OMC,
with similar time extensions - five years for one property, similar courtesy for all; no penalty assessments
for one, then same for all.
2. REASSIGN Hugo Barron away from Code enforcement
3. Void, as issued in error, all Notices of Violation for 3539 Calandria between July 2014 and July 2016 as
issued in error.
I know you're busy and litigation is a part of city government; Oakland City Attorney's office employees 71
people. But I'm appealing to your legal mind and sense of fairness. I've meet with Rachel Flynn and Claudio
Cappio without success; I also addressed the City Council in October 2015, and was referred back to Ms.
Cappio, who said "go ahead and sue."
You appoint the City Administrator. The City Administrator supervises the departments and has a primary
task of enforcing laws and ordinances per the city charter. This is not being done. Please note that the
8/16/2016
Page 443
Alameda Grand Jury made finding in 1999 and 2011 that B & P inspectors were violating the rights of
Oakland Citizens and not reasonably applying the OMC; without supervision and without an effective
appeals process - same City abuses for 20 years - uncorrected.
Background:
I live at 3539 Calandria, By the Zoo. This is a 12,000 sq ft, almost level lot, with 10,000 sq feet of land and
2000 sq ft of buildings; the property backs to city open space (king estates). My family purchased this
property in January 2011, as a foreclosure. (see attached picture). I'm involved in a dispute with several
neighbors and they're bombarding city staff with complaints in retaliation. These complaining neighbors all
have multiple violations of the OMC, which B & P staff ignored for years. In 2015, I made about 100
complaints to Rachel Flynn and other City personnel regarding a neighboring property that walled off 1000 sq
ft of city park and the current owner was cited for this violation in February 2011. The current owner then
posted the park as his private property in 2014. B & P staff took no enforcement action for almost 5 years.
Because of my complaints, B & P staff are retaliating. Please see attached picture of THREE Notices of
Violation we've received in the past two weeks.
Essentially, B & P staff are using their unsupervised police and judicial powers to violate the OMC and
threaten and intimidate Oakland residents. seven examples:
1. Permit exempt work: repeatedly cited as violations, even though specifically allowed per OMC, including
small accessory building which are allowed and exempt.
2. Parking on private property: repeatedly cited as violations, calling our driveway and parking area as
"landscape", even though there is NO LANDSCAPING in the parking area and driveway
3. working in the yard: Repeated cited as blight. Mr. Barron of B & P likes to drive by at lunchtime if he
sees me working, he takes a quick pic and calls it blight.
4. Canopy's and tents: Not addressed by OMC, but permit exempt per CRC. B & P staff call a retractable
canopies and small tents "a permanent structure requiring permits, even though the CRC exempts
them. FYI, I have planning approval for an accessory structuer in my backyard, that I paid Oakland $1,100
for in 2015.
5. Unequal application of the law. Neighboring violations ignored and regulations miss applied out of spite
against me.
6. On 6-21-2016, my security system shows me begin work on my property at 0837. At 1232 Hugo Barron
(Oakland B & P) is shown walking to the front of my property, take some pictures and call my activity on our
property "violations". Mr Barron walks behind our property in the park and takes more photos. These
"violations" come with the threat of thousands and THOUSANDS in fines.
7. The neighboring property that walled off part of the park and posted it as their private property finally took
corrective action in November 2015 - from a February 2011 violation. I made two new complaints; 1, illegal
dumping of debris in the park, 2 pouring new concrete foundations for a new retaining wall on city park
land. Rachel Flynn said it was OK because surface use of the park was not affected. Rachel Flynn
had the city surveyor check property lines abutting the park; the surveyor said minor variations are normal
and acceptable. Four neighboring properties built permanent walls and fences 2 to 23 feet inside the city
park - WITH NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR 5 YEARS. The very same B & P staff that said dumping
concrete and debris in the park; pouring concrete foundations in the park and burying debris in the park is
OK. I'm cited for .003 of a foot, or 1/32 of an inch, and wood in the air, like a tree branch.
8/16/2016
Page 444
Finally, a rhetorical question: How many "code enforcement inspectors" do you think would be appropriate
for an Oakland resident to experience in two years? We've had 23.
By the way, we've paid for 16 different permits over the last five years, and had multiple permit inspections,
without complaint.
Your displeasure with Police "frat house" is documented. Are you willing to enforce the same level of
supervision on the B & P code enforcement?
An acknowledgement of receipt of this email would be appreciated.
Regards,
Michael Hector
pic 1, three notices of violation from June / July 2016

pic 2, view from our back yard.
pic 3, from July 22, 2014 @ 1300 when I'm clearing brush from our front yard - note the trash cans - Mr
Barron called the active upkeep of our property in the middle of the day, property disposing of the waste - as
"blight". Compare with pic 1.
pic 4, 3539 Calandria August 2014. 20 + code enforcement inspections, 8 notices of violation. Does this
look like what the City Council and Mayor consider a "blighted property"?????
8/16/2016
Page 445
8/16/2016
Page 446
8/16/2016
Page 447
8/16/2016
Page 448
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/14/2016 10:35:51 AM
Two years of problems with B & P / inspection services 1 of 3
Hello all, We are handling the cases related to Michael Hector and his partner, Suzy Clark. If you have any questions, please
contact me directly. I have all of the documentation of these very complex cases and can explain them to you in detail, if needed.
As it stands, the property at 3539 Calandria, that Suzy Clark owns, and where she and Michael Hector reside has multiple
violations that staff and I are addressing. Thanks, Rachel
To: Schaaf, Libby; Office of the Mayor; Landreth, Sabrina; Flynn, Rachel; Barron, Hugo; Low, Tim; Fielding, Rich; Suzy clark; michael hector;
Cappio, Claudia; Campbell Washington, Annie; Labayog, Edward; Reid, Larry; Smith, Sandra M; Ramirez, Ivan; Espinosa, Thomas
Subject: two years of problems with B & P / inspection services 1 of 3

This is a final attempt to resolve my problems regarding two years of harassment by Building & Planning - prior to litigation. I've
already filed one lawsuit against the City of Oakland and Oakland Staff; RG 16813095, I'm prepared to file additional lawsuits. I'm
making a good faith attempt to resolve these disputes without litigation. An acknowledgement of receipt of this email would be
appreciated.
Succinctly my problem with B & P applies a double standard: one unrealistic interpretation of the OMC for me, another
generous interpretation for my neighbors; then retaliatory enforcement actions against me for complaints of inaction to enforce clear
"black letter" violations on neighboring properties.
What will resolve my claim without litigation? Direction from you or the City Administrator to Director of B & P, Rachel Flynn:
1. Treat neighboring properties on the same street with the same application and interpretation of the OMC, with similar time
extensions - five years for one property, similar courtesy for all; no penalty assessments for one, then same for all.
3. Void, as issued in error, all Notices of Violation for 3539 Calandria between July 2014 and July 2016 as issued in error.
I know you're busy and litigation is a part of city government; Oakland City Attorney's office employees 71 people. But I'm
appealing to your legal mind and sense of fairness. I've meet with Rachel Flynn and Claudio Cappio without success; I also
addressed the City Council in October 2015, and was referred back to Ms. Cappio, who said "go ahead and sue."
You appoint the City Administrator. The City Administrator supervises the departments and has a primary task of enforcing laws
and ordinances per the city charter. This is not being done. Please note that the Alameda Grand Jury made finding in 1999 and 2011
that B & P inspectors were violating the rights of Oakland Citizens and not reasonably applying the OMC; without supervision and
without an effective appeals process - same City abuses for 20 years - uncorrected.
Background:
I live at 3539 Calandria, By the Zoo. This is a 12,000 sq ft, almost level lot, with 10,000 sq feet of land and 2000 sq ft of buildings; the
property backs to city open space (king estates). My family purchased this property in January 2011, as a foreclosure. (see attached
picture). I'm involved in a dispute with several neighbors and they're bombarding city staff with complaints in retaliation. These
complaining neighbors all have multiple violations of the OMC, which B & P staff ignored for years. In 2015, I made about 100
complaints to Rachel Flynn and other City personnel regarding a neighboring property that walled off 1000 sq ft of city park and the
current owner was cited for this violation in February 2011. The current owner then posted the park as his private property in
2014. B & P staff took no enforcement action for almost 5 years.
8/16/2016
Page 449
Because of my complaints, B & P staff are retaliating. Please see attached picture of THREE Notices of Violation we've received in
the past two weeks.
Essentially, B & P staff are using their unsupervised police and judicial powers to violate the OMC and threaten and intimidate
Oakland residents. seven examples:
1. Permit exempt work: repeatedly cited as violations, even though specifically allowed per OMC, including small accessory building
which are allowed and exempt.
2. Parking on private property: repeatedly cited as violations, calling our driveway and parking area as "landscape", even though
there is NO LANDSCAPING in the parking area and driveway
3. working in the yard: Repeated cited as blight. Mr. Barron of B & P likes to drive by at lunchtime if he sees me working, he takes a
quick pic and calls it blight.
4. Canopy's and tents: Not addressed by OMC, but permit exempt per CRC. B & P staff call a retractable canopies and small tents
"a permanent structure requiring permits, even though the CRC exempts them. FYI, I have planning approval for an accessory
structuer in my backyard, that I paid Oakland $1,100 for in 2015.
5. Unequal application of the law. Neighboring violations ignored and regulations miss applied out of spite against me.
6. On 6-21-2016, my security system shows me begin work on my property at 0837. At 1232 Hugo Barron (Oakland B & P) is shown
walking to the front of my property, take some pictures and call my activity on our property "violations". Mr Barron walks behind
our property in the park and takes more photos. These "violations" come with the threat of thousands and THOUSANDS in fines.
7. The neighboring property that walled off part of the park and posted it as their private property finally took corrective action in
November 2015 - from a February 2011 violation. I made two new complaints; 1, illegal dumping of debris in the park, 2 pouring new
concrete foundations for a new retaining wall on city park land. Rachel Flynn said it was OK because surface use of the park was not
affected. Rachel Flynn had the city surveyor check property lines abutting the park; the surveyor said minor variations are normal
and acceptable. Four neighboring properties built permanent walls and fences 2 to 23 feet inside the city park - WITH
NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR 5 YEARS. The very same B & P staff that said dumping concrete and debris in the park; pouring
concrete foundations in the park and burying debris in the park is OK. I'm cited for .003 of a foot, or 1/32 of an inch, and wood in the
air, like a tree branch.
Finally, a rhetorical question: How many "code enforcement inspectors" do you think would be appropriate for an Oakland resident
to experience in two years? We've had 23.
By the way, we've paid for 16 different permits over the last five years, and had multiple permit inspections, without complaint.
Your displeasure with Police "frat house" is documented. Are you willing to enforce the same level of supervision on the B & P
code enforcement?
Regards,
Michael Hector
pic 3, from July 22, 2014 @ 1300 when I'm clearing brush from our front yard - note the trash cans - Mr Barron called the active upkeep
of our property in the middle of the day, property disposing of the waste - as "blight". Compare with pic 1.
pic 4, 3539 Calandria August 2014. 20 + code enforcement inspections, 8 notices of violation. Does this look like what the City
Council and Mayor consider a "blighted property"?????
8/16/2016
Page 450
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

"Schuerholz, Keith" <KSchuerholz@oaklandnet.com>
7/14/2016 12:32:36 PM
FW: B & P harassment 2 of 3
Hi Keith, I have already sent an e-mail to the Mayors Office and everyone that Michael Hector copied.
I would advise the Mayors Office to, 1) acknowledge receipt of his e-mail (as he requested) and 2) tell him to direct all
questions to me.
We are addressing his issues and have devoted significant time and effort to his concerns as well as his neighbors concerns.
Thanks, Rachel
From: Schuerholz, Keith
To: Flynn, Rachel
Cc: Fielding, Rich
Subject: FW: B & P harassment 2 of 3
Rachel,
Can your office advise us on this situation?
Thanks!
Keith
From: O'Doherty, Keara S
To: Schuerholz, Keith
Subject: FW: B & P harassment 2 of 3

To: Schaaf, Libby; Office of the Mayor; Landreth, Sabrina; Taylor, Marie (Allene); Smith, Sandra M; Labayog, Edward; Reid, Larry; Low, Tim;
Fielding, Rich; Ramirez, Ivan; Espinosa, Thomas; Cappio, Claudia; Suzy clark; michael hector; Campbell Washington, Annie
Subject: B & P harassment 2 of 3
\u8203 ?\u8203 ?B & P harassment 2 of 3
Honorable Mayor Schaff

I've attached an email from Rachel Flynn regarding my neighbors violation: Note, Ms. Flynn refers to concrete footing /
foundations poured on to city land as "not significant", as not interfering with public use.
A letter from Mr. Hayes, the City Surveyor, repeats "encroachments of footings / not interfering with enjoyment of the
land".
I've also attached several pictures showing my neighbors violations:
pic 1, neighboring property with RV covered by tarp, car on jacks covered by tarp, and wrecked car in driveway - all
violations of OMC. Mr. Barron was shown these violations by me and said so what. NO VIOLATION ISSUED.
pic 2, survey of neighboring property showing 23 foot encroachment of city land, which two B & P staff said was OK;
Mr Wilson in February 2015 and Marie Taylor in May 2015
pic 3, concrete debris dumped in park and buried by neighbor. I sent multiple pictures and and complaints to Rachel
Flynn and Hugo Barron WITHOUT CORRECTIVE ACTION.
pic 4, neighbor dumped old jacuzzi in park. NO VIOLATION ISSUED. Hugo Barron and Tim Low, came out, looked,
took no action, no violation, then searched my property for violations.
8/16/2016
Page 451
\u8203 ?
DOC020416.pdf
\u8203 ?
From: Flynn, Rachel
Cc: Hayes, Gil
3. While there may be encroachments of the footings or the wall, these are not considered significant and, if any, they are buried and will not
interfere with the enjoyment of the land by the general public.
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 452
8/16/2016
Page 453
8/16/2016
Page 454
8/16/2016
Page 455
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

psmhector@gmail.com
7/14/2016 12:36:31 PM
RE: B & P harassment 2 of 3
Dear Mr. Hector,

Thank you for your email to Mayor Schaaf. We advise you to continue to work with our staff and address all future emails to
Rachel Flynn (RFlynn@oaklandnet.com).
Sincerely,
Keith S. Schuerholz
Community Liaison
Office of the Mayor

I've attached an email from Rachel Flynn regarding my neighbors violation: Note, Ms. Flynn refers to concrete footing
/ foundations poured on to city land as "not significant", as not interfering with public use.
A letter from Mr. Hayes, the City Surveyor, repeats "encroachments of footings / not interfering with enjoyment of the
land".
pic 1, neighboring property with RV covered by tarp, car on jacks covered by tarp, and wrecked car in driveway - all
violations of OMC. Mr. Barron was shown these violations by me and said so what. NO VIOLATION ISSUED.
pic 2, survey of neighboring property showing 23 foot encroachment of city land, which two B & P staff said was
OK; Mr Wilson in February 2015 and Marie Taylor in May 2015
pic 3, concrete debris dumped in park and buried by neighbor. I sent multiple pictures and and complaints to Rachel
Flynn and Hugo Barron WITHOUT CORRECTIVE ACTION.
pic 4, neighbor dumped old jacuzzi in park. NO VIOLATION ISSUED. Hugo Barron and Tim Low, came out,
looked, took no action, no violation, then searched my property for violations.
\u8203 ?
DOC020416.pdf
\u8203 ?
8/16/2016
Page 456
From: Flynn, Rachel
Cc: Hayes, Gil
3. While there may be encroachments of the footings or the wall, these are not considered significant and, if any, they are buried and will not interfere
with the enjoyment of the land by the general public.
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 457
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/14/2016 12:38:08 PM
RE: two years of problems with B & P / inspection services 1 of 3
Michael, This is to acknowledge that have all received your e-mail.


This is a final attempt to resolve my problems regarding two years of harassment by Building & Planning - prior to
litigation. I've already filed one lawsuit against the City of Oakland and Oakland Staff; RG 16813095, I'm prepared
to file additional lawsuits. I'm making a good faith attempt to resolve these disputes
without litigation. An acknowledgement of receipt of this email would be

appreciated.
Succinctly my problem with B & P applies a double standard: one unrealistic interpretation of the OMC for me,
another generous interpretation for my neighbors; then retaliatory enforcement actions against me for complaints of
inaction to enforce clear "black letter" violations on neighboring properties.
What will resolve my claim without litigation?
Director of B & P, Rachel Flynn:
Direction from you or the City Administrator to
1. Treat neighboring properties on the same street with the same application and interpretation of the OMC, with
similar time extensions - five years for one property, similar courtesy for all; no penalty assessments for one, then
same for all.
3. Void, as issued in error, all Notices of Violation for 3539 Calandria between July 2014 and July 2016 as issued in
error.
I know you're busy and litigation is a part of city government; Oakland City Attorney's office employees 71 people.
But I'm appealing to your legal mind and sense of fairness. I've meet with Rachel Flynn and Claudio Cappio
without success; I also addressed the City Council in October 2015, and was referred back to Ms. Cappio, who
said "go ahead and sue."
You appoint the City Administrator. The City Administrator supervises the departments and has a primary task of
enforcing laws and ordinances per the city charter. This is not being done. Please note that the Alameda Grand Jury
8/16/2016
Page 458
made finding in 1999 and 2011 that B & P inspectors were violating the rights of Oakland Citizens and not reasonably
applying the OMC; without supervision and without an effective appeals process - same City abuses for 20 years uncorrected.
Background:
I live at 3539 Calandria, By the Zoo. This is a 12,000 sq ft, almost level lot, with 10,000 sq feet of land and 2000 sq
ft of buildings; the property backs to city open space (king estates). My family purchased this property in January
2011, as a foreclosure. (see attached picture). I'm involved in a dispute with several neighbors and they're
bombarding city staff with complaints in retaliation. These complaining neighbors all have multiple violations of the
OMC, which B & P staff ignored for years. In 2015, I made about 100 complaints to Rachel Flynn and other City
personnel regarding a neighboring property that walled off 1000 sq ft of city park and the current owner was cited for
this violation in February 2011. The current owner then posted the park as his private property in 2014. B & P staff
took no enforcement action for almost 5 years.
Because of my complaints, B & P staff are retaliating. Please see attached picture of THREE Notices of Violation
we've received in the past two weeks.
Essentially, B & P staff are using their unsupervised police and judicial powers to violate the OMC and threaten and
intimidate Oakland residents. seven examples:
1. Permit exempt work: repeatedly cited as violations, even though specifically allowed per OMC, including small
accessory building which are allowed and exempt.
repeatedly cited as violations, calling our driveway and

parking area as "landscape", even though there is NO LANDSCAPING in the parking
area and driveway
2. Parking on private property:
3. working in the yard: Repeated cited as blight. Mr. Barron of B & P likes to drive by at lunchtime if he sees me
working, he takes a quick pic and calls it blight.
4. Canopy's and tents: Not addressed by OMC, but permit exempt per CRC. B & P staff call a retractable
canopies and small tents "a permanent structure requiring permits, even though the CRC exempts them. FYI, I have
planning approval for an accessory structuer in my backyard, that I paid Oakland $1,100 for in 2015.
5. Unequal application of the law. Neighboring violations ignored and regulations miss applied out of spite against
me.
6. On 6-21-2016, my security system shows me begin work on my property at 0837. At 1232 Hugo Barron
(Oakland B & P) is shown walking to the front of my property, take some pictures and call my activity on our
property "violations". Mr Barron walks behind our property in the park and takes more photos. These
"violations" come with the threat of thousands and THOUSANDS in fines.
7. The neighboring property that walled off part of the park and posted it as their private property finally took
corrective action in November 2015 - from a February 2011 violation. I made two new complaints; 1, illegal
dumping of debris in the park, 2 pouring new concrete foundations for a new retaining wall on city park land. Rachel
Flynn said it was OK because surface use of the park was not affected. Rachel Flynn had the city surveyor check
property lines abutting the park; the surveyor said minor variations are normal and acceptable. Four neighboring
properties built permanent walls and fences 2 to 23 feet inside the city park - WITH NO ENFORCEMENT
ACTION FOR 5 YEARS. The very same B & P staff that said dumping concrete and debris in the park; pouring
concrete foundations in the park and burying debris in the park is OK. I'm cited for .003 of a foot, or 1/32 of an inch,
and wood in the air, like a tree branch.
Finally, a rhetorical question: How many "code enforcement inspectors" do you think would be appropriate for an
Oakland resident to experience in two years? We've had 23.
By the way, we've paid for 16 different permits over the last five years, and had multiple permit inspections, without
complaint.
8/16/2016
Page 459
Your displeasure with Police "frat house" is documented. Are you willing to enforce the same level of supervision on
the B & P code enforcement?
Regards,
Michael Hector

pic 3, from July 22, 2014 @ 1300 when I'm clearing brush from our front yard - note the trash cans - Mr Barron
called the active upkeep of our property in the middle of the day, property disposing of the waste - as "blight".
Compare with pic 1.
pic 4, 3539 Calandria August 2014. 20 + code enforcement inspections, 8 notices

of violation. Does this look like what the City Council and Mayor consider a
"blighted property"?????
8/16/2016
Page 460
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/14/2016 1:17:05 PM
Re: B & P harassment 2 of 3
received.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Schuerholz, Keith <KSchuerholz@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Dear Mr. Hector,

Thank you for your email to Mayor Schaaf. We advise you to continue to work with our staff and address all future emails to
Rachel Flynn (RFlynn@oaklandnet.com ).
Sincerely,
Keith S. Schuerholz
Community Liaison
Office of the Mayor

I've attached an email from Rachel Flynn regarding my neighbors violation: Note, Ms. Flynn refers to
concrete footing / foundations poured on to city land as "not significant", as not interfering with public
use.
A letter from Mr. Hayes, the City Surveyor, repeats "encroachments of footings / not interfering with
enjoyment of the land".
pic 1, neighboring property with RV covered by tarp, car on jacks covered by tarp, and wrecked car
in driveway - all violations of OMC. Mr. Barron was shown these violations by me and said so
8/16/2016
Page 461
what. NO VIOLATION ISSUED.
pic 2, survey of neighboring property showing 23 foot encroachment of city land, which two B & P
staff said was OK; Mr Wilson in February 2015 and Marie Taylor in May 2015
pic 3, concrete debris dumped in park and buried by neighbor. I sent multiple pictures and and
complaints to Rachel Flynn and Hugo Barron WITHOUT CORRECTIVE ACTION.
pic 4, neighbor dumped old jacuzzi in park. NO VIOLATION ISSUED. Hugo Barron and Tim Low,
came out, looked, took no action, no violation, then searched my property for violations.
\u8203 ?
DOC020416.pdf
\u8203 ?
From: Flynn, Rachel

Cc: Hayes, Gil
3. While there may be encroachments of the footings or the wall, these are not considered significant and, if any, they are buried and will not
interfere with the enjoyment of the land by the general public.
Thank you for working cooperatively with the City to remove the old wall from the City park and to construct a replacement wall on your
property.
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
8/16/2016
Page 462
8/16/2016
Page 463
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/14/2016 1:17:33 PM
Re: two years of problems with B & P / inspection services 1 of 3
thank you
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Flynn, Rachel <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com > wrote:
Michael, This is to acknowledge that have all received your e-mail.

This is a final attempt to resolve my problems regarding two years of harassment by Building
& Planning - prior to litigation. I've already filed one lawsuit against the City of Oakland and Oakland
I'm making a good faith

attempt to resolve these disputes without litigation. An
acknowledgement of receipt of this email would be appreciated.
Staff; RG 16813095, I'm prepared to file additional lawsuits.
Succinctly my problem with B & P applies a double standard: one unrealistic interpretation of the
OMC for me, another generous interpretation for my neighbors; then retaliatory enforcement actions
against me for complaints of inaction to enforce clear "black letter" violations on neighboring
properties.
Direction from you or the City

Administrator to Director of B & P, Rachel Flynn:
What will resolve my claim without litigation?
1. Treat neighboring properties on the same street with the same application and interpretation of
the OMC, with similar time extensions - five years for one property, similar courtesy for all; no
penalty assessments for one, then same for all.
3. Void, as issued in error, all Notices of Violation for 3539 Calandria between July 2014 and July
2016 as issued in error.
8/16/2016
Page 464
I know you're busy and litigation is a part of city government; Oakland City Attorney's
office employees 71 people. But I'm appealing to your legal mind and sense of fairness. I've meet
with Rachel Flynn and Claudio Cappio without success; I also addressed the City Council
in October 2015, and was referred back to Ms. Cappio, who said "go ahead and sue."
You appoint the City Administrator. The City Administrator supervises the departments and has a
primary task of enforcing laws and ordinances per the city charter. This is not being done. Please
note that the Alameda Grand Jury made finding in 1999 and 2011 that B & P inspectors were
violating the rights of Oakland Citizens and not reasonably applying the OMC; without supervision
and without an effective appeals process - same City abuses for 20 years - uncorrected.
Background:
I live at 3539 Calandria, By the Zoo. This is a 12,000 sq ft, almost level lot, with 10,000 sq feet of
land and 2000 sq ft of buildings; the property backs to city open space (king estates). My family
purchased this property in January 2011, as a foreclosure. (see attached picture). I'm involved in a
dispute with several neighbors and they're bombarding city staff with complaints in
retaliation. These complaining neighbors all have multiple violations of the OMC, which B & P staff
ignored for years. In 2015, I made about 100 complaints to Rachel Flynn and other City personnel
regarding a neighboring property that walled off 1000 sq ft of city park and the current owner was
cited for this violation in February 2011. The current owner then posted the park as his private
property in 2014. B & P staff took no enforcement action for almost 5 years.
Because of my complaints, B & P staff are retaliating. Please see attached picture of THREE
Notices of Violation we've received in the past two weeks.
Essentially, B & P staff are using their unsupervised police and judicial powers to violate the OMC
and threaten and intimidate Oakland residents. seven examples:
1. Permit exempt work: repeatedly cited as violations, even though specifically allowed per OMC,
including small accessory building which are allowed and exempt.
repeatedly cited as violations, calling our driveway

and parking area as "landscape", even though there is NO
LANDSCAPING in the parking area and driveway
2. Parking on private property:
3. working in the yard: Repeated cited as blight. Mr. Barron of B & P likes to drive by at lunchtime if
he sees me working, he takes a quick pic and calls it blight.
4. Canopy's and tents: Not addressed by OMC, but permit exempt per CRC. B & P staff call a
retractable canopies and small tents "a permanent structure requiring permits, even though the
8/16/2016
Page 465
CRC exempts them. FYI, I have planning approval for an accessory structuer in my backyard, that I
paid Oakland $1,100 for in 2015.
5. Unequal application of the law. Neighboring violations ignored and regulations miss applied out
of spite against me.
6. On 6-21-2016, my security system shows me begin work on my property at 0837. At 1232 Hugo
Barron (Oakland B & P) is shown walking to the front of my property, take some pictures and call my
activity on our property "violations". Mr Barron walks behind our property in the park and takes more
photos. These "violations" come with the threat of thousands and THOUSANDS in fines.
7. The neighboring property that walled off part of the park and posted it as their private property
finally took corrective action in November 2015 - from a February 2011 violation. I made two new
complaints; 1, illegal dumping of debris in the park, 2 pouring new concrete foundations for a
new retaining wall on city park land. Rachel Flynn said it was OK because surface use of the
park was not affected. Rachel Flynn had the city surveyor check property lines abutting the park;
the surveyor said minor variations are normal and acceptable. Four neighboring properties
built permanent walls and fences 2 to 23 feet inside the city park - WITH NO ENFORCEMENT
ACTION FOR 5 YEARS. The very same B & P staff that said dumping concrete and debris in the
park; pouring concrete foundations in the park and burying debris in the park is OK. I'm cited for
.003 of a foot, or 1/32 of an inch, and wood in the air, like a tree branch.
Finally, a rhetorical question: How many "code enforcement inspectors" do you think would be
appropriate for an Oakland resident to experience in two years? We've had 23.
By the way, we've paid for 16 different permits over the last five years, and had multiple permit
inspections, without complaint.
Your displeasure with Police "frat house" is documented. Are you willing to enforce the same level
of supervision on the B & P code enforcement?
Regards,
Michael Hector
8/16/2016
Page 466
pic 3, from July 22, 2014 @ 1300 when I'm clearing brush from our front yard - note the trash cans Mr Barron called the active upkeep of our property in the middle of the day, property disposing of the
waste - as "blight". Compare with pic 1.
pic 4, 3539 Calandria August 2014. 20 + code enforcement inspections,

8 notices of violation. Does this look like what the City Council and
Mayor consider a "blighted property"?????
8/16/2016
Page 467
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/14/2016 5:51:23 PM
multiple N.O.V.'s 3539 Calandria
multiple N.O.V.'s 3539 Calandria
Mr. Baron,
Per your multiple N.O.V.'s you have multiple inspections scheduled in the next week.
I'll send you pictures showing corrections and conforming to the applicable code.
pic 1. shows the area where the on grade rail tie steps were and stepping stones. removed. disposed at waste mgt, SL.
pic 2. shows the area where the landscape wall was marginally over the PL. Removed.
pic 3. shows the landscape wall - removed. blocks donated to the Restore.
pic 4. shows the buried wood I installed to mark the North property line, that was off per the Surveyor by a fraction of an
inch. The wood will be removed. I'll send another pic.
Your system only allows 4 pics at a time.
Regards,
Michael Hector
8/16/2016
Page 468
8/16/2016
Page 469
8/16/2016
Page 470
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/15/2016 9:04:33 AM
3539 Calandria N.O.V.s
3539 Calandria N.O.V.s
Mr. Barron,
the hose bib and copper pipe removed; cut several inches inside our property line.
8/16/2016
Page 471
8/16/2016
Page 472
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/15/2016 9:47:48 AM
3539 calandria N.O.V.s
Mr. Barron,
the wood I buried to show the north property line - that was off by a fraction of an inch was removed.
regards,
michael hector
8/16/2016
Page 473
8/16/2016
Page 474
8/16/2016
Page 475
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/15/2016 12:46:52 PM
3539 Calandria N.O.V.'s - retractable canopy in back yard
DIRECTOR FLYNN - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT IS APPRECIATED
3539 Calandria N.O.V.'s - retractable canopy in back yard
Mr. Barron,
I have retracted my canopy. Please note this completely open. I built a playhouse to conform to the
"exempt" OMC standards; Less the 12' high, less than 120 sq ft, in the shape of an " L ". The wood that
extends over the property line is left in place. In February 2016 the Director of B & P, and the City Surveyor
both wrote the encroachments that do not interfere with the enjoyment of the land or use thereof are not
considered significant (see attached).
Your unique application of the OMC, CRC and CBC to me and me alone will make an
interesting legal argument, while two senior Oakland staff wrote to my neighbor that violations
of the OMC that they do not consider "SIGNIFICANT" are OK; I refer to OMC 10, illegal
dumping AKA burying private concrete on City Park land...
regards,
michael hector
From: Flynn, Rachel

Cc: Hayes, Gil
1. The new wall that you have had constructed is s u b s t a n t i a l l y w i t h i n t h e b o u n d a r y o f y o u r p r o p e r t y at 3521 Calandria;
3. While there may be encroachments of the footings or the wall, these are not considered significant and, if any, they are
buried and will not interfere with the enjoyment of the land by the general public.
Thank you for working cooperatively with the City to remove the old wall from the City park and to construct a replacement wall on your
8/16/2016
Page 476
property.
Rachel Flynn AIA

City of Oakland
510 . 238 . 2229
\u8203 ?
DOC020416.pdf
\u8203 ?
8/16/2016
Page 477
8/16/2016
Page 478
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

7/22/2016 9:47:47 AM
3539 calandria av inspection pictures on 8/18/16.
Owner was present at time of the inspection and recording/video my actions. Most of the stuff cited as unapproved
encroachment was removed. Scaffolds are still there left by the property line and he stated that will be used to store materials
(he addressed the scaffolds as metal framing), I just took pictures without making comments. Also he asked to follow him and
he showed me the back yard of two of his adjacent neighbors where he pointed out the accumulation of building materials in
the back yard and adjacent to the rear wood fence, my action was limited to take pictures of this field conditions, but what I saw
was a few pieces of lumber.
8/16/2016
Page 479
8/16/2016
Page 480
8/16/2016
Page 481
8/16/2016
Page 482
8/16/2016
Page 483
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

8/12/2016 8:26:53 AM
FW: 3539 Calandria Av cases 1602298 and 1600550 per 8-11-16
FYI
-----Original Message----From: Barron, Hugo
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 2:54 PM
To: Fielding, Rich
Cc: Labayog, Edward
Subject: 3539 Calandria Av cases 1602298 and 1600550 per 8-11-16
3539 Calandria Av
8/16/2016
Page 484
8/16/2016
Page 485
8/16/2016
Page 486
8/16/2016
Page 487
8/16/2016
Page 488
8/16/2016
Page 489
8/16/2016
Page 490
8/16/2016
Page 491
8/16/2016
Page 492
8/16/2016
Page 493
8/16/2016
Page 494
8/16/2016
Page 495
8/16/2016
Page 496
8/16/2016
Page 497
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

8/12/2016 8:35:37 AM
FW: 3539 Calandria Av Cases 1602298 and 1600550 (More pictures) field condition on 8-11-16
From: Barron, Hugo

To: Fielding, Rich
Cc: Labayog, Edward
Subject: 3539 Calandria Av Cases 1602298 and 1600550 (More pictures) field condition on 8-11-16
8/16/2016
Page 498
8/16/2016
Page 499
8/16/2016
Page 500
8/16/2016
Page 501
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:

8/12/2016 8:37:20 AM
FW: 3539 Calandria Av Cases 1602298 and 1600550 (Additional pictures) field condition on 8-11-16
From: Barron, Hugo

To: Fielding, Rich
Cc: Labayog, Edward
Subject: 3539 Calandria Av Cases 1602298 and 1600550 (Additional pictures) field condition on 8-11-16
8/16/2016
Page 502
8/16/2016
Page 503
8/16/2016
Page 504
8/16/2016

16-16437 - 3539 Calandria PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

16-16437 - 3539 Calandria PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Page 1

"Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com>

From: Michael Hector [mailto:psmhector@gmail.com]

N.O.V. 1501141, for 3539 Calandria.

Complaint 1501141 was made by the Heanues, one of many.

Michael Hector & Suzanne Clark

"Michael Hector" <psmhector@gmail.com>

complaints 1501623 & 1501624

Very unhappy in Oakland...

"Michael Hector" <psmhector@gmail.com>

3529 Calandria building permit to replace parkside retaining wall

Feb 18, 2011

Feb 18, 2011

Feb 25, 2011

Requested from planning permission to remove two monterey pine granted

3521 Calandria, permit to add new bath $20,000

July 21, 2014

August 20, 2014 +/- reinspection with Barron.

Sept 25, 2014

from Barron, no violations

sep 19, 2014

1305434 & 1302254

"Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com>

Feb 25, 2011

Applied to Planning to remove two Monterey pines. Granted.

"Michael Hector" <psmhector@gmail.com>

COMMUNICATION SKILLS OF OAKLAND STAFF

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Chak, Victoria <VChak@oaklandnet.com>

Good morning, Mr. Hector:

Specialty Combination Inspector, Senior: http://agency. governmentjobs .com/

Office| (510) 238-2976

From: Michael Hector <psmhector @gmail.com >

Director Building and Planning. Currently held by Rachel Flynn

exempt, limited duration employee. Marie Taylor (Allene)

management assistant. Sandra Smith

engineer, principle. Tim Low

"building official". Debroah Sandercock

specialty engineer, senior. Ed labayog

"Michael Hector" <psmhector@gmail.com>

"Brenyah-Addow, Maurice" <Brenyah-Addow@oaklandnet.com>

April 30, 2015.

-----Original Message----From: Miller, Scott

-----Original Message----From: Flynn, Rachel

Subject: RE: 3539 Calandria

> Cc: Taylor, Marie (Allene)

"Lu, Alan" <ALu@oaklandnet.com>

From: Flynn, Rachel

Alan, I only need applications/permits PRIOR to 2014. Thanks again, Rachel

"Lu, Alan" <ALu@oaklandnet.com>

From: Flynn, Rachel

Alan, I only need applications/permits PRIOR to 2014. Thanks again, Rachel

"Valeska, David" <DValeska@oaklandnet.com>

From: Flynn, Rachel

From: Flynn, Rachel

"Flynn, Rachel" <RFlynn@oaklandnet.com>

"Michael Hector" <psmhector@gmail.com>

We will end with four requests:

for questionable violations.

All the best,

"Michael Hector" <psmhector@gmail.com>

A prompt reply would be nice.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Michael Hector <psmhector@gmail.com

We will end with four requests: