David Humphrey Contracting

NOTE: Let me first state
for the record that the original scope of work as well as any additional work
were agreed to in a legally binding, CA State approved, written contract (attached)
which included proper protocols and procedures for  compliance with the law, change orders and
arbitration. The responsibilities of both the owner and the contractor were
clearly defined in the signed contract. It then makes sense to refer to the signed
contract now and use it as a guideline due to this controversy. Also, it is
important to note that I did not agree nor was it included in the contractually
bound scope of work, nor was I ever hired or paid to obtain permits or review.
R[redacted],
I do understand your frustration and even empathize with
your perception so I think it is very important and may even be helpful to review
the facts of the situation and then to support those facts with available documentation.
This way perhaps we can avoid any inflammatory rhetoric or confused recollections
of contracted scope of work and responsibility.
Even with all of this being revisited and
debated (see below) the truth is the permit violations have now been abated for
the project. There was never a problem with the way construction work was completed
at the property. It was done correctly, as directed and according to all
applicable building codes. It is important to stay focused on the one issue
here that you are demanding warranty compensation for and that is the issue of
the location of the front wall. The issue is not the permit. The permit not
being pulled before the work was done was simply rectified by pulling it after
the work was done.
The problem now is that where you
personally directed Francisco (masonry sub-contractor) to place the wall is apparently
partially in the power company’s right-of-way. If you were not aware of your property lines,
setbacks and right-of-ways then having your property surveyed before you decide
to relocate a wall would have been prudent. I was not asked nor was it part of
our contract to have the property surveyed. This issue has to do with you
moving the location of the existing wall for creative purposes without
establishing your allowable parameters. I
think I have been more than reasonable in taking the time to work through this
issue with you.
My final good faith offer to help settle this dispute is as follows:
I will have the wall in
question repositioned to meet city’s requirements for 50% of the original bid
or $3750.00 instead of $7500.00.
I will not bill you
the fee you agreed to pay me for working on the abatement issues on your
behalf. This includes my time at $150.00 per hour for all conversations,
communications and site visits post ZIR. The total amount is currently $1200.00
or 8 hours’ worth of effort.
I think this is more than reasonable
given the fact that I am not obligated to do anything at all. In return I would
request that you retract this complaint from the Revdex.com.
What follows now is some clarification
and documentation supporting my overall position:
According to the Revdex.com you last mentioned that you were
rejecting my response to your original complaint “because: As a Licensed General Contractor it is/was his responsibility
to obtain the required permits & review. D[redacted] was asked at least three
times if permits were needed, and each time his answer was no.  If he had
obtained permits, none of this would have been an issue.”
Our contract clearly states on page 2, item VII. Compliance with Law that:
 Contractor and Owner mutually commit to use reasonable care to meet the Requirements of state, federal
and local Law when discharging their responsibilities under this agreement.
Therefore we
agreed to equally share the responsibility of determining if obtaining permits
and review was indeed necessary. If then, after the fact, you determine that
some issue has arisen by not obtaining a permit you would be equally responsible
since you agreed to be mutually responsible in the first place.
The
requirements for permits was indeed considered and discussed but saying I was
asked three times and each time I said no is simple a gross misrepresentation
of the facts. I did indeed exercise reasonable care in meeting the requirements
of the law and after I made a determination (according to the information at my
disposal) that we were exempt from permits I shared that information with you
via email to which you responded in agreement, “Okay, that actually clears it
up nicely. Thank you!!” (See copy pasted emails below)
 
From: K[redacted] [mailto:[redacted]@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 12:51 PMTo: D[redacted]Subject: Re: City of Santa Barbara Clarification
 
Okay, that actually clears it up
nicely.  Thank you!!
 
The guys are just breaking for the
game—a LOT of hard lifting today!!
 
Regards!
—R[redacted]
 
On Jun 23, 2014, at 1:28 PM, D[redacted]
[redacted] <[redacted]@gmail.com> wrote:
R[redacted],
 
After
rechecking the City of Santa Barbara Guidelines, we are exempt
from the Design Board Review due to the fact that we do not fall into any of
the below listed categories. You may have interpreted #8 (below) as a
“retaining wall” but a “wall fence” is something different altogether. We fall
under #7 and are permitted to be less than 6’ without review or permit.
 
Single
Family Design Board
 
Pursuant
to SBMC §22.69.020.C.7 and 22.69.020.C.8 (excerpts cited below), a building
permit to construct, alter, or add to the exterior of a single family
residential unit or related accessory structure (including fences and walls) on
any lot shall be referred to the Single Family Design Board for design review
if the permit involves the following:
7.
The construction, alteration or addition of a retaining wall that is six feet
(6’) or greater in height, or
8.
The construction, alteration or addition of a wall fence or gate in the front
yard of the lot that is greater than three and one-half feet (3 ½’) in height.
 
Best
regards,
 
D[redacted]
[redacted]
Phone:
###-###-####
www.SBHomeInspector.com
 
Mailing
Address: #### State St #####, Santa Barbara, CA 93105
 
 
If you had any reservations about the
interpretation of the law they should have been voiced at that time but you,
like me, believed we understood the parameters and moved forward based on our
understanding. I think you will recall after the ZIR was issued that even J[redacted], an expert in planning and permits, expressed his belief that permits
were probably not needed for the front walls so it is not outside the realm of
possibility that our misinterpretation was understandable and not uncommon.

Review: D[redacted], General Contractor was hired for an improvement of property in Santa Barbara, CA. The original contract amount was $80,650.00, May 20, 2014 (which increased to nearly $100,000). Even though we asked about permits, D[redacted] said they were not needed. We put the house on the market in January 2015; it sold quickly, and a ZIR was ordered. This is when we learned the property improvements were in violation (un-permited). We immediately began the process of trying to resolve this matter with the city. It was perceived, by agents and prospective buyers alike, as red flagged. Given its unwelcome lower status, the house sat on the market for months, during which we had it professionally appraised (a separate service we contracted independent of our Real Estate agent). When we finally sold the property, we took a $125,000.00 loss from the first contract ( $10,000 less than the appraised value), again due to the unfavorable, unresolved zoning violations. We hired consultant Jarrett Gorin, and his subcontracted services for drafting etc., to bring the house into compliance with the city's codes. To date, we have paid J[redacted] several thousand dollars, which have included fines and permit fees for the work contracted, and we are contractually obligated to continue paying until full compliance has been achieved. We requested D[redacted]o absorb his $7500 fee to fix this last issue, the retaining wall un-permitted work. He is not returning communications. We did not request D[redacted]o compensate for all the financial losses we suffered due to his un-permitted work. We do not think we should have to pay D[redacted] any additional fees to correct this. We do however, need to have the retaining wall adjusted to RD 2015.04.28 plans, thus bringing the property into compliance with the city; even if we must hire another General Contractor to fix this.Desired Settlement: D[redacted] fix and absorb all costs in correcting the retaining wall (finishing by August 1, 2015) to conform to RD 2015.04.28 plans, thus bringing the property into compliance with the city. If he refuses, we want reimbursement for another contractor's services to bring the retaining wall into compliance. In addition, we seek reimbursement of Mr. G[redacted] salary, related fine reimbursements, and compensation for the paper loss of $125,000.00 the difference between the first offer.

Business

Response:

From: D[redacted] [mailto:[redacted]@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 12:54 PM

To: 'K[redacted]

Cc: B[redacted]

Subject: #### Kenwood

Hi Folks!

Thank you for

your patience. I have endeavored to fit my assistance with the violation

abatement issues at 1340 Kenwood into my already full schedule. I’m sure

you can understand, sometimes we are not able to respond to emails as quickly

as we would like due to other equally pressing matters.

Although,

based on your email dated June 17, I understand your apparent perspective and

motivation for requesting that I absorb the cost of relocating the wall, I

think it is important to introduce you to another perspective. I’ll try and be

as concise as possible:

·

On the issue of pulling permits:

Based on the

information I was given by the city at the time of the project, I was under the

impression that the improvements we were making to the property were not

improvements that required going through the planning and permitting process.

Apparently, I was misinformed despite using reasonable care to meet the

requirements of local law. That being said, all of the improvement work

executed conformed to the local and federal building code standards.

·

On the issue of obtaining as-built permits:

The processes

and costs involved with pulling permits before a project begins versus

obtaining as-built permits after the project is complete are very similar. With

either process you would be required to pay for drawings, any necessary

presentations for the Design Review Board, land surveys, other fees and

permits. None of those costs were included as part of my contract with you so

it seems unreasonable that you would feel entitled to even hint at

reimbursement for this cost; “We are not asking for reimbursement of Mr.

G[redacted]’s salary”.

·

On the issue of the sale process and price of the

property:

Everything you

stated in your email dated June 17 about the sale process and $125,000.00 paper

loss, although understandably frustrating, appears to be a mixture of

supposition and regurgitated information you received from a salesmen (realtor).

The marketing choices you and your salesman made and your decision to

eventually agree to sell your property for less than its appraised value are

your decisions, period. One can suppose that the original offer at full asking

price was legitimate and that the ZIR scared them off or, conversely, one can

suppose that they never intended to follow through with the purchase in the

first place. Neither one of us can portend to know what really motivated them.

Nothing on the ZIR was immediately enforceable and with an agreement from you

to obtain as-built permits why would any serious buyer then try to use the ZIR

as a reason for walking away? That’s just not logical. Furthermore, if the ZIR

was such an impediment to the sale of the home, why not take the home off the

market; resolve the ZIR issues and then place the home back on the market?

Again, these are not decisions that were my responsibility to make nor am I

accountable in any way for the decisions that you made while selling your home.

So, in my opinion, you really shouldn’t have intimated that I am; “nor do we

expect compensation for the paper loss of $125,000.00”.

·

On the only issue that is really pertinent to my

current involvement here:

Obtaining the

as-built permits involved nothing more than preparing and presenting the

required information to the city post- project that we would have normally had

to prepare and present pre- project. As I stated before, those costs are yours

either before the project or after. As far as our actual construction processes

and execution the city had no issue because we built everything right.

Apparently, according to J[redacted], the only issue the city has is that a portion

of the new front retaining wall was located in a right of way. I say

apparently because this information was somehow established without the use of

a land survey or property markers which seems very odd to me. That and the copy

of the “scale” drawings I obtained from Jarrett do not appear to be an accurate

depiction of reality. In any case, the current location of the front wall was

established by non-other than Renee, personally. As you may recall, we were in

the process of replacing the existing front wall in its original location when

Renee took it upon herself to stake a new layout design for the front wall and

then directed Francisco and his crew to build the new front wall in the

location she had personally plotted out. Since the only real issue the city has

is where the front wall is located and since we built the wall exactly as

directed by Renee, it’s very hard to understand why you would want us to

relocate the wall for free.

All of this

being said I am hopeful that you will have a better understanding of my

perspective. I talked to F[redacted] and as a gesture of good will we are willing

to do the necessary wall work for a discounted rate of $4500.00. Please note

that we are not contractually obligated to perform this work for you nor do you

have a legal basis for a complaint. Refer to section “XIV Final Payment” of our

contract:

B. Making of final payment

constitutes waiver of all Claims by Owner against Contractor except those

Claims previously made in writing and delivered to Contractor and those

obligations otherwise provided by this agreement or by operation of Law.

Please let me

know what you decide at your convenience. As I mentioned before, the current

owner does not want us to start work for at least another week or two.

Best regards,

D[redacted]

InterNACHI Certified Home

Inspector #NACHI########

CA Licensed General Contractor

B-HIC LIC #####

Phone: ###-###-####

www.SBHomeInspector.com

Mailing Address: 3905 State St

#7346, Santa Barbara, CA

93105

Consumer

Response:

Review: 10679548

I am rejecting this response because: As a Licensed General Contractor it is/was his responsibility to obtain the required permits & review. D[redacted] was asked at least three times if permits were needed, and each time his answer was no. If he had obtained permits, none of this would have been an issue.

Regards,

R[redacted]

Business

Response:

NOTE: Let me first state

for the record that the original scope of work as well as any additional work

were agreed to in a legally binding, CA State approved, written contract (attached)

which included proper protocols and procedures for compliance with the law, change orders and

arbitration. The responsibilities of both the owner and the contractor were

clearly defined in the signed contract. It then makes sense to refer to the signed

contract now and use it as a guideline due to this controversy. Also, it is

important to note that I did not agree nor was it included in the contractually

bound scope of work, nor was I ever hired or paid to obtain permits or review.

R[redacted],I do understand your frustration and even empathize with

your perception so I think it is very important and may even be helpful to review

the facts of the situation and then to support those facts with available documentation.

This way perhaps we can avoid any inflammatory rhetoric or confused recollections

of contracted scope of work and responsibility.

Even with all of this being revisited and

debated (see below) the truth is the permit violations have now been abated for

the project. There was never a problem with the way construction work was completed

at the property. It was done correctly, as directed and according to all

applicable building codes. It is important to stay focused on the one issue

here that you are demanding warranty compensation for and that is the issue of

the location of the front wall. The issue is not the permit. The permit not

being pulled before the work was done was simply rectified by pulling it after

the work was done.

The problem now is that where you

personally directed Francisco (masonry sub-contractor) to place the wall is apparently

partially in the power company’s right-of-way. If you were not aware of your property lines,

setbacks and right-of-ways then having your property surveyed before you decide

to relocate a wall would have been prudent. I was not asked nor was it part of

our contract to have the property surveyed. This issue has to do with you

moving the location of the existing wall for creative purposes without

establishing your allowable parameters. I

think I have been more than reasonable in taking the time to work through this

issue with you. My final good faith offer to help settle this dispute is as follows:I will have the wall in

question repositioned to meet city’s requirements for 50% of the original bid

or $3750.00 instead of $7500.00.I will not bill you

the fee you agreed to pay me for working on the abatement issues on your

behalf. This includes my time at $150.00 per hour for all conversations,

communications and site visits post ZIR. The total amount is currently $1200.00

or 8 hours’ worth of effort.I think this is more than reasonable

given the fact that I am not obligated to do anything at all. In return I would

request that you retract this complaint from the Revdex.com. What follows now is some clarification

and documentation supporting my overall position: According to the Revdex.com you last mentioned that you were

rejecting my response to your original complaint “because: As a Licensed General Contractor it is/was his responsibility

to obtain the required permits & review. D[redacted] was asked at least three

times if permits were needed, and each time his answer was no. If he had

obtained permits, none of this would have been an issue.”

Our contract clearly states on page 2, item VII. Compliance with Law that:

Contractor and Owner mutually commit to use reasonable care to meet the Requirements of state, federal

and local Law when discharging their responsibilities under this agreement.

Therefore we

agreed to equally share the responsibility of determining if obtaining permits

and review was indeed necessary. If then, after the fact, you determine that

some issue has arisen by not obtaining a permit you would be equally responsible

since you agreed to be mutually responsible in the first place.

The

requirements for permits was indeed considered and discussed but saying I was

asked three times and each time I said no is simple a gross misrepresentation

of the facts. I did indeed exercise reasonable care in meeting the requirements

of the law and after I made a determination (according to the information at my

disposal) that we were exempt from permits I shared that information with you

via email to which you responded in agreement, “Okay, that actually clears it

up nicely. Thank you!!” (See copy pasted emails below)

From: K[redacted] [mailto:[redacted]@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 12:51 PM

To: D[redacted]

Subject: Re: City of Santa Barbara Clarification

Okay, that actually clears it up

nicely. Thank you!!

The guys are just breaking for the

game—a LOT of hard lifting today!!

Regards!

—R[redacted]

On Jun 23, 2014, at 1:28 PM, D[redacted] <[redacted]@gmail.com> wrote:

R[redacted],

After

rechecking the City of Santa Barbara Guidelines, we are exempt

from the Design Board Review due to the fact that we do not fall into any of

the below listed categories. You may have interpreted #8 (below) as a

“retaining wall” but a “wall fence” is something different altogether. We fall

under #7 and are permitted to be less than 6’ without review or permit.

Single

Family Design Board

Pursuant

to SBMC §22.69.020.C.7 and 22.69.020.C.8 (excerpts cited below), a building

permit to construct, alter, or add to the exterior of a single family

residential unit or related accessory structure (including fences and walls) on

any lot shall be referred to the Single Family Design Board for design review

if the permit involves the following:

7.

The construction, alteration or addition of a retaining wall that is six feet

(6’) or greater in height, or

8.

The construction, alteration or addition of a wall fence or gate in the front

yard of the lot that is greater than three and one-half feet (3 ½’) in height.

Best

regards,

D[redacted]

Phone:

###-###-####

www.SBHomeInspector.com

Mailing

Address: #### State St #####, Santa Barbara, CA 93105

If you had any reservations about the

interpretation of the law they should have been voiced at that time but you,

like me, believed we understood the parameters and moved forward based on our

understanding. I think you will recall after the ZIR was issued that even J[redacted], an expert in planning and permits, expressed his belief that permits

were probably not needed for the front walls so it is not outside the realm of

possibility that our misinterpretation was understandable and not uncommon.

Consumer

Response:

We have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 10679548.