Warrior 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 arbitrationThe responsibilities of both the owner and the contractor were clearly defined in the signed contractIt then makes sense to refer to the signed contract now and use it as a guideline due to this controversyAlso, 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***,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 projectThere was never a problem with the way construction work was completed at the propertyIt was done correctly, as directed and according to all applicable building codesIt 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 wallThe issue is not the permitThe 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-wayIf 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 prudentI was not asked nor was it part of our contract to have the property surveyedThis issue has to do with you moving the location of the existing wall for creative purposes without establishing your allowable parametersI think I have been more than reasonable in taking the time to work through this issue with youMy 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 $instead of $7500.00.I will not bill you the fee you agreed to pay me for working on the abatement issues on your behalfThis includes my time at $per hour for all conversations, communications and site visits post ZIRThe total amount is currently $ or hours’ worth of effort.I think this is more than reasonable given the fact that I am not obligated to do anything at allIn return I would request that you retract this complaint from the Revdex.comWhat follows now is some clarification and documentation supporting my overall 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 & reviewD [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 VIICompliance 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 necessaryIf 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 factsI 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 nicelyThank you!!” (See copy pasted emails below) From: K [redacted] [mailto: [redacted] @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 23, 12: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:PM, D [redacted] < [redacted] @gmail.com> wrote: R***, 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 categoriesYou may have interpreted #(below) as a “retaining wall” but a “wall fence” is something different altogetherWe fall under #and are permitted to be less than 6’ without review or permit Single Family Design Board Pursuant to SBMC §22.69.020.Cand 22.69.020.C(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: The construction, alteration or addition of a retaining wall that is six feet (6’) or greater in height, or 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 (½’) in height Best regards, D [redacted] Phone: ###-###-#### www.SBHomeInspector.com Mailing Address: #### State St #####, Santa Barbara, CA 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 understandingI 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 / [redacted] Style Definitions */
Complaint: I am rejecting this response because: As a Licensed General Contractor it is/was his responsibility to obtain the required permits & reviewD [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]
From: D [redacted] [mailto: [redacted] @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 12:PM To: 'K [redacted] Cc: B [redacted] Subject: #### Kenwood Hi Folks! Thank you for your patienceI have endeavored to fit my assistance with the violation abatement issues at 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 perspectiveI’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 lawThat 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 similarWith either process you would be required to pay for drawings, any necessary presentations for the Design Review Board, land surveys, other fees and permitsNone 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***’s salary” · On the issue of the sale process and price of the property: Everything you stated in your email dated June about the sale process and $125,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, periodOne 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 placeNeither 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 logicalFurthermore, 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- projectAs I stated before, those costs are yours either before the project or afterAs 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 wayI say apparently because this information was somehow established without the use of a land survey or property markers which seems very odd to meThat and the copy of the “scale” drawings I obtained from Jarrett do not appear to be an accurate depiction of realityIn any case, the current location of the front wall was established by non-other than Renee, personallyAs 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 outSince 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 perspectiveI 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 $Please note that we are not contractually obligated to perform this work for you nor do you have a legal basis for a complaintRefer to section “XIV Final Payment” of our contract: BMaking 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 convenienceAs 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: State St #7346, Santa Barbara, CA / [redacted] Style Definitions */
Warrior 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 arbitrationThe responsibilities of both the owner and the contractor were clearly defined in the signed contractIt then makes sense to refer to the signed contract now and use it as a guideline due to this controversyAlso, 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***,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 projectThere was never a problem with the way construction work was completed at the propertyIt was done correctly, as directed and according to all applicable building codesIt 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 wallThe issue is not the permitThe 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-wayIf 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 prudentI was not asked nor was it part of our contract to have the property surveyedThis issue has to do with you moving the location of the existing wall for creative purposes without establishing your allowable parametersI think I have been more than reasonable in taking the time to work through this issue with youMy 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 $instead of $7500.00.I will not bill you the fee you agreed to pay me for working on the abatement issues on your behalfThis includes my time at $per hour for all conversations, communications and site visits post ZIRThe total amount is currently $ or hours’ worth of effort.I think this is more than reasonable given the fact that I am not obligated to do anything at allIn return I would request that you retract this complaint from the Revdex.comWhat follows now is some clarification and documentation supporting my overall 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 & reviewD [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 VIICompliance 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 necessaryIf 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 factsI 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 nicelyThank you!!” (See copy pasted emails below) From: K [redacted] [mailto: [redacted] @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 23, 12: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:PM, D [redacted] < [redacted] @gmail.com> wrote: R***, 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 categoriesYou may have interpreted #(below) as a “retaining wall” but a “wall fence” is something different altogetherWe fall under #and are permitted to be less than 6’ without review or permit Single Family Design Board Pursuant to SBMC §22.69.020.Cand 22.69.020.C(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: The construction, alteration or addition of a retaining wall that is six feet (6’) or greater in height, or 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 (½’) in height Best regards, D [redacted] Phone: ###-###-#### www.SBHomeInspector.com Mailing Address: #### State St #####, Santa Barbara, CA 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 understandingI 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 / [redacted] Style Definitions */
Complaint: I am rejecting this response because: As a Licensed General Contractor it is/was his responsibility to obtain the required permits & reviewD [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]
From: D [redacted] [mailto: [redacted] @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 12:PM To: 'K [redacted] Cc: B [redacted] Subject: #### Kenwood Hi Folks! Thank you for your patienceI have endeavored to fit my assistance with the violation abatement issues at 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 perspectiveI’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 lawThat 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 similarWith either process you would be required to pay for drawings, any necessary presentations for the Design Review Board, land surveys, other fees and permitsNone 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***’s salary” · On the issue of the sale process and price of the property: Everything you stated in your email dated June about the sale process and $125,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, periodOne 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 placeNeither 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 logicalFurthermore, 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- projectAs I stated before, those costs are yours either before the project or afterAs 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 wayI say apparently because this information was somehow established without the use of a land survey or property markers which seems very odd to meThat and the copy of the “scale” drawings I obtained from Jarrett do not appear to be an accurate depiction of realityIn any case, the current location of the front wall was established by non-other than Renee, personallyAs 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 outSince 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 perspectiveI 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 $Please note that we are not contractually obligated to perform this work for you nor do you have a legal basis for a complaintRefer to section “XIV Final Payment” of our contract: BMaking 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 convenienceAs 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: State St #7346, Santa Barbara, CA / [redacted] Style Definitions */