Preview
ROBERT H. PITTMAN #172154
County Counsel
IVAN R. JIMENEZ #313644
Deputy County Counsel
County of Sonoma
575 Administration Drive, Room 105
Santa Rosa, California 95403-2815
Telephone: (707) 565-2421
Fax: (707) 565-2624
Ivan. Jimenez@sonoma-county.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COUNTY OF SONOMA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SONOMA
10 Case No. 23CV02161
COUNTY OF SONOMA,
i
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF NATHAN PEACOCK IN
12 SUPPORT OF COUNTY OF SONOMA’S EX
Vv.
PARTE APPLICATION FOR A
13 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
DAVID SCOTT HANSEN AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR A
14 REGINA VICTORIA HANSEN AS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
TRUSTEES OF THE HANSEN
15 FAMILY TRUST, DATED MARCH
16, 2011, AND THE HANSEN Date: January 18, 2024
16 FAMILY TRUST, DATED MARCH Time: 10:30 a.m.
16, 2011, and DOES 1 through 20, Dept. 18
17 inclusive, Honorable Christopher M. Honigsberg
18 Defendants.
19
20 I, NATHAN PEACOCK, hereby declare as follows:
and
21 1 I have personal knowledge of each fact stated in this Declaration and would
22 could competently testify to them if called as a witness.
with the
23 2. Iam employed in the official capacity of Code Enforcement Inspector II
D” or “Permit
24 County of Sonoma, Permit and Resource Management Department (“PRM
Sonoma”), Building & Safety Division. As such, I am responsible for investigating and
25
regulations, which apply
26 monitoring the abatement of violations of Sonoma County Code’s (SCC)
27 within the unincorporated area of Sonoma County.
28 3 Ihave completed the 120-hour Certification Course through the California
for a TRO and OSC
Declaration of Nathan Peacock ISO County of Sonoma’s Ex Parte Application
a Certified Code
: men t Off ice rs (CA CEO), and in 2017 I became
Association of Code Enfo rce
the following:
in the Stat e of Cal ifo nia . I have become familiar with
Enforcement Officer
identifying
of the SCC inc lud ing bui ldi ng, gr ading, and zoning codes;
identifying violations
g hazardous
ion; mak ing haz ard ous gra ding determinations; i dentifyin
substandard const ruct
electrical; and zoning standards.
ints from the
orc eme nt Ins pe ctor for PRMD, I investigate compla
4 As a Cod e Enf
ding, and land use
lat ion s of the SCC , inc lud ing zoning, construction, gra
public of potential vio
issues.
on the propert: y 8404
pers onal kno wie dge reg arding violations of the SCC
5 I have
perty”).
, California, Assessor Parcel
| Number 047-202-044 (“the Pro
10 Brand Lane, Penngrove
Management
e 15, 202 2, the Son oma County Permit and Resource
6 On Jun
i
was placed on the
Son oma ” ») rec eiv ed a com plaint about a fuel tank that
12 Department (“Permit
13 Property.
Hansen, to
e 20, 202 2, I con tac ted the prop erty owner, Defendant Scott
14 7 On Jun
fuel tank.
ins pec tio n to get a bett er understanding of the alle; ged
15 schedule a compli ance
admitt ed the tank was
Scott Hansen responded and
16 8 On June 21, 202: 2, Defendant
a permit for the tank.
being used to store diesel fuel , but disputed the need to obtain
17
right-of-way
e 22, 202 2, I dro ve to the Property and from the public
18 9 On Jun
Property without a
app rox ima tel y 200 gal lons had been placed on the
19 observed that a fuel t ank of
20 permit.
unpermitted diesel fuel
Notice an‘ d Order due to an
21 10. On June 24, 2022, I issued a
d Tank”).
n of SCC Cha pte r 7, vio lat ion VBU22-0266 (“Unpermitte
22 storage tank it n violatio
ted digging
e 30, 202 2, Per mit Son oma rec eived a complaint about unpe! rmit
23 ll. On Jun
underground.
the Pro per ty and an unp erm itted frame: d structure placed
24 on
on the
the area and ob served piles of excavated dirt
25 12. On June 30, 2022, I visited
ng. I also
the fou nda tio n of the por ch attached to a single- family dwelli
26 Property, which exp' osed
had be en place
the gro un: d, whi ch sup por ted the allegation that a structure
27 observed a large cut in
ement.
d Def end ant s wer e in the process of constructing a bas
underground, and determ ine
28
Ex Pate Application fre TRO an OSC
Parte Applic:
amas
Declaration of Natlthan Peacock
ISO County of Sonoma’s Ex
ion 0
Not ice s and Ord er: 's due to the unpermitted installat
13. On June 30, 2022, I issued
(“Unpermitted Basement”),
of the Bui ldi ng Cod e, violation VBU22-0278
a basement in violation
ding Code, violation
exc ava tin g und er a resi dence in violation of the Gra
and hazardous grading of
Grading”).
VGR22-0018 (“Hazardous
nan at the Permit
July 5, 2022 , I met t wit h Defendants’ attorney Tim Han
14. On
ions I issued in June
ing this mee tin g, att orn ey Hannan disputed the violat
Sonoma office. Dur
ehalf of Defendants
att orn ey Han nan sub mit ted a written appeal on b
2022. Before leaving, Grading.
ed Tan k, Unp erm itt ed Basement, and Hazardous
the Unpermitt
disputing the violations of
a scheduled comp! liance ins
pection with Defendant
On Jul y 7, 202 2, I con duc ted
15.
Keefer, an d Code Enforc
ement
budsman Brian
Han sen , att orn ey Han nan, Permit Sonoma Om
10 Sco tt
ions. J did not
nce sch i. Dur ing this ins pec tio n, we discussed the violat
i Sup’ ervisor Mark Fra
a hole as part of
und str uct ure and the Pro per ty Owner indicated he had dug
12 observe an undergro'
this informati on, I closed
but he did not inte 1 nd to bui ld a basement. Based on
13 exploratory digging
lations for Hazardous
nt vio lat ion . I con fir med the exi stence of the vio
14 the Unpermi itted Baseme
e these violations.
ed T: ‘ank and exp lai ned how Defendants could legaliz:
15 Grading and Unpermitt
application, to legalize
y 12, 202 2, Def end ant s sub: mitted a grading permit
16 16. On Jul
17 the Unpermitted Grading.
provi ding notice that
20, 202 2, Per mi it So no ma sent an email to Defendants
18 17. On July
to be submitted to
ati on was inc omp let e and addi itional information had
the grading permit app lic
19 requested
ati on to mov e for war d. Def endants did not subm: it the
20 allow the permit applic
permit review pro cess.
din g per mit app lic ati on did not move through the
21 information and the gra
Administrative Hearin: g
took place to consider
an.
18. On November 3, 2022,
22
Grading.
end ant s’ app eal of the Unp e! mitted ‘Tank and Hazardous
23 Def
which upheld the
er 16, 202 2, an Adm ini : strative Order was issued
19. On Dece mb
24
ardous Grading, and ord
ered Defendants to
erm itt ed Tan k and Haz
25 violations issued for th e Unp
d correct
an\
its aba tem ent cos ts inc urr ed and to pay penalties. A true
26 reimburse the County for
aration as Exhibit 1.
of the Adm ini str ati ve Ord er is attached to this Decl:
27 copy
the deadlines
s di d not com ply wit h the Administrative Order or any of
28 20. Defendant
k ISO County of Sonoma
’ Pat Application ora TRO @SOSC
gs
Declaration 0: f Nathan Peacoc
of costs, or payment of p enalties.
for abatement of the violations, payment
the pending permit application to
21. On Marc h 10, 2023, Defendants withdrew
legalize the unpermitted grading violation.
the Administrati ve Order, Permit
22. Due to Defendants’ failure to comply with
on October 3,
reco rded a Noti ce of Ab: atem ent Proceedings and Partial Abatement Lien
Sonoma
provides notice
Octo ber 17, 2023 , resp ecti vely . The Notice of Abatement Proceedings
2023, and
atement Lien
atio ns 0: f the Coun ty Code cont inue to exist on the Property. The Partial Ab
that viol
$19,782.50.
ordei red in the Administrative Order of
was recorded for the abatement costs
oma received com| plaints of additional
23. On September 18, 2023, Permit Son
erty.
10 unpermitted activities occurring on the Prop
dants and requested they contact me to
i 24. On September 21, 2023, I contacted D efen
12 schedule a compliance inspection.
informed me that the Property Owners
13 25. On September 29, 20 23, attorney Hannan
erty.
14 did not consent to an inspection of the Prop
Hannan.
received a phone call from attorney
15 26. On October 12, 2023, Permit Sonoma
Hannan. During
day, Code Enfo rcem ent Supe rvis or T; yra Harrington called attorney
16 That same
itted Tank and
uted the existence of the Unpermit
17 this conversation, attorney Hannan disp
that the Admin
Grad ing viol atio n: s. Supe rvis or Harrington informed attorney Hannan
18 Unpermitted
were not up for debate.
19 Decision was final, and the violations
it Sonoma received complaints
about
20 27. On or around October 18, 2023, Perm
on the Property.
21 unpermitted construction occurring
to schedule a compli ance inspection to
verify the
28. On Octo ber 18, 2023 , I atte mpte d
22
attorney Hannan denied the inspection.
23 alleged violation on the P: roperty, but
ma obtained aerial imagery which
showed that
24 29. On October 18, 2023, Permit Sono
on the Property including the unpe rmitted
25 Defendants had created additional violations
e images
of a stru ctur e abov e grou n d and junkyard conditions on the Property. Thes
26 construction
ture or room
Defe ndan ts were digg ing tren ches of an unkno wn depth and that a struc
27 also indicated
a year ago tl hat they
, even though Defendants had alleged
28 was being constructe .d below grade level
a TRO and OSC
ty of Sonoma’s Ex Parte Application for
Declaration of Nathan Peacock ISO Coun
active permits to authorize
nt. Defendants did not have any
did not int end to construct a baseme
perty.
the construction, grading,
or other work occurring on the Pro
uction
2023, I issued No tices and
Orders due to unpermitted constr
30. On October 20,
Building Code, violation
tur e gre ate r tha n 120 square feet in violation 0 f the
of an accessory st ruc
conditions exceeding
0 (“U npe rmi tte d Con str uct ion”), and due to junkyard
number VBU23-043
unkyard
of the Zoning Code, violati
on number VPL23-0430 (“J
100 square feet in violation
Orders,
. While postin; g the Notices and
e October 2023 Violations”)
Conditions”) (collectively “th
Pro perty. Defendant Scott Han
sen disputed these
Han sen dro ve up to the
Defendant Scott
ty. 1 explained that the well
horized the work on th e Proper
a well permit aut
violations, i indicating
ty and that
the cons ' tru cti on and oth er work occurring on the Proper
10 permit did not cover
correct copies 0:
engage in any construction
work without a permit. True and
i Defendants could not
ed to this Declaration as
ders iss ued for the Oct obe r 2023 Violations are att ach
12 the Notices and Or
attached to this Declaration|
ima ges doc ume nti n; g the October 2023 Violations are
13 Exhibit 2. Select
14 as Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively.
eal t 0 the October 2023
Oct obe r 24, 202 3, Def end ants submitted a timely app
15 31. On
a
Def e nda nts int end to add water tanks, electrical, pipes,
states that
16 Violations. Defendants appeal
work. The appeal
lon dies el tank s, and a bac kup generator, among other
17 shed, two 1,000- gal
covered by a well permit
t and pla nne d con str uct ion, and other work, is either
18 alleged all the curren
d the Junkyard
din g a bui ldi ng per mit . Defend ants’ appeal also allege
19 ori s exempt from nee
n to verify the
ated , but Def end ant s did not schedule a complianc e inspectio
Conditions had been abi
20
this appeal is attached to this
s. A true an d correct copy of
21 status of the Junkyard Condition
22 Declaration as Exhibit 5.
on June 3, 2022, for the
ant s obt: ain ed a well per mit from Permit Sonoma
23 32. Defend
filed a well completion
. On Nov emb er 22, 202 2, D efendants’ consultant
24 drilling of anew well
ember 3, 2022, and
wor k aut hor ize d und er the well permit beg: an on Nov
25 report indicating th at the
Property Own ers
emb er 10, 202 2. The ref ore, the well permit that the
26 was completed on Nov
well completior
and cou ld not aut hor ize any work o' n the Property after the
27 referenc' is not active
this
rect copy of the well completion report is al ttached to
report was filed. A true an d cor
28
TRO IOSSCSC~*
eCoua
nty of Sonom: a >5 Ex Parte
Declaration of Nathan Peacoc
Application
k ISO
for a TRO and OSC
Declaration as Exhibit 6.
not authorize the construction of a
33. A well permit is limited i in scope and does
bing, electrical,
structure, and does not aut horize plum
basement, cellar, or other underground
of trenches. There: fore,
nd, junkyard conditions, or digging
construction of structure s above grou
rmitted
e well per mit, none of the current unpe
even if the Property Owners had an activ
ned construction would be authorized.
construction, unpermitted uses, or plan
g
Work Order on the Property informin
34. On November 3, 2 023, I posted a Stop
that building
ted construction and reminding them
Defendants they had to cease all unpermit
copy of this Stop
activities resume. A true and correct
permits are require d before construction
ion as Exhibit 7.
10 Work Order is attached to this Declarat
oma obtained aeri: al imagery of the
Property
il 35. On December 14, 2023, Permit Son
ge in
which revealed that Defend: ants violated
the Stop Work Order and continued to enga
12
inued building
erty. The image s show that Defendants cont
13 unpermitted construction on the Prop
e rty, Defendants
the above-ground structure, Junkyard
Conditions continue to exist on the Prop
14
erground structure/room was built.
15 g on the Property, and suggest that an und
continue trenchin
this
applied for an Inspection Warrant from
16 36. On December 29, 2023, Permit Sonoma
17 Court.
On January 2, 2024, this Court iss ued
an Inspection Warrant directing Permit
18 37.
to identify
erty and interior of any undergro' und structure,
19 Sonom: a to search the exterior of the Prop
that exist on the Property. A true and correct copy of this
20 and document any violations of the SCC
as Exhibit 8.
21 Warrant is attached to this Declaration
n Warrant and
ty staff executed the Inspectio’
22 38. On January 10, 2024, I and other Coun
Property in violation
engag e in unpermitted activity on the
23 observed that Defendants continued to
ted construction and g rading.
24 of the Stop Work Order, including unpermit
irmed that the violation for Junkyard
25 39. During the J: anuary 10, 2024 inspection, I conf
though Defendants
itio ns, whi ch I issu ed in Octo ber 2023, remained on the Property even
26 Cond
image
abated. A true and correct copy ofan
27 previously al leged this violation had been
t© this Declaration as Exhibit 9.
28 documenting this violation is attached
g e Parte Applicati ion for a TRO and OSC
Peacock ISO County of Sonoma’s Ex
Declaration of Nathan
for
on, I confirmed that the violation
40. During the January 10, 2024 inspecti
and had been
, whi ch I is: sued in Oct obe r 2023, remained on the Property
Unpermitted Construction
of images documenting
exp anded in violation of the Stop Wor k Order. True and c correct copies
Declaration as Exhibit 10.
this violation are attac’ hed to this
tional
I observed the existence of addi
41. During the January 10, 2024 ins pection,
that had not been previous! ly iden
tified. I issued the
violatior ns of the Sonoma County Code
following additional violations:
n number
n of the Building Code, violatio
e Unpermitted water tank in violatio
VBU24-0015;
Two violations of the Building Cod
e due to unpermitted plumbing and
10
VBU24-0016
rdou s elec tric al in an acce ssor y struc ture, violation numbers
i haza
12 and VBU24-0018;
plumbing }
Two violations of the Buildin; i, Cod
e due to unpermitted electrical and
13
24-0020;
acc ess ory stru ctur es, viol atio n numbers VB U24-0019 and VBU
14 in two
of two
e due to unpermitted construction
15 two violations 0’ f the Building Cod
VBU24-
of e ach other, violation numbers
16 accessory structures within 50 feet
17 0021 and VBU24-0022;
rdous
erranean mechanical room with haza
18 Unpermitted constructio n of a subt
VBU24-0017;
lding Code, viol: ation number
electrical in violation of the Bui
19 violation
Dangerous building with buckling supp
orts and hazardous electrical in
20
number VBU24-0023;
21 of the Building Code, violation
ler,
ermitted occupancy ofa travel trai
22 Zoning Code violation due to unp
23 violation number VPL24-0007; and
yards,
ermitte d trenching of 70 cubic
24 Grading Code violation due to unp
ns”).
ively “the January 2 024 Violatio
25 violati on number VGR24-0002 (collect
ary 2024 Violations are
and corr ect copi es of the Noti ces and Order: sl issued for the Janu
26 || True
images documenting
to thi s Decl arat ion as Exhi bit 11. True and correct copies of se! Ject
27 || attached
28
e Ex Pais TRO and OSC
ApplPication ores
'
n a
Declaration of Nath an Peac ock m
ISO Coun ty of Sono ma’s Ex Parte Ap
ts 12.!
y 202 4 Vio lati ons are att ach ed to this Declaration as Exhibi
the Januar
electrical
exp eri enc e and trai ning , it is my opinion that unpermitted
42.Based on my
the
tisk to the hea lth and safe ty 0 f the public because it increases
and hazardous electrical pose a
risk of a wildfire.
or obtained
Defendants have not submitted
43. As of the date of this declaration,
in
ed Tan k or Haz ard ous Gra din g viol ations, as ordered in the Adm
permits to abate the Unpermitt
Order.
portion of the
Defe ndants have not paid any
44, As of the date of this declaration,
ered in the Admin Order.
abatement costs or pen: alties ord
any
the fili ng 0 f this Dec lar ati on, Defendants have not applied for
10 45. As of the date of
Violations.
an ins pec tio n to con fir m removal of the October 2023
i permits to a bate or scheduled
d for any
the fi ling of this Dec lar ati on, Defendants have not applie
12 46. As of the date of
the January 2024 Violations
aba te or sch edu led an ins pection to con! firm removal of
13 permits to
and
n that Def end ant s will con tin ue engagin: g in unpermitted work
14 47. It is my opinio
e, unless the Court orders
per ty and con tin ue viol ati ing the Sonoma County Cod
15 uses on the Pro
16 Defendants to stop.
17
of California that the
lar e und er pen alt y of per jur y unde: 1 the laws of the State
18 I dec
in Santa Rosa, California.
true and corr ect. Exe cut ed this {g of January, 2024,
19 foregoing is
20
21
At! bob
Nathan Peacock
22
23
24
25
26
27
request.
lable to the Court upon
28 2024 Violati ions will be made avai
1 Additional images of the January
Ap plication for a TRO and OSC.
County of Sonoma’s Ex Parte
Declarati ‘on of Nathan Peacock ISO
Preview
ROBERT H. PITTMAN #172154 County Counsel IVAN R. JIMENEZ #313644 Deputy County Counsel County of Sonoma 575 Administration Drive, Room 105 Santa Rosa, California 95403-2815 Telephone: (707) 565-2421 Fax: (707) 565-2624 Ivan. Jimenez@sonoma-county.org Attorneys for Plaintiff COUNTY OF SONOMA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 Case No. 23CV02161 COUNTY OF SONOMA, i Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF NATHAN PEACOCK IN 12 SUPPORT OF COUNTY OF SONOMA’S EX Vv. PARTE APPLICATION FOR A 13 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DAVID SCOTT HANSEN AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR A 14 REGINA VICTORIA HANSEN AS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TRUSTEES OF THE HANSEN 15 FAMILY TRUST, DATED MARCH 16, 2011, AND THE HANSEN Date: January 18, 2024 16 FAMILY TRUST, DATED MARCH Time: 10:30 a.m. 16, 2011, and DOES 1 through 20, Dept. 18 17 inclusive, Honorable Christopher M. Honigsberg 18 Defendants. 19 20 I, NATHAN PEACOCK, hereby declare as follows: and 21 1 I have personal knowledge of each fact stated in this Declaration and would 22 could competently testify to them if called as a witness. with the 23 2. Iam employed in the official capacity of Code Enforcement Inspector II D” or “Permit 24 County of Sonoma, Permit and Resource Management Department (“PRM Sonoma”), Building & Safety Division. As such, I am responsible for investigating and 25 regulations, which apply 26 monitoring the abatement of violations of Sonoma County Code’s (SCC) 27 within the unincorporated area of Sonoma County. 28 3 Ihave completed the 120-hour Certification Course through the California for a TRO and OSC Declaration of Nathan Peacock ISO County of Sonoma’s Ex Parte Application a Certified Code : men t Off ice rs (CA CEO), and in 2017 I became Association of Code Enfo rce the following: in the Stat e of Cal ifo nia . I have become familiar with Enforcement Officer identifying of the SCC inc lud ing bui ldi ng, gr ading, and zoning codes; identifying violations g hazardous ion; mak ing haz ard ous gra ding determinations; i dentifyin substandard const ruct electrical; and zoning standards. ints from the orc eme nt Ins pe ctor for PRMD, I investigate compla 4 As a Cod e Enf ding, and land use lat ion s of the SCC , inc lud ing zoning, construction, gra public of potential vio issues. on the propert: y 8404 pers onal kno wie dge reg arding violations of the SCC 5 I have perty”). , California, Assessor Parcel | Number 047-202-044 (“the Pro 10 Brand Lane, Penngrove Management e 15, 202 2, the Son oma County Permit and Resource 6 On Jun i was placed on the Son oma ” ») rec eiv ed a com plaint about a fuel tank that 12 Department (“Permit 13 Property. Hansen, to e 20, 202 2, I con tac ted the prop erty owner, Defendant Scott 14 7 On Jun fuel tank. ins pec tio n to get a bett er understanding of the alle; ged 15 schedule a compli ance admitt ed the tank was Scott Hansen responded and 16 8 On June 21, 202: 2, Defendant a permit for the tank. being used to store diesel fuel , but disputed the need to obtain 17 right-of-way e 22, 202 2, I dro ve to the Property and from the public 18 9 On Jun Property without a app rox ima tel y 200 gal lons had been placed on the 19 observed that a fuel t ank of 20 permit. unpermitted diesel fuel Notice an‘ d Order due to an 21 10. On June 24, 2022, I issued a d Tank”). n of SCC Cha pte r 7, vio lat ion VBU22-0266 (“Unpermitte 22 storage tank it n violatio ted digging e 30, 202 2, Per mit Son oma rec eived a complaint about unpe! rmit 23 ll. On Jun underground. the Pro per ty and an unp erm itted frame: d structure placed 24 on on the the area and ob served piles of excavated dirt 25 12. On June 30, 2022, I visited ng. I also the fou nda tio n of the por ch attached to a single- family dwelli 26 Property, which exp' osed had be en place the gro un: d, whi ch sup por ted the allegation that a structure 27 observed a large cut in ement. d Def end ant s wer e in the process of constructing a bas underground, and determ ine 28 Ex Pate Application fre TRO an OSC Parte Applic: amas Declaration of Natlthan Peacock ISO County of Sonoma’s Ex ion 0 Not ice s and Ord er: 's due to the unpermitted installat 13. On June 30, 2022, I issued (“Unpermitted Basement”), of the Bui ldi ng Cod e, violation VBU22-0278 a basement in violation ding Code, violation exc ava tin g und er a resi dence in violation of the Gra and hazardous grading of Grading”). VGR22-0018 (“Hazardous nan at the Permit July 5, 2022 , I met t wit h Defendants’ attorney Tim Han 14. On ions I issued in June ing this mee tin g, att orn ey Hannan disputed the violat Sonoma office. Dur ehalf of Defendants att orn ey Han nan sub mit ted a written appeal on b 2022. Before leaving, Grading. ed Tan k, Unp erm itt ed Basement, and Hazardous the Unpermitt disputing the violations of a scheduled comp! liance ins pection with Defendant On Jul y 7, 202 2, I con duc ted 15. Keefer, an d Code Enforc ement budsman Brian Han sen , att orn ey Han nan, Permit Sonoma Om 10 Sco tt ions. J did not nce sch i. Dur ing this ins pec tio n, we discussed the violat i Sup’ ervisor Mark Fra a hole as part of und str uct ure and the Pro per ty Owner indicated he had dug 12 observe an undergro' this informati on, I closed but he did not inte 1 nd to bui ld a basement. Based on 13 exploratory digging lations for Hazardous nt vio lat ion . I con fir med the exi stence of the vio 14 the Unpermi itted Baseme e these violations. ed T: ‘ank and exp lai ned how Defendants could legaliz: 15 Grading and Unpermitt application, to legalize y 12, 202 2, Def end ant s sub: mitted a grading permit 16 16. On Jul 17 the Unpermitted Grading. provi ding notice that 20, 202 2, Per mi it So no ma sent an email to Defendants 18 17. On July to be submitted to ati on was inc omp let e and addi itional information had the grading permit app lic 19 requested ati on to mov e for war d. Def endants did not subm: it the 20 allow the permit applic permit review pro cess. din g per mit app lic ati on did not move through the 21 information and the gra Administrative Hearin: g took place to consider an. 18. On November 3, 2022, 22 Grading. end ant s’ app eal of the Unp e! mitted ‘Tank and Hazardous 23 Def which upheld the er 16, 202 2, an Adm ini : strative Order was issued 19. On Dece mb 24 ardous Grading, and ord ered Defendants to erm itt ed Tan k and Haz 25 violations issued for th e Unp d correct an\ its aba tem ent cos ts inc urr ed and to pay penalties. A true 26 reimburse the County for aration as Exhibit 1. of the Adm ini str ati ve Ord er is attached to this Decl: 27 copy the deadlines s di d not com ply wit h the Administrative Order or any of 28 20. Defendant k ISO County of Sonoma ’ Pat Application ora TRO @SOSC gs Declaration 0: f Nathan Peacoc of costs, or payment of p enalties. for abatement of the violations, payment the pending permit application to 21. On Marc h 10, 2023, Defendants withdrew legalize the unpermitted grading violation. the Administrati ve Order, Permit 22. Due to Defendants’ failure to comply with on October 3, reco rded a Noti ce of Ab: atem ent Proceedings and Partial Abatement Lien Sonoma provides notice Octo ber 17, 2023 , resp ecti vely . The Notice of Abatement Proceedings 2023, and atement Lien atio ns 0: f the Coun ty Code cont inue to exist on the Property. The Partial Ab that viol $19,782.50. ordei red in the Administrative Order of was recorded for the abatement costs oma received com| plaints of additional 23. On September 18, 2023, Permit Son erty. 10 unpermitted activities occurring on the Prop dants and requested they contact me to i 24. On September 21, 2023, I contacted D efen 12 schedule a compliance inspection. informed me that the Property Owners 13 25. On September 29, 20 23, attorney Hannan erty. 14 did not consent to an inspection of the Prop Hannan. received a phone call from attorney 15 26. On October 12, 2023, Permit Sonoma Hannan. During day, Code Enfo rcem ent Supe rvis or T; yra Harrington called attorney 16 That same itted Tank and uted the existence of the Unpermit 17 this conversation, attorney Hannan disp that the Admin Grad ing viol atio n: s. Supe rvis or Harrington informed attorney Hannan 18 Unpermitted were not up for debate. 19 Decision was final, and the violations it Sonoma received complaints about 20 27. On or around October 18, 2023, Perm on the Property. 21 unpermitted construction occurring to schedule a compli ance inspection to verify the 28. On Octo ber 18, 2023 , I atte mpte d 22 attorney Hannan denied the inspection. 23 alleged violation on the P: roperty, but ma obtained aerial imagery which showed that 24 29. On October 18, 2023, Permit Sono on the Property including the unpe rmitted 25 Defendants had created additional violations e images of a stru ctur e abov e grou n d and junkyard conditions on the Property. Thes 26 construction ture or room Defe ndan ts were digg ing tren ches of an unkno wn depth and that a struc 27 also indicated a year ago tl hat they , even though Defendants had alleged 28 was being constructe .d below grade level a TRO and OSC ty of Sonoma’s Ex Parte Application for Declaration of Nathan Peacock ISO Coun active permits to authorize nt. Defendants did not have any did not int end to construct a baseme perty. the construction, grading, or other work occurring on the Pro uction 2023, I issued No tices and Orders due to unpermitted constr 30. On October 20, Building Code, violation tur e gre ate r tha n 120 square feet in violation 0 f the of an accessory st ruc conditions exceeding 0 (“U npe rmi tte d Con str uct ion”), and due to junkyard number VBU23-043 unkyard of the Zoning Code, violati on number VPL23-0430 (“J 100 square feet in violation Orders, . While postin; g the Notices and e October 2023 Violations”) Conditions”) (collectively “th Pro perty. Defendant Scott Han sen disputed these Han sen dro ve up to the Defendant Scott ty. 1 explained that the well horized the work on th e Proper a well permit aut violations, i indicating ty and that the cons ' tru cti on and oth er work occurring on the Proper 10 permit did not cover correct copies 0: engage in any construction work without a permit. True and i Defendants could not ed to this Declaration as ders iss ued for the Oct obe r 2023 Violations are att ach 12 the Notices and Or attached to this Declaration| ima ges doc ume nti n; g the October 2023 Violations are 13 Exhibit 2. Select 14 as Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively. eal t 0 the October 2023 Oct obe r 24, 202 3, Def end ants submitted a timely app 15 31. On a Def e nda nts int end to add water tanks, electrical, pipes, states that 16 Violations. Defendants appeal work. The appeal lon dies el tank s, and a bac kup generator, among other 17 shed, two 1,000- gal covered by a well permit t and pla nne d con str uct ion, and other work, is either 18 alleged all the curren d the Junkyard din g a bui ldi ng per mit . Defend ants’ appeal also allege 19 ori s exempt from nee n to verify the ated , but Def end ant s did not schedule a complianc e inspectio Conditions had been abi 20 this appeal is attached to this s. A true an d correct copy of 21 status of the Junkyard Condition 22 Declaration as Exhibit 5. on June 3, 2022, for the ant s obt: ain ed a well per mit from Permit Sonoma 23 32. Defend filed a well completion . On Nov emb er 22, 202 2, D efendants’ consultant 24 drilling of anew well ember 3, 2022, and wor k aut hor ize d und er the well permit beg: an on Nov 25 report indicating th at the Property Own ers emb er 10, 202 2. The ref ore, the well permit that the 26 was completed on Nov well completior and cou ld not aut hor ize any work o' n the Property after the 27 referenc' is not active this rect copy of the well completion report is al ttached to report was filed. A true an d cor 28 TRO IOSSCSC~* eCoua nty of Sonom: a >5 Ex Parte Declaration of Nathan Peacoc Application k ISO for a TRO and OSC Declaration as Exhibit 6. not authorize the construction of a 33. A well permit is limited i in scope and does bing, electrical, structure, and does not aut horize plum basement, cellar, or other underground of trenches. There: fore, nd, junkyard conditions, or digging construction of structure s above grou rmitted e well per mit, none of the current unpe even if the Property Owners had an activ ned construction would be authorized. construction, unpermitted uses, or plan g Work Order on the Property informin 34. On November 3, 2 023, I posted a Stop that building ted construction and reminding them Defendants they had to cease all unpermit copy of this Stop activities resume. A true and correct permits are require d before construction ion as Exhibit 7. 10 Work Order is attached to this Declarat oma obtained aeri: al imagery of the Property il 35. On December 14, 2023, Permit Son ge in which revealed that Defend: ants violated the Stop Work Order and continued to enga 12 inued building erty. The image s show that Defendants cont 13 unpermitted construction on the Prop e rty, Defendants the above-ground structure, Junkyard Conditions continue to exist on the Prop 14 erground structure/room was built. 15 g on the Property, and suggest that an und continue trenchin this applied for an Inspection Warrant from 16 36. On December 29, 2023, Permit Sonoma 17 Court. On January 2, 2024, this Court iss ued an Inspection Warrant directing Permit 18 37. to identify erty and interior of any undergro' und structure, 19 Sonom: a to search the exterior of the Prop that exist on the Property. A true and correct copy of this 20 and document any violations of the SCC as Exhibit 8. 21 Warrant is attached to this Declaration n Warrant and ty staff executed the Inspectio’ 22 38. On January 10, 2024, I and other Coun Property in violation engag e in unpermitted activity on the 23 observed that Defendants continued to ted construction and g rading. 24 of the Stop Work Order, including unpermit irmed that the violation for Junkyard 25 39. During the J: anuary 10, 2024 inspection, I conf though Defendants itio ns, whi ch I issu ed in Octo ber 2023, remained on the Property even 26 Cond image abated. A true and correct copy ofan 27 previously al leged this violation had been t© this Declaration as Exhibit 9. 28 documenting this violation is attached g e Parte Applicati ion for a TRO and OSC Peacock ISO County of Sonoma’s Ex Declaration of Nathan for on, I confirmed that the violation 40. During the January 10, 2024 inspecti and had been , whi ch I is: sued in Oct obe r 2023, remained on the Property Unpermitted Construction of images documenting exp anded in violation of the Stop Wor k Order. True and c correct copies Declaration as Exhibit 10. this violation are attac’ hed to this tional I observed the existence of addi 41. During the January 10, 2024 ins pection, that had not been previous! ly iden tified. I issued the violatior ns of the Sonoma County Code following additional violations: n number n of the Building Code, violatio e Unpermitted water tank in violatio VBU24-0015; Two violations of the Building Cod e due to unpermitted plumbing and 10 VBU24-0016 rdou s elec tric al in an acce ssor y struc ture, violation numbers i haza 12 and VBU24-0018; plumbing } Two violations of the Buildin; i, Cod e due to unpermitted electrical and 13 24-0020; acc ess ory stru ctur es, viol atio n numbers VB U24-0019 and VBU 14 in two of two e due to unpermitted construction 15 two violations 0’ f the Building Cod VBU24- of e ach other, violation numbers 16 accessory structures within 50 feet 17 0021 and VBU24-0022; rdous erranean mechanical room with haza 18 Unpermitted constructio n of a subt VBU24-0017; lding Code, viol: ation number electrical in violation of the Bui 19 violation Dangerous building with buckling supp orts and hazardous electrical in 20 number VBU24-0023; 21 of the Building Code, violation ler, ermitted occupancy ofa travel trai 22 Zoning Code violation due to unp 23 violation number VPL24-0007; and yards, ermitte d trenching of 70 cubic 24 Grading Code violation due to unp ns”). ively “the January 2 024 Violatio 25 violati on number VGR24-0002 (collect ary 2024 Violations are and corr ect copi es of the Noti ces and Order: sl issued for the Janu 26 || True images documenting to thi s Decl arat ion as Exhi bit 11. True and correct copies of se! Ject 27 || attached 28 e Ex Pais TRO and OSC ApplPication ores ' n a Declaration of Nath an Peac ock m ISO Coun ty of Sono ma’s Ex Parte Ap ts 12.! y 202 4 Vio lati ons are att ach ed to this Declaration as Exhibi the Januar electrical exp eri enc e and trai ning , it is my opinion that unpermitted 42.Based on my the tisk to the hea lth and safe ty 0 f the public because it increases and hazardous electrical pose a risk of a wildfire. or obtained Defendants have not submitted 43. As of the date of this declaration, in ed Tan k or Haz ard ous Gra din g viol ations, as ordered in the Adm permits to abate the Unpermitt Order. portion of the Defe ndants have not paid any 44, As of the date of this declaration, ered in the Admin Order. abatement costs or pen: alties ord any the fili ng 0 f this Dec lar ati on, Defendants have not applied for 10 45. As of the date of Violations. an ins pec tio n to con fir m removal of the October 2023 i permits to a bate or scheduled d for any the fi ling of this Dec lar ati on, Defendants have not applie 12 46. As of the date of the January 2024 Violations aba te or sch edu led an ins pection to con! firm removal of 13 permits to and n that Def end ant s will con tin ue engagin: g in unpermitted work 14 47. It is my opinio e, unless the Court orders per ty and con tin ue viol ati ing the Sonoma County Cod 15 uses on the Pro 16 Defendants to stop. 17 of California that the lar e und er pen alt y of per jur y unde: 1 the laws of the State 18 I dec in Santa Rosa, California. true and corr ect. Exe cut ed this {g of January, 2024, 19 foregoing is 20 21 At! bob Nathan Peacock 22 23 24 25 26 27 request. lable to the Court upon 28 2024 Violati ions will be made avai 1 Additional images of the January Ap plication for a TRO and OSC. County of Sonoma’s Ex Parte Declarati ‘on of Nathan Peacock ISO