Input, corrections


Findings of Fact and Decision

Re: 8586 Menkar Road


There are numerous blandishments, mis-statements and some outright glaring errors in this document. Please find my input re listed by page and line below.


Pg. 2, line 14: Exhibits C 16 and C 17, as gone over in the first hearing are not our property, but the upslope (eastward) adjacent property of the neighbor (8696 Menkar).


Pg. 4, line 8: No live native plants have been removed… the entire hillside was unconsolidated backfill… your recorded stmt. Pg. 6, line 20 is in error. Bernie Alvarado stated that 20,000 cubic yards, not feet were poured into the canyon when the pads were made for his house (two doors east), the next door prop. (8596) and 8586. The City’s storm drain has washed away hundreds, if not thousands of yards of this mass over the years. There was little to no “native vegetation” on this hillside ever. Please call Bernie Alvarado (c: 619 549 4972), or replay the recording of his testimony re the units here. This is a 27 time’s difference in volume… All three of the backyards, including the two slopes are unconsolidated fill.

Ice plant was never planted… it exists behind every house w/in eye on the canyon… I did plant fruit trees, long-abandoned, in an effort to slow hillside erosion. This after having Carla Cope from the City of San Diego out and having her okay.


Pg. 4, lines 14-16: There is no possibility of restoring the property to pre-development condition… 20k cubic yards of soil overlay was placed over what was originally there… The developer (from the early 70’s) has passed on.


Pg. 4, lines 19-21: The slope of the hillsides is as it was when we purchased the property, and no “environmentally sensitive biological resources” have been removed by us from this hillside.


Pg. 4, lines 22, 23: The drip irrigation placed only serviced the fruit trees, never the iceplant, and was discontinued in 2008.


Pg. 5, lines 4-6: The storm drain has “contributed” much more than normal run off to the loss of this unnatural hillside. I will be placing a link to video shot of runoff directed by this drain during heavy rain… Fact: the hillside is eroded some fourteen feet from the far N.E. corner from the original property marker… ALL of this has been eaten away from erosion from the storm drains run-off from the bottom.


Pg. 5, line 6: The storm drain definitely IS related to the violations alleged. It is the principal reason the hillside is currently and continues to be rapidly eroded, and steep!
Had Mr. Tom Marshall, the hearing officer for these proceedings had come, at BobF’s request (Said he’d need both parties consent…he did not as Ms. Negrete said the City Code Enforcement Agency would not allow it… (!?)) he would have seen this for himself.


Pg. 5, lines 11-14: The mass of biological material in the gulley is from the 2002 placement of the felled Eucalyptus tree, the stump of which is included in the photos in our A-6 and A-7 photographs. The naturally occurring material is from “wash down” from the City’s storm drain principally. Photos of this sort of accumulation beyond our property… gathered by erosion, are also featured in the above CD photos.


Pg. 5, lines 19-21: The development of the property? This was all done prior to our acquisition, w/ the exception of the patio enclosure; which was done by a licensed contractor, our exhibit A-8… IF this sort of work is not allowed, why did the contractor do it?


Pg. 5, lines 22-24: The hillside was not “stripped of natural vegetation”. The appearance is due to the insidious competitive nature of the iceplant, which I’ve already stated I’ve never planted.


Pg. 5, lines 24, 25: The compost pile is an ongoing project built only by myself, and is not, nor has ever been a potential fire hazard.


Pg. 6, lines 2-5: We don’t have the $5k for the beginning of some ministerial permit… but, as has been stated, there is NO original condition, unless the overburden/fill is completely removed from the hillsides; nor does it make any sense to “obtain a dev. Permit… as it is not our intention to dev. This hillside. Indeed, we have offered to give/grant this portion of our prop. To the City, State… as it is of no use to us.


Pg. 6, lines 6, 7: No one has planted iceplant on any of the surrounding slopes as far as I’m aware. Carpobrotus edulis is so invasive in our clime that it readily takes over, out-competes most anything in a disturbed slope area.


Pg. 6, lines 6-13: The demand of $500 dollars per day, some $229k is ludicrous; unreasonable confiscation of private property, and a challenge to our Constitutional rights. Further request for our covering the Agency’s employees cost for harassing us is an affront as well.


Pg. 6, lines 20, 21: Relate to our neighbor’s to the east two doors over, Bernie and Evar Alvarado. He stated that 20,000 cubic YARDS (emphasis mine) not cubic feet, as stated, were dumped over the canyon hillside to make up his flat backyard, the next door neighbor’s slope and ours originally. The neighbor to the west (8576) has lived here since the properties were sold, and can also testify re the history of the fill, erosion of the hillside.


Pg. 7, lines 5, 6: The greenhouse was NOT present when we bought the house. I purchased this stand-alone product from Costco, and grow vegetables in it. It has been at the property since 2005.


Pg. 7, lines 9, 10: Not a belief, but a condition of Skyline’s contract that they will provide “all necessary permits”, as shown in our exhibit A-4.


Pg. 7, lines 10, 11: A clarification; the vegetation below in my mulch pile is not from the hillside, but from yard scraps from my upper garden activity.


Pg. 7, lines 11-13: I did build a weir dam, pursuant with meeting with Carla Cope of the City of San Diego in early 2002… as mentioned before, the stump of the Eucalyptus, likely 60-70,000 pounds of its biomass was emplaced in the gulley carved by the City’s storm drain, to greatly slow the rate of erosion, which it has done the past eight years.


Pg. 7, lines 14-16: Not “considerable by a HUGE volume of water issues from the 2’ diameter storm drain when it rains hard. Again, please look at the photos, video-clips provided in our evidence, or better, come out to the property whenever you’d like and see first hand. The evidence is overwhelming that the storm drain has washed away the hillside. The video can be viewed on YouTube:


Pg. 7, lines 21, 22: Only the fruit trees were ever irrigated, never the ice-plant. The irrigation lines are still in place, as stated at the hearings, though the water itself has long since been turned off. The emitters to the trees only drip water to their bases. If one views the area, it is obvious that the iceplant is growing about the same over all the disturbed hillside areas sans irrigation.


Pg. 8: lines 1-2, 3-4: There is no need for permits for the work that was done on the hillsides on our property as far as I was aware. The Fire Dept. came by, encouraged me to place what little dead brush there was in the gulley, and said that allowing the iceplant to grow was a good idea. There was no notice by anyone other than the Agency in threatening us with the current case.


Pg. 8, lines 8 and 9: That the Title to the property mentions complying with government law is superfluous and of pertinence here… All automotive drivers, citizens… are compelled to comply with gov’t law…


Pg. 8, lines 10-12: A clarification. Income tax returns will show that our income properties are barely cash positive; that we both work more than full-time to make ends meet. W/o selling the property, we are unable to give/have stolen monies to/by anyone.


Pg. 8, lines 16, 17: As stated at the hearing, no one removed any live plant material, or planted iceplant. Again, take a look at the photos we provided. The neighbor who shares the slope to the east has the same depauperate mix of non-native plant species, predominantly the iceplant and some purposely planted (but by neither of us) cactus, and agave/yucca… apparently to anchor the hillside, which it has done a remarkable job of on the apex of the hill, where the slope is steepest.


Pg. 8, line 18: The deck that was there when be bought the house appeared to have been “constructed to code”… I had no idea it had not been permitted. In looking over the purchase agreement, I don’t see such a statement.


Pg. 8, line 19: I/we did not remove any live vegetation from the hillside; a minimum of dead brush, a large amount of felled Eucalyptus was placed on purpose in the huge erosion canal (not “the foot of the hillside”) caused by the City’s storm drain, and joined with ongoing “wash down” of generations of whatever grows in the gulley and beyond it into the canyon (see images…) has accumulated and been overgrown by the iceplant in time.


Pg. 9, line 3-5: I paid a licensed California contractor to supply permits, for their knowledge of pertinent law… See them re infractions thereof.


Pg. 9, lines 17-20: The options first presented and currently demanded are impertinent. I did not grade the property… hence it can’t be restored to some “pristine” or “pre-development condition”. I don’t intend to develop the property on the back, hence a “site development permit” is unnecessary as well.


Pg. 10, lines 8-11: The hillsides are what they are, were when we bought the property. Nowhere in our ownership records or prior notice is there mention of what this might constitute per municipal statutes, nor have I ever encountered any mention of what might not be removed, done with privately-owned residential real estate.


Pg. 10, line 19: The hillside does NOT contain sensitive biological resources. It is, was, and will be a mass of unconsolidated scrape/fill from the early 1970’s when the three lots were filled in, w/ only Bernie and Evar’s being level. 8596 and 8586 will continue to erode, the moreso w/ any removal of extant iceplant, and planted cactus and agave/yucca.


Pg 11, line 4: Again, I have never watered the iceplant… who would? It has been encouraged however w/ the increased retention of water via the weir dam placed.


Pg. 11, lines 10, 11: Nothing has been graded by me on the hillside. The exhibits showing such grading are on our neighbor’s slope… what little “walkway” there is, is due to simple walking erosion on the unconsolidated fill which makes up the hillside. It is indeed very easily eroded.


Pg. 11, lines 13-17: I don’t think the previous owners planted the iceplant… This invasive species does just take over most any disturbed hillside. See the photos I’ve provided for examples… Folks before us did put up the patio cover, and it is substantial. They told me they had intended to place a Jacuzzi spa on top of it, thus had it doubly supported for the load. We did hire a licensed contractor for the sunroom, being assured that they had put up thousands of such units. They never mentioned any laws pertaining to hillsides.


Pg. 11, lines 18, 19: IF, as stated, these alleged infractions aren’t our responsibility… why are we being challenged to pay any such “daily fine?” What?


Pg. 11, line 20: By the same token, what is rationale behind charging us for the Agency’s “administrative costs?” I/we didn’t ask them for assistance, their effort. Their actions are unwarranted and as has been made clear, unwanted.


Pg. 12, line 8-10: Erosion control? The erosion of the hillside is not due to any effort or oversight on our part. Indeed, the work done has greatly slowed erosion. THE damage, continuing to the hillside is from the City’s storm drain egress; taking away the base of the hill, encouraging more to fall. The neighbor two doors over, the Alvarados, with the flat- soil-filled backyard have had the soil retreat 14 feet from their N.W. corner. See the photos, video, come and look yourself. I AM a qualified professional that has assessed this.


Pg. 12, line 13, 14: More money to the NCCD? For applying for “grading permit”… We don’t want to grade. And restoration, re-vegetation? Again, there is no natural vegetation that can/will outcompete the Carpobrotus on this scrape-filled unconsolidated soil slope… that’s why it’s not there, has never been there.


Pg. 12, line 15: The fruit trees that were planted are dead, dying from lack of water. I would leave their roots to do what little they can to anchor the hillside.


Pg. 12, line 16: There was no native vegetation, ergo, it can’t be replaced, restored to “pre-existing native condition”…


Pg… the rest of the orders are not worth commenting re. This is a sham to steal money, get us/others to comply w/ a lesser set of demands.  See:


Pg. 13: Option 2… line 6-8: More demands for permits: Site Development Grading… which I’ve already covered…? And building plans… Di is going to ask Leslie Diamond re what these entail, their supposed total costs…


Pg 13, line 8: As stated in the hearings, shown in photos, there is presently only the plastic greenhouse in the back, the other cover was removed.


Pg. 13, line 9, 10:… there is no restoration to pre-existing condition… The present condition IS the pre-existing condition. I cannot, will not remove thousands of yards of fill to reveal our part of the hillside… the two neighbors over and a part of the further eastward now-exposed slope will fall away if this was done.


Pg. 13, lines 14-16: Am given to understand that applying for this “ministerial grading permit…” is some $5k paid to the same folks that brought this trouble… When we investigated doing this work when first charged with these demands, the folks involved told us the minimum costs of compliance would be 60-80k, on up... And that we shouldn't even start if we didn't have the money to finish. I/we don’t have this money, will have to sell another property in time…



Again, and at last, there is nothing in the property’s CCRs, our Grant Deed, nor the Title Insurance re permitted, restricted use of 8586; other than reserving oil, mineral, water rights, and the set-back for the storm drain under the east side of the property. There was no notice ever from the City re use/non-use of this property; indeed, Carla Cope of the City was called out to the site in 2002 re my concerns re the storm drain washing the hillside away and encouraged me to build the weir dam/fill with the felled Eucalyptus on the back fenced area, and “said, go ahead, it’s your property”, to my enquiries re planting the fruit trees, adding the drip irrigation to them. Further, we’ve had the fire dept. out thrice re the dead brush that was removed to the gulley and they too, encouraged this activity.

            The record (CAB, CSLB) will show that Bob Fenner was a licensed Ca. Landscape Contractor (C 27). He has never planted iceplant, nor purposely destroyed public or private property.


IF indeed there is a concern that such private property, its owners might “harm” “environmentally sensitive land”, why are they not duly notified, why is there no addendum to Grant Deeds re such? There has existed for decades tools that could easily identify all such properties, the County Recorder is aware of all owners, their addresses for tax et al. purposes…


Where does that leave me/us as private citizens? I ask that you abandon this harassment, challenge to our civil rights. We have not knowingly committed any crime, nor do we have funds to pay lawyers that are on first name bases with the NCCD (neighborhood code compliance dept.) to represent/fight for our interests. What would you do in such a case?


Bob Fenner


This is a partial accounting for a challenge involving a property I supposedly own (no, in the U.S., the gov't owns all) and the City of San Diego; in which they, having gone broke financially and morally, have begun stealing citizen's net worths.



City of San Diego demand doc.s

Cover Letter, City of San Diego NCCD "Invoice", "Findings of Fact and Decision"

RMF rebuttal to the above

Interpolated (OCRd) City Findings/Fact/Dec. and RMF rebuttal (with links to pertinent documents, photographs, video)

Supporting Photographs, Documents and Graphics

Appraisal and Escrow and doc.s showing pre-existing patio cover

Pix of 8586 to the left/west and 8596 right/east hillside/back property. and Ex.s of invasive iceplant wherever orig. grade/slopes are disturbed

Pix of Eucalyptus stump, biomass used to make weir dam, fill in gulley

Pix of Filled in gulley/wash out on 8586 prop. and ex.s of weir dams

Pix of west-side neighbors' (8576, 8566...) hillside showing iceplant growth

Ex.s of easy erosion of unconsolidated backfill on 8586 property

Photo of 8596 and Bernies pole, 14 foot of land lost by erosion from original

Carla Cope meeting note and bus. card from 2/11/02

Notice of Cancellation of Homeowners Insurance due to brush, 2001

Views of City storm drain, erosion canal from on 8596 property

Storm drain egress video linked here:

Grant Deed

Skyline Sunroom (Stmt. re Permits, Drawing/Bid, Billing stmt.)