Tom Marshall, Hearing Officer

c/o Amie Ontiveros

1200 Third Ave., 8th Floor,

San Diego, CA 92101

Re: NC # 131524

Property: 8586 Menkar Rd.

San Diego, CA 92126

Mr. Marshall,

Thank you so much for your letter dated June 4, 2010. I am very glad to find that there is some mechanism for urging reconsideration. I was under the impression from Ms. Negrete’s comments during the hearings and in Ms. Ontiveros’ letter dated April 20 (copy enclosed) that there "are no further administrative appeal options available for this case…" I did receive the "decision" documents on 4/21/10, several days later than we’d been told at the second hearing, but was out of town for most of the intervening period (working overseas), and so was able to respond by later May. My writing on this date was an attempt to set the record straight.

I want to briefly reiterate my position stated on 5/25 and have included a copy of same to you here, as well as to the NCCD, c/o Melody Negrete.

A synopsis of pertinent events:


1) 9/26/01. Following the cancellation of our home owner’s insurance policy (along with others along the canyon rim), we had the fire dept. come by and they encouraged removal of the dead brush on our part of the eastern slope. Copy of the cancellation letter is enclosed and otherwise can be found here: http://wetwebmedia.com/WWMAdminSubWebIndex/City8586Graphics/InsCancNotice2001.htm

2) In early 2002, realizing the hillside was being washed away by the City’s storm drain egress on the back two thirds of our property, I contacted and had the City’s Public Works people come out on three occasions, the first two visits being told that we just had to put up with the run-off and erosion. The last request/visit on 2/11/02, was a supervisor, Ms. Carla Cope, her business card and my notes here: http://wetwebmedia.com/WWMAdminSubWebIndex/CarlaCopeNote.htm

3) On asking her what was required to place a large to-be-felled Eucalyptus tree in the erosion canal to make a weir dam, slowing the rate of erosion her response was, "Go ahead, it’s your land". The dead brush and Eucalyptus were deposited in the erosion canal.

4) There is further, and ongoing extensive damage from the storm drain and I have given up trying to arrest it by infilling with cut plant material. In short, the hillside is being washed away by the City’s storm drain eroding its base. This is shown in numerous photographs presented at the hearings and archived here: http://wetwebmedia.com/WWMAdminSubWebIndex/City8586PIX/StormDrainPix.htm



1) July 12, 2001. The patio was in place when we bought the house. It is shown on drawings for both the appraisal and escrow paperwork, archived here:


2) I assumed the patio/deck was permitted, and had Skyline Sunrooms construct an enclosure for this. Contract archived here: http://wetwebmedia.com/WWMAdminSubWebIndex/City8586Graphics/EscTransPatioDwgs.htm

3) Their contracts include providing "all necessary permits" and they claim that once they’d applied, that they’d told me the deck had not been built by permit and that I had said I’d take care of this… with their permit/s to follow. Somehow the original permitting work fell through the cracks.

4) Skyline now claims that their work will definitely comply with permitting, and that we’d have to pay for such permits in any case.

5) A general contractor, Peter Catterick, is going through the process of applying for permits, doing necessary work.

6) The deck is more than forty feet from the upper fence line, and slope to the back.


Plastic Greenhouse:

This construct is not permanent; is used to grow vegetables, and is located far back on the property, well out of sight from the road. A photo of the extant (the other temporary structure has long since been removed) can be found archived here:


Lastly, one last plea to have Tom Marshall visit the subject site, 8586 Menkar Rd. 92126. On viewing the property it will be evident that we did not modify the hillside, that the City’s storm drain is the source of tremendous erosion; not anything we have done, and indeed, the work that was done in filling the erosion canal was to slow the rate of erosion. That if this part of our property was "environmentally sensitive", why would the City have elected to place a two foot storm drain egress eroding away its back two hundred feet, and opting not to fix it by extending the pipe/adding a swale. Further, the deck can be seen to be substantial and placed more than forty feet from the enclosed upper fence line (not down the back slope). Lastly, that the CostCo plastic greenhouse is some eighty feet back from the front fence line, is not visible from the property line.

Thank you for your consideration


Robert Fenner
cc: Melody Negrete (w/encl.)