Paynes appeal Lafayette citations over grading, gas line and enclosed carport; board pauses case and gives time to permit work

The Lafayette Code Enforcement Appeals Board heard a multi‑hour appeal by Bennett and Anne Payne on allegations that work at 3400 LaManita included unpermitted grading, an unpermitted gas line and an enclosed garage/workshop with unpermitted electrical and plumbing.

City attorney Sarah Lachland and former city code officer Gerardo Jimenez told the board the case started with complaints about junk and overgrown vegetation (now corrected), then expanded to a gas line that required a permit and grading that appears to exceed Lafayette’s 50 cubic‑yard threshold for a permit. Jimenez said he issued a string of administrative citations culminating in citation no. 342 (Dec. 12, 2025) and that the gas‑line permit was not finalized until 2025–2026. “We had the ability to waive the citation if compliance was obtained by the correction date,” Jimenez testified about the written notice, but he confirmed the city issued multiple notices and that the grading and accessory‑structure issues remained unresolved.

The Paynes disputed key factual and procedural points. Bennett Payne read a prepared statement that alleged the family followed Contra Costa County guidance when they applied for permits and that the city’s enforcement escalated without producing supporting evidence. “We complied, they didn’t track it, and somehow we’re the violators,” Payne said, arguing the county had told them how to submit permits and that the county’s review created confusion. Anne Payne described repeated unannounced site visits and said the gas line remained capped and not connected to service during the period cited by the city.

A central factual dispute before the board was the grading volume. City staff and a submitted geotechnical letter showed a cut described on the record as roughly 45 ft wide and 11 ft deep with heights of 5–8 ft, a set of dimensions that—when converted to cubic yards—put the disturbance above Lafayette’s 50‑cubic‑yard permit trigger. Appellants presented a different technical submission and argued measurements and method matter; Jimenez and the board discussed the math on the record but did not resolve the technical dispute at the hearing.

The Paynes also contested the scope of an abatement/repair order that had been recorded against the property and sent to their lender. Bennett Payne and counsel said the city described the home as “unfit for human habitation” in communications to third parties but declined to provide underlying sworn evidence to support that extraordinarily serious step. Appellants and their friends who spoke during public comment said they saw a capped, inactive gas stub and did not believe the house was unsafe; two friends described the family as engaged neighbors and asked the board to require the city to produce the evidence behind the extreme findings.

Board members and counsel spent much of the hearing clarifying which municipal and state code sections the city relied on and whether the city had followed Lafayette’s required notice process (warning → notice of violation → administrative citation). City counsel acknowledged some citations were drafted to cover multiple code areas and that the abatement letter language was prepared by the city attorney’s office; Jimenez said he did not author the final abatement wording. Counsel also explained that administrative citations normally require a prior notice of violation and that, where a notice process was not followed precisely, the board can consider that procedural deficiency when it rules.

At the end of the session the board did not rule on the merits. Instead, after extensive deliberation the board directed staff to draft a written resolution that reflects the board’s findings and practical remedy. The board’s working direction, as discussed on the record, is that the Paynes must pursue a path of compliance rather than immediate penalties: they should submit complete permit application packages to the city (and county where applicable) for the grading and for any unpermitted work in the accessory structure; the board’s tentative time frame discussed on the record was to require a complete submission deemed administratively complete by the city within six months and finalization of permits (where required) within one year. While the permit process proceeds, the board put the relevant citations and the abatement order on hold; if the Paynes meet the board’s compliance milestones, the board directed staff to prepare language to terminate or withdraw the abatement and related enforcement actions. Board members also agreed staff should prepare the draft resolution for formal consideration at a follow‑up meeting.

The hearing record reflects competing technical claims (grading volume, whether certain interior fixtures were new or pre‑existing, and whether county and city process were sufficiently coordinated). The board gave both sides an opportunity to produce additional evidence and instructed city staff to prepare the draft written findings and a schedule for a follow‑up hearing so the board can adopt a formal resolution based on the record.

What happens next: city staff will prepare a draft resolution that incorporates the board’s directions, publish it as part of a follow‑up meeting notice, and return to the board for a formal vote. The matter remains on hold while that process proceeds.

Sources: testimony and exhibits presented at the Lafayette Code Enforcement Appeals Board special meeting; sworn testimony by former City code enforcement officer Gerardo Jimenez; statements and exhibits presented by Bennett and Anne Payne; public comments.

Ending: The board closed the hearing and directed staff to prepare a written resolution consistent with the board’s discussion and to schedule a follow‑up meeting where the draft resolution will be considered, at which time the board may adopt formal findings and orders.