JEN

City and County of San Francisco v. JEN

Good Law
135 Cal. App. 4th 305·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1981·2006 Daily Journal DAR 5·37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 454·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 43
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 29, 2005A107911California2,659 words

Opinion

Opinion

Jones, J.

In this case, we must analyze the scope of remedial provisions of the Health and Safety Code available to public agencies charged with enforcing residential building codes. Specifically, we will interpret remedial language contained in Health and Safety Code section 17980.7 broadly so the section can be used to protect a maximum number of residents, reflecting the Legislature’s judgment that one of the most important and fundamental duties a city can perform is to protect its residents from unsafe housing conditions.

Appellant also contends the factual foundation for the award of fees is unsupported by substantial evidence, and he asserts procedural errors. We reject these arguments in the unpublished portion of our opinion and affirm the judgment.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant Jimmy Jen is a licensed civil engineer. In June 1999, he purchased a single-family home located on Tucker Avenue in San Francisco. The home was dilapidated and Jen planned to renovate it. However, Jen’s prior experiences with the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) led him to believe some department personnel were prejudiced against him. Therefore, Jen misrepresented the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.