For Building Appeals Board at the Planning Commission Meeting December 17, 2025
TO: Building Appeals Board
APPROVAL: Christina Taylor, Director of Community Development
REVIEWED BY: Daniel Casey, Community Development Manager
FROM: Jay Garcia, Chief Building Official
Title
Building Appeals Board to Review and Consider Adoption of a Resolution to Uphold the Building Officials Decision regarding a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) at 1443 N. Riverside Avenue, in accordance with Government Code 66332.
Body
APPELLANT:
Robert Ingram, Middle Housing Partners, 3400 La Sierra Avenue, Suite C, Riverside, CA 92503
PROJECT OWNER:
Andrew and Jessica Buttenmueller, 1443 N. Riverside Avenue, Rialto, CA 92335
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Robert Ingram, Middle Housing Partners, 3400 La Sierra Avenue, Suite C, Riverside, CA 92503
PROJECT LOCATION:
1443 N. Riverside, Rialto, CA 92335, a single-family residence (APN: 0127-172-04-0000)
APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS:
A. 2022 California Building Code
B. 2022 California Residential Code
C. 2022 California Electrical Code
D. 2022 California Mechanical Code
E. 2022 California Plumbing Code
F. 2022 California Energy Code
G. 2022 California Green Building Standards
H. 2022 California Existing Building Code
I. Health and Safety Code Division 13 Housing, Part 1.5 Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation
J. Government Code Title 7, Division 1 Planning and Zoning, Chapter 13 Accessory Dwelling Units
K. Rialto Municipal Code Tile 15 Buildings and Construction
BACKGROUND:
Summary of Appeal
In order for the provision of Government Code 66332 to apply, the applicant must prove that the JADU in question was constructed prior to January 1, 2020. Staff reviewed the documents provided by the appellant which included photo documentation. In addition to the photos provided by the appellant, Staff researched and reviewed the following documents: building permits, certificates of occupancy, county assessor data, aerial view images, street images, and code enforcement documentation. After weighing all of the documentation none of the documentation either provided by the appellant or documents researched by staff substantiate a JADU was in existence or constructed prior to January 1, 2020.
Preliminary Information
The unpermitted JADU in question was reported when the tenant of the unpermitted JADU called Community Compliance to complain about an unsafe trench at the property on January 16, 2025. On February 7, 2025 Community Compliance responded to the complaint and discovered that the unsafe trench in question was a utility trench for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) that was permitted under a building permit (BLD24-2144) and under construction. While on site, the tenant granted Community Compliance permission to enter the unpermitted JADU. After research by Community Compliance and discovering the space was a patio converted into an unpermitted JADU, Community Compliance opened a code case (CE25-0042) for the unpermitted JADU. One of the requirements for compliance was to obtain the necessary permits for the unpermitted ADU. The city reviewed the building permit application and reviewed the plans to legalize the unpermitted JADU and provided plan check comments to the applicant on April 1, 2025. The applicant did not respond to the plan check comments and instead submitted an email request to apply the provisions of Government Code 66332 to Building and Safety on June 18, 2025. Staff reviewed the email request and responded with a denial on August 21, 2025 based on the lack of evidence that a JADU was constructed before January 1, 2020. On September 17, 2025, the applicant submitted a formal request to the city to apply the provisions of Government Code 66332 with photo documentation of the site. The Building Official reviewed the request and provided a memorandum denying the request on September 25, 2025 based on the lack of evidence that a JADU was constructed before January 1, 2020. On October 31, 2025 the applicant submitted an appeal of the Building Officials findings to the office of the City Attorney.
Analysis of Appeal
Staff reviewed the appeal and made the following findings:
1. Review of the photo documentation provided:
• The photos provided by the appellant are not conclusive evidence of a JADU constructed prior to January 1, 2020.
• The external photos and street view images do not establish a dwelling (Appellant Appeal dated October 31, 2025, Page 4 to 7 of 16).
• Window dressings or curtains do not establish a dwelling (Appellant Appeal dated October 31, 2025, Page 4 to 6 of 16).
• A couch does not establish a dwelling (Appellant Appeal dated October 31, 2025, Page 8 of 16).
• A storage cabinet does not establish a dwelling (Appellant Appeal dated October 31, 2025, Page 9 of 16).
• A toilet at an unidentified location, without evidence that it’s functional, or connected to a building drain or water line does not provide evidence that it was a part of a JADU (Appellant Appeal dated October 31, 2025, Page 10 of 16).
• Cabinetry in a construction zone that is clearly not properly connected to any building drain, water lines, or affixed to any partition does not provide evidence that it was part of a JADU (Appellant Appeal dated October 31, 2025, Page 11 of 16).
• A stove at an unidentified location does not provide evidence that it was a part of a JADU (Appellant Appeal dated October 31, 2025, Page 12 of 16).
• The floor is not consistent between photographs. The floor in the first two photos with the couch and storage cabinet, is not consistent with the others (Appellant Appeal dated October 31, 2025, Page 8 to 12 of 16).
• The ceiling is also not consistent between photographs. The ceiling in the first two photos with the couch and storage cabinet, is not consistent with the other (Appellant Appeal dated October 31, 2025, Page 8 to 12 of 16).
2. The appellants claim that Staff was not objective:
• Staff reviewed the matters and photo documentation provided by the appellant.
• Staff researched and reviewed the following documents: building permits, certificates of occupancy, county assessor data, aerial view images, street images, and code enforcement documentation.
• After weighing all the documentation, none of the documentation provided by the appellant or documents researched by staff substantiate the existence of a JADU constructed prior to January 1, 2020.
• The decision was made after thorough research by six staff members from different divisions to include Building and Safety, Planning, Community Compliance, and the City Clerks office, to assist the applicant and establish if a dwelling existed and was constructed prior to January 1, 2020. After an exhaustive search and a review of the documents provided by the applicant it was conclusive that there was no pre-existing ADU prior to January 1, 2020. The decision made was in fact objective and based on the enclosed exhibits.
3. The appellants claim that the city implicitly agrees to the existence of a JADU based on the Building Officials Decision dated September 25, 2025:
• This is not a valid assertion.
• Staff only advise the applicant of the requirement.
• The advisory comment provided to the applicant, in no way shape or form acknowledges any unpermitted JADU to be in existence prior to January 1, 2020.
4. Other mitigating circumstances:
• A condition of Government Code 66332 requires an onsite inspection to determine the JADUs existing conditions; however, upon purchase of the property the appellant did not come forward and request to apply the provisions of Government Code 66332. Instead, they renovated the dwelling without permits and most likely caused the condition of the unpermitted JADU in 2023. Once the existing conditions were removed, the unit was renovated without permits, and disrupted all original construction, the existing conditions and the origin of the construction date can no longer be verified to determine if the unit was constructed prior to January 1, 2020. Therefore, the appellant, most likely to cause the JADU in 2023 and disrupt all original construction, has waived the right to apply for the provision of Government Code 66332.
Supporting documentation is attached as Exhibits A - G.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Upholding the Building Official’s decision will have no effect on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act, a ‘Project’ means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. A project does not include:
• Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or physical changes in the environment.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
Approval of this action is consistent with the following Guiding Principle of the Rialto General Plan:
We will require high-quality housing for our families and establish well maintained, safe, attractive neighborhoods.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission acting as the Building Appeals Board:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution (Exhibit H) to deny the appellants appeal and uphold the Building Official’s decision that the property at 1443 N. Riverside does not meet the elements listed under Government Code Section 66332 and that the evidence provided does not substantiate or prove that a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) existed or was constructed prior to January 1, 2020.