HomeMy WebLinkAbout1344 S Diamond Bar Blvd #B(0010)From: Raymond Tao
Se nt: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 2:44:59 PM
To: Adam Brett
Subje ct: RE: 1344 S Diamond Bar Blvd #B
Se ns itivity: Normal
Good afternoon Adam,
Thank you for the detai led report on the hi story at the property. There is a lot to thi s so as mentioned, I will share
this with other staff so they are aware of the circumstances. Thank you agai n for your assi stance.
Ra ym ond Ta o l Building Offic ial
City of Dia m ond Ba r l Building and Safety Division
21810 Copley Drive l Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
909.839.7021 l 909.396.7486 (f)
www.Diamon d BarCA .g ov
From: Adam Brett <re al toradam@gmai l.com>
Sent: We dne sday, Septe mber 17, 2025 12:28 PM
To: Raymond Tao <RTao@DiamondBarCA.Gov>
Subject: 1344 S Diamond Bar Bl vd #B
**DO NOT open unknow n links or any attachments w ithout confirming w ith IS or the sender directly.**
C AUTION: This email originated from outsi de your organization. Exerci se cauti on when opening attachments or
clicking links, especi ally from unknown senders.
Mr. Tao,
Thank you for calling me this morni ng. Per our conversati on here is the information requested and an explanation
of the current status of thei r tenancy and my ability to do anything at the property.
All of the tenants' complaints are i n retali ati on for evi cti ng them in order for us to remove the property from the
rental market and sell it.
We fi led an Unlawful Detai ner Evi cti on C ase a while ago on February 10, 2025 and the tenants were able to
continuously delay the trial until early this month where we had a Jury Trial at the West C ovina Courthouse that
lasted 4 days. The last day of tri al was on Sept. 3, 2025 and the jury found i n favor of us with a
unani mous verdict. I have attached the court ruling in the document named E111038525. We are waiting on the
judgement and wri t to be signed by the judge and once that i s done it will be delivered to the LA Sheri ff D ept for
posting and scheduli ng a lockout date. I don't know the exact ti ming but I was informed it could be as soon as 3
weeks and at most 6 weeks unti l they are removed from the property.
At this poi nt they have not paid any rent si nce D ecember of last year and have no right to stay i n the property.
They have tried to fi le complai nts wi th multi ple publi c entities i ncludi ng the C ali forni a C ivi l Rights Divi sion whi ch
fully investigated thei r complai nt and dismissed i t due to insufficient evi dence. I have attached that document
named 2025.6.5.Fi nal.NCC.
In addi ti on, they have fi led a restrai ning order against me personally - which per an offi cer of the court - precludes
me from any contact in any way either directly or indi rectly. So I cannot send anyone to the property i n any way to
do anythi ng. I know they have sai d they are willi ng to let us in to do work, however i n the restrai ning order i t
speci fi cally states that, "Even if the protected person invites or consents to contact wi th the restrained person,
this order remai ns i n effect and must be enforced." I have attached this page from the restraining order named
Restraini ng Order Contact.
As for thei r claims of Asbestos contami nation in the unit. At thi s time there i s no confirmed asbestos. Also, their
claim that the SC AQMD i nspector put up cauti on tape is a lie. The inspector di d not put that up, they did.
On May 9, 2025 SCAQMD came out to the property due to the tenant requesti ng an emergency repai r of a water
leak i n an upstairs bathroom whi ch caused water to dri p from the cei ling i n the living room on the ground level. As
this was an emergency repai r we proceeded to clear the area of any furni ture, put down plasti c sheeti ng across
the entire room which we taped to the walls and draped over any ancillary furni ture on the peri phery of the room,
and proceeded to open 3 very small areas in the cei li ng to search for the leak. The total area of cei li ng we
opened i s approxi mately 3 square feet. We di scovered the tenants were purposely causing the damage by
putti ng water behind the flange on the shower head stem.
Almost immediately upon opening the cei ling the tenants had SC AQMD there (like i t was planned in advance).
We were told to get a survey from a Certified Asbestos Consultant which we did wi thi n 5 days on May 14th. We
delivered the report to SCAQMD and it was approved on May 20, 2025. At some point i n the beginni ng of July,
the tenants filed a complai nt with Cal OSHA about the Certi fi ed Asbestos C onsultant (Environmental Moni toring
Group) who is fully licensed, current and in good standi ng with C al OSHA and every li censing board. The tenants
were able to convi nce C al OSHA the survey should be invalidated (I was never told the reason). This means at
this ti me there is no confirmed asbestos anywhere on the property as we were told that it i s like the prior survey
never exi sted..
If you need to confirm everything I am sayi ng, you can call Richard Lavin, who i s the C hief Environmental Health
Specialist for the Los Angeles Department of Publi c Health. He can be reached at 323.482.6462 or vi a emai l
at rlavi n@ph.lacounty.gov. He will confi rm he spoke wi th the SC AQMD i nspector who stated due to the
i nvalidati on of the survey there is no confirmed asbestos.
As I menti oned, the area of disturbed ceili ng is less than 3 square feet in total and the actual materi al that was cut
i nto was only about 10 square i nches i f taking the 1/4 inch cutting area over the entirety of the removed cei li ng. I
have attached pictures showing the area removed, and the plastic covering the area and furni ture.
To recap. The tenants caused the asbestos survey to be i nvali dated which stopped progress on any repairs.
They fi led a restraining order against me which then precludes me from sending out anyone to the property for
any reason. So regardless, they are in a si tuation of their own maki ng.
Thi s i s a civi l issue and they are running out of people to complain to. They tried to bring up thi s very i ssue at the
Unlawful Detainer trial and i t was summarily rejected. They tri ed to bri ng i t up with the Californi a D epartment of
C ivil Rights - that too was i nvesti gated and di smi ssed. They tri ed to bring it up wi th the LA Dept of Public Health
who determi ned there are no vi olations at the property I am responsible for.
I am sorry for thi s long winded email, however I wanted to make sure you have all the information.
Should you require any else, please do not hesi tate to reach out.
Best Regards.
Adam Freilich