Investigation · Government Accountability

West Hollywood Pointed Its Inspectors at the Victim. The Law Says the Source Is Next Door.

A property owner documented water pouring in from the bar next door, cited the statutes by number, and asked the City to inspect the source. City Hall scheduled an inspection of his building — then called his correction a “refusal.”

By M. Reynolds  ·  Good Shepherd Media West Hollywood, Calif.

I have covered a lot of municipal runarounds. This one is different, because the City wrote its own runaround down. A West Hollywood property owner on Santa Monica Boulevard reported that water is intruding through the wall he shares with the bar next door — after that bar’s City-permitted remodel left plumbing running close to the shared wall. He asked the City to inspect the source. Instead, the City scheduled an inspection of his building, and when he corrected the record, its Assistant City Manager wrote that he was “interpreting [the] voice message as a denial” and that the City “will render findings absent such inspection.” The City chose the wrong building, then blamed the man who told it so.

The Complaint, in the City’s Own Language

On or about August 11, 2026, the owner — referred to here as Mr. Zullo — sent a formal written demand. It was not a rant. It cited Health & Safety Code sections 17920.3 and 17980, the City’s own nuisance and plumbing ordinances, and it attached a California Public Records Act request for the neighbor’s remodel permit and inspection file. He identified the probable sources next door: an ice-machine drain at the shared wall with no code-compliant air gap, a broken corrugated roof-drainage channel, and a plugged drain and sump with a broken pump.

In other words, he did what a city says it wants a citizen to do. He wrote it down, cited the code, and pointed at the exact fixtures. And here is where the story turns.

Who Is Actually Refusing to Look?

Read the sequence the City itself created, in its emails of August 24, 25, and 26:

• The owner reports that the bar next door is the source of the water.
• The City offers to inspect the owner’s own building — “internal and external.”
• The owner corrects the record, in writing and by recorded voicemail: inspect the source, not the victim.
• The City records that correction as a “denial” and says it “will render findings absent such inspection.”

The City built a paper trail designed to say the citizen wouldn’t cooperate. But turn the City’s own frame around and look at it honestly. Mr. Zullo invited inspection of the source, filed a written legal demand, and requested the permit file. He refused nothing that matters. It is the City that has declined to inspect the offending plumbing, and the neighbor whose remodel and drainage sit unexamined behind a permit the public has not been shown. If findings are “rendered absent inspection,” it is because City Hall aimed at the wrong wall and then shut its eyes to the right one.

The City wants to render findings “absent inspection.” Fine — but it is the City that refused to inspect the source, and the neighbor whose plumbing has never been opened.

What the Law Requires — and the Word Is “Shall”

California’s State Housing Law defines a “substandard building” to include “deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations, or floors” (Health & Safety Code § 17920.3(g)(2)). In 2024, the Legislature passed SB 1465 (Stats. 2024, ch. 487), effective January 1, 2025, broadening that definition to “any building or portion thereof, regardless of zoning designation or approved uses,” and — pointedly — extending its protection to “nearby residents,” not just a building’s own occupants. A commercial bar is squarely covered, and a neighbor harmed across a shared wall is exactly the “nearby resident” the amended law names.

Once the City inspects and confirms the condition, its discretion is spent. Section 17980(c)(1) says the agency “shall commence proceedings to abate the violation.” Not “may” — “shall.” Where a public agency refuses a clear, present, ministerial duty, a court may compel it by writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc. § 1085; State of California v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237), with fees available to a prevailing petitioner under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5.

The City’s own code is even more direct. West Hollywood Municipal Code section 9.60.040 declares it a public nuisance to maintain a structure with water intrusion; with roof drainage that “fails to prevent dampness or deterioration in the walls or interior portion of the structure” or roof water “discharged in a manner that creates a public nuisance”; with plumbing not maintained in good condition and waste lines that must “function properly and be kept free from obstructions, leaks and defects”; and with dampness in habitable rooms. Those are the exact conditions documented next door.

And if that bar runs an ice machine, the plumbing standard is not debatable. California Retail Food Code section 114193(a) requires that “ice machines and bins… shall be drained by means of indirect waste pipes, and all wastes drained by them shall discharge through an airgap.” The California Plumbing Code, Chapter 8, says the same. An ice-machine drain at a shared wall with no air gap is not a gray area — it is a violation, and it sends water exactly where Mr. Zullo says it is going.

Immunity Is Not the Wall City Hall Thinks It Is

The City may assume Government Code section 818.6 — inspection immunity — ends the conversation. It does not. That immunity blocks certain damages claims for negligent inspection (Haggis v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 490); it does not bar a writ compelling the mandatory abatement duty, and it does not touch nuisance. The California Supreme Court held in Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 937 that Government Code section 815 “does not bar nuisance actions against public entities to the extent such actions are founded on section 3479 of the Civil Code.” Nor does immunity reach inverse condemnation: “the immunities provided by the Tort Claims Act do not insulate a public entity from liability for inverse condemnation” (Pacific Bell v. City of San Diego (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 596, 602–603; Baldwin v. State of California (1972) 6 Cal.3d 424, 438). And because water intrusion is a continuing condition, every recurrence is a fresh wrong until it is abated (Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1985) 39 Cal.3d 862).

There is a further wrinkle the City should sit with. Its first substantive response to a written legal demand and a records request was a cease-and-desist aimed at the property owner’s conduct. A citizen’s demand and public-records request are core petitioning activity. When a government answers protected petitioning with threats or coercion, California’s Bane Act (Civil Code § 52.1) supplies a remedy that requires no showing of discriminatory animus (Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820), and the First Amendment protects the right to challenge officials (City of Houston v. Hill (1987) 482 U.S. 451; Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) 585 U.S. 87). That is not a verdict. It is the exposure the City invited by answering the messenger instead of the message.

Why Prevention Is the Entire Point

This is not a fight about a stain on a wall. Restoration and construction-defect specialists describe water intrusion into concealed cavities as the start of a chain, not an endpoint: sustained moisture rots framing, feeds mold, and corrodes the connections that hold a structure together. Left unabated over years, water that compromises structural elements can, in the worst case, threaten the integrity of the building itself — and a compromised structure endangers every person and animal in or beside it. No one is predicting a collapse next week. That is precisely the point of prevention. The substandard-building statutes exist to force repair before deterioration becomes catastrophe. A city that receives documented notice of active, recurring intrusion against structural elements — and answers by inspecting the wrong building — is not managing that risk. It is running out the clock on it.

The People Who Now Owe the Public an Answer

Assistant City Manager Steve Campbell is the official the City named as the property owner’s sole point of contact and the author of the emails at the center of this account — the one scheduling the wrong building, and the one recasting a correction as a “denial.” By the City’s own instruction, he is the person responsible for moving this matter. So far he has moved it in the wrong direction.

Mayor John Heilman, sworn in January 12, 2026, presides over the City this year. Heilman is a founder of West Hollywood, has served as mayor nine times, and teaches law — a professor at Southwestern Law School and adjunct at USC. A city led by a law professor cannot plausibly claim the word “shall” in section 17980 is beyond its understanding. The standard West Hollywood should be held to is the one its own Mayor teaches in a classroom.

City Manager Jackie Rocco, installed in 2026, leads the staff that received the complaint and the records request. At her installation the Mayor said the Council must “hold staff accountable.” This matter is the test of whether that phrase means anything.

Six Questions West Hollywood Must Answer

1. Why did the City schedule an inspection of the complainant’s building instead of the identified source next door?

2. Will the City now inspect the neighbor’s ice-machine drain, roof-drainage channel, and drain and sump — and release the neighbor’s remodel permit and inspection file?

3. If inspection confirms a substandard condition, does the City acknowledge its non-discretionary duty under section 17980(c)(1) to “commence proceedings to abate”?

4. On what basis did the City call a written and recorded correction a “denial,” and does it stand by rendering findings “absent inspection” of the source?

5. Did the neighbor’s remodel receive City permits and pass City inspection — and if so, how did plumbing at the shared wall pass?

6. Was the cease-and-desist a response to the owner’s protected petitioning and records request, and how does the City square that with the Bane Act and the First Amendment?

Prevention is not a favor a city grants when it feels like it. Under California law it is a duty, and the duty is written with the word “shall.” West Hollywood, so far, is failing that duty in writing — and it is the City, not the man who reported the leak, that is refusing to look at the source.

Key Findings

• California law places a mandatory, non-discretionary “shall abate” duty on West Hollywood once it inspects and confirms a substandard water-intrusion condition (Health & Safety Code § 17980(c)(1)), and — as of SB 1465 (Stats. 2024, ch. 487, eff. Jan. 1, 2025) — that duty now reaches “any building or portion thereof, regardless of zoning designation” and expressly protects “nearby residents.” The City’s decision to inspect Mr. Zullo’s own building (7513) rather than the source (the adjacent bar) inverts the statutory scheme.
• The strongest tools are the mandatory-abatement duty (§ 17980(c)(1) + writ of mandate, CCP § 1085), nuisance liability that survives governmental immunity (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica), and inverse condemnation (which overrides Tort Claims Act immunities). The weakest are damages theories dependent on Gov. Code § 815.6, which face the broad inspection immunity of Gov. Code § 818.6 (Haggis).
• The rhetorical reversal is legally grounded: it is the City and the neighbor — not Mr. Zullo — who are now refusing to inspect the true source and are on course to “render findings absent inspection” of the offending plumbing.

1. The mandatory-duty statute is real and recently strengthened. H&S § 17920.3(g)(2) defines a substandard building to include “deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations, or floors,” plus dampness/inadequate-sanitation conditions. Section 17980(c)(1) says that once an enforcement agency “has inspected or caused to be inspected a building and has determined that the building is a substandard building … the enforcement agency shall commence proceedings to abate the violation.” SB 1465 — authored by Sen. Bob Archuleta, sponsored by the Code Enforcement Officers Association (CACEO), and crafted, per California Building Officials, “in the wake of the Ghost Ship Fire … to prevent catastrophic events through proactive enforcement” — amended § 17920.3 to cover “any building or portion thereof, regardless of zoning designation or approved uses of the building … in which there exists any of the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the occupants of the building, nearby residents, or the public.” As the Serviam Law legal alert explains, “nearby residents are distinguished alongside occupants and the public as those whose health and safety is impacted by substandard buildings, emphasizing the impacts of substandard buildings on the entire community.”
2. Plumbing-code and food-code duties support the “source is the bar” theory. California Retail Food Code (H&S § 114193(a)) requires that “all steam tables, ice machines and bins … shall be drained by means of indirect waste pipes, and all wastes drained by them shall discharge through an airgap into a floor sink or other approved type of receptor.” The California Plumbing Code (Ch. 8) requires ice-making equipment to discharge through an air gap/air break into a receptor. An ice-machine drain at the shared wall lacking an air gap is a documented code violation.
3. West Hollywood’s own code independently declares these conditions nuisances. WHMC § 9.60.040 designates as public nuisances, among others: water intrusion (§ 9.60.040(b)(3)); roof drainage that “fails to prevent dampness or deterioration in the walls or interior portion of the structure” and “roof water … discharged in a manner that creates a public nuisance” (§ 9.60.040(b)(7)); plumbing not conforming to code or “not … maintained in good condition,” and waste lines that must “function properly and be kept free from obstructions, leaks and defects” (§ 9.60.040(h)); and “dampness in habitable rooms” (§ 9.60.040(j)(4)).
4. Nuisance and inverse condemnation pierce governmental immunity; § 815.6 damages claims largely do not. Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 937 holds Gov. Code § 815 “does not bar nuisance actions … founded on section 3479 of the Civil Code.” Inverse condemnation overrides Tort Claims Act immunities (Pacific Bell v. City of San Diego (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 596, 602-603; Baldwin v. State of California (1972) 6 Cal.3d 424, 438). But damages for negligent inspection are blocked by the broad inspection immunity of Gov. Code § 818.6 (Haggis v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 490).
5. The City’s “refusal/render findings” tactic is legally reversible and raises retaliation exposure. Mr. Zullo’s written demand and CPRA request are protected petitioning activity; a cease-and-desist aimed at his petitioning conduct implicates the Bane Act (Civ. Code § 52.1; Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820) and First Amendment principles (42 U.S.C. § 1983; Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) 585 U.S. 87; City of Houston v. Hill (1987) 482 U.S. 451).

M. Reynolds Investigative Reporter, Good Shepherd Media View profile →

Editor’s note: Statements attributed to the property owner reflect his account and the documentary email record, including a recorded voicemail, reviewed as provided and reported as his account. Statutory text, case law, and public records concerning City offices and officials are drawn from primary and government sources. Named public officials are discussed solely in their official capacities. Nothing in this article states or implies that a structural failure is imminent; the discussion of structural risk describes the general, foreseeable progression of unabated water intrusion and the preventive purpose of the governing statutes.

© Good Shepherd Media. goodshepherdmedia.net