HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-2015 CBOA Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Construction Board of Appeals
A G E N D A
Construction Board of Appeals
919 Conference Room 1, Main Lobby
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
October 15, 2015 Thursday 3:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Board Members Rebecca Jansen, Denise Martinez, Stacy Neely,
Matthew Quaglino, James Thompson, Vice-Chair Robert Vessely, and
Chair Niel Dilworth
STAFF: Anne Schneider, Chief Building Official
MINUTES: Minutes of August 27, 2015. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
At this time, people may address the Board about items not on the agenda. Persons
wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments
are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to
staff and, if action by the Board is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Any decision of the Construction Board of Appeals is final unless appealed to the city
Council within 10 day of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be
appealed since they are not a final action.) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the
Board may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the
Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website
(www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $279 and must accompany the appeal
documentation.
If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit
your comment to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six
minutes.
1. 1353 Higuera Street. Continuation of Appeal Hearing for Building Code
Violations; R-2 zone; Maria Hutkin, Attorney for William Austin, Property Manager
for JKJ Farms LLC, property owner and appellant. (Cassia Cocina)
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Date: October 15, 2015
Item Number: 1
2X
CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Continued Appeal of Director’s Decision for Building Code Violations
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1353 Higuera Street BY: Cassia Cocina, Code Enforcement Officer
Phone Number: 781-7588
e-mail: ccocina@slocity.org
FROM: Anne Schneider, Chief Building Official
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the Appeal and
supporting the Director’s Decision to uphold the Notice of Violation.
SITE DATA
Appellant JKJ Farms, LLC, Property Owner
Zoning R-2, Medium Density Residential
Submittal
Date October 20, 2014
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Site Area ~5,900 Square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt under
Section 15270, projects which a
public agency rejects or
disapproves.
SUMMARY
On March 26, 2015, the Construction Board of Appeals (Board) first heard the Appeal of the Notice of
Director’s Decision for the property at 1353 Higuera Street. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Board elected to continue the hearing for four months, to allow the appellant to obtain permits to
remodel the second story of the main house, to allow the Appellant to obtain un-redacted assessment
records, and to allow the time to pursue establishing the rear secondary unit as a legal unit. See
Attachment 2 for the full staff report for the March 26, 2015 meeting.
On April 2, 2015, access was granted to City Staff to conduct an inspection of the back dwelling unit.
A letter was sent to the appellant detailing that modifications were made to the structure without
benefit of a permit (Attachment 3)
CBOA1 - 1
1353 Higuera St.
Meeting Date: October 15, 2015
Page 2
On May 28th, 2015, two permits were issued for the main house to include the second story bathroom
remodel and demolition of the unpermitted construction. The most recent inspection of the work was
conducted on July 30th, 2015 for the bathroom remodel. That work remains incomplete. No inspections
have been conducted for the demolition work.
As of October 1, 2015, unredacted assessment records for the subject property have not been provided
to the City.
1.0 BOARD’S PURVIEW
The Construction Board of Appeals role is to determine if the violations exist.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject property is located on Higuera Street in San Luis Obispo. The immediate
neighborhood consists of duplexes and single family homes. According to the San Luis Obispo
County Assessor’s Office, the five bedroom residence was constructed on the subject property in
1920.
Site Size ~5,920
Present Use & Development Single-family residence
Access Higuera Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-3 (Multi-family residences)
South: O (Office)
East: R-2 (Single-family residences)
West: R-2 (Single-family residences)
2.2 Background
This is a continuation of the original appeal hearing conducted on March 26, 2015.
3.0 APPEAL EVALUATION
At the end of the March 26, 2015 Appeal Hearing, the Board provided 4 months for the Appellant to:
1. Obtain permits to remodel the second story of the main house
2. Obtain un-redacted assessment records,
3. Pursue establishing the rear secondary unit as a legal unit
As indicated previously in this report, a permit was obtained for the second story bathroom and
demolition of the unpermitted construction. The work remains unfinished. No additional information
has been submitted regarding the un-redacted assessment records or for the legalization of the rear
secondary unit. Discussions with planning staff have determined that the rear second unit would never
have been allowed on the property. A member of the planning staff will be available at the meeting to
answer questions.
CBOA1 - 2
1353 Higuera St.
Meeting Date: October 15, 2015
Page 3
3.1 Consistency with Building Regulations
The Appellant’s contention that permits and/or approvals for the change of use for the rear unit
structure, including any interior improvements to said unit or to the main house, is inconsistent
with the City’s Municipal Code, Section 15.02.010, Building Codes Adopted.
4.0 CONCLUSION
Construction Board of Appeals uphold the Director’s Decision and require permits and approvals
be obtained for the unpermitted construction
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Grant the Appeal based on different or modified findings.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Previous Staff Report and Approved Agenda Minutes from March 26, 2015 Meeting
3. May 13, 2015 Letter
CBOA1 - 3
ATTACHMENT 1
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEAL
REGARDING AN APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION AT
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1353 HIGUERA
APN: 002-334-007
WHEREAS, on August 06, 2014, a Notice of Violation was issued by City Code
Enforcement Staff to the property owner of the above referenced property for the
violations of the California Residential Code (CRC), Uniform Housing Code (UHC) and
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) for unpermitted construction,
unpermitted dwelling unit, improper occupancy and lack of high occupancy permit, and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2014, the Community Development Department
received an appeal letter and a Request for Director’s Review referencing the Notice of
Violation, and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2014, the Community Development Director issued
his decision rejecting the appeal, and
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2014, the Community Development Department
received, an Appeal of the Director’s Decision,
WHEREAS, the Building Construction Board of Appeals of the City of San Luis
Obispo conducted a properly noticed public hearing in Conference Room 1 Room of the
Community Development Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
March 26, 2015 for the purpose of considering the submitted appeal, and continued the
appeal to a later date, and
WHEREAS, the Building Construction Board of Appeals of the City of San Luis
Obispo conducted a properly noticed public hearing in Conference Room 1 Room of the
Community Development Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
October 15, 2015 for the purpose of considering the submitted appeal, and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing and provided an opportunity for the
appellant, owner or members of the public to submit testimony or evidence or to
otherwise contest the determination of the Director, and
WHEREAS, the Board has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the owner, appellant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by
staff, including a staff report, presented at said hearings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Building Construction Board of
Appeals of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
CBOA1 - 4
Resolution No. 2015-___
Page 2
Section 1. Determination and Order for Abatement of Violations. The Board
hereby makes the following determination and order:
A. That the violations cited in the Notice of Violation issued by the Code
Enforcement Officer in fact existed on the date of notice, and as such constitute
a public nuisance, and the owner(s) is(are) responsible for such violations, and
B. That the owner of the property is required to submit plans for approval prepared
by a licensed design professional, obtain the required building permits, make all
necessary repairs to correct the cited violations, and to obtain all required
inspections and final inspection approval from the Department.
C. That the owner be required to correct all violations as cited in the Notice of
Violations within 90 days of the Board’s decision.
D. That if the owner makes a good faith effort to correct the cited violations, but
required more than 90 days to complete the corrective action, then the Building
Official is authorized to enter into an Abatement Schedule and Agreement with
the owner to provide additional time for corrective action.
E. Any person objecting to this order may appeal to the City Council pursuant to
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 1.20. The appellant shall file with the
City Clerk a written Appeal to the City Council on the appropriate form and pay
the appeal fee of $279.00. The Appeal must include the order number appealed,
the specific grounds for appeal, and the relief or action sought. The written
Notice of Appeal must be received within ten (10) days from the date of this
order.
On motion by Commr. [NAME], seconded by Commr [NAME], and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: ________
NOES: ________
REFRAIN: ________
ABSENT: ________
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ___th day of October 2015.
_____________________________
Anne Schneider, PE, Secretary
Building Construction Board of Appeals
CBOA1 - 5
CBOA1 - 6
CBOA1 - 7
1
Community Development Department, Building & Safety Division
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Ph. (805)781-7180, Fax (805) 781-7109
Website: http://www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO – CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: March 26, 2015
SUBJECT: Appeal of Director’s Decision for Municipal Code Violations at 1353 Higuera
Street, San Luis Obispo, California
OWNER: JKJ Farms LLC
OFFICER: Cassia Cocina, Code Enforcement Officer
BACKGROUND:
On August 6, 2014, City staff issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”), copy attached (Attachment 1), for
the above referenced property citing the following violations of the City’s Municipal Code:
• Unpermitted Structures/Permits Required – The original shed structure in the rear of the
property was converted into a dwelling unit. A secondary kitchen installed on second floor of
main house without permits or approval. Second story water closet installed without permits or
approval. Second story bathtub and sink installed without permits or approvals. Electrical wiring
added to storage room off of main closet on second floor. Any owner or authorized agent who
intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building
or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical,
gas, mechanical or plumbing system, requires a permit. Electrical, plumbing and structural
alterations require a permit. Plans must be submitted for review and approval and permits
obtained for all unpermitted construction. (SLOMC 15.02.010, California Residential Code
105.1);
• Unpermitted Dwelling Unit/Improper Occupancy - The shed structure was converted into a
second dwelling unit without plan submittal or approval. All buildings or portions thereof
occupied for living, sleeping, cooking or dining purposes that were not designed or intended to be
used for such occupancies shall be considered substandard. Plans must be submitted for review
and approval. (SLOMC 15.02.010, SLOMC 17.21.050, Uniform Housing Code 1001.14); and
CBOA1 - 8
2
• High Occupancy Use Permit Required – Property is advertised as six (6) bedrooms. A high
occupancy use permit is required for six (6) or more adults. (SLOMC 15.02.010, SLOMC
17.93.050).
The property owner timely appealed the NOV to the Community Development Director pursuant to
SLOMC 1.24.090 (Attachment 2). On October 7, 2014 the City’s Community Development Director
denied the property owner’s appeal (Attachment 3). On August 15, 2014, the property owner timely
appealed the Director’s decision (Attachment 4), which is the basis for this hearing.
ANALYSIS:
The City of San Luis Obispo first adopted the Uniform Building Code, 1930 edition, in 1931 by
Ordinance 157 (Attachment 5). On November 5, 1922, the City received an Application for Building
Permit (Attachment 6) for the construction of a “1 story” “Residence” on the subject property,
approximately 30 feet wide by 44 feet deep. On October 7, 1931, the City received an Application for
Building Permit (Attachment 6) for a “Residence addition enlargement of dining room” approximately
“3’.6” x 14’ 0””. This permit references the addition to be “1 story”. The County of San Luis Obispo
first assessed the property in 1946 which described the property and various improvements at that time
(Attachment 7).1
1. Shed illegally converted into dwelling unit. In his appeal, the property owner states:
In any event, independent investigation shows that the structures on the subject parcel were
built in 1921…Comparison of the 1909 Sanborn map (Exh. 3) and the 1926 Sanborn map
(Exh. 2) shows that between 1909 and 1926 most of the lots on the block were developed with
a single family home and a smaller structure in back. The 1926 San born map depicts the
main house, the small house in the rear and the garage. The three structures depicted on the
1926 Sanborn map are the same structures that exist today.
The Director assumes that a “laundry/shed structure” referred to an the (sic) the
undisclosed 1946 assessment is the rear dwelling. This is incorrect. Rather than a laundry
shed, the rear dwelling is 18’ by 18’, which is considerably larger than a backyard shed, and
there is a separate garage building on the parcel, which may be the laundry/shed structure.
Property assessments do not necessarily entail a physical inspection inside all structures on
a parcel of real property, and do not establish the existence or non-existence of particular
uses of property. The use of the rear structure as a residence is a legal non-conforming use.
Staff’s Response: The 1946 assessment references an “18 x 18” “Laundry & Shed” structure as well as a
“GARAGE” structure. These references are stricken with the word “STUDIO” next to it, which is in
different handwriting. Based on this information, City staff believes that the structure may have been
erected prior to 1930, however, the original structure was a laundry room/shed as reflected in the 1946
Assessment and not a secondary dwelling unit. This analysis is consistent with the Sanborn maps.
1 It should be noted that the City is unable to obtain an unredacted copy of the Assessor’s Records without the consent of the
property owner.
CBOA1 - 9
3
2. Illegal upstairs kitchen and bathroom. In his appeal, the property owner states:
“On October 7, 1931…the City issued a Building Permit for a “residence addition” and
“enlargement of dining room”…The work was to be completed in six days. We believe that
this permit authorized the second floor kitchen area, as the house was two stories high and
we believe the footprint of the house did not change.
Staff’s Response: The 1921 and 1931 Building Permit Applications both reference the house as single
story and staff does not agree that a roughly four foot by fourteen foot “Residence addition enlargement
of dining room” could arguably be construed as a permit for a second kitchen on the second floor. In
addition, the 1946 Assessment only references one kitchen on the first floor. The 1931 permit likely
refers to the pop-out in the dining room area which corresponds to the approximate dimensions in 1931
permit.
3. High Occupancy Use Permit Required. In his appeal, the property owner states:
“No dwelling on the property is advertised for or occupied by more than five residents, so a high
occupancy use permit is not required. The Director relied on an old advertisement that is no longer
used, and the old advertisement did not result in more than five residents at the premises.”
Staff’s Response: The high occupancy residential use permit was included in the Notice of Violation due
to a July 2, 2014 listing on a property manager’s website. The advertisement listed the property as six
bedrooms (Attachment 8). If, as the property owner indicates, the property does not have more than five
occupants, then a high occupancy use permit is not required.
Upstairs water closet. Although the property owner did not appeal the issue of the illegal water upstairs,
we note that the 1946 Assessment only references one bathroom and a bathroom nook both on the first
floor. Further, the upstairs bathroom improvements themselves are indicative of unpermitted
construction. For example, the materials used in the construction of the bathroom, including cabinetry,
piping and fixtures, are not from the 1920’s. The bath tub installed in the alcove under the roof framing,
with clearances of less than 5 feet for the majority of the bathtub space, is indicative of work done
without permits. Minimum ceiling height provisions have existed in the building code for many decades.
Similarly, plastics and manufactured wood products did not exist in the 1920’s for use as building
materials.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Construction Board of Appeals deny the property owner’s appeal and uphold the City
Community Development Director’s decision to uphold the Notice of Violation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Notice of Violations issued on 8/6/14
2) Appeal of Notice of Violations received on 8/18/14
3) Notice of Director’s Decision sent on 10/7/14
CBOA1 - 10
4
4) Appeal of Director’s Decision received on 10/20/14
5) Ordinance 157, Adoption of Uniform Housing Code, 1930 Edition
6) City Building Permits
7) County of San Luis Obispo Assessor Record
8) Pacific Beach Properties rental listing for 1353 Higuera
9) San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) 15.02.010 – Codes Adopted
10) CA Residential Code (CRC) 105.1
11) SLOMC 17.21.050
12) Uniform Housing Code (UHC) 1001.14
13) SLOMC 17.93.050
14) Proposed Resolution No. 2015-
CBOA1 - 11
CBOA1 - 12
CBOA1 - 13
CBOA1 - 14
CBOA1 - 15
CBOA1 - 16
CBOA1 - 17
CBOA1 - 18
CBOA1 - 19
CBOA1 - 20
CBOA1 - 21
CBOA1 - 22
CBOA1 - 23
CBOA1 - 24
CBOA1 - 25
CBOA1 - 26
CBOA1 - 27
CBOA1 - 28
CBOA1 - 29
CBOA1 - 30
CBOA1 - 31
CBOA1 - 32
CBOA1 - 33
CBOA1 - 34
CBOA1 - 35
CBOA1 - 36
CBOA1 - 37
CBOA1 - 38
CBOA1 - 39
CBOA1 - 40
CBOA1 - 41
CBOA1 - 42
CBOA1 - 43
CBOA1 - 44
CBOA1 - 45
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401
March 26, 2015
CALL TO ORDER: 3:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Vice-Chair Niel Dilworth, Member Rebecca Jansen, Member Matthew
Quaglino, Member James Thompson, Chair Robert Vessely
Absent: Member Denise Martinez, Member Stacy Neely
Staff: Interim Chief Building Official Anne Schneider, Code Enforcement Officer
Cassia Cocina, Building and Safety Supervisor Rafael Cornejo, Code
Enforcement Officer James Stephens, City Attorney Christine Dietrick
(arrived at 4:35 p.m.), Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere,
Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied
MINUTES: Minutes of July 29, 2014, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments from the public.
DISCLOSURES
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere disclosed that, as his role is that of attorney to
staff only, he had had no communication with Board Members regarding items on this
agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1353 Higuera Street. Appeal Hearing for Building Code Violations; R-2 zone;
Maria Hutkin, Attorney for William Austin, Property Manager for JKJ Farms LLC,
property owner and appellant.
Anne Schneider, Interim Chief Building Official, presented the staff report,
recommending that the Building Construction Board of Appeals deny the property
owner’s appeal and uphold the City Community Development Director’s decision to
uphold the Notice of Violation, based on findings which she outlined.
In response to inquiry from Members Vessely and Jansen, Interim Chief Building Official
Schneider clarified that the “permit for” section was left blank on key permits for the
property, and that no records documenting the origin of the second story exist.
CBOA1 - 46
CBOA Meeting Minutes
March 26, 2015
Page 2
In response to inquiry from Member Quaglino, staff clarified that the second story is
accessible via both interior and exterior staircases, that which owner performed the
work is unknown due to the County Assessor’s practice of redacting all but the most
recent set of assessment data, that City staff was not able to inspect the secondary unit
at the rear of the property, and that no safety inspection was made because the issue is
irrelevant until legality is established.
In response to inquiry from Chair Vessely, Interim Chief Building Official Schneider
clarified that only the property owner may obtain prior, unredacted assessment data
from the County Assessor. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere noted that, when
approached by the City about the issue, County legal staff did not supply their rationale
for the practice.
Maria Hutkin, attorney for the appellant, commented that the Notices of Violation issued
for the property relate only to unpermitted work, not unsafe conditions; stated that
assumptions had been made in the absence of information, and asserted that there are
only two dwelling units on the property. Hutkin submitted a letter from a licensed
contractor stating that the construction at the site is building code-compliant. Hutkin
indicated the appellants’ position that, as the 1926 Sanborn maps depict both the front
and rear structures now used as dwelling units, there is no clear indication that both
dwelling units have not been in existence since that time. Hutkin stated that the owners
bought the property as-is; requested continuance of the hearing to allow the owner to
attempt to obtain unredacted assessment records.
William Austin, property manager for appellant owner, clarified that City staff had been
denied access to the rear dwelling unit due to legal notification requirements for the
tenants; stated that, to the owners’ knowledge, the upstairs construction was performed
over 20 years ago, and that the primary and secondary units were constructed at the
same time.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Brock Miller, neighboring property owner, noted his observation of a high number of
occupants at the subject property; stated that the occupants of the structure have
introduced more vehicles to the neighborhood than the street has the capacity for.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
In response to inquiry from Member Quaglino, Interim Chief Building Official Schneider
clarified that the third structure on the property is not a garage, as it appears externally,
but a laundry and storage area likely too small for a car. William Austin stated that the
electrical permit on record is for the washer in the garage.
CBOA1 - 47
CBOA Meeting Minutes
March 26, 2015
Page 3
In response to inquiry from Vice-Chair Dilworth, Interim Chief Building Official Schneider
stated that the incompleteness of the City’s building record when compared to the
assessment records is not relevant, as the two sets of data record different events, for
different purposes.
In response to inquiry from Board Member Jansen, Interim Chief Building Official
Schneider clarified that the issue of potentially illegal dwelling units at the site had been
reported by Utilities Department staff, and that multiple units may share one meter if all
are legal; stated that multiple complaints about the property had accumulated, triggering
code enforcement
In response to inquiry from Chair Vessely, Code Enforcement Officer Stephens
indicated that he had personally observed the front and driveway side of the property;
Code Enforcement Officer Cocina indicated that she had been inside the primary
dwelling unit.
Chair Vessely stated that the letter "A" drawn on the rear secondary unit on the Sanborn
Map stands for “automobile,” meaning that the structures was intended for use as a
garage. Interim Chief Building Official Schneider clarified that the terminology used by
staff to distinguish the structure, i.e. “shed,” comes from assessment data. Vessely
commented that assessment data appears to show architecture of “1 ½ stories,”
indicating that it was recognized as such some time before 1946.
In response to inquiry from Chair Vessely, Maria Hutkin confirmed the appellant owners’
willingness to obtain permits to remodel the second story in a manner which will prevent
its use as a dwelling unit, removing kitchen appliances and installing a single, code-
compliant bathroom; William Austin stated that the City would be allowed access to the
rear secondary unit, but Hutkin declined to commit the owners to the preparation of
plans for the unit, pending determination of its legality.
In response to Chair Vessely, Interim Chief Building Official Schneider clarified that
establishing the potential legality of the secondary unit involves an array of development
standards other than building code, such as zoning and lot size; Assistant City Attorney
Ansolabehere clarified that, while the City must legally allow secondary units,
compliance with development standards must still be achieved and has yet to be
examined.
Building and Safety Supervisor Cornejo clarified that “legal non-conforming” means that
construction was permitted (legal) but does not conform to contemporary codes (non-
conforming), and that, if a permit is issued for existing construction, the existing
construction must be treated as new.
Vice-Chair Dilworth commented on the dilemma of rendering decisions in the absence
of complete documentation. Maria Hutkin concurred, stating that if “legal non-
conforming” means work was legal when constructed, further determinations cannot be
made if the date of construction is unknown. Chair Vessely stated that it appears that, in
CBOA1 - 48
CBOA Meeting Minutes
March 26, 2015
Page 4
the absence of information, the owner assumes work was permitted, while the City
assumes it was not.
Interim Chief Building Official Schneider clarified that, as the appeal is based on the
claim that no violation exists, the issue before the Board is whether a violation does
exist; if not, the next step cannot be taken to determine how to correct. Assistant City
Attorney Ansolabehere clarified that staff would prefer to work with applicant to achieve
compliance than to pursue code enforcement, but that the Board must find that there is
a violation before staff can proceed.
Maria Hutkin stated that a finding of violation begins a timeline for fines and
administrative abatement proceedings, which is why the appellants request continuance
instead. In response to comment from Chair Vessely, Hutkin confirmed that the
appellants are willing to assume the burden of establishing that the rear secondary unit
is legal.
In response to inquiry from Member Thompson, Maria Hutkin clarified that none of the
property’s compliance issues would prevent its sale.
Motion by Member Quaglino to continue the item up to 6 months to allow plans to be
drawn for bringing the primary unit into compliance, and either establish that the rear
dwelling unit is legal, or submit plans to bring it into compliance. Motion died for lack of
a second.
Assistant City Ansolabehere commented that the motion resembles the existing code
enforcement process, in that if a violation is found to exist, staff will work with the
owners to achieve compliance.
Interim Chief Building Official Schneider stated that a finding of violation would allow the
City to either pursue or not pursue formal code enforcement, and that such a finding is
necessary for staff to pursue an Abatement Agreement, which is a negotiated document
containing no penalties, just timeframes for compliance.
There were no further comments from the Board.
On motion by Member Quaglino, seconded by Vice-Chair Dilworth, to continue the item
for four months.
AYES: Members Dilworth, Jansen, Quaglino, Vessely
NOES: Member Thompson
RECUSED: None
ABS ENT: Members Martinez, Neely
The motion passed on a 4:1 vote.
City Attorney Dietrick arrived at 4:35 p.m.
CBOA1 - 49
CBOA Meeting Minutes
March 26, 2015
Page 5
Code Enforcement Officer Stephens left the meeting at 4:35 p.m.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff:
a. Presentation of Revised By-Laws
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere summarized the staff report, recommending
that the Board recommend the City Council approve revisions to the Board’s
bylaws, noting that staff no longer recommends the proposed addition to Article III
Section B., which would unnecessarily duplicate language from the California
Building Code prescribing that the Chief Building Official shall be an ex-officio
member of the Board.
In response to comment from Chair Vessely, City Attorney Dietrick stated that
Article II Section B. can be made more accurate by adding the language “…or at a
location otherwise noticed.”
On motion by Vice-Chair Dilworth, seconded by Member Quaglino, to recommend
the City Council approve revisions to the Board’s bylaws as presented in staff’s
report, with the following amendments:
1. Revise Article II Section B. to read “Meetings shall be held in the
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, or at a
location otherwise noticed.”
2. Eliminate the language proposed for addition to Article III Section B.
AYES: Members Dilworth, Jansen, Quaglino, Thompson, Vessely
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Members Martinez, Neely
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
Code Enforcement Officer Stephens returned at 4:40 p.m.
b. Changes to Chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code, Administrative Citation
City Attorney Dietrick summarized the staff report, requesting that Board Members
provide feedback on their interest in serving concurrently on the Construction
Board and the City’s Administrative Review Board (ARB), noting that an insufficient
number of applications have been received for the newly-created board, and that
Council Policies and Procedures allow individuals to serve concurrently on one
technical and one non-technical advisory body.
CBOA1 - 50
CBOA Meeting Minutes
March 26, 2015
Page 6
In response to inquiry from Vice-Chair Dilworth, City Attorney Dietrick stated that
the investment of time necessary for service on the ARB will need to be evaluated
over time.
In response to inquiry from Chair Vessely, City Attorney Dietrick confirmed that
staff will notify the Board when appointments to the ARB are scheduled for Council
hearing.
3. Board: None.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Erica Inderlied
Recording Secretary
CBOA1 - 51
CBOA1 - 52
CBOA1 - 53
CBOA1 - 54
CBOA1 - 55
CBOA1 - 56
Construction Board of Appeals Minutes
DRAFT
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Construction Board of Appeals
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Construction Board of Appeals was called to order on
Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room 1, located at 919 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Vessely.
ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Matthew Quaglino, James Thompson, Vice Chair Niel Dilworth,
and Chair Robert Vessely
Absent: Board Members Rebecca Jansen, Denise Martinez, Stacy Neely
Staff
Present: Anne Schneider, Chief Building Official; Cassia Cocina, Code Enforcement Officer;
James Stephens, Code Enforcement Officer; Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City
Attorney; Monique Lomeli, Recording Secretary
ELECTION OF CHAIR PERSON AND VICE CHAIR PERSON
By consensus, the Board agreed to appoint Member Dilworth as Chair and Member Quaglino as
Vice-Chair.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no comments from the Public.
MINUTES
Motion by Vice-Chair Quaglino, second by Member Vessley, carried 4-0, to approve the Minutes of
the Construction Board of Appeals meeting of March 26, 2015.
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Draft CBOA Meeting Minutes of August 27, 2015 Page 2
DISCLOSURES
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere disclosed that, as his role is that of an attorney to staff only,
Attorney Anne Russell will serve as counsel to the Board in future meetings to circumvent any
conflict of interest issues that may arise.
PRESENTATION
1. Review of Advisory Body Duties
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled “CBOA
Training”, summarizing the role of the Board to adjudicate as impartial decision makers;
presented an explanation of fundamental decision-making, emphasizing the importance of due
process and supporting evidence necessary; explained the limitations on the Boards authority,
noting the absence of authority to waive code requirements.
In response to inquiries from the Board, staff indicated that codes relevant to this Board’s
proceedings would be strictly related to the plumbing, mechanical, electrical, energy, building,
and other construction codes in Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code.
Code Enforcement Officer Cocina explained the measures taken by staff to assist residents in
bringing buildings up to code before escalating a situation.
Chief Building Official Schneider emphasized the City’s desire to work with residents to come
into compliance rather than taking punitive action, noting that most cases are generated by
complaints and are rarely generated by code enforcement officers.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
In response to inquiry from Board, Chief Building Official Schneider provided a brief update on
the Rental Housing Inspection Program, noting that residences with past code violations will be
prioritized for inspection.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Dilworth adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Monique Lomeli
Recording Secretary