Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-2016 CBOA Agenda Correspondence (Response to Staff Report)RESPONSE TO THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA REPORT 3:00 pm, Thursday, January 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Director's Decision upholding the Notice of Violation PROJECT ADDRESS: 1269 Fredericks Street SUMMARY Kathie and Steve Walker purchased the property at 1269 Fredericks Street and moved into the main residence in late -2009. Facts proceeding their occupancy are outlined in the appeal and summarized below. After the issuance of the Notice of Violation (NOV), the Walkers were able to determine that items listed in the NOV were incorrect. Assessor's Property Records contradict claims in the NOV that additions made to the main residence were done without permits. In fact, permits for an addition to the main dwelling, including a bedroom and half - bathroom, were obtained in 1946. Additionally, the property was not annexed into the City limits until September 1948. Further, historical documentation and the testimony of a firsthand witness proves that the second dwelling was built prior to 1928 and converted to a dwelling in 1931 -1932. The Walkers appealed the NOV with the documentation and evidence supporting their case yet their appeal was denied on May 6, 2015, by the then - Community Development Director, Derek Johnson. Mr. Johnson cites that building permits are required in the City beginning in 1931, ignoring the fact that the property was not located in the City limits until 1948. Mr. Johnson seemingly ignores the documentation presented by the Walkers in support of their case. Based on Mr. Johnson's complete denial of the appeal, it appears he did not thoroughly read the Walker's appeal. The Walkers then filed an appeal to the Construction Board of Appeals. 1.0 BOARD'S PURVIEW The Construction Board of Appeals' role is to determine if the violations exist under the Residential, Building and Uniform Housing Codes which were adopted pursuant to California Health and Safety Code, Division 13 (Housing), Part 1.5 (Regulation of Building Used for Human Habitation), Sections 17910 — 17998.3 and is the authority for the Codes. Additionally, if there is a finding that the violations do exist. the Construction Board of Appeals may consider the financial situation of the Appellants, as owner - occupants of the property, and the hardship they face (including, among, other things, their inability to pay for fees, fines, the cost of construction) and can provide for deferral of the effective date of orders of abatement based on the extreme hardship. (CA Health & Safety Code 17959.4)' (Attachment 1) Any deferral of the effective date of an order of abatement under this section shall terminate upon any sale or transfer of the dwelling by the owner - occupant. 1 CA Health & Safety Code 17959.4: "The housing appeals board may, in cases of extreme hardship to owner - occupants or tenants of dwellings, provide for deferral of the effective date of orders of abatement. Any deferral of the effective date of an order of abatement under this section shall terminate upon the sale or transfer of the dwelling but shall not terminate upon the sale or transfer of the dwelling if the dwelling is occupied by a tenant other than the owner - occupant." (Attacipment t) Response to Staff Report -1269 Fredericks January 28, 2016 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information /Setting The property is located at 1269 Fredericks Street. The original construction of both residences on the property is not listed in the Assessor's Records. The Assessor created a record for the property when additions were made in 1946 and estimated the property was developed in 1930. According to a neighbor who lived next door to the property beginning in 1928, it contained at least two structures prior to 1928, including the main house and secondary dwelling that was originally occupied as a residence in 1932. 2.2 Background September 30, 2013 The property owner's stepmother /in -law, Kathy LaFollette, filed a code enforcement complaint claiming the property contained code violations. Ms. LaFollette does not live in San Luis Obispo and has never seen the property. She filed the complaint with vindictive motivation in an attempt to hurt the Walkers. October 1,201 3 Ben Ross, code enforcement officer for the City of San Luis Obispo, followed up on Ms. LaFollette's complaint and visited the property. No one was home so, according to Mr. Ross, he looked around the front yard and in the windows of the front room. He left his business card on the front door requesting the owner contact him. October 2, 2013 Property owner, Kathie Walker, contacted Mr. Ross and he explained that a complaint was filed with code enforcement. Kathie told Mr. Ross that her stepmother, Ms. LaFollette, was harassing her family by filing complaints with various agencies, such as Child Welfare Services, the Internal Revenue Service, and now, the City of San Luis Obispo. Ms. LaFollette had also filed a civil action in Federal Court, falsely alleging fraud against the Walkers, and they were in the midst of attempting to defend themselves in that lawsuit. (The lawsuit was eventually dismissed by the Judge, with prejudice against Ms. LaFollette.) Kathie told Mr. Ross that she was headed out of town with their two sons to attend the Solar Decathlon in Irvine. Mr. Ross expressed enthusiasm about the Solar Decathlon and told her that he was a member of the Cal Poly team when they competed years earlier. He shared that he had graduated in 2010 with a degree in Architecture from Cal Poly. Kathie told him that her daughter, Taylor Gilmore, also graduated with an Architecture degree in 2010, with minors in Sustainable Environments and Construction Management. Mr. Ross told Kathie that he had several classes with Taylor and, in fact, he knew she was working for a large firm in Southern California because they were Facebook friends. Kathie told Mr. Ross that she would contact him after her family returned from Southern California. Response to Staff Report —1269 Fredericks January 28, 2016 October 22. 2013 Kathie contacted Mr. Ross and they discussed the complaint. She told Mr. Ross about the demolition that took place following the discovery of a rat infestation when they initially moved into the property, and most recently, the discovery of mold in the drywall of their half- bathroom. She had a persistent lung infection and tests found the source was mold. After investigating, mold was located in the half- bathroom and the contaminated drywall was removed. Steve was based in El Paso, Texas as an FMS helicopter pilot so was not readily available to be home for the inspection. He could not afford to miss work because he had been out of work for three years due to a serious aviation accident followed by the furlough of all of the pilots at his airline /employer. He had found new employment, which was based in Texas. Kathie asked if it was possible to postpone the inspection until after the litigation was over with Ms. LaFollette and Steve was back in California. Mr. Ross said that during his visit to the property on October 15`, he looked in the front windows and yard and didn't see anything that would indicate there are violations. He told Kathie that he would write down his findings based on his observation and send it to his supervisor. He said that would likely be the end of it. Regarding the inspection, Mr. Ross told her that she isn't required to allow code enforcement into the house and that the City would need to get a Warrant to inspect if they felt there were serious violations. He said that he had never seen the City go to the lengths of obtaining a Warrant for an inspection. April 2, 2014 Ms. LaFollette visited the Community Development Department and asked to speak with Joseph Lease, Chief Building Official. She insisted that code enforcement inspect the Walker's property. April 8, 2014 Ben Ross and Cassia Cocina, code enforcement officer, visited the property. Steve was in California. Kathie (who is disabled) had a lapse in her health condition so he needed to care for her and their two sons. Kathie was asleep inside the residence. Steve told Mr. Ross that it was not a good time to inspect and asked to see what code violations were alleged by Ms. LaFollette. Mr. Ross told him he would provide that information and Steve said he would call Mr. Ross to schedule an inspection for a more convenient time after he received the information. Code enforcement never sent the information. April 9, 2014 Ms. LaFollette provided a copy of an appraisal report for the property that was conducted on October 28, 2013, by a real estate appraiser hired by Ms. LaFollette's attorney, as part of her discovery in her lawsuit against the Walkers. The report identified the removal of wall board and kitchen cabinets (due to the rat infestation discovered by the Walkers when they moved into the property), the removal of drywall in the half - bathroom (due to mold discovered by the Walkers), the sloping floors, etc. The report surmised that the accessory dwelling unit was constructed without permits because the City did not have permits on file. The appraiser did not acknowledge that the property was Response to Staff Report —1269 Fredericks January 28, 2016 not annexed into the City until September 1948 therefore not subject to City permits when it was originally developed. During the inspection, the appraiser commented that the accessory dwelling was really nice and asked why the Walkers didn't live there instead of their main home. They told him they needed the rental income it provided, which was the only way they were able to qualify for their mortgage. April 1.1.2014 Ms. LaFollette provided code enforcement with an audio transcript of an informal hearing where the Walkers were questioned by Ms. LaFollette's attorney regarding how they determined the value of their home for the purposes of their bankruptcy filing. The Walkers used MLS records of sold properties on Stafford and Kentucky near their home (which were less than $500,000). Kathie also described the discovery of a rat infestation when they moved in, the actions they took to find and eliminate the rats' nest, and the residual problem. She described her persistent lung infection which was traced to mold, and the actions they took to locate and eliminate the mold. She described a leaking skylight covered with a tarp and sloping floors due to apparent collapse of some of the perimeter foundation. (Subsequently, Assessor's Records were obtained that indicate that the "floors bulge and sag." There has been no movement for at least three decades.) May 4, 2014 Ms. LaFollette's attorney provided code enforcement with a Declaration in Support of Obtaining and Inspection Warrant. May 5, 2014 Based on documents provided to code enforcement by Ms. LaFollette, code enforcement obtained an hnspection Warrant under CA Health & Safety Code Section 17920.3 .2 The Warrant was posted on the Walker's front door. Steve was in Texas and made arrangements with Mr. Lease to have the inspection performed when he could return to California on May 14, 2014. May 14, 2014 Joseph Lease, Cassia Coema and two San Luis Obispo police officers appeared for the inspection. Steve, Kathie and their sons (ages 7 and 12) were at the home. Mr. Lease thoroughly inspected the property over the course of two hours, and had a lengthy conversation with the Walkers, suggesting that they seek recourse from the previous owners and apply for a waiver of fees or pay a single fee to cover the entirety of the construction. He told them about a newly formed Board of Appeals and encouraged them to appeal. '- 17920.3. Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit, guestroom or suite of rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, 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 public or the occupants, thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard building: (a) Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Lack of, or improper water closet, lavatory, or bathtub or shower in a dwelling unit. (2) Lack of, or improper water closets, lavatories, and bathtubs or showers per number of guests in a hotel. (3) Lack of, or improper kitchen sink. (4) Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures in a hotel. (5) Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures in a dwelling unit. (6) Lack of adequate heating. (7) Lack of, or improper operation of required ventilating equipment. (8) Lack of minimum amounts of natural light and ventilation required by this code. (9) Room and space dimensions less than required by this code. (10) Lack of required electrical lighting. (11) Dampness of habitable rooms... Response to Staff Report —1269 Fredericks January 28, 2016 July 18, 2014 A Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued on Friday, July 18, and was received by the Walkers on Tuesday, July 22. July 22, 2014 The Walkers received the NOV and visited the County Assessor's Office to obtain property records. They went to the Community Development Department, gave the records to Ms. Cocina and she told them the City would need time to go over them. She advised the Walkers to ignore the NOV and set up a meeting with Mr. Lease on July 30, 2014. July 30, 2014 Steve and Kathie appeared for a meeting with Joseph Lease and Cassia Cocina. Before Mr. Lease carne into the room, Ms. Cocina gave the Walkers an Abatement Agreement. Mr. Lease joined them and said that he was on his way out of town for vacation in South America so needed to catch a flight at LAX. He asked to postpone the meeting until after he returned and told the Walkers that the Abatement Agreement does not apply. September 1.6, 2014 Steve and Kathie met with Joseph Lease and Cassia Cocina. Mr. Lease looked at the Assessor's Records and could not make sense of them. He asked if he could visit the property and he went to the Walker's property to inspect the property again. He and Steve walked around the property, measured buildings, and discussed the updated information. Mr. Lease said that a new NOV would be prepared and sent to the Walkers. Again, he discussed the various remedies available to them and, bearing in mind their financial situation, said he would speak with someone at the City about combining all permits under one reasonable fee. December 9. 2014 Ms. Cocina emailed an Abatement Agreement to Steve but did not send a copy to Kathie. Steve was at work and did not receive the email until December 17, 2014. December 17, 2014 Steve prepared a letter and sent it to Ms. Cocina and Mr. Lease. He explained that they told him that a new Notice of Violation would be prepared and sent and he had not received that. The Abatement Agreement was premature and contained items that were supposed to be eliminated. (Attachment 2) December 18, 2014 Ms. Cocina responded to Steve's letter and stated that he was correct, she was to provide him with an amended Notice of Violation. She said she would update it and forward to him. (Attachment 3) December 18"' was Ms. Cocina's last day of work through the end of 2014. Meanwhile, Mr. Lease terminated his employment with the City. Response to Staff Report —1269 Fredericks January 28, 2016 January 29, 2015 Ms. Coeina sent an email to Steve, stating that the NOV was sent to Joseph Lease to review back in December 2014 but unfortunately he resigned and was no longer with the City. She attached the "amended" NOV which had not been updated and did not contain the correct date. (Attachment 4) February 2, 2015 Steve emailed Ms. Cocina, stating that the NOV still did not reflect the discussions regarding the changes and did not contain the current date. He reiterated details of previous conversations with Joseph and asked her to call him to go over everything. (Attachment 5) February 23, 2015 An amended NOV was mailed to the Walkers. It still did nor reflect the items discussed with Mr. Lease nor conform to the Assessor's Records, historical documentation and other evidence given to the Community Development Department. March 4, 2015 The Walkers paid $273 and filed an appea13 with evidence supporting their claims, including the Assessor's Records and other historical documentation. May 6, 2015 Derek Johnson, Community Development Directory, denied Walker's Appeal in whole. His ruling is contrary to the evidence presented: The property was not annexed into the City until September 1948; Assessor's Records show improvements were made with permits in 1946; the Assessor is unsure of the date the property was originally developed but estimate it was in 1930; historical documentation proves that the house and secondary dwelling unit existed prior to 1928; historical documentation and sworn witness testimony prove the secondary dwelling unit was converted to a dwelling in 1931 -1932; etc. Based on the brief response and denial in Mr. Johnson's Notice of Director's Decision, it appears he did not fully consider the Walker's appeal. Based on City records, it appears that Mr. Johnson summarily denied every appeal submitted to him while he was Community Development Director. May 15, 2015 The Walkers filed an appeal to the Notice of Director's Decision. 2.3 Appeal The California Health and Safety Code is the authority for the Uniform Housing Code (UHC) the California Residential. Code (CRC), the California Mechanical Code (CMC), etc. These regulations are adopted pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code. Division 12. 3 The $273 fee for the appeal is a hardship for the Walkers. Kathie is disabled and receives $323 /month in disability income which barely covers her medical care. Steve earns $4,200 /month. Their income bracket falls between "very low income" and "low income" according to State standards in San Luis Obispo County. Response to Staff Report —1269 Fredericks January 28, 2016 (Housing), Part 1.5 (Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation), Chapters 1 through 8, (Sections 17910 — 17998.3.) The City cites the UHC and CRC pursuant to section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code: - Inadequate Sanitation (Lack of a formal kitchen sink in the main residence); - Structural Hazards (Sloping floor in front room and a dislodged pier under floor); - Faulty Weather Protection (Damaged exterior siding in two small areas of main residence, Ceiling panels that were determined "cleared" by Mr. Lease due to previous permits); - Hazardous Electrical Wiring (Wiring that was determined "cleared" by Mr. Lease due to previous permits, "Exposed wires" that are actually telephone cables, Two missing faceplates from outlets, Wiring in half - bathroom *); *The Walkers acknowledge that permits are needed for updated wiring in the interior of the half - bathroom which was exposed when drywall was removed due to mold and updated to current code. - Hazardous Plumbing (Plumbing installed in half - bathroom with a permit in 1946, Water heater installed per code by a plumber prior to Walker's ownership but no permit on file, Abandoned PVC pipe on exterior of house, Gas pipe from gas main on property to secondary dwelling prior to permit requirement in 1948); - Structure in Required Setback (Secondary dwelling constructed prior to 1928 when there were no setback requirements [legal nonconforming], Shed sits on property line); -Land Use Approval Required (Use of the secondary dwelling was established in 1932 when secondary dwelling unit constructed/converted to a residence [legal nonconforming use]); - Required Fire Protection (Structure built in 1928 prior to fire wall requirement, Heater vent on exterior wall of secondary dwelling unit). (See Attachment 6, CA H & S Code Sec. 17920.3) Most of the listed items are not violations because they are covered by permits or are established as legal, nonconforming items. "Legal nonconforming construction" is that which lawfully existed on the effective date of construction in the California code, but which does not comply with current California code. Many items listed in the NOV are legal nonconforming items as supported by the evidence. "Legal nonconforming use" of a building is determined when a structure lawfully existed on the effective date, prior to current zoning ordinances, but which does not currently comply with one or more of the property standards for the zone in which it is located. For legal purposes, nonconformity can be proven through various means, including but not limited to Census Records, directories, newspaper articles, Assessor's Records, witness testimony, etc. Once it is established through preponderance of the evidence (that is, to tip the scales to show that it is more probable than not), the burden of proof shifts to the City. Additionally, section 17920.3 provides, "Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit, guestroom or suite of rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, 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 public or the occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard building: [list of building conditions]. The law, Response to Staff Report — 1269 Fredericks January 28, 2016 utilizing common sense, provides a property owner some relief when cited conditions do not endanger the public or occupants .4 California law provides a further measure of protection for an owner - occupant of a residence to prevent the owner from having to undertake the fees, fines and costs, including the cost construction, when those costs pose such a hardship. The law specifically grants the authority to the Construction Board of Appeals, to defer the abatement conditions under CA Health & Safety Code, Section 17959.4.5 3.0 APPEAL EVALUATION 3.1 Consistency with Building Regulations The California Health and Safety Code is the authority for the Uniform Housing Code (UHC) the California Residential Code (CRC), the California Mechanical Code (CMC), etc. These regulations are adopted pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code. Division 12. (Housing), Part 1.5 (Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation), Chapters 1 through 8, (Sections 17910 — 17998.3.). The Board's role is to interpret the law under the CA Health and Safety Code and to render a just decision. Consistent with Building Regulations, "Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit, guestroom or suite of rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the flowing listed conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, propert y safety or welfare of the public or occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to e substandard ..,,6 Regulations also allow the Construction Board of Appeals to provide for deferral of an abatement (compliance) set in place by the City, based on the hardship to the owner- occupants, until the owner - occupants sell or transfer the property? 4 Mr. Lease stated the Walker's home is not dangerous at the first inspection. Code enforcement Staff has caused this case to drag on for over two years without taking any action. Notably, the Walkers promptly responded to every action and every correspondence by Staff. Their appeal was required to be filed within 10 days from the time the Notice was mailed (not actually received) yet months passed without any action or correspondence by City Staff. Their lack of action and failure to abate any "safety concern" confirms Mr. Lease's statement that the house is not dangerous. 5 Section 17959.4. "The housing appeals board may, in cases of extreme hardship to owner- occupants or tenants of dwellings, provide for deferral of the effective date of orders of abatement. Any deferral of the effective date of an order of abatement under this section shall terminate upon any sale or transfer of the dwelling by the owner - occupant.." 6 CA Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 7 CA Health and Safety Code Section 17959.4 Response to Staff Report —1269 Fredericks January 28, 2016 4.0 CONCLUSION Code enforcement does not present an accurate reflection of the facts in this case. They do not recognize the Assessor's Records as they pertain to improvements made to the property prior to annexation into the City, sworn witness testimony, and historical documentation that establish the legal, nonconforming use and building on the property. The items listed in the NOV are not code violations_ as described. According to the NOV, code enforcement requires the Walkers to pay fees under a Use Permit and also bring the secondary dwelling into compliance with today's zoning and building codes. Code enforcement seeks to cause the Walkers to: (1) Pay fees and costs for permits, administration, and hire a contractor to demolish their living /dining room (which is the most stable, climate- controlled room and the hub of their home) and convert it "back" to a carport. It has been a heated, insulated living space for decades.' This would leave the Walkers with a 600 s.f. one bedroom house in two separate parts; Or, (2) Pay fees and costs for permits, administration, and hire a contractor to dig a new foundation under a pre - existing building slab and rebuild the existing living room /dining room "carport" as though it was brand new construction, according to today's code. The Walkers are financially unable to perform either option. As stated, Steve earns approximately $4,200 per month and Kathie receives $32' ) in disability income which hardly covers her medical care. They no longer have the rental income from the secondary dwelling unit until this action is resolved. They have two sons, ages 9 and 1.4. Merely paying for bare necessities such as their mortgage, utilities, groceries and medical care is challenging. The fees and construction costs imposed by the Community Development Department pose an extreme hardship to them. If the Walker's appeal is denied, the clock begins to toll and fines will accrue as they are unable to complete the code enforcement requirements. Ms. Schneider argues that her goal is to work with the owners to gain compliance but does not acknowledge the cost of permit fees, hiring a contractor for construction, etc. is a significant amount of money and unsustainable for some people. (i.e. The elderly on a fixed - income, disabled, low- income households.) If compliance is not reached within the deadline, fines begin to accrue on a daily basis. The law allows the City to take action then charge the owner - occupant with the costs of abatement. The City recently adopted an ordinance that enables them to place a lien on homeowner's property to collect the fees that accrue for code enforcement. The proposed fines and fees are unsustainable and will result in the Walkers losing their home. CA Health & Safety Code Section 17959.4 was enacted to prevent this precise scenario from happenin- to owner - occupant property owners. ' Neighbor Emily Cletsoway has lived in the neighborhood since the 1950's. She remembers the room being part of the structure, as a dwelling, since the 1960's. Response to Staff Report —1269 Fredericks January 28, 2016 4.0 ALTERNATIVES The Construction Board of Appeals should grant the appeal based upon the evidence presented through Assessor's Records, historical documents, sworn witness declaration, correspondence with code enforcement, and California law; and The Construction Board of Appeals should grant relief to the Walkers, pursuant to CA Health & Safety Code 17920. 1, where the violations do not endanger the life, limb or safety of occupants; and The Construction Board of Appeals should grant relief to the Walkers, pursuant to CA Health & Safety Code 17959.4 to prevent hardship of fees and fines imposed by code enforcement and the cost of new construction. 5.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. California Health and Safety Code 17959.4 2. Email correspondence, Steve Walker to Cassia Cocina, 12/17/2014 3. Email correspondence, Cassia Cocina to Steve Walker, 12/18/2014 4. Email correspondence, Cassia Cocina to Steve Walker, 1/29/201.5 5. Email correspondence, Steve Walker to Cassia Cocina, 2/2/2015 6. California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 1110 § 17959.4. Hardship cases; deferral of order of abatement, CA HLTH & S § 97959.4 West's Ann.Cal.Health & Safety Code § 17959.4 § 17959.4. hardship cases; deferral of order of abatement et,Rene„�s The housing appeals board may, in cases of extreme hardship to owner- occupants or tenants of dwellings, provide for deferral of the effective date of orders of abatement. Any deferral of the effective date of an order of abatement under this section shall terminate upon any sale or transfer of the dwelling by the owner - occupant but shall not terminate upon the sale or transfer of the dwelling if the dwelling is occupied by a tenant other than the owner - occupant. Credits (Added by Slats. 1977, c. 847, p. 2548, § 4. Amended by Stars. 1985, c. 1279, § 4.) West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 17959.4, CA HLTH & S § 17959.4 Current with all 2015 Rcg.Sess. laws, and Ch. I of 2015-2016 2nd Ex.Sess. 20! t, ( homa,(M 2eutwi< ',,, ) Jli,ttt to cr=em_il t i 4 C,o eo m,er£ ,t ors. ., �a } ". �. '111.,1,. -:. § 25:22.Appeal and challenge of code requirements -- Local level, 7 Cai. Real Est. §... 7 Cal. Real Est. § 25:22 (4th ed.) Miller and Starr California Real Estate 4th Database updated October 2o15 Harry D. Miller and Marvin B. Stan Chapter 25. Building Codes, Permits, and Enforcement By Karl E. Geier B. Building Codes and Building Standards § 25:22. Appeal and challenge of code requirements —Local level Local appeals process applies. Unless the narrow grounds for the State Commission's acceptance of an appeal applies, i.e., the issue is of statewide concern,' the aggrieved or otherwise affected party only has available the local appellate process. Each local agency (city or county) generally is responsible for enforcement and administration of building standards within its jurisdiction.' The same is true with respect to the State Housing Law; the responsibility for administering and enforcing the state housing law ties with each affected local agency, which is required to establish an appeals procedure for review of the initial administrative or enforcement decisions by the local building officials by a locally- designated appeals board.' In general, the statutory framework does not contemplate that local administrative or enforcement decisions are subject to further appeal to the state, but rather that such decisions are subject to traditional or administrative mandamus actions like other local governmental decisions.' State Building Code appeals process applies to local agencies. Under the State Building Code, every local entity (city, county, or city and county) is required to establish an appeals board to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions and determinations made by that local entity's enforcing agency' As a general rule, the appeals board is the local governing body (city council or board of supervisors), unless the governing body has specifically designated a local appeals board: Any person, firm, or corporation adversely affected by a decision, order, or determination by the local agency with regard to the application of building standards published in the State Building Standards Code, or other applicable local or state buildings standards adopted in accordance with the applicable law,' may appeal the matter to the local appeals board.' If the matter pertains to new construction, the local appeals board is the body to whom the appeal is made, whereas if it involves an existing building, the appeal is made to the local housing appeals board;" in those jurisdictions that have not appointed a separate housing appeals board, the same body hears all appeals whether as to existing buildings or new construction.1,, Appeals of code requirements to local appeals board. Any person, firm, or corporation, or any governmental agency that approves the application of any building standard, including the State Building Standards Code or any requirement of the Department of Housing and Community Development adopted in accordance with applicable law, may request a hearing before the local appeals board. If the local appeals board determines, after a hearing, that because of `local conditions or factors" it is not reasonable for the building standard, rule, or regulation to be applied in the local area, it may so direct; in that event the particular building standard has no application in the local area and the local appeals board is required to file the determination together with a report of the local conditions upon which its determination is based with the Department of Housing and Community Development." In some cases, the housing appeal board also can grant a variance from local use zoning restrictions to allow construction of additional 6e roes o' ms,'n or may eeter a"�ment order for noncompliance or substandard housing in cases of extreme hardship to owner - occupants or tenants.'' The authority to hear and determine appeals granted under the State Building Code is broader and extends to any aspect of the application and interpretation of the codes, whereas the State Housing Law provision addresses only whether a building standard because of local conditions or factors should be inapplicable in a particular local area." © 2015 Thomson Reuters /West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Footnotes See § 25:21 (appeal of code requirements; state level). ._ NP ti 10 ..1"15,� t. G § 25:22.Appeal and challenge of code requirements —Local level, 7 Gal. Real Est. §... 2 ealth & Saf. Code, § 18948. Health & Saf. Code, § 17925. 4 Code Civ. Prow, §§ 1085, 10945. See discussion in 65 Ops. Cal. Auy. Gen. 397, 408 -409 (No. 82 -304, 1982). Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, pt 2, § 1.88. L This regulation goes on to provide that if no separate appeals board is appointed, the local governing body (i.e, board of supervisors or city council) will serve as the housing appeals board for purposes of Health & Saf. Code, §§ 17920, 17920.6. 6 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, pt. 2, § 1.8.8.2. See Health & Saf. Code, §§ 17920.5, 17920.6. See § 25:5 (local variations of state building standards). 8 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, pt. 2, § 1.8.8.3. 9 Cal. Code Regs, tit 24, pt. 2, § 1.8.8.3. 10 See Cal. Code Regs_, tit. 24, pt. 2, §§ 1.8.8.2, 1.8.8.3. Health & Saf. Code, § 17925. See also Health & Saf. Code. 17958.7. `I he authority to make such local determinations is in addition to the local variations provided for in other parts of the code, but is subject to substantially the same requirement that specific local conditions, other than economic necessity, allow for the deviation. See § 25:5 (local variations from state requirements). 1' Health & Saf. Code, § 17959.5. 13 1- tealth & Sat Code, § 17959.4. Compare Health & Saf. Code, § 17925 (appeal of application of State Building Standards Code provisions) with Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, pt. 2, § 1.8.8.3 (appeal of order, determination or decision). r nd of,O'wumem z ? ,t t ''o Jww ioomgma t i'o' o nn..nt It arks. �`�' I � . �i� �,- Gmail - 1269 Fredericks Street Page I of I Steven Walker <stevawaIkersIo@gmaHxom> 1269 Fredericks Street Steven Walker <stevewaI1<ersIo@gmafl.com> Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:55 PM To: "Cocina, Cassia" <ccocina@sIocity.org>, jiease@slocity.org Boo: Kathie <kathiewaIkersIo@gmaH.com> Joseph and Cassia, I have just returned from work and received your email. In response, I have attached a letter to this email. Please give me a call. Steve Joseph and Cassia.doex 15K https:llmail.google.comlmaillul0l?ui=2&ik=34c6259041&view --pt&q=ccocina%40slocity.o... 1/6/2015 Steve Walker 1269 Fredericks Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 December 17, 2014 Dear Joseph and Cassia, I returned home from my work week at Ft. Hunter Liggett late last night and am catching up on emails. I have just reviewed your correspondence and the Abatement Agreement and Schedule and have some concerns. It still includes many items I thought were going to be eliminated and waives my ability to appeal based on the date of the original Notice of Violation. From the time we received the Notice, Kathie and I have been in regular contact with you and have questioned many of the items you listed. We received the Notice on Monday, July 2152 and we went to the City office and spoke with you, Cassia, at the counter that same day. We showed you some records from the Assessor and photos from the MILS when we bought our property. You told us we shouldn't worry about it and said we could get together with Joseph to go over everything and make the necessary changes. Joseph was not available but you scheduled a meeting for us on July 30tH Joseph, you were running late on July 30th and needed to catch a flight at LAX so the meeting was brief. You said you would go over the records when you were back from vacation and we would have another meeting. You both told us not to worry about the dates listed on the Notice and we were under the impression all of the information would be updated in a new notice. We met for the second time the morning of September 161h and went over the Assessor's records. That afternoon you both came out to our property and took some measurements and Joseph, you agreed that a large part of the back cottage (listed as a bedroom and bathroom on the Assessor's records) was built at the same time as the main house. You called it legal, non - conforming. We stood at the back of the property and discussed several options concerning permits and fees. Joseph, you said it might be possible to get one permit to cover all of the improvements. You knew we are in a financial bind and that we did not create a major portion of the code violations. Those that we are responsible for were unintentional, such as removing contaminated materials. I'm not sure if you remember, but we had two inspections done before we bought this property. The Sellers also filled out Real Estate Disclosures. When we moved in we found a lot of problems. The most troubling was the rats that we could hear in the walls and ceiling in the kitchen. There was a piece of cardboard glued over a hole in the paneling of the adjoining bedroom. When we pulled it off the smell that came out was unbearable. We removed the paneling on the kitchen side of the wall (which you now call a carport) and found contaminated insulation and several petrified dead rats. The top of that wall led to a false ceiling made of the same redwood paneling. We removed it and pulled out the insulation that was filled with tunnels and tons of rat waste. Ultimately, we took out the cabinets and insulation in the entire room to remove the contamination. We also found that the kitchen sink did not drain properly (it was not vented) and the plumbing ran along the exterior of the house, so we removed the sink and abandoned the plumbing. (shown in photo 11 of the Notice.) We did not realize it was a code violation to do so. Our goal was to clean up the filth and make our home safer. We provided you with MLS photos that show what the house looked like when we purchased it and shows the kitchen /dining /living areas. It was not a carport. Your Notice on photo 18 says we "converted carport to a living room (new drywall, wall framing and wood floor overlaid on a concrete slab.)" We replaced the contaminated materials we removed with drywall, but some of the original drywall was not replaced. The floor is terra cotta tile and is still visible on the steps down from that room to the master bedroom. We screwed OSB boards on top of the the because we wanted a level surface to put in engineered hardwood flooring. At about this same time I had my aviation accident and we were unable to do any more work. After our last meeting on September 16th I thought we would be formally notified with updated violations, according to the records we provided to you, your second visit to our property, and discussions we had during our meetings. We went to your office to discuss the Notice with you as soon as we received it. You weren't available, Joseph, but Cassia told us not to worry and that we would have a meeting to go over everything. You are now asking that I sign an Agreement based on the original Notice. I don't believe that is fair because we had early conversations with you and you continued to assure us that we didn't need to worry because things would be updated. I am requesting that you provide me with an updated Notice with the new findings at our meetings and your subsequent visit to our property so that I have the opportunity to have my concerns formally addressed. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Walker Gmail - 1269 Fredericks Street 1269 Fredericks Street Cocina, Cassia < ccocina @slocity.org> To: Steven Walker < stevewalkerslo @gmail.com> Cc: "Lease, Joseph" <jlease @slocity.org> Hi Steve, Page 1 of 2 Steven Walker < stevewalkerslo@gmail.com> Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM I apologize for the confusion; you are correct I was to provide you with an amended Notice of Violation. The items that were to cleared was the laundry room (however the wiring needed to be addressed) the portion of roof that had clear plastic in the boys bedroom (I think through the site visit you indicated you were going to fix the roof), the carport conversion only included the living room, the dwelling unit was originally a detached sleeping unit. The items you mentioned in your letter I think we previously discussed. The carport change was sometime between 1969 and 1995. 1 understand that you did not do the conversion but it is still considered unpermitted construction. I am updating the NOV today for you to review. The dates will change on the NOV and abatement schedule as well. I will not be in the office tomorrow or next week, but Joseph tomorrow through next Wednesday (the City is closed Thursday and Friday) If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Sincerely, Cassia From: Steven Walker [mailto :stevewalkerslo @gmaii.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:56 PM To: Cocina, Cassia; Lease, Joseph Subject: 1269 Fredericks Street https: // mail. google. com /mail /u/0/ ?ui= 2 &ik=34e6259041 &view =pt &q= ccocina %40slocity.o... 1/6/2015 Gmail - 1269 Fredericks Street Joseph and Cassia, Page 2 of 2 I have just returned from work and received your email. In response, I have attached a letter to this email. Please give me a call. Steve https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/?ui=2&ik=34c6259041 & view= pt&q= ccocina %40s1ocity.o... 1/6/2015 1/26/2016 Gmail - 1269 Fredericks �� Steven V�a/kmr<siewevva|kens|o��8mai|.cVmn> G �����'���� — 1269 Fredericks Smesoages Cooina,Caaaia <oonoina@s|nnitv.org^ Thu, Jan 29'2015a69:1OAM Hello Steven, It's been a while since our last correspondence. The amended NOV was sent to Joseph to review back in December 2014. Unfortunately Joseph has since resigned and iono longer with the City. | have attached the last amended NOV. The due date on the NOV ie standard and can be ignored since you will be signing an abatement agreement. Please let noe know if you have any questions. CmmsiwCmdna Code Enforcement Officer Clrff OF Community Development Building and Safety B19 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA834O1'3218 Ec000ina@u|ouity.orA T8D5.781.7588 C8O5,540.9224 �� 1269 Frededcksamended 0DVdocx �� 3382K Steven Walker <atovevwdken»|o@omai|.00m> To: Kathie <kathiewalkerslo@gmaii.com> Fyi yu"o*emuxt haaao] Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:56 PM https:llmail.google.com/mail/ut0/?ui=2&ik=34c6259041&view=pt&q=ccwina�/�40slmity.org&qs=tr�&search=query&th=14b36blef57e6abO&siml=14b36blef57... 114 1/26/2016 Gmail - 1269 Fredericks i> j 1269 Fredericks amended NOV.docx 3382K Steven Walker <stevewalkerslo @gmail.com> Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:56 AM To: "Covina, Cassia" <ccocina @slocity.org> Cc: Kathie <kathiewalkerslo @gmail.com> Dear Cassia, I am really sorry to hear that Joseph is no longer with the City. He was such a nice guy and we appreciated his heartfelt efforts to help us. We've been checking our mailbox every day for the updated Notice of Violation ( "NOV "). I have reviewed the one you just emailed me and I am confused and disheartened because it does not reflect the discussions we had with you and Joseph. Although we had the multiple meetings which included a second meeting /inspection at our property when Joseph determined that the secondary dwelling was actually legal non - conforming, the only change that you made to the original Notice of Violation involves the main house. (The elimination of Item 8.E. " Unpermitted laundry room structure and associated plumbing and electrical. ") The revised NOV does not reflect the important revisions we covered during our discussions. For example, although Joseph determined that the secondary dwelling is legal non - conforming, the NOV still states that it is unpermitted, illegal construction. The NOV also indicates the exterior wall of the secondary dwelling needs to be fire -rated because it falls within the 5' property setback, however Joseph explained to me that the construction of a legal non - conforming unit does not need to be brought up to current building code so the setback is not an issue. That would also apply to the water heater, etc. in the secondary dwelling because it had existing plumbing when built about 70 years ago. Regarding the main house, Joseph told us that we did not need to correct the sloping floor and said I just had to go under the house to upright the piers that had apparently fallen over. The NOV indicates that I should have gotten a permit to prop up those piers. Also, during discussions with Joseph during the second visit to our property, he told us that it would be possible for us to obtain one permit to cover everything to avoid the expense of fees. But that is not reflected in the NOV. Instead, it seems to imply that separate permits must be obtained for each item listed. The updated NOV also states that all violations must be corrected within 10 days. Please give me a call when you get a chance so we can go over everything. I have lost trust in this system and don't want a repeat scenario as happened after receiving the initial NOV, when we immediately went to the City offices and were given verbal assurances not to worry about the NOV... that Joseph would meet with us as soon as he was available to correct the issues and a revised NOV would be issued. Please mail me a hard copy of the final updated Notice of Violation with the current date sent, as requested in my email letter sent on 12/17/2014. Although you updated the NOV on 12/19/2014, you didn't email it to me until 1/30/2015. I realize that you have a lot going on and your job is difficult, especially with the current climate of the City. You must be under a lot of pressure. But this ordeal has been very stressful for Kathie and me. We want to get the matter resolved so that we can live in peace, raise our children, and enjoy our lives. htips: / /mai l.google.com /mail /u/0/ ?ui= 2 &ik= 34c6259041& view =pt &q= ccocina / 40slccity.org &qs= true& search = query& th = 14b36blef57e6ab0 &sim I= 14b36b1ef57.. 2/4 -,) , C § 17926.3. Substandard building; conditions, CA FILTH & S § 97926.3 West's Ann.Cal.Health & Safety Code § 17920.3 § 17920.3. Substandard building; conditions Effective: January 1, 2016 cumnmesy Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit, guestroom or suite of rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the Gfe, limb, health, 41 property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard TO ring : -- (a) Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (I) Lack of, or improper water closet, lavatory, or bathtub or shower in a dwelling unit. (2) Lack of, or improper water closets, lavatories, and bathtubs or showers per number of guests in a hotel, (3) Lack of, or improper kitchen sink. (4) Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures in a hotel. (5) Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures in a dwelling unit. (6) Lack of adequate heating. (7) Lack of,, or improper operation of required ventilating equipment. § 97926.3. Substandard buiiding; conditions, CA WLTH & S § 17920.3 (8) Lack of minimum amounts of natural light and ventilation required by this code. (9) Room and space dimensions Tess than required by this code. (10) Lack of required electrical lighting. (1 1) Dampness of habitable rooms. (12) Infestation of insects, vermin, or rodents as determined by a health officer or, if an agreement does not exist with an agency that has a health officer, the infestation can be determined by a code enforcement officer, as defined in Section 829.5 of the Penal Code, upon successful completion of a course of study in the appropriate subject matter as determined by the local jurisdiction. (13) Visible mold growth, as determined by a health officer or a code enforcement officer, as defined in Section 829.5 of the Penal Code, excluding the presence of mold that is minor and found on surfaces that can accumulate moisture as part of their properly functioning and intended use. (14) General dilapidation or improper maintenance. (15) Lack of connection to required sewage disposal system. (16) Lack of adequate garbage and rubbish storage and removal facilities, as determined by a health officer or, if an agreement does not exist with an agency that has a health officer, the lack of adequate garbage and rubbish removal facilities can be determined by a code enforcement officer as defined in Section 829.5 of the Penal Code. (b) Structural hazards shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Deteriorated or inadequate foundations. (2) Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports. § 17920.3. Substandard building; conditions, CA HL i H & S § 17920.3 (3) Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. (4) Members of walls, partitions, or other vertical supports that split, lean, list, or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. (5) Members of walls, partitions, or other vertical supports that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. (6) Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members which sag, split, or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. (7) Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. (A) Fireplaces or chimneys which list, bulge, or settle due to defective material or deterioration. (9) Fireplaces or chimneys which are of insufficient size or strength to carry imposed loads with safety. (e) Any nuisance. (d) All wiring, except that which conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation if it is currently in good and safe condition and working properly. (e) All plumbing, except plumbing that conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation and has been maintained in good condition, or that may not have conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation but is currently in good and safe condition and working properly, and that is free of cross connections and siphonage between fixtures. (f) All mechanical equipment, including vents, except equipment that conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation and that has been maintained in good and safe condition, or that may not have conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation but is currently in good and safe condition and working properly. (g) Faulty weather protection, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following: �.,��4v�`.v_ § 17520.3. Substandard building; conditions, CA HLTH $ S § 17920.3 (1) Deteriorated, stumbling, or loose plaster. (2) Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations, or floors, including broken windows or doors. (3) Defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint, or weathering due to lack of paint or other approved protective covering. (4) Broken, rotted, split, or buckled exterior wall coverings or roof coverings. (h) Any building or portion thereof, device, apparatus, equipment, combustible waste, or vegetation that, in the opinion of the chief of the fire department or his deputy, is in such a condition as to cause a fire or explosion or provide a ready fuel to augment the spread and intensity of fire or explosion arising from any cause. (i) All materials of construction, except those that are specifically allowed or approved by this code, and that have been adequately maintained in good and safe condition. (j) Those premises on which an accumulation of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage, offal, rodent harborages, stagnant water, combustible materials, and similar materials or conditions constitute tire, health, or safety hazards. (k) Any building or portion thereof that is determined to be an unsafe building due to inadequate maintenance, in accordance with the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code. (1) All buildings or portions thereof not provided with adequate exit facilities as required by this code, except those buildings or portions thereof whose exit facilities conformed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and that have been adequately maintained and increased in relation to any increase in occupant load, alteration or addition, or any change in occupancy. When an unsafe condition exists through lack of, or improper location of, exits, additional exits may be required to be installed. (m) All buildings or portions thereof that are not provided with the fire- resistive construction or fire - extinguishing systems or equipment required by this code, except those buildings or portions thereof that conformed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and whose fire- resistive integrity and fire- extinguishing systems or equipment have been adequately maintained and improved in relation to any increase in occupant load, alteration or addition, or any change in occupancy. § 17920. 3. Substandard building; conditions, CA HLTH & S § 17920,3 (n) All buildings or portions thereof occupied for living, sleeping, cooking, or dining purposes that were not designed or intended to be used for those occupancies. (o) Inadequate structural resistance to horizontal forces. "Substandard building" includes a building not in compliance with Section 13143.2. However, a condition that would require displacement of sound walls or ceilings to meet height, length, or width requirements for ceilings, rooms, and dwelling units shall not by itself be considered sufficient existence of dangerous conditions making a building a substandard building, unless the building was constructed, altered, or converted in violation of those requirements in effect at the time of construction, alteration, or conversion. Credits (Added by Stats.1979, c. 434, p. 1553, § 2. Amended by Stats.1982, c. 1545, § 1; Stats.2000, c. 471 (A.B.2008), § 4; Stats.2013, c. 89 (S.13.488), § 2; Stats.2015, c. 720 (S.13.655), § 3, elf. Jan. 1, 2016.) Notes of Decisions (2) West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 179203, CA HLTH & S § 17920.3 Current with all 2015 ReE.Sess. laws, and Ch. 1 of 2015-2016 2nd Ex.Sess. 1, nd W Docuartst "0 " 5 "Ihonsm. R'ni F, \, , lain, lo o, t;l i. ti i ioveinmca, 1t5rk, .