HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-17 CBOA Agenda
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Agenda
Construction Board of Appeals
Monday, August 7, 2017
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Niel Dilworth
ROLL CALL: Board Members Gresham Eckrich, Denise Martinez, James Thompson, Robert
Vessley, and Chair Niel Dilworth
1. Minutes of the Construction Board of Appeals Meeting of May 24, 2017
2. 1973 Royal Way Appeal Hearing for Building Code Violations; R-1 zone; Diane and John
Villa, property owners and appellant. (Steve Sheats)
10:00 am REGULAR MEETING Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
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 three 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 actions 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. If
you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Any decision of the
Construction Board of Appeals is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the
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 $281 and must accompany the
appeal documentation.
San Luis Obispo – Regular Meeting Agenda of July 27, 2017 Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the
public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s
Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications
Device for the Deaf (805)781-7107.
Construction Board of Appeals Minutes
DRAFT
Thursday, May 24, 2017
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, May 24, 2017 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Dilworth.
OATH OF OFFICE
City Clerk Carrie Gallagher administered the oath of office to new Board Members
Gresham Eckrich and Greg Starzyk and returning Board Member James Thompson.
ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Gresham Eckrich, James Thompson, Robert Vessely,
Denise Martinez, Greg Starzyk, and Chair Niel Dilworth
Absent: None
Staff
Present: Anne Schneider, Chief Building Official; Teresa Purrington, Code
Enforcement Supervisor; Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City Attorney; Anne
Russell, Interim Assistant City Attorney;
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Board member Vessely nominated and Board member Thompson seconded, Mr. Niel
Dilworth for Chair. Mr. Dilworth was elected by a unanimous vote to the position of Chair.
Chairman Dilworth nominated and Board member Thompson seconded Mr. Gresham
Eckrich for Vice-Chair. Mr. Eckrich was elected by a unanimous vote to the position of
Vice-Chair.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no comments made from the public.
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Minutes – Construction Board of Appeal May 24, 2017 Page 2
MINUTES
Motion by Board Member Vessely, second by Board Member Martinez, carried 6-0, to
approve the Minutes of the Construction Board of Appeals meeting of January 28, 2016.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. ORIENTATION
The Board received a presentation from Staff Liaison Anne Schneider, PE.
regarding the selection of regular potential meeting times and dates. It was agreed that
Thursday afternoons after 4 pm was acceptable to all members and dates would be
selected as needed by consensus of the board.
2. Brown Act & Recusals
The Board received a presentation from Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere
regarding the Brown Act and the procedures and process for a Board Member to recuse
themselves from consideration of an item on the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Dilworth adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Schneider, PE,
Staff Liaison and Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: August 7, 2017
Item Number: 2
2X1
CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Appeal of Administrative Citation for Construction Without a Permit
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1973 Royal Way BY: Steve Sheats, Code Enforcement Officer
Phone Number: (805) 783-7841
E-mail: ssheats@slocity.org
FROM: Anne Schneider, Chief Building Official
RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Administrative Citation for constructing a retaining wall without
a permit.
SITE DATA
SUMMARY
On October 13, 2016 Code Enforcement staff received a request for field investigation regarding possible
unpermitted construction at 1973 Royal Way. Staff attempted to do an inspection however no one was
home when staff arrived. A business card was left at the residence with a request to contact staff as soon
as possible. While staff was at the residence they observed what appeared to be a concrete block wall
under construction.
On October 14, 2016, after a Stop Work Order was posted, Mr. Villa contacted Code Enforcement
Officer Steve Sheats and agreed to meet on-site for an inspection. During the inspection, Mr. Villa was
advised that a permit would be required for the retaining wall. Mr. Villa came to the Building Department
to apply for a permit but was advised that per California Building Code section 105.1 he would need to
submit plans approved by a licensed engineer prior to obtaining a permit. Mr. Villa disagreed with this
requirement and left. A Notice of Violation was issued for construction without a permit.
On April 3, 2017 Code Officer Sheats checked to see if Mr. Villa had obtained the required building
Appellant Diane and John Villa, Residents
Zoning R-1-S
Appeal
Submittal
June 12, 2017
General Plan Low Density Residential
Site Area ~14,500 Square feet
Code Violation California Building Code §A105.1
Staff Report – 1973 Royal Way
August 7, 2017
Page 2
permit. Since no permit had been obtained an Administrative Citation was issued. Mr. and Mrs. Villa
appealed the citation.
1.0 BOARD’S PURVIEW
The Construction Board of Appeals’ role is to determine if the violation exists.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject property is located on Royal Way in San Luis Obispo. The immediate neighborhood
consists of single family homes. According to the San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office, the
three-bedroom residence was constructed on the property in 1991.
Site Size ~14,500
Present Use & Development Single-family residence
Access Royal Way
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-1 (Single-family residences)
South: C/OS (Conservation/open space)
East: R-1 (Single-family residences)
West: R-1 (Single-family residences)
2.2 Background
October 13, 2016
Staff followed up on a concern regarding possible unpermitted construction. No one was home at the
initial visit although what appeared to be a concrete block wall under construction was seen from the
public right of way. Contact information was left at the front door of the main house requesting the
occupant contact Code Enforcement.
October 14, 2016
Code Enforcement Staff attempted to make contact at the residence again, but the property owner
was not home. From the public right of way, staff was able to see through an open gate to the
backyard. A large scale retaining wall was observed to be under construction. A Stop Work Order
was issued. Later in the day, John Villa called and agreed to meet for an on-site inspection. During
the inspection Mr. Villa was advised that a permit would be required. Mr. Villa came into the
Building Department to apply for a permit. He was advised that plans would need to be approved by
a licensed engineer. Mr. Villa disagreed and left.
October 17, 2016
A Notice of Violation was sent to the address for construction without a permit with a compliance
date of November 16, 2016.
October 25, 2016
Mr. Villa contested the Notice of Violation and requested a Director’s Review.
Staff Report – 1973 Royal Way
August 7, 2017
Page 3
January 18, 2017
From the public right of way in front of the residence, a clear view into the backyard revealed that
work had continued on the retaining wall, despite the Stop Work Order. Additional concrete blocks
were added to the wall.
January 23, 2017
A Director’s Determination as issued which upheld the Notice of Violation. A new deadline of
February 23, 2017 was given for submitting plans.
February 14, 2017
A follow-up Stop Work Order was hand delivered to Mr. Villa at the residence due to a permit still
not being obtained. Due to citizen concerns that work had continued on the wall, despite the original
Stop Work Order, Mr. Villa was questioned if work on the wall had continued. He denied any further
work was done. While walking on a public trail behind the residence (Sterling Trail) work being
conducted on the retaining wall was visible. It appeared that pavers were being cut and laid.
March 28, 2017
An inspection from a neighboring property revealed that work had continued on the retaining wall.
Pavers had been laid on a large section of the wall.
April 3, 2017
An Administrative Citation issued due to no permit being obtained.
April 13, 2017
Mr. and Mrs. Villa appealed the citation.
June 5, 2017
A letter was sent informing Mr. and Mrs. Villa that the requested appeal was incomplete and
therefore rejected. A deadline of June 15, 2017 was given to request to have a hearing by the
Construction Board of Appeals.
June 12, 2017
Complete appeal request received from Mr. and Mrs. Villa to have a hearing by the Construction
Board of Appeals.
2.3 Appeal
The Appellant refutes the applicability of the violations stating Permit Required - California
Building Code (CBC) A105.1 – See attachment 7 – Appeal request
3.0 APPEAL EVALUATION
3.1 Consistency with Building Regulations
The City’s adopted codes include the California Residential Code and California Building Code,
which states that “Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair,
Staff Report – 1973 Royal Way
August 7, 2017
Page 4
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, the installation
of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application
to the building official and obtain the required permit.” Under the category “Work Exempt from
Permit” it lists “Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet (1219mm) in height measured from the
bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II
or IIIA liquids.” There are multiple levels of the retaining wall which, in total, are over four feet. In
addition, the wall supports a surcharge as it is built on a hillside. There are no permits on file for the
retaining wall.
A retaining wall serves to support soil and other materials so as to create a difference in height
between the two sides of a wall. A basement exterior wall is an example of a retaining wall that is
found in everyday life. The interior side has a lower elevation for the floor than the elevation of the
outside of the building. Retaining walls are used in many locations to transition from a higher to
lower level, using a combination of flat and sloped areas of soil. The retaining wall can also support
a surcharge which is a) soil mounded up (“not level”) at the upper surface of the retaining wall or b)
a material other than soil which is supported by the wall. A surcharge loading exists any time a
weight or “load” other than flat, well-drained soil exists in close proximity to a retaining wall. Such
loads can be mounded or sloped dirt, concrete paving, a vehicle path (driveway), water saturated soil,
or any other material that exceeds the nominal loading of clean well-drained soil.
A retaining wall that is less than 4 feet in height, from the bottom of the footing for the wall to the
top of the wall is exempt from a permit, provided that the wall does not support any surcharge
loading. In constructing a retaining wall on a hillside, the sloping surface above the retaining wall
creates a surcharge loaded lower wall. The retaining wall must not support any loads except level
well drained soil. Even water retaining behind a wall can cause a structural failure and potential
collapse of the retaining wall. Installation of paving above a retaining wall to support a patio or other
area for use is also a surcharge. Removing the soil above a retaining wall to create a flat space does
not eliminate the surcharge loading as the next higher wall above the lowest wall may then surcharge
the lower wall.
A series of walls extended up a hillside with insufficient separation between the walls to eliminate
the weight of one wall acting as a surcharge on the lower wall creates a surcharged lower wall that
must meet the design requirements of the California Building Code to be permitted. The design of
a retaining wall requiring a permit must be prepared, stamped and signed by a licensed professional,
either an Architect or a Civil/Structural Engineer.
The appellant contends that permits and approvals are not required for the retaining wall, stating that
it is not over four feet. Photos of the walls in question show various heights as noted by the number
of 8” tall concrete blocks shown above the soil, varying from less than 48” exposed above grade to
as much as 9-8” blocks for an exposed height of 6 feet (72”).
The licensed professional retained to design the retaining walls requiring permits will identify and
distinguish between walls that are exempt from permit and those that require design and a permit.
The submission of that design will be reviewed for compliance with the Code and a permit issued.
The work requiring a permit will be inspected and the work identified as exempt from permit will be
Staff Report – 1973 Royal Way
August 7, 2017
Page 5
verified as meeting the criteria for an exempt wall.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The retaining wall was built without the proper permit. Plans need to be prepared by a licensed
Engineer or Architect.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Grant the appeal based on different or modified findings.
2. Continue the action and request that staff and/or the appellant provide more information.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Notice of Violation (October 17, 2016)
2. Appeal (October 25, 2016)
3. Directors Decision (January 23, 2017)
4. Administrative Citation (April 3, 2017)
5. Administrative Citation Appeal (April 13, 2017)
6. Administrative Citation Appeal Rejection Letter (June 5, 2017)
7. Administrative Citation Appeal (June 12, 2017)
8. Example of retaining wall that would not require a permit
9. Photos of retaining wall at 1973 Royal Way
CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CONSTRUCTION
BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
CITATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1973 ROYAL WAY
APN: 053-116-029
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016, a Notice of Violation was issued by Code Enforcement
Staff to the property owner of the above referenced property for violations of the California Building
Code (CBC) and City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) for unpermitted construction,
and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2016, the Community Development Director received a Request
for Director’s Review referencing the Notice of Violation, and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2017, the Community Development Director issued his decision
rejecting the appeal, and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2017, an Administrative Citation was issued by Code Enforcement
Staff to the property owner of the above referenced property for failure to obtain a building permit for
the unpermitted construction, and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2017 the City Clerk received a completed Administrative Citation
Appeal, and
WHEREAS, the Construction Board of Appeals of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
properly noticed public hearing in City Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on August 7, 2017 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
Administrative Citation, 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 hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Construction Board of Appeals of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
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
staff in fact existed on the date of the Notice and continue to exist, and as such
Resolution No. 2017-___
Page 2
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 Engineer or Architect, obtain the required building permits and planning
approvals, 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 Violation
within 90 days of the Board’s decision.
D. That if the owner makes a good faith effort to correct the cited violations, but requires
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. Judicial Review After Hearing by Administrative Review Board or Construction Board
of Appeals – Petition for Writ. The appellant may seek judicial review of the
administrative review board’s or construction board of appeals’ decision by filing a
petition for writ with the San Luis Obispo superior court. The time within which the
petition must be filed and the applicable requirements are governed by the California
Civil Procedure. The petition for writ shall be served upon the city clerk. The petitioner
must pay to the superior court the appropriate filing fee when the petition is filed.
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 7th day of August 2017.
_____________________________
Anne Schneider, Secretary
Construction Board of Appeals