HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/1995, 1 - REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL OF DEMOLITION PERMIT AND SUBSEQUENT BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR PROJECT LOCATED AT 1015 NIPOMO (SODA WATER WORKS) MEETING DATE:
��+n�►�►i�IVIIIIIII�I►nIIUIN city of San lues OBISPO t° -3.45
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NU BER: i
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Tom Baasch, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT: Request for Deferral of Demolition Permit and Subsequent Building
Permit Fees for Project Located at 1015 Nipomo (Soda Water Works)
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the request to defer permit fees for projects at 1015 Nipomo.
DISCUSSION:
Background
As a result of the storms of early 1995, the dilapidated structure located at 1015 Nipomo
sustained additional damage due to high water in the adjacent creek. Review of the damage
by City staff after the first storm concluded that a subsequent rise in water level could cause
further damage and collapse of the building. It was determined that collapse would
introduce considerable debris from the building into the creek, which would accumulate at
the first downstream bridge and effectively "dam" the creek. The flooding of the downtown
area as a result of this creek obstruction would cause considerable damage.
On January 10, 1995, the Building Official declared the building to be under the Uniform
Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB) and issued the required notice
and order to the building owner, Mrs. Mary Mitchell-Leitcher. With more storms
forecasted, emergency shoring at the storm-damaged area was constructed by the City.
Since the building remained unsafe and continued to present a potential hazard for creek
obstruction, City staff continued to work with Mrs. Leitcher after the storms to achieve
abatement of the hazard by demolition. She contracted with a demolition contractor to
complete the work and submitted a permit application to the Building Division on
September 11, 1995. Upon resolution of minor details, a demolition permit can be issued.
The owner received necessary Planning approvals for construction of a redevelopment
project on this site prior to the 1995 storms, which included dismantling the Soda Water
Works barn and constructing a new commercial building in its place. Mrs. Leitcher reports
that she has assembled an architect/contractor team for the redevelopment and is
proceeding with the preparation of final construction drawings.
Mrs.Leitcher has submitted a request for deferral of permit and application fees for permits
required for demolition of the unsafe building, as well as construction of replacement
structures until she receives funding from the Small Business Administration. Staff has no
authority to approve such a request; Mrs. Leitcher was so informed several months ago.
Significant Impacts
�_ t
�����►►► �illlllll�° llUll� City of San tuIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The fee for the required demolition permit is only $110. Permit fees for the redevelopment
project will be several thousand dollars.
Approval of Mrs. Leitcher's request to defer fees would be inconsistent with City policy and
previous Council actions regarding such matters: applicants are required to pay plan check
fees at time of application submittal and pay permit and any required impact fees prior to
permit issuance. The Soda Works redevelopment project does not serve any special public
need or established City goal, and, therefore, does not appear to be eligible for special
financial assistance.
Staff is concerned that approval of this request to defer fees will establish a precedent for
similar future requests by other applicants. Collections at a later date may be time
consuming and/or adversarial, particularly as a project reaches completion and occupancy
approval.
CONCURRENCES:
The Finance Director concurs with the recommendation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Costs for deferral of permit fees is difficult to estimate, but they would be significant. For
example, if problems are encountered in the collection of a deferred demolition permit fee,
the cost associated with the staff hours consumed in the collection effort would easily
surpass the $110 fee.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Eliminate Demolition Permit Fees. If Council determines that there is merit to
special consideration of fees for demolition permits for removal of buildings when
the City has determined them to be unsafe per the UCADB and has issued
appropriate notice ordering demolition,provide direction to staff to return to Council
with a resolution which would eliminate demolition permit fees in all such cases.
2. Defer Fees as Requested. As noted above, there are a number of problems
associated with deferring fees, especially in such a small amount. If the Council
believes that some form of fee consideration for the demolition work is appropriate
under the circumstances, it is recommended that fees be eliminated rather than
deferred.
Under no circumstances do we recommend deferral or waiver of fees related to 'the
construction of a replacement project.
ATTACHMENT:
Letter from Mary Mitchel-Leitcher
Mary Mitchell-Leitcner
285 Crestmont Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)541-9209
Arnold Jonas
Community Development Director
City Of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE:Appeal of Fee Determination; Soda Water Works.
Dear Arnold, September 8, 1995
We are ready to begin dismantling of the Soda Water Works as per our agreement
with The City to have our dangerous building remedied by September 11, 1995.
Attached is signed copy of the work order for Negranti Construction to do the work.
Before we proceed with the dismantling we must first have clearance from The
City to do so and some indication that construction will not be held up due to
unpaid permits. We want very much to proceed now and not later into the rainy
season so that we will have time, prior to the rains, to reconstruct the sea wall to
protect downstream property owners in the event of another flood.
In most cases, The City requires fees to be paid up front and developmental review
processed before work can take place. Ours is unique situation in that The City
has required the removal of the building this month and removal must be
immediately followed by rebuilding of the sea wall or we could all be held
vicariously liable for downstream damage.
The Planning and Building department have been working this week recalculating
our fee assessment. The "worst case scenario" assessment, will be made available
to us sometime next week. Preliminary calculations are in and they are:
1st phase: Soda Water Works $13,300
2nd phase: Adjoining commercial building $11,700
3rd phase: Residential units $ 6,300
We agree with the above fee and permit amounts and do not object to paying
these. What we need is to begin plan check review and pull the appropriate permits
for the first phase prior to our SBA loan funding so we can begin construction
before the Winter rains. At the time of funding,we will immediately pay The City
for the first phase fees and permits. This next week we will begin dismantling of
The Barn and concurrently will be submitting our working drawings for plan check
review.
So, we request at-this-time to appeal the determination of fees by the Planning and
Building Department to.City Council for consideration of deferment of first phase
fees until such time a."ur SBA loan is funded (October 1995). Thank you in
advance for your consideration.
Mary-�vlitc ell-L 'tcher
cccJ n Dun . CA _�