HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-26-2015 CBOA MinutesSAN 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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