Loading...
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