HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-29-2013 CBOA MinutesSAN LUIS OBISPO
CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
August 29, 2013
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 1:30 p.m. by Chairperson Robert Vessely
Present: Board Members Robert Vessely, Niel Dilworth, Rebecca Jansen, Mathew
Quaglino, and James Thompson.
Staff: Joseph Lease, Chief Building Official; Ben Ross, Code Enforcement
Officer; Andrea Visveshwara, Assistant City Attorney, and Recording
Secretary Donre Wright.
MINUTES:
The minutes of March 18, 2013, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
DISCLOSURES
Assistant City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara disclosed that she is not the board’s
attorney and that she has not had any communications with the board. She has been
only advising staff.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. 1128 Morro Street. Appeal hearing regarding the requirements of CBC Section
3202.3.1 as applied to an awning installed at the Granada Hotel; C-D-H zone; Roy
Ogden, appellant.
Ben Ross, Code Enforcement Officer, presented the staff report, recommending
that the Building Construction Board of Appeals accept the following staff
recommendations based on findings and subject to conditions which he
outlined:
a. That the appeal is without merit, and is hereby denied for the reasons stated
above or as otherwise determined by the Board; and
b. The violations cited in the Notice of Violation and Administrative Citations are
valid; and
c. That the owner of the property shall be required to submit plans for approval,
obtain approval from the Architectural Review Commission, and obtain all
ARC Minutes
August 29, 2013
Page 2
required permits, including building and encroachment permits, and Planning
approval by September 29, 2013, and obtain inspections and final approval
for the awning or remove the same by October 29, 2013. If the owner elects
to remove the awning, the owner shall first obtain a demolition permit from the
Building Division and an encroachment permit from the Public Works
Department to remove the unpermitted awning; and
d. That accrued Administrative Citation fines in the amount of $300 shall be
immediately due and payable and, if not paid, shall constitute a lien or special
assessment against the property; and
e. If the owner fails to abate the public nuisance, the City may abate the
nuisance and charge the owner for the incurred costs of the abatement which,
if not paid, will become a lien or special assessment against the property; and
f. That, if the owner makes a good faith effort to correct the cited violations by
October 29, 2013, but requires additional time to complete the corrective
actions due to unforeseen circumstances, then the Building Official is
authorized, at his discretion, to enter into an Abatement Schedule and
Agreement with the owner to provide additional time for corrective action; and
g. Any person objecting to this order may appeal to the City Council pursuant to
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 1.20. The appellant shall file with
the City Clerk a written Appeal to the City Council on the appropriate form and
pay the appeal fee of $273. The Appeal must include the order number
appealed, the specific grounds for appeal, and the relief or action
sought. The written Notice of Appeal must be received within ten (10) days
from the date of this order.
Matt Quaglino asked if the sidewalk measurement included the backside of the
curb. Mr. Ross clarified that the measurement includes the curb face and explained that
is why there was an updated photo sheet handed out at the meeting.
Niel Dilworth stated that there are two codes and regulations that govern
encroachments over the sidewalk. One is the Building code and the other is the SLO
City Municipal code. He asked if the Building code was being addressed and if another
body is addressing the Municipal code. Mr. Lease stated that the Public Works Director
has discretion on the issue of encroachment permits over the City right-of-way. He
spoke with Public Works Department and was told if there is a way to make a
modification and if approved with projections as is, they could issue an encroachment
permit. Mr. Dilworth stated the Municipal code standards are more restrictive than the
Building code. Mr. Lease stated that Municipal code standard does not have the two-
thirds restriction for marquees or awnings, only for signs.
Mrs. Visveshwara clarified that the Public Works Department would issue an
encroachment permit if the awning were found to be in compliance with the Building
ARC Minutes
August 29, 2013
Page 3
Code. Mrs. Visveshwara informed the board that they were to address the Building
code issue rather than the Municipal code.
Mr. Vessely asked for clarification regarding whether the opening cut into the wall of the
lobby was to be addressed at this hearing. Mr. Lease answered that it is not to be a
part of this hearing.
Craig Smith, architect, San Luis Obispo, stated that he was asked by the applicant of
this appeal to review some of the issues and elements that have come to the board’s
attention. He pointed out the section 3202.3 (attachment 14) specifically 3.1, 3.2, 3.3
and 3.4. He passed out a handout from the interpretive commentary that is prepared
from the International Code Council (which is attachment 14 in the packet). He stated
that this is a specific component that deals with encroachment permits. The handout
gives a clearer picture to help understand the building code because there is not always
a clear definition of the code. The graphic is very explicit to Section 3202 and he also
stated that the code can be confusing and ambiguous. He stated that in the past, City
sidewalks did not have ten-foot sidewalks. Morro Street had a six-foot sidewalk, which
two thirds of six feet is four feet, which gives the two-foot distance, and on an empirical
level that would be in compliance with the two-foot setback. He stated that the two-foot
setback in the code is not just applicable to the face canopy and is also relevant to a
column or stanchion (Section 3202.3.1). He stated that the street trees propose a
bigger problem than the canopy. Mr. Smith thought that the two-thirds rule comes from
the historical category, and is non-scientific and non-empirical.
Staff had asked what other jurisdictions have done, and Mr. Smith replied that they
researched the City of Glendale, Buellton, Ojai, and San Francisco. He stated that they
all handle the issue differently and in a more applicable way. They break it down with a
more appropriate definition and in a more expanded way. The cities based it on the
context of the downtown core area and that built environment. He stated that the cities
break it down geographically. He thought it was a more relevant approach rather than
having the same rule in different areas. He brought up the Wineman Hotel’s canopy
and that the canopy matches the sidewalk historically, which was ten feet. He feels that
the canopy is safe and is compliant, and the reduction of the encroachment will not
make it any safer. He also stated that his client is prepared to indemnify the City and
are prepared with going forward with the adequate and required process.
Matt Quaglino asked if the other jurisdictions that were mentioned, allowed canopies to
extend as far as the one being discussed at the Granada Hotel. Mr. Smith answered
that the City of San Francisco and Ojai allows the canopies to go all the way out to the
curb line, none of the cities allowed the canopies to go over the curb line. Mr. Quaglino
asked how those jurisdictions can get by without addressing the CA building code. Mr.
Smith answered that every jurisdiction take the code and write accordingly based on
their own issues such as land use issues.
ARC Minutes
August 29, 2013
Page 4
Mr. Lease stated that under CA law, amendments can be made to the code based on
local conditions of climate, topography, and geology. The changes cannot be arbitrary.
Mrs. Visveshwara stated that the City Council has not made those changes to the code
in San Luis Obispo. She stated that San Francisco and Ojai have a slightly different
variation from the code. She stated to the board that today they are being asked to deal
with San Luis Obispo code.
Mr. Quaglino asked how the issue of the tree is to be addressed.
Mr. Smith stated that today was the first time hearing about the issue and concern of
the tree, and it was not a previously documented issue. He stated that if the tree is a
concern, it would be addressed.
Mr. Dilworth stated that if the awning had been part of the original construction
documents, and was submitted to the ARC, and had it not been approved it would have
been discussed strictly on that issue, instead of what is now being proposed. Mr.
Dilworth asked Mr. Smith if he was the project architect, and Mr. Smith replied no.
Mr. Thompson asked what the normal process is when deciding to start more
construction on a non-documented or non-permitted part of the building.
Mr. Lease answered that if any changes are to be made, you must submit a revised
plan and have it approved prior to going forward with the changes.
Rebecca Jansen asked Mr. Lease if plans were ever submitted for the awning, not
counting the structural calculations. Mr. Lease replied that a revision was never
submitted for the awning. Mr. Smith stated that there was never a Building application
submitted for the awning. Mr. Ross stated that there was nothing submitted specifically
to the Planning department. Mr. Ross stated that if plans were submitted to the
Planning Division, there would have been an ARC approval requirement included at the
time.
Roy Odgen, the appellant, stated that he was available for any questions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Mr. Thompson asked about the analysis that was performed by the engineer Mike
Smith, stating that the awning was structurally sound, but it did not deal with the
attachment to the building. Later on in the report, there was another analysis that was
performed however, it was unclear if that report included the attachment to the building.
ARC Minutes
August 29, 2013
Page 5
Mr. Smith stated that a structural analysis was completed, it was submitted, but has not
completed plan check. The engineer of record was asked if the awning was safe and he
stated yes. The only issue remaining unproven is the backup engineering for the
unreinforced masonry to be compliant for the anchoring of the canopy. That issue is to
be analyzed in plan check with permit issuance.
Mr. Quaglino stated that he spoke with the engineer Mike Smith, and was told by Mike
Smith that the awning is safe as long as it is verified. Mike Smith stated that it will be
verified through the plan check once it is submitted to the Building department.
Mr. Lease also stated the safety issue would be addressed at the time the plans are
submitted through the building department.
Mr. Dilworth questioned the issues about the two-thirds measurement in the code and
what the intent of the limitation meant.
Mr. Lease stated that the provision is in the 1927 building code, which was the first
uniform code adopted in CA. He stated that staff had contacted the International Code
Council for clarification and the reasoning on the two-thirds measurement in the
code. He stated that the Council did not have an answer to the question. The
commentary that is provided from the handbook in the staff report is to prevent
interference with vehicular traffic along the street and pedestrian traffic. Mr. Lease
stated that he was unable to find anything that addressed the reasoning of the two-
thirds measurement.
Mr. Lease wanted to clarify that the two-thirds limitation does not apply when the
awning or projection is above fifteen feet.
Mrs. Visveshwara informed the Board that she had asked Mr. Ross to place the side
on the presentation screen with the information regarding the Board’s purview.
Mr. Vessely stated that the two-thirds distance over the sidewalk is still a big issue and
he agrees with Mr. Smith that the history of this code is hard to define. He stated that
there is flexibility to setbacks in residential zoning, however there is no provision in the
building code and the Board cannot waive requirements of the building code. He
questioned if the ARC originally approved the project. Mr. Lease answered yes, but the
awning was not included. Mr. Vessely asked about the issues to the revisions to the
parking, bike racks and sidewalk.
Mr. Ogden stated that he last spoke with Hal Hannula in the Public Works department
regarding the issues of parking, bike racks and the sidewalk. Morro Street should be
more bike friendly since it is part of the Bike Boulevard. There was discussion of
placing a bike rack in the street, similar to the one at the Linneas on Garden Street.
There was discussion about putting a white zone in front of the awning. Mr. Hannula
brought up the issue about how that will affect the rest of the parking on Morro Street.
ARC Minutes
August 29, 2013
Page 6
The plan that is prepared, shows a white strip for loading in front of the awning, and
immediately in front would be the bike rack. There would be no loss of parking from
these two improvements.
Mr. Vessely Stated that without taking the awning down or making any modifications,
the other way to overcome the two-thirds problem would be to make the sidewalk wider.
He asked if any of the design options have been considered for parking if the sidewalk
were to be widened. Mr. Ogden answered that it would be harder to keep the street bike
friendly because the street would be narrower.
Mr. Smith stated that the proposed bicycle parking does not compress the width of the
street.
Mrs. Visveshwara stated that the board could always opt to continue to a date certain
once the bicycle parking is approved by the Public Works Department.
Mr. Dilworth questioned the interference with the tree and if it should be considered or
if it will be addressed with the City’s arborist.
Mr. Lease stated that the tree would be addressed through the plan process at the time
of submittal.
Mr. Dilworth asked Mr. Lease that if the encroachment is denied, who then decides the
status of the awning. He also asked if the Board has the authority to dictate whether the
awning can remain in the interim while the other issues are being worked out.
Mrs. Vishwara pointed out that the resolution that staff prepared and referenced
paragraph C, which a sentence could be added after stating “or alternatively the owner
could come forward with plans to show the widening of the sidewalk, and make it a
compliant structure.”
Mr. Vessely stated he preferred not to make a fining but to suggest modifications to be
made so that the two-thirds issue can be resolved.
Mr. Smith stated that he would like to make a few modifications to make to the Findings
in section two, to eliminate the Findings B, issue of the violation cited and secondly to
the Finding C, by changing the dates. He did not think that they would be able to be
approved by September 29th, 2013 and be able to go any further with inspections by
October 29, 2013.
Mr. Quaglino suggested that the dates be geared toward a package submitted to the
City.
Mrs. Jansen questioned how the violations are not valid as proposed with eliminating
section B in the Findings.
ARC Minutes
August 29, 2013
Page 7
Mr. Smith answered that it was based on continuance not a determination. Mrs.
Visveshwara stated that the owner has conceded that it was built without a permit and
that it was not built to code and there are violations that should be upheld.
Mr. Dilworth agreed that it was in violation the day it was erected and that it should not
be avoided.
Mr. Vessley mentioned that if they could avoid the decision that a violation has
occurred and rather provide an opportunity to solve the problem. He stated to then pick
a date certain that the applicant needs to submit a plan to the Building Division and the
Planning Division to show compliance.
Mrs. Visveshwara stated that by changing the resolution with just the submittal of the
plans, there still needs to be a resolution date and the building official is given discretion
to move the dates as long as efforts are being made in in good faith to comply.
Mr. Quaglino asked if nothing were to be resolved by the date certain, would it be
appropriate for the awning to be removed. Mrs. Visveshwara asked for clarification from
the board, that if the applicant is not compliant, than the awning shall be removed. The
board answered yes.
Mrs. Jansen questioned if the board needs to rule on the code because the awning is
in violation of the code. Mr. Vessely wanted to avoid that point and to provide an
opportunity to resolve the issue and to continue the item with a resolution. Mrs. Jansen
also requested to have additional structural calculations submitted from the engineer in
the interim.
Mr. Lease also raised concern on the structural calculations issue.
Mrs. Visveshwara asked the Chair to ask the applicant and or the applicant’s
representative if they abide to the conditions set in the motion. Mr. Ogden stated that if
there is no appeal, they abide to the conditions.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Matt Quaglino, seconded by Niel Dilworth to adopt the amended
resolution as modified:
1. The Board was unable to find the awning as it exists in compliance with the CA
Building Code.
2. Visual inspection of the awning and its connections to the URM tube steel retrofit
along with complete structural calculations by October 1, 2013.
3. Submit to planning for full ARC review by October 1, 2013.
ARC Minutes
August 29, 2013
Page 8
4. Full compliance within 180 days contingent on final inspection approval or the
awning needs to be removed. (CBO has the authority to extend the deadline if he
feels that the property owner is working in good faith.)
5. Next Friday, September 6, 2013, the property owner is required to fully indemnify the
City of San Luis Obispo to the satisfaction of the Assistant City Attorney.
AYES: 5
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Donre Wright
Recording Secretary