Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-2016 CBOA Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Construction Board of Appeals Thursday, January 28, 2016 Council Hearing Room 3:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CALL TO ORDER: Chair Dilworth ROLL CALL: Board Members Rebecca Jansen, Denise Martinez, Stacy Neely, James Thompson, Robert Vessley, Vice-Chair Matthew Quaglino, and Chair Niel Dilworth CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Minutes of the Construction Board of Appeals meeting of October 15, 2015 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: 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 five 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 1. 1269 Fredericks St. Appeal Hearing for Building Code Violations; R-2 zone; Steven and Kathie Walker, property owners and appellant. (Cassia Cocina) NOTE: Any court challenge to the action 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. Any decision of the Construction Board of Appeals is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed since they are not a final 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 $279 and must accompany the appeal documentation. Construction Board of Appeals Page 2 If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six minutes. ADJOURNMENT Meeting Date: January 28, 2016 Item Number: 12X1 CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Appeal of the Director’s Decision upholding the Notice of Violation PROJECT ADDRESS: 1269 Fredericks St. BY: Cassia Cocina, Code Enforcement Officer Phone Number: 781-7588 e-mail: ccocina@slocity.org FROM: Anne Schneider, Chief Building Official RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal and supporting the Director’s Decision to uphold the Notice of Violation. SITE DATA SUMMARY City staff received a complaint regarding substandard housing conditions at 1269 Fredericks St. On May 14, 2014 an inspection of the property was conducted by the Chief Building Official and Code Enforcement and the code violations were documented. The property owner received a Notice of Violation for numerous municipal code violations including inadequate sanitation, construction without permits, structural hazards, plumbing and electrical hazards. The Notice of Violation was appealed by Steven and Kathie Walker, the property owners and residents of 1269 Fredericks St.1 1 Note that this case was appealed prior to the effective date of the amendments to SLOMC 1.24. Appellant Steven and Kathie Walker, Residents Zoning R-2 Appeal Submittal May 15, 2015 General Plan Medium Density Residential Site Area ~7,500 Square feet Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Section 15321(a)(2) adoption of an administrative decision. Staff Report - 1269 Fredericks January 28, 2016 Page 2 1.0 BOARD’S PURVIEW The Construction Board of Appeals’ role is to determine if the violations exist. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting The subject property is located on Fredericks Street in San Luis Obispo. The immediate neighborhood consists of duplexes, apartments, and single family homes. According to the San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office, the two bedroom residence was constructed on the property in 1930. Site Size ~7,500 Present Use & Development Single-family residence Access Fredericks Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-2 (Single-family residences) South: R-2 (Multi-family residences) East: R-2 (Single-family residences) West: R-2 (Single-family residences) 2.2 Background October 1, 2013 Staff followed up on a complaint received on September 30, 2013 regarding substandard housing conditions and visited the property. No one was home at the initial visit and the existence of interior violations could not be determined. Contact information was left at the front door of the main house requesting the occupant contact Code Enforcement. October 2, 2013 Kathie Walker, an occupant of the property and spouse of the owner, contacted Code Enforcement Officer Ben Ross stating they would be out of town and they would contact code enforcement when they returned. October 22, 2013 Kathie Walker contacted Officer Ross and stated that they would not grant access to the property until a pending civil case regarding the property was resolved. April 8, 2014 Code Enforcement visited the property and requested consent to inspect. The property owner, Steven Walker denied the request. April 9, 2014 The complainant, who was a party to the pending civil case against the Walkers, forwarded to code enforcement a copy of an appraisal report for the property that was conducted on October 28, 2013. The report identified numerous substandard conditions, including lack of operable kitchen sink, exposed wiring, damaged floors and foundation and a general state of disrepair due to an Staff Report - 1269 Fredericks January 28, 2016 Page 3 incomplete remodel. It also identified a detached structure which was converted to a rental unit without required building permits. A review of City records indicated that no permits were obtained for the alleged remodel of the main house and alleged conversion of the detached structure to a rental unit. April 11, 2014 The complainant forwarded to code enforcement an audio transcript of a May 2013 hearing wherein the Walkers testified to the substandard conditions in the home. Kathie Walker states that the main house is infested with rats, the roof leaks and is covered with a tarp, there is no kitchen, portions of the foundation have collapsed and the house is in disrepair due to the incomplete remodel. May 5, 2014 Following the research of available city and county records (Attachment 2), review of the Residential Appraisal Report, the audio transcript of the bankruptcy hearing and the original complaint, it was determined that there was sufficient probable cause that property was in violation of the CA Health & Safety Code Section 17920.3 and is a substandard building. Based on this evidence, an inspection warrant was obtained and executed. May 14, 2014 The Inspection Warrant was served and an inspection was conducted by the Chief Building Official and Code Enforcement Officers. The inspection revealed numerous violations including inadequate sanitation, construction without permits, unpermitted second dwelling unit, structural, plumbing and electrical hazards. July 18, 2014 A Notice of Violation (NOV) (Attachment 3) was issued to the property owner for the main house and the detached structure for unpermitted construction, structural hazards, inadequate drainage around structure, inadequate sanitation, hazardous plumbing, hazardous electrical, lack of required smoke detectors, lack of carbon monoxide detectors, lack of fire protection, faulty weather protection, and lack of land use approval for a second dwelling unit. July 30, 2014 A meeting was conducted with property owner, Chief Building Official and Code Enforcement to discuss violations at property. September 16, 2014 Second meeting conducted with the property owner and City Staff and a second inspection was performed. December 9, 2014 As per a discussion with property owner, an Abatement Agreement (Attachment 4) was drafted to address the violations at the subject property and provide a reasonable timeline for compliance. December 17, 2014 An email response was received from property owner that the Abatement Agreement did not Staff Report - 1269 Fredericks January 28, 2016 Page 4 accurately reflect amended items that were discussed. The property owner requested an amended NOV to reflect the changes. December 18, 2014 A revised NOV was agreed upon which excluded the laundry room and the plastic covering; clarified that the carport conversion only included the construction in the living room, and the dwelling unit was originally a detached bedroom. January 29, 2015 An amended NOV was sent to property owner. February 23, 2015 The amended NOV (Attachment 5) with the correct date was sent to property owner with cover letter outlining options available to come into compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and the Building Codes. March 4, 2015 Appeal (Attachment 6) received from property owner to dismiss NOV and waive fees. May 6, 2015 Notice of Director’s Decision (Attachment 7) upholding the NOV was sent to the property owner. May 15, 2015 Appeal (Attachment 8) received on May 15, 2015 requesting dismissal of NOV and waiver of fees. 2.3 Appeal The Appellant refutes the applicability of the violations stating Permit Required - California Residential Code (CRC), Inadequate Sanitation – Uniform Housing Code (UHC) 1001.2. and 1001.2.13, Structural Hazards – UHC 1001.3.2 and 1001.3.7, Faulty Weather Protection – UHC 1001.8, Hazardous Electrical Wiring – UHC 1001.5, Hazardous Plumbing – UHC 1001.5, Structure in Required Setback – 17.17.020C, Land Use Approval Required – 17.21, Required Fire Protection – CRC 302.1 and California Mechanical Code 802.8.6. 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, 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.” There are no permits on Staff Report - 1269 Fredericks January 28, 2016 Page 5 file for the interior remodel of the main house, alteration and modifications to the approved detached bedroom or approved change of use of the detached bedroom to secondary unit. In addition, there are no permits for the electrical rewiring, plumbing, and water heater installations in both units. The appellant contends that permits and approvals are not required for the main house and back unit alterations/modifications. 4.0 CONCLUSION The alterations made to the main house and back unit were made without obtaining the required permits or approvals. 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. Draft Resolution 2. County Building Record 3. Notice of Violation (July 18, 2014) 4. Proposed Abatement Agreement (December 9, 2014) 5. Amended Notice of Violation (February 23, 2015) 6. Appeal (March 4, 2015) 7. Directors Decision (May 6, 2015) 8. Appeal letter to the Construction Board of Appeals (May 15, 2015) ATTACHMENT 1 CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEAL RESOLUTION NO. 2016-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEAL REGARDING AN APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1269 FREDERICKS APN: 002-334-007 WHEREAS, on July 18, 2014, a Notice of Violation was issued by City Code Enforcement Staff to the property owner of the above referenced property for violations of the California Residential Code (CRC), Uniform Housing Code (UHC) and City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) for unpermitted construction, unpermitted dwelling unit, and improper occupancy and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2014, and September 16, 2014 the Chief Building Official, Code Enforcement staff and the property owner met to discuss the violation and to conduct a second inspection, and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2015, an Amended Notice of Violation was issued by the City Code Enforcement Staff to the property owner for violations to the California Residential Code (CRC), Uniform Housing Code (UHC) and City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) for unpermitted construction unpermitted dwelling unit, and improper occupancy, and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2015, the Community Development Director received an appeal letter and a Request for Director’s Review referencing the Amended Notice of Violation and fees, and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2015, the Community Development Director issued his decision rejecting the appeal, and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2015, the Community Development Department received, an Appeal of the Director’s Decision, WHEREAS, the Construction Board of Appeals of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a properly noticed public hearing in City Council Conference Room, of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 28, 2016 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 determination of the Director, 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 Building Construction Board of Appeals of Resolution No. 2016-___ Page 2 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 Amended Notice of Violation issued by the Code Enforcement staff in fact existed on the date of the Amended Notice and continue to exist, and as such 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 design professional, 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 Amended 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. 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 $268. 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. 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 ___th day of January 2016. _____________________________ Anne Schneider, Secretary Construction Board of Appeals Construction Board of Appeals Minutes DRAFT Thursday, October 15, 2015 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, October 15, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room 1, located at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Dilworth. ROLL CALL Present: Board Members Denise Martinez, James Thompson, Robert Vessely, Vice-Chair Mathew Quaglino, and Chair Niel Dilworth Absent: Board Members Rebecca Jansen and Stacy Neely Staff Present: Anne Schneider, Chief Building Official; Cassia Cocina, Code Enforcement Officer; Teresa Purrington, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner; Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City Attorney; Anne Russell, Interim Assistant City Attorney; Dan Carpenter, Council Liaison and Monique Lomeli, Recording Secretary ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as amended. MINUTES Motion by Member Vessley, second by Member Thompson, carried 5-0, to approve the Minutes of the Construction Board of Appeals meeting of August 27, 2015. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. 1353 Higuera Street. Continuation of 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. (Cassia Cocina) Code Enforcement Officer Cocina presented a brief overview of the appeal hearing; explained that the hearing followed a four month continuance, as directed by the Board at the Construction Board of Appeals (CBOA) meeting, held on March 26, 2015. Code Enforcement Officer Cocina provided an update on the permit status, reporting on an inspection at the property on October 8, 2015; which concluded that the kitchen and bathroom on the second floor of the main house have been removed and the water closet has been expanded into a full sized bathroom; stated that assessment data has not been provided by the appellant; explained that it is unclear when the changes to the original structure occurred; specified that the appellant has not initiated any contact with the City to obtain legality of the rear unit. Code Enforcement Officer Cocina presented the recommendation of staff that the Construction Board of Appeals adopt the draft Resolution, denying the appeal and supporting the Director’s decision to uphold the Notice of Violation, providing direction to the appellant to obtain approval of plans and building permits to legalize the rear unit or revert it to its previous approved use. In response to Member Vessley’s inquiry, Code Enforcement Officer Cocina clarified that the appellant obtained a demolition permit and a building permit to convert the water closet to a full sized bathroom. In response to Vice-Chair Quaglino’s inquiry, Associate Planner Carloni asserted that by current standards, it is possible for the rear unit to be considered as a guest room if the kitchen is removed and it is subject to compliance with density restrictions. Maria Hutkin, attorney for the appellant, commented that there is no contention with the Notice of Violation as it pertains to the main unit; explained that compliance has been achieved by the recent modifications. In response to Ms. Hutkin’s statement, Chief Building Official Schneider explained that the permit to correct the violation for the main unit remains an open violation; noted that the violation as it pertains to the main unit, will remain as-is until the permit is closed. In response to inquiry from William Austin, property manager for the appellant owner, Chief Building Official Schneider clarified that both the demolition permit and building permit need to be completed and filed; noted that an inspection request for the demolition permit has not been submitted. City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Ms. Hutkin, attorney to the appellant, requested the maximum time allowable be granted to provide notice to the current tenants of the rear unit in the event of the denial of this appeal; indicated that vacating the rear unit should satisfy the appellant’s responsibility and achieve compliance. Jennifer Murdin, appellant property owner, confirmed her intent to achieve compliance and requested that the main unit be considered separately and be authorized to be rented out without regard to the current status of the rear unit. In response to inquiry from Chair Dilworth, Mr. Austin stated that he was not aware of the request for unredacted records from the County Assessor. Member Quaglino opined that after inspection of the photographs and documents presented, he does not believe improvements made to the structure are from the general timeframe of the 1930’s but rather from a more modern time as suggested by the quality and type of materials used. In response to inquiry from Member Thompson, Associate Planner Carloni clarified that based on county records dated June 1, 1986, the rear unit could be considered a detached room, eligible for occupancy, provided it does not include a kitchen and complies with building code occupancy standards, noting that a high occupancy permit would need to be obtained. In response to inquiries from the Board, Associate Planner Carloni qualified that in order for the rear unit to be considered a full occupancy unit with a kitchen, the main unit would need to be reduced to two bedrooms. Chief Building Official Schneider reiterated that regardless of the decided use of the rear unit, the construction of the unit is considered a violation due to insufficient evidence of permits to convert the structure from the automobile occupancy identified in records from 1920 to the habitable unit identified in the 1986 records. Therefore, the work would need to be exposed and inspected to establish compliance with current standards. In response to comments made by Ms. Hutkin, Interim Assistant City Attorney Anne Russell clarified that staff is not requiring the complete removal of the rear unit; explained that the exposure of wiring and plumbing may determine the adherence to current safety standards. In response to inquiry from Ms. Hutkin, Chief Building Official Schneider specified that the date of the first building permit established the date of the code with which the appellant must comply, indicating that the 2013 building code would be applicable in this case. Ms. Hutkins stated the structure designed for automobile occupancy may have included electrical wiring and that the appellant would disagree with the assumption that the wiring needs to be up to date. City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle On motion by Member Vessley, seconded by Vice-Chair Quaglino, to adopt staff’s recommendation and the Draft Resolution of the San Luis Obispo Board of Appeals Regarding an Appeal of Director’s Decision at Property Located at 1353 Higuera as presented in staff’s report, with the following amendment: 1. Include an additional subsection to Section 1 to read “F. The violations in the main house have been substantially completed and if the building permits are final, the main house shall no longer be in violation.” AYES: Members Dilworth, Martinez, Quaglino, Thompson, Vessley NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Members Jansen, Neely The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments made from the public. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Chief Building Official Schneider stated that due to recent changes to the code enforcement procedures, previously discussed by the Board and adopted by Council, the current appeals process will change after the effective date of said changes. In response to an earlier inquiry from Member Thompson, Chief Building Official Schneider stated that staff is exploring the possibility of increasing the frequency of CBOA meetings. Chair Dilworth requested that staff provide a proposed schedule to the Board for members to consider with their personal commitments. In response to inquiry from appellant owner, Assistant City Attorney indicated that staff will set up a meeting with the appellant to discuss an abatement agreement. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Dilworth adjourned the meeting at 3:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Monique Lomeli Recording Secretary