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