Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-2016 item 8, WalkerGardner, Erica COUNCIL MEETING.: /U ( /o2CU 1 ITEM NO.:�g From: Kathie Walker [ Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 3:52 PM F xt�L� _ _ ❑ To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> NOV 02 2016 Subject: Agenda Item 8: Amendment for Additional Fees L O CITY Ct_ERK Dear Mayor and Council members, Tonight's agenda proposes amendments to Title 15 of the SLOMC which including the addition of more fees in the permitting process. For example, L. Add Chapter 1, Division II, Sections 109.4.1, is a proposal to an additional clause to the existing CA Code, in order to impose another "fee" to the permits required for upgrading any changes found through the Code Enforcement Department. (see bottom of email) Most homeowners in SLO have items in their home that would not pass today's code yet are not unsafe. Homeowners are exposed to code enforcement in many different ways. For some, it's the Rental Housing Inspection Program. For others, it might be a Facebook post of "improvements" of an older home when they didn't know they needed a permit. For us, it was a disgruntled family member who doesn't live in SLO and has never seen our 1920's house but filed a code case against us out of anger. We've owned our 1920's home for only six years but are now responsible to pay for permits and improvements on our home dating back to the 1920's due to a code enforcement inspection. Nothing in our house is "unsafe" or "unhealthy" and we've continued to live in the house since the inspection two years ago. The cost of permits is higher than most cities (starting at over $200 each). The additional fee proposed by Community Development Department creates an unfair burden for homeowners already facing steep fees for permits for things they didn't create. It is unfair for those of us who live in older homes in San Luis Obispo. I am certain that taxpayers would not opt for this fee if they knew about it. I hope you will represent the residents and refuse to adopt the fees. Sincerely, Kathie Walker CA Building Code: Existing: 109.4 Approval required. Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official. The building official upon notification, shall make the requested inspections and shall either indicate the portion of the construction that is satisfactory as completed, or shall notify the permit holder or an agent of the permit holder wherein the same fails to comply with this code. Any portions that do not comply shall be corrected and such portion shall not be covered or concealed until authorized by the building official. Staffs proposed changes/additions (highlighted): L. Add Chapter 1, Division II, Sections 109.4.1 to read as follows: 109.4.1 Code lEnfgrcement Investigation Fee. When work requiring a permit is discovered and through the investigation of the Code Enforcement Division a person obtains the necessary permits to correct the work performed, a Code Enforcement Fee will be required at a rate established by the applicable governing authority. This fee is in addition to the Special Investigation Fee. COUNCIL MEETING: ITEM NO.: Gardner, Erica From: Kathie Walker [ Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 4:05 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Agenda 8 S Attached is a supplement to my previous email. I have a migraine but prepared the best I could. Please excuse grammatical errors REQ.: rv�D NOV 0 2 2016 �._ kECEIVED NOV 0 2 2016 SECTION 15.04.020 AMENDMENTS; CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE La CITY CLERK Existing Code: 101.2 The provisions of the California Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, and location removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures not more than two stories above grade plane in height and 3000 sq. ft. in area. Exceptions: Live/work units complying with the requirements of Section 419 of the California Building Code shall be permitted to be built as one- and two-family dwellings or townhouses. Fire suppression required by Section 419.5 of the California Building Code when constructed under the California Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall conform to Section R313. 2. Owner -occupied lodging houses with five or fewer guestrooms shall be permitted to be constructed in accordance with the California Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings when equipped with a fire sprinkler system in accordance with Section R313. STAFF'S PROPOSED CHANGES (additions and deletions from CA Code highlighted): B. Amend Chapter 1, Division II, Section 101.2 Exception to read as follows: Exception: The provisions of the California Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, and location FeWe al and demoNtien of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures not more than two stories above grade plane in height and 3000 sq. ft. in area. Exeeptiens.- Ljve�WOFI( WRitc, EE)Mplying With the Fequirements of Section 419 of the California aEEOFda rice with the CalifOFRia Residentiai Code for One @Hd :Pwe faf:sily PwelWfqg5 wheR eq Hopped with a fire rnrir.Llor system i OFda RGe with Section R313 - THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES ADDING AN ADDITIONAL CLAUSE TO 104.10 WHICH IMPOSES 'ALTERNATIVE MEANS AND METHODS FEE' FOR MODIFICA Existing Code: 104.10 Modifications. Wherever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the building official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, provided the building official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, life and fire safety or structural requirements. The details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the department of building safety. STAFF'S PROPOSED CHANGES (addition of the following item, highlighted): D. Add Chapter 1, Division II, Section 104.10.2 to read as follows: 104.10.2 Alternate Means and Methods Fee. When a request for approval of an Alternate Means and Methods is proposed under Section 104.10, an Alternate Means and Methods fee shall be paid at the time of submitting the documents for review. Said fee shall be in accordance with the schedule as established by the applicable governing authority. I DISAGREE WITH THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE THERE ARE ALREADY EXCESSIVE FEES AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. HOUSING IS NOT AFFORDABLE DUE TO THE NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF FEES. ENOUGH ALREADY! THE AMENDMENT DECREASES FENCE HEIGHT ALLOWED W/O PERMIT FROM 7'(BY CA CODE) TO 6'; DISALLOWS SHEDS, PLAYHOUSES USUALLY ALLOWED (BY CA CODE) IN R-1, R-2 AND R-4 W/O PERMIT. Building: 1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet (11.15 m2). 2. Fences not over 7 feet (2134 mm) high. 5. *unsure what 2016 code states STAFF'S PROPOSED CHANGES: F. Amend Chapter 1, Division II, Section 105.2, Building items 1, 2 and 5 to read as follows: Work exempt from permit. Building: 1. One —story detached accessory structures associated with an R-3 occupancy building used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor area is not greater than 120 square feet (11 m2). Maximum building height shall be 12 ft. above grade to highest point of structure. Such structure must comply with all provision of Title 17 of the Municipal Code. 2. Fences not over 6 feet high. 5. A water tank or a group of water tanks intended for storage of irrigation water only supported directly on grade if the capacity does not exceed 600 gallons in total on a parcel, the height does not exceed seven feet, and the ratio of height to width does not exceed 2:1 (provided that water tanks with minor ratio deviances may be allowed under this section in the discretion of the Chief Building Official, subject to review of the deviation by the Chief Building Official and verification that such minor deviations do not adversely impact structural stability), and it is not visible from the public right -of way that abuts the front yard. I DISAGREE WITH THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE MANY SINGLE-FAMILY PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED IN R-2 ZONES AND THERE IS REALLY NOT DISTINCTION IN THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS. R-2 DICTATES DENSITY AND NOT THE "TYPE" OF HOUSING. (ALSO, DENSITY IS OFTEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN R-1 PROPERTY.) SHEDS AND PLAYHOUSES SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED BY FOLKS IN NEIGHBORHOODS WITH VARYING ZONES. THE AMENDMENT SHORTENS THE TIME FROM 180 DAYS (CA CODE) TO 90 DAYS FOR PERMIT VALIDITY TO CORRECT CODE 'VIOLATIONS' CITED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF; ALSO REQUIRES NEW SUBMISSION AND REVIEW (AND PRESUMABLY ADDITIONAL FEES) AFTER 'ABANDONMENT' OF PERMIT DUE TO FAILURE TO COMPLETE WORK AND GET APPROVAL OF PERMIT WITHIN 180 DAYS OF MOST RECENT PRIOR PERMIT APPROVAL I. Amend Chapter 1, Division II, Section 105.5.to read as follows Existing Code: 105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated Staff's proposed changes/additions (highlighted): 105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work on the site authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized on the site by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. Work shall be deemed abandoned if an inspection required to be performed under the work authorized by the permit is not approved within 180 days of the most recent prior approved inspection. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. A permit that is abandoned after adoption of new mandatory building codes by the State may not be extended and must be submitted for review to comply with the new regulations. Permits issued to correct code violations pursuant to a code enforcement case shall be valid for a period of 90 days. Extensions to the permit may be granted at the discretion of the building official. Performance or approval of a required inspection will not automatically extend the permit. THE AMENDMENT CREATES A NEW CLAUSE UNDER 109.4 WHICH ADDS A FEE IN ADDITION TO THE SPECIAL INVESTIAGION FEE, FOR ANY WORK REQUIRING A PERMIT DISCOVERED THROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT (DOES IT APPLY TO THE RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM?1 Existing Code: 109.4 Approval required. Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official. The building official upon notification, shall make the requested inspections and shall either indicate the portion of the construction that is satisfactory as completed, or shall notify the permit holder or an agent of the permit holder wherein the same fails to comply with this code. Any portions that do not comply shall be corrected and such portion shall not be covered or concealed until authorized by the building official. Staff's proposed changes/additions (highlighted): L. Add Chapter 1, Division II, Sections 109.4.1 to read as follows: 109.4.1 Code Enforcement Investigation Fee. When work requiring a permit is discovered and through the investigation of the Code Enforcement Division a person obtains the necessary permits to correct the work performed, a Code Enforcement Fee will be required at a rate established by the applicable governing authority. This fee is in addition to the Special Investigation Fee. O. Amend Chapter 1, Division II, Section 113 to read as follows: Addition: 113.4 Fees. A fee titled "Appeal of Building Official Decision" or "Handicapped Board of Appeals" shall be collected for appeal of a decision of the building official, code official or fire code official to the appropriate board of appeals. Q. Amend Section 202 by addition of the definitions for Boarding House...: Addition: Boarding House. A building arranged or used for lodging for compensation, with or without meals, and not occupied as a single-family unit. A boarding house may have only one kitchen or facility for eating and cooking and such facility must be accessible to all residents or guests. See also definition of Congregate Residence. COUNCIL MEETING: l l 0 R O h o ITEM NO.: Gardner, Erica From: "Kathie Walker" < Date: Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 5:46 PM -0700 FRECIEIVED Subject: Agenda 8. Notes � 2016 To: "E-mail Council Website" <emailcouncil(c7Wocit�g>Y CLERK In a code enforcement case, the property owner and the city enter into an abatement agreement which already addresses a time frame to complete work, and gives latitude to each individual situation. To pass this ordinance mandates 90 days, by ordinance. It paints everyone with a broad brush when each situation is different. We have been working with the City for over two years and will be for several years in bringing a 1920's home up to current standards. If we couldn't afford larger improvements during that 90 day time frame we would have to pay for another permit and start over. That doesn't seem right. Agenda item: I. Amend Chapter 1, Division II, Section 105.5.to read as follows Existing: 105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated Staff's proposed changes/additions (highlighted): 105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work on the site authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized on the site by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. Work shall be deemed abandoned if an inspection required to be performed under the work authorized by the permit is not approved within 180 days of the most recent prior approved inspection. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. A permit that is abandoned after adoption of new mandatory building codes by the State may not be extended and must be submitted for review to comply with the new regulations. Permits issued to correct code violations pursuant to a code enforcement case shall be valid for a period of 90 days. Extensions to the permit may be granted at the discretion of the building official. Performance or approval of a required inspection will not automatically extend the permit. NOTES: 1. The addition of the clause: "Work shall be deemed abandoned if an inspection required (to be performed under the work authorized) by the permit is not approved within 180 days of the most recent prior approved inspection." Some folks can't afford to complete large projects within that timeline and this clause requires them to re -apply and pay for a new permit, even if they are working on the same project. 2. It also requires folks to real)l ly for an entirely new permit under updated building codes if the project isn't conipleled accurdiitg; to the 180 day timeline (between inspections) 3. It also puts folks working with code enforcement in an even more difficult situation than those seeking other permits by cutting the time allowed from 180 days to 90 days before a permit is deemed `abandoned'