HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1977/01/25 - Regular (2)TEMPLE CITY
BUILDING REHABILITATION APPEALS BOARD
January 25, 1977 Minutes.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Stacy called to order the. Temple City Building Rehabili-
tation Appeals Board at 7:50 p.m., January -25, 1977. •
2 ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioner Atkins, Breazeal, Lawson, Seibert, Stacy.
PUBLIC HEARING:. BUILDING REHABILITATION APPEALS CASE 77 -03
Mr. and Mrs. Mark Smith - Owners
1024 Old Ranch Road
Arcadia, Ca.
Site: 9232 East Blackley
Temple City 91780
Director Dragicevich gave the staff report, saying the residential
building on . the subject property was damaged by fire in January,
1976. The owners delayed the demolition and removal of the
structures due to, unsettled claims with the insurance company for
11 months. The Los Angeles County Building and Safety Engineer
requested repair or demolition and removal of the structures,
When the owner failed to comply with these requirements, the District
Engineer proposed that the City demolish the buildings through a
private' contractor. Additional time was requested by the owner
in order to settle the claim with the insurance company, and the
City Council was agreeable. In November, 1976, the claim was .
settled and the structures were demolished and removed in December,
1976. However. in this process the Building Department incurred
certain costs. The owner protested these fees and requested a
public hearing. The total amount involved is $45 which, if found .
reasonable by the Appeals Board, will be due and payable ten days
after date of this hearing, after .. which an assessment .filing fee
of $15 will be added and the total amount becomes an assessment
against the property.
Chairman Stacy asked Mr, an Johnson, Inspector of the 'Los "Angeles
County Building and Safety Department, to explain the costs, which
he did, and said the County personnel had spent approximately 15-
20 hours on the case:
Commissioner Breazeal asked what authority did the City or County
have to charge an individual rather . than general revenue. The City
Manager said it was set up and covered in the Building Code which
the City adopted, and under Chapter 99. Mr. Johnson further stated
that the sum being charged is not the total amount for time expend-
ed, as only certain charges can be made, This amount is only for
specifications, not for Mr. Johnson's time which is absorbed, by the
City.
The Public Hearing was declared open.:
Mr. Mark Smith, 1024. Old Ranch Road,' Arcadia, owner of the property
at 9232 East Blackley, said he was not procrastinating, 'but was .
hindered by the insurance company, and the charges should be against
them.
Chairman Stacy asked Mr, Johnson if this fee would have been charged
with or without delay, and Mr, Johnson replied the matter, came be-
fore the City Council who approved demolition proceedings because
of the delay,
Mr. Smith continued that he had attended all meetings regarding the
property and demolition and stated his case the best he could. He
did everything he could to get the demolition. The delay was caused
by the agent. It took the insurance company two months to look at
-2-
the damaged structure. He notified the company the day following the
fire
Mr. Johnson said no correspondence was received from the Fire Depart-
ment or the insurance company that the property was to remain inviolate
and this is usually done in case of fire damage, He also said there
had been a two -week delay granted to have Mr. Smith's attorney contact
the City Attorney. The case had been before the City Council several
times.
The Planning Director added that the property was a visual detriment to
the neighborhood. The decision to proceed with demolition was made by
the City Council on November 2nd.
Commissioner Seibert made a motion to close the public hearing inasmuch
as there was no one else to speak to the issue. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Breazeal and carried unanimously.
A review of the case was discussed, Mr. Johnson said the property owner
had four months to demolish the building on his own, and on September
7, 1976, the District Building and Safety Engineer recommended that he
be authorized to proceed to have the building demolished and collect
the actual costs therefore. City Council considered the matter, but
in view of the fact that Mr, Smith was having problems with his insur-
ance carrier, on October 5, 1976, the Council continued the matter to
November 2, 1976. On that date the Council again considered the
problem, and continued the matter to November 16th meeting inasmuch as
Mr. Smith's contractor had taken out a demolition permit.
Commissioner Breazeal said there is no doubt that the owner had been
given time and the costs were reasonable, and the owner is respnnsible
for his property, however, there were unusual circumstances. Mr. and
Mrs. Smith were not responsible for the fire and should not be held
responsible for the costs incurred.
Commissioner Lawson said that, in reviewing the case, the work start-
ed on August 10th. He questioned whether the Board should put the
owner through additional expense, and was not in favor of asking Mr.
Smith to pay the charges.
Commissioner Atkins said it was not a matter of negligence on the
part of the owner. If he could have demolished the building at once
he would have done so. It was not fair to assess the owner for the
charges in question.
Commissioner Seibert disagreed. He felt that, although the owner was
sincere in his efforts, the City Council made all effort possible on
their part to assist him, and. the matter dragged on for 11 months.
Chairman Stacy said the charges are reasonable as far as the City is
concerned. The Council tried to work with the applicant, gave him
every opportunity to get the matter resolved. The City must meet its
requirements, and he recommended Mr. Smith be charged with the costs
incurred.
Commissioner Atkins moved that the charges against the applicant in
this matter are not justified because of unusual circumstances and
the owner's appeal be upheld. Motion was seconded by Commissioner
Breazeal and carried by roll call vote, with Commissioners Atkins,
Breazeal and Lawson voting for and Commissioners Seibert and Stacy
voting against it.
Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution 77 -03, A RESOLUTION
OF THE BUILDING REHABILITATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS INUCURRED BY THE
CITY. Commissioner Breazeal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Atkins and carried, to waive further reading and adopt.
1
•
1
"
1
"
1
1
"
- 3 -
4 . P U B L I C H E A R I N G : B U I L D I N G R E H A B I L I T A T I O N A P P E A L S C A S E 7 7 - 0 4
M r . R o b e r t L . a n d M s J u d i t h G . C o v e y - O w n e r s
7 3 8 N o r u m b e g a D r i v e
M o n r o v i a , C a .
S i t e : 8 9 4 9 E a s t E m p e r o r A v e n u e
T e m p l e C i t y 9 1 7 8 0
T h e P l a n n i n g D i r e c t o r g a v e t h e s t a f f r e p o r t , s a y i n g t h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y w a s d e c l a r e d s u b s t a n d a r d b y t h e L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y D i s t r i c t
B u i l d i n g a n d S a f e t y E n g i n e e r o n O c t o b e r 1 2 , 1 9 7 6 , b y a l e t t e r t o
t h e o w n e r . I n t h a t l e t t e r a r e l i s t e d t h e d e f e c t s a n d c o n d i t i o n s
o f t h e p r o p e r t y . N o t i c e s w e r e p o s t e d a s r e q u i r e d b y t h e B u i l d i n g
C o d e a n d r e g u l a t i o n s . T h e p r e s e n t o w n e r d i s a g r e e d w i t h s o m e
o f t h e D i s t r i c t E n g i n e e r ' s f i n d i n g s , a n d t h e r e f o r e a p u b l i c h e a r -
i n g w a s s e t b e f o r e t h i s B o a r d .
O n J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1 9 7 7 , a b u i l d i n g p e r m i t w a s i s s u e d f o r r e p a i r w o r k
o n t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 2 , 0 0 0 . T h e r e a r e t h r e e
r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g s o n t h e p a r c e l w h i c h a r e c o n s i d e r e d l e g a l
n o n c o n f o r m i n g a s t h e p r o p e r t y i s z o n e d C - 2 p r e s e n t l y . T h e s o u t h -
e r n m o s t b u i l d i n g h a s b e e n d e c l a r e d s u b s t a n d a r d a n d i s s u b j e c t t o
p u b l i c h e a r i n g a n d t h e B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n .
T h e p r e s e n t o w n e r a s s u m e d l e g a l o w n e r s h i p o f t h e p r o p e r t y i n D e c e m -
b e r , 1 9 7 6 .
I n r e s p o n s e t o q u e s t i o n f r o m C o m m i s s i o n e r S e i b e r t , t h e D i r e c t o r
s a i d t h e p r e s e n t o w n e r w a s a w a r e o f c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e p r o p e r t y a n d
t h a t t h e B u i l d i n g D e p a r t m e n t h a d s u r v e y e d i t .
M r . J o h n s o n , i n a n s w e r t o q u e s t i o n f r o m C o m m i s s i o n e r A t k i n s , s a i d
t h e m a t t e r c a m e t o t h e B u i l d i n g D e p a r t m e n t ' s a t t e n t i o n w h e n a r e -
q u e s t w a s r e c e i v e d f r o m a t e n a n t t o h a v e a m e t e r s e t . T h e u s u a l
p r o c e d u r e b y t h a t D e p a r t m e n t i s t o i n v e s t i g a t e a n d h a v e t h e r e q u e s t
a p p r o v e d p r i o r t o s e t t i n g t h e m e t e r . I t w a s n o t e d , d u r i n g t h a t
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h a t t h e r e w a s a n u m b e r o f d e f e c t s o n t h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y , a n d t h e o w n e r w a s i n f o r m e d b y l e t t e r o n O c t o b e r 1 2 , 1 9 7 6 .
N o t h i n g w a s b e i n g d o n e f o r s o m e t i m e a f t e r a n d i t w a s f i n a l l y d e -
c i d e d t h e b u i l d i n g w a s a h a z a r d t o t h e C i t y a n d t h e P l a n n i n g D i r e c t o r ' s
a p p r o v a l w a s o b t a i n e d t o p r o c e e d . T h e b u i l d i n g w a s b u i l t b e t w e e n
1 9 1 0 - 1 9 2 5 .
T h e P u b l i c H e a r i n g w a s d e c l a r e d o p e n ,
M r . J a m e s G i u s t o , P . O . B o x 9 7 , T u s t i n , C a . , p r e s e n t o w n e r o f t h e
p r o p e r t y , s a i d a l l t h e i t e m s l i s t e d b y t h e B u i l d i n g D e p a r t m e n t a r e
b e i n g c o r r e c t e d w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e f o u n d a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n - t ,
w h i c h h e f e e l s d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e a n y h a z a r d , A f t e r g e t t i n g o w n e r -
s h i p o f t h e p r o p e r t y i n D e c e m b e r , 1 9 7 6 , h e c l e a n e d u p t h e s t r u c t u r e s ,
p a i n t e d t h e m a n d r e p a i r e d t h e w i n d o w s . H e r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e f o u n d a -
t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t b e e l i m i n a t e d . H e b o u g h t t h e p r o p e r t y w i t h t h e
t h o u g h t t h a t i t m i g h t b e c o m m e r c i a l e v e n t u a l l y . T h e r e n t o n t h e
s u b j e c t s t r u c t u r e i s $ 1 7 5 a m o n t h a n d i s v a c a n t p r e s e n t l y . H e h a s
s p e n t o v e r $ 2 , 0 0 0 c l e a n i n g u p t h e p r o p e r t y a n d r e p a i r i n g i t .
I n r e p l y t o C o m m i s s i o n e r s ' q u e s t i o n s , M r . J o h n s o n s a i d t h e f r o n t a n d
r e a r p o r t i o n o f t h e h o u s e a r e o n p i e r s , b e t w e e n w h i c h t h e r e i s a '
c o l l e c t i o n o f b r i c k s . I n t h e c e n t e r p o r t i o n t h e r e i s a 1 0 f t . l o n g
s q u a r e o f u n r e e n f o r c e d b r i c k s . T h e b r i c k s a r e s e t t i n g n n o l d b r i c k
o r c o n c r e t e s l a b . T h e c o s t t o b r i n g t h i s i t e m u p t o c o d e , h e e s t i m -
a t e d , w o u l d r u n f r o m $ 5 0 0 t o $ 1 , 0 0 0 .
C o m m i s s i o n e r L a w s o n m o v e d t o c l o s e P u b l i c H e a r i n g , s e c o n d e d b y C o m -
m i s s i o n e r S e i b e r t a n d t h e m o t i o n c a r r i e d .
-4-
In closed discussion,Commissioner Lawson said the present owner was
aware of the conditions when he bought the property. Based on the
testimony from both staff and the owner, he was in favor of having the
conditions corrected.
Commissioner Atkins concurred. Present owner bought the property
with the intention of recovering his investment. The Building Code
was adopted to protect the safety of the public, especially for rental
units. It should be enforced. Buyer was aware of the conditions when
he made the purchase of the property.
Commissioner. Seibert was also in agreement. He added that if the City
doesn't enforce the Building Code further problems with absentee land-
lords will develop. He was in favor of enforcing recommendations as
set forth.
Commissioner Breazeal agreed, saying the City has a group of licensed
and well- trained experts who found that the foundation was substandard.
Chairman Stacy concurred with the rest of the Board.
Commissioner Breazeal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seibert,
and carried, to require applicant to fulfill all the requirements set
forth by the Building Department.
Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution 77 -04, A RESOLUTION
OF THE BUILDING REHABILITATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING ABATEMENT
THEREOF. Commissioner Seibert moved to waive further reading and adopt
seconded by Commissioner Breazeal and the motion carried. Asst, City
Attorney advised the property owner of his right of appeal.
5. COMMUNICATIONS - There were none.
6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Commissioner Breazeal made a motion,
seconded by Commissioner Atkins and carried, t• adjo n. he meet-
ing adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
ATTEST:
Chairman
•