• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

new building code fight in Calbasas, CA

Yikes

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
3,089
Location
Southern California
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-calabasas-code-20101112,0,2202900.story

* Headline: Calabasas delays action on disputed changes to building code

* Tagline: Homeowners persuade the council not to impose the rules that would require permits for installation and repair of electrical, plumbing and other devices.

* Excerpt: "...The beefed-up municipal code, developed by city staff, calls for property owners to obtain permits to "install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system component or device."

Those violating the new code would be guilty of a misdemeanor and face $1,000 fines or six months in jail. The city's "building official" would have authority to cut off electricity and water to violators and revoke their occupancy permit.

Critics complained that if the codes were enforced literally, the city could prohibit homeowners from repairing a leaky faucet or changing burned-out light bulbs."
 
134 pages of code changes? Wow, that's a lot code geek stuff to go through in detail. How about just giving the code official the authority to execute any violators with a dull chain saw?
 
Would suggest that at least some of these local amendments are illegal. California puts some fairly restrictive limits on the types of local amendments.
 
This is what started it

Septic Ordinance Raises Stink in Calabasas

By Annemarie Donkin

http://www.topangamessenger.com/articles.asp?SectionID=17&ArticleID=3838

As many systems fail inspection under a new City ordinance, support grows for Old Topanga as homeowners fight to keep their septics in and sewers out.

Seeking to protect their rural environment, a group of residents in Old Topanga have instigated a plan to detach from the City of Calabasas rather than submit to what they consider a harsh and restrictive ordinance regulating their septic systems.

The homeowners also object to a proposed plan by the City to run a sewer line 6,200 feet up Old Topanga Canyon Road that would allow development of many undersized lots that cannot be developed because they do not meet the requirements for septic tanks.

In addition to those living on Old Topanga Road, the other residents who have Onsite Waste Treatment Systems (OWTS) reside in the Calabasas Highlands, the historic Bird Streets and a small part of Cold Creek. The communities lie within the 90290 zip code but were incorporated into the City of Calabasas in 1991.

Everything was quiet until, in March of 2008, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board notified the cities of Agoura Hills, Calabasas and Westlake Village that they were in violation of California clean water laws because of high bacteria levels in the Santa Monica Bay.

The notice of violation technically applied only to Malibu Creek, because the runoff from Topanga flows into the Los Angeles River.

Nevertheless, in an effort to be environmentally responsible, the Calabasas City Council, led by Barry Groveman (an environmental lawyer who co-wrote Proposition 65, the California safe drinking water act) ordered up a study to prevent any of the 140 OWTS systems in the area from creating pollution or groundwater contamination.

After months of discussion between the community and city staff, the Calabasas City Council in a 3-2 vote adopted Ordinance No. 2009-262, a thirty-one page document.

The ordinance was implemented at the end of 2009 and requires all property owners with an OWTS to secure an operating permit by May 14, 2010 or face monetary penalties.

To protest the ordinance and sewer plan, the Old Topanga Homeowners Inc., the OTH, started the process to return to unincorporated Los Angeles County.

Their claim is that the City of Calabasas has created the most overreaching and punitive on-site wastewater treatment system ordinance in the entire state, if not the nation.

Septic Inspections

The average lifespan of a septic system is 20-30 years. According to Sparky Cohen, head of the Building and Safety Department for the City of Calabasas, some septic systems in Old Topanga go back to the 1940s and many have never been pumped.

"You would think that septic inspections and permits would be enough," said Jody Thomas, president of the Old Topanga Homeowners Association. "Yet City Hall fully intends to commit millions in taxpayer dollars and ten of thousands in costs to resident homeowners, when water tests show the highest levels of E. coli are in Dry Canyon Creek which follows Mulholland Highway, a sewered area."

Yet, some of the fears by the City may be justified.

Cohen presented an update on the voluntary inspections of 21 OTWS systems at the January 27 Council meeting.

His findings were that out of all the systems tested, only two passed and were eligible for a new, five-year operating permit. The others would need some level of mitigation to qualify, from pumping to major rebuilding.

Cohen reported that many of the OWTS were completely inaccessible and many had never been pumped. Cohen said the most alarming discovery were the two systems that discharged their wastewater directly into Dry Canyon Creek.

"I feel rather strongly that this needs to be addressed quickly and efficiently," Groveman said. "With regard to what they are finding, I am not surprised; all tanks leak if they are not maintained or upgraded. This doesn't bode well for the problem. They need to take it seriously and work with us to stop the environmental degradation that it causes, because there is no issue to that."

Undaunted and exasperated by the lack of response from the City regarding their objection to the Ordinance, the group of about 29 homeowners of the OTH has filed the preliminary paperwork to detach from Calabasas

Most recently, the association submitted a tract map to the Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County (LAFCO) outlining the boundaries of the subdivision to determine how much detachment would cost.

The homeowners are also reaching out to the community at large for support of their cause and it's beginning to resonate with other groups who support their campaign, said Toby Keeler, a spokesman for the Old Topanga Homeowners' Association.

At the OTH's request, the Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation passed a motion in November to support Old Topanga and the continuing majority of its homeowners in their efforts.

The Topanga Town Council issued a letter of support on January 1 for the OTH, expressing its concern for the proposed sewers that the feel would immediately encourage rapid development.

Chairman Roger Pugliese, the Topanga Association for a Scenic Community (TASC) stated that it unanimously supports Old Topanga Homeowners, Inc.'s efforts to seek detachment from the City of Calabasas, and return to unincorporated Topanga.

According to Keeler, Save Open Space (SOS) voted late last year to support Old Topanga's detachment from the City of Calabasas.

Still, Calabasas City Councilmember James Bozajian urges caution. He voted against the current version of the Ordinance and is adamantly opposed to sewers in Old Topanga.

Yet, as the majority landowner in Old Topanga with 84 parcels, he said the City could easily defeat any detachment efforts by the OTH.

"I don't support the secession movement, it's short sighted and not the right reaction at this time," Bozajian said. "I have sympathy for how they feel, I know how upset they are, [but] the better way to do this is to work through the political process and not just leave the city over one issue."

Sewers

"If there is one main issue, yes, sewers are our biggest concern," Thomas said. "Without a doubt, extending a sewer into Old Topanga would not only be very expensive for the taxpayers of Calabasas and the homeowners forced to hook into it – but it would breed development like a pond breeds mosquitoes."

Thomas' concerns and those of the OTH are not without merit. Thomas cites the neighborhood of Calabasas Highlands before they went on sewers.

"You would remember a tranquil, scenic, rural community much like ours remains today," she said. "Since the sewer expansion in the Highlands however, developers have overtaken every square inch of available space."

Groveman defends the City's plan to conduct an environmental impact report before determining the need for sewers in Old Topanga.

"The whole purpose of the EIR is to find all this out, if everything was in compliance, we would not need a sewer, Groveman said. "Development doesn't change the facts, even if you are against development, you cannot be for a leaking septic.

Yet, Thomas recalls a different attitude, that of sewers becoming a foregone conclusion.

"When our time limit was squeezed to six months, the City argued they needed to speed the process so they could collect data more quickly so that sewers could be installed within the next two years," she said. "Curious that this will also coincide with the re-election of Barry Groveman and Dennis Washburn in March of 2011."

Thomas said a developer who plans to build several homes just south of Canon Place above Old Topanga has already contacted her.

"He said the City told him sewers would be installed within two years," Thomas said. "Interesting that building officials are already telling this to developers when an EIR has yet to be ordered, let alone reviewed?"

Still, the tactics of the council do not fool many longtime homeowners on Old Topanga.

Babette Gibbs, the treasurer of the OTH, has lived on Old Topanga Road since 1978. Her husband was Carl Gibbs, founder of the Environmental Commission for the City of Calabasas.

"As long as Carl was there, we had a voice, until he died in 2006 Carl was on the environmental commission, he was highly respected," she said.

But Gibbs maintains things have changed drastically since 2003 when Groveman was first elected to the council.

"Nobody objects to having our septics looked at, we object to how they went about it," Gibbs said. "They want us to fail so they can put in sewers. They have a bit of glee to see us fail."

© 2010 Phoenix Rising Inc., www.TopangaMessenger.com
 
Some people in California smoke too much medicinal pot and are paranoid. Why wouldn't they be required to pull permits and get inspections like the rest of the country?

It sounds to me like the local government is just trying to pass very basic ordinances to adopt ICC codes and the NEC, both of which contain the same basic language mentioned.

Get a grip California!
 
I suggest that the people who are overly excited do not smoke enough pot.

This is apparently one of those problems where the homeowners believe that they are being unfairly treated and there are heated fealings (not enough pot and too much alcahol). There are likely many dimensions to the disagreement. Regarding the building code amendments apparently the concerns are not with the generic IBC but with local amendments.

Initially the City had not filed the local amendments with the California Building Standards Commission. Thus the local amendments could not be enforced until they had been so filed yet the City apparently tried to enforce the local amendments. It thus appears that the City is not without blame.

The reported size of the local amendments suggests that they go considerably beyond the basic ICC codes. In California the basic ICC codes are mandatory for local jurisdictions whether they like it or not. The local ordinance allows the jurisdition to opt in to several options built into the California Building Code and to adopt some limited local amendments. Many local ordinances in California are less than one page in length.
 
134 pages of changes is just as likely 134 pages of ICC code pages with a line or paragraph of revision here and there in the admin sections.

"...The beefed-up municipal code, developed by city staff, calls for property owners to obtain permits to "install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system component or device."

I'm just reflecting that there is nothing beefed up in this age about calling for property owners to obtain permits to do electrical, gas, mechanical, and plumbing work.
 
hmmm, a bunch of papers that nobody has read yet must immediately be voted into law to prevent catastrophe.

where have I heard that before?
 
It's a bunch of people who know nothing about what they are doing; controling what should be done.

The Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission; is adopting and will require all municipalities to adopt; the 2009 IRC, next year. The city of Oklahoma City still has the 1995 CABO. So, the inspectors and contractors only need to learn 15 years of change.

Oops, got ahead of myself. From some of the crap I've seen being built; they still haven't got a handle on the 1995 CABO yet.

What we have here is a blind man talking about codes to a deaf man; or is it a deaf man using sign language to explain codes to blind man?

Uncle Bob
 
Well if they have amended with 134 pages they have amended the current CBC/IBC, our new IRC takes effect in a month and a half, they are going to have to amend again and by my count the new California IRC will be 722 pages, so with amendments Calabasas' IRC will be 856 pages.
 
This kind of crap is why I live in the county and am blessed with ranch status. Hell of a thing to be a BO and dispise this kind of crap.
 
When you go from lack of code enforcement to any enforcement you have a totalitarian government.

To see the evil amendments click on Title 15 - BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=16235&stateId=5&stateName=California

Some residents are polluting their own drinking water wells and those of their neighbors by not maintaining their septic tanks, but the government is at fault.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jobsaver said:
Right, but this is the ordinance presented at the City Council Meeting to which the leading article in this thread concerns. It is the ordinance that throughout this thread is being refered to as "134 pages of code changes".
The issues with the building department first arose when they retroactively went after the septic systems
 
The original dispute is relevant in that it created animosity, but it is seperate from the current proposed code changes. The point is that the local jurisdiction is proposing considerable amendments to the 2010 California Building Code. A group of homeowners find these changes objectional.

Are these changes desirable to protect public safety? My sense is that they will have minimal if any impact.

Were these amendments a good move politicaly? Given the push back I suggest not.

Are these amendments legal? I suggest not. The California provisions allowing local amendments are limited and in my opinion the amendments in general do not meet the criteria.
 
Mark K said:
The original dispute is relevant in that it created animosity, but it is seperate from the current proposed code changes. The point is that the local jurisdiction is proposing considerable amendments to the 2010 California Building Code. A group of homeowners find these changes objectional.Are these changes desirable to protect public safety? My sense is that they will have minimal if any impact.

Were these amendments a good move politicaly? Given the push back I suggest not.

Are these amendments legal? I suggest not. The California provisions allowing local amendments are limited and in my opinion the amendments in general do not meet the criteria.
Any city, county, or fire protection district may establish more restrictive building standards than those contained in the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), if the amendment is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions [Health and Safety Code Section 18941.5(b)].
 
I love it here. The hell with the state. (or the feds and their IECC for that matter) They can't mandate a dam thing to the county or local jurisdictions. State codes adminstration? Who needs or wants them!
 
The question is how you interpret "local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions".

First those provisions that are not associated with any of these issues are not allowed. Thus additional restrictions on guardrails would not be allowed. Thus it is clear that the state did not want to allow all local amendments.

The position that the state wanted to limit local amendments is supported by the fact that one of the reasons for the original legislation was to promote uniformity in the building codes in the state thus promoting competition and efficiency. If you look at other statutes dealing with building regulations such as for retrofitting Unreinforced Masonry you will find that there were fewer limitations on local ordinances which suggests that if the state wanted this to be interpreted loosely they would have said so.

The local condition needs to be something that was not addressed in the state code or something where for example the local climate differed significantly from the maps that are in the code.

If the local jurisdiction had some data to suggest that the snow load was much more than was assumed by the IBC then a local amendment would be allowed. On the other hand a local amendment would not be allowed if the local condition was already reflected in the local code. For example if you believed that the allowable stresses should be reduced for wind loading this would not be appropriate.

The reality is that unless some body provides oversight of local jurisdictions they will push the limits until somebody pushes back.

For those jurisdictions where there are no state limitations I will suggest that there are benefits to minimizing local amendments.
 
Top