Jobsaver
Registered User
Jp: Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think about it!
-
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
- Thread starter Yikes
- Start date
conarb
Registered User
Mark:
I only wish you were right, a few years ago I called Building Standards when a local AHJ was preparing to submit a local amendment to see if it could be fought at the state level, they told me that all they do is file them away, they don't even check to see that they meet the formalities of submission. If you doubt this absurdity call them yourself.
I only wish you were right, a few years ago I called Building Standards when a local AHJ was preparing to submit a local amendment to see if it could be fought at the state level, they told me that all they do is file them away, they don't even check to see that they meet the formalities of submission. If you doubt this absurdity call them yourself.
Jobsaver
Registered User
I suspect the issues first arose upon annexation into the city.mark handler said:
Conarb
The CBSC told me the same thing and the person I talke to said the local jurisdictions liked it that way, with a wink and a nod. They claim they were not given any authority to enforce this provision. But the fact that they are not enforcing the law does not make current local ordinances legal.
This problem can be resolved either by litigation or legislation that would require that local amendments be reviewed proir to acceptance. Litigation will probably happen when, as a part of a dispute, it is desirable to show that local code amendments are not legal. The problem is that I have the sence that few lawyers are aware of this issue.
If you are dealing with a residential occupancy and you can get the Department of Housing and Community Developent interested you may have some options. Not often appreciated but in California HCD has primariy jurisdictions for all residential occupancies. HCD delegates enforcement to local jurisdictions. I believe that there is also a process whereby you can appeal a decision by the local jurisdiction to HCD.
The CBSC told me the same thing and the person I talke to said the local jurisdictions liked it that way, with a wink and a nod. They claim they were not given any authority to enforce this provision. But the fact that they are not enforcing the law does not make current local ordinances legal.
This problem can be resolved either by litigation or legislation that would require that local amendments be reviewed proir to acceptance. Litigation will probably happen when, as a part of a dispute, it is desirable to show that local code amendments are not legal. The problem is that I have the sence that few lawyers are aware of this issue.
If you are dealing with a residential occupancy and you can get the Department of Housing and Community Developent interested you may have some options. Not often appreciated but in California HCD has primariy jurisdictions for all residential occupancies. HCD delegates enforcement to local jurisdictions. I believe that there is also a process whereby you can appeal a decision by the local jurisdiction to HCD.
conarb
Registered User
Mark:
The code (statute) says that the AHJs must submit stating the case that the amendment is "reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions", but there are no regulations requiring Building Standards to do anything about the submittals, so I'd say they are legal absent some statute or regulations requiring them to do anything about them.
The code (statute) says that the AHJs must submit stating the case that the amendment is "reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions", but there are no regulations requiring Building Standards to do anything about the submittals, so I'd say they are legal absent some statute or regulations requiring them to do anything about them.
JP,
In reality; most code requirements are not enforced at the local level anyway. For one thing most inspectors don't know and don't care to know all the code requirements. Same thing with Building Officials; they only enforce some of the code requirements that have been adopted.
So, the federal government and the State government can require you to adopt their required codes; but, they can't make you enforce them.
Also, in most municipalities; the code requirements that are enforced are with the permission of (in agreement with) the major contractors in the area.
Uncle Bob
In reality; most code requirements are not enforced at the local level anyway. For one thing most inspectors don't know and don't care to know all the code requirements. Same thing with Building Officials; they only enforce some of the code requirements that have been adopted.
So, the federal government and the State government can require you to adopt their required codes; but, they can't make you enforce them.
Also, in most municipalities; the code requirements that are enforced are with the permission of (in agreement with) the major contractors in the area.
Uncle Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Jobsaver
Registered User
I would only add that when a city council introduces an ordinance, then tables the final vote for a month or two, they are effectively giving legal notice of the intent of the document including amendments, and giving a reasonable amount of time for review.conarb said:
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Water District Objects to Calabasas Ordinance
By Annemarie Donkin
http://www.topangamessenger.com/Articles.asp?SectionID=17&ArticleID=4189
Persuaded to delay a vote pending public comment, parts of an urgency ordinance to the Calabasas building codes may be legally unenforceable.
In a session lasting past midnight, about a dozen Calabasas homeowners urged city officials to delay a vote on a controversial urgency ordinance at the Nov. 10 City Council Meeting. The urgency ordinance was released late Monday, Nov. 8, with no time for the public or the City Council to read through sweeping municipal code changes proposed in the 134-page document.
Prior to the meeting, staff recommended that the City Council adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 2010-278U, which it says adheres to the 2010 California Building Standards Code (CA Code of Regulations Title 24) with local amendments. According to the staff report, "this action will comply with State of California law and continue local amendments until Ordinance No. 2010-279 is enacted."
The ordinance includes 15 new pages of policies for on-site wastewater treatment systems and would allow city building officials to disconnect utilities if they observe code violations. Additionally, the new municipal code requires that a permit from the city be obtained by anyone who intends to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system component or device.
The urgency ordinance requires a four-fifths majority vote to pass and would only be in effect until the council incorporates the new state building code revisions into a regular ordinance.
Maureen Tamuri, community development director for Calabasas, explained that if the council did not adopt the urgency ordinance by the state's January 1 deadline, state codes would automatically go into effect until the city adopts its own.
According to Tamuri, most of the proposed regulations are already in effect as part of the state and county building codes "to protect human life," and emphasized that the revisions will have little or no impact on the majority of the population.
"People already must pull permits when they do improvements affected by the building code," Tamuri said.
Yet proposed changes to the municipal code would concentrate power in the hands of city officials including Tamuri, Building Official Sparky Cohen and City Manager Tony Coroalles.
Cohen has already been tasked with enforcing all building and safety codes including the City's controversial septic ordinance, prompting unannounced armed raids on rural residents, as well as personally determining what constitutes an "immediate hazard to public health."
According to the new ordinance, at the discretion of the building official, those violating the new code would be guilty of a misdemeanor and face $1,000 fines or six months in jail.
There was vigorous outcry during public comment, primarily from members of the Old Topanga Homeowners Association, the Las Virgenes Homeowner's Federation and the Calabasas Highlands HOA, all of whom pointed out these new ordinances as written were "far from minor" and held sweeping powers over all properties in Calabasas, not just those in rural areas.
"This is a lot of to-do about absolutely nothing," Groveman said, remarking that he had never seen so many residents interested in municipal codes. "It's caused by about six people that would be better served by complying with the septic tank ordinance and protecting the environment."
Water District Objects
Yet, the new wording in the municipal code prompted David Lippman, director of facilities and operations for the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, to vehemently oppose section 112.3.3 of the ordinance that reads in part, "The Building Official is hereby empowered to disconnect in writing the discontinuance of water utility service to buildings, structures or premises, or portions thereof…" and also have the sole discretion to order the water turned back on. Changes to the ordinance likewise authorizes the building official to shut off gas and electrical service without the property owner's consent in case of a building code violation.
In July, the District and Southern California Edison were embarrassed after Building Official Sparky Cohen ordered the shutoff of water and electricity to the Smith Family Ranch at the end of Stokes Canyon without the knowledge or consent of the property owner.
Mayor Barry Groveman defended the wording changes, saying that Calabasas must take responsibility for its safety and not depend on utility companies in case of an emergency.
"I respectfully disagree," Lippman said. "We are not disputing the fact that you have that authority; you don't have the authority to direct us to do it."
Groveman said they needed to pass the urgency ordinance before January 1, otherwise all of the City's present ordinances would expire, including the controversial septic ordinances, which prompted applause from the Old Topanga homeowners who have felt the wrath of the city.
"These codes and ordinances do not expire, they do not turn into a pumpkin, there is no logical reason to pass these tonight,"said Jody Thomas, president of the Old Topanga Homeowners Association.
Councilman James Bozajian asked why there was a need for the urgency ordinance in the first place and the need for a vote with no time for reading or public input.
Tamuri said that by law, the state adopts new building codes every three years, and then each county adopts those codes to fit its needs.
Unfortunately, Tamuri said the County's codes "trickled in over September and October, and they still have not received the county fire codes. We can't act until we receive them from the county," Tamuri said. "We received them and immediately acted on them; this is the first time we had an opportunity to bring them to you."
While he remained skeptical about the timeline or calls for an immediate vote, given that there is a three-year lead time for updating municipal codes, Bozajian appreciated Tamuri's clarification.
"I am satisfied with that answer," Bozajian said. "Nevertheless, as a matter of policy, this is unacceptable and not conducive to proper public input."
Other members of the homeowner's associations weren't so happy and emphasized that there is simply no reason under state or county law to adopt the urgency ordinance.
"The ordinance also defines anything that is not permitted as unsafe," wrote Nancy Rothenberg, President of Calabasas Highlands HOA, in an e-mail submitted to the City for public comment. "Since this proposal gives special new powers to the City to declare any un-permitted repair, etc. (not just future ones), as a safety hazard and grounds for eviction, this could negatively affect the real estate market in Calabasas.
Rothenberg continued in her e-mail, "My understanding is that, to name a few examples, if I need to have the thermostat replaced in my hot water heater, or my gas dryer needs repair, or if I replace my gas dryer, or if the computer board in my furnace needs to be replaced, or if I replace a toilet – or even if I change the Fluid Master in the toilet or if I put a dimmer switch on a light – I need to obtain a permit?"
"I don't believe for a minute there'll be chaos in the streets", said Dr. Scott Picker, an anesthesiologist who lives in the Dry Canyon-Cold Creek area and has just filed to run for City Council in the March 8, 2011 election. "I need two of you to vote ‘no' tonight. We all do."
After the discussion, the council ultimately voted to resume the urgency ordinance discussion on Wed. Nov. 24 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 100 Civic Center Way.
© 2010 Phoenix Rising Inc., www.TopangaMessenger.com
By Annemarie Donkin
http://www.topangamessenger.com/Articles.asp?SectionID=17&ArticleID=4189
Persuaded to delay a vote pending public comment, parts of an urgency ordinance to the Calabasas building codes may be legally unenforceable.
In a session lasting past midnight, about a dozen Calabasas homeowners urged city officials to delay a vote on a controversial urgency ordinance at the Nov. 10 City Council Meeting. The urgency ordinance was released late Monday, Nov. 8, with no time for the public or the City Council to read through sweeping municipal code changes proposed in the 134-page document.
Prior to the meeting, staff recommended that the City Council adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 2010-278U, which it says adheres to the 2010 California Building Standards Code (CA Code of Regulations Title 24) with local amendments. According to the staff report, "this action will comply with State of California law and continue local amendments until Ordinance No. 2010-279 is enacted."
The ordinance includes 15 new pages of policies for on-site wastewater treatment systems and would allow city building officials to disconnect utilities if they observe code violations. Additionally, the new municipal code requires that a permit from the city be obtained by anyone who intends to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system component or device.
The urgency ordinance requires a four-fifths majority vote to pass and would only be in effect until the council incorporates the new state building code revisions into a regular ordinance.
Maureen Tamuri, community development director for Calabasas, explained that if the council did not adopt the urgency ordinance by the state's January 1 deadline, state codes would automatically go into effect until the city adopts its own.
According to Tamuri, most of the proposed regulations are already in effect as part of the state and county building codes "to protect human life," and emphasized that the revisions will have little or no impact on the majority of the population.
"People already must pull permits when they do improvements affected by the building code," Tamuri said.
Yet proposed changes to the municipal code would concentrate power in the hands of city officials including Tamuri, Building Official Sparky Cohen and City Manager Tony Coroalles.
Cohen has already been tasked with enforcing all building and safety codes including the City's controversial septic ordinance, prompting unannounced armed raids on rural residents, as well as personally determining what constitutes an "immediate hazard to public health."
According to the new ordinance, at the discretion of the building official, those violating the new code would be guilty of a misdemeanor and face $1,000 fines or six months in jail.
There was vigorous outcry during public comment, primarily from members of the Old Topanga Homeowners Association, the Las Virgenes Homeowner's Federation and the Calabasas Highlands HOA, all of whom pointed out these new ordinances as written were "far from minor" and held sweeping powers over all properties in Calabasas, not just those in rural areas.
"This is a lot of to-do about absolutely nothing," Groveman said, remarking that he had never seen so many residents interested in municipal codes. "It's caused by about six people that would be better served by complying with the septic tank ordinance and protecting the environment."
Water District Objects
Yet, the new wording in the municipal code prompted David Lippman, director of facilities and operations for the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, to vehemently oppose section 112.3.3 of the ordinance that reads in part, "The Building Official is hereby empowered to disconnect in writing the discontinuance of water utility service to buildings, structures or premises, or portions thereof…" and also have the sole discretion to order the water turned back on. Changes to the ordinance likewise authorizes the building official to shut off gas and electrical service without the property owner's consent in case of a building code violation.
In July, the District and Southern California Edison were embarrassed after Building Official Sparky Cohen ordered the shutoff of water and electricity to the Smith Family Ranch at the end of Stokes Canyon without the knowledge or consent of the property owner.
Mayor Barry Groveman defended the wording changes, saying that Calabasas must take responsibility for its safety and not depend on utility companies in case of an emergency.
"I respectfully disagree," Lippman said. "We are not disputing the fact that you have that authority; you don't have the authority to direct us to do it."
Groveman said they needed to pass the urgency ordinance before January 1, otherwise all of the City's present ordinances would expire, including the controversial septic ordinances, which prompted applause from the Old Topanga homeowners who have felt the wrath of the city.
"These codes and ordinances do not expire, they do not turn into a pumpkin, there is no logical reason to pass these tonight,"said Jody Thomas, president of the Old Topanga Homeowners Association.
Councilman James Bozajian asked why there was a need for the urgency ordinance in the first place and the need for a vote with no time for reading or public input.
Tamuri said that by law, the state adopts new building codes every three years, and then each county adopts those codes to fit its needs.
Unfortunately, Tamuri said the County's codes "trickled in over September and October, and they still have not received the county fire codes. We can't act until we receive them from the county," Tamuri said. "We received them and immediately acted on them; this is the first time we had an opportunity to bring them to you."
While he remained skeptical about the timeline or calls for an immediate vote, given that there is a three-year lead time for updating municipal codes, Bozajian appreciated Tamuri's clarification.
"I am satisfied with that answer," Bozajian said. "Nevertheless, as a matter of policy, this is unacceptable and not conducive to proper public input."
Other members of the homeowner's associations weren't so happy and emphasized that there is simply no reason under state or county law to adopt the urgency ordinance.
"The ordinance also defines anything that is not permitted as unsafe," wrote Nancy Rothenberg, President of Calabasas Highlands HOA, in an e-mail submitted to the City for public comment. "Since this proposal gives special new powers to the City to declare any un-permitted repair, etc. (not just future ones), as a safety hazard and grounds for eviction, this could negatively affect the real estate market in Calabasas.
Rothenberg continued in her e-mail, "My understanding is that, to name a few examples, if I need to have the thermostat replaced in my hot water heater, or my gas dryer needs repair, or if I replace my gas dryer, or if the computer board in my furnace needs to be replaced, or if I replace a toilet – or even if I change the Fluid Master in the toilet or if I put a dimmer switch on a light – I need to obtain a permit?"
"I don't believe for a minute there'll be chaos in the streets", said Dr. Scott Picker, an anesthesiologist who lives in the Dry Canyon-Cold Creek area and has just filed to run for City Council in the March 8, 2011 election. "I need two of you to vote ‘no' tonight. We all do."
After the discussion, the council ultimately voted to resume the urgency ordinance discussion on Wed. Nov. 24 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 100 Civic Center Way.
© 2010 Phoenix Rising Inc., www.TopangaMessenger.com
conarb
Registered User
They better have a savings clause in that ordinance or the courts "might" throw the whole thing out.
Jobsaver
Registered User
Savings clause? In layman's terms please.
conarb
Registered User
Courts apply this to conflicts in law as well, in a famous case in California, the B&P Code stated that a General Contractor was 2 or more trades in addition to carpentry in one section, in another they stated 3 or more trades, Home Depot sued the state over the conflict (wanting one small general to put in a water heater one day, patch a roof the next, etc.), the NAHB having long wanted to legalize the subcontracting of carpentry jumped in with an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief and the court threw out that whole section of the Code, new legislation had to be written, passed, and signed by the governor, but for about two years the building business was in chaos. Had there been a savings clause the court could only have thrown out the actual sections in conflict. ¹ http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/contract_clauses.html
Regarding the ability to “order” disconnection of utilities California Building Code Section 112.3 already gives the building department the authority to authorize disconnection of utilities. This is adopted by the state and I do not believe that the local jurisdiction has the authority to delete it. They may not be able to order the utility but if the utility does not take action and there is a problem the utility might have liability.
Those armed raids should be accompanied by a legal document giving them access.
A key question is whether the septic ordinance is a Building Standard as defined by the California Codes. If it is not then it may not be tied to the adoption of the building code and would not need to be readopted every three years.
Every three years California adopts an updated state building code. At that time all local amendments related to the building code need to be readopted or they expire. If the local jurisdiction takes no action they automatically have to enforce the basic code adopted by the state.
California Health & Safety code defines a substandard building and gives the building department authority to take action to abate the problem if it is a hazard. Thus there would be no need for a local ordinance for the city to take action. This applies only to residential occupancies.
The H&S Code already provides for financial penalties for failure to comply with provisions related to substandard buildings. So it appears that the concern about the financial penalties is probably not anything new.
In my opinion most local ordinances amending the local building code are not valid since the amendment does not meet the criteria for when a local amendment is allowed.
I believe that there is a Severability Clause in the IBC and California Building Code.
I believe that there is a lack of trust of the City and when people read the proposed amendments they assume the worst. I wonder why the local amendments were necessary since it appears that at least some of the amendments are restating existing state law.. If the authors of the local amendment had resisted temptation and not restated existing law then they would have given the citizens less ammunition.
Those armed raids should be accompanied by a legal document giving them access.
A key question is whether the septic ordinance is a Building Standard as defined by the California Codes. If it is not then it may not be tied to the adoption of the building code and would not need to be readopted every three years.
Every three years California adopts an updated state building code. At that time all local amendments related to the building code need to be readopted or they expire. If the local jurisdiction takes no action they automatically have to enforce the basic code adopted by the state.
California Health & Safety code defines a substandard building and gives the building department authority to take action to abate the problem if it is a hazard. Thus there would be no need for a local ordinance for the city to take action. This applies only to residential occupancies.
The H&S Code already provides for financial penalties for failure to comply with provisions related to substandard buildings. So it appears that the concern about the financial penalties is probably not anything new.
In my opinion most local ordinances amending the local building code are not valid since the amendment does not meet the criteria for when a local amendment is allowed.
I believe that there is a Severability Clause in the IBC and California Building Code.
I believe that there is a lack of trust of the City and when people read the proposed amendments they assume the worst. I wonder why the local amendments were necessary since it appears that at least some of the amendments are restating existing state law.. If the authors of the local amendment had resisted temptation and not restated existing law then they would have given the citizens less ammunition.
Jobsaver
Registered User
CA: We call that a severability clause. Might be a layman term. Anyway, I think it is in the Calibasas ordinance if we are talking about the same thing.
SECTION 42. Severability. Should any section, subsection, clause, or
provision of this Ordinance for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality
of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared that
this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase hereof
would have been 10prepared, proposed, approved, and ratified adopted irrespective
of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or
phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 42. Severability. Should any section, subsection, clause, or
provision of this Ordinance for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality
of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared that
this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase hereof
would have been 10prepared, proposed, approved, and ratified adopted irrespective
of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or
phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Jobsaver
Registered User
Here lies the essence of the conversation. Eventually, the American Indian developed a lack of trust for the white man. I wonder why?Mark K said:
I flipped through the ordinance. Looks like most other ordinances amending the code to fit your region. It looks like around 100 pages of it is the legal mumbo jumbo!
He who lives in a TeePee and drinks too much tea will drown in their own tea pee!
He who lives in a TeePee and drinks too much tea will drown in their own tea pee!
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Water Issue Heating Up in Calabasas
By Annemarie Donkin
12-16-2010
Smith family files a $2.4 million claim against the city as citizens crowd City Hall to prevent Calabasas Council from passing controversial building code amendments.
The Calabasas City Council convened a special session on November 24 to hold an additional meeting in November in order to pass a set of tough new building codes prior to January 1. On the agenda was the Urgency Ordinance No. 2010-278U, adopting the 2010 California Building Standards Code and California Code of Regulations, Title 24, with 134 pages of local amendments.
As two Sheriff's deputies sat quietly at the back of the chamber, impatient Calabasas residents groaned through a lengthy presentation that explained the need for the state, counties and local municipalities to adopt new building codes every three years.
Building official Sparky Cohen and Steve Widmeyer, PE, a civil engineer who helped write the original building code amendments for Calabasas, presented a dry staff report with reasons why it would be necessary to give Cohen increased executive powers to order residents' gas, electric and water to be shut off at his sole discretion.
The new wording in the proposed municipal code prompted David Lippman, director of facilities and operations for the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, to vehemently oppose section 112.3.3 of the local ordinance at the November 10 City Council meeting.
The code reads in part, "The Building Official [sparky Cohen] is hereby empowered to disconnect in writing the discontinuance of water utility service to buildings, structures or premises, or portions thereof…" and also have sole discretion to order the water be turned back on. The changes to the new ordinance likewise authorize the building official to shut off gas and electrical service without the property owner's consent in case of a building code violation.
Citing an "immediate danger to life and public health," Calabasas Mayor Barry Groveman defended Cohen's actions by saying that septic code violators were "flushing raw sewage into the creek." He also defended the wording of the local amendments, saying that Calabasas must take responsibility for its safety and not depend on the District in an emergency.
"I respectfully disagree," Lippman said at the November 10 meeting. "We are not disputing the fact that you have that authority; you don't have the authority to direct us to do it."
Councilmember Mary Sue Mauer took particular exception to the adoption of the new water ordinance, which was separated out from gas and electric.
"This is a different issue; when you shut off the water, you are forcing someone out of their home," she said, and asked that the city set a "higher standard" for shutting off property owners' water than it did in July, perhaps including obtaining a judge's warrant or, at the very least, council approval.
Legal Claim Against Calabasas
In July, the District and Southern California Edison were embarrassed after Cohen ordered the shutoff of water and electricity to the Smith Family Ranch on Stokes Canyon Road without the knowledge or consent of the owner, forcing Lloyd Smith, 70, and his son, Gary, off the property. Cohen even ordered the District to shut off and lock the Smith's fire hydrant, even though the water bill had been paid and there was no other reason to turn off the water.
Jim Moorehead, a longtime friend of the Smith family, presented into the public record a copy of a $2.4-million claim by Lloyd Smith against the city, for a direct violation of his civil rights under the Fourth Amendment. The claim names Mayor Barry Groveman, City Manager Tony Coroalles and building officials Maureen Tamuri and Sparky Cohen.
City Attorney Michael Colantuono said the claim would be referred to a collective self-insurance risk pool and handled in a routine manner.
"My expectation is we'll deny the claim," he said. "There are well-established immunities for local governments enforcing laws."
Public Comment
During public comment, among others, Lucy Martin, who is running for City Council in the March 8 election, expressed her outrage following a recent meeting with Lloyd Smith, who was displaced from his home due to the City's aggressive code enforcement actions.
Dale Reicheneder of Calabasas, who has also filed to become a candidate for City Council, also expressed his opposition to the proposed ordinances.
Dave Brown of Calabasas expressed concern over specific sections of the proposed ordinance that would require permits for otherwise trivial upgrades that had been exempt.
Following public comment, there was a spirited debate and some confusion among council members about what exactly they were voting to approve – a point considered by the majority of the public to be the key issue at stake. The council finally agreed to hold more public meetings or a workshop for public input before the second reading of the proposed amendments.
Ultimately, after the three-hour meeting, council member Jonathon Wolfson moved, seconded by Mayor pro Tem Dennis Washburn, to adopt Ordinance No. 2010-278U with revisions and to table Ordinance No. 2010-279 to a future meeting. The motion was carried five to zero.
At Councilmember Mauer's urging, the City Council concurred to schedule a public workshop to discuss the 2010 Building Code.
© 2010 Phoenix Rising Inc., www.TopangaMessenger.com
By Annemarie Donkin
12-16-2010
Smith family files a $2.4 million claim against the city as citizens crowd City Hall to prevent Calabasas Council from passing controversial building code amendments.
The Calabasas City Council convened a special session on November 24 to hold an additional meeting in November in order to pass a set of tough new building codes prior to January 1. On the agenda was the Urgency Ordinance No. 2010-278U, adopting the 2010 California Building Standards Code and California Code of Regulations, Title 24, with 134 pages of local amendments.
As two Sheriff's deputies sat quietly at the back of the chamber, impatient Calabasas residents groaned through a lengthy presentation that explained the need for the state, counties and local municipalities to adopt new building codes every three years.
Building official Sparky Cohen and Steve Widmeyer, PE, a civil engineer who helped write the original building code amendments for Calabasas, presented a dry staff report with reasons why it would be necessary to give Cohen increased executive powers to order residents' gas, electric and water to be shut off at his sole discretion.
The new wording in the proposed municipal code prompted David Lippman, director of facilities and operations for the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, to vehemently oppose section 112.3.3 of the local ordinance at the November 10 City Council meeting.
The code reads in part, "The Building Official [sparky Cohen] is hereby empowered to disconnect in writing the discontinuance of water utility service to buildings, structures or premises, or portions thereof…" and also have sole discretion to order the water be turned back on. The changes to the new ordinance likewise authorize the building official to shut off gas and electrical service without the property owner's consent in case of a building code violation.
Citing an "immediate danger to life and public health," Calabasas Mayor Barry Groveman defended Cohen's actions by saying that septic code violators were "flushing raw sewage into the creek." He also defended the wording of the local amendments, saying that Calabasas must take responsibility for its safety and not depend on the District in an emergency.
"I respectfully disagree," Lippman said at the November 10 meeting. "We are not disputing the fact that you have that authority; you don't have the authority to direct us to do it."
Councilmember Mary Sue Mauer took particular exception to the adoption of the new water ordinance, which was separated out from gas and electric.
"This is a different issue; when you shut off the water, you are forcing someone out of their home," she said, and asked that the city set a "higher standard" for shutting off property owners' water than it did in July, perhaps including obtaining a judge's warrant or, at the very least, council approval.
Legal Claim Against Calabasas
In July, the District and Southern California Edison were embarrassed after Cohen ordered the shutoff of water and electricity to the Smith Family Ranch on Stokes Canyon Road without the knowledge or consent of the owner, forcing Lloyd Smith, 70, and his son, Gary, off the property. Cohen even ordered the District to shut off and lock the Smith's fire hydrant, even though the water bill had been paid and there was no other reason to turn off the water.
Jim Moorehead, a longtime friend of the Smith family, presented into the public record a copy of a $2.4-million claim by Lloyd Smith against the city, for a direct violation of his civil rights under the Fourth Amendment. The claim names Mayor Barry Groveman, City Manager Tony Coroalles and building officials Maureen Tamuri and Sparky Cohen.
City Attorney Michael Colantuono said the claim would be referred to a collective self-insurance risk pool and handled in a routine manner.
"My expectation is we'll deny the claim," he said. "There are well-established immunities for local governments enforcing laws."
Public Comment
During public comment, among others, Lucy Martin, who is running for City Council in the March 8 election, expressed her outrage following a recent meeting with Lloyd Smith, who was displaced from his home due to the City's aggressive code enforcement actions.
Dale Reicheneder of Calabasas, who has also filed to become a candidate for City Council, also expressed his opposition to the proposed ordinances.
Dave Brown of Calabasas expressed concern over specific sections of the proposed ordinance that would require permits for otherwise trivial upgrades that had been exempt.
Following public comment, there was a spirited debate and some confusion among council members about what exactly they were voting to approve – a point considered by the majority of the public to be the key issue at stake. The council finally agreed to hold more public meetings or a workshop for public input before the second reading of the proposed amendments.
Ultimately, after the three-hour meeting, council member Jonathon Wolfson moved, seconded by Mayor pro Tem Dennis Washburn, to adopt Ordinance No. 2010-278U with revisions and to table Ordinance No. 2010-279 to a future meeting. The motion was carried five to zero.
At Councilmember Mauer's urging, the City Council concurred to schedule a public workshop to discuss the 2010 Building Code.
© 2010 Phoenix Rising Inc., www.TopangaMessenger.com
Jobsaver
Registered User
A familiar truth about city council members voting on codes.mark handler said:
Architect1281
Gold Member
Seems to be that some govern by the thoery expressed in my Tag Line
At least in the begining Lil RI tried to get it right.
Even though it is worded pretty clearly some still try.
§ 23-27.3-100.1.7 Effect of local codes – Repeal of local authority.
The local building codes and ordinances shall remain in effect until the adoption of the state building code, July 1, 1977,
and the local cities and towns shall be prohibited from enacting any local building codes and ordinances in the future.
Inconsistent local charter provisions pertaining to the adoption of the codes and ordinances shall be restricted within the intent of this section.
At least in the begining Lil RI tried to get it right.
Even though it is worded pretty clearly some still try.
§ 23-27.3-100.1.7 Effect of local codes – Repeal of local authority.
The local building codes and ordinances shall remain in effect until the adoption of the state building code, July 1, 1977,
and the local cities and towns shall be prohibited from enacting any local building codes and ordinances in the future.
Inconsistent local charter provisions pertaining to the adoption of the codes and ordinances shall be restricted within the intent of this section.