Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director Consideration of an Ordinance (First Reading) Amending the Carmel-ByThe-Sea Municipal Code Making Revisions to the Building Board of Appeals and Establishing a Process for Hearing Appeals related to Compl iance with all State and Federal Disabled Access Requirements
Recommendation:
Executive Summary: The City does not currently have seated a Building Board of Appeals, nor
does the City have a mechanism set up to hear appeals for matters related to compliance with both State and Federal disabled access requirements. The City's Municipal Code sets forth the membership The current membership requirements of the Building Board of Appeals, as well as the process for hearing Building Code-related appeals. requirements are difficult for a City of Carmel's size to meet, and the appeal processes are not in keeping with the state of the industry. The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 15.04 of Title 15 of the City of Carmel Municipal Code to address these issues.
Analysis /Discussion: Background and Role of the Building Board of Appeals
A Building Board of Appeals is the board that hears appeals of determinations made by the Building Official regarding building permit requirements or interpretations of the Building Code. Sections 15.04.170 through 15.04.240 set forth the membership, authority, and procedures for the Board of Appeals. The City's existing regulations for Sections 15.04.170 through 15.04.240 are included as Attachment B. Building Code requirements tend to be clearly defined, but there are instances where an interpretation is needed. The Board of Appeals provides an appeal body for decisions of the Building Official with which an owner or applicant disagrees.
1
207
In part because of the limited discretion in Building Code determinations, the City has not received a formal request to appeal a decision of the Building Official in the last several years. Nonetheless, the establishment of such a board is required under the Municipal Code, and the City should have such a board seated in the event that an appeal is received. This board would also hear appeals related to compliance with disabled access requirements and actions required to abate dangerous or unsafe buildings as set forth in Section 15.04.240 of the Municipal Code. For the Board of Appeals to have the requisite expertise for matters related to disabled access compliance, for any hearing on an disabled access-related matter, the board's membership should be augmented to include two members who are either disabled or qualified to address disabled access matters.
Issues with Existing Provisions - Membership
The existing Municipal Code sets forth the membership of the Board of Appeals to include five members, of which four are regular members that hear all Building appeals brought forth . The four regular members are required to have specific qualifications as follows: one architect, one civil or structu ral engineer, on general contractor, and one layman. The fifth member is represented by one of three alternates each with their own special qualifications: a qualified plumbing contractor or plumber, a qualified electrical contractor or electrician, and a qualified mechanical contractor. On general matters, any one of the alternates sits on the board; for matters that are f ield-specific (i.e., plumbing-, electrical-, or mechanical-related, the appropriately-qualified alternate sits on the board. Section 15.04.180 also requires that four of the members of the board be residents of the City. Such requirements, including the residency requirement, present a challenge for a City the size of Carmel. Staff recommends revisions to the membership of the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals would still have five members with three core members sitti ng on all appeal matters and two disabled access members or experts who would only participate on the board for matters related to disabled access compliance issues. The core members wou ld have the following qualifications: one architect or (civil or structural) engineer, one general contractor, and a third member who may have expertise in the constr uction or building field or who may be a layperson.
208
Staff also recommends that the residency requirement be revised. The staff-recommended change would still maintain a requirement that the majority of the core board members be City residents. address membership and purview of the Board of Appeals. While not an ex officio member of the board, the Building Official would participate in the hearing as would the appellant. The Building Official's participation would provide technical expertise regarding the Building Code and disabled access compliance requirements as well as assistance in ensuring that the issue of dispute is correctly conveyed and understood.
Issues with Existing Provisions - Process
Revisions to
The Board of Appeals should include a majority of the members that are technical experts and knowledgeable in building issues. This board would be hearing appeals of the City's chief technical expert on building and safety issues: the Building Official. The current version of Chapter 15.04 includes the potential for the Planning Commission to sit as the Board of Appeals when "a conflict arises in the composition of the Board." Furthermore, Section 15.04.220 establishes a provision for appealing a decision of the Board of Appeals to the City Council. While the retention of the Planning Commission as a potential substitute for the Board of Appeals may be appropriate from a technical expertise perspective, the City Council may not have this expertise. In addition, having either the Planning Commission or the City Council involved in appeals of Building Code or disabled access compliance items takes issues that are technical in nature and places them in the political arena. Other cities have recognized this as a potential problem and omitted an appeal process that involves either the City Council or the Planning Commission. Instead, the Board of Appeals is the final City decisionAn owner or making body for considering these technical issues.
applicant who disagrees with the decision of the Board of Appeals would need to seek remedy with the courts. In general, when such matters are brought before the Superior Court, the court defers to the technical experts on the technical issues, and rather focuses on whether the correct procedural process was followed . Staff recommends removing the Appeal to the City Council provisions in Sections 15.04.220 and
209
The City determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines}, Article 20, Section 15378}. CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, and because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
Alternatives:
The Council may direct changes to the proposed draft Ordinance, which depending on the extent of these revisions, may require re-introduction of the Ordinance at a future meeting. In addition, the Council could opt not to proceed with revisions to the existing regulations, in which case, should an appeal of the Building Official's determination be filed, the Planning Commission could serve in this capacity under a broad interpretation of Section 15.04.180. In the event of an appeal related to an disabled access compliance issue, the Planning Commission would not be able to hear this item due to the lack of disabled access expertise, and City staff would need to expeditiously convene the appropriate appeal body after bringing forth an ordinance similar to the proposed ordinance to establish such a board. The no-action alternative also retains the City Council as the final appeal body in the event of an appeal of the Board of Appeals decision. As discussed above, having the City Council involved in appeals of Building Official determinations may be undesirable as this can politicize an issue that is technical in nature.
Fiscal Impact:
No direct costs were incurred in the preparation of the ordinance; staff costs are part of the City's normal workload. Once the board is seated, compensation for travel expenses related to board duties may result in additional costs. However, no stipends or other compensation is proposed. Given that this board is unlikely to meet more than once or twice a year, staff estimates that any travel costs would be less than $1,000 per year.
4
210
The current version of the Board of Appeals-related sections of Chapter 15.04 were established by the City Council in 1989 (Ordinance 89-29), with minor amendments made in 2010 (Ordinance 2010-05).
Attachment:
Attachment A- Draft Ordinance Attachment B- Excerpt of the Current Version of Sections 15.04.170 through 15.04.240
Reviewed by:
City Administrator Asst. City Admin. Public Safety Dir
.r
D D
D
~
D D D
211
Attachment A
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 2014-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA MUNICIPAL CODE MAKING REVISIONS T O THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AND ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR HEARING APPEALS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has adopted provisions in Chapter 15.04 of Title 15 of the City's Municipal Code for establishing a Building Board of Appeals that provides an appeal body for decisions and determinations of the Building Official; and WHEREAS, the Board of Appeals as currently established does not meet requirements for review of Building Official determinations related to compliance with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, as amended, (42 USC 12101, et seq.); and WHEREAS, certain other revisions to Chapter 15.04 are desirable to address membership and procedures of the Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 20 14, the City Council conducted a duly-noticed public hearing for first reading and introduction of this Ordinance and consider all public testimony, both written and oral, received in conjunction with the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 20 14, the City Council conducted a second reading of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS , the City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the City' s Municipal Code set forth by this ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA GuiJelines Section 15061, which includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a signif1cant effect on the environment. THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS: Section One. Title 15 ofthe Municipal Code ofthe City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 15.04, 15.40.1 70 of the Carmel Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
212
15. 04, 15. 40. I 80 of the Carmel Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
2
213
adopted, and shall also hear requests for variances from any provision of this title or of the uniform Building Code and related codes herein adopted referred to it by the Building Official. Upon such reference, or upon appeal, it shall have the same power as the Building Official to grant such variances and impose conditions thereon. (Ord. 89-29 1, 1989; Code 1975 1115.0(b)).
15. 04, 15. 40.200 of the Carmel Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
15. 04, 15. 40.220 of the Carmel Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
Filing.
The Board of Appeals is the final City decision-maker for items com ing before the Board.J\n appeal to the Cit)' Council from the action of the Board ofAppeals may be filed by the applicant or by the Building Official. Such appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk and .vith the Board of Appeals within 10 days after '>vritten notice of the dedsion of the Board of Appeals has been mailed to the applicant. An appeal shall set forth specifically the points at issue, the reasons for the appeal, and wherein the appellant believes there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Board of Appeals. (Ord. 89 29 1, 1989; Code 1975 1115.l(a)).
15. 04, 15. 40.230 of the Carmel Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows :
HeaFing.
Upon receipt of such appeal the City Council shall set a date for public hearing thereon, giving at least five days' notice thereof to the applicant and to the Building Official. The City Council may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from. (Ord . 89 29 1, 1989; Code 1975 1115.l (b)). l5 .04.240 Appeal from Actions to Abate Dangerous Buildings. Section Two. If any section, subsection, or part of this Ordinance is held to be in\'alid or unenforceable, all other sections, subsections, or parts of subsections of this ordinance shall remain valid and enforceab le. Section Three. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the thirty-first
3
214
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THESEA this_ day of _ _ 2014, by the following roll call vote:
SIGNED: ATTEST: Jason Burnett, MAYOR Daryl Betancur, CMC Deputy City Clerk
4 215