It seemed like plenty of folks at Monday night’s monthly Building, Accessibility and Fire Code Appeals Board meeting were anticipating fireworks, including a sheriff’s deputy who said, very sweetly, that he was there to “keep an eye on things.”
Though the tone of the meeting remained relatively calm, Supervisor Neal Coonerty opened oral communications with some choice words for a board of appointees that has proven exceptionally independent-minded: last week, BAFCAB member Daniel Bronson called a meeting to hear an appeal on a project by architect Cove Britton, a routine thing—except that the planning department had already deemed the matter outside the board’s jurisdiction.
“Any suggestion that the BAFCAB is not answerable to anyone, including the Board of Supervisors, is ... erroneous,” Coonerty read from a statement. “A member who believes that they cannot carry out his or her official duties in a manner consistent with the policies and regulations approved by the Board of Supervisors should reconsider his or her continued participation as an appointee.”
Though no rotten fruit began to fly, neither the audience nor the BAFCAB board seemed to take this advice well, especially in light of the fact that former chair Michael Bethke had apparently done just that early last week, writing in his resignation letter that he was incensed by the “brusque and condescending attitudes” of county planning management.
David Parks, who took Bronson’s vice-chair position last week after Bethke’s departure opened the top slot, responded with a declaration of fealty to the highest principles. “Mr. Coonerty suggested I can resign,” he said. “[But] I have an obligation to do what I feel is state law. I have to be true to myself.”
Though last Wednesday’s “rogue” meeting was canceled—according to Bronson because Britton withdrew on advice from his attorney—the electrical engineer and new BAFCAB chair says his board had every right to consider the appeal. Bronson’s concerned that the planning department is violating state law by acting as a “gatekeeper” to what the board should and shouldn’t hear.
“We’re trying to open the door to handle our responsibilities in an open and legal way. The planning department is behind the door leaning on it with county counsel aiding,” he says. “It doesn’t make sense to put the fox in charge of the henhouse.” Planning director Tom Burns stresses that BAFCAB is limited to hearing appeals on technical issues that arise in the building permit process, not on code enforcement, and says this is just the latest in a long fight between county residents who think the planning department is overly prescriptive and heavy-handed with stop-work red tags, which BAFCAB has no authority over.
“At the end of the day, the Board of Supervisors is still in charge,” Burns says. Not so, says BAFCAB member and architect Marty Fiorovich, who says the limited power of her board is a potential violation of California State Building Code 108.8, which says in general language that appeals should be considered by members not employed by the jurisdiction.
While Fiorovich says that she got involved in the reinstatement of the appeals board because she thought state law was being ignored, Bronson says he came to his position with no preconceived notions. He says hearing the frustration of people like Britton has inspired him to look more closely at the law. Though neither of the other board members, civil engineer Richard Irish or Parks, was available to comment, the board voted unanimously to form a subcommittee to send recommendations to the Board of Supervisors in the next two weeks on the legality of the codes dictating BAFCAB’s duties and the planning department’s compliance with law.
Supervisor Ellen Pirie, who was briefly in attendance at Monday’s meeting, says she wasn’t expecting the controversy.
“I certainly thought by forming this board that there would be a very clear appeals outlet for building code and fire code. I thought it had sort of been taken care of, but it appears not,” she says. “We probably have to do something. We can’t just let it happen if we think they’re violating the law or bringing some kind of liability on the county.”
What happens next is a matter of opinion. While some whisper that the board may be axed, Bronson insists that county code can be made state-compliant. “It still can work,” he says.
Comments (3)
Post a comment
Greg Keraunen Wed, May 20, 2009 - 7:59 pm
Thanks very much for this fine reporting on such a vital issue to this county!
I contacted Kurtis Alexander of the Sentinel and asked him why The Sentinel chose to ignore this meeting and he basically shrugged, saying that there were 30 or so other committees in the county - he just doesn’t see anything important about this one. Talk about heads in the sand!
Please keep us updated and let the public know where we can find out about the upcoming schedule of this committee - I have spend hours trying to find any info about upcoming meetings and I can’t find a web site or anything dedicated to official info about this committee.
It really sounds like the Supervisors are in deep trouble and hoping it will just all go away.
People are waking up to 30 years of unlawful behavior - hopefully one day honesty and openeness and the rule of law will prevail.
Legal Eagle Thu, May 21, 2009 - 11:27 am
Look at:
http://www.straighttalknews.org
http://sites.google.com/site/thetaintsantacruz/Home
Cove Britton Wed, May 20, 2009 - 8:22 pm
Hi all-
A number of you have expressed curiosity of what happened to my recent redtag and appeal regarding the red tag.
So here is the story (as I understand it).
A remodel addition (designed by my office) to an existing dwelling on Beach Drive was given a Notice of Violation and Intent to Record – the reasons stated on the Notice were vague, but we were verbally told it was due to a particular wall being removed. That wall, if it had actually been removed, could of triggered the home being demolished and brought up to current code (essentially a million dollar plus up tick on construction cost).
The original inspector had instructed the builder to remove dry rot, that instruction was given with out my, or the engineer’s consent. The inspector also gave a correction notice (not a notice of violation, that occurs later) assuming that the whole wall would be removed due to the dry rot. The builder then consulted with our office and the engineer (some what belatedly as dry rot had been removed) prior to removing all the structure at issue, at that time the engineer and our office promptly informed him not to remove any structure. I am familiar with the original inspector and do not believe there was any malicious intent but it was ill advised to instruct the builder to remove wall that our plans indicated to remain…no matter what reason.
As it turned out the wall still had enough sound wood to support the existing header- we did substitute a wood rim joist with a steel rim joist to minimize loads on the existing header below (an upgrade to our approved plans that already indicated replacement of the deck joists above the wall in question).
The original inspector happened to drive by prior to leaving on vacation and saw the steel deck joist and assumed we had replaced the header. He reported that to Jennifer Hutchinson, who sent out Sean Livingston to issue a stop work notice etc…
Once I was informed of the red tag, I contacted Mr. Deming (assistant planning director) via- email and explained that I did not believe that there was an issue, but was unsuccessful in having the red tag removed, at that point I appealed to the Local Appeals Board.
In the mean time I heard second hand that neither the original inspector nor Jennifer Hutchinson were necessarily in support of keeping the red tag in place (that they were aware it had been issued in error), but that “superiors” had decided to keep it in place.
At the same time the Local Appeals Board was trying to hear the appeal, quite properly, but were being blocked by county staff.
I contacted HCD (the state of California’s Housing and Community Development Department) in regards to the blocking of the appeal. HCD contacted Planning Director Tom Burns on the morning of May 13th. . My understanding of their conversation was this:
A Notice of Violation is not subject to appeal to the Appeals Board. BUT, a building standard issue that triggered the Notice of Violation is. In my case, HCD felt the Notice of Violation was too vague to determine whether it was a building standard issue that triggered the notice, but also clearly informed Tom that if it was a building standard issue, the appeals board must be allowed to hear the issue.
Subsequently, and after a conversation between my attorney and county counsel, Mr. Deming and the original inspector went to the site on Friday the 15th (and met the builder there, I was not invited nor the engineer). After the site meeting the red tag was lifted. The original inspector acknowledged to the builder that the red tag was a mistake.
I also discussed with HCD was the fact that the county had deleted 108.8 of the 2007 CBC, my understanding is that HCD is now requesting the Building Standards Commission to supply the county’s amendments (and supposed findings) for their review.
It was communicated to me that HCD is very busy, but also concerned and may well pursue action if provided with a clear circumstance in which they may act.
With all due respect for Supervisors Pirie and Coonerty, they have been misinformed as to the role of the state mandated building appeals board. Their misunderstanding of state code is a direct indication of why the state requires qualified individuals (who are not county employees)to be appointed to the building appeals board. The life, safety, and welfare of our community should not be left to unqualified, and at times politically motivated, individuals.