Hearings:
Consideration of appeal pertaining to wood wall approximately 24 inches in height located between 627 and 633 2nd Street - Appellant Jack Janken.
Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report highlighting the applicable code provisions relating to the appeal, and discussed Chapter 1 administrative section of the Building Code. He discussed Section 105.1 regarding the authority of the Board of Appeals, under Chapter 1 noting that the Board can only act on those interpretive matters expressly within its jurisdiction. He also reviewed Section 106, describing work requiring a permit and work exempt from a permit, noting that the wood wall is not subject to a permit under Section 106.2 exemption for retaining walls not over 48" in height as measured from bottom of footing to top of wall unless supporting a surcharge or flammable liquids. He also noted that due to the insignificant amount of grading and no danger presented by such grading to public or private property, that no grading permit was required. He reported that since no building permit or grading permit is required, no grading plan is required and therefore the matter did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Board as a building code matter. He stated that staff is available to answer any code related questions pertaining to the wood wall or the subject property. He indicated the appellant is available to present his appeal and the property owner at 633 2nd is also available to answer any questions for the Board.
Chairman Garrett requested that the appellant present his appeal to the Board.
Mr. Janken stated that he submitted his appeal months prior to the hearing and that it was misdirected and held by the City Manager until the last minute. He complained that he submitted color photos for exhibits, but that staff only provided black and white copies of them. Mr. Janken stated that he wanted to correct several things in staff's report. He stated the wall was not the height or width reported by staff and that the wall resulted in damage to his property due to water and debris, noting that his concrete block wall was removed by his neighbor, Mr. Curdes, without his permission which originally caused this problem. He complained that soil and junk also damaged his property and Iris McKinley's property on 3rd Street, due to a construction project to the north but that Staff did nothing to correct this problem either. He complained that staff was not attentive to his complaints and that is why he had to take the matter to the Board. He indicated that he found out about the Board by himself and staff never advised him of it to address his concerns. He indicated that he wanted originally to share one-half the cost for constructing a concrete wall and got bids to do so, but his neighbor refused to cooperate. He indicated that he originally had a concrete block retaining wall 17 years ago but that his neighbor removed it without his permission. He indicated that was not the reason for his appeal. He stated that his appeal was based on decisions and determinations of the Building Department relative to the application and interpretation of the California Building Code relating to construction design methods and materials of the retaining wall approved by the Building Department and whether the Code requirements are satisfied. He specifically referred to retaining wall construction and permit requirements and grading requirements. He referred to the Building Department's approval of a retaining wall with no permit, except for a fence, and that the area behind the wall was subsequently graded in violation of California Building Code requirements.
He further noted that the retaining wall exemption does not allow work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of the Code or any other laws or ordinances. He argued that the retaining wall drains onto his property in violation of Chapter 33 of the Code because cut and fill slopes shall be provided with subsurface drainage as necessary for stability and that all drainage facilities must be designed to carry waters to the nearest practicable drainage way. He stated that his property is five feet from the wood wall and is not in an isolated area. For these reason a grading permit and plan should have been required but was not.
He stated that Staff is not following the Code and there is no evidence from other cities that they do not require permits for walls less than 48" in height. He indicated that his exhibits in his appeal show that other cities including Hermosa Beach do require concrete masonry retaining walls and that Staff is not telling the truth when they say that other cities do not require permits for retaining walls of four feet or less and that staff does not have letter from other Building Departments supporting their claim.
Board Member Lininger inquired if Mr. Janken had a letter from other Building Departments supporting his claim and that if he did not, it was not fair to berate staff on not having such a letter and to stop attacking staff personally.
Board Member Ludwig inquired when the problem started with debris from the neighboring property. He referred to two photos in the staff report showing the completed wood wall. One photo taken shortly after the wall was constructed and the other taken more recently. He asked Mr. Janken when the erosion began. Mr. Janken replied that there was no problem except for the last few years.
Board Member Peha inquired about the offer referred to in the staff report by Mr. Curdes to install a 14" footing in front of the wall. Mr. Janken replied that he was interested sharing the cost for a new wall originally, but his neighbor refused and that he did not believe the footing will be constructed either.
Board Member Peha indicated that the status of the original wall was not the concern of the Board and irrelevant to the issue being considered and should not be discussed at the Board hearing. Board Member Peha commented that he noticed that the staff report reflects that the City Attorney had looked at these issues and agreed with Staff.
Chairman Garrett asked Director Blumenfeld to clarify discussion in the staff report that other cities did not require permits for walls of four feet or less in height. Director Blumenfeld commented that the report states that other cites do not regulate walls that are four feet or less in height, unless stipulated specifically for the conditions of the property, or by an engineer, since they are exempt from a permit under the Code.
Mr. Janken also stated criticism of the staff report regarding reference to use of wood retaining walls on public property and parks because these areas are not regulated by the Building Code and that the Building Code regulates occupancies. He stated that the wood wall has a surcharge condition because of the wood fence. He disputed staff referring to the wall as 13 feet in length and elsewhere as 10 feet in length, but that it is 16 feet long. He disputed the drainage test done by staff as inadequate since it did not represent the effect of rain on the soil behind the wood wall. He disputed staff's interpretation of the wood wall and fence, noting the wall is over four feet in height including the wood fence which he said is part of the wall. He stated that he had to replace his property sump pump because of contractor, Otto Palmer, who constructed a new adjacent condominium and was allowed to damage his property because Staff did not enforce the Building Code. He stated Staff refuses to enforce the Building Code.
Chairman Garrett requested that Mr. Janken summarize and conclude his comments so that others could speak. Mr. Janken stated that Staff was failing to enforce the Code and is responsible for extensive costs to residents.
Chairman Garrett asked if any other persons wanted to speak on the matter.
Jeff Curdes, property owner of 633 2nd Street, indicated that he had been involved in a lawsuit with Mr. Janken and he won. He noted that he was in agreement with Staff's report.
Board Member Peha inquired whether Mr. Curdes was still willing to construct the 14 inch footing noted in the Staff report, and Mr. Curdes responded that he would have to discuss that further with his wife.
Richard Gebele, Hermosa Beach resident, stated that Staff was costing residents too much money, and not cooperating and terrorizing residents and not treated people fairly.
Chairman Garrett asked if anyone else wanted to speak. Seeing no others coming forward to speak on the matter, Chairman Garrett closed the public hearing and asked for the Board's comments. Mr. Janken inquired whether the Board's report on the matter can come directly from the Board and not from Staff. Chairman Garrett responded that the report will be prepared by Staff with the Board's input.
Board Member Peha stated that the Code says that Board does not act on issues not required by the Code and no permit is required for the wall. He noted that he called ICBO and spoke with Bob McKerrry who indicated that the Board cannot hear the matter because the Board cannot hear a matter that is not a Code item.
Board Member Ludwig stated that the matter of the originally missing wall is not the Board's concern and that the issue of this retaining wall has nothing to do with the Board.
Mr. Janken commented that the Board did not read his appeal and that Staff got to the Board and that staff is railroading the Board and stated that he was leaving the hearing.
Chairman Garrett reminded Mr. Janken that the public comment period was closed.
Board Member Lininger concurred with Board Members Ludwig and Peha on the jurisdiction issue, but commented that if it were his property he would have installed the masonry wall himself.
Board Member Murry concurred with Board Members on the jurisdiction issue.
Board Member Peha inquired whether Staff had prepared structural analysis of the wood wall. Director Blumenfeld responded that the City's structural engineer examined the wall and fence above it and found that it was stable and performed its purpose of controlling erosion, but that no structural calculation were prepared since the matter was determined to be exempt from a permit.
Chairman Garrett asked if there was a motion regarding the jurisdiction of the Board relative to the wood wall.
Board Member Peha made the motion that the wood wall is not within the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals since it was determined not in need of a permit and is therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Board.
Chairman Garrett asks for a roll call:
Board Member Peha Yes
Board Member Ludwig Yes
Board Member Lininger Yes
Board Member Murry Yes
Chairman Garrett Yes
Motion passes unanimously.
As the matter was determined not to be within the jurisdiction of the Board there was no further discussion and Chairman Garrett moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
