# new building code fight in Calbasas, CA



## Yikes

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."


----------



## jpranch

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?


----------



## Yikes

"Mayor Barry Groveman favored swift action, noting that he had "skimmed" the 134 pages of changes."


----------



## Mark K

Would suggest that at least some of these local amendments are illegal.  California puts some fairly restrictive limits on the types of local amendments.


----------



## mark handler

*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


----------



## Jobsaver

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!


----------



## Mark K

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.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Smells like a lot of crap to me.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Jobsaver

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.


----------



## packsaddle

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?


----------



## Uncle Bob

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


----------



## RJJ

BOB: You make me LOL! 134 pages! Well thats less then the 09 IRC revisions!


----------



## conarb

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.


----------



## jpranch

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.


----------



## Jobsaver

Despising political crap probably makes you a better BO.


----------



## mark handler

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.


----------



## Jobsaver

http://www.cityofcalabasas.com/pdf/agendas/council/2010/111010/item8-attachment-a.pdf

The evil ordinance presented at the City Council meeting.


----------



## mark handler

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> http://www.cityofcalabasas.com/pdf/agendas/council/2010/111010/item8-attachment-a.pdfThe evil ordinance presented at the City Council meeting.


*That ORDINANCE, is not yet in effect. *


----------



## Jobsaver

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".


----------



## mark handler

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


----------



## Mark K

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 handler

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)].


----------



## jpranch

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!


----------



## Mark K

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.


----------



## Jobsaver

Jp: Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think about it!


----------



## conarb

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.


----------



## Jobsaver

mark handler said:
			
		

> The issues with the building department first arose when they retroactively went after the septic systems


I suspect the issues first arose upon annexation into the city.


----------



## Mark K

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.


----------



## conarb

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.


----------



## Uncle Bob

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


----------



## Jobsaver

conarb said:
			
		

> 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.


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.


----------



## mark handler

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


----------



## conarb

> ........to disconnect in writing the discontinuance of water utility service to buildings.......


They better have a savings clause in that ordinance or the courts "might" throw the whole thing out.


----------



## Jobsaver

Savings clause? In layman's terms please.


----------



## conarb

> *Savings (Severability) Clause*       Most contracts include a savings clause, which is meant to ensure that the          contract remains enforceable even if part of the contract is later held invalid:
> 
> _If any provision of this Contract is held unenforceable, then such          provision will be modified to reflect the parties' intention. All remaining          provisions of this Contract shall remain in full force and effect._
> 
> In the absence of a savings clause, it is possible that if a single clause          is held invalid, the entire contract will also be rendered invalid.¹


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


----------



## Mark K

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.


----------



## Jobsaver

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.


----------



## Jobsaver

Mark K said:
			
		

> I believe that there is a lack of trust


Here lies the essence of the conversation. Eventually, the American Indian developed a lack of trust for the white man. I wonder why?


----------



## Mule

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!


----------



## mark handler

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


----------



## Jobsaver

mark handler said:
			
		

> Following public comment, there was a spirited debate and some confusion among council members about what exactly they were voting to approve


A familiar truth about city council members voting on codes.


----------



## Architect1281

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.


----------

