Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - July 20, 2005 E-14 PHAGENDA ITEM 6.14 CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TM AGENDA TITLE: Set public hearing for August 3, 2005 to consider the appeal from Noorul Akbar regarding the requirements of a Notice and Order to Repair for the property located at 511 Alicante (APN: 031-200-16) MEETING DATE: July 20, 2005 PREPARED BY: Community Development Director RECONWENDED ACTION: Set a public hearing for August 3, 2005 to consider the appeal from Noorul Akbar regarding the requirements of a Notice and Order to Repair for the property located at 511 Alicante (APN: 031-200-16) BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Appellant owns the property located at 511 Alicante Drive in Lodi, where there currently exists a single-family dwelling with a detached garage. There is also an addition at the rear of the detached garage structure that is planned for use as an extended living area for the main dwelling. A Notice and Order to repair was issued on June 6, 2005, listing a number of code violations and deficiencies that were found upon the property, as well as the related corrective actions necessary to eliminate or abate those violations. Mr. Akbar is seeking relief from two of those requirements, which will be detailed in the staff report for the public hearing. FISCAL IMPACT: FUNDING AVAILABLE cc: Nocrul Akbar None Not Applicable APPROVED: Blair , City Manager City of Lodi Community Development Department P.O. Box 3006 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, California 95241-1910 General Information Reouired Appellant's Name Phone rJ' Mailing Address 7C, -7 EG 0 T Leo& 9-i�i Relation to Subject Property (Pertaining To Appeal) Vbwner ❑ Tenant LJ Property Manager/Agent Application for Appeal Before the Board of Appeals For the City of Lodi STAFF USE ONLY Appeal No. Related Nodees/Documents Issued By: iJ Other: In rhe case ofnrrrlt7ple ametiants each must f!<I out an AnpGcntion (er Appeal but they -can submit roeerher under one fee. Subject Address Assessor's Parcel No. Sj/ % -4-7 , fir!_ - �Al: 0 3 r / Subject Property Owner's Name Phone AIC O � t/ [ _ /k)? " Subject Property Owner's Mailing Address Appeal Information Required _ _ Provide a statement of the specific order or action protested, together with any material facts claimed to support the contentions of the appellant, and any relief sought and reasons wiry it is claimed that the Protested order or action should be reversed, modified,or otherwise set aside. nEcENED JUN i' 2005 DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Ateach Additional Pages if Necessary Initial Review of Appeal: There will be an initial Administrative Review of this appeal to determine whether this Department can resolve the issues under appeal, without needing the $250 fee to be paid, if the issues cannot be resolved through this Administrative Review, then the $250 Appeal Free will need to be processed and a Public }searing scheduled. Staying Order Under Appeal: Except for Notices to Vacate, enforcement of any notice and order of the Building Official shall be stayed during the pendency of an appeal therefrom which is properly and timely fled. I certify, under enal of e u that 1 acknowled e the Pilin of this a cal and that the matters s ted in this a ea] are ue and ac urate. Date _ Signature ftnt Name Appeal Information listed below: I would like to give you some background on this unit. We purchased the house on May 22, 1979. The house was probably built in the 1930s or 1940s. We are talking about a house that is 60 to 70 years old. Permit # 3342 for a new garage was issued on October 25, 1948; therefore, the garage is more than 50 years old. The city of Lodi did its final inspection on March 15, 1949. No violation was noted or observed at that time. Look at any document which talks about Lot 21 of Knoli Subdivision in the city of Lodi. According to the official map in volume 13 of maps, page 8 of the San Joaquin County records, there are two addresses listed: 511 and 511'%z. This is nothing new. In response to your letter, please note that we made no structural changes to our unit. Our only goal is to insulate the walls. We applied for a permit, but our permit is delayed for almost two months. We appeal to the City Council to hear our grievances and the hardship being placed on us, which was preventable if someone did his or her job properly thirty years ago. The foundation for the living unit, attached to the back of the garage, lacks a foundation footing. When the city inspected the guest house 50 years ago, why did they fail to inspect the footing? Was Uniform Housing Code ("UHC") Section 1001.3.1 enacted recently? Did something happen recently which resulted in a reduced foundation? You are rolling or shifting costs from the prior owners to us through your negligence or disregard for rules. The exercise you mentioned is impracticable and costly. If we contributed in any way, we would be happy to discuss it with any competent authority. 2. The wood sill for the framing through the structure is a grade level and shows signs of deterioration due to water intrusion. This point was never discussed, but we are willing to replace the deteriorated wood if it is possible at this stage. 3. Remove the meter. Whenever we need electricity, we come to the City of Lodi. We are unaware of any other means of obtaining electricity. We purchased the house with these meters almost thirty years ago. We have paid our bills for thirty years. The city has never refused our payment. The meter was installed legally and approved by the city, which provided electricity for more than 30 years. Why was this not inspected then? Was UNC 100 1. 14 enacted recently? Can the city provide electricity to an illegal meter? Who contributed to this illegal act? Someone should be accountable for this. Do you have records? How did this happen? Does the city have complete records? We would not have paid the same price for the unit 30 years ago had there been no electricity available to the house. if we remove the meter, will you compensate us for the loss? Can you live in a house without electricity? You cannot undo history at this stage and at this time. Whose fault is this? 4. The exterior siding is weathered. The exterior siding will be replaced in an approved manner. 5. No permit for breezeway. The breezeway has been in existence for more than 50 years. When making visits for the garage and for the 511 %Z unit, city officials or inspectors should have pinpointed this issue long ago. The breezeway is for privacy purposes. is your street file complete? No changes has been made to breezeway 6. Remove the PG&E meter. Please see the response for #3 above. 7. The water heater compartment is badly weathered. The water heater compartment can be rebuilt. 8. There is no occupancy separation between the garage and the existing unit. The firewall requirement was not in existence in 1949 when the permit was approved. is UHC Section 1001.9 new? Can this new law be retroactively applied to something built to Code in 1949? 9. Hazardous wiring. The wiring will be corrected. 10. Ramex wiring without permit. Romex wiring was never discussed before, but we will look into this, too. We would also like to know when this wiring was installed. 11. No kitchen We would like to discuss this issue as well. In summary, I would like to appeal to the City of Lodi to look into the 11 items because complying with these codes would put us in an exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, situation. I am sure that the Planning Commission has the power to allow variances from the various Code provisions to prevent unnecessary hardships or injustice, while at the same time accomplishing the general purpose and intent of the codes. We purchased the house with the intent to either live in it or rent it out for the production of income. We would never have bought the house under the scenario you presented. Would you pay the same price for a house or storage room located in the center of town, as you suggested in your letter? Is it logical and rational to convert a house into a storage room? Will you compensate us for this? Who would want a house without electricity and gas? How much effort did you make in this regard before we started work on our house? We hope the City Counsel will listen to our grievances patiently and without bias. The implementation of these codes puts us under tremendous financial hardship and stress. We are seeking an equitable and reasonable solution on all points. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Noor ul Akbar at 209-747- 1238. CITY COUNCIL JOHN BECKMAN, Mayor SUSAN HITCHCOCK, Mayor Pro Tempore LARRY D. HANSEN BOBJOHNSON JOANNE MOUNCE July 13, 2005 Noorul Akbar 707 EI Capitan Drive Lodi, CA 95242 CITY OF LODI CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209)333-6702 FAX (209) 333-6807 citycirk@lodi.gov APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER TO REPAIR (Issued 06-06-05) F Property located at 511 Alicante APN 031-200-16 BLAIR KING, City Manager SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk D. STEPHEN SCHWABAUER City Attorney This is to notify you that at the City Council meeting of July 20, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, in the Council Chamber, at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, the Council will consider setting the date for the public hearing pertaining to the above matter. Enclosed is a copy the July 20, 2005 City Council agenda and staff report related to Consent Calendar Item E-14 as prepared by the Community Development Department. The Community Development Department is recommending that the hearing be scheduled for August 3, 2005. Please note that prior to voting on the Consent Calendar the Mayor will offer an opportunity to the public to make comments. Should you wish to do so, please submit a "Request to Speak" card (available in the Carnegie Forum) to the City Clerk prior to the opening of the meeting. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 333-6702, or Community Development at 333-6711. Susan J. Blackston City Clerk cc: Community Development Department June 13, 2005 Mr. Robert Holdsworth Community Improvement Officer City of Lodi, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street Lodi, California 95241-1910 S ct_AddMs: 511 % Alicante Dr. APN: 031-200-16 Thank you very much for finally putting your response in writing after a lapse of almost one and a half months. Please note that you issued the stop order on April 29, 2005. We came to the City of Lodi offices the same day to resolve the issue, but you were not available. On May 3, 2005, you inspected the property and promised to calf me the next day, but you failed to call. I left two messages in vain. On May 13, 2005, 1 called and left two messages to inspect the foundation of our unit. You inspected the property and again promised to send us a letter on May 16, 2005, but you again failed. We called on May 17, 2005 for the letter, but you indicated that the letter was still in process. When I called you and asked to speak with your manager, you said your manager was Jerry Herzek. When I spoke with Mr. Herzek, he denied being your manager. This was not the first misrepresentation. Since we were disappointed by your repeated failure to deliver the final letter, we had to contact someone else to solve our problem. I made a request to Jerry to expedite the process. He came to the property on Saturday, May 28, 2005. I would like to give you some background on this unit. We purchased the house on May 22, 1979. The house was probably built in the 1930s or 19406. We are talking about a house that is 60 to 70 years old. Permit # 3342 for a new garage waT iss� on October 25, 1948; therefore, the garage is more than 50 years old. The city of Lodi did its final inspection on March 15, 1949. No violation was noted or observed at that time. Look at any document which talks about Lot 21 of Knoli Subdivision in the city of Lodi. According to the official map in volume 13 of maps, page 8 of the San Joaquin County records, there are two addresses listed: 511 and 511 %. This is nothing new. In response to your letter, please note that we made no structural changes to our unit. Our only goal is to insulate the walls. We applied for a permit, but you have delayed our permit for almost two months. We would definitely like to appeal to the City Council to hear our grievances and the hardship being placed on us, which was preventable if someone did his or her job properly thirty years ago. F.- 14 CC HR i0m Is REE, A LIB220MUD D f PR PD CityC�erk, FIN PW City of Lob _FD CCM S ct_AddMs: 511 % Alicante Dr. APN: 031-200-16 Thank you very much for finally putting your response in writing after a lapse of almost one and a half months. Please note that you issued the stop order on April 29, 2005. We came to the City of Lodi offices the same day to resolve the issue, but you were not available. On May 3, 2005, you inspected the property and promised to calf me the next day, but you failed to call. I left two messages in vain. On May 13, 2005, 1 called and left two messages to inspect the foundation of our unit. You inspected the property and again promised to send us a letter on May 16, 2005, but you again failed. We called on May 17, 2005 for the letter, but you indicated that the letter was still in process. When I called you and asked to speak with your manager, you said your manager was Jerry Herzek. When I spoke with Mr. Herzek, he denied being your manager. This was not the first misrepresentation. Since we were disappointed by your repeated failure to deliver the final letter, we had to contact someone else to solve our problem. I made a request to Jerry to expedite the process. He came to the property on Saturday, May 28, 2005. I would like to give you some background on this unit. We purchased the house on May 22, 1979. The house was probably built in the 1930s or 19406. We are talking about a house that is 60 to 70 years old. Permit # 3342 for a new garage waT iss� on October 25, 1948; therefore, the garage is more than 50 years old. The city of Lodi did its final inspection on March 15, 1949. No violation was noted or observed at that time. Look at any document which talks about Lot 21 of Knoli Subdivision in the city of Lodi. According to the official map in volume 13 of maps, page 8 of the San Joaquin County records, there are two addresses listed: 511 and 511 %. This is nothing new. In response to your letter, please note that we made no structural changes to our unit. Our only goal is to insulate the walls. We applied for a permit, but you have delayed our permit for almost two months. We would definitely like to appeal to the City Council to hear our grievances and the hardship being placed on us, which was preventable if someone did his or her job properly thirty years ago. 1. The foundation for the living unit, attached to the back of the garage, lacks a foundation footing. When the city inspected the guest house 50 years ago, why did they fail to inspect the footing? Was Uniform Housing Code ("UHC") Section 1001.3.1 enacted recently? Did something happen recently which resulted in a reduced foundation? You are rolling or shifting costs from the prior owners to us through your negligence or disregard for rules. The exercise you mentioned is impracticable and costly. If we contributed in any way, we would be happy to discuss it with any competent authority that can listen to our grievances and approve it at the same time without the use of delaying tactics. 2. The wood sill for the framing through the structure is a grade level and shows signs of deterioration due to water intrusion. This point was never discussed, but we are willing to replace the deteriorated wood if it is possible at this stage. 3. Remove the meter. Whenever we need electricity, we come to the City of Lodi. We are unaware of any other means of obtaining electricity. We purchased the house with these meters almost thirty years ago. We have paid our bills for thirty years. The city has never refused our payment. The meter was installed legally and approved by the city, which provided electricity for more than 30 years. Why was this not inspected then? Was UNC 1001.14 enacted recently? Can the city provide electricity to an illegal meter? Who contributed to this illegal act? Someone should be accountable for this. Do you have records? How did this happen? Does the city have complete records? We would not have paid the same price for the unit 30 years ago had there been no electricity available to the house. If we remove the meter, will you compensate us for the loss? Can you live in a guest house without electricity? You cannot undo history at this stage and at this time. Whose fault is this? 4. The exterior siding is weathered. The exterior siding will be replaced in an approved manner. 5. No permit for breezeway. The breezeway has been in existence for more than 50 years. When making visits for the garage and for the 511'/2 unit, city officials or inspectors should have pinpointed this issue long ago. The breezeway is for privacy purposes. Is your street file complete? 6. Remove the PG&E meter. Please see the response for #3 above. 7. The water heater compartment is badly weathered. The water heater compartment can be rebuilt. 8_ There is no occupancy separation between the garage and the existing unit. The firewatl requirement was not in existence in 1949 when the permit was approved. Is UHC Section 1001.9 new? Can this new law be retroactively applied to something built to Code in 1949? 9. Hazardous wiring. The wiring will be corrected. 10. Romex wiring without permit. Romex wiring was never discussed before, but we will look into this, too. We would also like to know when this wiring was installed. 11. No kitchen We would litre to discuss this issue as well. In summary, t would like to appeal to the City of Lodi to look into the 11 items because complying with these codes.would put us in an exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, situation. I am sure that the Planning Commission has the power to allow variances from the various Code provisions to prevent unnecessary hardships or injustice, while at the same time accomplishing the general purpose and intent of the codes. We purchased the house with the intent to either live in it or rent it out for the production of income. We would never have bought the house under the scenario you presented. Would you pay the same price for a house or storage room located in the center of town, as you suggested in your letter? Is it logical and rational to convert a house into a storage room? Will you compensate us for this? Who would want a house without electricity and gas? How much effort did you mare in this regard before we started work on our house? We hope the Cly Counsel will listen to our grievances patiently and without bias. The in ment ion of these codes puts us under tremendous financial hardship and stress. We are seeking an equitable and reasonable solution on all points. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Noor ul Akbar at 209-747-1238. '--Yl ltl.,d Noor Ul Akbar 707 EI Capitan Dr. Lodi, Ca 95242 CC: Joseph E. Wood, Manager Larry D. Hansen Bob Johnson Joanne L. Mounce CITY COUNCIL JOHN BECKMAN, Mayor SUSAN HITCHCOCK, Mayor Pro Tempore LARRY D. HANSEN BOBJOHNSON JOANNE MOUNCE July 21, 2005 Noor UI Akbar 707 EI Capitan Drive Lodi, CA 95242 CITYOF L O D I BLAIR KING, City Manager SUSAN J. BLACKSTON CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET City Clerk P.O. BOX 3006 D. STEPHEN SCHWABAUER LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 City Attorney (209)333-6702 FAX (209) 333-6807 cityclrkQlodi.gov MAILED CERTIFIED MAIL AND REGULAR U.S. POSTAL DELIVERY NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING —August 3, 2005 This letter is to notify you that a public hearing will be held by the City Council on Wednesday, August 3, 2005 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, at the Carnegie Forum, 305 W. Pine Street, Lodi. This hearing is being held to consider your appeal regarding the requirements of a Notice and Order to Repair for property located at 511 Alicante (APN 031-200-16). If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Note: Written correspondence for the City Council may be mailed in C/o the City Clerk's Office, P.Q. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241-1910, or delivered to the City Clerk at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. Should you have any questions, please contact my office or Community Development at (209) 333-6711. Sincerely, Susan J. Blackston City Clerk cc: Community Development Department