HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12011987 - S.1 Tw BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FRCM: Supervisor Torlakson Contra
Costa
DATE: November 10, '1987 1oi„`,
�
SUBJECT: DISCOVERY BAY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INQUIRIES
REGARDING THE COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
SPECIFIC RE EST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIGNVIS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECON1UMED ACTION: Refer the attached letter of
inquiry from the Discovery Bay Property Owners Association
regarding the county building inspection process and specific
situations of complaints to the Building Inspection Department
and the Community Development Department for review and response
to the property owners association. Request a .report back, from
county staff to the Board of Supervisors as soon as possible.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: I have received the attached
letter from the Discovery Bay Property Owners Association
regarding the county' s building inspection process. I am alarmed
at ' the specific situations of complaints outlined in the letter
and am extremely interested in also receiving a response to the
several questions posed in the letter relative to the building
inspection process,
TT:gro
Attachment'
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: __. YES ^ SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURELSI:
ACTION OF BOARD ON December 1, 1987 At PROVED AS RECCA,:IAF.NDED X OTHER
I
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSEfIT - AI0 CORRECT COPY,OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ASSENT*. • ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Building Inspector ATTESTED
Community Development Director PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M38217-83 BY _,DEPUTY
I%cL r-1VLU NUV Z 1987
`�
o •Ut� o
z Bay n( hooehty Owilehs �,Associatiokl, gRe.
° vow
d ♦ A P.O. BOX 666 ` BYRON, CA 94514
October 25 , 1987
Tom Torlakson
Supervisor , District Five
Contra Costa County
300 E . Leland Rd . , Ste . 100
Pittsburg , CA 94565
Dear Supervisor Torlakson :
We , the undersigned , are all property owners and/or residents
of Discovery Bay . Although our reasons for settling in this
community varied , we were all drawn by the high quality of the
area in terms of aesthetics of the amenities .
As you are aware , we are fighting to protect our quality of
life with the ratification of a consolidated set of CC&Rs .
These CC&Rs supplement and enhance the existing County codes .
It is understood that the County enforces the County codes
and the D . E . R . C . (Design and Environmental Review Committee)
enforces the CC&Rs .
The County, for some time , has agreed that building permits
will not be issued unless prior approval has been obtained
from the D . E . R . C . Although this would appear to be a workable
arrangement , as a matter of practice , communications often
fail . There are many instances in which the final plans sub-
mitted to the County differ substantially from those originally
approved by the D . E . R . C . This effectively defeats the purpose
of he agreement .
A cas in point , and the reason for this letter , is the property
locate at 1200 Discovery Bay Blvd . This structure is being
constru ted by an owner-builder , and has been in process for
over two years with no evidence of completion in sight . The
D . E . R . C . as contacted the owners on numerous occasions regard-
ing CC&R iolations . The house was red-tagged by the County
at least once , and according to the County , subsequently brought
to "minimum,, County standards . " We are now informed by :: Ghe
County that \the final inspection has been approved , and the
owners have �een residing in the structure for months . It is
incomprehensible to us , particularly the professional builders
in our group ,, that the County could have issued a final in
this instancel. There is no jamb , the corner boards are missing ,
I,
l
1
1
-2-
the casing is off , the front staircase is completely
open and appears temporary , the front siding appears
to be haphazardly applied and is not painted . In addition,
the owners attempted , several months ago, to excavate into
the levee at the rear of the house , for a swimming pool .
The D . E . R . C . successfully enjoined to halt this project .
The owners merely threw some dirt back into the hole with
no attempt to compact it . If these are examples. of minimum
County standards , perhaps the County should take a look at
those standards .
We have several questions about this structure in particular ,
and the County building inspection process in general :
1 . We would like to see the original blueprints
that were approved by the County . Are they the same plans
approved by the D . E . R . C? We think not .
2 . Why was the building red-tagged? How was it brought
into compliance?
3 . The elevation appears to be changed from the original
plans . How was this approved?
4 . Who is responsible to see that the integrity of
the levee is brought back to standard? Other than the fact
that no permit was obtained for the excavation , the County
seems t:o)have no interest in this matter .
5 . Why does there appear to be a double standard between
owner-builders and licensed contractors ? Although some owner-
builders complete their homes in a timely and professional
manner , as a group they do not have the expertise of the
licensed builder and should bear closer watch by the building
inspectors . Yet , the inspectors seem to have a laissez-faire
attitude toward the amateurs . "They don ' t know any better so
we ' ll forgive them" , seems to be the attitude . Surely no
licensed contractor would have been allowed to get by with the
shoddy workmanship exhibited in the subject property .
6 . How can the coordination between the County and the
D . E . R . C . be improved to insure that the agencies are both deal-
ing with the same set of plans? We need a guarantee that this
type of fiasco does not occur again .
These , then , are our questions . We have failed to receive
any concrete answers from the County thus far . The D . E . R . 0
has been forced to institute costly litigation against the
owners of the subject property for violations of the CC&Rs .
It is apparent that this action might have been unnecessary
had the County done its job properly .
This property is only one example of our concerns with
3--o-n—t-fi-e part of the 'ing inspectors . , We know
of other examples where the
final inspection was 'nze%ver, ,
made and years have elapsed with no County .,actionxt
Although we expect to have to fight to see that our
local CC&Rs are enforced , we resent having to watch'-,"d-
og.,
the County in seeing that the County codes are also enforced .
We request a timely investigation and reply to; our conc ns .
Sincerely,
Undersigned Property Owners of Discovery Bay
0& so
oil
%
Z/'
0
OR
el
e
.2k oet arw�
IE 11:00
01"016o
wew, U)
op,
_ , � • • e4
16 July 1987
Discover Ba Design and Environmental Review Committee inspection of
Y Y b P
f1tit( premises of Mr. Christy and Ms Siiell located, 1200 ;Discovery Bay Blvd.
Byron CA 94514 , Lot 110 /4205
, 1 i
s,ty 1. Painting not completed
2. Wood trim missing on all windows and doors and" bottom horizontal Floor
wood band missing.
rYL• ..,.. L+R.
' 3. Front windows on left side are not built as shown on drawings. They are
recessed 6 inches into wall with stucco returning to wood window wall face.
Horizontal wood is used on this wall in lieu of diagonal wood siding as shown on
..s` �.-. drawings.
t,��;i,,;,••, .; 4. Changed windows at the great room on south side lower ..•"•�•.
5. Illuminated window on side of bedroom #2
6. Different size window at both #Z (smaller than shown on drawings).
:S, t g )
�.•�: :irk '..,;;
Y' "�, ;�r• 7. Entry way 6 x 6 ports not shown as on drawings. (3 ports)
8. No revised drawings submitted on change of lower floor to wood framing
concrete floor--thus no details on front entry porch.
9. Ony horizontal wood used throughout,byowner in lieu of angled siding as shown
on-plan draw>ngs.
rx., , ,4•,;,• 1a Missing air vent (round) over second floor, as shown on front left 'side.
11 'No trim and siding under window at front,second floor ,
12.. Stucco at garage on front over garage door in lieu of horizontal siding.
13. No 2 x 10 belly bands at lower floor levels `
14.. Upper deck railing does not conform to drawn design
ry
15.: Changed design at front dormer, exterior roof lowered.
,;: . 16. Stucco in lieu of horizontal "siding at north elevation of garage.
F n;t
`sA .
17. Missing horizontal trim over garage door at Front.
'�wCti!� ti„�r 18 Rear Elevation:
"a"y�; ur,rit a. missing vent overleft side
b. no trim installed'::
a
G. Horizoritll siding in lieu of diagonal
R, 4 d. one post missing under upper deck--support shows 3 posts.
Page 1 of 2
1 „
DISCOVERY BAY DERC review of 110/4205 Continued Page Two of Two
19. Note--there seems to be a serious drainage problem on ground
;,� ; ,�,• •, 20. North elevation:
a. sliding cloor missing at lower floor
b, window sizes changed
c. All wood trim missing
21. Suggestion: install a belly band at 12" or so to second floor line
22. Note: Pool was dug into ground approximately four feet.
3 23. Complete landscaping is missing.
+� < 24. Contra Costa County Building Inspection .Department note r�,st r !issing
AW
' ..c' under extended roof over the entry way. This should be the County
; s concern for
structural reasons. DERC has no revised plans for this overhang.
25. Ms Snell said that the County has. given a final permit. We question that the
All,
County could have given a final because of the overhang problem mentioned above
We would like to hear from the County on this subject.
DISCOVERY BAY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ,REVIEW COMMITTEE
,Yt if �• r
aMrrl I
11•
1°# °
�r
h i
}} w
, y t
r