none, , Resolutions & Approval ConditionsCASE 1126-83: #2 PINTO ROAD
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ORDER
. This case concerns a residential building at #2 Pinto Road, in the
City of Rolling Hills.
2. The County Engineer of the County of Los Angeles provides building
inspection services to the City of Rolling Hills pursuant to contract.
3. The City of Rolling Hills has adopted the 1981 edition of the County
of Los Angeles Building Code by reference.
4. On June 6, 1983, the County Engineer gave written notice pursuant to
Building Code Section 203(b) that the rear addition to the residential
building at 12 Pinto Road was unsafe in the opinion of the County
Engineer in light of the continued occupancy of the residence. This
written notice stated the defects considered to make the structure
unsafe and advised the owner of a right to hearing pursuant to
Section 204(a) of the Building Code.
5. On August 17, 1983 the County Engineer notified the owners of the
building at #2 Pinto Road that it intended to schedule a hearing of the
Building Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 204 since no action was
taken by the owners of the building with respect to the written notice
of June 6, 1983.
6. On August 30, 1983 the owners of the building at #2 Pinto Road were
advised that a hearing of the Building Board of Appeals was scheduled
for September 21, 1983 at the request of the County Engineer pertaining
to the building at V2 Pinto Road.
7. Notice of the hearing was properly given pursuant to Building Code
Section 204(b)-(d).
8. The Board of Appeals held a hearing on September 21, 1983 and considered
all competent evidence including the report, letters and maps submitted
by the County Engineer, photographs of the building site and building
addition and all testimony presented by the owner.
9. The owner testified that his family currently occupies the front portion
of the residence and that he plans to continue occupancy. He further
testified that the addition had been barricaded to prevent access from
inside the residence and that it was feasible to completely barricade
the outside of the addition to prevent access to the damaged area. •
10. The owner also testified that barricading the damaged portion of the
residence would be preferable to demolition in that mortgage holders and
insurance adjusters had not yet ruled on claims relating to the damage
to the addition. The owner further testified that a substantial barricade
would remove the unsafe condition and concerns for safety of the residents
and the public, including children.
•
•
11. The Board of Appeals finds that the rear addition to the building at
#2 Pinto Road, City of Rolling Hills, is unsafe as defined in Building
Code Section 203(a) based upon the condition of the residential
building resulting from the damaged caused to it by the landslide
-activity, including the distortion and destruction of the west wall,
the collapse of the east wall caused by debris and earth deposition
and the breakdown and collapse of the south wall.
12. The Board finds that a barricade isolating the rear addition will
effectively remedy the unsafe condition and will constitute a
reasonable alternative to demolition in this case.
THEREFORE, based upon the finding that the rear addition to the building at
#2 Pinto Road is unsafe, it is ordered that the following specific and miti-
gating action be taken:
1. Within 30 days of the service of this order, the damaged rear portion
of the building at #2 Pinto Road shall be barricaded and fenced off
by the owners in a substantial manner so as to completely prevent
access to the damaged condition from the front occupied portion of the
building, and the yard for the building.
2. Barricading of the damaged rear portion of the building shall include
the effective blocking off of the interior of the damaged portion of
the building from the front portion of the building that is being
occupied.
3. Construction of the barricades shall be completed to the satisfaction
of the County Engineer.
4. Upon completion of the barricades, within 30 days of the service of
this order, the County Engineer shall be notified. The County Engineer
will thereupon inspect the barricades to determine if they have been
constructed in a satisfactory manner. If further corrective action is
required, the County Engineer shall order the work completed so as to
carry out this Board Order.