14-O
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ryan Smoot, City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to receive and file memorandum designating the Fire Chief for the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County as the enforcement officer for the California Fire Code (“CFC”), as adopted by the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”).
DATE: October 14, 2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 20, 2024, the City Attorney received a letter from the Los Angeles County Counsel’s office regarding enforcement of the CFC, as adopted by the BMC (the “Letter”).
Among other things, the Letter suggested that the BMC created an ambiguity regarding whether the Fire Chief for the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (“Fire District”) could enforce the CFC.
While the City disagrees that there is any ambiguity, the City Manager (in an abundance of caution) issued the attached memorandum confirming that the Fire District’s Fire Chief may enforce the CFC. Nothing in the memorandum changes the method by which the City accepts and processes applications for building permits. As provided by California regulation and the BMC, the City’s Building Official is the only official authorized to issue building permits under the California Building Standards Code (“CBSC”).
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
It is recommended that the City Council consider the following:
1) Receive and file this report; or
2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact with the recommended action.
BACKGROUND
The City Attorney received the attached Letter from the Los Angeles County Counsel’s office. A letter responding to the Letter is also attached.
-1-
Staff Report – Fire Chief
October 14, 2024
BACKGROUND – Continued
According to County Counsel, one of the Fire District’s complaints is that the City somehow undermined the Fire Chief’s ability to enforce the CFC. BMC § 15.40.020 amended CFC § 202 as to the definitions of “fire chief” and “fire official.” Based upon that amendment, the City Manager may designate an official as the “fire chief”; that designation will also constitute the “fire code official” for purposes of the CFC.
To avoid any purported confusion, the City Manager issued the attached memorandum designating the Fire District’s Fire Chief as the “fire chief” (and “fire code official”) under the CFC. Such designation, of course, does not change the Building Official’s plenary authority to issue building permits under the CBSC. That authority is outlined in the City Attorney’s response to the Letter.
No action is needed on this item. A copy of this agenda item – and the City Manager’s memorandum – will be transmitted to the Fire District.
ATTACHMENTS
City Manager’s Memorandum dated October 9, 2024
City Attorney’s Letter dated September 26, 2024
County Counsel’s Letter dated September 17, 2024
-2-
-3-
4887-7188-4010 v1
Direct No.: 213.236.2729
Our File No.: 08481-0001
[email protected]
Los Angeles – Inland Empire – Marin County – Oakland – Orange County – Palm Desert – San Diego – San Francisco – Silicon Valley – Ventura County 444 South Flower Street - Suite 2400
Los Angeles, California 90071-2953
voice 213.236.0600 - fax 213.236.2700
www.bwslaw.com
September 26, 2024
Jenny P. Tam
Senior Deputy County Counsel
Fire Department’s Legal Advisory Unit
1320 N. Eastern Avenue, Executive Office
Los Angeles, CA 90063
Re: Letter dated September 17, 2024
Dear Ms. Tam:
Thank you for your letter (the “Letter”) dated September 17, 2024 (received September 20, 2024). I am disappointed.
After our video conference call on August 27, 2024, I understood that the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles (“District”) and the City of Bellflower would seek what I termed the “third way” to find a path forward. The emphasis at that time was to ensure that members of the public requesting a building permit from the City would receive timely service. My impression was that the District’s Chief(s) understood that the historical failure of the District to provide prompt and efficient service to the City’s (and its residents’) needs is what caused the City Council to consider alternatives to sending building plans to the District for review. It appears that the District now wishes to ignore the progress made on August 27th. While the City trusts that wiser minds will reconsider the District’s bellicose stance in this matter, my initial response follows.
District’s Historical Failure to Perform
On February 4, 2019, the City’s Building Official, Steve Patterson, emailed Mr.
Brent Times regarding the City’s concerns that the District failed to efficiently review plans related to an In-and-Out Burger located on Bellflower Boulevard and Artesia Boulevard. As noted in Mr. Patterson’s email:
-4-
Jenny P. Tam
September 26, 2024
4887-7188-4010 v1
The City does not have any record of the District’s representatives responding to Mr. Patterson’s email. Consequently, on February 11, 2019, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1371 which amended to the Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) to authorize the City’s Chief Building Official to enforce the Fire Code (Agenda Item No. 12-A). No District representatives attended that meeting and the City does not have any written record from the District raising an objection.
On September 4, 2019, Mr. Patterson again wrote Mr. Times as follows:
-5-
Jenny P. Tam
September 26, 2024
4887-7188-4010 v1
The City’s records suggest that a meeting was proposed for September 23, 2019; it does not have a record of what transpired at that time (if anything).
As implied in Mr. Patterson’s emails, the District historically failed to review building plans submitted by the Building Official in a timely or uniform manner. For example, the District’s misreading of the 2016 Los Angeles County Fire Code (“LAFC”) nearly caused a delay in the grand opening of … the Los Angeles County Fire Museum which is housed in the Mayne Centre within the City. After that debacle, the District then failed to approve plans for an In-and-Out Burger building in Bellflower when the exact same building plans were approved in a neighboring jurisdiction! As exemplified by Mr.
Patterson’s emails, the District did nothing in 2019 to rectify the problems identified by the City.
The Bellflower City Council’s responsibility is to meet the needs of its community.
Faced with the District’s inability to perform its limited role in reviewing building plans, the City Council chose to take a different, legal, action.
The District does not issue Building Permits
The Letter spends much time complaining that the City usurped the District’s enforcement authority as to the LAFC. Yet, the substance of the disputed matter is not enforcement, but the review of building plans for purposes of issuing a building permit. If the District wishes to “enforce” the California Fire Code, then the City looks forward to the District doing so. The City has a list of properties that should be inspected by District personnel to determine whether they violate the CFC. We are excited that the District would like to participate in code enforcement. Let us know when we may expect District personnel to accompany the City’s code enforcement officers in inspections.
As to building plan review, however, the Letter does not identify a single statute or regulation that empowers the District to have a monopoly on plan review. That should not be a surprise. I noted during the meeting on August 27th that the City’s Building Official – not the District’s Fire Chief – is the only official authorized to issue a building permit. California Building Standards Code (“CBSC”) § 105.4 (as adopted by the BMC) states, in relevant part (see enclosed for relevant sections from the BMC), that “[t]he application, plans, specifications, computations, and other data filed by an applicant for a permit will be reviewed by the Building Official. Such plans may be reviewed by other City officials to verify compliance with applicable law. If the Building Official finds that the work described in an application for a permit and the plans, specifications and other data filed therewith conform to applicable law, -6-
Jenny P. Tam
September 26, 2024
4887-7188-4010 v1
and that the specified fees have been paid, the permit must be issued.” Emphasis added.
This language is substantially similar to the static language in Title 24 which states this:
There is no mention of the District’s Chief being any part of the plan review for a building permit. Nor does the Letter identify any such purported authority. All authority as to reviewing plans and issuing building permits lies solely within the power and discretion of the Building Official.
The City is not required to adopt the District’s Fire Code At the time of Mr. Patterson’s February 2019 email, the City was still utilizing the 2016 LAFC. Because of the District’s failure to communicate with the City, however, the City Council opted in December 2019 to adopt the 2019 California Fire Code, with local amendments; it subsequently adopted the 2022 California Fire Code, with local amendments.
The Letter’s assertion that the District may impose the LAFC upon the City notwithstanding the City Council’s legislative authority is contradicted by the express statutory language of Health and Safety Code § 13869.7(c):
-7-
Jenny P. Tam
September 26, 2024
4887-7188-4010 v1
The City Council did not ratify either the 2019 or the 2022 version of the LAFC. It does not, therefore, have any effect within the City of Bellflower. The City is entirely within its statutory rights to take (or not take) such action. Indeed, based upon the District’s failure to meet the City’s expectations as to plan review, the City Council found that rejecting the LAFC was in the public’s best interest.
The City is not required to take action in response to the Letter The Letter asserts that the City must “comply” with the District’s demands not later than October 17, 2024. While the City is certainly ready to discuss these matters with the District – as it has repeatedly offered – it is under no time constraint to take legislative action in response to the District. First, the City Council’s next regular meeting does not occur until October 14, 2024. Even if the City were inclined to take legislative action in response to the Letter, it could not do so by the artificially imposed deadline. At best, an ordinance could be introduced on October 14th; that would still, however, require a second reading and would not take effect until 30 days afterward.
Second, what is the perceived urgency? The City has offered an alternative to the District’s plan review for more than five years with the District’s knowledge. Now there is a sudden urgency that the City Council react to the District’s demands?! Despite the hyperbole expressed by some of the District’s officials, the legal reality remains the same: the City’s Building Official reviews building plans and issues building permits; the District’s Chief does not. This was always the situation – even before 2019 – and remains so now. It would not change even were the City Council to consider adopting the 2022 LA Fire Code.
-8-
Jenny P. Tam
September 26, 2024
4887-7188-4010 v1
General Observations
This letter does not respond to every one of the assertions made in the Letter.
That does not mean, however, that the City waives any legal argument in response to the District’s position. Among other things, the City’s Building Official specifically contacted the State Fire Marshall in February 2019 to confirm there was no objection from that office as to the City’s intended action in providing an alternative to permit applicants for plan review. I also note that the City does not have a contract with the District for plan review. This is particularly important considering the ongoing State mandates as to processing building permit applications in an expeditious manner for residential housing projects: the City is not going to assume liability for the District’s failure to timely review residential housing plans.
Rather than engage in saber rattling, it seems that the District should take the City’s offer (which has been on the table for at least the past five years) to figure out a way forward that is mutually beneficial. Tying up the judicial system with a dispute that may be resolved by public officials who are all trying to do what is best for the public seems irrational. We are all in the same business of serving the public. Let us try to find a way to best accomplish that goal.
Very truly yours,
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney
C: City Council
Ryan Smoot, City Manager
Supervisor Janice Hahn
KHB
Enclosure
-9-
BELLFLOWER CODE
105.3 Application for permit. To obtain a permit, the applicant must first file an application therefor in writing on a form furnished by the Building Official for that purpose. Such application must:
1.Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which application is made.
2.Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done by legal description, street address or similar description that will readily identify and definitely locate the proposed building or work.
3.Indicate the use and occupancy for which the proposed work is intended.
4.Be accompanied by construction documents and other information as required in Section 107.
5.State the valuation of the proposed work.
6.Be signed by the applicant, or the applicant’s authorized agent.
7.Give such other data and information as required by the Building Official. 105.3.1 Action on application. The Building Official will examine or cause to be examined applications for permits and amendments within a reasonable time after filing.
If the application or the construction documents do not conform to the requirements of applicable law, the Building Official must reject such application in writing.
No building permit or other similar applicable permit bearing on property development or use including additions, modifications or revisions may be issued unless and until the review and approval of all other departments and agencies having legal authority for review of construction projects have found the construction project to be in compliance with all applicable code provisions or entitlements.
When the Building Official is satisfied that the proposed work conforms to the requirements of applicable law, the Building Official must issue a permit in accordance with applicable law.
105.3.2 Time limitation of application. An application for a permit for any proposed work is deemed expired 12 months after the completion of any submittal review unless a permit has been issued. The Building Official is authorized to grant one extension of time of an unexpired application for additional periods not exceeding 12 months. The extension must be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated.
For the purpose of this section, contact by a City representative indicating the review is completed is deemed completion of any submittal review. 105.4 Permit issuance. The application, plans, specifications, computations, and other data filed by an applicant for a permit will be reviewed by the Building Official. Such plans may be reviewed by other City officials to verify compliance with applicable law. If the Building Official finds that the work described in an application for a permit and the plans, specifications and other data filed therewith conform to applicable law, and that the specified fees have been paid, the permit must be issued.
When the Building Official issues the permit where plans are required, they must endorse in writing or stamp the plans and specifications. Such approved plans and specifications cannot be changed, modified or altered without authorization from the Building Official, and all work regulated by the codes must be done in accordance with the approved plans. 15-B:6 Publication, Jul 2024
-10-
-11-
-12-
-13-
-14-
-15-
-16-