|
My Own First Building Permit In 1999, about 8 years after starting my own small scale design/build business, my wife and I had the good fortune of being able to afford to buy our first house in San Luis Obispo. It was a late 50’s, non-descript, 1-story, 2 bedroom 1 bath house of about 1100 sq.ft. on a nice little quiet street and that backed onto a small seasonal creek. We had found out prior to escrow that the rear portion of the house, bordering the creek, had recently been re-enforced with some very deep concrete footings to prevent the house from slipping down the steep bank into the creek. I was able to get the original drawings for that work and had my engineer evaluate them, thinking that the new foundation work might also be adequate to support a second story addition. My engineer agreed that the new foundation work would be more than adequate to support such an addition, a real plus for us in deciding to move forward with the purchase. Not long after closing escrow, I proceeded to draw up plans for a 475 sq.ft. second story master suite addition, that did not expand on the existing footprint of the house at all. I took those plans down to the City Community Development Department to see what might be required to obtain a permit for such a project. I was then informed about a somewhat recent ordinance called the Creek Setback Ordinance, requiring new development to be 20’ back from the creek "bank". I was given materials about that ordinance, and took that information and re-evaluated my plans accordingly. So, I proceeded to do a rough topographical survey of the creek and each bank, and delineated what I thought to be a reasonable line representing the creek "bank", according to the information I had been given. It looked to me that my addition project would not encroach on the Creek Setback, and took the plans back into the City to have them looked over. The planner there (a different person than I had spoken with originally) thought that what I had looked good and that I could submit the plans for a Minor Use Permit. I provided the necessary copies, application materials, permit fees, and then waited to hear back from them. In a couple of weeks I was informed that a public hearing had been scheduled some three weeks from that time, that the Public Noticing had been completed, and that the Planning Department was recommending approval of the project. I was very pleased and excited that we might soon be able to start construction on our new master suite. But, on the day of our scheduled Public Hearing, only an hour prior to the actual hearing, the planner called me and said there was a problem. The planner assured me that there were just a couple of technical problems with their report, that we just needed to re-schedule, re-notify the public, and that they were still recommending my project for approval. I was given little to no detailed explanation of what had occurred. But I tried not to panic, took him at his word, and just waited additional three weeks for the second Public Hearing. Over that next three weeks I received four phone calls from the planner. The first was to tell me that now we would be required to go through environmental review. This was the first time anyone had informed me that environmental review might even be a possibility. The second phone call was to say that, no, we would not have to go through environmental review after all, little explanation was given. The third phone call was about the footings for the new addition and how any trenching might impact the creek in a negative way. I informed him that due to the previous re-enforcement of the foundation (which had only been done a few years previous to that, with a permit, that they didn’t seem to know about themselves?) that no disturbance of soil outside of the existing perimeter of the house would be necessary. The fourth phone call, again, the day before the second Public Hearing was to inform me I would be required to go through environmental review, something they had changed their minds about for the third time now. This was because they had changed their minds about my interpretation of where the creek "bank" was, they had made a much more liberal interpretation that had the "bank" almost to the edge of my house, some 8 vertical feet above the "bank" on the other side. We were now also being subjected to Fish & Game fees, to the tune of about $2000, more than all the other permit fees combined. On top of that, I was told the Fish & Game Dept. was so backed up on their workload, that they couldn’t even tell me how long that might take. They also tried to tell me I had to move my addition toward the front of the house, which would move it off the re-enforced foundation, subject me to a much larger construction costs, and on top of that, it was just going to look terrible from the street, which would no doubt send my neighbors into the Public Hearing to complain. Well, as you might imagine, I became completely unhinged. I could not comprehend the erratic nature in which my project had been handled. Hadn’t they had similar projects come through prior to mine? The Creek Setback Ordinance had been in place for at least three years. In pressing my then junior and inexperienced planner, he confessed to me that they hadn’t had many projects fall under the new ordinance and that my project was sort of being used as a guinea pig for formulating the new policies "on the fly". He also confessed the Fish & Game fee’s dubious nature and the complete inability of the Fish & Game Department to implement their own requirements. I proceeded to spend a lot of time studying up on the Creek Setback Ordinance (then somewhat newly available online), and also about CEQA, which had been referenced as the key reason for these new requirements. I came to find that, in my opinion, the Planning Department had taken the most extreme interpretation possible of the CEQA guidelines and that, for the most part, single family residences, and alterations to those were normally categorically exempt from CEQA requirements for further environmental review. I inquired as to my options for appealing their decisions about the additional requirements. I was told I could appeal to the City Council by writing the Planning Department a letter that this was my intention. Well, I did a little more than that. My letter didn’t stop at just requesting an appeal, it detailed very clearly and exactly how my permit application had been handled at every step of the way and how unprofessionally, in my opinion, their office had conducted themselves. I also gave them my opinion about the completely unfair nature of their extreme interpretation of the CEQA guidelines. I got a phone call a couple of days after mailing that letter certified mail that said they had come "full circle" on this and had somehow found some kind of loophole they could qualify my project under, and keep it from further environmental review. Three weeks later I was granted my permit without environmental review (was determined to be categorically exempt) or the additional Fish & Game fees and time delays. There are several lessons I learned from this experience, some of which had been re-enforce several times by other experiences as of this writing (2/07)- The first was to never expect you will get all of the information you need to evaluate the feasibility of a building project the first time you ask for it across a planning counter. Very often, it is the most inexperienced of planners that are given the over-the-counter duties. Make sure you ask a lot of questions, and if you are not satisfied that the person you are talking to is giving you satisfactory answers, ask to see their superior. Often, though, you will not be able to determine at that point whether or not you have been given all the pertinent information. Follow up, read the ordinances that are cited in conjunction with your project and make sure you understand them. Ask more questions. Secondly, Planning and Building codes and ordinances, especially I think in California, have gotten very multi-layered and convoluted. They are also constantly changing and being added to, almost entirely in the direction of increased restrictions of some kind. Even those that have been in place for years, may not have been "field tested" and are open to interpretation. Make sure you seek the interpretation most favorable to you and your project. Commonly, the various departments are mostly just doing what’s best for them- Interpreting things conservatively to prevent controversy (lawsuits and complaining neighbors at Public Hearings). What may seem to you the smallest, most sensible project may be fraught with potential pitfalls. But people get building permits every day. I spend my professional life in pursuit of them for clients. You can do it if you are diligent and relentless. If you are interested in a low-cost feasibility analysis of your proposed project, to help flush out these potential pitfalls before you get too committed to a design or have financial feasibility concerns- please contact me.
|