Posted on 08/05/2015 9:05:04 PM PDT by TMD
We're attempting to build a master bedroom and move the master bathroom on our 2100 sq/ft house in Campbell. Total addition is ~500 sq/ft. We went to submit the plans on Monday and were told we're in a "special study zone" so a more complete design scrutiny review is required which will take 60 days to complete and requires buy-in from all our neighbors. Besides this giant hiccup, they said we have to replace our energy-saving water heater that was installed in 2011, change our current low-flow toilets from 1.6 to 1.2 gals, redo our drainage for the new downspout so it flows to the storm drain (note this will required trenching through 60' of concrete to get from the backyard to the street).
When I complain to my bleeding-heart liberal relatives their responses run the gamut from "What, you don't want to build your house safely?" to "Well, if you don't like it then why don't you move to another state?" We did remodel our kitchen last year and had our share of mandates (=$$$) from the City, the last of which was a requirement to install railings on our front porch before they'd sign off on the final kitchen inspection.
I'm a native Californian and we've lived in our house for 29 years. Why are we being punished?
Yes, I’m bitching…..more and more and more rules by petty, unnaccountable bureaucrats do nothing to encourage taxpaying homeowners to improve our property, neighborhood, community...If you encourage something (following the rules), you get more of it. If you discourage something (following the rules), you get less of it.
For a $1300 filing fee (and an additional 60 days until we can submit the plans for approval) - here are some examples of burning issues we have to address:
Is there a change in-
1. existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, hills or substantial alteration of ground contours
2. scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads
3. pattern, scale or character of general area of project
4. significant amount of solid waste or litter
5. dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity
6.ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity of alteration of existing drainage patterns
7. substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity
8. use or disposal of petentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives
9. substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc…)
10 substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc…)
11. additional traffic generation or parking demand
Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stabile, plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site.
Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apratment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of any development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.) Attach photographs of the site.
We have to verify whether or not our property in included on the CAL-EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control Facility Inventory Data Base Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List.
We have to provide a plot plan showing (among other things) proposed or existing street improvements, proposed exterior lighting, pedestrian, vehicular, and service points of ingress and egress, driveway widths. Paved areas must indicate proposed walkways, patios and disabled access. Fencing, including retaining walls, existing and/or proposed to be shown (type, height, and materials.)
Show location/design of trash enclosures, utility transformers and meters necessary to service the propsed use. Indicate public transit stops and bicycle/motorcycle facilities when appropriate.
Landscape plan - conceptual landscape plan indicating existing and proposed landscaping. Show all existing trees on site and indicate which tress are proposed to be removed or retained. Indicate the trunk diameter, tree drip line and tree type for all trees over 12” in diameter measured at 4 feet above grade.
A streetscape of the proposed project which illustras the proposed building and the adjacent buildings on either side as viewed from the street.
Additionally, they want to see a paint sample, roofing sample and samples of building materials. Apparently we joined a homeowners association without our knowledge or consent.
The list goes on for 17 pages. Every single thing can be verified by - looking at the plans, driving by or looking at Google maps
The only advice we’ve gotten from the designer is “Don’t make them mad or they’ll really start to scrutinize things.”
In real life, there is actually a point at which the costs imposed outweigh the benefits. Back in the day a cost-benefit analysis was required and provided actual, comparative figures of the benefit vs. the costs but, as long as your spending other peoples money, there is no limit to the cost or time imposed on the rule-following, taxpaying property owner.
We’re paying unaccountabe bureaucrats to tell us to go f*** ourselves because of their ability to pick off small constituencies (people who want to make improvements to their home) and counting on the choice between them acquiescing and paying the bribes/indulgences or not being allowed to make the improvements. It disincentivizes people from doing the right thing and incentivizes people to work outside the system (which results in sloppy/unsafe improvements).
Thanks for letting me vent!!
Why are we being punished?
Because that is what regulators live for.
Reminds me of battered wife syndrome. Move and get your freedom back.
I hate planners.
Beg permission to pay money to improve the King's House, peasant. And don't forget to pay for upkeep, insurance, and The King's Rent, lest The King take his property back.
Groveling would be good, but I wonder if touching your forelock might gain you favor...
My research focus is on this very thing. How design professionals and planners are ruining people’s lives. Or something like that. There’s a growing philosophy in the design profession that we and our government friends need to get out of the way and let people build.
But you really should move. California doesn’t deserve you.
Always good to pack your own bucket of dirt in which to grovel, if the need arises.
Sounds like your little slice of Europe.
A subservient peasant ALWAYS anticipates the desires of his Gruberment Masters...
To those telling you to “just move”:
H.L. Mencken’s classic one-liner: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.”
ptb wanted to make it difficult.
I was in no hurry
Found out all I needed was one inspection request and inspection every 180 days to keep the permit alive.
Took three years...had to be just right.
There is no such thing anymore as home “ownership”. “Private property” no longer exists. Not only do you pay for your habitation, you also pay for the people who dictate what you can and cannot do with it.
I would not live in Cali ... even if the state paid me to live there.
Sell the house and move to Alabama. The county might charge a hundred bucks for some building license fee and there’s virtually no inspection of anything. Your neighbors might chat excessively over NCAA football but they’d be there when grassfires occur, or some help is needed. I can’t think of a single reason why anyone would be thinking long-term to stay in California.
Wow, that’s incredible. A friend in South Los Altos not far from you did some remodeling and added some square footage. He tripped the requirement for a residential fire sprinkler system which was several thousands of dollars. Adding insult to injury, his original 3/4 inch water connection was deemed to be too small to operate the sprinklers, so it cost him a bundle more to upgrade to a 1 inch line fro pm the street to his house. Then, the water company hit him with hundreds of dollars of fees to change from a 3/4 tap off the main to a 1 inch tap. The last insult is he has to pay a monthly “capacity charge” to the water company just in case he should ever need to use the higher volume of water to save his house from burning down. That’s another $600 per year just for the privilege of MAYBE once in a lifetime needing to use the full capacity of his new pipe.
We did a modest kitchen upgrade and paid thousands of dollars to install unwanted LED lighting and run AC to all of our smoke alarms.
Now, to top it all off, the FAAs “NextGen” flight plan system for the South Bay has nonstop aircraft flying down one single corridor over Los Altos and Palo Alto. The planes are below 2,000 feet ( not above 4,000 ft) 30 miles away from SFO. One plane gets just about out of earshot when another enters...it is nonstop jet noise from 5 AM to midnight every day the past few months.
Your permit questionnaire asked if you were going to increase noise in your town. That is a stupid question for a homeowner. But here we have the FAA blanketing a good chunk of the Peninsula with nonstop jet noise in a very narrow corridor and the bastards had a “negative finding” for noise in their environmental report.
Government really, really sucks.
Idaho looks better all the time.
I live right near you and went through this too... lets just say I lost big time... even with a good lawyer.
Move to the santa cruz mtns in LG and you can do what you want (permits optional).
#@%%# control freaks just want to see how many hoops you’ll jump thru like a trained monkey to obey your masters. Then maybe you get a treat. If you really can’t deal with the room as it is, moving seems like the best option. California in the rearview mirror isn’t so bad. There are a lot of alternatives.
We’ve never attempted to add an addition before so, yes the extent of the noses up your skirt and the breadth of what they can “force” you to do outside the scope of the four walls is jaw-dropping. After having gone through a kitchen remodel last year (which did not require the additional design scrutiny) we thought we were prepared. Our remodel was done under 2012 rules, these are 2013 rules.....The requirement to prove you aren’t disrupting the tidelands or bays or hills in a landlocked, flat community is ridiculous. A kindergartner could tell you that’s not an issue.
I have no idea what that means and a precursory look at the City of Campbell website had no added information. That strikes as odd, as it seems the City would have information on an exact definition of this zone.
I mention this because I lived a bit north east of you in Benicia. A friend was going to do a remodel and was complaining of the 'red tape' as he lived in a "historical district". His issues were similar to yours (though not as in depth).
Long story short, he asked for and received a map defining the district's legal boundaries. His street was on the edge and the line was drawn down the middle of the street, he was thus not in the district itself.
If you have not investigated that aspect, or similar classification requirements, it may be worth doing so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.