A setback setback! Seems our house measurers mistakenly pur our house at 6'5" from the southern property line (and fence), but a measuring tape and a glance says it's clearly less, about 4'. Within allowed setbacks, but the city's concrete inspector checking placement of the forms insisted on a property survey (!) to verify. Work ground to a halt.
Surveyors came today, and set two points on a 2-foot offset to the property line opposite each building corner so the inspector can measure it himself. Our ethical architect paid for this herself, as it was a minor mistake on the plans, which will be corrected and submitted tomorrow. The inspector said a site survey is SOP; but neither our architect or contractor have ever been asked for one (and it wouldn't have come up save for a minor typo on the plans).
Showing posts with label city. Show all posts
Showing posts with label city. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Plan approval
News from the City: our coordinator is approving the plans! Once again, public works is the problem child, not having entered their updated comments yet. Guess that won't happen until 4:59:59pm tomorrow, when they're "due."
Friday, June 13, 2008
Impact Fee Removal
We sent an email to the city detailing our concerns about the fee. Later, I get a call: they agree! They found a "prior condition" clause and are removing that fee. They're appreciative of our "professional" input.
June 13, 2008
Thank you for meeting with us yesterday (Thursday June 12 2008) to discuss the developmental impact fee of $1157.13 that Public Works has imposed on our project (#2008-1849).
There are several layers of problems here, from missing records to a poorly structured charge for increased impact on publics works systems.
We don't argue the point that increased occupancy implies increased load on public works. But the incremental impact fee is defined as a delta between two sewer connection charges, triggered by 3 bedrooms, and this unnecessarily ties together events that could be separated by decades. Indeed, the sewer connection fees are clearly stated in the Fee Schedule to be collected *at*time*of*connection*, and that makes sense since fees are bound to change over the years. Also, the definition of "occupancy" by bedrooms is problematic, as number of bedrooms is not sent to the county for recording, only square footage is.
Even the fact that the impact fee is a one-time charge is a problem, as it forces homeowners and the city to dig up records that may never have existed. (Why is this fee a one-time charge anyway? Occupancy impact on public works is ongoing; wouldn't a multiplier on water usage would be more appropriate?)
Perhaps the biggest problem is this odd fee structure (subtracting sewer connection charges for adding a 3rd+ bedroom) is not clearly stated in writing.
As you mentioned, the city of Sunnyvale has perhaps become accustomed to large developments, but there are many 2BR sewer-connected bungalows out there waiting to have bedrooms added. This fee structure is just plain inappropriate.
It's even less appropriate when the bedrooms already existed. Our situation is marked by three events, separated by decades, that Public Works forced by this fee structure to pull together into one:
* circa 1960 -- sewer connection
* circa 1980 -- addition: 2 stories, 4 bedrooms, 2755 sq.ft.
* 2008 -- the Doudnas apply for building permit, no bedrooms added
While this problem's roots are in the fee structure itself, we understand we
need to try to work within the system as it exists. Given that, let's address
the facts.
A) Developmental impact fee is for adding bedrooms.
We're not adding bedrooms.
We're not creating new impact on public works systems.
There is ample evidence our house already had 4 bedrooms. The most compelling is your copy of plans for project #2005-1306, a tiny 2nd-story addition which clearly illustrate four bedrooms. Other projects (roofing, heating) involved the city, approved permits and on-site inspections. Dean Kimbler did most of the inspections, he will likely remember our oddball house.
We can also provided a dated photo of the house exterior in 2001 (included in a submittal to Sunnyvale for a Use Permit, project #2000-2042), that clearly shows the second story addition (though not the interior bedroom layout). We can also provide real estate appraisals, insurance forms, and affidavits from longtime neighbors that the house has had more than two bedrooms for years.
B) The City has no record of this fee ever having been collected for our
property.
We can't possibly be held accountable for missing or never-existing records.
The odds are high that the sewer connection was done when the neighborhood was developed in the 1960s, as evidenced by two letter "S" imprints marking our western sewer lateral on Kinglet Court, one on the sidewalk and another on the curb. Both appear to be original concrete poured when the subdivision was built shortly after our neighborhood was annexed by the city of Sunnyvale. As such, this fee may never have existed when our sewer was connected.
No matter, the fee applies when bedrooms are added, even though it's defined as a sewer connection charge. But we can't prove that fee was paid in 1978 any more than you can prove it wasn't. This is an impossible impasse.
It's a dangerous door to open to charge homeowners for old fees not recorded in the city database. We understand that a homeowner buys a home's liabilities, but we did all possible diligence when we bought the house to turn up these liabilities, including a permit search. We didn't come up with an original building permit either. We well understand your concern about finding illegal improvements, but a single absent record, in the presence of mounds of other evidence, isn't sufficient evidence of that.
We have other issues regarding the city's records of our sewer laterals that must also be addressed as well. But our building permits (or comments) are due June 18, and we would like to resolve this problem first.
*** We request a waiver of the $1157.13 developmental impact fee on the grounds
detailed above, summarized below:
- Fee structure ties together events that can occur decades apart.
- Impact fee itself not clearly stated.
- Occupancy definition based on bedrooms, which are not recorded by the
county.
- We are not creating new impact on public works systems.
- Absence of a city record by itself insufficient grounds to charge us.
Since purchasing our home in 1999, we have done everything we can to ensure the City of Sunnyvale is kept informed and issues permits for all applicable changes to our property. We have always worked within the system and we believe in it. Sunnyvale has been good to us, and our excellent past dealings with the Building Department contributed to our decision to stay in Sunnyvale and remodel instead of move. It's from that context that we genuinely believe a developmental impact fee on this project to be just plain wrong.
Please let us know which supporting documentation you would like us to bring for you to examine and copy, as Ms. Chu had suggested.
Regards,
...
June 13, 2008
Thank you for meeting with us yesterday (Thursday June 12 2008) to discuss the developmental impact fee of $1157.13 that Public Works has imposed on our project (#2008-1849).
There are several layers of problems here, from missing records to a poorly structured charge for increased impact on publics works systems.
We don't argue the point that increased occupancy implies increased load on public works. But the incremental impact fee is defined as a delta between two sewer connection charges, triggered by 3 bedrooms, and this unnecessarily ties together events that could be separated by decades. Indeed, the sewer connection fees are clearly stated in the Fee Schedule to be collected *at*time*of*connection*, and that makes sense since fees are bound to change over the years. Also, the definition of "occupancy" by bedrooms is problematic, as number of bedrooms is not sent to the county for recording, only square footage is.
Even the fact that the impact fee is a one-time charge is a problem, as it forces homeowners and the city to dig up records that may never have existed. (Why is this fee a one-time charge anyway? Occupancy impact on public works is ongoing; wouldn't a multiplier on water usage would be more appropriate?)
Perhaps the biggest problem is this odd fee structure (subtracting sewer connection charges for adding a 3rd+ bedroom) is not clearly stated in writing.
As you mentioned, the city of Sunnyvale has perhaps become accustomed to large developments, but there are many 2BR sewer-connected bungalows out there waiting to have bedrooms added. This fee structure is just plain inappropriate.
It's even less appropriate when the bedrooms already existed. Our situation is marked by three events, separated by decades, that Public Works forced by this fee structure to pull together into one:
* circa 1960 -- sewer connection
* circa 1980 -- addition: 2 stories, 4 bedrooms, 2755 sq.ft.
* 2008 -- the Doudnas apply for building permit, no bedrooms added
While this problem's roots are in the fee structure itself, we understand we
need to try to work within the system as it exists. Given that, let's address
the facts.
A) Developmental impact fee is for adding bedrooms.
We're not adding bedrooms.
We're not creating new impact on public works systems.
There is ample evidence our house already had 4 bedrooms. The most compelling is your copy of plans for project #2005-1306, a tiny 2nd-story addition which clearly illustrate four bedrooms. Other projects (roofing, heating) involved the city, approved permits and on-site inspections. Dean Kimbler did most of the inspections, he will likely remember our oddball house.
We can also provided a dated photo of the house exterior in 2001 (included in a submittal to Sunnyvale for a Use Permit, project #2000-2042), that clearly shows the second story addition (though not the interior bedroom layout). We can also provide real estate appraisals, insurance forms, and affidavits from longtime neighbors that the house has had more than two bedrooms for years.
B) The City has no record of this fee ever having been collected for our
property.
We can't possibly be held accountable for missing or never-existing records.
The odds are high that the sewer connection was done when the neighborhood was developed in the 1960s, as evidenced by two letter "S" imprints marking our western sewer lateral on Kinglet Court, one on the sidewalk and another on the curb. Both appear to be original concrete poured when the subdivision was built shortly after our neighborhood was annexed by the city of Sunnyvale. As such, this fee may never have existed when our sewer was connected.
No matter, the fee applies when bedrooms are added, even though it's defined as a sewer connection charge. But we can't prove that fee was paid in 1978 any more than you can prove it wasn't. This is an impossible impasse.
It's a dangerous door to open to charge homeowners for old fees not recorded in the city database. We understand that a homeowner buys a home's liabilities, but we did all possible diligence when we bought the house to turn up these liabilities, including a permit search. We didn't come up with an original building permit either. We well understand your concern about finding illegal improvements, but a single absent record, in the presence of mounds of other evidence, isn't sufficient evidence of that.
We have other issues regarding the city's records of our sewer laterals that must also be addressed as well. But our building permits (or comments) are due June 18, and we would like to resolve this problem first.
*** We request a waiver of the $1157.13 developmental impact fee on the grounds
detailed above, summarized below:
- Fee structure ties together events that can occur decades apart.
- Impact fee itself not clearly stated.
- Occupancy definition based on bedrooms, which are not recorded by the
county.
- We are not creating new impact on public works systems.
- Absence of a city record by itself insufficient grounds to charge us.
Since purchasing our home in 1999, we have done everything we can to ensure the City of Sunnyvale is kept informed and issues permits for all applicable changes to our property. We have always worked within the system and we believe in it. Sunnyvale has been good to us, and our excellent past dealings with the Building Department contributed to our decision to stay in Sunnyvale and remodel instead of move. It's from that context that we genuinely believe a developmental impact fee on this project to be just plain wrong.
Please let us know which supporting documentation you would like us to bring for you to examine and copy, as Ms. Chu had suggested.
Regards,
...
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Meeting about impact fee
Dave and I met with the assistant Director of Public Works, and also a senior civil engineer. We gained a better understanding of the source of this developmental impact fee, as it's intended to charge homeowners with more residents for additional impact on public works systems.
But the fee is structured as a delta between two sewer connection fees (we're already connected to sewer), and is triggered by adding a 3rd or more bedroom (we're not adding bedrooms). We're all for paying our fair share, but this one isn't right.
But the fee is structured as a delta between two sewer connection fees (we're already connected to sewer), and is triggered by adding a 3rd or more bedroom (we're not adding bedrooms). We're all for paying our fair share, but this one isn't right.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Fee for adding bedrooms?
Un-friggin' believable. This Public Works person at the city told our architect today that this mysterious $1157.13 "developmental impact fee" was for adding bedrooms, which we're not doing.
Think he'd bother to check the city records? Nope, he's using realquest.com, which indeed does list our house as a 2BR. He said people add on without permits all the time and that it's up to us to provide documentation that the house already had 5BR and that the developmental impact fee had already been paid. Never mind that this "developmental impact fee" doesn't appear in the city's fee schedule, or that previous permitted work we've done clearly indicates more than 2 bedrooms.
Think he'd bother to check the city records? Nope, he's using realquest.com, which indeed does list our house as a 2BR. He said people add on without permits all the time and that it's up to us to provide documentation that the house already had 5BR and that the developmental impact fee had already been paid. Never mind that this "developmental impact fee" doesn't appear in the city's fee schedule, or that previous permitted work we've done clearly indicates more than 2 bedrooms.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Submitted plans
Architect re-submitted to the city today! Bastards tried to send her away when she arrived at 4:30pm, they close at 5pm. The city has 14 days to respond, COB June 18. She's been working really, really hard. Please take your hands off your keyboard and mouse and join me in applause.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Developmental Impact Fee
Eventful day!
Met with contractor, discussed how to progress with demolition given the permits delay.
Architect arrived during contractor meeting by coincidence, in pursuit of a sewer cleanout as the city's Public Works requires be added (do we already have one? looks like not). Ah. Nothing like seeing your architect and your contractor talking to each other.
This morning we sent an email to the city asking some of the strange fees on the comments list, expressing waning confidence in the whole process. For example, one of the requirements was to upgrade our water meter -- which we already did in 2004. Doesn't the city have a record of this?
This afternoon, someone from Public Works showed up at our house taking photos. Rare, but Dave and I were both home. We asked the guy about the comment "The new accessory building would add the following fees: $1157.13 fee for the SS" that was hand-crossed-out. He said that was a "developmental impact fee," then asked how many bedrooms we have now (4 or 5 depending on if you count closets), then said it was for adding a bedroom. Shrug when I said it's a suite and might not be two rooms, then something about it depends on how you play the rules. Little did I know at the time he wasn't talking about 4-5 bedrooms to 5-6 -- he thought the house had 2. And what's SS?
Encroachment permit? For water meter upgrade. No way Jose, we already did that in 2004, got the signed and paid permit right here. More hand-waving about a sewer cleanout, saying it had to be half-on city property, but a brick retaining wall forces it entirely onto our property, so how could we need an encroachment permit? More hand-waving. Claims neither of our sewer laterals are in the city's records (what, we're on septic?). All public utilities easements and services are supposed to be on the plans, he claims.
Finally, he put us off about the "developmental impact fee" by telling us to look at the fee schedule on their Web site. We did: City of Sunnyvale Fee Schedule. Nothing obvious about "developmental impact fee."
We're documenting all this and will request a full fee itemization. For almost $10,000 in permit fees alone, we're entitled. Unfortunately, this is costing valuable time too.
Met with contractor, discussed how to progress with demolition given the permits delay.
Architect arrived during contractor meeting by coincidence, in pursuit of a sewer cleanout as the city's Public Works requires be added (do we already have one? looks like not). Ah. Nothing like seeing your architect and your contractor talking to each other.
This morning we sent an email to the city asking some of the strange fees on the comments list, expressing waning confidence in the whole process. For example, one of the requirements was to upgrade our water meter -- which we already did in 2004. Doesn't the city have a record of this?
This afternoon, someone from Public Works showed up at our house taking photos. Rare, but Dave and I were both home. We asked the guy about the comment "The new accessory building would add the following fees: $1157.13 fee for the SS" that was hand-crossed-out. He said that was a "developmental impact fee," then asked how many bedrooms we have now (4 or 5 depending on if you count closets), then said it was for adding a bedroom. Shrug when I said it's a suite and might not be two rooms, then something about it depends on how you play the rules. Little did I know at the time he wasn't talking about 4-5 bedrooms to 5-6 -- he thought the house had 2. And what's SS?
Encroachment permit? For water meter upgrade. No way Jose, we already did that in 2004, got the signed and paid permit right here. More hand-waving about a sewer cleanout, saying it had to be half-on city property, but a brick retaining wall forces it entirely onto our property, so how could we need an encroachment permit? More hand-waving. Claims neither of our sewer laterals are in the city's records (what, we're on septic?). All public utilities easements and services are supposed to be on the plans, he claims.
Finally, he put us off about the "developmental impact fee" by telling us to look at the fee schedule on their Web site. We did: City of Sunnyvale Fee Schedule. Nothing obvious about "developmental impact fee."
We're documenting all this and will request a full fee itemization. For almost $10,000 in permit fees alone, we're entitled. Unfortunately, this is costing valuable time too.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Plan comments
Dave and architect went to the city's building department today at 4:15pm, ready to pick up comments on our plans. Comments were ready!
One department had signed off, but that hadn't been entered into their records. The comments from Building were extensive, and involve a fair amount of work to meet their requests. They insist on five new sets of complete full-size plans (at $50 a pop!) for re-submittal.
One piece of good news: USAA's upgraded property valuation put our house value higher than it's ever been (? huh? In this market?), so we can increase our credit line without any trouble. (Turned out USAA couldn't understand why we'd want to increase it when we hadn't used it yet and it had a zero balance....umm, because, doesn't it make more sense to line up all the financing before you start the project?)
One department had signed off, but that hadn't been entered into their records. The comments from Building were extensive, and involve a fair amount of work to meet their requests. They insist on five new sets of complete full-size plans (at $50 a pop!) for re-submittal.
One piece of good news: USAA's upgraded property valuation put our house value higher than it's ever been (? huh? In this market?), so we can increase our credit line without any trouble. (Turned out USAA couldn't understand why we'd want to increase it when we hadn't used it yet and it had a zero balance....umm, because, doesn't it make more sense to line up all the financing before you start the project?)
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Permits Timeline
What we went through to get permits from a city with a reputation for being helpful and efficient.
All told, the process took over 5 months.
Feb 6 2008: First step: Architect showed plans to city Planning dept, confirmed that we are passing regulations. No formal design review needed, we're told -- only a short review over-the-counter when we submit plans for building permit.
Apr 7 2008: Try to submit for permits. Sorry, previous planner was wrong, can't do this over-the-counter after all. Now we do need a formal design review, despite Feb 6 conversation. Earliest we can submit is May 12.
Apr 8 2008: Submitted plans for design review. Estimate for review is two weeks.
Apr 24 2008: Planning reviewed the design, recommending approval. However, require neighbor notification process to give neighbors a chance to comment. City sends notice to neighbors and posts notice in front of our house, neighbors have until May 7 to review plans.
Apr 25 2008: Dave visited city building dept, spoke with Building and Engineering to ask how this unexpected 5-week delay (design review, neighbor notification process) can be used. Suggests pre-reviewing plans to maximize chances of over-the-counter approval on permit submittal day. If plans are good, and we happen to submit to the same people who pre-reviewed, chances are good we can get an over-the-counter building permit.
Apr 28 2008: Architect met with city structural engineer, went through the plans and structural calculations, minor changes for our structural engineer. City engineer says plans are clean and well prepared, sees no trouble getting plans approved for construction. But, must be submitted for a standard review, no over-the-counter permit.
May 9 2008: Submit plans, 3 days early. Comments or permits due Fri May 30. $2508 paid.
May 20 2008: Temporary power pole permit obtained.
May 28 2008: Dave talks to building coordinator -- any news about our plans? Planning and Fire okayed, but Building has redlines which will require a resubmittal. Neither Structural nor Water Pollution have even looked at the plans yet. So, no permits for us on the 30th, just comments.
May 29 2008: Architect talked to building coordinator, who gave a preliminary list of comments from Building only. These include items that could easily have been flagged earlier, such as deck design. Structural, Water Protection, and Public Works haven’t even looked at the plans yet. Previous conversation with engineer at the city not binding; as he was a consultant and not THE city engineer who decides if Structural will sign off. Comments due 5/30, no commitments on time of day besides COB.
May 30 2008: Dave and architect meet at the city at 4:15 to pick up comments, which are ready. Building wants detailed deck design, electrical plan for master bedroom, detailed plans for radiant heat extension, plans for new electrical panel location and installation, details on upstairs forced-air vent relocation.
May 31 2008: Further examination of the Comments from the city reveals a page about Encroachment permits for all offsite improvements. This includes an applicable developmental impact fee (tbd), an encroachment permit fee of $250, and "The new accessory building would add the following fees: $1,157.13 for the SS" but the grayed-out text is crossed out! And we don't have any offsite improvements. You can believe we'll be talking to Public Works next week.
June 4 2008: Architect re-submitted to the city (who tried to send her away when she arrived at 4:30pm). Comments or permits due June 18.
June 12 2008: Dave and I meet with assistant director of Public Works to discuss developmental impact fee. It's a one-time charge for when a house goes from low to standard occupancy (2BR to 3+BR), and is calculated as a delta of sewer connection fees.June 13 2008:Send email requesting waiver of $1157.13 impact fee, as we're not adding bedrooms or connecting to the sewer. We get a call from the ass't director of P.W.: request granted!
June 19 2008: Permits granted! Paid and picked up, ready to go. Finally!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)