Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10171995 - SD1 SDA THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DATE: October 17, 1995 MATTER OF RECORD SD.1 The Board of Supervisors heard comments from John Holt, P.O. Box 602, Diablo, regarding the building permit processes in Contra Costa County. The Board of Supervisors and the Director of the Growth Management and Economic Development Agency expressed interest in conducting a workshop to address options for streamlining the permit process. THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN cc: County Administrator County Counsel GMEDA a:\101795SD.1 G��Lc DATE: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAIME:__ 2 d� 2 PHONE: y3( Y14/ ADDRESS: q CrrY: I am speaking formyself V OR organization: (NAME OF ORGANIZATION) Check one: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of &d4a I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. 7LL 14 VVV iV JJ li LV n � VA, �atc, L3(')A.Rr3 OF .SUPPRVISORS FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET DATE: TI11'IF: GAYLE©ISHOP SUPIrHVISOR,MSTMM 3 16 CHOW CANYON COURI 0120 BAN MMON.CALIFOOMA 94583.1809 {510)8?Od689 PLEAS; DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGE (S) TO: 1") NAME: r DEPARTMENT OR CO PANY: FAX NUM ER: ~ FROM SUBJECT: ~' 1kry' ft± 430t6�0,aS I ann transmitting ,_ 1 pages (including this rover sheet). If you do not receive clear copies,.pleabe call me as soon as possible. COMMENTS: J5 H. 0 LT cC) N. S l 4: uc7! (') N 1 FAX COYER SHEEI i� I DATE: (Id qS TQ: � ✓1S 1L'' iS/� PAGES: 1 REMARKS: —�rir. a'S w�t;DTt M rf� I►O A D vi t +G.a�S t 't"' r l/`UGtX- �"'T'ri►+� "t7)MD12.IZPA.)-- , 1 ' If you do not receive all of the pages or have any questions, please call SIO-831-8161 or fax 510-831-8134 I OCT 16 '95 10123 JS HOLT CO 831=8734 P.2i1C� JS HOLT- C 0 N S T K U C T 10 N October 16, 1995 Coutra Costa County Board of Supervisor's 651 Pine Street Martinez,California,94553 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: I would like to bring to your attention to the increasing complexity,time and cost of pulling a building permit in Contra Costa County. I have been a General Building Contractor since 1975 and have been primarily involved in the construction of single family residential homes and remodeling of existing homes. Most of my projects are located in the Alamo,Diablo and Danville communities. Some of my projects include land development(small subdivisions)and the related processing,road improvements, etc. Recently,I started this company after being in partnership for many years.My company consists of myself, a part-time bookkeeper and a eonu=,t laborer. Many people may consider contractors insensitive to the environment just by nature of our trade, however, many of us are interested in preserving sensitive species of animal and plants, When. you routinely work, around creeks,ridge lines,rock outcroppings,hillsides, in and around mature tree'$it is hard not to be involved in all the existing and new ordinances designed to protect each of those areas.The time--consuming process of pulling a permit for a simple project has become a frustrating experience. When a rather simple project takes up to six months(or longer)to get through the permit process, it becomes a hardship. This hardship not only affocts me,but the homeowner's,Contractors and engineers all working on these projects and most of the construction industry,which at onr time, represented a large percentage of our state's employment. Permit activity in the 9 Bay Area Counties has fallen 54%since 1988 and fallen 21%for the itrst 7 months of 1995 over 1994. You would think with staffing levels in the Planning end Permit Department at what appear to the same levels,in fact the same people as in 1988,they would be . able to move you through the process very quickly.Unfortunately the reverse is true. Planning, Flood Control,Grading,Flood Plain Management Departments,have taken the approach that every project should be looked at through a microscope.This process requires civil engineers, soils engineers,structural engineers,architects,arborists.hydrologist,biologists,surveyors and ,contractors to study and rostudy projects even when the time and costs of the studies exceed the project.This process has to change!! 1 Liccn�tin.3Sb60o P.O.Box 602 9 Diablo,Califomia 94528 • VoicetTav (510) 8.31.8161 yri iV ./✓ 1V•c..� JJ ilYMwl \rV VJi Vi J� I; i Property owners and contractors should be able to pull all necessary permits to any!project within a reasonable amount of time.There should be strict time limits placed on processing your.permit application.This time limit should not exceed 30 days in the worst of cases,and be.much shorter in 95%of the applications.Planners and/or Zoning Administrators should be available to review and approve studies from professional engineers and other specialists required by law or the Board of Supervisors,at the counter. I have decided to chart for you the progress of my permit process showing each date and action taken or required. I have attached a progress of one of my building permit applications which has been"in the process"for over 3 months now, with no"end"in site and another which just started. I will send you and other"politicians"each month a copy of this"progress chart"so you may better understand the"affects"of the decisions and policies you place on property owners and contractors. S carol , f . 'John S. Holt 1 � 2 _ . H.4110 (4o �T The Building Permit Process in Contra Costa County" Diablo -Renovate Carport/Add Play room J. S. bolt Construction 7/11/9$ - Building plans complete, cost estimate approved by property owners, contract executed between property owners and contractor. 7/24/95 - Pay San Ramon Valley School District Impact Pee $ 1,315.80. 7/25/95 - Nay Contra Costa County Sanitary District Fee $ 90.00. 7/25/95 - Attempt Planning Department review and approval. Return.plans to architect for modifications to plans required by Planning Department. 7!27/95 - Return to Planning Department with revised plans($200.00 redraw, charge). Planners further review shows two parcels with carport on separate parcel (since 1915), planner feels owner may sell new garage/playroom to third party, at some time in the future, 7/28/95 - Owner sends letter to Contra Costa Assessor to combine both parcels. in to one. 7/31/95 - Return to Planning Department with additional changes requested by planners ($200.00 redraw charge). Planners think the property is in the flood plane. Review plan with flood plain planner. Planner decides to the have the Flood Plain Management Department on Glacier Drive review the plan since the carport spanned a creek (since 1915). 9/2/95 - Arrive at Public 'Works to review plan with Flood Plain Planner. During review of the plans, planner explains that a permit will not granted to rebuild or repair the structure regardless of the owners plans or desires. He would rather see the carport rot and fall into the creek but offer to sell the contractor a copy of the Flood Plain Management OCt' 16 195 10.25 JS HOLT CO 63i-8734 P. i10 Ordinance for $ 4.17. Contractor purchases Ordinance (4 Pages) and . returns to the office to review. 8/4/95 - Arrive Public Works building discover office is closed every Friday. 818195 - Return to Flood Plain counter to review Ordinance with planner. Contractor explains the Ordinance specifically allows exceptions for carports, garages and other non -habitable buildings to be constructed. Planner refuses to grant a Flood Plain permit but conversation-starts regarding the water flows in creek. Planner requires owner to have a licensed engineer perform a water shed study for the creek. Contractor complains the costs for such a study would be thousand's of dollars and unfair to require this on the renovation of the structure. Contractor points out that the water shed study for the area was performed in 1989 for the immediate down stream owner and could this study be used for the analysis? Planner quickly reviews data and decides the data is not correct for the 100 year storm. Contractor points out that it appeared from the data that elevation 506.5 would be a point of reference to design to, planner disagrees. 8/8/95 - 9/5/95 - /8/95 -9/5/95 - Numerous visits and phone calls to Flood Pain Management Department. Original planner on vacation, supervisor fills in, agrees to review data on water study down stream but needs creek sections surveyed upstream, downstream and under carport. Contractor and owner reluctantly agree to extra costs for civil engineering ( $1,000.00 initial fee to engineer). Engineer completes creek sections, contractor submits to Flood Plain Management Department for review($120.00 review fee).Several calls from contractor to check progress of review,no return calls. Contractor makes another visit to office to speak to Flood. Control Engineer whom the project was assigned, that engineer had been on vacation and new engineer had done nothing. Flood Control agrees again to review data. 9/6195 - 10/4/95 - /6/9510/4/95 - Several unanswered phone calls by contractor to Flood Plain Management Department decides to make another personal visit. Flood Plain Management Department planner back from vacation, 2 supervisor hands file back to planner. Planner doesn't agree with engineers findings requests more information. Contractor has engineer complete planner requested changes and delivers new information back to planner. Planner and Flood Control Engineer decide to make site visit. Site visit goes well planner feels more comfortable with situation, but request more engineering information. Contractor delivers new information to flood Plain Management Department, planner not available, contractor leaves information with clerk with note to planner requesting his immediate attention. Contractor phones several times a day for a week,no return calls. Contractor makes another personal visit, planner had not seem the new information. Contractor explains the clerk placed the information on his desk. Planner returns with the information and explains he didn't see it on his desk. Planner reviews information agrees with new 100 year flood elevation of 506.44. Flood Control and Flood Plain Management Department require 2 feet of clearance above 100 year elevation. This raises floor level of garage to elevation 511.2 a full 5 feet higher than the existing garage floor. Contractor has architect and structural engineer re-design floor system to make thinner($750.00 extra charge). Re-design lowers garage to elevation 509.6 still 3.6 feet above existing garage floor. 1015195 - Flood Control Department issue Flood Plain Permit ($325.00 fee). 10/9195 - Owner meets with Flood Plain planner to try to reason with him to lower the new elevation a least one foot. Planner refuses. 10/11/95 Contractor's construction estimate expires. Owner's cost may increase. 10/12/95 - Contractor returns to County Planning department to pull permit, planner reviews plans again and asks what type of tree is that next to carport, Contractor responds with an Oak tree. Planner asks if there will be any work done under this tree. Contractor explains the carport will been converted to a garage and one pier will have to be drilled but there would not be any additional area paved but the paving section would have to be increased to accommodate the 3 % feet garage floor needs to raised. Planner explained that a Tree Permit($100.00 fee) would have to be issued. The planner further explained that the owner would have to have an Certified Arborist inspect the tree and provide a report($250.00 3 charge) as to it's condition and what damage this work would do to the tree. Furthermore, after to report is received the surrounding neighbors would be notified along with the Diablo Property Owners Association and that a Zoning Administrators public hearing would need to be held. The planner explained that this could take 3 to 4 months. 4 V%.l lO JJ iV'FI V'7 "W"I %ry VJi VI- r, Gar LTJ • � � � � ria��.�-� �• �, ;� a 26 lop .Ii r " 1 r !'.N n f� " r.. ,r 11��'. All' ''�.1..1C•.. I , �t���! I A• ,t! .:1', .. �tu,,�N1N�(tl���'1 ,1! � ��'Y..ti.ti ., 4 ..._!;r, !il, a 4,)1� i� 'l•'I � r Y . �+✓q�;' r 11 'rte'' '��1� Y ,'� n 7 i%�'i. tf,'n �tf.y�,�:� i ��� i}F3Lli•''r 4 � I '_►. ��;•fl: � • . yt•• • 1 _ r r i' r 1 yr. • ..��.!:'r fir,.{r i:' '!!., '.• :'*�r" .,c• �•! Si::ii1'•."E�iY,:� r �7' ,��,.,:.•, "3;:.' �•i•:;.�.;�.e;r�i'-��y,l ( !. : r .......... . r'�c�e �!llt:�! �w,: ........ r. '1,•. s-.;i•'�?�II•i•�!,'l _ �r. OCT 16 195 1029 J5 HOLT CO 831-8734 ,P.9/10 I 1 • The Building Permit Process in Contra Costa County" Diablo - New Home on Sub-Standard Lot (93' wide vs 1201) J. S. Holt Construction 10/11/95 - Contractor reviews concept plats with planning Department. Planner requests Arborists Report ($250.00 cost) on twelve foot encroachment under 30" Oak tree and show all tree removals on plan. Planrxer gives contractor copy of new Tree Ordinance #94-59(12 pages), Standard Information Requirements for Qualifying Projects Which Have Protected Trees And.Requiring A,Tree Permit Removal And/Or Alteration (4 pages), The Standard Conditions Of Approval For Thee Permit (2 pages), Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance ZT4950008 (12 pages) and an Application for a Public Hearing( $500.00 fee). 10/13/95 - Contractor returns to review application with 6 plan sets 24"X 361, 3 reduced plan sets folded to 8 V2 X 11, photograph of lot and addressed envelops for properties within 300 feet. Planner reviews information,requires Oak tree drip-line over home to be shown on plan and a table of tree removal by species. i i . i i • 1 i I 1' ► 'M Vv'. 4 w h. I 'r• ,,��rr�r ti . . i j• , tt { 1 JL . M DATE: REQUEST TO SPEAK FOM M /7- 9s (THREE (3) mwu1 m LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAIME: D� PHONE: ( �` �/ ADDRESS: 7� (./a'7.> Cny: I am speaking formyself OR organization: (NAME OF ORGANIZkTION) Check one: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subjectof c � 2xc I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.