1050 Acacia, Montara Planning & Building Issues Brief Summary |
Project was not built in compliance with
approved plans
|
| Exhibits: Correspondence, Photos and Documents: [webpage] |
| Summary & Violation Details: [HTML] or [pdf download] |
| Alternate Summary Document: [webpage] |
| County Contact Info: [webpage] . . . . . . . . Planning Dept Org Chart: [pdf download] |
revised: 9/16/07 In August 2006 my neighbor and I noticed that the first floor of the house being constructed behind us at 1050 Acacia was much higher above the ground than was expected. The first floor was being constructed approximately level with top of the rear fence, which is very unusual and inappropriate for a relatively flat lot. We observed the Contractor (Ron Nelson - Nelson Builders) hauling in large amounts of fill dirt and raising the grade of the entire lot, adding up to about three feet at the back of the lot, and filling around the raised foundation. I reviewed the plans at the County Planning Department (available on-line see {1}below). I'm a California licensed Civil Engineer with significant experience in Construction Management, so I have the background to review this type of project. The approved plans showed the first floor of the house built close to the ground (about two feet or less above the natural grade), not the approximate five feet being constructed. The approved plans showed no dirt fill, and in fact they showed cut on the North side (i.e. the finish grade was to be below natural grade) and excavation under the house for the crawlspace. A note on the Site Plan states: "Grading Note: NO SITE GRADING REQUIRED EXCEPT FOR MINOR ADJUSTMENTS NEEDED FOR DRAINAGE AROUND HOUSE, DRIVEWAY AND APPROACH TO STREET". I determined that the site grade elevations (i.e., the contours) shown on the approved plans were incorrect, with errors in elevation of 2 to 3 feet across a large part of the site. What the Contractor had done was submit plans that showed the ground elevation higher than it actually was; this defective (high) ground elevation was then used by the Contractor / Architect to show the first floor elevation on the plans higher than it should have been (relative to the actual natural grade, i.e. to match the defective, and high, site grade elevations). I don’t know if the Contractor intentionally submitted these defective elevations; however, when the Contractor started construction it would have been obvious the grades on the plans were wrong and that the first floor would sit much higher above the ground than shown on the plans. At this point, per the Planning Department’s approval document, ‘Decision Letter’ of 11/14/05 Condition No. 1 (available on-line see {2}below), and the Design Review Application certification (item 6) {3}, the Contractor was obligated to stop any further work and, at the very least submit to the Design Review Committee for review, the corrected site grades, the proposed change in first floor height above natural grade and the proposed fill dirt around the house. As these changes would contradict the MidCoast Design Review Standards, they would have been rejected, and the appropriate course of action would have been to redesign the project and drop the first floor down into proper relation with the natural grade. The Contractor did not notify the County as required but instead continued building. The Contractor built excessively high foundation walls (grade beams), up to around 3' high, to span the distance from the top of the foundation piers at natural grade up to the first floor. The Contractor then placed a large amount of imported fill dirt around the high foundation walls, raising up the finish grade around the building. The fill dirt reaches depths of over 3' against the South fence adjacent to the back of the building. It was obvious to the neighbors that if the Contractor was allowed to continue, the resulting project would not only diminish the privacy of the neighboring homes but also damage their property values. The back of the new home looks directly into the bedroom windows of the adjacent home. The raised lot would mean that anyone walking on this lot could now look easily over the fence and into the adjacent yard and bedrooms. A higher building means less sun to adjacent properties. Furthermore, the higher building and yard will allow noise to more readily travel to adjacent properties. Note that the raised foundation and structure improved the ocean view for 1050 Acacia, at the expense of the neighbor's well being and property values. It was obvious that the Contractor was not building the structure per the approved plans. I determined that: A. The fill dirt violates Zoning Regulation 6300.2.6, which states: "Finished grade, measured at the outside face of exterior perimeter walls, shall not significantly deviate from the natural grade, to the satisfaction of the Design Review Committee." {4} The finished grade has been constructed between two to three feet higher than natural grade on the West and South perimeters. B. The overall building height was constructed about 30' above natural grade, based on the Contractor's Nov 2006 survey. This is about three feet higher than the approved design (27'-1") and about two higher than allowed by Zoning Regulation 6300.2.6. (28'-0"). C. The first floor of the house was constructed about three feet higher above natural grade than was depicted on the approved drawings. The approved drawings show the first floor less than two feet above the ground, however it was constructed about five feet above the ground. This was very easy to see by just looking at the drawings which show the elevation of the first floor relative to the back fence, and then comparing that depiction to what was actually built - it will be apparent that the house was constructed much higher above natural grade than was shown on the drawings submitted to the Coastside Design Review Committee for approval. D. The dirt fill required a grading permit under Section 8602.1 of the County Code (Grading Ordinance), but the Contractor did not have a grading permit. The grading ordinance requires a grading permit unless exempted, and the only exemption that would apply in this case would have been if the fill was less than 2 feet deep, which it wasn't. Code Section 8607.1 specifically requires the Planning Director to issue a stop work notice under this condition. To date, a stop work notice has not been issued, thus the Planning Director has been in violation of the County Code 8607.1. {5} E. The illegally added fill dirt and grading significantly alters the drainage pattern on the site, resulting in stormwater runoff that previously flowed across the southern property line, to now flow to the west onto my property. This change in site drainage was not shown on a drainage plan as required by Condition #14d of the Planning Department Decision letter of 11/14/05, thus the change to drainage was never approved. F. Adjacent to the Southwest corner of the building, the Contractor has constructed a fence / retaining wall structure reaching 9'-6" in height and placed over 3' of fill dirt against it. The approved plans show no fill dirt and only a 6' high fence at this location. This fence violates Zoning Regulation 6412 which limits fence heights to 6' on side yards. Section 6412.1 allows fences over 6' "whenever there exists an abrupt shift in height", however this does not apply since the shift in height did not exist previously but was instead created in its entirety by the Contractor. Section 6412 also requires a building permit for any type of fence exceeding 6'; a building permit was not obtained for this 9'6" fence/wall. (reference {14} for Section 6412) G. The Contractor committed multiple violations of Condition #1 of the Planning Department Decision letter of 11/14/05 (reference {2}). Condition #1 requires the Contractor to construct in compliance with the plans approved by the Coastside Design Review Committee and to have any changes reviewed by the County. Non-compliance issues include the fill dirt, the height of first floor above the natural grade, the overall height of the building, the South fence/retaining wall structure, and the low retaining wall constructed along the West fence. My neighbor and I have been calling and writing the Planning Department since August 2006. The County has received over 15 letters and emails fully documenting these issues. (See http://1050acacia.info/exhibits/c-exhibits.html) The Planning Department has issued one response, a letter dated 12/15/06 denying there are any significant problems at the site {6}. I submitted a detailed reply on 2/2/07 showing that all positions taken by the County Planning Department in their 12/15/06 letter are inaccurate and without merit {7}. The County has not replied in writing or verbally to these specific issues. I have submitted calculations to the County showing that the structure is about 30’ high above natural grade. I certified these calculations with my Professional Engineer's stamp. The approved height is 27’-1” and the maximum allowed by Zoning Regulation 6300.2.6 is 28’. My submitted calculations use the survey information provided by the Contractor (Nov 2006 survey). {8} In order to move towards a resolution of this dispute in a responsible, fair and ethical manner, on 5/1/07 I submitted a letter to the Board of Supervisors with a dispute resolution procedure - a copy is available on-line at reference: {9}. There has been no response from the Board. In a 5/10/07 meeting with the County Manager, it was agreed that the County would conduct an evaluation of the building height above natural grade. On 6/6/07 I sent an email to the County with a proposed scope for this investigation that would address most of the key issues {10}. On 6/14/07 I received a copy of a memo (dated 6/12/07) prepared by Doug Koenig, an Engineer in the Department of Public Works (DPW), and sent to the County Manager's office {11}. I requested a meeting with the County to review the DPW Memo, but on 6/18/07 Peggy Jensen of the County Manager's office said in a phone conversation that the County would not meet with me and was moving forward with the final inspection. I noted in a follow-up email dated 6/19/07 that the County has never had a public hearing on these issues and I requested that the matter be brought before the Planning Commission for appeal. The 6/12/07 DPW Memo concludes that the natural grade elevation under the peak is approximately 191.4 which translates into a building height about 4" higher than was approved. The DPW Memo also concluded that the fill depth is well under 24". I have analyzed the DPW Memo and found that it contains many serious errors; it is inconsistent with the best available survey data, and it is also inconsistent with easily verifiable site data and all photographic evidence - I presented this analysis to the County in a letter dated 6/28/07{12}. On 6/28/07 I sent an email to Doug Koenig at the DPW requesting that he immediately retract his memo of 6/12/07 {13}. The County has not addressed most of the issues in my 6/6/07 proposed scope of investigation. The County has failed to respond in any manner to several of the violations brought to their attention beginning in September 2006. All significant statements and conclusions produced by the County in regards to the violations at 1050 Acacia have been shown by my analysis to be inaccurate and or misleading. As of 6/21/07, I know of no action taken by the County to enforce the zoning regulations at 1050 Acacia, or to require the project be constructed in compliance with the approved plans. Given the documentation I have provided, and the obvious facts on-the-ground, the County Planning Department and the County Manager's office have no legitimate justification in continuing to support the positions taken in their 12/15/06 and 6/12/07 letters. Likewise the Deputy Director of Public Works, Douglas Koenig can not justify maintaining the positions taken in his memo of 6/12/07. In my opinion, by maintaining these positions and taking these actions, the County is engaged in a cover-up of unlawful activity and in an act of deception, which results in the community, and particularly the neighbors of 1050 Acacia, being defrauded. {15} Citizens who are concerned about the future of the Coastside
area, and the integrity of the planning process, should contact the
Board of Supervisors, the County Manager and the Planning Commission.
An independent investigation of the 1050 Acacia issue should
be conducted as soon as possible. Concerned citizens should request
that the County
Code (Zoning Regulations and Grading Ordinance) be enforced as it applies
to 1050 Acacia. The County should require that the 1050 Acacia project
be constructed in compliance with the approved plans.
________________________________________________________ REFERENCES: {2} Planning Department’s 11/14/05 ‘Decision Letter’: {3} Contractors Design Review Application, submitted 9/13/05 {4} Zoning Regulation 6300.2.6: {5} Grading Ordinance, County Code Section 8600 & 8700: {6} County Planning Dept letter of 12/15/07 (signed by Lisa Grote): {7} R. Carey 2/2/07 response to County letter of 12/15/07: {8} Certified calculations of building height: {9} 5/1/07 letter to the Board of Supervisor (proposed dispute resolution
procedure): {10} 6/6/07 Email from from R. Carey to County
Manager & Public
Works Dept (proposed scope of investigation) {11} 6/12/07 Letter from County Manager's
office (Peggy Jensen) with DPW Memo to R. Carey {12} 6/28/07 Letter from R. Carey
to County Manager (John Maltbie) - with
ALL attachments - large
file {13} 6/28/07 Email from from R. Carey to Doug Koenig - Deputy
Director Public Works (request retraction of Koenig 6/12/07 memo) {14} County Zoning Reg Partial - 6412 - Fence regulations {15} Fraud:
Some other recent correspondence: On-going work on illegal fill, etc: Request to stop work on illegal fill: Status of County height evaluation:
|