An architect in a Santa Rosa started a mixed-use project, also known as “live/work,” on a property zoned for such a project. The zoning was previously “commercial.” The architect then spent $100,000 developing plans, doing Phase I work, hiring engineers and even coordinating with Caltrans. The plans flew through design review with lots of praise.
But the Planning Commission brought the project to a screeching halt, saying it couldn’t approve anything because the City Council was considering another change in the zoning, back to “commercial.” In this situation, does the city reimburse the developer for costs? No.
Plan check, bounced
A developer in Santa Rosa proposed a major commercial building. The very detailed plans were reviewed by the city for 18 long months before permits were issued. Finally, it was time to pour sidewalks around the building. A crew of workers began shaping rebar for the sidewalks, all under the watchful eye of a city building inspector. This went on for two full days.
At the end of the second day, the city inspector red-tagged the project and brought everything to a halt. “We don’t allow rebar in sidewalks,” the inspector said. “You need to take it out.”
The project manager protested, noting that the building plans, specifying rebar, had been reviewed thoroughly by the city, and that the plans had been approved with that specification. “Not my problem,” said the inspector.
I measured the sidewalks, and my estimate is that 7,500 square feet of sidewalk-with-rebar were affected. Ouch.
The death of common sense
A woman in Santa Rosa discovered she needed a city permit to build a very small mausoleum in a cemetery, to house the cremated remains of several relatives. The small mausoleum was to be constructed entirely of granite.
In response, the city noted it would need to have fire sprinklers. In the end, the city decided to waive this requirement, but not without some difficult discussions.
A flight of fancy
A developer applied to build a series of hangars at an airport in Sonoma County. He was told that the permit fees needed to include school impact fees based on the square footage of the hangars. The ensuing argument over school impact fees nearly grounded the project. Since school impact fees are based on residential projects where children would live, why should a developer have to pay that fee on an airplane hangar?
The hazards of design review
Two separate owners told me virtually the same story about attempting to improve the exterior appearances of their commercial buildings in downtown Santa Rosa. In the first situation, an owner-developer made significant interior improvements to his large building and then tackled the challenge of beautifying the exterior. With the significant help of an architect, he presented what he thought was a very aesthetically pleasing $500,000 plan to Santa Rosa’s design review panel. To the owner’s horror, the design review members trashed every part of his plan. Nothing was acceptable. So he simply painted the building.
In the second situation, an owner wanted to make small changes to the exterior of his small commercial building, which was once considered architecturally advanced but was now looking dated and tired. He presented his modest proposal to the design review board, where it was rejected. Perhaps “rejected” isn’t a strong enough word. An architect familiar with the situation told me the owner was “tortured” by design review for months before giving up and walking out of yet another meeting. The owner was so angry that he decided to paint the building a deliberately unattractive color because design review had no power to reject it.
The cost of compliance, part one
A commercial real estate broker told me the story of what happened to the developer of a significant shopping center in Santa Rosa. The story had a familiar ring. The developer survived a long process to get his project approved. Then, at the point the developer finished paving the very large parking lot, a city fire inspector told him the water lines and hydrants must be relocated. This cost the developer $1 million, after which he swore never again to build anything in Santa Rosa.
The cost of compliance, part two
A developer asked me this rhetorical question: Why don’t citizens demand “silly fee programs” be eliminated? For instance, he said, the city of Santa Rosa requires an amount equal to 1 percent of construction or remodeling costs (above $500,000) be spent by the property owner for public art.
Sonoma County also has a “commercial linkage” fee based on the theory that erecting a commercial building has an impact on housing. The result is that a developer must pay between $2.50 and $4.50 per square foot into a fund for low-cost housing. “The idea,” said a person familiar with the building industry, “was that erecting a commercial building would require more housing for workers. But it was really just a way to squeeze money out of developers. The reality is that fees like this aren’t producing any money, because governments have made development so expensive and the economy doesn’t call for construction.”
A ray of hope?
Over and over again, architects and developers have told me the same things about doing business in Santa Rosa. They say the building permit process can be maddeningly slow and inconsistent. They say the attitude of some city workers is, “Prove to me you’re allowed to do what you want” instead of, “How can we help you accomplish your goal?” They said last-minute changes demanded by the city during construction, and often by the fire department, were both frustrating and expensive. One developer said that some subcontractors refused to submit bids once they learned the project was in Santa Rosa. I was also told if you want to get your project done and approved, you need to go along with changes demanded by a city inspector, even if you know the inspector is wrongly interpreting the building code.
But Santa Rosa’s new Mayor, Ernesto Olivares, has emphatically stated that it’s the aim of Santa Rosa to make the community development process more user-friendly at every level, including a “one-bite-at-the-apple” plan review system that will avoid last-minute changes during construction. Here’s hoping!
A native of Santa Rosa, Robert Andrews is a former pension trust officer at Exchange Bank and was a long-time co-owner of a retirement plan administration firm. He’s married with two children, three grandchildren and loves everything to do with wine. Contact him with your "Open Trench" experience at bandrews@northbaybiz.com.
