#Height limit smalland update
Update on Long Branch’s Dead Torrey Pine – Video 5 days ago 4 Comments.Restaurant Review – Sabor Brazilian Grill in the Midway 5 days ago 3 Comments.You Are Invited to the ‘Top of the Point’ – the Sefton Garden – for a Summer Festival – Sat., August 6 4 days ago No Comments.Community Meeting to Explore Replacing Ocean Beach Pier’s July 4th Fireworks – August 25 22 hours ago No Comments.Dog Complaints in Ocean Beach Bring Vow to ‘Kick Humane Society in Butt’ 21 hours ago 5 Comments.Under the 50% rule, the project also does not have to come to the planning board. This loophole and the 50% rule are two area of the MC that really need to fixed. If it started as condos, it would have to come before the planning board. So, they start the process and construction as apartments and during construction they apply for a “map waiver” to convert the structure to condominiums. If the new structure is to be apartments, it does not require planning board review. The other reason is another big problem with the Municipal Code. Being outside the Coastal Zone is one reason why it would not come before the planning board.
#Height limit smalland how to
When you go to the sections of the Municipal Code that describe how to measure height, there is a section that points out the exemption for the Proposition D area that allows only 30 feet. That particular multi-family zone allows for a 40-foot tall structure but that is for the entire city. We believe the city erroneously approved it. This memo and language is in the file I obtained from Vacchi but oddly enough, the city is not proposing this language as a Municipal Code amendment. And, when that memo was issued, the City Attorney proposed language to put in the Municipal Code to clarify Prop D meant “existing grade” which I believe is also unnecessary but not harmful except that adding it would exempt all current projects from redesign.
The city is relying on a city attorney memo that is over 30 years old that I am sure would not hold up to legal scrutiny today. We need to fight this amendment they want to put in the Municipal Code so that the current projects cannot be built and we need this raising of the grade idiocy to stop. are all taken from the UBC to DESIGN a building so why would this one item, the height, be treated differently. Everything else is done this way, the size of the footings, the size of the framing, the materials for siding, the plumbing, etc. Measure first and design to that is the correct way. Vacchi is saying design first then measure, which is backward. This is ridiculous because the Uniform Building Code (UBC) that the Prop D references is a DESIGN and construction document. The DSD believes this is correct, the director of the DSD, Vacchi, said so at the Peninsula Community Planning Board meeting in July. The big issue now is to correct the city’s idea that Prop D allows a developer to raise the grade and then do the 30-foot measurement. The developer can still build a skinnier 40-foot tall building if they wanted to, with the correct square footage.
The developer did this because the lot is small and they could only get so much square footage based on the formula. If a garage structure is considered subterranean, it is not counted against the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). They are lionizing the developer when the DSD is the culprit. What they cited the developer for was artificially creating a subterranean garage by building retaining walls and raising the grade around the garage.Īlthough, keep in mind, the Development Services Department (DSD) approved the plans that clearly showed what the developer planned to do. We originally believed the developer was artificially raising the grade to get a taller building when, in fact, the city granted a permit for a 40-foot tall building that the city still believes is perfectly legal.
0 kommentar(er)
