Applicant Presentation 33 WalnutAppealing LG Staff Decision on
declaring a TD of 33 Walnut Avenue
All the PERMITTED work IN FRONT of the front-facing wall
THREE ASKS of the Town Council:
1)Overturn ‘out of context’ decision to declare 33 walnut a TD, overturn
penalty fees arising from ambiguous/contradictory demo affidavit.
2)‘inches from flames’ -Approve protecting WUI-located home through
allowing fire-hardened siding.
3)Direct staff to return $7,000 paid in-lieu curb fees for ADU project
-and to address drainage issue to prevent flooding of 33 Walnut.
How It All Started -SELF-REPORTED
•Jeff –“Hi Sean…this is Jeff Siegel…I’m calling to get your guidance on
front/side siding materials we can use that would be fire-hardened
given our house is 23 inches away from flammable neighbor’s fencing
and vegetation. I’m very concerned given we’re in the WUI”.
•Sean –“I need to report this to Erin because you have likely exceeded
your limits on siding removal”.
•Jeff –“I’m pretty certain we are well under the 50% total siding limit
and we have not removed any interior wall covering, only siding”.
•Sean –“Jeff, it’s the 25% rule that is in question. This is up to Erin to
manage and I will forward the information on to her”.
Perfect Storm of WUI Wildfire Vulnerability
We are disputing a TD decision because…
1)Cited ‘25% rule’ -demo affidavit ambiguous & inaccurate,producing widely
differing interpretations between builder/homeowner vs LG Staff
*ACTIONS TAKEN WERE ‘SELF REPORTED’ AND FIRMLY BELIEVED TO BE
WITHIN UNDERSTOOD RULES*
2)Cited ‘25% rule’ -isn’t project-relevant given its clear intention of hiding
renovation work BEHIND the ‘street façade’
*WHEN IN FACT –PERMITTED NEW PORCH BUILT ‘in front of FAÇADE*
3)LG Historic Rules CONFLICT with other LG Rules –confusing & contradictory
*KEEP SIDING BUT DISCARD HISTORIC RAILING IN FRONT OF SIDING*
4)Disproportionate ‘punitive’ consequence -$29k+ in punitive fees + imposed
utility change costs + a ‘forced march’ through ASA.
* SIGNIFICANT PROJECT DELAYS AFTER ENDURING 2 YEARS OF LG PROCESS*
Front-Porch –THE Character-defining Feature
Changes in: Shape, Depth, Mass, Height, Roof, Railing, Stairs
PRIOR PORCH NEWLY BUILT PORCH
Over 2X
in Size
Permitted Structural Work,INSIDE Front-Facing Wall
Front-facing Wall Sits HIGH ABOVE Foundation
Bosch Roto Hammer
Heavy-duty Concrete Drilling Equipment
Destructive Drilling through Flooring + 3 Feet Floor Joists + Concrete
Builder’s intention to Limit Historic Destruction:
According to Brandon Whitaker, the builder:
“It was impossible to drill through floor and subfloor,
plus three feet of floor joists, and finally deep into
concrete from the interior of the house, without
causing significant interior historic destruction.”
LG Staff Mischaracterizing the Scope of Work
Town Staff Report states:
“the approved plans showed shear wall to be placed on the interior walls of the front elevation”.
In FACT, work entailed structurally retrofitting the 1890-built wall, bringing up to modern stds.
RETROFITTING a 1890-built wall
1)Added 4x4 structural posts at the ends of each shear wall.
2)Added 3x4 boards at all plywood breaks as required by the structural engineer.
3)Drilled ¾” holes into existing foundation for 5/8” all thread bolt for hold-downs.
4)Drilled ¾ holes into existing foundation for 5/8” anchor bolts at 36” on center per
structural engineers shear wall schedule on sheet SD1.
5)Testing completed on retrofit hold-down bolts and anchor bolts by Testing Engineers Inc.
6)Installed ½” sheer from foundation to top plate.Town inspected and signed off.
Note: Building Inspector & Community Director fully aware of siding removal
LONG BEFORE it was SELF-REPORTED by Homeowner
Demo Affidavit –AMBIGUOUS
Demolition of a Historic Structure means:
“Removal of more than 25% of the wall area facing a public street and/or 50% of all EXTERIOR wall area”
Further LG definition: When a section of an exterior wall has BOTH THE INTERIOR &
EXTERIOR WALL COVERING REMOVED, this section of wall is considered demolished.
AMBIGUOUS –25% of wall area interpreted to mean BOTH SIDES per demo affidavit
language. Explicitly states ‘exterior wall area’ for the 50% (not wall area).
Doesn’t say exterior, nor does it say siding Very Clear -exterior
INACCURATE –Per Erin Walter “Current town code defines technical demo as removing
framing, while ALLOWING for REMOVAL OF BOTH EXTERIOR & INTERIOR COVERING.”
1
2
3
25% Rule Intention –is it applicable?
What is the INTENTION of the 25% rule?
•It’s to HIDE FROM STREET VIEW changes made ‘behind’ the front wall façade
•Yet significant changes made ‘IN FRONT’ of the front wall –HIGHLY VISIBLE
•EVERY ASPECT of the front porch changed –railing design/height, columns, decking,
elevation, ceiling height, size, and shape. THE character-defining feature!!
Robert Gray: “Once the porch changed, historic preservation rules no longer apply”
•Forced to scrap historic railing as directed by Robert Gray
California HCD vs LG Town Attorney
•Building an ADU over an enlarged garage and received ONE PERMIT for this project,
yet town staff charged $7k for in-lieu fees.
•Consulted with CA State Housing & Community Development regarding the
charging of these fees -which runs counter to the state’s ADU law.
•Under direction of town attorney Schultz -staff was told to charge the $7k fee for
‘enlarging the garage, not the ‘ADU built above it’. It was an ADU PERMIT!!
Town Attorney skirting the ADU law through technical loophole
Cal State HCD Director stated -“Your town attorney is exploiting a loophole
in the law. It’s unethical to have charged in-lieu fees given its an ADU”.
Overlook Road -Drainage Performs Poorly
Clogged, Backup Street Drain Buried Street Drain Overflowing Street Drain
Flooding Danger -civil engineer’s report
-Mark Grofcsik, PE, RI Engineering, Inc.
“We propose the installation of an additional public
storm drain catch basin with a connection to the existing
Storm drain main in Wissahickon Avenue. This will
intercept runoff on Wissahickon Avenue upslope of the
driveway and reduce the massive volume of runoff that
is conveyed down this section of roadway to reduce
flooding damage to your property and your two
downstream neighbors.”
Rainwater runoff flows 1,000 feet on
Overlook Road hitting Wissahickon,
flowing above-street until Hernandez
Told by Town Staff ‘you pay for curb creation’ despite paying $7K
THREE ASKS of the Town Council
1)Overturn ‘out of context’ decision to declare 33 walnut a TD, overturn
penalty fees arising from ambiguous/contradictory demo affidavit.
2)‘inches from flames’ -Approve preserving WUI-located homes
through allowing fire-hardened siding (vs. Roman Candle).
3)Direct staff to return $7,000 paid in-lieu curb fees for ADU project
-and to address drainage issue to prevent flooding of 33 Walnut.
Lynne Osgood, Deputy Fire Marshall, Novato Fire District:
“Hardening homes and maintaining trees is the best way to create a safe neighborhood”