15. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall show all exterior site lighting locations and fixture details. All exterior building lighting shall be shielded and contained in a downward direction. No exterior lighting shall produce off-site glare.
16. Adequate provisions shall be made to supply water to each of the premises covered by this application. The design of water facilities shall be to standards of the Water Department and plans therefore must be submitted to the Water Department Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
17. Building plans and landscape/drainage site plans shall show compliance with the City Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. All trees shall be a minimum 15-gallon size. All residential development projects on a parcel of land less than 10,000 square feet shall be required to meet only provisions listed in Section 16.16.070(j) of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code. These provisions include specifications on plant type, turf limits, spray irrigation setbacks, irrigation equipment and mulching requirements. Building plans shall contain references to these provisions showing that the conditions have been met.
18. All landscaping shall be installed prior to final utility release or issuance of occupancy permits.
19. Prior to site grading or any disturbance all trees and/or tree stands indicated for preservation or approved plans shall be protected through fencing or other approved barricade. Such fencing shall protect vegetation during construction and shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development.
20. Prior to issuance of the demolition permit, the applicant shall:
- Obtain a building permit for the construction of the new single-family dwelling. -Schedule a Special Inspection with the Building Department to determine whether the existing residence proposed for demolition has potential for relocation off-site. If the Building Official determines that the building is capable of being moved without damage to significant trees and/or landscaping, the applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of Section 24.10.190 of the Zoning Ordinance.
-Provide proof of compliance with Part 14 Chapter 24.08 of the Zoning Ordinance Relocation Assistance. If a low- or moderate-income household (as determined by the Housing Authority) had occupied the dwelling unit within two years prior to the date of submission of the demolition authorization permit, proof of payment shall be provided.
21. The applicant and/or property owner shall be responsible for ensuring that any existing buildings approved for demolition or conversion remain occupied by a tenant or, if any buildings are vacant or become vacant prior to demolition or conversion, that these buildings are adequately secured to prevent break-ins and other vandalism. All windows, doors, and other openings into vacant buildings shall be completely covered and a six-foot tall chain link fence shall be installed around the perimeter of the property. Graffiti shall be removed or painted over within 72 hours. If a break-in occurs, the applicant and/or property owner shall, within 24 hours,
18.19 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 925 Windsor Street– CP22-0114
clean the site of trash and debris, and re-secure the site and building(s). Additionally, following a break-in, the applicant/property owner shall provide the Planning Department, SCFD Fire Marshall and SCPD with a copy of a signed contract with a private security company to provide ongoing monitoring of the site. If a break-in or other public safety concern occurs at the site that requires an emergency response, the applicant and/or property owner shall be responsible for paying the fully burdened hourly rates for Police, Fire, Code Compliance, or other City Staff to respond and follow up.
22. Building Plans shall also indicate that the project will provide smoke and carbon monoxide detector and alarms per the California Building, Residential, and Fire Codes; the project will have Class B or better roofing, and address numbers that are visible from the street and a minimum of four inches in size will be provided. All these details are subject to review and approval by the Fire Department.
23. An arborist report shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Arborist if required prior to issuance of the building permit and shall confirm that the mature trees on the property will not be affected with the siting of improvements for the new dwelling.
18.20 UP
HB
HB
HB
HB
W03
W04
W05
D09
D09
W09 W08
D02
W07
W06
D07
D01
D08
4080 D05
D11 D10
W14
W15 W02 W15
W10
W10
W11
W12
W13
W01 W01
D03
D04
D15
29010PT
UP
UP
D06
cL
GFCI WP
GFCI WP
GFCI WP
GFCI WP
GFCI WP
GFCI WP
WP
GFCI WP
WP
GFCI WP
WP
WP
EB-HT
EVC
E2
4 E3
4 E4
4 E1
4 25'-8"
34'-8"
9'
6 0'
5'-3"
4'-6" 7'-3"
15'-2"
3' 6'-9 1/2"
12'-8 1/2"
13'-8"
2'
20'-1"
3' 3'
3'-2"
34'-8"
6'
12'-7"
7'-1"
4'-1"
11'
4'-2"
4'-1"
6'-8"
1'-4" 7'
4'-10 1/2"
3'-7"
3'-3 3/4"
3'-4"
3'-5" 6'-5" 8'-5" 6'-7" 3' 2' 20'
6'-10"
3' 3'
2'-6" 3'-4"
4' 8'-7" 4' 8'-4" 4' 2'-9"
7"
2'-8" 2'-8"
36'-4" 4'-1" 2'-11"
17'
9'
6'-6"
2'-7 1/2"
1'-6"
2'-8"
9 1/2" 2'-8" 2'-8"
5'-4"
0'
2'-4"
5'-4"
2'-6" 5'
2'-8"
1'-6"
4' 5'-2"
10'-6"
2'-2"
4 0'
2'-6"
5'-6 3/4"
2 0'
13'-7" X 5'-8"
7'-1" X 3'-0"
9'-11" X 6'-2"
6'-2" X 3'-0"
33'-8" X 14'-4"
13'-7" X 5'-11"
13'-4" X 2'-3"
1833 SQ FT
19'-6" X 13'-1"
17'-11" X 13'-7"
6'-5" X 12'-3"
19'-6" X 10'-4"
10'-6" X 2'-7"
4'-7" X 4'-0"
LIVING AREA
PANTRY
CLOSET
PWDR
LAUNDRY
Meter Main &
Disconnect
CLOSET
PRIMARY BDRM -1
DINING
LIVING
KITCHEN
PORCH
Elev ~ (- 1/2" )
Elev. Ref
(0.0")
MECHANICAL
CLST # 2
STRWY-1
LNDG
PORCH
ENTRY
Windows
Above
Windows
Above
Flr. Slope
Dr Below
Landing
Dr Below
Landing
Fin
DRIVE
CONTINUES TO
ADU IN BACK
PERMITTED AND
COMPLETED
EXTR SHOWER & DRAIN
(overhang covered)
See T-03 For Details
Plumb Equipt
10' CONCRETE
DRIVEWAY
3' + WALKWAY
MECHN-1
EQUIPT
MECHN-1
EQUIPT
MECHN-2
EQUIPT
MECHN-2
EQUIPT
HOSE
BIB
Equipt Below
Landing Mechn. Closet # 1
Wall Niche For
Plumb Equipt
Kit. Hood
Vent
Shelf & Rod
Shelf & Rod Meridan Strip See T-01 &
T-03 Drive Gate, Remote Opr.
SET BACK
FR
5/8 X
5/8 X
5/8 X
SkyL 4' x 2' C.Stp. CONC. LANDING
C.Stp.
SEE NOTE SCHEDULE A-02/ 04
NOTE
locking cover
Sound
Insulation
ELEC CAR
CHARGER
EXISTING PALM
DW
NEW HOUSE NO GAS
APPLIANCES ALL
ELECTRICAL
B
A
T
H
S-A
5 S-A
5 S-A
5 S-A
5 W02
4'-1"
9'-2" 18'-9"
H W
~5'-8"
Air Handler
D22
3 Ton Comprs.
/ Condensers
D23
7'-3"
LOCKING TOP
D20
DN
W28
W28
W26 W25
W24
W23
W18
W17
W27
W21
W22
W27
W31
W16
W28
W17
W17
W28
D12
D13
D21
D16
32610
D13
D19
D13
D26
D17
D12
D14
D18
3272
W31
W29
UP
cL
E2
4 E3
4 E4
4 E1
4 3'-5 1/4"
1'-4"
3' 6'
3'-1 1/4"
3'
~66'' 5'-2 1/2"
7'-10"
2'-4"
11' 23'-8"
8 4''-10 1/2" 5'-5 3/4" 5'-4"
36'-0 1/4" 9'-5"
3' 7'-7 3/4" 3' 2'-9" 19'-6 1/2" 20'-5 1/2"
5'-5 1/4"
2'
8'-5"
3'-10" 3'-5" 4' 1'-6"
5'-2 1/2" 6'-8" 2' 6'-1 1/2"
20'
2' 4' 7'-3" 4' 8'-5 1/4" 9'
3'-9 1/2" 2'
14'-9 3/4"
3'-11 3/4" 11'-4 1/4"
3'
3'-11 3/4"
2'
7'-11 1/4" 1'-3 1/2" 2' 7'-7 1/4" 2' 1'-8 1/4"
14'-7"
4'-1"
9"
2'-8"
3'
5'-3" 3'
1'-4 3/4" 4'
3'
7'-4 1/2"
13'-1 1/2"
1'-8"
5'-7 3/4"
3'-5"
4'-1"
13' 4'-4"
4'-3"
2'-6" 2'-6"
4 0'
25'-8"
9'-10 1/2"
4'-6 3/4"
1'-10 1/2"
3'-11 3/4"
4'-6"
19'-5" X 12'-4"
1759 SQ FT
13'-9" X 4'-11"
11'-2" X 18'-9"
8'-9" X 8'-4"
13'-1" X 7'-0"
12'-11" X 12'-0"
6'-0" X 14'-3"
18'-4" X 14'-1"
4'-9" X 2'-5"
8'-7" X 5'-9"
5'-3" X 2'-2"
12'-11" X 12'-2"
2'-3" X 9'-10"
5'-3" X 2'-2"
2'-3" X 3'-10"
7'-9" X 27'-1"
1'-9" X 2'-2"
LIVING AREA
OPEN BELOW
MASTER
BATH-#3
WALK IN CLOSET
MASTER
BATH #2
PRIMARY
BDRM -2
CLOSET- LINEN
BEDROOM -4
BEDROOM -5
CLOSET CLOSET
PRIMARY BDRM-3
CLOSET
HALL-B
BATH-FAMILY
FAMILY
RM., VAULT
42" HT RAILING
BOTH SIDES W. TOP RAIL CAP. LNDG
Attic Access 22" x 30"
Shelf & Rod
Shelf & Rod
Shelf & Rod
Shelf & Rod MECH
CLOSET
5" K Gutter
GDwn
GDwn
GDwn
GDwn
GDwn
SEE NOTE SCHEDULE A-02/ 04
NOTE
STRWY-2
Wall Rail
Wall Rail
Sound
Insulaton
Solar Tube
Solar Tube
GDwn
GDwn
CLOSET
S-A
5 Air Handler
CONTENTS:
Rev Date For:
Sheet #
PROPOSED:
OWNER / DESIGNER
SITE LOCATION:
Scale:
Date: 05-17-23
Drawn By: jw
Chk By: jw
925 WINDSOR ST. SANTA CRUZ, CA
95062
Parcel # 011-073-13
NEW SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSE
A-01 / 06 OF 38
1ST & 2ND
FLOOR PLANS
1ST FLR. PLAN
1/4"=1'
2ND FLOOR
PLAN
SCALE 1/4"=1'
1/4" = 1'
SEE T-01 FOR SITE WORK.
E
XIS
T
F
E
N
C
E
O
N
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LIN
E
E
XIS
T
F
E
N
C
E
O
N
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LIN
E
05-17-22
ARTICULATED EAST
WALL, MADE 2ND
FLOOR WINDOWS
SMALLER
OWNER:
JUSTIN & HART
WALSH
Mail Address:
925 Windsor Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
18.21 GENERAL CAL GREEN CODE NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS
SEE ALSO GENERAL NOTES ON PAGE T-02.
LANDSCAPING WILL CONFORM TO CALGREEN CODE 4.304.1 FOR IRRIGATION CONTROL WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.304.1 FOR RODENT PROOFING FOR ANNULAR SPACES
INSULATE ALL NEW ACCESSIBLE HOT WATER PIPES
INSULATION TO BE CERTIFIED AS INSTALLED PER HERS CONTRACTOR WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.504.2.1 FOR ADHESIVES, SEALANTS, AND CAULKS
WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.504.2.2 FOR PAINTS AND COATINGS WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.504.2.3 FOR AEROSOL PAINTS AND
COATINGS
WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.504.4 RESILIENT FLOORING SYSTEMS WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.504.5 FOR COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.505.3 FOR MOISTURE CONTENT OF BUILDING
MATERIALS
WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.506.1 FOR BATHROOM EXHAUST FANS PLANT NON-INVASIVE SPECIES AS LISTED BY CAL-IPC (CALIFORNIA INVASIVE PLANT COUNCIL), PLANT NO SPECIES THAT REQUIRE SHEARING, PLANT 75% CALIFORNIA NATIVE OR MEDITERRANEAN SPECIES. PLEASE VERIFY THAT THEY ARE CALIFORNIA NATIVE OR OTHER MEDITERRANEAN SPECIES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SOIL TYPE AND MICROCLIMATE.
NOTE SCHEDULE
5/8 X DRYWALL BOARD, UNDER STAIRS, CEILING & WALLS OF ALL THE MECHANICAL CLOSET SPACES CONCRETE STEPS;
4 RISERS @ 7 3/8" , 3 TREADS @ 11" 1 - 2 1/4" OVAL HANDRAIL @ 34-36" HT. W. BRASS BRACKETS DOOR BELOW LANDING: CUT DOWN, 2O MIN FIRE RATED W. HARDWARE & SELF CLOSING HINGE
FIRE REGULATOR & MANIFOLD SYSTEM
UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT
5" K GUTTER & 3" DOWNSPOUT
LANDING @ ~ 72 1/2" HT. : FIRE RATED BELOW W. 5/8 X FIRE TAPE MIN. COMPRESSORS- CONDENSERS 3 TON SEE MECHANICAL PLANS- A-41/ 39
ERV BELOW LANDING
SEE MECHANICAL PLANS A-42
PLUMB EQUIPT: PEX MANIFOLD , WHOLE HOUSE FILTER
HARDWOOD STAIRWAY: 4' WIDE WITH 4: 1 1/2 X 12" LVL STRINGERS 10 RISERS, SOLID @ 7 1/4", 9 TREADS, @ 11" INCL. 1" NOSING TO LANDING 2 1/4" OVAL WALL RAIL, EA. SIDE, W., BRASS WALL RAIL BRACKETS, 1/2" X 12" HARDWOOD, VENEER, WALL SKIRT SEE ARCH. FINISH BUILDING SECT. A
HARDWOOD STAIRWAY: TO 2ND FLOOR
4' WIDE WITH 4: 1 1/2 X 12" LVL STRINGERS
5 RISERS @ 7 1/2" , 4 TREADS @ 11" INCL. 1 " NOSE
2- 2 1/4" OVAL WALL HAND RAIL W. BRASS BRACKETS, MOUNT BOTH SIDES 1/2" X 12" HARDWOOD, VENEER, WALL SKIRT
SEE A-05 STR2 DETAIL
WINDOWS ABOVE LANDING SEE 2ND FLOOR PLAN, ARE TEMP. GLS 5/8 X
C.Stp. Dr Below
Landing
Dr Below
Landing
FR
GDwn
LNDG
MECHN-1
EQUIPT
MECHN-1
EQUIPT
MECHN-2
EQUIPT
MECHN-2
EQUIPT
Plumb Equipt
STRWY-1
STRWY-2
Windows
Above
Windows
Above
5/8 X
C.Stp. Dr Below
Landing
Dr Below
Landing
FR
GDwn
LNDG
MECHN-1
EQUIPT
MECHN-1
EQUIPT
MECHN-2
EQUIPT
MECHN-2
EQUIPT
Plumb Equipt
STRWY-1
STRWY-2
Windows
Above
Windows
Above
ALL FRAMING / STRUCTURAL HARDWARE IS
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE AS SPECIFIED, UNLESS
NOTED OTHERWISE. SUBSTITUTIONS NOT
ALLOWED EXCEPT FOR APPROVAL FROM
DESIGN TEAM & STRUCT. ENG.
SIMPSON HARDWARE
WALL SHEATHING 1/2" Struct. # 1
Plywood: NAILING SCHEDULE
EXTERIOR & INTERIOR BEARING OR SHEAR
WALLS:
NS-3: 3" OC EDGE & 12" OC FIELD W. 8d. Requires That Each Edge Is Nailed To Its Own Stud or Block Unless Panels Split Over 4x or
Larger Beam / Post
NS-4: 4" OC EDGE & 12" OC FIELD W. 8d. NS-6: 6" OC EDGE & 12" OC FIELD w. 8d. ( Std) AT POINT LOAD POST AND BEAMS 3" OC EDGE
STAGGERED w. 8d. EXTERIOR FRAMING LUMBER:
ACQ TREATED GREEN, OIL PRIMED & PAINTED
OR ACQ BROWNTONE STAINED & SEALED.
WALL SCHEDULE
2D SYMBOL WALL TYPE(S) COMMENTS
8" CONCRETE STEM WALL CONCRETE 8" STEM WALL, CONNECTED BY REBAR TO FOOTING. SEE BUILDING SECTION A / SIDING-6
1ST FLR: HARDIPLANK TEXT LAP SIDING OVER HOUSEWRAP OVER 1/2" #1 PLWD. OVER 2X6 STUD WALL @ 16" OC INSIDE, 1/2' DRYWALL.
SIDING-6- 2S
1ST FLR E PORCH WALL, SAME AS SIDING -6, EXCEPT INSIDE PORCH IS HARDIPLANK TEXT LAP SIDING OVER INSIDE LAYER OF 1/2" # 1 PLYWD SIDING.
SIDING-6, BRD & BATT
2ND FLR. : RECYCLED RED WOOD BATTS @ 16" OC OVER HARDIPLANK TEXT VERTICAL SIDING; OVER HOUSEWRAP OVER 1/2" #1 PLYWD. OVER 2X6 STUD WALL @ 16" OC, INSIDE 1/2' DRYWALL DECK RAILING/FENCE DECK RAILING, TOP CAP 2X6 (RECYCLED REDWD) 2X4 BTM RAIL, PICKETS @ <4" OPENING, 4X4 NEWEL POSTS @ 6' OC OR LESS INTERIOR-6,-PLWD INTERIOR BEARING OR SHEAR 2X6 STUD WALL @ 16" OC, W. 1/2" # 1 PLYWD. ON SIDE STATED W. 1/2" DRYWALL BOTH SIDES INTERIOR-6 INTERIOR NON BEARING 2X6 STUD WALL @ 16" OC, W. 1/2" DRYWALL BOTH SIDES INTERIOR-4-DW 2X, 1-PLYWD INTERIOR BEARING OR SHEAR 2X4 STUD WALL @ 16" OC, W. 1/2" # 1 PLYWD. ON SIDE STATED W. 1/2" DRYWALL BOTH SIDES INTERIOR-4 INTERIOR NON BEARING 2X4 STUD WALL @ 16" OC, W. 1/2' DRYWALL BOTH SIDES INTERIOR-4, UNDER LANDING
INTERIOR BEARING OR SHEAR 2X4 STUD WALL @ 16" OC, W. 1/2" # 1 PLYWD. ON SIDE STATED W. 5/8" DRYWALL BOTH SIDES (
UNDERSTAIRWAY & LANDING)
LUMBER SPECS:
1. POSTS, BEAMS, HEADERS, JOISTS, AND RAFTERS TO BE DF-#2. & KD
2. USE LVL HEADERS, BEAMS, POSTS WHERE STATED IN WINDOW, DR SCHD. & ON PLANS
3. EXPOSED ARCH BEAMS TO BE DF-#1 OR BETTER.- PRESSURE TREATED
4. SILLS, PLATES BLOCKING, AND BRIDGING TO BE DF-#2.
5. SILLS FOR CONCRETE WALL, PRESSURE TREATED
6. ALL STUDS TO BE DF#2 OR BETTER.- KD
7. PLYWOOD SHEATHING SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
8. ROOF SHEATHING SHALL BE 5/8- 3/4" PLYWOOD VERIFY WITH ROOFING METAL MANUF.
9. WALL SHEATHING SHALL BE 1/2'' INT-APA RATED 32/16 STRUCTURAL # 1
10. FLOOR SHEATHING SHALL BE 3/4'' T & G INT-APA RATED PLYWOOD OR OSB FRAMING NOTES:
PROVIDE DOUBLE JSTS. UNDER ALL WALLS RUNNING PARALLEL TO JOISTS.
PROVIDE POSITIVE VENTILATION AT EA. END OF EA. RAFTER SPACE AT VAULTED CEILING AREAS.
PROVIDE FIRE BLOCKING, DRAFT STOPS AND FIRE STOPS AS PER CA CODE PROVIDE POSITIVE CONNECTIONS AT EACH END OF ALL POSTS AND COLUMNS TO RESIST LATERAL DISPLACEMENT.
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES:
EACH BEDROOM TO HAVE A MINIMUM WINDOW OPENING OF 5.7 SQ. FT. WITH A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 20 IN. AND A SILL LESS THAN 44" ABOVE FIN. FLR.
ALL GLAZING WITHIN 18 IN. OF THE FLOOR AND/OR WITHIN 24 IN. OF ANY DOOR (REGARDLESS OF WALL PLANE) ARE TO HAVE SAFETY GLAZING. ALL GLAZING WITHIN 60 IN.
OF TUB OR SHOWER FLOOR, 60 IN. OF A STAIR LANDING OR GREATER THAN 9 SQUARE FEET ARE TO HAVE SAFETY GLAZING
SKYLIGHTS ARE TO BE GLAZED WITH TEMPERED GLASS ON OUTSIDE AND LAMINATED GLASS ON THE INSIDE (UNLESS PLEXIGLASS). GLASS TO HAVE MAXIMUM CLEAR SPAN OF 25 IN. AND FRAME IS TO BE ATTACHED TO A 2x CURB WITH A MINIMUM OF 4 IN. ABOVE ROOF PLANE.
ALL TUB AND SHOWER ENCLOSURES ARE TO BE GLAZED WITH SAFETY GLASS.
ALL EXTERIOR WINDOWS ARE TO BE DOUBLE GLAZED AND ALL EXTERIOR DOORS ARE TO BE SOLID CORE WITH WEATHERSTRIPPING. PROVIDE 1/2 IN. DEADBOLT LOCKS ON ALL EXTERIOR DOORS, AND LOCKING DEVICES ON ALL DOORS AND WINDOWS WITHIN 10 FT. (VERTICAL) OF GRADE. PROVIDE PEEPHOLE 54-66 IN. ABOVE FIN. FLOOR ON EXTERIOR ENTRY DOORS.
PROVIDE ONE SMOKE DETECTOR IN EACH ROOM AND ONE IN EACH CORRIDOR ACCESSING BEDROOMS. CONNECT SMOKE DETECTORS TO HOUSE POWER AND INTER-CONNECT SMOKE DETECTORS TO HOUSE POWER AND INTERCONNECT SO THAT, WHEN ANY ONE IS TRIPPED, THEY ALL WILL SOUND. PROVIDE BATTERY BACKUP FOR ALL UNITS.
PROVIDE COMBUSTION AIR VENTS (W/SCREEN AND BACK DAMPER) FOR GAS FIRE-PLACE AND ANY OTHER APPLIANCES WITH AN OPEN FLAME.
BATHROOMS AND UTILITY ROOMS ARE TO BE VENTED TO THE OUTSIDE WITH A FAN CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A MINIMUM OF 5 AIR EXCHANGES PER HOUR.
RANGE HOODS ARE ALSO TO BE VENTED TO THE OUTSIDE.
ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLES IN BATHROOMS, KITCHENS AND GARAGES SHALL BE G.F.I. OR G.F.I.C. PER NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE REQUIREMENTS.
INSULATE ALL ACCESS DOORS/ HATCHES TO CRAWL SPACES AND ATTICS TO THE EQUIVALENT RATING OF THE WALL, FLOOR OR CEILING THROUGH WHICH THEY PENETRATE.
UNO ON PLANS.
ATTIC R-38
WALLS R-21
FLOORS R-21
PROVIDE CRAWLSPACE VENTING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2018 EDITION OF THE I.R.C. & 2019 CA CODES
.
RAILING NOTES: SEE SHEET A-05 / 08/ 45
STAIRWAYS SHALL HAVE A MIN. WIDTH OF 36". HAND RAILS MAY ENCROACH A MAX. OF 3 1/2" INTO THE REQUIRED WIDTH.
TREADS SHALL HAVE A MIN. WIDTH OF 10". STAIR TREADS MUST BE UNIFORM AND CAN NOT VARY FROM THE LARGEST TO THE SMALLEST BY MORE THAN 3/8".
STAIRWAYS SHALL HAVE MIN. 7'0" OF HEADROOM AT THE NOSE OF THE STAIR.
ENCLOSED USABLE SPACE UNDER INTERIOR STAIRS SHALL BE PROTECTED ON THE ENCLOSED FACE WITH 5/8" TYPE "X" GYPSUM WALL BOARD.
STAIRWAYS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE HANDRAIL LOCATED 36" ABOVE THE NOSING OF TREADS AND LANDINGS. THE HAND GRIP PORTION OF HANDRAILS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1-1/2" OR GREATER THAN 2" IN CROSS-SECTIONAL DIMENSION.
HANDRAILS SHALL BE CONTINUOUS THE FULL LENGTH OF THE STAIRS. THE ENDS OF HANDRAILS SHALL RETURN TO WALL OR TERMINATE INTO A NEWEL POST OR SAFETY TERMINAL.
STAIRWAYS HAVING LESS THAN 2 RISERS DO NOT REQUIRE A HAND RAIL. 42" MIN. HEIGHT GUARDRAILS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR AT PORCHES, DECKS, BALCONIES, STAIRWAYS AND LANDINGS WHERE THE ADJACENT SURFACE IS GREATER THAN 24" BELOW.
RAILING AND GUARDRAIL BALUSTER SPACING SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 4".
THE TRIANGULAR OPENINGS FORMED BY THE RISER, TREAD, AND BOTTOM OF GUARDRAIL SHALL NOT ALLOW A 4" DIAMETER SPHERE TO PASS THROUGH.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPRIETARY WORK PRODUCT
AND PROPERTY OF ALOHA DESIGN & BUILD SERVICES INC. AND DEVELOPED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE FOR JUSTIN & HART WALSH NEW RESIDENCE. USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND
CONCEPTS CONTAINED THEREIN WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF IS PROHIBITED.
THE OWNER/BUILDER IS ACTING AS THE
GENERAL CONTRACTOR,
IS TO REVIEW AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, SPECS. AND CONNECTIONS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. AND BRING ANY
DISCREPANCIES TO DESIGN TEAM PRIOR TO
STARTING WORK.
UNDERFLOOR CRAWL SPACES VENTS INSTALL 28 - 16" X 8" SCREENED FOUNDATION VENTS AS SHOWN AROUND THE
FOUNDATION IN THE ELEVATIONS AS WELL AS THE
STRUCTURAL ENG. FOUNDATION PLAN - PROVIDING ~ 0.88
SQFT EA X 28 ~ 24 SF VENTING AREA. TOTAL 1st FLOOR
AREA 1785 SF, 24 SF / 1785 SF ~ 1/ 74 OF THE AREA VENTED OR ABOUT DOUBLE OF WHAT IS MIN. REQUIRED
RIDGE & HIP RAISED VENT ALLOW 1" AIR SPACE EA SIDE
~ 118 LF OF VENTING OR 2/12 /LF *118 LF ~ 19.7 SF VENTING ATTIC FLOOR , 1831 SF :. 19.7/1831 = 0.0108 OR RATIO OF 1/93 PLUS THE LOWER VENTING OF 3- 2" DIA. SCREENED VENT HOLES THROUGH BLOCK PER 2 LF. OR 9.42 SQIN /2 FT 4.71 SQIN /FT :. ~ .033 SF/ LF VENTING AT ~ 170 LF PERIMETER = 5.56 SF TOTAL
TOTAL ATTIC VENTING = 25.26 SF / 1831 SF = 0.0137 OR RATIO OF 1/
72.5 OR ABOUT DOUBLE OF WHAT IS MIN. REQUIRED.
WINDOW SCHEDULE
# FLR QTY SIZE WDTH HGTH EGRS TOP HEADER DESCRIPTION COMMENTS W01 1 2 4050DH 48 " 60 " 87" 5 1/4X7 1/4X54" DOUBLE HUNG LVL HDR W02 1 2 4050FX 48 " 60 " 87" 5 1/4X7 1/4X54" FIXED GLASS LVL HDR W03 1 1 3040DH 36 " 48 " 87" 4X6X40" DOUBLE HUNG KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP, OR LVL W04 1 1 2016AW 24 " 18 " 82" 4X4X28" SINGLE AWNING OBS GLS, KD HEADER, ALT LVL W05 1 1 2016AW 24 " 18 " 82" 4X4X28" SINGLE AWNING OBS GLS, KD HEADER, ALT LVL W06 1 1 2616AW 30 " 18 " 82" 4X6X33" SINGLE AWNING KD HEADER, ALT LVL W07 1 1 2014AW 24 " 16 " 82" 4X4X27" SINGLE AWNING STRAP TOP OF HEADER TO TOP PLATE OBS GLS- LAMINATED W08 1 1 3040SC 36 " 48 " YES 82" 5 1/4X5 1/4X42" SINGLE CASEMENT-HR LVL HDR W09 1 1 3040SC 36 " 48 " YES 82" 5 1/4X5 1/4X42" SINGLE CASEMENT-HL LVL HDR W10 1 2 2840DH 32 " 48 " 82" 5 1/4X5 1/2X35" DOUBLE HUNG KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP, OR LVL W11 1 1 4030DH 48 " 36 " 82" 5 1/4X5 1/4X51" DOUBLE HUNG KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP, OR LVL W12 1 1 4040DH 48 " 48 " 82" 5 1/4X5 1/4X51" DOUBLE HUNG LVL HDR W13 1 1 4040DH 48 " 48 " 82" 5 1/4X5 1/4X51" DOUBLE HUNG LVL HDR W14 1 1 3850DH 44 " 60 " 87" 5 1/4X7 1/4X50" DOUBLE HUNG LVL HDR W15 1 2 1650DH 18 " 60 " 87" 5 1/4X7 1/4X24" DOUBLE HUNG LVL HDR W16 2 1 4050FX 48 " 60 " YES 96" 4X6X48" FIXED GLASS KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP OR LVL W17 2 3 3040SC 36 " 48 " YES 82" 4X6X39" SINGLE CASEMENT-HL KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP OR LVL W18 2 1 3040SC 36 " 48 " YES 82" 4X6X42" SINGLE CASEMENT-HR KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP OR LVL W20 2 3 2840DH 32 " 48 " 80" 2X6X36" (2) DOUBLE HUNG
W21 2 1 2660SC 30 " 72 " YES 82" 5 1/4X7 1/4X36" SINGLE CASEMENT-HR LVL HDR & TEMP. GLS W22 2 1 2660SC 30 " 72 " YES 82" 5 1/4X7 1/4X36" SINGLE CASEMENT-HL LVL HDR & TEMP. GLS W23 2 1 2016AW 24 " 18 " 93" 4X4X27" SINGLE AWNING STRAP TOP OF HEADER TO TOP PLATE OBS GLS W24 2 1 2030AW 24 " 36 " 82" 4X4X27" SINGLE AWNING OBS GLS W25 2 1 4040SC 48 " 48 " YES 82" 4X6X54" SINGLE CASEMENT-HR KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP, OR LVL W26 2 1 4040SC 48 " 48 " YES 82" 4X6X54" SINGLE CASEMENT-HL KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP OR LVL W27 2 2 2014AW 24 " 16 " 92" 4X4X27" SINGLE AWNING STRAP TOP OF HEADER TO TOP PLATE OBS GLS- LAMINATED W28 2 4 2020FX 24 " 24 " YES 82" 4X6X27" FIXED GLASS KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP OR LVL W29 2 1 4040SC 48 " 48 " 82" 4X6X51" SINGLE CASEMENT-HR KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP OR LVL W30 2 1 5040TC 60 " 48 " 80" 2X8X64" (2) TRIPLE CASEMENT-LHL/RHR W31 2 2 4040SC 48 " 48 " 82" 4X6X51" SINGLE CASEMENT-HL KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP OR LVL
DOOR SCHEDULE
# FLR QTY SIZE WDTH HGTH THCK R/O HEADER DESCRIPTION U-FCTR COMMENTS D01 1 1 3670 L EX 42 " 84 " 1 3/4" 44"X87" 5 1/4X7 1/4X50" EXT. HINGED-DOOR E21 0.45
CUSTOM THERMAL DOOR, LVL HEADER
4 STD HINGES, ALT 3- BB- SS OR ANTQ. BRASS
3/4" 2 SOLID PNL BELOW, 2 PNL GLASS ATOP
D02 1 1 5468 L/R EX 64 " 80 " 1 3/4" 67"X83" 5 1/4X7 1/4X73" EXT. DOUBLE HINGED-DOOR E03 0.3 2- 1/2 PNL BELOW- 1 LIGHT ATOP D03 1 1 5068 L/R 60 " 80 " 1 3/8" 62"X82 1/2" 4X6X65" 4 DR. BIFOLD-DOOR LV02 0.3 LOUVER TOP X RAIL X LOUVER BOTTOM D04 1 1 2668 L IN 30 " 80 " 1 3/8" 32"X82 1/2" 4X6X35" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR D05 1 1 2868 R IN 32 " 80 " 1 3/8" 34"X82 1/2" 5 1/4X5 1/4X37" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR , LVL HDR D06 1 1 3052 R IN 36 " 62 " 1 3/8" 38"X64 1/2" 4X6X41" HINGED-SLAB 0.3 UNDER LANDING, 20 MIN RATED
VERIFY HT AFTER FRAMED
D07 1 1 2868 L 32 " 80 " 1 3/8" 34"X82 1/2" 2X6X37" (2) 2 DR. BIFOLD-LOUVERED 0.3 20 MIN RATED D08 1 1 2868 L IN 32 " 80 " 1 3/8" 34"X82 1/2" 5 1/4X5 1/4X37" HINGED-LOUVERED 0.3 LOUVER TOP X RAIL X LOUVER BOTTOM & LVL HDR D09 1 2 3068 R IN 36 " 80 " 1 3/8" 38"X82 1/2" 3 1/2X5 1/4X41" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR & LVL HDR D10 1 1 5468 L IN 64 " 80 " 1 3/8" 66"X82 1/2" 2X8X69" (2) SLIDER-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR D11 1 1 5468 R IN 64 " 80 " 1 3/8" 66"X82 1/2" 2X8X69" (2) SLIDER-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR D12 2 2 2668 L IN 30 " 80 " 1 3/8" 32"X82 1/2" 4X6X35" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR D13 2 3 3068 R IN 36 " 80 " 1 3/8" 38"X82 1/2" 4X6X41" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR D14 2 1 1668 L IN 18 " 80 " 1 3/8" 20"X82 1/2" 4X6X23" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 D15 1 1 4040 R IN 48 " 48 " 1 3/8" 50"X50 1/2" 4X8X53" HINGED-LATTICE GATE 0.3 D16 2 1 2868 R IN 32 " 80 " 1 3/8" 34"X82 1/2" 4X6X37" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR D17 2 1 31068 R IN 46 " 80 " 1 3/8" 48"X82 1/2" 2X6X51" (2) SLIDER-LOUVERED 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR D18 2 1 2668 R IN 30 " 80 " 1 3/8" 32"X82 1/2" 4X6X35" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 D19 2 1 4068 L/R 48 " 80 " 1 3/8" 50"X82 1/2" 2X8X53" (2) 4 DR. BIFOLD-LOUVERED 0.3 LOUVER TOP X RAIL X LOUVER BOTTOM D20 2 1 9068 L/R IN 108 " 80 " 1 3/8" 110"X82 1/2" 2X12X113" (2) QUAD SLIDER-LOUVERED 0.3 LOUVERED, 4 PNLS SLIDING, EA. WAY, DOUBLE TRACK D21 2 1 3068 R 36 " 80 " 1 3/8" 38"X82 1/2" 2X6X41" (2) 2 DR. BIFOLD-LOUVERED 0.3 D22 1 1 9658 R IN 114 " 67 7/8 " 1 3/8" 116"X70 3/8" 4X12X119" HINGED-LATTICE GATE 0.3 D23 1 1 2860 L EX 32 " 72 " 1 3/4" 32"X72" 4X6X35" EXT. HINGED-GATE BRACED DOOR 0 D24 1 1 3068 R EX 36 " 80 " 1 3/4" 38"X83" 4X6X41" EXT. HINGED-DOOR E21 0.3 D25 1 1 13970 164 5/8 " 84 " 1 3/4" 166 5/8"X87" 2X12X172 5/8" (2) GARAGE-GARAGE DOOR CHD04 0.3 D26 2 1 4368 R IN 51 " 80 " 1 3/8" 53"X82 1/2" 2X8X56" (2) SLIDER-LOUVERED 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR * 1st Flr Hdrs In Bearing Walls To Be Dry, LSL, LVL, or Air Dried Beams or Built Up. Verify Lengths and Sizes Required On Framing Plans * 1st Flr Hdrs In Bearing Walls To Be Dry: LSL, LVL, or 4x #1 Beams or 2x Built Up. Verify Lengths and Sizes Required On Plans Ganged Units, Hdr, Longer, Portal Frame Style z *
z- Verify RO
w. Manuf
*
DOOR MANUF. BY SIMPSON DOOR COMPANY, EXCEPT DO1, D06 & D07. OTHER MANUF APPROVAL BY OWNER.
VINYL WINDOWS MANUF. BY MILGARD: TUSCANY or MONTECITO SERIES, ALL DUAL PANE, LOW e & ARGON. U <= 0.3 SHGC = 0.67 CONTENTS:
Rev Date For:
Sheet #
PROPOSED:
OWNER / DESIGNER
SITE LOCATION:
Scale:
Date: 05-17-23
Drawn By: jw
Chk By: jw
925 WINDSOR ST. SANTA CRUZ, CA
95062
Parcel # 011-073-13
NEW SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSE
SCHEDULES
& NOTES
A-02 / 07 OF 38
ARCHITECTURAL NOTE SCHEDULE
ALL STRUCTURAL NOTES TO BE VERIFIED WITH STRUCTURAL ENG. PLANS WHICH TAKE PRECEDENT.
CRAWL SPACE VENTING
ATTIC SPACE VENTING
SEE COMPLETE MAJOR APPLIANCE AND
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE ON SHEET A-45
ROOF TRUSSES WILL BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL FOR THIS PROJECT.
ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THE TRUSS CALCULATIONS AND LAYOUT SHEET AND PROVIDE STAMP STATING THAT THE TRUSSES ARE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING
OWNER:
JUSTIN & HART
WALSH
Mail Address:
925 Windsor Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
18.22 UP
HB
HB
HB
HB
W03
W04
W05
D09
D09
W09 W08
D02
W07
W06
D07
D01
D08
4080 D05
D11 D10
W14
W15 W02 W15
W10
W10
W11
W12
W13
W01 W01
D03
D04
D15
29010PT
UP
UP
D06
cL
GFCI WP
GFCI WP
GFCI WP
GFCI WP
GFCI WP
GFCI WP
WP
GFCI WP
WP
GFCI WP
WP
WP
EB-HT
EVC
E2
4 E3
4 E4
4 E1
4 25'-8"
34'-8"
9'
6 0'
5'-3"
4'-6" 7'-3"
15'-2"
3' 6'-9 1/2"
12'-8 1/2"
13'-8"
2'
20'-1"
3' 3'
3'-2"
34'-8"
6'
12'-7"
7'-1"
4'-1"
11'
4'-2"
4'-1"
6'-8"
1'-4" 7'
4'-10 1/2"
3'-7"
3'-3 3/4"
3'-4"
3'-5" 6'-5" 8'-5" 6'-7" 3' 2' 20'
6'-10"
3' 3'
2'-6" 3'-4"
4' 8'-7" 4' 8'-4" 4' 2'-9"
7"
2'-8" 2'-8"
36'-4" 4'-1" 2'-11"
17'
9'
6'-6"
2'-7 1/2"
1'-6"
2'-8"
9 1/2" 2'-8" 2'-8"
5'-4"
0'
2'-4"
5'-4"
2'-6" 5'
2'-8"
1'-6"
4' 5'-2"
10'-6"
2'-2"
4 0'
2'-6"
5'-6 3/4"
2 0'
13'-7" X 5'-8"
7'-1" X 3'-0"
9'-11" X 6'-2"
6'-2" X 3'-0"
33'-8" X 14'-4"
13'-7" X 5'-11"
13'-4" X 2'-3"
1833 SQ FT
19'-6" X 13'-1"
17'-11" X 13'-7"
6'-5" X 12'-3"
19'-6" X 10'-4"
10'-6" X 2'-7"
4'-7" X 4'-0"
LIVING AREA
PANTRY
CLOSET
PWDR
LAUNDRY
Meter Main &
Disconnect
CLOSET
PRIMARY BDRM -1
DINING
LIVING
KITCHEN
PORCH
Elev ~ (- 1/2" )
Elev. Ref
(0.0")
MECHANICAL
CLST # 2
STRWY-1
LNDG
PORCH
ENTRY
Windows
Above
Windows
Above
Flr. Slope
Dr Below
Landing
Dr Below
Landing
Fin
DRIVE
CONTINUES TO
ADU IN BACK
PERMITTED AND
COMPLETED
EXTR SHOWER & DRAIN
(overhang covered)
See T-03 For Details
Plumb Equipt
10' CONCRETE
DRIVEWAY
3' + WALKWAY
MECHN-1
EQUIPT
MECHN-1
EQUIPT
MECHN-2
EQUIPT
MECHN-2
EQUIPT
HOSE
BIB
Equipt Below
Landing Mechn. Closet # 1
Wall Niche For
Plumb Equipt
Kit. Hood
Vent
Shelf & Rod
Shelf & Rod Meridan Strip See T-01 &
T-03 Drive Gate, Remote Opr.
SET BACK
FR
5/8 X
5/8 X
5/8 X
SkyL 4' x 2' C.Stp. CONC. LANDING
C.Stp.
SEE NOTE SCHEDULE A-02/ 04
NOTE
locking cover
Sound
Insulation
ELEC CAR
CHARGER
EXISTING PALM
DW
NEW HOUSE NO GAS
APPLIANCES ALL
ELECTRICAL
B
A
T
H
S-A
5 S-A
5 S-A
5 S-A
5 W02
4'-1"
9'-2" 18'-9"
H W
~5'-8"
Air Handler
D22
3 Ton Comprs.
/ Condensers
D23
7'-3"
LOCKING TOP
D20
DN
W28
W28
W26 W25
W24
W23
W18
W17
W27
W21
W22
W27
W31
W16
W28
W17
W17
W28
D12
D13
D21
D16
32610
D13
D19
D13
D26
D17
D12
D14
D18
3272
W31
W29
UP
cL
E2
4 E3
4 E4
4 E1
4 3'-5 1/4"
1'-4"
3' 6'
3'-1 1/4"
3'
~66'' 5'-2 1/2"
7'-10"
2'-4"
11' 23'-8"
8 4''-10 1/2" 5'-5 3/4" 5'-4"
36'-0 1/4" 9'-5"
3' 7'-7 3/4" 3' 2'-9" 19'-6 1/2" 20'-5 1/2"
5'-5 1/4"
2'
8'-5"
3'-10" 3'-5" 4' 1'-6"
5'-2 1/2" 6'-8" 2' 6'-1 1/2"
20'
2' 4' 7'-3" 4' 8'-5 1/4" 9'
3'-9 1/2" 2'
14'-9 3/4"
3'-11 3/4" 11'-4 1/4"
3'
3'-11 3/4"
2'
7'-11 1/4" 1'-3 1/2" 2' 7'-7 1/4" 2' 1'-8 1/4"
14'-7"
4'-1"
9"
2'-8"
3'
5'-3" 3'
1'-4 3/4" 4'
3'
7'-4 1/2"
13'-1 1/2"
1'-8"
5'-7 3/4"
3'-5"
4'-1"
13' 4'-4"
4'-3"
2'-6" 2'-6"
4 0'
25'-8"
9'-10 1/2"
4'-6 3/4"
1'-10 1/2"
3'-11 3/4"
4'-6"
19'-5" X 12'-4"
1759 SQ FT
13'-9" X 4'-11"
11'-2" X 18'-9"
8'-9" X 8'-4"
13'-1" X 7'-0"
12'-11" X 12'-0"
6'-0" X 14'-3"
18'-4" X 14'-1"
4'-9" X 2'-5"
8'-7" X 5'-9"
5'-3" X 2'-2"
12'-11" X 12'-2"
2'-3" X 9'-10"
5'-3" X 2'-2"
2'-3" X 3'-10"
7'-9" X 27'-1"
1'-9" X 2'-2"
LIVING AREA
OPEN BELOW
MASTER
BATH-#3
WALK IN CLOSET
MASTER
BATH #2
PRIMARY
BDRM -2
CLOSET- LINEN
BEDROOM -4
BEDROOM -5
CLOSET CLOSET
PRIMARY BDRM-3
CLOSET
HALL-B
BATH-FAMILY
FAMILY
RM., VAULT
42" HT RAILING
BOTH SIDES W. TOP RAIL CAP. LNDG
Attic Access 22" x 30"
Shelf & Rod
Shelf & Rod
Shelf & Rod
Shelf & Rod MECH
CLOSET
5" K Gutter
GDwn
GDwn
GDwn
GDwn
GDwn
SEE NOTE SCHEDULE A-02/ 04
NOTE
STRWY-2
Wall Rail
Wall Rail
Sound
Insulaton
Solar Tube
Solar Tube
GDwn
GDwn
CLOSET
S-A
5 Air Handler
CONTENTS:
Rev Date For:
Sheet #
PROPOSED:
OWNER / DESIGNER
SITE LOCATION:
Scale:
Date: 05-17-23
Drawn By: jw
Chk By: jw
925 WINDSOR ST. SANTA CRUZ, CA
95062
Parcel # 011-073-13
NEW SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSE
A-01 / 06 OF 38
1ST & 2ND
FLOOR PLANS
1ST FLR. PLAN
1/4"=1'
2ND FLOOR
PLAN
SCALE 1/4"=1'
1/4" = 1'
SEE T-01 FOR SITE WORK.
E
XIS
T
F
E
N
C
E
O
N
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LIN
E
E
XIS
T
F
E
N
C
E
O
N
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LIN
E
05-17-22
ARTICULATED EAST
WALL, MADE 2ND
FLOOR WINDOWS
SMALLER
OWNER:
JUSTIN & HART
WALSH
Mail Address:
925 Windsor Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
18.23 GENERAL CAL GREEN CODE NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS
SEE ALSO GENERAL NOTES ON PAGE T-02.
LANDSCAPING WILL CONFORM TO CALGREEN CODE 4.304.1 FOR IRRIGATION CONTROL WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.304.1 FOR RODENT PROOFING FOR ANNULAR SPACES
INSULATE ALL NEW ACCESSIBLE HOT WATER PIPES
INSULATION TO BE CERTIFIED AS INSTALLED PER HERS CONTRACTOR WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.504.2.1 FOR ADHESIVES, SEALANTS, AND CAULKS
WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.504.2.2 FOR PAINTS AND COATINGS WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.504.2.3 FOR AEROSOL PAINTS AND
COATINGS
WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.504.4 RESILIENT FLOORING SYSTEMS WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.504.5 FOR COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.505.3 FOR MOISTURE CONTENT OF BUILDING
MATERIALS
WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE TO CALGREEN CODE 4.506.1 FOR BATHROOM EXHAUST FANS PLANT NON-INVASIVE SPECIES AS LISTED BY CAL-IPC (CALIFORNIA INVASIVE PLANT COUNCIL), PLANT NO SPECIES THAT REQUIRE SHEARING, PLANT 75% CALIFORNIA NATIVE OR MEDITERRANEAN SPECIES. PLEASE VERIFY THAT THEY ARE CALIFORNIA NATIVE OR OTHER MEDITERRANEAN SPECIES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SOIL TYPE AND MICROCLIMATE.
NOTE SCHEDULE
5/8 X DRYWALL BOARD, UNDER STAIRS, CEILING & WALLS OF ALL THE MECHANICAL CLOSET SPACES CONCRETE STEPS;
4 RISERS @ 7 3/8" , 3 TREADS @ 11" 1 - 2 1/4" OVAL HANDRAIL @ 34-36" HT. W. BRASS BRACKETS DOOR BELOW LANDING: CUT DOWN, 2O MIN FIRE RATED W. HARDWARE & SELF CLOSING HINGE
FIRE REGULATOR & MANIFOLD SYSTEM
UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT
5" K GUTTER & 3" DOWNSPOUT
LANDING @ ~ 72 1/2" HT. : FIRE RATED BELOW W. 5/8 X FIRE TAPE MIN. COMPRESSORS- CONDENSERS 3 TON SEE MECHANICAL PLANS- A-41/ 39
ERV BELOW LANDING
SEE MECHANICAL PLANS A-42
PLUMB EQUIPT: PEX MANIFOLD , WHOLE HOUSE FILTER
HARDWOOD STAIRWAY: 4' WIDE WITH 4: 1 1/2 X 12" LVL STRINGERS 10 RISERS, SOLID @ 7 1/4", 9 TREADS, @ 11" INCL. 1" NOSING TO LANDING 2 1/4" OVAL WALL RAIL, EA. SIDE, W., BRASS WALL RAIL BRACKETS, 1/2" X 12" HARDWOOD, VENEER, WALL SKIRT SEE ARCH. FINISH BUILDING SECT. A
HARDWOOD STAIRWAY: TO 2ND FLOOR
4' WIDE WITH 4: 1 1/2 X 12" LVL STRINGERS
5 RISERS @ 7 1/2" , 4 TREADS @ 11" INCL. 1 " NOSE
2- 2 1/4" OVAL WALL HAND RAIL W. BRASS BRACKETS, MOUNT BOTH SIDES 1/2" X 12" HARDWOOD, VENEER, WALL SKIRT
SEE A-05 STR2 DETAIL
WINDOWS ABOVE LANDING SEE 2ND FLOOR PLAN, ARE TEMP. GLS 5/8 X
C.Stp. Dr Below
Landing
Dr Below
Landing
FR
GDwn
LNDG
MECHN-1
EQUIPT
MECHN-1
EQUIPT
MECHN-2
EQUIPT
MECHN-2
EQUIPT
Plumb Equipt
STRWY-1
STRWY-2
Windows
Above
Windows
Above
5/8 X
C.Stp. Dr Below
Landing
Dr Below
Landing
FR
GDwn
LNDG
MECHN-1
EQUIPT
MECHN-1
EQUIPT
MECHN-2
EQUIPT
MECHN-2
EQUIPT
Plumb Equipt
STRWY-1
STRWY-2
Windows
Above
Windows
Above
ALL FRAMING / STRUCTURAL HARDWARE IS
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE AS SPECIFIED, UNLESS
NOTED OTHERWISE. SUBSTITUTIONS NOT
ALLOWED EXCEPT FOR APPROVAL FROM
DESIGN TEAM & STRUCT. ENG.
SIMPSON HARDWARE
WALL SHEATHING 1/2" Struct. # 1
Plywood: NAILING SCHEDULE
EXTERIOR & INTERIOR BEARING OR SHEAR
WALLS:
NS-3: 3" OC EDGE & 12" OC FIELD W. 8d. Requires That Each Edge Is Nailed To Its Own Stud or Block Unless Panels Split Over 4x or
Larger Beam / Post
NS-4: 4" OC EDGE & 12" OC FIELD W. 8d. NS-6: 6" OC EDGE & 12" OC FIELD w. 8d. ( Std) AT POINT LOAD POST AND BEAMS 3" OC EDGE
STAGGERED w. 8d. EXTERIOR FRAMING LUMBER:
ACQ TREATED GREEN, OIL PRIMED & PAINTED
OR ACQ BROWNTONE STAINED & SEALED.
WALL SCHEDULE
2D SYMBOL WALL TYPE(S) COMMENTS
8" CONCRETE STEM WALL CONCRETE 8" STEM WALL, CONNECTED BY REBAR TO FOOTING. SEE BUILDING SECTION A / SIDING-6
1ST FLR: HARDIPLANK TEXT LAP SIDING OVER HOUSEWRAP OVER 1/2" #1 PLWD. OVER 2X6 STUD WALL @ 16" OC INSIDE, 1/2' DRYWALL.
SIDING-6- 2S
1ST FLR E PORCH WALL, SAME AS SIDING -6, EXCEPT INSIDE PORCH IS HARDIPLANK TEXT LAP SIDING OVER INSIDE LAYER OF 1/2" # 1 PLYWD SIDING.
SIDING-6, BRD & BATT
2ND FLR. : RECYCLED RED WOOD BATTS @ 16" OC OVER HARDIPLANK TEXT VERTICAL SIDING; OVER HOUSEWRAP OVER 1/2" #1 PLYWD. OVER 2X6 STUD WALL @ 16" OC, INSIDE 1/2' DRYWALL DECK RAILING/FENCE DECK RAILING, TOP CAP 2X6 (RECYCLED REDWD) 2X4 BTM RAIL, PICKETS @ <4" OPENING, 4X4 NEWEL POSTS @ 6' OC OR LESS INTERIOR-6,-PLWD INTERIOR BEARING OR SHEAR 2X6 STUD WALL @ 16" OC, W. 1/2" # 1 PLYWD. ON SIDE STATED W. 1/2" DRYWALL BOTH SIDES INTERIOR-6 INTERIOR NON BEARING 2X6 STUD WALL @ 16" OC, W. 1/2" DRYWALL BOTH SIDES INTERIOR-4-DW 2X, 1-PLYWD INTERIOR BEARING OR SHEAR 2X4 STUD WALL @ 16" OC, W. 1/2" # 1 PLYWD. ON SIDE STATED W. 1/2" DRYWALL BOTH SIDES INTERIOR-4 INTERIOR NON BEARING 2X4 STUD WALL @ 16" OC, W. 1/2' DRYWALL BOTH SIDES INTERIOR-4, UNDER LANDING
INTERIOR BEARING OR SHEAR 2X4 STUD WALL @ 16" OC, W. 1/2" # 1 PLYWD. ON SIDE STATED W. 5/8" DRYWALL BOTH SIDES (
UNDERSTAIRWAY & LANDING)
LUMBER SPECS:
1. POSTS, BEAMS, HEADERS, JOISTS, AND RAFTERS TO BE DF-#2. & KD
2. USE LVL HEADERS, BEAMS, POSTS WHERE STATED IN WINDOW, DR SCHD. & ON PLANS
3. EXPOSED ARCH BEAMS TO BE DF-#1 OR BETTER.- PRESSURE TREATED
4. SILLS, PLATES BLOCKING, AND BRIDGING TO BE DF-#2.
5. SILLS FOR CONCRETE WALL, PRESSURE TREATED
6. ALL STUDS TO BE DF#2 OR BETTER.- KD
7. PLYWOOD SHEATHING SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
8. ROOF SHEATHING SHALL BE 5/8- 3/4" PLYWOOD VERIFY WITH ROOFING METAL MANUF.
9. WALL SHEATHING SHALL BE 1/2'' INT-APA RATED 32/16 STRUCTURAL # 1
10. FLOOR SHEATHING SHALL BE 3/4'' T & G INT-APA RATED PLYWOOD OR OSB FRAMING NOTES:
PROVIDE DOUBLE JSTS. UNDER ALL WALLS RUNNING PARALLEL TO JOISTS.
PROVIDE POSITIVE VENTILATION AT EA. END OF EA. RAFTER SPACE AT VAULTED CEILING AREAS.
PROVIDE FIRE BLOCKING, DRAFT STOPS AND FIRE STOPS AS PER CA CODE PROVIDE POSITIVE CONNECTIONS AT EACH END OF ALL POSTS AND COLUMNS TO RESIST LATERAL DISPLACEMENT.
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES:
EACH BEDROOM TO HAVE A MINIMUM WINDOW OPENING OF 5.7 SQ. FT. WITH A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 20 IN. AND A SILL LESS THAN 44" ABOVE FIN. FLR.
ALL GLAZING WITHIN 18 IN. OF THE FLOOR AND/OR WITHIN 24 IN. OF ANY DOOR (REGARDLESS OF WALL PLANE) ARE TO HAVE SAFETY GLAZING. ALL GLAZING WITHIN 60 IN.
OF TUB OR SHOWER FLOOR, 60 IN. OF A STAIR LANDING OR GREATER THAN 9 SQUARE FEET ARE TO HAVE SAFETY GLAZING
SKYLIGHTS ARE TO BE GLAZED WITH TEMPERED GLASS ON OUTSIDE AND LAMINATED GLASS ON THE INSIDE (UNLESS PLEXIGLASS). GLASS TO HAVE MAXIMUM CLEAR SPAN OF 25 IN. AND FRAME IS TO BE ATTACHED TO A 2x CURB WITH A MINIMUM OF 4 IN. ABOVE ROOF PLANE.
ALL TUB AND SHOWER ENCLOSURES ARE TO BE GLAZED WITH SAFETY GLASS.
ALL EXTERIOR WINDOWS ARE TO BE DOUBLE GLAZED AND ALL EXTERIOR DOORS ARE TO BE SOLID CORE WITH WEATHERSTRIPPING. PROVIDE 1/2 IN. DEADBOLT LOCKS ON ALL EXTERIOR DOORS, AND LOCKING DEVICES ON ALL DOORS AND WINDOWS WITHIN 10 FT. (VERTICAL) OF GRADE. PROVIDE PEEPHOLE 54-66 IN. ABOVE FIN. FLOOR ON EXTERIOR ENTRY DOORS.
PROVIDE ONE SMOKE DETECTOR IN EACH ROOM AND ONE IN EACH CORRIDOR ACCESSING BEDROOMS. CONNECT SMOKE DETECTORS TO HOUSE POWER AND INTER-CONNECT SMOKE DETECTORS TO HOUSE POWER AND INTERCONNECT SO THAT, WHEN ANY ONE IS TRIPPED, THEY ALL WILL SOUND. PROVIDE BATTERY BACKUP FOR ALL UNITS.
PROVIDE COMBUSTION AIR VENTS (W/SCREEN AND BACK DAMPER) FOR GAS FIRE-PLACE AND ANY OTHER APPLIANCES WITH AN OPEN FLAME.
BATHROOMS AND UTILITY ROOMS ARE TO BE VENTED TO THE OUTSIDE WITH A FAN CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A MINIMUM OF 5 AIR EXCHANGES PER HOUR.
RANGE HOODS ARE ALSO TO BE VENTED TO THE OUTSIDE.
ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLES IN BATHROOMS, KITCHENS AND GARAGES SHALL BE G.F.I. OR G.F.I.C. PER NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE REQUIREMENTS.
INSULATE ALL ACCESS DOORS/ HATCHES TO CRAWL SPACES AND ATTICS TO THE EQUIVALENT RATING OF THE WALL, FLOOR OR CEILING THROUGH WHICH THEY PENETRATE.
UNO ON PLANS.
ATTIC R-38
WALLS R-21
FLOORS R-21
PROVIDE CRAWLSPACE VENTING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2018 EDITION OF THE I.R.C. & 2019 CA CODES
.
RAILING NOTES: SEE SHEET A-05 / 08/ 45
STAIRWAYS SHALL HAVE A MIN. WIDTH OF 36". HAND RAILS MAY ENCROACH A MAX. OF 3 1/2" INTO THE REQUIRED WIDTH.
TREADS SHALL HAVE A MIN. WIDTH OF 10". STAIR TREADS MUST BE UNIFORM AND CAN NOT VARY FROM THE LARGEST TO THE SMALLEST BY MORE THAN 3/8".
STAIRWAYS SHALL HAVE MIN. 7'0" OF HEADROOM AT THE NOSE OF THE STAIR.
ENCLOSED USABLE SPACE UNDER INTERIOR STAIRS SHALL BE PROTECTED ON THE ENCLOSED FACE WITH 5/8" TYPE "X" GYPSUM WALL BOARD.
STAIRWAYS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE HANDRAIL LOCATED 36" ABOVE THE NOSING OF TREADS AND LANDINGS. THE HAND GRIP PORTION OF HANDRAILS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1-1/2" OR GREATER THAN 2" IN CROSS-SECTIONAL DIMENSION.
HANDRAILS SHALL BE CONTINUOUS THE FULL LENGTH OF THE STAIRS. THE ENDS OF HANDRAILS SHALL RETURN TO WALL OR TERMINATE INTO A NEWEL POST OR SAFETY TERMINAL.
STAIRWAYS HAVING LESS THAN 2 RISERS DO NOT REQUIRE A HAND RAIL. 42" MIN. HEIGHT GUARDRAILS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR AT PORCHES, DECKS, BALCONIES, STAIRWAYS AND LANDINGS WHERE THE ADJACENT SURFACE IS GREATER THAN 24" BELOW.
RAILING AND GUARDRAIL BALUSTER SPACING SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 4".
THE TRIANGULAR OPENINGS FORMED BY THE RISER, TREAD, AND BOTTOM OF GUARDRAIL SHALL NOT ALLOW A 4" DIAMETER SPHERE TO PASS THROUGH.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPRIETARY WORK PRODUCT
AND PROPERTY OF ALOHA DESIGN & BUILD SERVICES INC. AND DEVELOPED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE FOR JUSTIN & HART WALSH NEW RESIDENCE. USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND
CONCEPTS CONTAINED THEREIN WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF IS PROHIBITED.
THE OWNER/BUILDER IS ACTING AS THE
GENERAL CONTRACTOR,
IS TO REVIEW AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, SPECS. AND CONNECTIONS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. AND BRING ANY
DISCREPANCIES TO DESIGN TEAM PRIOR TO
STARTING WORK.
UNDERFLOOR CRAWL SPACES VENTS INSTALL 28 - 16" X 8" SCREENED FOUNDATION VENTS AS SHOWN AROUND THE
FOUNDATION IN THE ELEVATIONS AS WELL AS THE
STRUCTURAL ENG. FOUNDATION PLAN - PROVIDING ~ 0.88
SQFT EA X 28 ~ 24 SF VENTING AREA. TOTAL 1st FLOOR
AREA 1785 SF, 24 SF / 1785 SF ~ 1/ 74 OF THE AREA VENTED OR ABOUT DOUBLE OF WHAT IS MIN. REQUIRED
RIDGE & HIP RAISED VENT ALLOW 1" AIR SPACE EA SIDE
~ 118 LF OF VENTING OR 2/12 /LF *118 LF ~ 19.7 SF VENTING ATTIC FLOOR , 1831 SF :. 19.7/1831 = 0.0108 OR RATIO OF 1/93 PLUS THE LOWER VENTING OF 3- 2" DIA. SCREENED VENT HOLES THROUGH BLOCK PER 2 LF. OR 9.42 SQIN /2 FT 4.71 SQIN /FT :. ~ .033 SF/ LF VENTING AT ~ 170 LF PERIMETER = 5.56 SF TOTAL
TOTAL ATTIC VENTING = 25.26 SF / 1831 SF = 0.0137 OR RATIO OF 1/
72.5 OR ABOUT DOUBLE OF WHAT IS MIN. REQUIRED.
WINDOW SCHEDULE
# FLR QTY SIZE WDTH HGTH EGRS TOP HEADER DESCRIPTION COMMENTS W01 1 2 4050DH 48 " 60 " 87" 5 1/4X7 1/4X54" DOUBLE HUNG LVL HDR W02 1 2 4050FX 48 " 60 " 87" 5 1/4X7 1/4X54" FIXED GLASS LVL HDR W03 1 1 3040DH 36 " 48 " 87" 4X6X40" DOUBLE HUNG KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP, OR LVL W04 1 1 2016AW 24 " 18 " 82" 4X4X28" SINGLE AWNING OBS GLS, KD HEADER, ALT LVL W05 1 1 2016AW 24 " 18 " 82" 4X4X28" SINGLE AWNING OBS GLS, KD HEADER, ALT LVL W06 1 1 2616AW 30 " 18 " 82" 4X6X33" SINGLE AWNING KD HEADER, ALT LVL W07 1 1 2014AW 24 " 16 " 82" 4X4X27" SINGLE AWNING STRAP TOP OF HEADER TO TOP PLATE OBS GLS- LAMINATED W08 1 1 3040SC 36 " 48 " YES 82" 5 1/4X5 1/4X42" SINGLE CASEMENT-HR LVL HDR W09 1 1 3040SC 36 " 48 " YES 82" 5 1/4X5 1/4X42" SINGLE CASEMENT-HL LVL HDR W10 1 2 2840DH 32 " 48 " 82" 5 1/4X5 1/2X35" DOUBLE HUNG KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP, OR LVL W11 1 1 4030DH 48 " 36 " 82" 5 1/4X5 1/4X51" DOUBLE HUNG KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP, OR LVL W12 1 1 4040DH 48 " 48 " 82" 5 1/4X5 1/4X51" DOUBLE HUNG LVL HDR W13 1 1 4040DH 48 " 48 " 82" 5 1/4X5 1/4X51" DOUBLE HUNG LVL HDR W14 1 1 3850DH 44 " 60 " 87" 5 1/4X7 1/4X50" DOUBLE HUNG LVL HDR W15 1 2 1650DH 18 " 60 " 87" 5 1/4X7 1/4X24" DOUBLE HUNG LVL HDR W16 2 1 4050FX 48 " 60 " YES 96" 4X6X48" FIXED GLASS KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP OR LVL W17 2 3 3040SC 36 " 48 " YES 82" 4X6X39" SINGLE CASEMENT-HL KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP OR LVL W18 2 1 3040SC 36 " 48 " YES 82" 4X6X42" SINGLE CASEMENT-HR KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP OR LVL W20 2 3 2840DH 32 " 48 " 80" 2X6X36" (2) DOUBLE HUNG
W21 2 1 2660SC 30 " 72 " YES 82" 5 1/4X7 1/4X36" SINGLE CASEMENT-HR LVL HDR & TEMP. GLS W22 2 1 2660SC 30 " 72 " YES 82" 5 1/4X7 1/4X36" SINGLE CASEMENT-HL LVL HDR & TEMP. GLS W23 2 1 2016AW 24 " 18 " 93" 4X4X27" SINGLE AWNING STRAP TOP OF HEADER TO TOP PLATE OBS GLS W24 2 1 2030AW 24 " 36 " 82" 4X4X27" SINGLE AWNING OBS GLS W25 2 1 4040SC 48 " 48 " YES 82" 4X6X54" SINGLE CASEMENT-HR KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP, OR LVL W26 2 1 4040SC 48 " 48 " YES 82" 4X6X54" SINGLE CASEMENT-HL KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP OR LVL W27 2 2 2014AW 24 " 16 " 92" 4X4X27" SINGLE AWNING STRAP TOP OF HEADER TO TOP PLATE OBS GLS- LAMINATED W28 2 4 2020FX 24 " 24 " YES 82" 4X6X27" FIXED GLASS KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP OR LVL W29 2 1 4040SC 48 " 48 " 82" 4X6X51" SINGLE CASEMENT-HR KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP OR LVL W30 2 1 5040TC 60 " 48 " 80" 2X8X64" (2) TRIPLE CASEMENT-LHL/RHR W31 2 2 4040SC 48 " 48 " 82" 4X6X51" SINGLE CASEMENT-HL KD HEADER, ALT 2X6 BUILT UP OR LVL
DOOR SCHEDULE
# FLR QTY SIZE WDTH HGTH THCK R/O HEADER DESCRIPTION U-FCTR COMMENTS D01 1 1 3670 L EX 42 " 84 " 1 3/4" 44"X87" 5 1/4X7 1/4X50" EXT. HINGED-DOOR E21 0.45
CUSTOM THERMAL DOOR, LVL HEADER
4 STD HINGES, ALT 3- BB- SS OR ANTQ. BRASS
3/4" 2 SOLID PNL BELOW, 2 PNL GLASS ATOP
D02 1 1 5468 L/R EX 64 " 80 " 1 3/4" 67"X83" 5 1/4X7 1/4X73" EXT. DOUBLE HINGED-DOOR E03 0.3 2- 1/2 PNL BELOW- 1 LIGHT ATOP D03 1 1 5068 L/R 60 " 80 " 1 3/8" 62"X82 1/2" 4X6X65" 4 DR. BIFOLD-DOOR LV02 0.3 LOUVER TOP X RAIL X LOUVER BOTTOM D04 1 1 2668 L IN 30 " 80 " 1 3/8" 32"X82 1/2" 4X6X35" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR D05 1 1 2868 R IN 32 " 80 " 1 3/8" 34"X82 1/2" 5 1/4X5 1/4X37" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR , LVL HDR D06 1 1 3052 R IN 36 " 62 " 1 3/8" 38"X64 1/2" 4X6X41" HINGED-SLAB 0.3 UNDER LANDING, 20 MIN RATED
VERIFY HT AFTER FRAMED
D07 1 1 2868 L 32 " 80 " 1 3/8" 34"X82 1/2" 2X6X37" (2) 2 DR. BIFOLD-LOUVERED 0.3 20 MIN RATED D08 1 1 2868 L IN 32 " 80 " 1 3/8" 34"X82 1/2" 5 1/4X5 1/4X37" HINGED-LOUVERED 0.3 LOUVER TOP X RAIL X LOUVER BOTTOM & LVL HDR D09 1 2 3068 R IN 36 " 80 " 1 3/8" 38"X82 1/2" 3 1/2X5 1/4X41" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR & LVL HDR D10 1 1 5468 L IN 64 " 80 " 1 3/8" 66"X82 1/2" 2X8X69" (2) SLIDER-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR D11 1 1 5468 R IN 64 " 80 " 1 3/8" 66"X82 1/2" 2X8X69" (2) SLIDER-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR D12 2 2 2668 L IN 30 " 80 " 1 3/8" 32"X82 1/2" 4X6X35" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR D13 2 3 3068 R IN 36 " 80 " 1 3/8" 38"X82 1/2" 4X6X41" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR D14 2 1 1668 L IN 18 " 80 " 1 3/8" 20"X82 1/2" 4X6X23" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 D15 1 1 4040 R IN 48 " 48 " 1 3/8" 50"X50 1/2" 4X8X53" HINGED-LATTICE GATE 0.3 D16 2 1 2868 R IN 32 " 80 " 1 3/8" 34"X82 1/2" 4X6X37" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR D17 2 1 31068 R IN 46 " 80 " 1 3/8" 48"X82 1/2" 2X6X51" (2) SLIDER-LOUVERED 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR D18 2 1 2668 R IN 30 " 80 " 1 3/8" 32"X82 1/2" 4X6X35" HINGED-DOOR P04 0.3 D19 2 1 4068 L/R 48 " 80 " 1 3/8" 50"X82 1/2" 2X8X53" (2) 4 DR. BIFOLD-LOUVERED 0.3 LOUVER TOP X RAIL X LOUVER BOTTOM D20 2 1 9068 L/R IN 108 " 80 " 1 3/8" 110"X82 1/2" 2X12X113" (2) QUAD SLIDER-LOUVERED 0.3 LOUVERED, 4 PNLS SLIDING, EA. WAY, DOUBLE TRACK D21 2 1 3068 R 36 " 80 " 1 3/8" 38"X82 1/2" 2X6X41" (2) 2 DR. BIFOLD-LOUVERED 0.3 D22 1 1 9658 R IN 114 " 67 7/8 " 1 3/8" 116"X70 3/8" 4X12X119" HINGED-LATTICE GATE 0.3 D23 1 1 2860 L EX 32 " 72 " 1 3/4" 32"X72" 4X6X35" EXT. HINGED-GATE BRACED DOOR 0 D24 1 1 3068 R EX 36 " 80 " 1 3/4" 38"X83" 4X6X41" EXT. HINGED-DOOR E21 0.3 D25 1 1 13970 164 5/8 " 84 " 1 3/4" 166 5/8"X87" 2X12X172 5/8" (2) GARAGE-GARAGE DOOR CHD04 0.3 D26 2 1 4368 R IN 51 " 80 " 1 3/8" 53"X82 1/2" 2X8X56" (2) SLIDER-LOUVERED 0.3 2 OR 4 PANEL DOOR * 1st Flr Hdrs In Bearing Walls To Be Dry, LSL, LVL, or Air Dried Beams or Built Up. Verify Lengths and Sizes Required On Framing Plans * 1st Flr Hdrs In Bearing Walls To Be Dry: LSL, LVL, or 4x #1 Beams or 2x Built Up. Verify Lengths and Sizes Required On Plans Ganged Units, Hdr, Longer, Portal Frame Style z *
z- Verify RO
w. Manuf
*
DOOR MANUF. BY SIMPSON DOOR COMPANY, EXCEPT DO1, D06 & D07. OTHER MANUF APPROVAL BY OWNER.
VINYL WINDOWS MANUF. BY MILGARD: TUSCANY or MONTECITO SERIES, ALL DUAL PANE, LOW e & ARGON. U <= 0.3 SHGC = 0.67 CONTENTS:
Rev Date For:
Sheet #
PROPOSED:
OWNER / DESIGNER
SITE LOCATION:
Scale:
Date: 05-17-23
Drawn By: jw
Chk By: jw
925 WINDSOR ST. SANTA CRUZ, CA
95062
Parcel # 011-073-13
NEW SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSE
SCHEDULES
& NOTES
A-02 / 07 OF 38
ARCHITECTURAL NOTE SCHEDULE
ALL STRUCTURAL NOTES TO BE VERIFIED WITH STRUCTURAL ENG. PLANS WHICH TAKE PRECEDENT.
CRAWL SPACE VENTING
ATTIC SPACE VENTING
SEE COMPLETE MAJOR APPLIANCE AND
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE ON SHEET A-45
ROOF TRUSSES WILL BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL FOR THIS PROJECT.
ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THE TRUSS CALCULATIONS AND LAYOUT SHEET AND PROVIDE STAMP STATING THAT THE TRUSSES ARE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING
OWNER:
JUSTIN & HART
WALSH
Mail Address:
925 Windsor Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
18.24 CONTENTS:
Rev Date For:
Sheet #
PROPOSED:
OWNER / DESIGNER
SITE LOCATION:
Scale:
Date: 05-17-23
Drawn By: jw
Chk By: jw
ORTHOGRAPHI
C VIEWS
925 WINDSOR ST. SANTA CRUZ, CA
95062
Parcel # 011-073-13
NEW SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSE
A-03 / 08 OF 38
FRONT OF PROPERTY
ORTHOGRAPHIC VIEWS
FOR ILLUSTRATION VIEW ONLY
~3/16"=1'
BACK OF PROPERTY
ORTHOGRAPHIC
VIEWS
FOR ILLUSTRATION
VIEW ONLY
~3/16"=1'
ADU IN BACK
NOT SHOWN ADU IN BACK
NOT SHOWN
ORTHO
GRAPHIC VIEWS
FOR
ILLUSTRATION
VIEW ONLY
~ 3/16" = 1'
02-26-23
ARTICULATED EAST
WALL
PV PANELS & EQUIPMENT UNDER
SEPARATE PERMIT
(ILLUSTRATION ONLY)
PV PANELS & EQUIPMENT UNDER
SEPARATE PERMIT
(ILLUSTRATION ONLY)
PV PANELS & EQUIPMENT UNDER
SEPARATE PERMIT
(ILLUSTRATION ONLY)
OWNER:
JUSTIN & HART
WALSH
Mail Address:
925 Windsor Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
18.25 1st Flr. ~ 2' 6" Above Conc. / Grade
1st Flr Plate Line 9' 1" Above 1st Flr
2nd Flr Plate Line 8' 1" Above 2nd Flr
TOP ROOF LINE ~ 7'-11" Above 2nd Flr Plate Line
2nd Flr ~ 15" Above Plate Line
PV PANELS & EQUIPMENT
UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT
(Illustration Only)
5/12
3/12
Concrete Drive & Walkway
RIDGE & HIP
VENT CAPS
Gas Meter, For
COMPR
FIRE SYSTEM
SEPARATE PERMIT
2 8'-8"
6'
2x Band, w. Redwood
(From Recycled House)
Wrap/Trim, w. Z Flashing
5/4 Redwood Corners
(From Recycled House)
1x Redwood
Window & Door
Trim (From
Recycled House)
PV PANELS & EQUIPMENT
UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT
(Illustration Only)
24g Standing Seam Metal Roofing, Class B Rated, Manuf. Pre-Painted
SOLAR TUBE
18" OVERHANG
7'
5/12
RIDGE & HIP
VENT CAPS
5/12
5/12
TEXT. HARDIE
PANEL SIDING
W. 1X2 Batts @
16" OC
TEXT. 1X8
HARDIE PLANK
SIDING
CRAWL SPACE ACCESS
~ 24" High X 33" Wide
Fnd. Scrn'd Vent 16" x 8" , TYP. ~ 28 Total, See All Elevations 24g Standing Seam Metal
Roofing, Class B Rated, Manuf. Pre-Painted w. Hip & Ridge Vents
PV PANELS & EQUIPMENT
UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT
(Illustration Only)
SOLAR TUBE
CONTENTS:
Rev Date For:
Sheet #
PROPOSED:
OWNER / DESIGNER
SITE LOCATION:
Scale:
Date: 05-17-23
Drawn By: jw
Chk By: jw
E-1 FRONT ENTRY ( SOUTH ) ELEVATION
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
1/4" = 1'
1/4" = 1'
E-2 LEFT SIDE ( WEST ) ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'
E-3 BACK ENTRY ( NORTH ) ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'
E-4 RIGHT SIDE ( EAST ) ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'
925 WINDSOR ST. SANTA CRUZ, CA
95062
Parcel # 011-073-13
NEW SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSE
A-04 / 09 OF 38
02-26-23
UPDATED
COMPRESSORS
OWNER:
JUSTIN & HART
WALSH
Mail Address:
925 Windsor Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
18.26 3'-6"
HARDWOOD STAIRWAY: TO 2ND FLOOR
4' WIDE WITH 4: 1 1/2 X 12" LVL STRINGERS
5 RISERS @ 7 1/2" 4 TREADS @ 11" W. 1 " NOSE
2- 2 1/4" OVAL WALL HAND RAIL W. BRASS BRACKETS, MOUNT ON WALL SIDE 1/2" X 12" HARDWOOD, VENEER, WALL SKIRT
4x4 Finished
Newel Post
To Ceiling
LUS28
SEE ENG TRUSS DRAWINGS
SEE STRUCT. ENG FOR ALL
FRAMING MEMBERS
WHICH TAKE PRECEDENT
OVER THIS DRAWING
Guard Rails:
42" Ht. w
Opn < 4"
2x Stud Wall
2 1/4" x 1 1/4" Oval
Hardwd with Flat
Btm Hand Rail
Brass Wall Bracket w. Flat Base w. Screws
Into Backing 1 1/4" 2x Block
1 1/2" Min
4 1/4" Max
7 1/4" - 7 5/8" Max Rise
4 2" H
eig
ht
2'-8"
11"
7 1/4"
2'-11"
2'-11"
6'-0 1/2"
9'
8'
~
5'-8"
3'-11"
2'-6" 1'-6"
3'-6"
18" 18" 18"
18"
2'
TEXT. HARDIE PANEL
SIDING w. 1X2 Batts @ 16" OC
Over House Wrap-water
resistant barrier.
TEXT. 1X8 HARDIE
PLANK SIDING
Over House Wrap-water
resistant barrier.
TEXT. HARDIE PANEL SIDING
w. 1X2 Batts @ 16" OC. Over House Wrap-water
resistant barrier.
TEXT. 1X8
HARDIE PLANK
SIDING
Over House Wrap- water resistant
barrier.
FIRE REGULATOR AND
MANIFOLD UNDER
SEPARATE PERMIT
1x4 Redwood Window Trim
Recycled From Main House, Picture Framed To Btm Sill
1x4 Redwood Window Trim
Recycled From Main House, Picture Framed To Btm Sill
5" K Gutter with 3" Downspout
Extr. Lights, Wrap Around
24g Standing Seam Metal Roofing, Class B Rated, Manuf. Pre-Painted 5/12 Pitch
Plumbing Vent
5/12 Pitch
RIDGE & HIP VENTS
Standing Seam Roofing, Manuf. Pre-Painted
Fire Dr. To
Mech. Closet # 1
Hardwood Stairway:
4' wide with 4: 1 1/2 x 12" LVL Stringers
10 Risers, Solid @ 7 1/4" 9 Treads, @ 11" incl. 1" Nosing To Landing 2 1/4" Oval Wall Rail, Ea. Side, w. Brass Wall Rail Brackets 1/2" x 12" Hardwood, Veneer, Wall Skirt
Wall Trim
5/8 X DW, Under Stairs &
On Walls, In Mechn. Rm
Water Filters
Hose Bid
Dryer Vent, w. Back
Flap Damper
Connected to Rigid Pipe
Pex Manifold
LAUNDRY Rm. Exhaust Fan
Vent, w. Back Draft Damper
R-21 Min. FG Insul.
Vinyl Windows, Lowe & Argon:
U <=0.35,SHGC<=0.25
RIGID INSUL ISOCYANURATE, FOIL BOTH SIDES
R-21 Insul.
ENGR. TRUSS ENERGY
HEEL. ~ 1' (not shown)
ENGR. TRUSS ENERGY
HEEL. ~ 1' (not shown)
R-38+ INSUL.
Vinyl Windows, Lowe & Argon:
U <=0.35,SHGC<=0.25
R-11 Sound Insul. 1/2 Dry Wall , Finish Text
1/2 Dry Wall , Finish Text
Window 1x3 Intr. Picture Frame
To Extended Sill & Apron Below
Window 1x3 Intr. Picture Frame
To Extended Sill & Apron Below
ENGR. TRUSSES W. CEILING CORD, Except At Family RM, Vault Scissor Truss Std. Seam Metal Rfng.
1/2 Dry Wall , Finish Text
Temp. Above
Lndg.
ATTIC BAFFLE
1/2 Dry Wall , Finish Text
5/8" Drywall, Fin. Text
5/8" Drywall, Fin. Text
8 X 16 FOUND. VENTS
12"X12" PLENUM
12"X12" DIA. DUCT
SOLAR TUBE WITH ELECTRIC LED
LIGHT BACKUP
D
e
pth *
3" PROTECTION SLAB, NON-RATED OVER 2" OF CLEAN
SAND OVER 10 MIL BLACK VISQUEEN OVER 90%
COMPACTED ENGR. FILL. TOP OF SLAB GRADED TO
SUMP PUMP UNDER PORCH. GRADE DRAINAGE PIPES
UNDER
GRADE
* Min.
Roof trusses will be a deferred submittal for this project. Engineer shall review the truss calculations and layout sheet and provide stamp stating that the trusses are in general conformance with the design of the building
FOOTING, 18" W X 24" D TYP., EXCEPT AS NOTED
ON S2.1 STRUCTURAL ENG. DRAWINGS WHICH
TAKE PRECEDENT OVER THIS CONCEPT
DRAWING
Eng. Fill Per Geo-Tech Report , Attached. Geo-Tech
Eng To Verify Conditions On Site: Excavation & Fill.
Eng. Mat Fill Per Geo-Tech Report, The Conc. Spread Footings Are Trenched & Embedded into the Matt Fill.
SEE ATTACHED GEO-TECH REPORT. NO SITE CLEARING/GRADING WORK PRIOR TO THEIR REVIEW This side only due to
existing utilities.
FOR FOUNDATION SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS / S-2.1, S-3.1 & OTHER FOUNDATION DETAILS THAT TAKE PRECEDENCE. PER GEO-TECH REPORT: FOOTING EMBEDDED INTO A MIN. 3FT THICK MAT OF ENG. FILL WITH A MIN. 18" FILL BELOW FOOTING. * SIZE & DEPTH OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION SYSTEM MAY BE ADJUSTED BY GEO- TECH ENG. PER SITE INSPECTION AND COLLABORATION WITH STRUCTURAL ENG.
CONTENTS:
Rev Date For:
Sheet #
PROPOSED:
OWNER / DESIGNER
SITE LOCATION:
Scale:
Date: 05-17-23
Drawn By: jw
Chk By: jw
925 WINDSOR ST. SANTA CRUZ, CA
95062
Parcel # 011-073-13
NEW SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSE
ARCHITECTUR
AL BUILDING
SECTION A &
2ND FLOOR
STAIRWAY
2ND FLOOR STAIRWAY FRAMING
1/2" = 1'
1/2" = 1'
ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING SECTION A
1/2" = 1'
A-05/ 10 OF 38
STR2 DETAIL
AND
STR2 DETAIL
STAIR HANDRAIL DETAIL NTS
6-23-22
FOUNDATION, 2" SLAB,
ADDED PLENUM & AIR
DUCT & SOLAR TUBE . 8-25-22 FNDT. CONCEPT , PER
STRUCT. & GEO-T. PE.
OWNER:
JUSTIN & HART
WALSH
Mail Address:
925 Windsor Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
18.27 DN
UP
5 : 12
5 : 12
5 : 12
5 : 12
5 : 12
5 : 12
5 : 12
5 : 12
5 : 12
OPEN BELOW
MASTER
BATH-#3
WALK IN CLOSET
MASTER
BATH #2
PRIMARY
BDRM -2
CLOSET- LINEN
BEDROOM -4
BEDROOM -5
CLOSET CLOSET
PRIMARY BDRM-3
CLOSET
HALL-B
BATH-FAMILY
FAMILY
RM., VAULT
MECH
CLOSET
FUTURE PV PANELS
UNDER SEPARATE
PERMIT
ILLUSTRATIVE VIEW
ONLY.
SOLAR HOT
WATER PANEL
SOLAR HOT
WATER PANEL
ATTIC
ACCESS
SOLAR TUBE
w. LED LIGHTS TYP.
FUTURE PV PANELS UNDER
SEPARATE PERMIT
ILLUSTRATIVE VIEW ONLY.
ROOF SLOPE
5:12
FUTURE PV PANELS UNDER
SEPARATE PERMIT
ILLUSTRATIVE VIEW ONLY.
CLOSET
UP
HB
HB
HB
HB
UP
UP
3 : 12
3 : 12 3 : 12
5 : 12
5 : 12
5 : 12
5 : 12
5 : 12
4122
3 : 12
1856 SQ FT
LIVING AREA
PANTRY
CLOSET
PWDR
LAUNDRY
MASTER
BATH #1
CLOSET
MASTER BDRM -1
DINING
LIVING
KITCHEN
PORCH
MECHANICAL
CLST # 2
PORCH
ENTRY
E
XIS
TIN
G
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
SkyL 4' x 2'
CONTENTS:
Rev Date For:
Sheet #
PROPOSED:
OWNER / DESIGNER
SITE LOCATION:
Scale:
Date: 05-17-23
Drawn By: jw
Chk By: jw
925 WINDSOR ST. SANTA CRUZ, CA
95062
Parcel # 011-073-13
NEW SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSE
ROOF PLAN
1/4" = 1'
A-06/ 11 OF 38
ROOF PLAN
FOR SOLAR
TUBES,
PV AND HOT
WATER PANELS,
PERMIT BY
OTHERS
6-23-22
OWNER:
JUSTIN & HART
WALSH
Mail Address:
925 Windsor Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
1/4" = 1'
18.28 LANDSCAPING NOTES
THE LANDSCAPING PLAN SHALL CONFORM TO CITY'S WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE limited set of provisions 16.16.070(j) and minimize disruption to existing plants trees (keeping existing palm trees in front of yard and all landscaping in back of yard)
1. Plant Type: Climate-adapted plants that require little or no summer water for 75 percent of the landscaped area (excluding area devoted to edible plants) must be installed.
2. Mulching Requirements: A three-inch layer of mulch must be applied to all exposed soil surfaces.
3. Turf Limits:
a. The combined size of turf and areas devoted to high water use plants, decorative pools, fountains, water features and swimming pools shall be limited to no more than twenty-five percent of the total developed landscape area. b. Turf shall not be planted on slopes greater than five percent. c. Turf is prohibited in areas less than ten feet wide in any direction.
4. Spray Irrigation Setbacks: Overhead sprinkler systems shall not be permitted within 24 inches of any non-permeable surface, including driveways and sidewalks. The setback area may be planted or unplanted. Allowable irrigation within the setback may include drip, subsurface, or other low volume, non-spray irrigation technology.
5. Irrigation Equipment Specifications:
a. All overhead spray nozzles shall have a precipitation rate of no more than one inch per hour. b. Areas less than ten feet in any direction shall be irrigated with low volume or subsurface irrigation that produces no runoff or overspray. c. Overhead sprinkler systems shall not be permitted within twenty-four inches of any non-permeable surface, including driveways and sidewalks. The setback area may be planted or unplanted. Allowable irrigation within the setback may include drip, subsurface or other low volume, non-spray irrigation technology.
CONTENTS:
Rev Date For:
Sheet #
PROPOSED:
OWNER / DESIGNER
SITE LOCATION:
Scale:
Date: 05-17-23
Drawn By: jw
Chk By: jw
925 WINDSOR ST. SANTA CRUZ, CA
95062
Parcel # 011-073-13
NEW SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSE
OWNER:
JUSTIN & HART
WALSH
Mail Address:
925 Windsor Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
A-07/ 12 OF 38
LANDSCAPING
PLAN
1/4" = 1'
CREPE MYRTLE TREE
EXISTING PALM TREE
LIME TREE
PERSIMMON TREE
12-03-22
NEW PLAN SHEET
18.29 August 14, 2023
To: Santa Cruz City Council
Subject: Appeal of Santa Cruz City Planning Commission Denial of the 925 Windsor Street Design Permit Appeal at its June 3, 2023 MeeBng
We are residents in the upper Seabright Neighborhood, who are concerned that approval of the large home proposed for 925 Windsor Street will set a bad standard for future large single-family homes in our neighborhood and throughout the city. This design permit applicaJon does not address the issues outlined in our original appeal, which is included as AKachment 1.
Furthermore, we found that planning staff did not address the deficiencies in the applicaJon and the project staff report.
Universal Land Use ApplicaBon
The planning staff presented incorrect informaJon regarding the roofline heights for 929 Windsor Street, the residence to the east of the proposed new home. It did not include any informaJon regarding the roof elevaJon for 921 Windsor, the house just to the west of 925 Windsor Street.
This is important because the large home design guidelines state that massing and scale should be considered as part of approving the design permit; and the universal land use applicaJon also requires a photo simulaJon or rendering of the proposed home’s impact on the adjacent residences. While the applicants did not include this informaJon as part of their submiKals, our neighborhood presented a photo rendering to the Planning Commission at its June 3 meeJng.
When a planning commissioner asked planning staff why this informaJon was not required, staff replied that staff felt it was too burdensome a requirement for the applicants. The Universal Land Use applicaJon does not include hardship criteria for waiving this requirement. It states that if a proposed home meets its setback requirements, then this submiKal would not be required. But this is an applicaJon for a large home, which is a discreJonary permit. The applicant is requesJng approval for more than 3,000 square feet; and there is a public hearing process required as part of that process. We believe that this applicant and all future applicants should be required to meet the requirements of the Universal Land Use ApplicaJon. These requirements provide transparency to the process.
Required Setback
In addiJon, Planning staff provided incorrect informaJon regarding building setbacks for 928 and 929 Windsor Street in its reports. The setback at 928 is 20 feet, not 18 feet. The setback at 929 is 22 feet, not 20 feet. When neighbors followed up with planning staff, staff stated that the setbacks were taken from building permit drawings submiKed for each home. When we reviewed the most recent building applicaJon for 929 Windsor, the drawings state, “minimum setback 20’”. When we measured this setback in the field it turned out to be an average of 22’. While planning staff has corrected the setback informaJon for 928, they have not corrected the setback informaJon for 929. These measurements are important. If these corrected measurements are used to calculate the setback for 925 Windsor, the required setback is 21’ not 20’.
18.30 Planning Commission Ad Hoc Large Home Design Guidelines CommiMee Besides the issues we raised in our iniJal appeal, there is a deeper and more troubling issue concerning the large home design permit guidelines. At its June 3 meeJng, the Planning Commission struggled with reaching a decision. As part of the discussion, one commissioner suggested that large home design permit applicaJons could benefit from having architectural services be part of the requirements for a large home design permit. As a result of this conversaJon, Chair Kennedy and Commissioner Gordon agreed to serve on an ad hoc commiKee to review and improve these guidelines. Planning staff also menJoned that there could be grant monies available for this work.
We urge the City Council to direct the planning commission and city staff to make the clarificaJon of these guidelines a priority and that they iniJate a process to incorporate our neighborhood and other interested neighborhoods in this process. Palo Alto has done some exemplary work in developing guidelines for large home design.
Finally, we would like to discuss the concept of neighborhood. Planning staff pointed to the zoning ordinance definiJon of neighborhood, which is all the area within a ½ mile radius of a property.
This is not a complete definiJon. Neighborhoods are made up of blocks not radii. The underlying zoning is also important in defining a neighborhood. Planning Commissioners and planning staff pointed to large structures like Santa Cruz Bible Church and mulJ-residenJal buildings along Broadway as uses that consJtute part of our neighborhood. While these uses are indeed part of the overall neighborhood fabric, they are not part of the character of the single-family R1-5 zoning in our neighborhood. This zoning area is not defined by a line drawn in a circle. It is defined by specific boundaries, established through the hard work of previous planning staff and neighborhoods. It has resulted in an area with special architectural character.
Conclusion
We request that City Council take the following acJons:
1. Direct planning staff to work with the applicant to re-design the home to provide 3’ step backs on the second floor on the west and east sides and on the south elevaJon.
2. Direct planning staff and the applicant to return with a new re-design that includes a photo simulaJon or rendering as required in the Universal Land Use ApplicaJon.
3. Direct planning staff and the Planning Commission to move forward with an ad hoc commiKee to develop clearer large home design guidelines, including the requirement that large home applicaJons include the professional architectural services.
MaK Farrell, spokesperson, 922 Windsor Street
AKachment 1. Filed Final Planning Commission Appeal for 925 Windsor Street
18.31 18.32
18.33 18.34
18.35 18.36
18.37 18.38
18.39 18.40
18.41 18.42
18.43 18.44
18.45 18.46
18.47 18.48
18.49 18.50
18.51 18.52
18.53 18.54
18.55 18.56
18.57 18.58
18.59 18.60
18.61 18.62
18.63 18.64
18.65 18.66
18.67 18.68
18.69 18.70
18.71 18.72
18.73 18.74
18.75 18.76
18.77 18.78
18.79 18.80
18.81 18.82
18.83 18.84
18.85 18.86
18.87 18.88
18.89 18.90
18.91 18.92
18.93 18.94
18.95 18.96
18.97 18.98
18.99 18.100
From: Anina Van Alstine
To: City Plan; City Council
Subject: Yikes! Project at 925 Windsor Street, Santa Cruz, CA: the house is TOO BIG! Date: Sunday, April 30, 2023 12:00:39 PM
Hello!
I am writing to you because I am very concerned about the size of the proposed new home at 925 Windsor Street, #CP 22-0114! I have to be out of town on the date of the hearing about the project, but I vehemently oppose the size of the proposed hoe.
The size of that house is really preposterous for our neighborhood! It is more than twice as big as the larger homes in the neighborhood and certainly bigger than the average use of a single family home would need to be.
I understand that SB-9 mandates as much housing as possible, but there is already an ADU on that parcel, which I assume will remain. A huge home in the front of the property is going to very much impact the streetscape and, I fear, not be used as an SFD but present the opportunity to house many unrelated adults with minimal supervision and maximum impact on the neighbors. A further concern that I have is that it does not take a rocket scientist to read the floor plan and see that it is set up to. be able to create individual housing elements within the building after it is " finalled". It is a monolithic structure and to approve it would create problems for the immediate neighbors in regards to the impact on the light and airspace of their homes.
Please consider this before you approve the project. It would seem a better idea to approve a home consistent with the neighborhood. The largest home in the blocks between Frederick and Seabright on Windsor Street is currently 814 Windsor. It is under 1900 square feet, and has an ADU. It takes up quite a bit of the lot on which it is situated, but does not overwhelm the neighborhood.
Thank you!
Anina Van Alstine
943 Windsor STreet
831-818-0735
"Hope and fear cannot occupy the same space. Invite one to stay."Maya Angelou. and fear cannot occupy the same space. Invite on— Maya
Angelou
18.101
1 Viviane Pearson
From: Sarah Neuse
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 10:04 AM
To: Matthew VanHua; Lee Butler; Bonnie Lipscomb; Samantha Haschert; Eric Marlatt Cc: Matt Huffaker
Subject: Re: URGENT Please read!!! re SB9 in City R-1 neighborhoods!!! Adding Samantha and Eric to this thread ‐
I believe this is an upcoming ZA item, not something headed to City Council.
Sarah Neuse
Senior Planner, Advance Planning
809 Center Street, Room 107 | Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831-420-5092
Mobile: 831-325-6141
Share your experience with us. Take our Department Customer Survey.
From: Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 9:53 AM
To: Sarah Neuse <[email protected]>; Matthew VanHua <[email protected]>; Lee Butler <[email protected]>; Bonnie Lipscomb <[email protected]> Cc: Matt Huffaker <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: URGENT Please read!!! re SB9 in City R‐1 neighborhoods!!!
FYI
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the I photo Sonja Brunner
Councilmember, City of Santa Cruz
she/her/hers
831‐420‐5027 office
831‐291‐5281 mobile
[email protected]
809 Center St. Room 10
Santa Cruz, California 95060
www.cityofsantacruz.com
18.102
2 Begin forwarded message:
From: Anina Van Alstine <[email protected]> Date: May 10, 2023 at 7:51:18 AM PDT
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>
Cc: Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>, Shebreh Kalantari‐Johnson <SKalantari‐ [email protected]>, Scott Newsome <[email protected]>, Martine Watkins <[email protected]>, Renee Golder <[email protected]>, Sandy Brown <[email protected]>
Subject: URGENT Please read!!! re SB9 in City R‐1 neighborhoods!!!
Dear Mr. Keeley, and members of the City Council!!!
I have attached a letter which I sent to the Editors of the Santa Cruz Sentinel today with a sense of great urgency, I hope that they publish it and I hope that you read it.
Next week you will be hearing an application by the owners of a residential parcel at 925 Windsor Street to add a 3700 square foot home on to a residential lot on which currently exist a legal ADU above a two car garage and a small house which will be torn down. Ostensibly, the new home will be a single family residence, but it does not take a rocket scientist to look at the plans and see the opportunities they will provide to create multiple units within the exterior shell of the home.
Projects such as this one are proliferating throughout our City, to the dismay of the immediate neighbors whose light and airspace are going to be adversely affected and whose streets will soon be filled to overflowing with parking for the additional cars that will be necessary to serve the new residents of these developments! I have heard that the owners of this particular project actually threatened their immediate neighbor that if they protest the proposed mega house and the project is turned down, they will build a giant deck on the second story with the intention of disrupting the privacy of their back yards permanently! ( This is " hear say" , but this type of thing is starting to divide neighborhoods. The profit margins for those who see the possibility of their equity positions growing enormously will outweigh normal relations in the community! The further negative consequences of this type of development were cited in Mark Primacks piece " In Praise of Tall Buidings"..and my own letter to the editor on that same day. I an not a NIMBY... and do not wish to seem that way, but the idea that the rampant speculation that SB 9 is causing in our town will make home ownership even less attainable is something that should be considered! The idea that new construction at a cost of over $500/ square foot will resutt in affordable housing is also naive! Please consider this and consider not only denying that project and simiarl ones, but taking the necessary actions to fight back against the overreaching arms of SB9.
Thank you.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Broker Associate
Coldwell Banker Realty
824 B Mission Street
Santa Cruz, CA 9500
BRE00585992
SRES :Global Luxury Specialist
18.103
3 Sharon and Hector recommend me!
18.104
From: City Plan
To: Samantha Haschert
Subject: FW: Opposition to Giant house and all such proposals! re" SB 9 in residential neighborhoods Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 7:54:04 AM
From: Anina Van Alstine <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 3:50 PM
To: City Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Giant house and all such proposals! re" SB 9 in residential neighborhoods Project address 925 Windsor St
Parcel #:011-070-073-13
City Planning #CP 22-0114
APN #011-073-3
Hello!
It was drawn to my attention a couple of days ago that the neighbors who live four doors down have submitted an application to build a 3700 square foot home at 925 Windsor Street!There is already a two-story ADU above a two car garage as well as a one story moderate sized home on the property. The proposed home will go to the maximum of every possible limitation on setbacks and height. Furthermore the new structure is designed so that they can easily create several units within the walls of the structure after they get their "final" even though right now the property is not zoned for multiple units.
The developer is not being required to provide off-street parking for the additional cars that will need to be accommodated. (How is a 3700 square-foot house a single-family residence? What low income families can afford to rent that? ) The design itself is inconsistent with the zoning in the neighborhood. It will not create affordable housing. I have heard that , in an effort to intimidate their neighbors, the owners of this project have threatened to build a second story deck overlooking their back yard if they protest the project. This is so disturbing!
I hope that you will require the developer/owner of this project to stay within the current zoning and set back requirements, and that you will furthermore make an effort to stand up against SB 9 for the sake of our town!
This project is NOT UNIQUE. It is simply an example of applications being submitted daily to the City. Setting a new paradigm by approving this type of project is going to endanger the quality of our neighbohoods.!This is the result of SB9 which is a STATE of CA mandate to Cities to create infill and disregard norms regarding parking and zoning.
A critical aspect of this overriding urge to provide for development in residential neighborhoods is that the land values will shoot through the roof. The high land values in
18.105
Santa Cruz have already made it difficult for people to buy homes here. This will make it impossible
We are being asked to sacrifice the quality of our town and our neighborhoods to a bill which is essentially creating a fire-sale for out of town developers and their profits. We need to stand up now, because once ruined, our town will not be able to be recovered.
Thank you!
--
943 Windsor Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
831-818-0735
"Hope and fear cannot occupy the same space. Invite one to stay."Maya Angelou. and fear cannot occupy the same space. Invite on— Maya
Angelou
please contact me for any of your real estate needs at
www.aninaandjulia.com
Please see my website for exciting news about my real estate practice and associate, Julia Randall!
18.106
From: Anina Van Alstine
To: City Plan
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Project Address 925 Windsor Street. Please deny extra large home! Date: Friday, July 28, 2023 10:32:12 AM
Attachments: Educational Series_ Unlocking Knowledge, Empowering You.html Regarding Parcel #011-073-13
City Planning # CP 22-0114
Dear Sirs or Madames,
I am a neighbor (down the street) of the proposed project. I live at 943 Windsor Street.
I am opposed to the design of.the 3592 square foot home and do not understand Nancy Concepcion's recommendation for approval of a structure which exceeds the current zoning maximum of 3000 square feet. The proposed structure will loom over the neighborhood and also, by granting such an exception to zoning ( zoning is created for reasons, one which is to create harmonious and cohesive neighborhood aesthetics.) you will be setting a precedent for other such monster homes in R-1 neighborhoods.
The design does not meet the Large Home Design Permit Santa Cruz City Code Guidelines .
The 28 foot height, the size of the second story (1814 square feet, so almost the same square footage as the ground floor so as to create a massive presence as seen from the street). It is exceptionally large in contrast to the neighborhood.
Others will have written to you about the fact that of the 30 homes on Windsor Street between Harbor Drive and Sumner Avenue, the largest is 2400 square feet. The average size is 1415 square feet.
There is a home with a legal ADU contained within it at the corner of Frederick Street and Windsor. It is approximately 3000 square feet under roof. The multigenerational family that shares it consists of five people in the main dwelling and their two parents who live, quite comfortably,in the ADU! Why does the home at 925 Windsor need to be so much larger than that?
The insets on this project are insufficient and the ten foot long section of the second story family room projects out over the front porch encroaching two feet into the setback from the street. There are other egregious elements to the design which basically create a large ugly box in the middle of the block
The "ameliorations" which have been created in the newest set of plans still do not remedy the unfortunate impact that this home will create by both its mass and also the parking needs it will create which are not addressed on site. There has been little done to remedy the stark frontal elevation and the privacy of the neighbors is adversely affected by the windows and other design elements,
Also to consider is the issue of parking. Right now, at 4:00 p.m. Windsor Street is pretty much fully parked up on both sides. The additional bedrooms the new home will provide will probably bring at least two if not more new cars to the street.
18.107
We have been told by Ms. Concepcion and can see in the rules of SB9 that this is NOT an SB9 situation because it is a single family zoned property. Why the City is treating this as such by creating such high density is beyond me!
Although it is not specific to this project or site, I have to say that, as a Realtor who has made it my life's work to help people acquire their first homes in Santa Cruz, and who is dismayed by the price of housing here, I see that this type of project, if it becomes the norm, will increase the cost of even small homes in R-1 zoning to make it even less affordable for home owners. It will turn all of Santa Cruz into a playground for developers. ( One real estate firm, Coastwoods, has already created an evening class to show people how to exploit the land where they have homes to maximize the profit for the land see attached... ) Please bring some sense to this process: when they bought the property, the owners knew that the zoning had a size limit. They are justifying their request for a huge house by saying that their family of five " needs" a home of that scale. As a realtor with 45 years experience... I know that many families live in 2400 square foot homes quite comfortably! It is not a reasonable argument to destroy the aesthetic of our neighborhood.
Thank you!
Anina Van Alstine
PS not to overload you, I have copied some neighbors on this. I think that people may wish to know how this is proceeding ...
--
943 Wndsor Street
Santa Cruz CA 95062
831-818-0735
"Hope and fear cannot occupy the same space. Invite one to stay."Maya Angelou. and fear cannot occupy the same space. Invite on— Maya
Angelou
18.108
18.109
From: Annette Montgomery
To: City Plan
Subject: Project Address: 925 Windsor Street, Santa Cruz Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 12:03:43 PM
To: City Zoning Administrator
Re: Project Address 925 Windsor Street, Santa Cruz
Parcel #011-073-13
City Planning #CP 22-0114
APN #011-073-13
From: Annette Montgomery and Robert Caltabiano
948 Windsor Street, Santa Cruz
[email protected]
We have been homeowners at 948 Windsor St. since 1984. We chose to live in this neighborhood
because of the single family residences on our street. We believe that building a 3670 sq. ft.
“Large Home” on Windsor St. would alter the tenor of the neighborhood.
We are concerned that issuing a special permit to allow this development and override the
existing R1-5 zoning will in effect invalidate the existing zoning limits by encouraging other
applicants to file for their special permit. We urge you to deny this special permit.
Thank you for your consideration.
Annette Montgomery
Robert Caltabiano
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
18.110
18.111
18.112
From: Brianna Melville
To: City Plan
Subject: 925 Windsor Street Public Hearing
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 9:06:41 PM
Good evening,
I’m writing in regards to the proposed Large Home at 925 Windsor St, Parcel # 011-073-13, City Planning # CP 22-0114, APN # 011-073-13. I currently live next door to this property at 929 Windsor St, and have some major concerns about the proposed project. Given the age of the home, one can almost assume that toxic construction materials, such as asbestos and lead paint, will be present. The demolition is going to happen less than ten feet from where my children play every day, with no guarantee of proper containment. I’d love to know whether there is a way to ensure that the materials of the current home are either not toxic or will be properly contained during demolition.
In addition, I do feel that the size of this house will negatively impact the neighborhood.
I appreciate your consideration in this matter.
Best,
Brianna Grossman
18.113
18.114
18.115
18.116
18.117
From: Craig & Dave
To: Samantha Haschert; City Plan
Cc: C&D
Subject: 925 Windsor Street, Proposed House, # CP 22-0114 Date: Monday, May 15, 2023 12:13:55 PM
Project Address: 925 Windsor Street, Santa Cruz
Parcel # 011-073-13
City Planning # CP 22-0114
APN # 011-073-13
We are writing to express concern with the proposed house to be built at 925 Windsor Street.
We live at 933 Windsor where originally a small, old house existed (much like the current house at 925 Windsor).
Our house was rebuilt 12 years ago with much attention and care as to how it would fit architecturally in the neighborhood. It’s quite apparent from the proposed plans for the 925 address that no consideration has been made for the impact on the neighborhood — at five bedrooms and five bathrooms it is a monster house that will dominate and overshadow the homes around it and set a negative precedent for the Seabright neighborhood.
Please reconsider both the extreme size and design of the proposed house. As currently planned it would be more fitting as an army barracks and has no place in this neighborhood.
Thank you.
Craig Kochersberger
David Newswanger
933 Windsor Street, Santa Cruz 95062
408-234-1533
[email protected]
18.118
18.119
18.120
18.121
18.122
18.123
18.124
18.125
18.126
18.127
From: Nancy Concepcion
To: Dorie Melville; [email protected]; Chris Melville
Cc: Nancy Concepcion; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Please confirm Justin and Hart will not present input on Wednesday without all of us there Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 5:24:55 PM
Attachments: RE 5.3.23 Zoning Administrator Hearing Continuation process.msg Hello,
For clarification on the upcoming meeting, please see the attached email string that indicates/and confirms what will occur on Wednesday May 3, 2023 starting at 10 a.m. as per the Zoning Administrator Samantha Haschert.
We apologize to all for the inconvenience due to the City’s mistake of not having the postcards mailed. While the legal ad was properly placed, and the Poster erected, note the applicants do not need to be present for no discussion can occur even if testimony by a community member is received.
NANCY A. CONCEPCION
ASSOCIATE PLANNER | CODE COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
Department of Planning and Community Development
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street - Room 101
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.420.5112
[email protected]
and concluding at 10:15 a.m. if no testimony is received on the matter.
From: Dorie Melville <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2023 3:22 PM
To: Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Chris Melville <[email protected]>
Subject: Please confirm Justin and Hart will not present input on Wednesday without all of us there Hi Nancy,
1) We've (The Hiranos at 921 Windsor Street and The Melville's at 929 Windsor Street) been told by you (this afternoon) and by the Ryan (this morning) that the Public Hearing for City Planning#: CP 22-0114 will be COMPLETELY POSTPONED to a later date secondary to a Clerical Error, that resulted in notices to adjacent neighbors failing to be sent by Santa Cruz City Planning in the mail. 2) Please confirm (by replying to this email) that Justin and Hart Walsh and concerned folks from the neighborhood will NOT present input on the Large House
18.128
Permitting on Wednesday, without all us (as adjacent neighbors) present there. 3) It is of very high importance to all 4 of us as adjacent neighbors to hear ALL input and have everyone hear our input as well. We do not want a 'piecemeal' Public Hearing.
Thanks your assistance in this matter,
Dorie and Chris Melville
18.129
From: Nancy Concepcion
To: Dorie Melville
Cc: Nancy Concepcion
Subject: RE: 2 Planning - Zoning type Questions
Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 6:07:12 PM
Hello,
Please see below answers in red.
NANCY A. CONCEPCION
ASSOCIATE PLANNER | CODE COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
Department of Planning and Community Development
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street - Room 101
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.420.5112
[email protected]
From: Dorie Melville <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2023 3:51 PM
To: Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]>
Subject: 2 Planning - Zoning type Questions
Question 1:
Is there a Database anywhere that we can access somehow to find out what other homes in our Seabright SINGLE-FAMILY R-1-5 Area currently exist that are over 3,000 sq ft?
We have used Redfin, Zillow, and also other sources but would like an 'Official' Record' from Santa Cruz City Planning or Zoning or other official source if possible.
We;ve only been able to find 1 one house (on Harbor Drive, primarily terraced into Arana Gulch so it looks small). But that's the only house over 3,000 sq ft we can find any record of in the entire Single Family R 1-5 Quadrant composed of (bordered by) Harbor, Windsor, Darwin, and the east most section of Clinton Street.
Thanks for your help.
The County Assessors office has square footage for homes…but note they don’t necessarily have all the square footage and in some cases have more square footage than the City has records of if there is illegal construction as their purview is taxation.
18.130
The building department has square footage for homes however only for homes in which there is a recent construction permit and the information (house size) is relevant. Also, note that the building permits if the square footage is listed in the project description breaks up the project into conditioned and unconditioned space and not what is typically found in realtors analsis.
Question 2:
We understand that it is legal and often a good idea for owners to tear down there small home when building a new home.
But we would like to know if it is legal for a real estate investor or other deeppocketed individual... to buy up a property with just a small home on it, in our area and then just tear down the small home to put up a huge house in it's place. Or is there any kind of rule that the new owner must live in the home for a few years before tearing it down? Or something preventing that from happening? We know this doesn't apply to Justin and Hart.
There is not a law that prevents someone from buying a property and demolishing a small or large house, just procedures in each jurisdiction to that effect as it is a housing unit. I don’t know if there is a law requiring a new owner to live in a home a certain amount of time before tearing it down. I see several factors that could be an issue if the residents are not low income (which if there are 3 or more units would review the demolition more carefully.
Thanks,
Dorie and Chris
18.131
18.132
18.133
18.134
From: Farol Henderson
To: City Plan
Subject: 925 Windsor Street special permit application for large home Date: Saturday, April 29, 2023 11:44:20 AM
Project Address: 925 Windsor Street, Santa Cruz
Parcel # 011-073-13
City Planning # CP 22-0114
APN # 011-073-13
Farol Henderson
937 Windsor Street, Santa Cruz
[email protected] or 831-325-6781
I am deeply concerned and troubled by the planned 3,670 square foot home to be built at 925 Windsor Street. As a homeowner on Windsor Street for almost 25 years in my current home, no home built on Windsor Street from Seabright to Harbor Drive is more than 2,415 square feet. There is a 3,000 square foot limit for our R1-5 Windsor street neighborhood zoning for a reason- many homes, including my own, are single- level, smaller and would be massively overshadowed by such a large building 3 doors from my own. This home, if built, would be totally out of character with all of the other homes on the street.
There is also the issue of an existing home in the back of the lot that sits over at least a 2-car garage. I assume this structure would remain. It in and of itself is somewhat imposing, especially if combined with a 3, 670 square foot home in the front of the lot.
The plans for this building do not sound like a family home but rather something akin to a compound or apartment building. 5 bathrooms appears to be excessive to say the very least.
I urge the city planning department to deny this permit immediately and stipulate that no home will be built on Windsor Street that is out of compliance and out of character for the neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Farol Henderson
Sent from my iPad
Farol
18.135
18.136
18.137
18.138
From: Hart Walsh
To: Nancy Concepcion
Cc: Samantha Haschert; Justin Walsh
Subject: Re: 925 Windsor St. 5.31.23 email review of changes; need for upload of changes to file Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 9:31:22 AM
Attachments: ~WRD0000.jpg
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hi Nancy,
According to Samantha's directive from our last meeting, inquiring minds will have access to the agenda, plans, recommendations, etc... on the website on the Friday before the meeting. I feel comfortable with that since that is the standard procedure. I know our neighbors are anxious to get access, but since they will be using the information to in a confrontational manner, I'd prefer to give them the standard amount of time. In relation to that, what level of detail is expected to share - our plans are more detailed than they might be if we hadn't already done so much work for the building department. Many details such as the placement of closets are irrelevant for our neighbors. It is likely that I will be on my own on June 7th because Justin may not be able to get away from work again.
Here are the changes we've made:
reduced one of two windows in each bedroom 4 & 5 (from 3X4 to 2X2) reduced both windows on East wall of primary bedroom 2 (from 3X4 to 2X2) created articulation on 2nd floor of East wall by insetting the exterior wall for bedrooms 4 & 5 and closet in-between bedrooms
increased width of kitchen window by 12"
first floor ceiling height 9'
added second floor hallway closet between bedroom 4 & 5 moved upstairs mechanical closet from near stairwell to hallway closet near primary bedroom 3 removed one solar tube
Best,
Hart
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 8:58 AM Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for the revised plans.
The item was specifically continued to June 7, 2023 at 10 a.m.
I have inquiries about the revised plans – note I will be using portions of the plans in the upcoming staff report.
18.139
The plans will be on the website, is it okay to send these to the inquiring parties today? Also, I want to make sure I have all the changes that you have made since the last plans – could you list these in an email?
Thanks!
Nancy A. Concepcion
Associate Planner/Code Compliance Specialist
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5112
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: Hart Walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2023 7:32 PM
To: Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]>
Cc: Samantha Haschert <[email protected]>; Justin Walsh <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 925 Windsor St. 5.26.23 email review of changes; need for upload of changes to file
Hello Nancy,
Thank you for getting back to us and for the summary. One correction is that we have reduced the size of four upstairs windows on the East-facing wall. We are not interested in making major changes like reducing the square footage upstairs. I am attaching our latest architectural sheets. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Otherwise, please let us know when our next meeting will be held.
18.140
JW-Layout-A-RESUBMIT 4 05-25-23 with articulati...
Thank you,
Hart
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 7:48 AM Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Hart and Justin,
In my review of the meeting recording and discussion with other staff members, I find your changes address concerns brought up at the hearing.
The changes involve: along eastern wall plane on the second level 1) inset of wall for two bedrooms and 2) reduction of two windows in said bedrooms to address privacy impacts.
The change in eastern wall plane with the proposed insets helps break up that eastern wall – of note is that I found other homes in the immediate area that had 60+ in length of walls and due to the depth of the lot is a reasonable length.
Also your projects’ general footprint is as originally noted in the same place (if one combined the existing detached building with the main house footprint). Also It appears that there will be a greater separation from the existing detached ADU building to the new house rear wall than what exists between the existing detached building and existing house.
As for building height - the second story interior walls at 8 feet are standard not overly high so that concludes your building height is typical for a two-story.
As for parking – while the ordinance only requires two offstreet parking spaces, the plans reflect a two-car garage and a number of spaces that could be provided on the driveway and turnaround. I believe we talked about that and in my review of the building permit plans T-01-01 it appears that with the two spaces in the garage, and my estimate of four on the driveway there are a total of six parking spaces onsite.
In reviewing the meeting recording, you had mentioned that you were open to reducing the second floor. As you may recall, in an email I provided before I took your application to the original hearing there were examples from 3 of my past cases where the issue of introducing a second story in a predominantly single-story dwelling neighborhood was addressed ( i.e. 116 Monterey, 139 Cayuga, 706 Modesto.) Should you wish to further
18.141
reduce the second story similarly it could be beneficial to addressing this issue although as noted it was not directed by the Zoning Administrator.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. If you could upload those changes I will confirm with building if there are any changes to the tentative conditions.
Nancy A. Concepcion
Associate Planner/Code Compliance Specialist
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5112
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: Hart Walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2023 6:56 AM
To: Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]>; Samantha Haschert <[email protected]>
Cc: Justin Walsh <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 925 Windsor St.
Hello Nancy,
18.142
I appreciated meeting with you on Tuesday. I am wondering if you were able to discuss our project at your Planning Department meeting that afternoon and/or if you have spoken with Samantha? It would be helpful to have feedback before the long weekend so we can look over the plans again before the upcoming meeting.
Thank you,
Hart
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:52 PM Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]> wrote:
Sounds good..will see you then!
Nancy A. Concepcion
Associate Planner/Code Compliance Specialist
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5112
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: Hart <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 9:27 PM
To: Justin Walsh <[email protected]>
Cc: Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 925 Windsor St.
Hi Nancy,
18.143
I’ll come in Tuesday at around 8:30 after dropping my son at school.
Best,
Hart
Sent from my iPhone
On May 22, 2023, at 3:22 PM, Justin Walsh <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Nancy
Just to clarify, we kind of had two meetings last Wednesday. The meeting with Samantha went really well. She just asked us to beak up the east wall and minimize the 2nd sorry bedroom windows on that side as Hart said. She did not bring up any other modifications to the design that we remember The other meeting, which was more of a rant session by a lot of our neighbors, did not go as well for us. It was hard for Hart and I to sit and listen to people tell untruths and challenge our right to build a two-story home. Samantha tried to clarify that this was a design review, not variance, meeting to our neighbors a few times. They did not listen to her just like they have not wanted to hear the same from us. We have told people for over 18-months that we were planning on a 2-story house. They just assume they can stop it by having enough people push back.
Regards
Justin
On May 22, 2023, at 1:54 PM, Nancy Concepcion
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
I am sorry to hear that, and will discuss further with Sam what she believes is the summary of concerns (she is not in the office today).
18.144
Were there any concerns with the wet bar area or the side window in the family room?
Did they mention shadowing impacts?
Anyway, I am pretty open and if there are best times for you please let me know.
I have a meeting from 10 to 12 noon and 1 to 3 pm Tuesday.
I work remotely on Wednesdayand am open, and so far no
appointments on Thursday.
Friday open from 9 to 12 noon.
NANCY A. CONCEPCION
ASSOCIATE PLANNER | CODE COMPLIANCE
SPECIALIST
Department of Planning and Community Development
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street - Room 101
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.420.5112
[email protected]
From: Hart Walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 7:34 AM
To: Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]>
Cc: Justin Walsh <[email protected]>
Subject: 925 Windsor St.
18.145
Hi Nancy,
Welcome back.
Our hearing was pretty awful last week, but Samantha gave us only a couple of suggestions for the design and said we should come back for the next meeting. I don't know your schedule, but if it makes sense to try to meet this week to go over our design, I would be happy to do that. Please let me know your availability; it's our last week of school, so every day's schedule is different for me. I'm attaching a PDF of our ideas in response to Samantha's comments. We have reduced the size of 4 upstairs windows along the East-facing wall. We have also "sucked in" a portion of that wall to provide articulation that is approximately 25' long and 2' deep. That will impact two bedrooms and their closets, and reduces our square footage by about 50'.
Thank you,
Hart
18.146
18.147
18.148
18.149
From: Jordana
To: City Plan
Subject: Regarding Project address: 925 Windsor St 95062 Date: Sunday, April 30, 2023 9:37:17 PM
To whom it may concern,
Regarding:
Project address 925 Windsor St, Santa Cruz
Parcel # 011-073-13
City Planning #CP 22-0114
APN # 011-073-13
My information:
Jordana Langlois
932 Windsor St Santa Cruz, CA 95062
[email protected]
Comments:
I am opposed to granting the special permit for the additional 600 square feet requested for the above project as it detracts from the aesthetics of the neighborhood and imposes on the privacy of the neighbors. The home will be much too tall and the construction does not fit neighborhood.
Thank you,
Jordana
18.150
18.151
18.152
18.153
18.154
18.155
From: Ken Hirano
To: City Plan; Samantha Haschert
Subject: 925 Windsor St.
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 9:05:03 AM
RE: Project Address 925 Windsor Street
Parcel #: #011-070-073-13
City Planning #CP 22-0114
APN# 011-73-13
My name is Ken Hirano. My wife Susan and I moved into our current home from the Berkeley area early in 2010 after we both retired. We live at 921 Windsor right next door to 925.
I am a California native and lived in some wonderful places throughout my life.
I was born and raised in Southern California. Growing up there in the 50s & 60s it felt like a paradise to me. It was uncrowded, the air quality was good and there was lots of open space, undeveloped property and amazing to think now, agricultural land.
My family’s home was in Altadena at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, above Pasadena.
In those days I could walk up nearby streets and on good days see the entire L.A. Basin and the Catalina Islands beyond. When we’d go to the beach driving through Orange County we’d go through miles and miles of citrus groves, curiously enough. (I have to confess in my youth I thought Huntington Beach was Surf City.)
I left Southern California to go to school in Berkeley where I lived for the next 43 years before coming here. Berkeley is a wonderfully culturally diverse, exciting and stimulating place. And there are many places that have stunning views of the SF Bay, the City, and the Golden Gate Bridge, especially at sunset.
I expect I don't need to tell you what a unique and beautiful place Santa Cruz is. Initially I was drawn here by the small beach town "vibe" that still exists here in some parts of the area – a throwback to the places I loved as a teenager in Southern California.
As for Seabright, I can't think of a better area. I walk my dog almost every morning down to the harbor, out to the lighthouse on the jetty and let him run on the beach. And then there's Arana Gulch and of course Staff of Life and Shoppers’ Corner.
In my opinion our 900 block of Windsor is the best spot in town (maybe the universe). Here all of the pieces fit together nicely in a wonderful kind of harmony. The people – we are a mix of ages and backgrounds and without exception my neighbors are friendly, respectful, considerate and supportive. Many I consider to be good personal friends. The houses -- there are a variety of styles, virtually all are one story and the very few with two levels have the second story sections sufficiently set back from the front to enable the street to have a light, open, peaceful and uncongested feel. No house really stands out, feels obtrusive or dominates the skyline.
When Susan and I found our house more than 13 years ago, I felt that it was the place where I wouldn’t want to leave unless carried out horizontally, feet first.
I love my home. I’ve lived here longer than I’ve lived in any other. It feels like my sanctuary, a peaceful and private place. Outside our back door we have a 200 square foot deck where I can spend time in solitude reading or have a few friends and family members over to share food and conversation. A little further back we have a small hot tub tucked away and screened off by shrubbery and a 6 foot fence between us and 925 next door. This is where I often like to
18.156
soak my old bones, usually in my natural state.
Our house is one story, has 2 bedroom and ~1000 square feet. Like me, it was built in the mid1940s. It’s small but doesn't feel like it. Two-thirds of the house comprise an open kitchen and living room area where we spend virtually our inside waking hours. And the best features of this space are its windows. On the continuous external wall facing east directly at 925, there are six good-sized windows plus the entry door with glass panels at the top. No matter where I am in the living room or in the kitchen, whether I am standing or sitting, I can see the sky. The light that comes in during the day enhances my mood every day.
At this point in my life my home really defines my existence. The planned two story structure next door will profoundly change things for me. Our privacy will be compromised; the quality of the light will change and most critical to me, I will lose being able to see the sky. It's hard to explain why this is so important but let me try.
When I go to the beach and look out at the ocean and the horizon, I find it always to be a very powerful experience. I am calmed and inspired at the same time. The sight puts everything into proper perspective.
It's the same with the sky. It's going to be very hard for me to lose that.
Finally, I want to say that while I’ve focused on what matters to me personally, I am in full and complete support of what my fellow neighbors collectively seek.
I stand with them.
Kenneth Hirano
921 Windsor St.
18.157
18.158
18.159
18.160
18.161
18.162
18.163
From: Monica Larenas
To: City Plan; Samantha Haschert
Cc: Veronica Larenas
Subject: Public Comment on Project at 925 Windsor Street Date: Monday, May 15, 2023 9:51:20 PM
Re: Project Address 925 Windsor Street
Parcel #011-070-073-13
City Planning #CP 22-0114
APN#011-073-3
Name: Monica Larenas
Address: 217 Darwin Street (ADU behind 215 Darwin Street) Contact info: [email protected]
Name: Veronica Larenas
Address: 215 Darwin Street
Contact info: [email protected]
Comments:
We are homeowners who reside a block away from 925 Windsor Street, the property that is seeking a Large Scale Home Design Permit. We write because we OPPOSE the issuance of said permit.
We request that the Planning and Zoning Departments adhere to the Design Permit and LargeHome Permitting guidelines that consider and seek to preserve the ‘human scale' and character identity’ of neighborhoods (Sec. 24.08.450 and 24.08.430).
We believe that if and when exceptions are to be made to the guidelines, it’s important that there be some compelling greater community good (e.g., increasing affordable or workforce housing that is so sorely needed), in order to justify burdening the neighbors with a massive project that is out of scale with the neighborhood. This project burdens neighbors; there’s no community benefit here.
Looking at the proposed design in the May 3 Agenda Report, we believe that the staff Summary of the Project misrepresents the project when it states: "The two-story dwelling has both insets and projections to create a compatible scale with the predominantly single-story dwelling neighborhood.” While the insets and interesting design features do exist on the street facing side of the proposed residence, the sides are monolithic and out of proportion to what is in this neighborhood. It will block sunlight, destroy privacy in adjacent properties, and have an obtrusive impact on surrounding yards.
Please don’t allow this excessively large design for a single family residence to proceed.
Respectfully,
Monica Larenas
Veronica Larenas
18.164
18.165
18.166
From: City Plan
To: Nancy Concepcion
Subject: FW: Opposition to Project Address: 925 Windsor St.
Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 8:00:00 AM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 3:00 PM
To: City Plan <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Project Address: 925 Windsor St.
To Whom It May Concern,
This letter is to stand in opposition to:
Project Address: 925 Windsor St.
Parcel #: 011-073-13
City Planning #: CP 22-0114
APN #: 011-073-13
I believe this proposed home stands in stark contrast to the aesthetics and size of homes in the neighborhood. The current limit of 3,000 sq ft for the R1-5 zoning is more than generous and I find an additional 670 sq ft difficult to justify.
I do not believe a special permit is warranted, nor should be granted, for this project.
Thank you kindly,
Nicholas Levendosky
928 Windsor St.
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
928-925-4463
18.167
18.168
18.169
18.170
18.171
From: Sarah Clark
To: City Plan; Samantha Haschert
Subject: Opposition to giant house at proposed for 925 Windsor St Date: Saturday, May 13, 2023 9:28:10 AM
Background info:
Project address 925 Windsor St
Parcel #:011-070-073-13
City Planning #CP 22-0114
APN #011-073-3
My name is: Sarah C. Clark
I live at 814 Windsor Street
My telephone number is: 650-542-1902
You can also reach me at this email.
Comments: I am writing to oppose the permit to build a “large-scale home” at 925 Windsor Street. One of the attractions of our neighborhood is the diversity of housing and as a result, the diversity of neighbors We have apartment houses, houses with two units, and houses with ADUs that are almost as big as the houses.
But, for the most part, these dwellings respect the current set back, height, and look of the neighborhood. I don’t mind that the current resident wants to build a bigger house, but he should not be able to violate our current zoning. He should not be permitted to build a giant house that towers over the other residences and destroys the human scale of the residences. (We have an outrageous example 619 Sumner street, right across from another multi-unit resident that blends into the neighborhood) We do not want that again.
Please do not approve the current plans: please require that the new project be cut back in scale and size, respect the height, street setback, and current style of our neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments.
18.172
18.173
18.174
1 Viviane Pearson
From: Nancy Concepcion
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 6:07 PM
To: Dorie Melville
Cc: Nancy Concepcion
Subject: RE: 2 Planning - Zoning type Questions
Hello,
Please see below answers in red.
NANCY A. CONCEPCION
ASSOCIATE PLANNER | CODE COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
Department of Planning and Community Development
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street - Room 101
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.420.5112
[email protected]
From: Dorie Melville <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2023 3:51 PM
To: Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]>
Subject: 2 Planning - Zoning type Questions
Question 1:
Is there a Database anywhere that we can access somehow to find out what other homes in our Seabright SINGLE-FAMILY R-1-5 Area currently exist that are over 3,000 sq ft? We have used Redfin, Zillow, and also other sources but would like an 'Official' Record' from Santa Cruz City Planning or Zoning or other official source if possible.
We;ve only been able to find 1 one house (on Harbor Drive, primarily terraced into Arana Gulch so it looks small). But that's the only house over 3,000 sq ft we can find any record of in the entire Single Family R 1-5 Quadrant composed of (bordered by) Harbor, Windsor, Darwin, and the east most section of Clinton Street.
Thanks for your help.
The County Assessors office has square footage for homes…but note they don’t necessarily have all the square footage and in some cases have more square footage than the City has records of if there is illegal construction as their purview is taxation.
18.175
2 The building department has square footage for homes however only for homes in which there is a recent construction permit and the information (house size) is relevant. Also, note that the building permits if the square footage is listed in the project description breaks up the project into conditioned and unconditioned space and not what is typically found in realtors analsis.
Question 2:
We understand that it is legal and often a good idea for owners to tear down there small home when building a new home.
But we would like to know if it is legal for a real estate investor or other deep-pocketed individual... to buy up a property with just a small home on it, in our area and then just tear down the small home to put up a huge house in it's place. Or is there any kind of rule that the new owner must live in the home for a few years before tearing it down? Or something preventing that from happening? We know this doesn't apply to Justin and Hart.
There is not a law that prevents someone from buying a property and demolishing a small or large house, just procedures in each jurisdiction to that effect as it is a housing unit. I don’t know if there is a law requiring a new owner to live in a home a certain amount of time before tearing it down. I see several factors that could be an issue if the residents are not low income (which if there are 3 or more units would review the demolition more carefully.
Thanks,
Dorie and Chris
18.176
From: Anina Van Alstine
To: City Plan
Subject: Re: Project Address 925 Windsor Street. Please deny extra large home! Date: Friday, July 28, 2023 1:15:07 PM
Attachments: image002.png
thank you. I will try...
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 11:51 AM City Plan <[email protected]> wrote:
Good afternoon,
I received your correspondence and will include it in the record of the item on the Planning Commission agenda, however the City’s IT security filter doesn’t allow the attachment you included to open. If you would like that material included in your correspondence, please take a screen shot and send back to City Plan so I can include it as well.
Thank you,
Tess Fitzgerald
Administrative Assistant III
(831)420-5110 | Planning & Community Development
From: Anina Van Alstine <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 10:32 AM
To: City Plan <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Project Address 925 Windsor Street. Please deny extra large home!
18.177
Regarding Parcel #011-073-13
City Planning # CP 22-0114
Dear Sirs or Madames,
I am a neighbor (down the street) of the proposed project. I live at 943 Windsor Street.
I am opposed to the design of.the 3592 square foot home and do not understand Nancy Concepcion's recommendation for approval of a structure which exceeds the current zoning maximum of 3000 square feet. The proposed structure will loom over the neighborhood and also, by granting such an exception to zoning ( zoning is created for reasons, one which is to create harmonious and cohesive neighborhood aesthetics.) you will be setting a precedent for other such monster homes in R-1 neighborhoods.
The design does not meet the Large Home Design Permit Santa Cruz City Code Guidelines . The 28 foot height, the size of the second story (1814 square feet, so almost the same square footage as the ground floor so as to create a massive presence as seen from the street). It is exceptionally large in contrast to the neighborhood.
Others will have written to you about the fact that of the 30 homes on Windsor Street between Harbor Drive and Sumner Avenue, the largest is 2400 square feet. The average size is 1415 square feet.
There is a home with a legal ADU contained within it at the corner of Frederick Street and Windsor. It is approximately 3000 square feet under roof. The multigenerational family that shares it consists of five people in the main dwelling and their two parents who live, quite comfortably,in the ADU! Why does the home at 925 Windsor need to be so much larger than that?
The insets on this project are insufficient and the ten foot long section of the second story family room projects out over the front porch encroaching two feet into the setback from the street. There are other egregious elements to the design which basically create a large ugly box in the middle of the block
18.178
The "ameliorations" which have been created in the newest set of plans still do not remedy the unfortunate impact that this home will create by both its mass and also the parking needs it will create which are not addressed on site. There has been little done to remedy the stark frontal elevation and the privacy of the neighbors is adversely affected by the windows and other design elements,
Also to consider is the issue of parking. Right now, at 4:00 p.m. Windsor Street is pretty much fully parked up on both sides. The additional bedrooms the new home will provide will probably bring at least two if not more new cars to the street.
We have been told by Ms. Concepcion and can see in the rules of SB9 that this is NOT an SB9 situation because it is a single family zoned property. Why the City is treating this as such by creating such high density is beyond me!
Although it is not specific to this project or site, I have to say that, as a Realtor who has made it my life's work to help people acquire their first homes in Santa Cruz, and who is dismayed by the price of housing here, I see that this type of project, if it becomes the norm, will increase the cost of even small homes in R-1 zoning to make it even less affordable for home owners. It will turn all of Santa Cruz into a playground for developers. ( One real estate firm, Coastwoods, has already created an evening class to show people how to exploit the land where they have homes to maximize the profit for the land see attached... ) Please bring some sense to this process: when they bought the property, the owners knew that the zoning had a size limit. They are justifying their request for a huge house by saying that their family of five " needs" a home of that scale. As a realtor with 45 years experience... I know that many families live in 2400 square foot homes quite comfortably! It is not a reasonable argument to destroy the aesthetic of our neighborhood.
Thank you!
Anina Van Alstine
PS not to overload you, I have copied some neighbors on this. I think that people may wish to know how this is proceeding ...
18.179
--
943 Wndsor Street
Santa Cruz CA 95062
831-818-0735
"Hope and fear cannot occupy the same space. Invite one to stay."Maya Angelou. and fear cannot occupy the same space. Invite on— Maya
Angelou
--
831-818-0735
"Hope and fear cannot occupy the same space. Invite one to stay."Maya Angelou. and fear cannot occupy the same space. Invite on— Maya
Angelou
please contact me for any of your real estate needs at
www.aninaandjulia.com
Please see my website for exciting news about my real estate practice and associate, Julia Randall!
18.180
1 Viviane Pearson
From: Nancy Concepcion
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 5:25 PM
To: Dorie Melville; [email protected]; Chris Melville
Cc: Nancy Concepcion; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Please confirm Justin and Hart will not present input on Wednesday without all of us there Attachments: RE: 5.3.23 Zoning Administrator Hearing Continuation process Hello,
For clarification on the upcoming meeting, please see the attached email string that indicates/and confirms what will occur on Wednesday May 3, 2023 starting at 10 a.m. as per the Zoning Administrator Samantha Haschert.
We apologize to all for the inconvenience due to the City’s mistake of not having the postcards mailed. While the legal ad was properly placed, and the Poster erected, note the applicants do not need to be present for no discussion can occur even if testimony by a community member is received.
NANCY A. CONCEPCION
ASSOCIATE PLANNER | CODE COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
Department of Planning and Community Development
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street - Room 101
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.420.5112
[email protected]
and concluding at 10:15 a.m. if no testimony is received on the matter.
From: Dorie Melville <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2023 3:22 PM
To: Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Chris Melville <[email protected]> Subject: Please confirm Justin and Hart will not present input on Wednesday without all of us there Hi Nancy,
1) We've (The Hiranos at 921 Windsor Street and The Melville's at 929 Windsor Street) been told by you (this afternoon) and by the Ryan (this morning) that the Public Hearing for City Planning#: CP 22- 0114 will be COMPLETELY POSTPONED to a later date secondary to a Clerical Error, that resulted in notices to adjacent neighbors failing to be sent by Santa Cruz City Planning in the mail. 2) Please confirm (by replying to this email) that Justin and Hart Walsh and concerned folks from the neighborhood will NOT present input on the Large House Permitting on Wednesday, without all us (as adjacent neighbors) present there.
3) It is of very high importance to all 4 of us as adjacent neighbors to hear ALL input and have everyone hear our input as well. We do not want a 'piecemeal' Public Hearing.
18.181
2 Thanks your assistance in this matter,
Dorie and Chris Melville
18.182
1 Viviane Pearson
From: Dorie Melville <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 3:01 PM
To: Nancy Concepcion
Subject: Re: Please email us a copy of the revised plans for 925 Windsor Project Thanks
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 1:25 PM Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
The staff report and plans will be made available on Friday which is standard operating procedure.
Nancy A. Concepcion
Associate Planner/Code Compliance Specialist
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5112
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: Dorie Melville <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 8:26 AM
To: Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]>
Subject: Please email us a copy of the revised plans for 925 Windsor Project
18.183
2 RE: Project Address 925 Windsor Street
Parcel #: #011-070-073-13
City Planning #CP 22-0114
APN # 011-073-13
Hi Nancy,
When you have a moment please email us a copy of the revised plans. We understand we will not have a full week to revise them, but would appreciate as much time as possible.
Thanks,
Dorie and Chris Melville
18.184
1 Viviane Pearson
From: Hart Walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 9:31 AM
To: Nancy Concepcion
Cc: Samantha Haschert; Justin Walsh
Subject: Re: 925 Windsor St. 5.31.23 email review of changes; need for upload of changes to file Hi Nancy,
According to Samantha's directive from our last meeting, inquiring minds will have access to the agenda, plans, recommendations, etc... on the website on the Friday before the meeting. I feel comfortable with that since that is the standard procedure. I know our neighbors are anxious to get access, but since they will be using the information to in a confrontational manner, I'd prefer to give them the standard amount of time. In relation to that, what level of detail is expected to share - our plans are more detailed than they might be if we hadn't already done so much work for the building department. Many details such as the placement of closets are irrelevant for our neighbors. It is likely that I will be on my own on June 7th because Justin may not be able to get away from work again.
Here are the changes we've made:
reduced one of two windows in each bedroom 4 & 5 (from 3X4 to 2X2) reduced both windows on East wall of primary bedroom 2 (from 3X4 to 2X2) created articulation on 2nd floor of East wall by insetting the exterior wall for bedrooms 4 & 5 and closet in-between bedrooms
increased width of kitchen window by 12"
first floor ceiling height 9'
added second floor hallway closet between bedroom 4 & 5 moved upstairs mechanical closet from near stairwell to hallway closet near primary bedroom 3 removed one solar tube
Best,
Hart
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 8:58 AM Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for the revised plans.
The item was specifically continued to June 7, 2023 at 10 a.m.
I have inquiries about the revised plans – note I will be using portions of the plans in the upcoming staff report.
The plans will be on the website, is it okay to send these to the inquiring parties today? Also, I want to make sure I have all the changes that you have made since the last plans – could you list these in an email?
18.185
2 Thanks!
Nancy A. Concepcion
Associate Planner/Code Compliance Specialist
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5112
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: Hart Walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2023 7:32 PM
To: Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]>
Cc: Samantha Haschert <[email protected]>; Justin Walsh <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 925 Windsor St. 5.26.23 email review of changes; need for upload of changes to file
Hello Nancy,
Thank you for getting back to us and for the summary. One correction is that we have reduced the size of four upstairs windows on the East-facing wall. We are not interested in making major changes like reducing the square footage upstairs. I am attaching our latest architectural sheets. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.
Otherwise, please let us know when our next meeting will be held.
JW-Layout-A-RESUBMIT 4 05-25-23 with articulati...
18.186
3 Thank you,
Hart
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 7:48 AM Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Hart and Justin,
In my review of the meeting recording and discussion with other staff members, I find your changes address concerns brought up at the hearing.
The changes involve: along eastern wall plane on the second level 1) inset of wall for two bedrooms and 2) reduction of two windows in said bedrooms to address privacy impacts.
The change in eastern wall plane with the proposed insets helps break up that eastern wall – of note is that I found other homes in the immediate area that had 60+ in length of walls and due to the depth of the lot is a reasonable length.
Also your projects’ general footprint is as originally noted in the same place (if one combined the existing detached building with the main house footprint). Also It appears that there will be a greater separation from the existing detached ADU building to the new house rear wall than what exists between the existing detached building and existing house.
As for building height - the second story interior walls at 8 feet are standard not overly high so that concludes your building height is typical for a two-story.
As for parking – while the ordinance only requires two offstreet parking spaces, the plans reflect a two-car garage and a number of spaces that could be provided on the driveway and turnaround. I believe we talked about that and in my review of the building permit plans T-01-01 it appears that with the two spaces in the garage, and my estimate of four on the driveway there are a total of six parking spaces onsite.
In reviewing the meeting recording, you had mentioned that you were open to reducing the second floor. As you may recall, in an email I provided before I took your application to the original hearing there were examples from 3 of my past cases where the issue of introducing a second story in a predominantly single-story dwelling neighborhood was addressed ( i.e. 116 Monterey, 139 Cayuga, 706 Modesto.) Should you wish to further reduce the second story similarly it could be beneficial to addressing this issue although as noted it was not directed by the Zoning Administrator.
18.187
4 Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. If you could upload those changes I will confirm with building if there are any changes to the tentative conditions.
Nancy A. Concepcion
Associate Planner/Code Compliance Specialist
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5112
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: Hart Walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2023 6:56 AM
To: Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]>; Samantha Haschert <[email protected]> Cc: Justin Walsh <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 925 Windsor St.
Hello Nancy,
I appreciated meeting with you on Tuesday. I am wondering if you were able to discuss our project at your Planning Department meeting that afternoon and/or if you have spoken with Samantha? It would be helpful to have feedback before the long weekend so we can look over the plans again before the upcoming meeting.
18.188
5 Thank you,
Hart
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:52 PM Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]> wrote:
Sounds good..will see you then!
Nancy A. Concepcion
Associate Planner/Code Compliance Specialist
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5112
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: Hart <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 9:27 PM
To: Justin Walsh <[email protected]>
Cc: Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 925 Windsor St.
Hi Nancy,
I’ll come in Tuesday at around 8:30 after dropping my son at school.
Best,
18.189
6 Hart
Sent from my iPhone
On May 22, 2023, at 3:22 PM, Justin Walsh <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Nancy
Just to clarify, we kind of had two meetings last Wednesday. The meeting with Samantha went really well. She just asked us to beak up the east wall and minimize the 2nd sorry bedroom windows on that side as Hart said. She did not bring up any other modifications to the design that we remember
The other meeting, which was more of a rant session by a lot of our neighbors, did not go as well for us. It was hard for Hart and I to sit and listen to people tell untruths and challenge our right to build a two-story home. Samantha tried to clarify that this was a design review, not variance, meeting to our neighbors a few times. They did not listen to her just like they have not wanted to hear the same from us. We have told people for over 18-months that we were planning on a 2-story house. They just assume they can stop it by having enough people push back.
Regards
Justin
On May 22, 2023, at 1:54 PM, Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
I am sorry to hear that, and will discuss further with Sam what she believes is the summary of concerns (she is not in the office today).
Were there any concerns with the wet bar area or the side window in the family room?
Did they mention shadowing impacts?
Anyway, I am pretty open and if there are best times for you please let me know.
18.190
7 I have a meeting from 10 to 12 noon and 1 to 3 pm Tuesday.
I work remotely on Wednesdayand am open, and so far no appointments on Thursday.
Friday open from 9 to 12 noon.
NANCY A. CONCEPCION
ASSOCIATE PLANNER | CODE COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
Department of Planning and Community Development
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street - Room 101
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.420.5112
[email protected]
From: Hart Walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 7:34 AM
To: Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]>
Cc: Justin Walsh <[email protected]>
Subject: 925 Windsor St.
Hi Nancy,
Welcome back.
Our hearing was pretty awful last week, but Samantha gave us only a couple of suggestions for the design and said we should come back for the next meeting. I don't know your schedule, but if it makes sense to try to meet this week to go over our design, I would be happy to do that. Please let me know your availability; it's our
18.191
8 last week of school, so every day's schedule is different for me. I'm attaching a PDF of our ideas in response to Samantha's comments. We have reduced the size of 4 upstairs windows along the East-facing wall. We have also "sucked in" a portion of that wall to provide articulation that is approximately 25' long and 2' deep. That will impact two bedrooms and their closets, and reduces our square footage by about 50'.
Thank you,
Hart
18.192
18.193
18.194
From: Monique Messié <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 10:42 PM
To: City Plan
Subject:Planning Commission Public Hearing comment - 925 Windsor Street Project address: 925 Windsor St, Santa Cruz
Parcel #011-073-13
City Planning #CP 22-0114
APN #011-073-13
Name: Monique Messié
Address: 404 Harbor Dr, Santa Cruz CA 95062
Phone: 831 419 9584
Hello,
I, Monique Messié, am a concerned resident who lives within the R1-5 Single Family Home neighborhood of the planned development at 925 Windsor Street. I am respec�ully reques�ng the Planning Commission to reconsider the approval of a 3,592 square foot size home there.
I will not repeat here arguments already given by other concerned neighbors concerning the viola�on of the "human-scale" character and iden�ty of exis�ng homes (arguments that I totally agree with).
Instead, I wanted to emphasize a point I have not seen men�oned yet, and that I think is even more crucial. Building a significantly larger house in this neighborhood will set a precedent, likely encouraging other homeowners to build more large homes in a neighborhood and city already struggling with high home prices. Larger homes are more expensive, so enabling a trend of increasing home sizes will exacerbate the housing cost issue by decreasing the number of small-scale, affordable homes, and increasing the number of large, expensive homes. I urge the commission to take this crucial issue into account when considering approving large-sized homes, and to instead work to limit the size of new
18.195
buildings where possible (as in this case).
Best regards,
Monique Messié
18.196
From: Nancy Concepcion
To: Ken Hirano; Samantha Haschert
Cc: Nancy Concepcion
Subject: 925 Windsor St. 8.4.23 email location of 5.16 and 6.21.23 correspondence Date: Friday, August 04, 2023 9:06:05 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hello,
The City records indicate that we received two correspondences from you and these were included in the 5.15.23 Zoning Administrator packet.
In the Correspondence received up to 7.31.23 it includes the petition letter and then a reference to “ see the May 16 and June 21” letters/emails. However looking in the correspondence…..I did not see those referenced emails/letters. Were they included with your petition letter? It appears that there was an assumption made that those two referenced letters/emails were attached to the petition.
I apologize but I believe that is what happened if you did not include with said petition letter.
Nancy A. Concepcion
Associate Planner/Code Compliance Specialist
City of Santa Cruz | Planning and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Main: 831-420-5110 | Direct: 831-420-5112
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: Ken Hirano <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2023 6:47 PM
To: Samantha Haschert <[email protected]>
Cc: Nancy Concepcion <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 925 Windsor St.
In looking at the supporting materials for the Planning Commission meeting tonight (8/3/2023) I did not find my second (6/21/2023) letter.
Did I miss something?
18.197
On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 11:40 AM Samantha Haschert <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Ken,
Thank you for your comments. You can continue to send correspondence to Nancy as she will be preparing the appeal materials for the Planning Commission.
Thanks,
Samantha
On Jun 21, 2023, at 10:16 AM, Ken Hirano <[email protected]> wrote:
RE: Project Address 925 Windsor Street
Parcel #: #011-070-073-13
City Planning #CP 22-0114
APN# 011-73-13
Concerning an appeal to the Planning Commission – an addendum to my May 16, 2023 letter follows:
I previously tried to explain how the two-story structure planned for next door (at 925 Windsor St.) will overwhelm our property and profoundly impact me.
Now it is my intention to comment as a community member, one of many to whom the ambiance and feel of our neighborhood is so valued. To preserve some of the wonderful character and eclectic charm of our street, particularly our (900- numbered) block, my last hope is that the owners of 925 Windsor will adopt a design that is more in harmony with the other houses in the area – one that modifies the continuous two-story vertical planes, principally those that comprise the south, east, and west-facing exterior walls, so as to moderate the structure’s monolithic, massive and dominating appearance from the street and from neighboring properties. I think the key point here is that this could probably be accomplished without reducing the number of occupants that this proposed project could comfortably accommodate.
I do not think this is too much to ask. Simply put, it’s a matter of fairness. The neighbors deserve some concessions. The owners of one property should not be incontrovertibly entitled to have all that they desire when that involves taking away so much of what is cherished from so many others.
Ken Hirano
921 Windsor St.
18.198
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 9:04 AM Ken Hirano <[email protected]> wrote:
RE: Project Address 925 Windsor Street
Parcel #: #011-070-073-13
City Planning #CP 22-0114
APN# 011-73-13
My name is Ken Hirano. My wife Susan and I moved into our current home from the Berkeley area early in 2010 after we both retired. We live at 921 Windsor right next door to 925.
I am a California native and lived in some wonderful places throughout my life.
I was born and raised in Southern California. Growing up there in the 50s & 60s it felt like a paradise to me. It was uncrowded, the air quality was good and there was lots of open space, undeveloped property and amazing to think now, agricultural land.
My family’s home was in Altadena at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, above Pasadena. In those days I could walk up nearby streets and on good days see the entire L.A. Basin and the Catalina Islands beyond. When we’d go to the beach driving through Orange County we’d go through miles and miles of citrus groves, curiously enough. (I have to confess in my youth I thought Huntington Beach was Surf City.)
I left Southern California to go to school in Berkeley where I lived for the next 43 years before coming here. Berkeley is a wonderfully culturally diverse, exciting and stimulating place. And there are many places that have stunning views of the SF Bay, the City, and the Golden Gate Bridge, especially at sunset.
I expect I don't need to tell you what a unique and beautiful place Santa Cruz is. Initially I was drawn here by the small beach town "vibe" that still exists here in some parts of the area – a throwback to the places I loved as a teenager in Southern California.
As for Seabright, I can't think of a better area. I walk my dog almost every morning down to the harbor, out to the lighthouse on the jetty and let him run on the beach. And then there's Arana Gulch and of course Staff of Life and Shoppers’ Corner.
In my opinion our 900 block of Windsor is the best spot in town (maybe the universe). Here all of the pieces fit together nicely in a wonderful kind of harmony. The people – we are a mix of ages and backgrounds and without exception my neighbors are friendly, respectful, considerate and supportive.
Many I consider to be good personal friends. The houses -- there are a variety of styles, virtually all are one story and the very few with two levels have the second story sections sufficiently set back from the front to enable the street to have a light, open, peaceful and uncongested feel. No house really stands out, feels obtrusive or dominates the skyline.
When Susan and I found our house more than 13 years ago, I felt that it was the place where I wouldn’t want to leave unless carried out horizontally, feet
18.199
first.
I love my home. I’ve lived here longer than I’ve lived in any other. It feels like my sanctuary, a peaceful and private place. Outside our back door we have a 200 square foot deck where I can spend time in solitude reading or have a few friends and family members over to share food and conversation. A little further back we have a small hot tub tucked away and screened off by shrubbery and a 6 foot fence between us and 925 next door. This is where I often like to soak my old bones, usually in my natural state.
Our house is one story, has 2 bedroom and ~1000 square feet. Like me, it was built in the mid-1940s. It’s small but doesn't feel like it. Two-thirds of the house comprise an open kitchen and living room area where we spend virtually our inside waking hours. And the best features of this space are its windows. On the continuous external wall facing east directly at 925, there are six good-sized windows plus the entry door with glass panels at the top.
No matter where I am in the living room or in the kitchen, whether I am standing or sitting, I can see the sky. The light that comes in during the day enhances my mood every day.
At this point in my life my home really defines my existence. The planned two story structure next door will profoundly change things for me. Our privacy will be compromised; the quality of the light will change and most critical to me, I will lose being able to see the sky. It's hard to explain why this is so important but let me try.
When I go to the beach and look out at the ocean and the horizon, I find it always to be a very powerful experience. I am calmed and inspired at the same time. The sight puts everything into proper perspective.
It's the same with the sky. It's going to be very hard for me to lose that.
Finally, I want to say that while I’ve focused on what matters to me personally, I am in full and complete support of what my fellow neighbors collectively seek.
I stand with them.
Kenneth Hirano
921 Windsor St.
18.200
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION SUMMARY
Regular Meeting
August 3, 2023
7:00 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Call to Order-The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m.
Roll Call-Commissioners Dawson, Gordon, Polhamus, Kennedy were present.
Absent w/notification- Commissioners Conway, Maxwell, and McKelvey were absent with notification.
Statements of Disqualification-Commissioner Gordon recused herself from participating in the 400 Beach St Project (CP23-0033) due to her company’s contract work with the Seaside Company.
Oral Communications-The following members of the public addressed the Commission: none.
Consent Agenda Public Hearings
1. 400 Beach Street. Project Number: CP23-0033 APN: 007-321-04 Special Use Permit, Coastal Permit, and Design Permit for one new amusement ride (Ferris Wheel) that exceeds the zoning district height standards at an amusement park in the C-B/CZ-O Appeal zone districts.
ACTION: This matter is continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on Thursday, August 17, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. due to lack of quorum.
Public Hearings
2. 925 Windsor Street, Project Number: CP22-0114, Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s Approval of a Residential Demolition Authorization Permit and Large Home Design Permit to demolish a single-family home and construct a new 3,570 square foot singlefamily home on a site with an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
18.201
MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Polhamus, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to deny the appeal, upholding the Zoning Administrator’s acknowledgment and approval of the environmental determination and approval of the Demolition Authorization Permit and Design Permit based upon the findings and Conditions of Approval listed in “Exhibit A” of the staff report dated July 21, 2023, with the addition of the following language to Condition of Approval Number 20: ‘Provide proof of compliance with Part 14 Chapter 24.08 of the Zoning Ordinance Relocation Assistance.
If a low or moderate-income household (as determined by the Housing Authority) had occupied the dwelling unit within two years prior to the date of submission of the demolition authorization permit, proof of payment shall be submitted.’ ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Gordon, Polhamus, Kennedy
NOES: Dawson
ABSENT: Conway, Maxwell, McKelvey
Information Items
Subcommittee/Advisory Body Oral Reports
Adjournment-The meeting adjourned at 9:01 p.m.
18.202
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: July 21, 2023
AGENDA OF: August 3, 2023
ITEM NO: CP22-0114 925 Windsor Street
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission deny the appeal, upholding the Zoning Administrators acknowledgement and approval of the environmental determination and approval the Demolition Authorization Permit and Design Permit based upon the
findings listed below and Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A”.
PROJECT DATA:
Property Owner: Hart and Justin Walsh APN:011-073-13
Application Type: Residential Demolition Authorization Permit and Large Home Design Permit to demolish a single-family home and construct a new 3,570 square foot single family home on a site with an existing Accessory Dwelling Unit
Zoning: R-1-5 (Single Family Residential) – 5,000 square foot minimum lot area
Project Consistency: Single-family residential is a principally permitted use in the R-1-5 district. Project as conditioned is consistent with the R-1-5 zone district.
General Plan: L (Low Density Residential) – 1.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre Project Consistency: Project as conditioned is consistent with the residential-low density designation.
Land Use - existing: Residential
- proposed: Residential
- in area: Residential
Lot Area: 7,492 square feet
Existing Proposed
Building Height 14 ft 24 ft. 7 in.
Floor Area 940 sq.ft. 3,570 sf (1st floor 1833sf; 2nd 1737 sf) Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption
Mandatory Action Date: 60 days after certification that the project is exempt from CEQA Planning Staff: Nancy A. Concepcion
18.203
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 2
BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property is an interior lot in the Seabright residential area approximately 348 feet west of Frederick Street that is developed with a single-story dwelling proposed for demolition, and a detached two-story 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit above a garage located at the rear of the property that was approved in 2004. The property is a standard rectangular site with two mature palm trees and a 5-foot drainage easement along the east property line.
The application is for a residential demolition authorization and design permit to demolish the 940 square foot 2 bedroom dwelling and construct a 5 bedroom 3,570 square foot home. The project is a large home in the R-1-5 (Single Family Residence) zone district since the resulting project exceeds 3,000 square feet.
The Zoning Administrator heard this item on May 17, 2023. At the public hearing 16 people spoke to the matter. There were also 47 pieces of correspondence (emails, letters) received. The Zoning Administrator noted that the applicants had worked with Staff to modify the front facade to provide a scale and form to address the predominantly single-story neighborhood. There were two items based on the public testimony that could be further addressed. The Zoning Administrator then continued the hearing to address two design items that were raised: 1) the flat eastern wall elevation and 2) the privacy impacts along the east side yard.
At the June 7, 2023, hearing the applicants discussed the changes made to address the concerns.
The project size was reduced from 3,670 square feet to 3,570 square feet. The eastern elevation which has a belly band, horizontal and vertical siding was further modified with an inset/recess for approximately a third of the second story wall plane to address the concern of the wall being flat.
The revisions included a reduction in size for several windows to address privacy impacts. The Zoning Administrator approved the project with modifications to conditions to address other items raised such as consistency of materials on all elevations. (see attachment for design progression.)
18.204
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 3
On June 20, 2023 Matt Farrell (922 Windsor Street) filed an appeal, and also as a representative of neighbors located at the following addresses:
304 Darwin Street 929 Windsor Street
918 Windsor Street 933 Windsor Street
921 Windsor Street 937 Windsor Street
922 Windsor Street 943 Windsor Street
928 Windsor Street 951 Windsor Street
The appeal letter (attached) with primary concerns raised will be addressed after project analysis.
ANALYSIS
Demolition of Single-Family Residence. The one-story house proposed for demolition was constructed in 1946 with Building Permit No. 7640. In review of the records the building is not subject to the provisions of Part 11 (regarding Historic Demolition) for the house is not listed on the City Historic Building Survey, and as the house has no distinctive architectural features is a house not recommended for listing on the Survey.
Design Permit. Section 24.08.450 requires a Design Permit to construct any house in excess of 3,000 square feet in the R-1-5 zone district. The purpose of the review is to protect existing neighborhood character and identity by promoting a variable streetscape, maintaining existing neighborhood patterns, and limiting obtrusive visual impacts on nearby properties.
Neighborhood Pattern/Siting. The homes in the immediate area range from 1,200 square feet to 2,700 square feet and are predominantly single-story dwellings.
18.205
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 4
The new two-story dwelling will be sited in the same footprint as the existing dwelling resulting in a minimal change to the streetscape. Placement also is in same general line as adjacent dwellings. (see highlight)
18.206
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 5
Scale. The two-story facade provides a projecting porch on the first floor and recessed second level rooms to provide a compatible scale with the predominantly single-story neighborhood. The inset adjacent to the family room area approximately 25 feet from the street will create shadows and provide interest to the walls. The change in materials, fenestration, window and door window detailing also help reduce the two-story form. The project also retains the two mature palm trees and proposes several trees for the front yard area to further create a compatible streetscape. The building as viewed from the street utilizes a similar roof pitch to create a similar building height as the dwelling to the east.
Stories. The district allows for two and a half stories, and 30 feet to the midpoint in building height. The project involves two stories and at 24 feet 7 inches.
Architectural Style. Exterior materials will include a standing steel metal roof, horizontal wood siding on the first floor/vertical wood siding on the second floor with wood trimmed doors and windows. There will be a wood belly band to further break up the walls. While the roof material is not standard, the proposed variable roofline, color scheme and proposed landscaping will in total help the dwelling blend in with the neighborhood.
SOUTH/FRONT
18.207
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 6
Floorplan. The first floor of the dwelling will have the main living area with a living room, kitchen, dining room and a master bedroom suite; on the second floor are two 3 master bedroom suites, two bedrooms, five bathrooms, and a family room. Designs with several master bedroom suites has become the new direction in design in terms of flexibility of use to address the changing housing needs.
APPEAL. The appellant’s found that the Zoning Administrator findings are not consistent or failed to address the following Section 24.08.430 and 450 of the zoning ordinances, including the Guidelines for Large Homes in Single Family Areas, specifically in six (6) areas.
Appeal Concern #1. Section 24.08.430.4 Design Criteria states “…the architecture should consider compatibility with surrounding character, including harmonious building style, form, size, color, material, and roofline.”
The analysis does not address scale and form in terms of the adjacent single-story home which has a living room and kitchen on its east side. Setting back the second story on the west side of the proposed home would increase privacy for residents when using these social spaces. In addition, stepping back the second story on all sides, but especially the west, south, and east elevations would reduce the proposed home’s mass and visual impact on the adjacent homes.
The adjacent single-story home referred to is on the west. The proposal will be setback approximately 11 feet from the west property line. There is a 15-foot recess in the building at the same location as inset for the existing home footprint. The proposed floorplan locates the living room at the front of the lot, with a laundry room, pantry and master bath which have minimal windows and based on type of use minimizes privacy impacts. Additionally, the inset is across
18.208
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 7
from the adjacent west property’s detached garage building so privacy is not impacted. The rear portion of the building – north - is articulated with the inset and will create no impacts due to the distance from the property line and the existence of a two-story accessory dwelling unit at the rear of the subject property.
West Elevation – dwelling adjacent to 12 foot wide driveway Floorplan
Appeal Concern #2. Section 24.08.450.4 Façade and Roof Articulation. This section states, “Long uninterrupted exterior walls shall be avoided on all structures.” At the June 7 Zoning Administrator hearing, the applicant responded with a minor change on the second story with a less than two-foot setback for about a third of the second story (approximately 20 feet) and changes to several windows in terms of size and orientation.
The Zoning Administrator's finding did not adequately address the issue of long uninterrupted walls on the second floor. While there was a minor adjustment on the east side of the proposed home, there were no proposed changes to the north and west elevations of the building. The revisions did not adequately address the intent of this section which states, "All structure walls shall have "relief' to create an interesting blend with landscaping, structures, and the casting of shadows." A meaningful setback on all four elevations of the building would meet this requirement.
The east elevation was modified with an inset for about a third of the second story, and windows have been reduced. As there are bedrooms along this side yard, emergency escape and rescue windows are required and were retained to meet this building code standard size.
18.209
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 8
East Elevation
In terms of “relief to all structure walls” the ordinance also states that the integration of varied texture, relief and design accents on building walls can enhance the architecture. The project will include a standing steel metal roof, horizontal wood siding on the first floor/vertical wood siding on the second floor with wood trimmed doors and windows. There will be a wood belly band to further break up the walls. While the roof material is not standard, the proposed variable roofline, color scheme, existing/proposed landscaping (palm trees) will in total help create a dwelling that will blend in with the neighborhood.
18.210
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 9
Appeal Item #3. Section 24.08.450.4b(2) Varied Structure Design At both the May 17 and June 7 Zoning Administrator hearings, the Zoning Administrator did not adequately address the need to address the architectural characteristics of surrounding development.
This section addresses the need to incorporate a number of characteristics including "building height". There are only 2 homes on this block with two stories: 918 Darwin with a 29' setback and 929 Darwin (next to the subject property) with a 52' setback. In this proposed home, the proposed second story extends out over the front porch entry.
Appeal Item #4. Section 24.08.450.4c. Scale (1) Form and Scale At both the May 17 and June 7 Zoning Administrator hearings, the impact of this proposed home on the adjacent homes was not adequately addressed. This section states, "...Form and scale should relate to the use of the structure as a single-family residence. Also, the scale of the structures shall be at a human scale so as not to overwhelm or dominate their surroundings. New structures shall be consistent with the scale of structures on adjacent lots and generally compatible with existing surrounding structures."
This proposed home design does not adequately address its impact on neighboring homes. As mentioned earlier, all two-story homes in this neighborhood have second stories which are much smaller than the first story. This home's second story should better reflect and respect the form and scale of adjacent homes.
Appeal Item #5. Section 24.08.450.4c. Scale (2) New development At both the May 17 and June 7 Zoning Administrator hearings, there was not adequate consideration of the "functional site relationships of the surrounding neighborhoods ... such as single-story dwellings..." as stated in this section.
The proposed home does not adequately address its impact on the adjacent single-story home.
Such impacts should be addressed through modifications to the second story footprint and second story window size, quantity and placement.
The project block is established with two dwellings that are two-stories that front on Windsor:
adjacent dwelling (929 Windsor) and 918 Windsor which is across the street two houses to the west. (i.e. erroneously noted in the appeal letter as 918 and 929 Darwin). Both are similar in that the two-story portions of the dwelling are additions that retained the original one-story dwelling and built the two-story addition at the back – thus the 29 foot and 52 foot ‘setback’. These twostory additions were built in 2005, 2006 and there was not an ordinance requirement for stepback nor a specific floor area ratio. The zoning ordinance does require a ratio on substandard lots; the
18.211
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 10
subject lot at 7500 square feet in a zone that requires 5000 square feet lot area is a larger standard lot with no requirements for floor area ratio, limitations that the second floor must be smaller than the first floor or that the second floor be setback a specific distance. Without a design permit and with only a building permit a 3000 square foot two and a half story dwelling, with 20-foot front and 20-foot rear yard and 5-foot side yard setbacks could be built without a public hearing.
The applicant has shown the proposal next to the existing two-story home on the same side of the block (929 Windsor) which is immediately to the east. The proposed building height at 24 ft. 7 in. is compatible with the adjacent home which is approximately 25 feet.
Appeal Item #6. Section 24.08.450.4d(2) Setbacks
This section states: "New single-family development in existing neighborhoods shall be integrated with the housing units in the adjacent area. Site setbacks of infill residential projects shall be either: (a) Equal to the average setback of all residences on both sides of public streets within one hundred feet of the property lines of the new project; or (b) Equal to the average of the two immediately adjacent residences."
The proposed home does not meet this requirement.
While the main first floor structure of the house is set back 20 feet from the property line, the east dormer of the second story encroaches 2' on this setback.
18.212
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 11
The setback analysis included in these reports is factually incorrect. The average setback of the surrounding nine homes is over 21'. None of these homes have second stories that encroach into their setbacks. The setbacks for 928 and 929 Windsor Street are incorrectly identified. At 928 Windsor, the front of the attached garage is 20' from the property line not 18'. At 929 Windsor, the house is 22' from the property line, not 20'. The minimum setback for the proposed house is 21' using either the nine-home average or the two adjacent dwelling average. In addition, the planned encroachment does not meet the definition for acceptable encroachments as it is neither a bay window, entrance, nor architectural feature. The required 21' setback must be respected and there should be no non-compliant encroachment, in keeping with overall neighborhood character.
In terms of the setback analysis, utilizing the City records system, -928 Windsor building plans from 2005 show the setback as 20 feet; not 18 feet. -929 Windsor building plans from 2006 show the setback as 20 feet as reported; not 22 feet as the appellants state.
928 Windsor Building Permit 05-1512 929 Windsor Building Permit 06-0051 The ordinance allows for either use of a medium or an average setback. Using the average of the two adjacent dwellings: 921 and 929 results in 20 feet being the average which is also the district required front yard setback. The proposed home is setback 20 feet from the property line.
18.213
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 12
921 Windsor 20 foot setback ( no building plans with site plan on record for this property) The ordinance encourages projections to individualize dwellings to provide architectural relief and identity. Section 24.12.120 allows projections of six feet into the required 20-foot setback, with the projection limited to a third of the building wall. The project has an entry porch on the first floor and a portion of the second-floor family room that meets these standards. The appellants have indicated that the second-floor projection is not a bay window. While the City has approved both bay windows and bay rooms - the applicants have redesigned to not have any projections on the second floor and the family room will be setback 20 feet.
REVISED
SUMMARY
The two-story dwelling has both insets and projections to create a compatible scale with the predominantly single-story dwelling neighborhood. There are several factors – such as building form, building siting, building width and architectural detailing with insets and projections that in total allow the project to be proportionally compatible despite the proposed square footage which results in this as one of the larger homes on this block. Staff recommends denying the appeal and
18.214
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 13
upholding the Zoning Administrator project approval based on the attached Residential Demolition Authorization Permit and Design Permit findings and subject to conditions listed as Exhibit “B”.
FINDINGS
Demolition or Conversion of Single-Family Residence or Duplex Units, Section 24.08.1330 The building is not subject to the provisions of Part 11 (regarding Historic Demolition Permits) of this chapter, or that the demolition or conversion has been approved pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 11; and
The house is not listed on the City Historic Building Survey. A staff review of photographs of the house indicated that the house has no distinctive architectural features.
1. The project which will replace the demolished or converted unit(s) has been approved by the city, and an appropriate building permit has been issued; unless no building permit is required or some other practical hardship can be documented rendering this finding inappropriate; and
A two-story dwelling is proposed to replace the house to be demolished and will be sited in the general location and footprint as the existing house.
2. The building is not in the coastal zone, or, if it is in the coastal zone, is being replaced by a residential use or a nonresidential coastal-dependent use as defined by Section 30101 of the Public Resources Code; and
The site is in the coastal zone and the building is being replaced by a residential use.
3. Relocation assistance has been provided to eligible tenants consistent with Section
24.08.1350; or
4. The building which is in the coastal zone and is being replaced by a nonresidential use which is not coastal-dependent as defined in Section 30101 of the Public Resources Code, is located where residential use is no longer feasible, but will not be issued a demolition permit or building permit in connection with the conversion until the applicant has entered into an agreement to provide relocation assistance and replacement housing or in-lieu fees consistent with Sections 24.08.1350 and the applicable portions of Sections 24.08.1360 and 24.08.1370 of this chapter.
Not applicable.
18.215
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 14
Design Permit, Section 24.08.430
1. The site plan and building design are consistent with design and development policies of the General Plan, any element of the General Plan, and any area plan, specific plan, or other city policy for physical development. If located in the Coastal Zone, a site plan shall also be consistent with policies of the Local Coastal Program.
The proposed replacement dwelling will be sited in an area that minimizes change to the existing site layout and is of a form that allows the project to be compatible with other dwellings in the area. The new dwelling will meet all development standards for the R-1- 5 zone district for setbacks and height. The new two-story dwelling is appropriate for single-family dwelling development in this area which is comprised of both one- and twostory dwellings.
2. For non-residential projects, the project’s location, size, height, operations, and other significant features and characteristics are compatible with and do not adversely affect or further degrade adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood, or the public health, safety, and welfare. For residential projects, the project complies with the objective standards and requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, as well as any objective standards of any area plan or other regulatory document that applies to the area in which the project is located.
The replacement dwelling has design elements which make it compatible with the design and appearance of the existing buildings and structures in the neighborhood.
3. For non-residential projects, the project provides for an arrangement of uses, buildings, structures, open spaces, and other improvements that are compatible with the scale and character of the adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhood.
This finding is not applicable for it is a residential property.
4. The exterior design and appearance of buildings and structures and the design of the site plan shall be compatible with design and appearance of other existing buildings and structures in neighborhoods which have established architectural character worth of preservation.
The use of a gable roof shape, wood exterior walls and proposed building insets and projections in total provide architectural consistency with this neighborhood.
5. Design of the site plan respects design principles in terms of maintaining a balance of scale, form and proportion, using design components which are harmonious, and materials and colors which blend with elements of the site plan and surrounding areas. Location of structures takes into account maintenance of public views; rooftop mechanical equipment is incorporated into roof design or screened from public rights-of-way to the extent possible. Utility installations such as trash enclosures,
18.216
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 15
storage units, traffic-control devices, transformer vaults and electrical meters are accessible and screened.
The proposed dwelling has been designed and placed to be compatible with development on the surrounding properties. The dwelling will meet or exceed the minimum setbacks required for the district. The exterior design and appearance of the dwelling is architecturally consistent with the adjacent residences in its use of materials and compatible with the existing accessory dwelling unit/garage building. The dwelling will maintain a balance of scale, form and proportion in that it will have the same roof pitch and general form as the existing dwellings in the area. The use of building insets, wall projections, and varying rooflines minimize bulk and will limit obtrusive visual impacts on nearby properties.
6. Where a site plan abuts, or is in close proximity to, uses other than that proposed, the plan shall take into account its effect on other land uses. Where a nonresidential use abuts or is in close proximity to a residential use, the effect of the site plan should maintain the residential quality of adjacent or nearby areas.
The proposed residence is in a residential neighborhood.
7. To the extent feasible, the orientation and location of buildings, structures, open spaces and other features of the site plan maintain natural resources including significant trees and shrubs, minimize impacts to solar access of adjacent properties, and minimize alteration of natural landforms; building profiles, location, and orientation must relate to natural land forms.
The project will retain the two existing mature palm trees and thus will not result in the loss of any significant trees or vegetation, and the new dwelling based on building height and siting will not impact adjacent properties to any significant extent. Solar access is maintained for surrounding development as the 28-foot-high roof measured to the peak (24 ft. 7 in. midpoint) will help provide a compatible scale.
8. The site plan ensures that the scale, bulk, and setbacks of new development preserves important public views along the ocean and of designated scenic coastal areas. Where appropriate and feasible, the project shall restore and enhance visual quality of visually degraded areas.
The proposed development is in the coastal zone and will not affect coastal views.
9. The site plan shall reasonably protect against external and internal noise, vibration and other factors which may tend to make the environment less desirable. The site plan should respect the need for privacy of adjacent residents.
The site plan respects the need for privacy of adjacent dwellings by retaining the main habitable area within the existing dwelling unit footprint. There is a 5-foot-wide drainage
18.217
AGENDA REPORT
PC August 3, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 16
easement along the eastern property line resulting in no equipment or building projections along this side yard. The dwelling will require the issuance of a building permit that meets the Uniform Building Code requirements concerning noise, vibrations, and energy efficiency.
10. Building and structures shall be designed and oriented to make use of natural elements such as solar radiation, wind, and landscaping for heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting.
The proposed dwelling will require the issuance of a building permit that meets the Uniform Building Code energy conservation requirements. The design includes operable windows, which will provide for natural ventilation.
Submitted by:
Nancy A. Concepcion
Associate Planner
Approved by:
Michael S. Ferry
Senior Planner
Attachments:
1. Exhibit “A” – Conditions of Approval
2. Project Plans
3. Appeal Letter dated June 20, 2023
4. June 7, 2023 Zoning Administrator action minutes
5. May 17, 2023 Zoning Administrator action minutes
6. Design Changes – Initial Submittal to Current Design progression
7. Correspondence
18.218
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Regular Meeting
Action Minutes
June 7, 2023
10:00 A.M. GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, ZOOM WEBINAR The City of Santa Cruz does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Out of consideration for people with chemical sensitivities, we ask that you attend fragrance free. Upon request, the agenda can be provided in a format to accommodate special needs. Additionally, if you wish to attend this public meeting and will require assistance such as an interpreter for American Sign Language, Spanish, or other special equipment, please call the City Clerk’s Department at (831) 420-5030 at least five days in advance so that we can arrange for such assistance, or email [email protected]. The Cal-Relay system number: 1-800-735-2922.
Any writing related to an agenda item for the open session of this meeting distributed to the Zoning Administrator less than 72 hours before this meeting is available for inspection at the City Planning Department, 809 Center Street, Room 107 or on the City’s website at www.cityofsantacruz.com.
APPEALS: Any person who believes that a final action of this advisory body has been taken in error may appeal that decision to the City Council. Appeals must be in writing, setting forth the nature of the action and the basis upon which the action is considered to be in error, and addressed to the City Council in care of the City Clerk.
A written notice of appeal, together with the fee of seven hundred forty-one dollars ($741), with the exception of development projects which are appealable to the Coastal Commission where no fee will be charged, must be received by the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days following the date of the action from which such appeal is being taken.
Call to Order at 10:00 a.m., Zoning Administrator: Samantha Haschert Oral communications – None
Announcements – None
Approval of Minutes
1. Approval of minutes from the May 17, 2023 meeting.
Zoning Administrator Action: The Zoning Administrator approved the minutes for the May 17, 2023 meeting.
18.219
Public Hearing
2. 925 WINDSOR ST CP22-0114 APN 011-073-13
Residential Demolition Authorization Permit and Large Home Design Permit to demolish a single family home and construct an approximately 3,600 square feet single family home on a site with an existing accessory dwelling unit in the R-1-5/CZ-O (Single Family Residential/Coastal Zone Overlay) zone district.
Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption
Applicant: Walsh Justin M & Hart Levy
Applicant filed: 1/25/23
Recommendation: That the Zoning Administrator acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Demolition Authorization Permit and Design Permit based upon the findings listed below and Conditions listed in Exhibit “A”.
The applicants Justin Walsh and Hart Levy addressed the Zoning Administrator.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public comment period at 10:03 a.m. There was one member of the public who spoke. The Zoning Administrator closed the public comment period at 10:17 a.m.
Zoning Administrator Action: The Zoning Administrator acknowledged the environmental determination and Residential Demolition Authorization Permit and Large Home Design Permit based on the findings and the revised Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A,” with the following amendment(s):
• Number 5: All final working drawings shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval in conjunction with the building permit application. The plans submitted for building permits shall have the same level of articulation, detailing, and dimensionality as shown in the approved plans prepared by Owner/Designer Justin Walsh dated April 4, 2023 and May 17, 2023. All approved exterior finishes and materials shall be clearly notated on the building permit plans.
The appeal period will end on Tuesday, June 20, 2023.
3. 118 ORTALON CIRCLE CP21-0160 APN: 001-161-22
Minor Land Division, Large Home Design Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to divide a 176,483 square foot lot with an existing single family home into four lots with a modification to minimum lot size for two lots, to remove 15 heritage trees, and to construct a new home exceeding 4,000 square feet on
18.220
one of the new lots on a site in the R-1-10 (Single-Family Residence - 10,000 sq. ft. min) zone district.
Environmental Determination: Exempt pursuant to CA Public Resources Code Section 1083.3/CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
Applicant: Charlie Eadie
Filed: 10/27/21
Recommendation: That the Zoning Administrator acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Minor Land Division, Design Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit based on the findings listed below and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A”.
The applicant addressed the Zoning Administrator.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public comment period at 10:24 a.m. There was one member of the public who spoke. The Zoning Administrator closed the public comment period at 10:27 a.m.
Zoning Administrator Action: The Zoning Administrator acknowledged the environmental determination and Minor Land Division, Large Home Design Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit based on the findings and the revised Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A,” with the following amendment(s):
• Number 36: Installation and testing of the sewer lines and water systems, must also be conducted to satisfy the requirements of the Fire, Public Works, and Water Departments, prior to the issuance of building permits.
Installation of water meters shall be completed prior to building permit final for each lot or as otherwise required by the Water Department. • Number 37: All street improvements, as required by the Public Works Department (i.e., curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paving, etc.), shall be completed prior to the issuance of further permits; and a bond shall be posted with the Public Works Department to secure construction of such street improvements. Installation of permeable pavers shall be completed prior to building permit final of the first dwelling unit to be constructed on lot 2 or 4.
• Number 51: All landscaping shall be installed prior to final utility release or building permit final for each of the new homes on parcels 1, 2, and 4.
The appeal period will end on Tuesday, June 20, 2023.
4. 200 PIONEER ST CP22-0081 APN 001-172-14
Administrative Use Permit for cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution in an industrial building located on a parcel in the IG (General Industrial) zone district.
Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption
Applicant: SC Bloom Network, Inc.
18.221
Filed: 6/23/22
Recommendation: That the Zoning Administrator acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Administrative Use Permit based on the findings listed below and the Conditions of Approval listed in Attachment 1.
The applicant addressed the Zoning Administrator.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public comment period at 10:31 a.m. There were no members of the public who spoke. The Zoning Administrator closed the public comment period at 10:31 a.m.
Zoning Administrator Action: The Zoning Administrator acknowledged the environmental determination and Administrative Use Permit based on the findings and the revised Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A,” with the following amendment(s):
• Number 14.C: The hours of operation shall be limited to no more than 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
The appeal period will end on Tuesday, June 20, 2023.
5. 290 PIONEER ST CP22-0176 APN 001-172-18
Administrative Use Permit for non-volatile manufacturing and distribution of cannabis on a site in the IG (General Industrial) zone district.
Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption
Applicant: SC Bloom Network, Inc.
Filed: 2/9/23
Recommendation: That the Zoning Administrator acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Administrative Use Permit based on the findings listed below and the Conditions of Approval listed in Attachment 1.
The applicant addressed the Zoning Administrator.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public comment period at 10:33 a.m. There were no members of the public who spoke. The Zoning Administrator closed the public comment period at 10:36 a.m.
Zoning Administrator Action: The Zoning Administrator acknowledged the environmental determination and Administrative Use Permit based on the findings and the revised Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A,” with the following amendment(s):
18.222
• Number 14.C: The hours of operation shall be limited to no more than 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
The appeal period will end on Tuesday, June 20, 2023.
6. 320 PACIFIC AVE CP23-0037 APN 007-151-02
Administrative Use Permit for a retail tobacco shop (specialty retail supply store) in an existing multi-tenant building on a parcel located in the R-T(C)/CZO (Beach Commercial/Coastal Zone Overlay) zone districts and Beach and South of Laurel Area Plan.
Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption
Applicant: CJ Cruz LLC c/o M. Bounds
Filed: 3/31/2023
That the Zoning Administrator acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Administrative Use Permit based on the findings listed below and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A”.
The applicant addressed the Zoning Administrator.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public comment period at 10:37 a.m. There were no members of the public who spoke. The Zoning Administrator closed the public comment period at 10:40 a.m.
Zoning Administrator Action: The Zoning Administrator acknowledged the environmental determination and Administrative Use Permit based on the findings and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A.” The appeal period will end on Tuesday, June 20, 2023.
7. 936 WEST CLIFF DRIVE CP22-0087 004-202-38
Residential Demolition/Conversion Authorization Permit, Design Permit, and Coastal Permit to allow demolition of the existing single-family dwelling and accessory structure and construction of a new, approximately 3,609 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with detached accessory structure including a 500 sq. ft. garage and two-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on a substandard lot located in the R-1-5/CZ-O/SP-O/WCD-O (Single Family Residence/Coastal Zone Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay/West Cliff Drive Overlay) zone district (APN: 004-202-38)
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption: Class 3 - Section 15303 Applicants: David Beauchamp, Fuse Architecture
Applicant Filed: 10/18/22
This project requires a Coastal Permit which is appealable to the California Coastal Commission after all possible appeals are exhausted through the City.
18.223
Recommendation: That the Zoning Administrator acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Residential Demolition/Conversion Authorization Permit, Design Permit, and Coastal Permit to allow demolition of the existing single-family dwelling and accessory structure and construction of a new, approximately 3,609 square-foot singlefamily dwelling including detached accessory structure with a 500 square-foot garage and two-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on a substandard lot, based on the attached Findings and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A”.
The applicant addressed the Zoning Administrator.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public comment period at 10:44 a.m. The Zoning Administrator closed the public comment period at 10:50 a.m.
Zoning Administrator Action: The Zoning Administrator acknowledged the environmental determination and approved the Residential Demolition/Conversion Authorization Permit, Design Permit, and Coastal Permit based on the findings and the revised Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A,” with the revised conditions of approval.
The appeal period will end on Tuesday, June 20, 2023.
Adjournment at 10:53 a.m.
18.224
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 7, 2023
AGENDA OF: May 17, 2023
ITEM NO: CP22-0114 925 Windsor Street
RECOMMENDATION: That the Zoning Administrator acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Demolition
Authorization Permit and Design Permit based upon the
findings listed below and Conditions listed in Exhibit “A”.
PROJECT DATA:
Property Owner: Hart and Justin Walsh APN:011-073-13
Application Type: Residential Demolition Authorization Permit and Large Home Deign Permit to demolish a single-family home and construct a new 3,670 square foot single family home on a site with an existing Accessory Dwelling Unit
Zoning: R-1-5 (Single Family Residential) – 5,000 square foot minimum lot area
Project Consistency: Single-family residential is a principally permitted use in the R-1-5 district. Project as conditioned is consistent with the R-1-5 zone district.
General Plan: L (Low Density Residential) – 1.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre Project Consistency: Project as conditioned is consistent with the residential-low density designation.
Land Use - existing: Residential
- proposed: Residential
- in area: Residential
Lot Area: 7,492 square feet
Existing Proposed
Building Height 14 ft 24 ft. 6 in.
Floor Area 940 sq.ft. 3,670 sq.ft.
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption
Mandatory Action Date: 60 days after certification that the project is exempt from CEQA
18.225
AGENDA REPORT
ZA May 17, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 2
Planning Staff: Nancy A. Concepcion
BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property is an interior lot in the Seabright residential area approximately 348 feet west of Frederick Street that is developed with a single-story dwelling proposed for demolition, and a detached two-story 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit above a garage located at the rear of the property that was approved in 2004. The property is a standard rectangular site with two mature palm trees and a 5-foot drainage easement along the east property line.
The application is for a residential demolition authorization and design permit to demolish the 940 square foot 2 bedroom dwelling and construct a 5 bedroom 3, 670 square foot home. The project is a large home in the R-1-5 (Single Family Residence) zone district since the resulting project exceeds 3,000 square feet.
ANALYSIS
Demolition of Single-Family Residence. The one-story house proposed for demolition was constructed in 1946 with Building Permit No. 7640. In review of the records the building is not subject to the provisions of Part 11 (regarding Historic Demolition) for the house is not listed on the City Historic Building Survey, and as the house has no distinctive architectural features is a house not recommended for listing on the Survey.
Design Permit. Section 24.08.450 requires a Design Permit to construct any house in excess of 3,000 square feet in the R-1-5 zone district. The purpose of the review is to protect existing neighborhood character and identity by promoting a variable streetscape, maintaining existing neighborhood patterns, and limiting obtrusive visual impacts on nearby properties.
18.226
AGENDA REPORT
ZA May 17, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 3
Neighborhood Pattern/Siting. The homes in the immediate area range from 1,200 square feet to 2,700 square feet and are predominantly single-story dwellings. The new two-story dwelling will be sited in the same footprint as the existing dwelling resulting in a minimal change to the streetscape.
Scale. The two-story facade provides a projecting porch on the first floor and recessed second level rooms to provide a compatible scale with the predominantly single-story neighborhood. The inset of the family room area approximately 25 feet from the street will create shadows and provide interest to the walls. The change in materials, fenestration and window and door window detailing also help reduce the two-story form. The project also retains the mature palm trees and proposes several trees for the front yard area to further create a compatible streetscape.
18.227
AGENDA REPORT
ZA May 17, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 4
Architectural Style. Exterior materials will include a standing steel metal roof, horizontal wood siding on the first floor/vertical wood siding on the second floor with wood trimmed doors and windows. There will be a wood belly band to further break up the walls. While the roof material is not standard, the proposed variable roofline, color scheme and proposed landscaping will in total help the dwelling blend in with this neighborhood.
18.228
AGENDA REPORT
ZA May 17, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 5
SUMMARY
The two-story dwelling has both insets and projections to create a compatible scale with the predominantly single-story dwelling neighborhood. There are several factors – such as building form, building siting, proposed building width that in total allow the project to be proportionally compatible despite the proposed square footage which results in this as one of the larger homes on this block. Staff recommends project approval based on the attached Residential Demolition Authorization Permit and Design Permit findings and subject to conditions listed as Exhibit B”
FINDINGS
Demolition or Conversion of Single-Family Residence or Duplex Units, Section 24.08.1330 The building is not subject to the provisions of Part 11 (regarding Historic Demolition Permits) of this chapter, or that the demolition or conversion has been approved pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 11; and
The house is not listed on the City Historic Building Survey. A staff review of photographs of the house indicated that the house has no distinctive architectural features.
1. The project which will replace the demolished or converted unit(s) has been approved by the city, and an appropriate building permit has been issued; unless no building permit is required or some other practical hardship can be documented rendering this finding inappropriate; and
A two-story dwelling is proposed to replace the house to be demolished and will be sited in the general location as the existing house.
2. The building is not in the coastal zone, or, if it is in the coastal zone, is being replaced by a residential use or a nonresidential coastal-dependent use as defined by Section 30101 of the Public Resources Code; and
The site is in the coastal zone and the building is being replaced by a residential use.
3. Relocation assistance has been provided to eligible tenants consistent with Section
24.08.1350; or
4. The building which is in the coastal zone and is being replaced by a nonresidential use which is not coastal-dependent as defined in Section 30101 of the Public Resources Code, is located where residential use is no longer feasible, but will not be issued a demolition permit or building permit in connection with the conversion until the
18.229
AGENDA REPORT
ZA May 17, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 6
applicant has entered into an agreement to provide relocation assistance and replacement housing or in-lieu fees consistent with Sections 24.08.1350 and the applicable portions of Sections 24.08.1360 and 24.08.1370 of this chapter.
Not applicable.
Design Permit, Section 24.08.430
1. The site plan and building design are consistent with design and development policies of the General Plan, any element of the General Plan, and any area plan, specific plan, or other city policy for physical development. If located in the Coastal Zone, a site plan shall also be consistent with policies of the Local Coastal Program.
The proposed replacement dwelling will be sited in an area that minimizes change to the existing site layout and is of a form that allows the project to be compatible with other dwellings in the area. The new dwelling will meet all development standards for the R-1- 5 zone district for setbacks and height. The new two-story dwelling is appropriate for single-family dwelling development in this area which is comprised of both one- and twostory dwellings.
2. For non-residential projects, the project’s location, size, height, operations, and other significant features and characteristics are compatible with and do not adversely affect or further degrade adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood, or the public health, safety, and welfare. For residential projects, the project complies with the objective standards and requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, as well as any objective standards of any area plan or other regulatory document that applies to the area in which the project is located.
The replacement dwelling has design elements which make it compatible with the design and appearance of the existing buildings and structures in the neighborhood.
3. For non-residential projects, the project provides for an arrangement of uses, buildings, structures, open spaces, and other improvements that are compatible with the scale and character of the adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhood.
This finding is not applicable for it is a residential property.
4. The exterior design and appearance of buildings and structures and the design of the site plan shall be compatible with design and appearance of other existing buildings and structures in neighborhoods which have established architectural character worth of preservation.
The use of a gable roof shape, wood exterior walls and proposed building insets and projections in total provide architectural consistency with this neighborhood.
18.230
AGENDA REPORT
ZA May 17, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 7
5. Design of the site plan respects design principles in terms of maintaining a balance of scale, form and proportion, using design components which are harmonious, and materials and colors which blend with elements of the site plan and surrounding areas. Location of structures takes into account maintenance of public views; rooftop mechanical equipment is incorporated into roof design or screened from public rights-of-way to the extent possible. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, traffic-control devices, transformer vaults and electrical meters are accessible and screened.
The proposed dwelling has been designed and placed to be compatible with development on the surrounding properties. The dwelling will meet or exceed the minimum setbacks required for the district. The exterior design and appearance of the dwelling is architecturally consistent with the adjacent residences in its use of materials and compatible with the existing accessory dwelling unit/garage building. The dwelling will maintain a balance of scale, form and proportion in that it will have the same roof pitch and general form as the existing dwellings in the area. The use of building insets, wall projections, and varying rooflines minimize bulk and will limit obtrusive visual impacts on nearby properties.
6. Where a site plan abuts, or is in close proximity to, uses other than that proposed, the plan shall take into account its effect on other land uses. Where a nonresidential use abuts or is in close proximity to a residential use, the effect of the site plan should maintain the residential quality of adjacent or nearby areas.
The proposed residence is in a residential neighborhood.
7. To the extent feasible, the orientation and location of buildings, structures, open spaces and other features of the site plan maintain natural resources including significant trees and shrubs, minimize impacts to solar access of adjacent properties, and minimize alteration of natural landforms; building profiles, location, and orientation must relate to natural land forms.
The project will retain the two existing mature palm trees and thus will not result in the loss of any significant trees or vegetation, and the new dwelling based on building height and siting will not impact adjacent properties to any significant extent. Solar access is maintained for surrounding development as the 28 foot high roof measured to the peak will help provide a compatible scale.
8. The site plan ensures that the scale, bulk, and setbacks of new development preserves important public views along the ocean and of designated scenic coastal areas. Where appropriate and feasible, the project shall restore and enhance visual quality of visually degraded areas.
The proposed development is in the coastal zone and will not affect coastal views.
18.231
AGENDA REPORT
ZA May 17, 2023
SUBJECT:925 Windsor Street – CP 22-0114
PAGE 8
9. The site plan shall reasonably protect against external and internal noise, vibration and other factors which may tend to make the environment less desirable. The site plan should respect the need for privacy of adjacent residents.
The site plan respects the need for privacy of adjacent dwellings by retaining the main habitable area within the existing dwelling unit footprint. There is a 5-foot-wide drainage easement along the eastern property line resulting in no equipment or building projections along this side yard. The dwelling will require the issuance of a building permit that meets the Uniform Building Code requirements concerning noise, vibrations, and energy efficiency.
10. Building and structures shall be designed and oriented to make use of natural elements such as solar radiation, wind, and landscaping for heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting.
The proposed dwelling will require the issuance of a building permit that meets the Uniform Building Code energy conservation requirements. The design includes operable windows, which will provide for natural ventilation.
Submitted by:
Nancy A. Concepcion
Associate Planner
Approved by:
Michael S. Ferry
Senior Planner
Attachments:
~ Conditions of Approval
18.232
Exhibit 9 – Project Design changes from Initial Submittal to Review at Hearings
INITIAL SUBMITTAL
REVISED
REVISION AFTER ZA CONTINUANCE
REVISION - PROJECTION COMMENT
18.233
Exhibit 10 2006 ( B06-0051) Plans for bay window
20 feet to bay window
1999 (99-0662) Interior wall modifications
21 feet front setback
18.234
18.235
Exhibit 11 Property to west 921 Windsor View from 921 Windsor towards project west sideyard (Note: proposal ends at inset, with 20 foot separation between SFD and ADU in foreground)
18.236
Exhibit 11 925 Windsor first floor (921 Windsor towards right, west 925 Windsor second floor (921 Windsor towards right, west)
18.237
18.238
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jerald Spodick <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 4:42 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Letters to City Council for October 10th Council Meeting Attachments: Letter bto City - combined.pdf
RE: Permit Appeal Hearing for Planned Dwelling at 925 Windsor Street, Santa Cruz City Council Meeting Date: October 10th
Parcel: #011‐073‐13
City Planning #CP 22‐0114
APN #011‐073‐13
Jerry & Terry Spodick (2 letters included)
304 Darwin Street, Santa Cruz 95062
email: (Jerry) [email protected] / (Terry)[email protected] Phone: Jerry‐831345‐8851 Terry ‐ 8313458883
Comments: Please support and protect our neighborhood!
Thank you,
Jerry & Terry Spodick
18.239
18.240
18.241
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Mary South <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2023 4:06 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Permit Appeal Hearing for Planned Dwelling at 925 Windsor Street, Santa Cruz Attachments: Appeal Letter to SC City Council.pdf
City Council Meeting Date: October 10, 2023
Parcel #011‐073‐13
City Planning #CP 22‐0114
APN #011‐073‐13
Name: Mary South
Address: 331 Harbor Drive, Santa Cruz, CA. 95062
Contact Information: Phone: (831) 713‐5866; Cell: (831) 234‐017 Comments:
September 30, 2023
Re: Past approval of a “Large Home Design Permit”
I attended the meeting, August 3, 2023 at which the Large Home Design permit for 925 Windsor St. was approved by the City Planning Department.
I am not a resident of the Windsor block but live one and a half blocks away on nearby Harbor Dr.
Our home is next door to a large two story home which added its second story shortly before we moved to the neighborhood, five years ago. We often have heard from nearby neighbors who complained of the exceptional height of this home and to this day, remain critical. Since we were not part of the neighborhood at the time I do not know if there was a public hearing or any voiced opposition. We were just happy to have a new home in a great area. After living here and having a backyard with blocked or limited sun exposure and losing the effective surface area on our roof to install solar panels we can understand why residents want to protect their dwelling spaces and have some input as to how a new large building will impact their existing property.
The Design Permit and Large-Home Permitting Guidelines in Santa Cruz City Codes appear to provide clear measures for a proposed new structure to satisfy and for concerned residents to reference in requesting existing codes be upheld. As these guidelines are available it is critical for them to be addressed and followed so that the integrity of an existing single-family neighborhood can be preserved.
I certainly respect the rights of the owners at 925 Windsor to enlarge their home and understand their desire to add living space for their family members, both now as they age, as owning/renting a home in Santa Cruz County is so costly. My support of this appeal is to urge our City Council to review the proposed Large Home Design Plan with a greater focus given to the specific concerns of the neighborhood residents and how the proposed large home plan can adhere more closely to the Guidelines in Santa Cruz City Codes.
Sincerely,
Mary South
18.242
18.243
From: Terry Spodick
To: City Council
Subject: Appeal of Large Home Design Permit to City Council at October 10th, 2023 Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 04, 2023 3:35:06 PM
Terry Spodick304 Darwin Street Santa Cruz, CA 95062
Cell: 831-345-8883
RE: Appeal of Large Home Design Permit to City Council at October 10th, 2023 Meeting Project Address: 925 Windsor Street. Parcel 011-070-073-13 APN 011-073-13. City Planning #CP: 22-0114
October 4, 2023
Dear City Council
I am writing concerning the “Appeal of a Large Home Design permit for 925 Windsor Street.
I attended the appeal at the planning commission where the neighbors’ concerns were not addressed and no justifications given for the approval even when some commissioners asked for information.
The guidelines clearly state that the home must be compatible with others structures in the neighborhood. There is absolutely NO way that this structure is compatible because it is 2000 square feet larger than the average existing homes, 6 feet higher, and the second story is 3 ½ times larger. It also will destroy the privacy of several homes. Aesthetically it does not blend in either.
I would like you to specifically consider the following. ·
The lot already has a two story granny unit, and this will add another five bedrooms and 5 baths. Should you not be concerned about the carbon footprint for two people? Water?
·
At current building prices this homes will cost at least 2 million to build.
When the present home is destroyed, another possibly affordable home will be forever lost. What does this do to for our community? Years ago, I bought a small cottage on a large lot next door from us in order to avoid this very same scenario. I could have easily torn it down and built a mega home, but instead I have offered a clean nice place for people to live.
The present tenants have lived there for just under 11 years. During that time their rent has raised a total of $200. ( That is $18.18 a year) In fact, I own six rental units, all of which are way below market value. They are all in excellent
18.244
condition. NONE of my tenants could afford to stay in Santa Cruz if the rent was at market value. I care about our neighborhood and the people who live here. I am asking you to do the same!
Best Regards,
Terry Spodick
Terry Spodick
--
Terry Spodick
304 Darwin Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 831-345-8883
18.245
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ken Hirano <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2023 3:39 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Subject: Santa Cruz City Council Meeting October 10, 2023 Subject: Permit Appeal Hearing for Planned Dwelling at 925 Windsor Street, Santa Cruz Parcel #011-073-13
City Planning #CP 22-0114
APN #011-073-13
My wife Susan and I live at 921 Windsor Street, next door and to the west of the subject property. Along with this letter I am forwarding below earlier correspondence (dated 6/21/23 & 5/16/23) that I sent to the Planning Commission and to the Planning Department. If you already have these two letters in your background packet, I apologize for the redundancy.
I have been retired now for more than 16 years. My entire career was spent in the public sector working for the University of California, the bulk of which was with the planning and budget staff in the Berkeley Chancellor’s Office.
I worked in a universe of policy and rules. My job involved providing briefing materials and developing decision options for the executive officers at the school, college and campus-wide levels on matters of organization, staffing and budget. Much of my work consisted of analyzing and interpreting policy, rules, regulations and established guidelines -- making sure that all were being properly considered and followed as decisions were made.
In my experience, the most challenging and one of the most important aspects of my job was to make sure that decisionmakers fully understood the human ramifications of the actions they might take. Policy implications and precedencesetting are important to consider in the broad context of any large organization but public institutions must never lose sight of how decisions and practices affect people on an individual and human level. The "public" is the constituency in the abstract but most actions taken, immediately and intimately affect real people. This was instilled in me by the many mentors I had early in my career.
Actual individuals matter and the numbers matter. To what extent and how many people will actually be impacted should be taken into account. In the case of the ultimate approval of the project now being considered, it’s hard to argue against the notion that property owners should have the right to build what they want so long as they are in conformance with the applicable laws, regulations and guidelines. But how many neighboring residents will be directly and substantially impacted and how might their lives be significantly altered? The actual number of households that will be adversely affected should be weighed against those who benefit from the planned project. These should be considerations in the Council’s decision on this matter.
I believe that neighbors’ concerns deserve proper attention. A Council-appointed third-party adjudicated meeting between the owners of the subject property and the neighbors most directly affected should be considered, where the issues and concerns of all parties can be openly and dispassionately aired.
Ken Hirano
921 Windsor Street
Prior correspondence being forwarded:
On Jun 21, 2023, at 10:16 AM, Ken Hirano <[email protected]> wrote RE: Project Address 925 Windsor Street
Parcel #: #011-070-073-13
18.246
2 City Planning #CP 22-0114
APN# 011-73-13
Concerning an appeal to the Planning Commission – an addendum to my May 16, 2023 letter follows:
I previously tried to explain how the two-story structure planned for next door (at 925 Windsor St.) will overwhelm our property and profoundly impact me.
Now it is my intention to comment as a community member, one of many to whom the ambiance and feel of our neighborhood is so valued. To preserve some of the wonderful character and eclectic charm of our street, particularly our (900-numbered) block, my last hope is that the owners of 925 Windsor will adopt a design that is more in harmony with the other houses in the area – one that modifies the continuous twostory vertical planes, principally those that comprise the south, east, and west-facing exterior walls, so as to moderate the structure’s monolithic, massive and dominating appearance from the street and from neighboring properties. I think the key point here is that this could probably be accomplished without reducing the number of occupants that this proposed project could comfortably accommodate.
I do not think this is too much to ask. Simply put, it’s a matter of fairness. The neighbors deserve some concessions. The owners of one property should not be incontrovertibly entitled to have all that they desire when that involves taking away so much of what is cherished from so many others.
Ken Hirano
921 Windsor St.
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 9:04 AM Ken Hirano <[email protected]> wrote:
RE: Project Address 925 Windsor Street
Parcel #: #011-070-073-13
City Planning #CP 22-0114
APN# 011-73-13
My name is Ken Hirano. My wife Susan and I moved into our current home from the Berkeley area early in 2010 after we both retired. We live at 921 Windsor right next door to 925.
18.247
3 I am a California native and lived in some wonderful places throughout my life.
I was born and raised in Southern California. Growing up there in the 50s & 60s it felt like a paradise to me. It was uncrowded, the air quality was good and there was lots of open space, undeveloped property and amazing to think now, agricultural land.
My family’s home was in Altadena at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, above Pasadena. In those days I could walk up nearby streets and on good days see the entire L.A. Basin and the Catalina Islands beyond. When we’d go to the beach driving through Orange County we’d go through miles and miles of citrus groves, curiously enough. (I have to confess in my youth I thought Huntington Beach was Surf City.)
I left Southern California to go to school in Berkeley where I lived for the next 43 years before coming here. Berkeley is a wonderfully culturally diverse, exciting and stimulating place. And there are many places that have stunning views of the SF Bay, the City, and the Golden Gate Bridge, especially at sunset.
I expect I don't need to tell you what a unique and beautiful place Santa Cruz is. Initially I was drawn here by the small beach town "vibe" that still exists here in some parts of the area – a throwback to the places I loved as a teenager in Southern California.
As for Seabright, I can't think of a better area. I walk my dog almost every morning down to the harbor, out to the lighthouse on the jetty and let him run on the beach. And then there's Arana Gulch and of course Staff of Life and Shoppers’ Corner.
In my opinion our 900 block of Windsor is the best spot in town (maybe the universe). Here all of the pieces fit together nicely in a wonderful kind of harmony. The people – we are a mix of ages and backgrounds and without exception my neighbors are friendly, respectful, considerate and supportive. Many I consider to be good personal friends. The houses -- there are a variety of styles, virtually all are one story and the very few with two levels have the second story sections sufficiently set back from the front to enable the street to have a light, open, peaceful and uncongested feel. No house really stands out, feels obtrusive or dominates the skyline.
When Susan and I found our house more than 13 years ago, I felt that it was the place where I wouldn’t want to leave unless carried out horizontally, feet first.
I love my home. I’ve lived here longer than I’ve lived in any other. It feels like my sanctuary, a peaceful and private place. Outside our back door we have a 200 square foot deck where I can spend time in solitude reading or have a few friends and family members over to share food and conversation. A little further back we have a small hot tub tucked away and screened off by shrubbery and a 6 foot fence between us and 925 next door. This is where I often like to soak my old bones, usually in my natural state.
Our house is one story, has 2 bedroom and ~1000 square feet. Like me, it was built in the mid1940s. It’s small but doesn't feel like it. Two-thirds of the house comprise an open kitchen and living room area where we spend virtually our inside waking hours. And the best features of this space are its windows. On the continuous external wall facing east directly at 925, there are six good-sized windows plus the entry door with glass panels at the top. No matter where I am in the living room or in the
18.248
4 kitchen, whether I am standing or sitting, I can see the sky. The light that comes in during the day enhances my mood every day.
At this point in my life my home really defines my existence. The planned two story structure next door will profoundly change things for me. Our privacy will be compromised; the quality of the light will change and most critical to me, I will lose being able to see the sky. It's hard to explain why this is so important but let me try.
When I go to the beach and look out at the ocean and the horizon, I find it always to be a very powerful experience. I am calmed and inspired at the same time. The sight puts everything into proper perspective.
It's the same with the sky. It's going to be very hard for me to lose that.
Finally, I want to say that while I’ve focused on what matters to me personally, I am in full and complete support of what my fellow neighbors collectively seek.
I stand with them.
Kenneth Hirano
921 Windsor St.
Virus-free.www.avast.com
18.249
Brittany Inclan
From: Julie Kimball <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 9:09 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Permit Appeal Hearing for Planned Dwelling at 925 Windsor St, SC To The Members of the Santa Cruz City Council,
I am writing in regards to the parcel
#011‐073‐13
City Planning case ,#CP 22‐0114
APN #011‐073‐13
The proposed building project is substantially too large to meet the large home design permit requirement for the Seabright neighborhood and for the city of Santa Cruz.
Please require the owner to scale down the size of the building and to respect the neighbors who live there and most importantly to take climate change into consideration.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, Julie Kimball
423 Darwin Street
Santa Cruz, 96062
18.250
18.251
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Matt Farrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2023 1:24 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Sandy Brown; [email protected]; Renee Golder; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins
Cc: Chris Melville
Subject: Communication Regarding Item 18. Appeal of Planning Commission of 925 Windsor Street Project Attachments: 925 Windsor Street Appeal City Council Comments 100082023.docx Mayor and City Council members,
Please consider the following issues outlined in our attached letter regarding errors and omissions in the staff report prepared for your consideration of this appeal. We wanted you to have time to review this material before Tuesday.
Thanks,
Matt Farrell for
Windsor Street Neighbors
831 331‐7496
18.252
October 8, 2023
To: City Council
Subject: 925 Windsor Street Appeal Comments
To give Council members time to consider our concerns, we wanted to present some important information regarding errors and omissions in the Planning City Council staff report, which was not available at the time of filing our appeal. Here is the list of items:
1. Incomplete Land Use Application (Page 18.3)
2. Comparison of Eastern Elevations of 925 and 929 Windsor Street (Page 18.8)
3. Inconsistent Floor Plans and Renderings (Pages 18.21, 18.23, 18.25, 18.26, 18.28, and
18.29)
1. Incomplete Land Use Application
The City Council staff report contends that, because this is a single-family residence application that “meets the site development standards in terms of setbacks, building heights and stories”, the applicant did not need to provide a site rendering which is listed as item 10 in the land use application. While the foregoing is true, the report very carefully excludes the obvious standard which it does not meet, which is provision (i) shown in the table below (Santa Cruz City Code Section 24.10.350): the proposed home is over 3,000 square feet. An accurate rendering is, in fact, required and the application is incomplete until the rendering is provided. Staff should be directed to require a rendering or photo simulation for this project, and as part of all future large home design permit applications.
18.253
2 2. Comparison of Eastern Elevations of 925 and 929 Windsor Street (Page 18.8) In paragraph 2, the report attempts to compare the proposed 60-foot eastern wall on 925 Windsor Street with the 56 foot eastern wall on 929 Windsor Street. This comparison is flawed, considering that only 25 feet of the 929 Windsor Street elevation is actually two stories. The report further claims that the proposed project has over “40% inset” and 929 Windsor has “no inset”. There are three flaws with this claim:
1. The proposed 40% inset is only 1 foot 10 inches, which is not deep enough to break up the wall.
2. The proposed inset is only on the second story (actually a step back rather than inset).
If this flawed standard is applied to the 929 Windsor eastern elevation, it has a 55% inset (since the first 31 feet is only one story).
3. The proposed wall mass is far more dominant since it is 28’-8” tall and 5’ from the neighboring property, whereas the eastern wall on 929 Windsor is much smaller (22’) and further (18’) from the neighboring property.
The following table summarizes these differences:
925 Windsor 929 Windsor The proposed project is...
Building Height 28'-8" 22'-0” 30% taller
Two Story Wall
Length
60' 25' 240% longer
Distance to
Property Line
5'
6'-10” (40% inset)
18' 360% closer
260% closer
18.254
3 3. Inconsistent Floor Plans and Renderings (Pages 18.21, 18.23, 18.25, 18.26,
18.28,18.29)
Floor plans and renderings included in the packet are old revisions and are inconsistent with Exhibits 9 and 11, which both correctly show the 2-foot projection on the south facing second floor as removed. It should be noted in the record that these are the relevant source documents.
Submitted for the Neighbors by
Matt Farrell Chris Melville
922 Windsor Street 929 Windsor Street
18.255
18.256
18.257
18.258
18.259
18.260
18.261
18.262
18.263
18.264
18.265
18.266
18.267
18.268
18.269
18.270
18.271
18.272
18.273
18.274
18.275
18.276
18.277
18.278
18.279
18.280
18.281
18.282
18.283
18.284
18.285
18.286
18.287
18.288
18.289
18.290
18.291
18.292
18.293
18.294
18.295
18.296
18.297
18.298
18.299
18.300
18.301
18.302
18.303
18.304
18.305
18.306
18.307
18.308
18.309
18.310
18.311
18.312
18.313
18.314
18.315
18.316
18.317
18.318
18.319
18.320
18.321
18.322
18.323
18.324
18.325
18.326
18.327
18.328
18.329
18.330
18.331
18.332
18.333
18.334
18.335
18.336
18.337
18.338
18.339
18.340
18.341
18.342
18.343
18.344
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Annie Rowland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2023 9:08 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Permit Appeal Hearing for Planned Dwelling at 925 Windsor Street, Santa Cruz Subject: Permit Appeal Hearing for Planned Dwelling at 925 Windsor Street, Santa Cruz Parcel #011-073-13
City Planning #CP 22-0114
APN #011-073-13
Hi, my name is Annmarie Rowland. I live at 951 Windsor Street, down the street from 925 Windsor St. The dwelling that has requested approval for a extra large home design with in a R1‐5 neighborhood.
My big worry is that this proposed construction design does not match or fit into the existing neighborhood. This is a R1‐ 5 neighborhood with most houses are single story homes just being around 1000sqft or more and just 2‐ 2story homes (on the 900 block of Windsor)those 2 story being around 2100sqft. The 2 stories are only around 500sq, and set WAY back from the front property line.The proposed home design has a 2 story over 1000sqft(2nd floor). If this home design is approved ( please review their design) you will be setting a precedent for R1‐5 neighborhood!!! This will allow more smaller more affordable homes to be torn down and replaced with huge homes over time. Upsetting the privacy and air sky space of the neighbors in this R1‐5 neighborhood. This current home design proposed would work fine in a much larger sqft lot area with larger setbacks, that would not effect the quality of life of their neighbors. A street like Ocean view. Those lots sizes and setbacks don't exist in this R1‐5 neighborhood.
The owners of 925 Windsor are asking for a large home approval to place a 3700sqftt home in an R1‐5. ( the max size for and R1‐5 is 3000sqft) There needs to be guidelines to help preserve the privacy and airspace of the neighbors. With these guidelines, these special R1‐5 neighborhoods can be preserved and still allow for homes in the future to grow but still keep privacy and airspace, for all neighbors. This home designs needs to go back for redesign, this way it can have larger upper story setbacks to have less impact on neighborhods but still allow for 5 (smaller) bedrooms for there 5 person family. Please note there is already a 2story ADU on this lot. Which doesn't leave much open space on this lot.
Meaning both neighborhoods on either side look into long solid walls from the front door to the back.
I know you have gotten many letters about this, and I don't want to waste your time but please think hard about this case, it will effect the R1‐5 neighborhoods in the future and set the stage for what is to come. What neighborhood do you want to live in? This effects the quality ( and affordability) of life for both homeowners and renters.
Thanks for reading my letter.
Annie Rowland
Homeowner, Small Business Owner in Santa Cruz for 20 years
18.345
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Chuck Hahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2023 10:24 AM
To: City Council
Subject: RE: Appeal of Large Home Design Permit at 925 Windsor Street To: Santa Cruz City Council Members
RE: Appeal of Large Home Design Permit
APN # 011‐070‐703‐13
Address: 925 Windsor Street
I live at 928 Windsor Street directly across from the proposed project and am writing in support of the appeal of the Large Home Design Permit for this project. As 24.08.450 Guidelines For Large Homes in Single‐Family Areas express in the purpose statement, the intent is to maintain existing neighborhood patterns to limit obtrusive visual impacts on nearby properties. This project fails on this front as it will dwarf the nearby properties and is out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. This would be the largest home on the block by a considerable amount, the second story alone is larger than many of the other dwellings on this street. This large second story contributes greatly to the scale of the project being out of balance with the rest of the neighborhood. The minimal insets of 22 inches on the east and west side of the project do not adequately break up the sense of long uninterrupted exterior walls. You would be able to get a sense of how out of scale this proposed dwelling will be if the owners had provided an accurate rendering that showed the proposed structure in relationship to the neighboring dwellings (as required by Santa Cruz City Code section 24.10.350).
When discussing this project with other residents on this street as well as throughout the neighboring side streets virtually everyone is concerned with the size and scale of this project and fear it forebodes future similar projects in the neighborhood. The applicant has stated the current home on this lot has many issues that are best addressed through a complete teardown and rebuild and I understand the desire to want to add square footage to accommodate their children and/or parents. Unfortunately, their current proposal is not consistent with the scale and style of the neighborhood and negatively impacts the skyscape of the neighboring properties.
It took a lot of time and effort by the City Council as well as City staff to draft 24.08.450 and it may be time for revision, but until any revision is enacted, the Council should abide by their current guidelines and uphold the appeal.
Charles Hahn
928 Windsor St
Santa Cruz
18.346
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Eric Rowland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2023 11:22 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Fw: 925 Windsor appeal
I am writing today to appeal the approval of the 925 Windsor Street transformation from a 900 sq ft bungalow to a 5 BR 3,700 sq ft McMansion. Planning rules say that a remodel should fit in size and scale with the neighborhood. There is already a big ADU in the back of the property. The proposed construction would create a monolith in the middle of our block of mostly 1,000 square foot bungalows. In the planning commission appeal, one commissioner claimed that size is subjective. There is nothing subjective about size – it’s a number, and 50% larger than the largest house on the block (which was remodeled.) If 50% bigger is the same “size and scale”, will the next house be approved at 5.500 sq ft? What is the point of planning rules if they are disregarded? Is 3,700 sq ft ‘sustainable building’? Regards,
Eric Rowland
951 Windsor Street
18.347
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Sue Hahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2023 3:15 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Permit Appeal Hearing for Planned Dwelling at 925 Windsor Street Santa Cruz Parcel # 011‐073‐13
City Planning #CP 22‐0114
APN#011‐073‐13
This letter is in regards to the large home design permit appeal at 925 Windsor Street.
This is the last time to voice our concerns as to the impact that the building will have on our neighborhood and the R1‐5 zone in which we reside. Before the application to build the home I didn’t know that we lived in this zone or what that meant. Through this process I now know how fortunate I am to live in this zone. Not only do I want to preserve the characteristics of our neighborhood but also preserve the characteristics of what a R1‐5 zone is. It is apparent that City of Santa Cruz staff and City Council members have spent considerable time and care to develop the existing “Guidelines for Large Homes in Single‐Family Areas” because it’s important. Please uphold the spirit of these guidelines.
I agree with all of the issues already identified on the form letters that you’ve received from neighbors of 925 Windsor but I’d like to focus on the Design Criteria #4 of the Guideline where it addresses “a high quality residential environment”. Please incorporate the use of a licensed architect or design professional on large scale homes that will impact a neighborhood so greatly. For future revisions, a professional architect or designer who has studied the subject for years and is expert should be required. A house of this scale will not go away in our lifetime ‐ put some money into the most important part of the project to ensure the continuity and character of our neighborhood.
I admire the fact that the applicants want to have their extended family live with them but the house they require is just too large for this neighborhood. There are many neighborhoods in the vicinity where a home of that size would be in complete character of the neighborhood.
I would like the city council members to know that I have canvassed our neighborhood extensively for support of our 4 appeals and out of the over 80 residents I spoke with, not one person was in favor of such a large home build in our neighborhood.
I have lived directly across the street from 925 Windsor for 20 years and I will lose the privacy in my front room and courtyard that has taken me years to create. But worse than that I will see everyday how that “large scale home” affects our neighbors on either side in terms of loss of privacy, loss of sunlight and loss of sky view. Please don’t let this happen.
Respectfully,
Susan Hahn
928 Windsor Street
18.348
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Mario Singleterry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2023 4:34 PM
To: City Council
This is concerning the proposed development at 925 Windsor Street (APN#011‐073‐13, CP# 22‐0114).
I live a few blocks away, at 303 Clinton Street, but still am very concerned about this project and other similar ventures that are shaping the future of this particular neighborhood as well as the rest of our community. Ultimately the issues here revolve around the obtrusive nature and excessive scale of this project. Obviously there is great concern about setting a precedent as well. I respectfully urge you to reconsider this project and uphold the appeal.
Thank you,
Mario Singleterry
18.349
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Mario Singleterry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2023 4:41 PM
To: City Council
I have just sent an email to you concerning an agenda item listed for your meeting of October 10, 2023. I did not include a subject heading and I would like to correct this omission.
The subject line should read as follows:
"Proposed Development at 925 Windsor"
Thank you,
Mario Singleterry
18.350
APPEAL of PLANNING COMMISSION
AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
APPROVAL OF
DEMOLITION AUTHORIZATION PERMIT
DESIGN PERMIT FOR LARGE HOME
925 Windsor Street
18.351
2 18.352
3 SITE PLAN
18.353
4 FLOOR PLANS
18.354
5 ELEVATIONS
18.355
6 18.356
7 • Photo Simulation not required; Survey submitted
• Further Design changes
• Planning Commission ad hoc committee to develop
objective development standards for R-1 zoning
Appeal Concerns
18.357
8 • Building siting is same general footprint, Front setback: 20 ft. 6 • Building height and stories - 2 story, not 2 ½ stories; 24ft 7in not 30 ft
• Architectural detailing with insets and projections to break up form, wall planes and address scale
• Design changes made to address privacy concerns
• While Predominantly single-story residential block - 2 properties introducing new two stories in 2005, 2006 reflecting similar change occurring in other neighborhoods
Findings for Recommendation
18.358
9 Deny the Appeal
Uphold Planning Commission and Zoning
Administrator Action
Approve Demolition Authorization Permit and
Design Permit for new 3,564 square foot
house
Recommendation
18.359
10 Questions
18.360
11 Potential Stepback
18.361
12 1. Purpose. The intent of the design permit findings for large-scale residential buildings is to protect existing neighborhood character and identity by development guidelines that promote a variable streetscape by requiring a variety of building massing and placements, and also by maintaining existing neighborhood patterns to limit obtrusive visual impacts on nearby properties.
2. Determination of Large Home. Single-family homes over four thousand square feet in R-1-10 zoning districts, three thousand five hundred square feet in R-1-7 zoning districts, and three thousand square feet in R-1-5 zoning districts are considered “large homes.” The square footage of the home shall be calculated based on the gross square footage of the main structure, including any attached and detached garages or other accessory structures, not including accessory dwelling units. For properties with detached garages in the rear one-half of the lot, a credit shall be given for the size of the garage up to four hundred twenty square feet, which shall not be counted toward the square footage of the home. Detached garage square footage over four hundred twenty square feet shall be included in the square footage of the home. The square footage of accessory dwelling units shall not be counted as part of the home.
3. Application Requirements. In addition to the standard requirements of the R-1 district, a survey of buildings within one hundred feet of the property on both sides of the street, which identifies front and side yard setbacks, building floor area, building heights, driveway widths, garage locations, and architectural style shall be submitted with the project application.
4. Design Criteria. There is no particular architectural “style” required for residential structures, but the focus should be on the development of a high quality residential environment. In general, the architecture should consider compatibility with surrounding character, including harmonious building style, form, size, color, material, and roofline. Individual dwelling units should be distinguishable from one another. Also projects should comply with design standards established in relevant specific area plans such as the Western Drive Master Plan, Seabright Area Plan and the Moore Creek Access and Management Plan and others that apply. • a. Facade and Roof Articulation. The articulation of facades and the massing of structures give them richness and scale. Long uninterrupted exterior walls shall be avoided on all structures. All structure walls shall have “relief” to create an interesting blend with landscaping, structures, and the casting of shadows.
The integration of varied texture, relief, and design accents on building walls can enhance the architecture.
For sloped roofs, both vertical and horizontal articulation is encouraged. Roof lines should be representative of the design and scale of the units under them. Roof articulation may be achieved by changes in plane of no less than two feet six inches and/or the use of traditional roof forms such as gables, hips, and dormers. Flat roofs and A-frame type roofs are discouraged unless appropriate to the architectural style. b. Varied Structure Design.
(1) Design of structures shall be varied in tract developments to create variety and interest. A significant difference in the massing and composition (not just finish materials) of each adjacent house should be accomplished. One design shall not be repeated more frequently than each fourth house. (2) New development in existing neighborhoods should incorporate distinctive architectural characteristics of surrounding development, for example: window and door detailing, decoration, materials, roof style and pitch, building height, finished-floor height, porches, bay windows, and the like. c. Scale.
(1) Form and scale should relate to the use of the structure as a single-family residence. Also, the scale of structures shall be at a human scale so as not to overwhelm or dominate their surroundings. New structures shall be consistent with the scale of structures on adjacent lots and generally be compatible with existing surrounding structures.
(2) New development should continue the functional site relationships of the surrounding neighborhoods. As an example, common patterns found in the surrounding neighborhoods should be repeated, such as single-story dwellings, entries facing the street, front porches and parking at the rear. d. Setbacks.
(1) New projects shall provide variable front setbacks, with a minimum of five-foot differentiation provided between adjacent lots.
(2) New single-family development in existing neighborhoods shall be integrated with the housing units in the adjacent area. Site setbacks of infill residential projects shall be either:
(a) Equal to the average setback of all residences on both sides of public streets within one hundred feet of the property lines of the new project; or
(b) Equal to the average of the two immediately adjacent residences.
In cases where averaging between two adjacent existing residences is chosen, the new residence may be averaged in a stepping pattern between the setbacks of adjacent residences, or the new residence’s entire frontage may be built on the average setback line.
24.08.450 Guidelines for Large Homes in Single-Family Areas
18.362
13 Item #1
Photo Rendering – project is
Single Family dwelling
Item #2 Required Setback
Appeal Concern – Council meeting
18.363
14 Appeal Concern – Stepback to 921 Windsor
18.364
15 922, 928, 932 Windsor
(south -across the street)
Appeal Concern – Stepback for properties South
18.365
16 Length of Building Reverse “L” Shape
Appeal Concern Stepback to 929 Windsor
18.366
17 Symmetrical Gables –West/East
18.367
18 Aerial – Symmetrical Gables
18.368
19 Original Submittal
1st floor 1856 sf; 2nd floor 1831 sf TOTAL 3,687
18.369
20 2nd Submittal ZA Hearing May 17th
First Floor 1856 sf Second Floor 1814 sf TOTAL 3,670 SF
18.370
21 Third Submittal ZA hearing June 7th (east elevation) First Floor 1833 sf Second Floor 1759 sf TOTAL 3,592 sf
18.371
22 Appeal Concern 1: Floor Plan – Impacts to
West, South
18.372
23 Appeal Concern 2: Long, uninterrupted
exterior walls
18.373
24 Appeal Concern 3, 4, 5 Varied Structure
Design,Form,Scale – Two Story design
18.374
25 Appeal Concern 3, 4, 5 Varied Structure
Design,Form,Scale – Two Story design
18.375
26 Appeal Concern 6: Setbacks and
Projections ( revision by applicant)
18.376
27 921 and 929 Windsor front setback – 20 ft
18.377
28 Front Setback – Average = 20 ft. 6 in.
18.378
29 18.379
925 WINDSOR ST PROJECT
Representing 87 neighbors
(many not shown on map)
• Matt Farrell (922 Windsor)
18.380
INTRODUCTION
• The Large Home Design Guidelines were developed through the hard work of city staff, the Planning Commission and City Council. They should be seriously considered as part of the design permit process. We respect and support these guidelines. • The project as it currently stands does not comply.
• Missing and inaccurate information (incomplete land use application) • Incompatible with neighborhood scale and form
• Uninterrupted long eastern wall
• This project will set a standard for the future of our neighborhood. It needs to be done right. "The intent is to protect existing neighborhood character and identity … by requiring a variety of building massing and placements … and limit obtrusive visual impacts on nearby properties."
18.381
MISSING INFORMATION
• Section 24.10.350 enumerates the standards here
• Provision (i) is not met, since the project is not 3000 square feet, and no design permit could have
existed at the time of application
• Item 10 of the land use application is specifically
designed to provide “context” for the project
Item 10 is ”… required for all projects with the
exception of single-family residential development…
that meets all of the site development standards for
the zone district…"
18.382
INACCURATE INFORMATION
• Item 10 of the land use application calls for an “accurate rendering” of the streetscape and site context • The comparison below was provided by applicant; it was included in prior staff reports and available to the public
”illustrate building height and mass in
relationship to both both structures on each side
… accurately reflect the location, height and
design of the structures"
18.383
INACCURATE INFORMATION
• When actual measurements are considered, it is clear how incorrect and misleading it is 28'-8" @ 39' from P/L
23'-11" @ 20'
21'-10" @ 52'
16'-2" @ 36'
18.384
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE
18.385
• Proposed design is not consistent with scale of structures on adjacent lots • Compared to 30 neighborhood homes, the largest existing home is only 2,400 square feet, and the average home size is only ~1,400 square feet
LACK OF NEIGHBORHOOD
COMPATIBILITY, HUMAN SCALE
24.08.450.4c: ”scale of structures
shall be at a human scale so as not
to overwhelm or dominate their
surroundings"
18.386
LACK OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY, HUMAN
SCALE
• Second story size*
• 1,737 square foot second story is 3
times bigger than any other second
story
• Existing 2-story homes are set back
from first story footprint to make
them human scale
* Compared to 30 nearby homes
18.387
LONG UNINTERRUPTED
EASTERN WALL
• The 1’-10” second floor inset barely dents the 60’ long eastern wall, which is only 5' from the property line
• Wall height and proximity to neighboring property throws shade on solar panels (up to 1hr per day) and patio and windows (up to 2 hours 45 minutes per day)
• The house is basically a box with continuous 21’ walls with a few design gestures
24.08.450.4a: ”Long uninterrupted
exterior walls shall avoided on all
structures"
18.388
Comparison of 925 and 929 Windsor Eastern Elevations
Element 925 Windsor 929 Windsor Difference
Building Height 28’-8” 21’-10” 30% Taller
Two Story Wall Length 60’ 25’ 240% Longer
Distance to Neighboring
Property Line
5’-0”
6’-10” (40% inset)
18’-0” 360% Closer
240% Closer
• Staff report claims these two walls are equivalent as justification of compatibility:
18.389
Support for Staff Report Alternative Plan Changes and
Requests for Increased Eastern Elevation Inset and Reduced Ceiling Height
● Include a 2’-0’ step back on southwest corner of second story for 19.5 feet on the southwest side of the second story.
● Include a 2’-0” second story step back on the southeast corner over the porch to bring the south wall of the “Family Room Vault” into alignment with “Primary Bedroom 3” ● Neighbors support the compromise front yard setback of 20’-6” which the applicant has accepted. ● Increase eastern elevation inset (step back) from 1’-10” to 3’-0”. ● The applicant has raised the elevation of the roof from 27’-8” to 28’-8”, increasing the ceiling height on the first floor from 8' to 9'. This change was not discussed in any staff report. This change will have substantial shading impacts on the neighboring homes.
18.390
IN CONCLUSION
• This is a standard setting project; it will affect the future of our neighborhood and deserves a complete application, including item 10. It should be included as part of this application and Planning staff should be directed to require item 10 as part of all large home design permit applications
• The following changes will reduce the project’s impact on the neighborhood:
• Increase step back at southwestern corner to 2’-0”
• Include a 2’-0” step back on the southeast corner at the ‘Family Room Vault’ • Increase the eastern elevation step back to 3’-0”
• Reduce the first floor ceiling height to the original dimension (8’-0”) • We also urge Council to support the adoption of Large Home Design Guidelines with specific second story setbacks and with specific second to first floor ratios
18.391
Cupertino Second Story Standards
18.392
City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 09/20/2023
AGENDA OF: 10/10/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: An Ordinance Requiring Delivery Companies to Provide a Service Enabling Customers to Tip Delivery Drivers (CN)
RECOMMENDATION: Introduce for publication an ordinance adding Chapter 5.11 to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code to require delivery companies to offer a tipping option to residential delivery customers.
BACKGROUND: Delivery drivers provide an essential service to our community. They deliver food, medicine and other packages in bad weather and busy traffic. However, there is no option for residents to economically reward these workers with a tip; this stands in stark contrast to other delivery drivers, such as those that deliver meals and passenger rides, where tipping is a standard customary practice.
DISCUSSION: In December, 2022, Amazon added a temporary feature to its website that enabled customers to tip their delivery drivers over the Holidays, and thereby demonstrating that technology enabling customers to tip delivery drivers is already in place and workable. This proposed ordinance would require delivery companies to provide residential customers the ability to tip their delivery drivers. Under the proposed ordinance, this option could be provided to customers when ordering the product at check out, through a hyperlink attachment in an SMS or e-mail notifying the customer the delivery was completed, or on printed materials (like a QR code) either affixed to the delivery box or within the package supplying instructions on how to leave a tip.
The requirement for delivery companies to provide the option to tip would not apply to delivery companies with six or fewer employees, delivery drivers who are independent contractors, delivery companies or drivers who are subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement that addresses tipping, the United States Postal Service, or to Business-to-Business delivery drivers.
The delivery drivers at UPS and DHL are unionized and are subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement. Currently, FedEx residential drivers are employees of logistics companies that contract with FedEx to deliver packages. Amazon has two tracks of delivery drivers, Amazon Flex and the Delivery Service Partner Program. Currently, Amazon Flex is not available in Santa Cruz. The Delivery Service Partner Program drivers, like FedEx, are employees of logistics companies. The companies then contract with Amazon to deliver packages. The proposed ordinance would apply jointly to delivery companies like Amazon and FedEx, and to logistics companies that contract with them.
19.1 The City currently does not have access to information or the resources to implement an enforcement program for this ordinance. Accordingly, it is anticipated that enforcement would entail providing delivery drivers with a legal basis or cause of action to seek damages and/or injunctive relief against companies that fail to adhere to the ordinance’s requirements, along with a provision enabling a successful plaintiff to recover their respective attorneys’ fees and costs.
Based on research by the City Attorney, it does not appear that such an ordinance would be preempted by state or federal law. As written, however, the proposed ordinance would not take effect until six months after its final adoption, during which time the City will conduct outreach to affected companies, and potentially bring back to Council any necessary revisions or refinements.
Health in All Policies (HiAP) – The proposed ordinance is consistent with the HiAP framework, particularly equity and sustainability.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Submitted By:
Martine Watkins
Councilmember
Submitted By:
Sonja Brunner
Councilmember
Submitted By:
Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Councilmember
ATTACHMENTS:
1. ORDINANCE.DOCX
19.2 ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ADDING CHAPTER 5.11 TO THE
SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING DELIVERY COMPANIES TO OFFER
TIPPING OPTION FOR DELIVERY CUSTOMERS
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz recognizes the significant contributions made by delivery drivers employed by companies such as FedEx and Amazon; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Cruz believes it is important to ensure fair compensation for these delivery drivers, who often provide exceptional service to the residents of our city; and WHEREAS, tipping is a common practice in many service industries and provides customers with an opportunity to show appreciation for outstanding service; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the City of Santa Cruz to encourage and promote fair compensation for delivery drivers while fostering a positive working relationship between customers and delivery companies;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 5.11 (Delivery Driver Tipping) is hereby added to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, and it shall read as follows:
“CHAPTER 5.11 – DELIVERY DRIVER TIPPING
5.11.010 – DEFINITIONS.
(a) "Delivery company" shall refer to any company engaged in the business of shipping and/or delivering goods or packages to customers at residential addresses within the City of Santa Cruz.
(b) "Delivery driver" shall refer to an individual employed by a delivery company for the purpose of delivering goods or packages to customers at residential addresses.
5.11.020 – TIPPING OPTION REQUIREMENT.
(a) All delivery companies, as defined in Section 5.11.010, operating within the City of Santa Cruz shall offer a tipping option to their customers, either through their website, mobile application, or other means of electronic communication. Companies engaged in the shipping or delivery of products or packages on their own behalf or on behalf of third parties from the point of origin to the final residential destination shall, jointly and
19.3 severally, be responsible for compliance with this Chapter including, but not limited to third-party contractors such as, for example, Amazon Delivery Service Partners. (b) The tipping option shall be prominently displayed and easily accessible to the customer:
a. During the checkout or order placement process;
b. Through a hyperlink in an SMS or e-mail notifying the customer of the completed delivery; or
c. On printed material affixed to the delivery box or within the package with instructions on how to leave a tip.
5.11.030 – EXCEPTIONS.
(a) This ordinance shall not apply to:
a. Delivery companies with six (6) or fewer employees;
b. Delivery drivers who are independent contractors;
c. Delivery companies or delivery drivers who are subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement;
d. The United States Postal Service; or
e. Business-to-Business deliveries.
5.11.040 – CIVIL ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Any aggrieved person may enforce the provisions of this chapter in a civil action filed in Santa Cruz Superior Court for injunctive relief and damages. (b) Any person who violates any provision of this chapter or who aids in such a violation is liable for each violation. Whoever is found to have violated this chapter shall be subject to appropriate injunctive relief and shall be liable for one hundred dollars ($100) per day per driver in damages, plus costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the Court. (c) Any person who commits, or proposes to commit, an act in violation of this chapter may be enjoined therefrom by any court of competent jurisdiction. An action for equitable relief under this subsection may be brought by any aggrieved person.” SECTION 5. Severability.
If any section or portion of this chapter is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such finding shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the chapter, which shall continue in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall be in force and take effect one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of its final adoption.
19.4 PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 10th day of October 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED: __________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this ___ day of ______, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED: _____________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above
and foregoing document is the
original of Ordinance No. 2023-XX
and that it has been published or
posted in accordance with the
Charter of the City of Santa Cruz.
___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
19.5 20.1
20.2 20.3
20.4 20.5