All right, welcome everyone. I'd like to call tonight's meeting of the city of Santa Cruz planning commission to order Task group roll call Commissioner Conway Dawson here Gordon here Maxwell McKelvie columnists Chair Kennedy here the other three commissioners are all absent with notice So I know we have one but I don't want to hear if there's any statements of disqualification for the agenda items tonight Disqualifying myself due to conflict of interest because we are employed by the seaside company Yeah, so we need for to pass an agenda item. So based on the excused absences and disqualification Any other statements disqualification? I need to sunshine an ex parte communication which occurred on Sunday 7 30 between myself and the main appellant of the application at 925 Windsor Street, which is the second item on our agenda During that communication by phone the appellant. Sorry the appellant wanted to discuss the contents of the appeal I explained that I couldn't speak about the appeal for ethical reasons. However, I did listen to the appellant for about 30 seconds well There's a brief summary of the appeal and I interpreted the content of that information given As basically identical to the information contained in the agenda report and that was the extent of the conversation So I'm not sure if that just qualifies me from voting on the second item, but that is Thank you for the Commission. Thank you. Okay there. Okay So then I should similarly disclose as very similar conversation with Matt Ferrell that I had I listened for a bit And didn't say anything we didn't discuss the matter But on second thought wish I had not listened and had just done that that would have been the best thing to do So I have a follow-up question. So since ex parte communications are not Supported by the bylaws. What is the process moving forward? Does that disqualify these commissioners from voting on it? It's an interesting legal question.  So I think you're okay the phone Right, I mean we I mean I know there were other communications with commissioners as well and they responded, you know, like hey I can't discuss this matter with you. So I Think I think we're fine on that. It wasn't a two-way communication Yeah, I just felt like I should see it out here in public. So everyone knew that that happened All right, any other? Yeah Mm-hmm, so Yeah, I don't know how long ago as it was a couple months ago that Appellant reached out to us to see if we could provide rendering services No, I didn't know that this was gonna be on the agenda But I referred him out to someone else. So knowing that It was possible. Yeah, so so you had no financial gain whatsoever Then that wouldn't disqualify you. Okay, I just This comes up a lot This is a very small town is part of the reason why but I just want to say again how important these rules are Because we can't be talking to developers the public anybody out of class. So that's why I felt kind of bad when I called back and Just want to say again, it's important that none of us do that Everyone good? Okay We will now open the agenda for oral communications This is a time for the public to come speak with us on anything not on tonight's agenda So any comments anyone I come talk about? Seeing none, I will close The oral communications and open the public hearing I started talking about this item one We will continue to a future meeting Because we could not possibly have four votes. We would only have three even if the remaining three that's right So with the first item on the agenda involving 400 Beach Street That will need to get moved into to the next meeting Which will be on the 17th of August if possible we might have like noticing Yeah, I I was just looking at the at your bylaws here, and I didn't see anything that would require Noticing you know for that particular item you're adjourned for the bylaws so that would just automatically kick The item to the next meeting the way I read it There are folks here that if they want to persist anticipate that they will have notice via this announcement And then we can also Put some information on the website as well just to kind of go above and beyond and the noticing That that works for me as soon as possible, and I'm sorry for the people who came for that item To postpone it so late Good. So with that done, I'd like to open the public hearing for agenda item to 925 Windsor Street and Eric do you want to just remind all the commissioners the order here we had to talk about it, but I'll make sure That's right. So this is a little different than a normal Project that that comes before you in that it is an appeal. So the order is a little bit different according to the City Council guidelines for hearings what'll happen is the staff will first give a Presentation on the matter and then you'll first hear from the appellant and the guideline is 20 minutes That'll be followed by the applicant will have 20 minutes and then the Appellant is afforded up to five minutes to rebut any comments. I should step back after the Applicant speaks you'll open it to the public then the appellant gets a rebuttal for up to five minutes And then you close the public hearing and render decision Got it. All right, those time limits sound good to me. Did anyone request additional time or want longer to speak? No, we didn't receive any. Okay, great Nancy can we have the staff report, please? Thank you staff planner Nancy Concepcion So this application that's being reviewed tonight is an appeal of the zoning administrators approval of a demolition authorization permit and a design permit for a large home and So I'm going to go over just the project details first and then secondly this review At the zoning administrator hearing that actions ever taken concerns that were raised and addressed and then lastly this staff's basis for upholding the zoning administrators approval of these two permits So in terms of the project the project is located Essentially in the east side of the sea bright residential area as you can see in the slide It's in the center of this slide. I mean it is between Darwin and Frederick Street The property is zone r15 or single-family residential 5,000 square feet is the minimum lot area, but I should note for this particular block the lots are fairly large It's why the minimum is 5,000 square feet the subject site as well as the lots that are in this block are at least 7500 square feet in terms of a closer view towards again the center of the property is The subject site 925 Windsor Street Currently there is 940 square foot single-family dwelling Behind that is 880 square foot it used to be a car for but it's now a shed and the very back of the property is 800 square foot two-story accessory dwelling unit So the project involves the demolition of the one-story 940 square foot house as well as the detached shed that's behind it So this is in the sea bright area and while some of the large home design findings Indicate and speak to the development on the immediate block. It actually the standards also address the neighborhood That's also been addressed in the appeal letter And so the zoning ordinance in terms of what defines the neighborhood actually is an area within a half-mile radius But as noted for this particular block That we're reviewing it is predominantly single-story. However, there are a couple of two-story dwellings on this site and so just want to start off with Again for this immediate block As you can see at the bottom of the slide, there's an orange umbrella. That's one of the two-story homes and Then and this is a view of the property from the north Across the street is where the other's two-story home is and also Adjacent to the subject site to the left. I guess it's way to put it is the other two-story home Both of these two Properties that have two-story additions have been developed at the back of the existing single-story dwellings Back in 2005 But in terms of regulations there was no requirement for a step back or a distance from the front property line Additionally, there was no requirement for a floor area ratio It's just the way that those two properties were developed in this predominantly single-story neighborhood So in terms of the project that had been reviewed by the zoning administrator There's two permits that are requested one is demolition authorization permit and with that type of permit We need to ensure that the structure is not historic which we did review and it is not historic We need to see what the replacement project is and also provide if there's any displaced tenants that they receive relocation assistance on the second permit as you'd see here in the R1 five-zone district You have a maximum building area that is 3,000 if you exceed that that is when you require design permits Some people have this misconception that because the proposed single-family dwelling Exceeds 3,000 square feet that is a variance or an exception But that's not the case in this zone district is when this ordinance was created in 1992 That was just the general threshold for R1 five they found for a 5,000 square foot lot of 3,000 square foot home Would be appropriate when you go beyond that we need to look at it same thing for the R1 seven If you had a 7,000 square foot lot a 3,500 square foot home would be considered appropriate You go beyond that need to look at it R1 10 10,000 square foot lot 4,000 square feet so So again, this is not the case in this own district It's really again if you go beyond 3,000 square foot.  So anyway That the project that is before you is over 3,000 square feet and that's essentially why it's at a public hearing review so with that It's gonna start off with a site plan So as you could see where Windsor Street is The site plan has shown the buildings that will be demolished. They're the kind of golden-raw colored structures The proposed dwelling that will replace it is essentially where the additional light green area is And in terms of perspective the two-story is to the right or to the east There's a one story that is to the west So again, the dwelling units is pretty much in the same footprint as the existing two buildings that will be demolished and Then in terms of its placement the proposed single-family dwelling dwelling will continue to be in the same Alignment it will be have a 20 foot front yard setback The district requires 20 feet and the project proposed will also continue to be 20 feet So in terms of the proposed house, it's gonna be a two-story The main living areas. So on the left is the first floor the main living areas Are on the first floor with the living room towards the street Towards the center is the dining room and kitchen area and towards the back is a bedroom And on the second floor there will be four additional bedrooms so in terms of elevations the project is Does allow for the zone district a two-and-a-half story? 30 foot high building the proposal is two stories It's not two-and-a-half and it's 24 7 at the midpoint 28 feet at the ridge or at the top of the building You can see here in terms of architectural detailing. There's horizontal Siding on the first floor vertical siding on second. There's a wood belly band to kind of define the two stories The doors and windows are wood trimmed and the design also employs Towards the upper right is the front of the of the building facing Windsor ahead that has employed some projections and insets and Overall some different gables to help break up the general mass So as noted this project first came in and had to go to a public hearing When staff first reviewed it and that's the upper with the initial submittal staff did find the proposal fairly Blocky there was minimal articulation and indicated that to the applicants They came back on and you can see the second area of revised plans And staff found that this helped break up the mass provided some nice architectural detailing and then took it to public hearing so at the public hearing The zoning ministry straighter found that most of the findings for a design permit for a large home could be met At the public hearing though there was concerns regarding the east elevation So as you can see on this the second area that essentially it is a long continuous wall Staff had again trying to take an account the fact of the building code the loud setbacks of five feet and the fact that this Object actually it has not really shown that clearly, but they had the you know different kind of citing types and a belly band that we did not require staff did not require it to be changed the zoning administrator her from the community the neighborhood and Continue the item to address that wall as well as the privacy impacts that were brought up at the hearing So as you see on the thirds after the zoning administrator continued it the applicants then came back with the design that now for that Wall which is about 60 feet about a third of it was inset They also reduced several of the windows and So with that the zoning administrator then approved the project The last part with a revision with a projection comment. I'm going to go into more detail with that in in just a minute, but so in terms of The project this was approved by the zoning administrator, and then it was appealed and So briefly I'm going to go over the concerns that were raised and how the zoning administrator in their review found that Those concerns had been addressed So the first one want to go over which they indicate was the scale The private impacts to the property on the west The step back for the south and east to address the mass and the visual impact so The one story is to the west of the project site When staff review this so again the footprint of the new proposed dwelling is essentially the same location where the existing house in the detached shed are That there's a 10-foot driveway that is going to be retained As you can see the property to the west they also have a driveway which is about 10 feet in west So there's about a 20-foot separation between proposed house and Then the existing one-story house to the west So with that and also with the indentation in front of the shed that also is being retained in the proposal so with that staff found that that separation about 20 feet was a Means to address privacy impacts in addition if you look at the floor plan The floor plan again the the main living areas towards the street The wall or the improvements that will be a adjacent to the west elevation counts, you know is basically a laundry room a stairway a Pantry and then at the inset. It's a bathroom So by design and by use staff found that in terms of privacy impacts or how to address a single-story building That was done with in design same thing with the second floor the second level The front bedroom is towards the street, but the rest of the improvements include a bathroom a stairway and another bathroom in terms of proximity to again the property to the west in In terms of the concern regarding Mass and visual impacts for the property to the south that is actually the front setback or towards Windsor Street It's fairly standard to along the front or along the street that that's pretty much a public view so how to address Privacy impacts the street when pretty much that is what that focuses on as the public gift or public view Felt you know with the design They do have a projection, but it's very similar to other development along the street in terms of Again, there is a request to do a step back There is no required step back in either the design findings or in the R1 zone district So and additionally there's not a floor area requirements. So staff in the review Indicated that to the zoning administrator and thus the design as shown was approved a Concern was brought up about that was discussed at the public hearing with the zoning administrator regarding the east and The long uninterrupted exterior walls staff found that with this inset It did break up the walls the reduction of the windows that would have been reduced also addressed some of the privacy concerns The two windows that are shown here could not be reduced because they are Bedroom windows and they had to address the building code which is you know for emergency escape and rescue windows There's a minimum size. So those were not changed So regarding the privacy impacts as I noted that the side yard setback is five feet it's pretty standard and Because we are in an urbanized area having a balance between the building code and Privacy impacts in an urban area. You're gonna have especially along side yard where each Property is allowed to be five feet away from the property line. There's gonna be some concerns and impacts. So The code tries to address that we found that the applicant with its inset usually the first floor Pretty much everyone builds a fence. So the privacy impacts on the first floor is pretty much addressed The second floor with the set in and the reduction of windows Staff found as well as the zoning administrative that that issue have been adequately addressed The other concern that was raised in the appeal was the varied structure design the form scale and the fact that there's a two-story design So what this slide shows is the proposal on the left? adjacent to the other two-story the one of the two two stories on this block and The perspective in terms of height So again the project building height is 24 7 the adjacent site to the right or to the east is actually 25 feet as You can see it's a fairly compatible scale The project has employed varying gables and porches similar to the adjacent property and in terms of having Changed the streetscape we found that the design Addressed it and it created a compatible two-story again, not it's not a two-and-a-half story scale and then the other concern that had been brought up dealt with setbacks and projections So one of the things this is showing the project as it was approved and on the second level Above the porch is a projection which the appellant said, you know can't be approved The staff in practice has approved bay windows bay rooms Because the main Issue and not issue but desire with projections as to how that varied Look, you know, not cookie-cuttle like break up the wall But in terms of the definition of a projection It can only be a third of the wall in which it's located So with the design in which they did vary the wall where they created an inset technically that Area above the project or the porch is not a projection so that concern Did indicate to the zoning administrator and to the applicant the zoning administrator did approve it Just based on the intent and the purpose of projections and so was approved as such. However with that Even though it was not required the applicants did revise it and so as shown on that progression this is the Force the middle or the new submittal Where they've removed the applicants to remove the projection So both bays on the second floor do meet the 20-foot setback. They're not considered projections It also did reduce some of the square footage So the project then ended up being 3564 square feet so again, this was not something that staff or the zoning administrator required but the applicants in terms of You look at the clear definition of projection Decided to do so So to be totally clear that the porch doesn't count in that The porch can project and it does from the wall on the first floor Because you look at the entire wall and it's long as it's no greater than a third than it's fine The second floor because we did make them kind of vary and they ended up with insetting a portion of that wall technically that wall or that upper area, but the porch is not Projecting the porch itself. It's okay that it's the first word porch is correct. Yes so in terms of The review the zoning administrator did find that based on the building siding in the layout It is the same general footprint and in terms of maintaining the setbacks the project employed that The building hyphen stories is compatible. The proposal again is for two stories It's a predominantly on on this block single story and so a two-story was appropriate It's not two and a half stories and it's definitely, you know, it's five feet less than what the district could allow The building setbacks to have been met or exceeded As you saw in the design progression it has definitely evolved to a Project that had really good architectural detailing in terms of breaking up the mass The materials the incest projections in total helped address what in terms of the neighborhood And trying to do the transition for a predominantly single story to a two-story streetscape The proposed floor floor plans noted we find that it minimized privacy impacts again It's a it's a should but not a shall but we found that they were very sensitive in terms of trying to address that The site didn't retain the palm trees that are existing They also have proposed additional landscaping towards the front to again create that transition with the scale Predominantly single-story neighborhood to a two-story And so the end result again is a project for a 3564 square foot home on a 7,500 square foot lot The Zonio administrator found that all these revisions address the concerns and So with that approved the project tonight We are recommending that you uphold the zoning administrators approval deny the appeal and approve the demolition authorization permit and the design permit for the new 3564 square foot home There's only one in terms and subject to the conditions approval There's only one other thing that staff would want to clarify. There's been some new state Regulations that pertain to relocation assistance. So there is a condition in the packet Condition 20 we just wanted to add the additional language regarding relocation assistance and That's shown in the slide in red. So that would be in addition to condition 20 So with that, that's the end of my staff report. I'm available for any questions Yeah, I just had a couple questions first. I just like to publicly thank miss conception and mr. Mallette for Feeling my barrage of questions prior to tonight. So I really appreciate you taking the time Just had a couple clarifying things before we moving in the next section of the meeting So there's a 2008 seabright area plan. So how does that affect this project or is it not? Applied to this project. How does that fit into this? So the seabright area plan this is not within that area it's outside of that area So this is my you know, it's considered in the seabright neighborhood, but it is not part of that Area plan that is being modified from the original 1990 Yeah, yeah, okay, great so I think it's very clear that before the objective standards that Exists that this project is compliant when I'm still unclear about You did say that it should rather than shall but I just want to be very clear that The non objective Standards are on the table for consideration for a project like this is that correct because we've kind of been drilled the other way and I just want to make it clear that the non objective standards are on the table for consideration for a project like this That's correct. Okay, great moving right along So it's been and I'm sorry to put you guys on the spot because I know that you don't review all the city policies all The time so if you don't know what's fine. I didn't have a chance to look but I'm curious if the health in all policies policy Takes into consideration Like the city's climate's golds or our emission goals Or is there any part of health in all policies that address is sort of the climate crisis? And and how we should be thinking about that when we make decisions for the city Yeah, it's pretty it's pretty general much like the fine is you're gonna need to make on the design Permit, but that said Any projects gonna need to comply with our green building ordinance which sort of gets at some of those Issues that you've raised. So I think it you know, it's very minimum minimally applicable But that's where I would make the connection. Okay, right. Yeah Well, we we also know that no matter how green something is the bigger it is It has a bigger carbon footprint than something smaller even if it's the highest level of green building Did Yeah, I think that's it. Okay. Thanks We're materials and color palette actually provided I didn't see anything in the packet although the design guidelines for this type of permit Mention that as being a consideration, but was that actually presented by the client beyond these basic renderings It was not it was our request usually we don't for a single family dwelling, but we can if there's if it's like unique materials Thank you. Also, I want to say I really appreciate the effort that you put into Helping the applicant make this a much better design than what it was first submitted. So Thank you for the staff report and also for answering my my questions And thank you for setting me straight on the design changes. I missed that one. So thank you Yeah, good report. I have just three quick questions The half mile radius that's like just around And it seemed to me like this lot was like on the edge of the R15 zoning. Is that right? I was like squinting at the zoning map right before this meeting It does a but a multiple residential zone district. So there's pockets if you look at the zoning map there's pockets of This is purely a little pocket in the middle of the multi residential areas I think I might have Saying to the neighbors next door like it could be worse because it could have been bigger It doesn't help but if it was on the other side and the other zoning would could have been a bigger home Yeah, the zoning requirements for the RL the multiple residential zone district are quite different We had a few over there that were pretty big. Okay. It doesn't help this project setbacks or less the height is greater Okay One of the neighbor letters or one of the letters like there's this thing about like setting a precedent And I was scratching my head because it's not a variance. So this would just be building to the existing Regulations as defined would it in your opinion like set a precedent for future? Correct So in terms of the review in terms of the standards those have all been met, you know the one Area where it could be because it's not clear even though we have had policy interpretations between they windows and they rooms that could be a special variation if someone has to say because a projection is generally a projection from a wall and So by having it completely project even though that was an original wall We can understand and that in part Reading that Even though the zone administrator knew that and we've done that in policy You know if you want to stick it does it actually project from a wall It did not so okay but again, you know looking at the purpose of projection to kind of create that variation and and design That was also kind of but we look at as staff to okay There's always gonna be a little gray in there because there's a word for non-objective standards and it's subjective standards so there's gonna be a subjective point where The neighborhoods ruined and I might feel differently about that than these other people but The only precedent would set would be a subjective kind of thing. It sounds like yeah Under the objective parts of the standards sort of Going off what commissioner Dawson raised. This is a an extremely Challenging ordinance to administer these design guidelines speak to There are some standards that speak to the immediate block, you know the setback issue with on either side and averaging that It makes use of the term Surroundings which isn't defined and it also uses the term neighborhood And there's actually a neighborhood definition in the zoning ordinance and that's a half mile radius from the subject parcel So while there's you know, very few two-story houses, you know on this particular block if you zoom out a half mile There's a lot of variety there. So We've got very subjective standards and we've got different terms and so I think the zoning Administrator tried to balance everything when she made her decision Yeah, I've got a comment later on the ordinance itself because we've run into it a couple times Last question again doesn't like I'm not saying the neighbor as well. It could be worse But with this law would be eligible for an SB 9 lot split in theory, right? So in theory could be a six-plex with two junior 80 years for Two two unit lots to two you know lots Okay, those are my questions so now we'll hear from the The appellant for 20 minutes, I Finally said that word smoothly after 10 years up here appellant Mr. Marlett in the meantime So disqualification Radius for reviewing a project is would you remind me what it is? Okay, I just wonder because the half mile gave me pause Because I think I'm in that Okay. Yeah. No, it's it's not that far. It's it's a 500 foot Distance and we we did look at the maps this morning. I know there's another commissioner that lives a little closer to But you're out of that We we looked at it Are we ready? We're ready. All right at the timer for 20 minutes Fantastic Thanks, my name is Chris Melville. I live at 929 Windsor Street This is Matt Farrell. He lives at 922 Windsor Street And we have the honor of summarizing the neighborhood input from all the people that you see represented on that map on our slide and there's many of them We'll share the the slides So next slide, please We are not opposed to a large house We're here tonight because of this design Any large house needs to be done well and it needs to be done to the same level of care and Thought that went into the original large home design guidelines They were carefully crafted to make them meaningful and actionable and we think they deserve to be followed In the red box on the slide you see a paraphrase from the very first sentence of the large home design guidelines It's followed by several well-written design criteria that are central to our appeal Unfortunately the project as it currently stands does not meet these guidelines There is significant missing and inaccurate information in the report Most significantly the project's mass and design is incompatible with the human scale character and Identity of the existing homes in the neighborhood Including a 62 foot eastern wall that's still even with the latest plan changes looks and feels overwhelming This project will be here for a long time and it will set a standard that matters to us as neighbors The U is the commission and to the community as a whole We urge you to continue this project For further design work so we can create something that everyone can take pride in So section 10 of the land use application calls for an accurate Rendering of the streetscape and site context This was not provided with the application We believe one is warranted because this is a discretionary design permit and that information was and still is crucial To performing a proper evaluation What was provided is shown here this diagram lends a false sense of compatibility to their design As shown in red It rises straight up almost 24 feet right at the 20 foot setback line With the high point a little further back But when you compare it to the actual dimensions of the house next door shown in blue It's obvious if this design does not comport with reality Existing house is in fact less than 22 feet tall When viewed in perspective from the street It is so much further back that even the high point is barely above the first story high point Also, according to the staff report the house on the right, which is 929 Windsor Is the tallest of all of the neighborhood dwellings they evaluated? They identified it and Nancy just did is 25 feet tall. Well, it is in fact less than 22 feet tall This is significant because the faulty measurements in the misleading diagrams appear no less than three times in There in these inaccurate comparisons on page 10 and they were used as the grounds for their recommendation to approve the permit What we think is called for is what the application very sensibly requires Which is an accurate rendering of the building height and mass in relationship to both structures on either side of the applicant's property Now while this issue alone should be sufficient to send the proposal back to the drawing board It's not even the crux of our appeal Which is next slide? scale The next part of our presentation speaks directly to the large home design guidelines intense statement that I shared on slide one Namely the size and scale of the project in front of you just doesn't fit the scale of anything else nearby It's not even close. I know it's hard to imagine But the proposed building rises so abruptly in front It would actually throw shade on those south-facing solar panels that you see in the photo an hour a day Seven months of the year Now I understand some of you may have driven the neighborhood and I appreciate you seeing it firsthand Because this view is just one of many that reflect the human scale Could you show the next slide, please? Now this rendering was done using the previous panoramic photograph We have included one park vehicle on the street to give a sense of the scale But between the dwellings Presentation this image demonstrates the difference between the new proposed home and surrounding residences We have our done our best to maintain scale and perspective in this image and Want to remind the Commission that the design guidelines require that an applicant Provide this information Was not included in the Proposed new design clearly dominates the neighboring structure on the west And does not step back at the second story Stated in the slide the sought the scale and size of the proposed home our out of character with the neighborhood and It is almost 50% larger than the current Large home of 30 homes that were surveyed in our preparation for this meeting Here we want to talk about second-story size this Proposal has a 7,000 1,737 square foot second story It's three times bigger than any other second story in this survey of 30 near biomes and Existing second-story homes are set back from First-story footprint at at the second story to make them more human scale shown here is a photo of 216 218 when a 916 918 Windsor Street, which is Across from the proposed Go to the next slide, please Um Finally the design lines the design guidelines talk about long uninterrupted exterior walls shall Be avoided in all structures the 110 the one foot ten inch second floor inset Barely dense the 62 foot long eastern wall Which is only five feet from the property line The right and in the application or in the staff report the rise to elevation is shown from a bird's eye perspective Not ground level and it exaggerates the physical impact and relief of the second floor inset It should be resubmitted with the proper perspective as part of a redesign in conclusion We want to thank the Commission. I'm sorry next slide In conclusion next slide in conclusion, we want to thank the Commission for its time and attention and We want to state that approval of the project as proposed We'll invite further replacement of smaller homes with visually obstructive dominating structures and We make this statement because It's a design permit. There are standards that and be used to Talk about scale of a second story I haven't heard anything that says that's without outside the purview of the planning commission and it will In our opinion erode the meaning and value of these large home design guidelines the application needs to include a true impact for the Representation of the impact it will have on adjacent homes Needs to provide appropriate Setbacks in scale for the proposed second story and it needs to use the corrected setbacks of adjacent and neighboring properties specifically 918 Windsor Street, which Is identified in the drawing still as an 18 foot setback, but it's actually a 20 foot setback and 922 Windsor Street Which is a 22 foot setback instead of a 20 foot setback and we have measured that and provided survey information to planning staff and information From the app from the building drawings for the property that support This 22 foot setback So these corrections would result in a required setback of 21 feet not 20 feet Finally the proposed home should provide increased relief to break up the long interrupted east wall Including step backs and articulation We thank you for your time and are available for questions Thank you, we'll wait till the applicant has had a chance to respond So applicant has your chance to come up. You have up to 20 minutes to state your case. Hi. I'm Hart Walsh Justin Walsh We live at 925 Windsor Street I'm going to start by saying thank you to Nancy for the thorough staff report I also want to thank all of you for taking the time to listen to this case based on what I've heard tonight But also from the many letters and also the form letters that were submitted in opposition to our project I believe this is a case of significance for property owners in Santa Cruz What I just heard had to do with specifics of the design and I didn't know what they were going to say So I'm not going to adjust that but I have some other things that I would like to say related to The letters and also the original appeal So many of the sentiments that we've Heard Oppose our plans because the house is too big for their liking I understand that they just said that they're not opposing it because it's too big, but I Did not get that impression Appellants have claimed that it is larger than the allowable size, which is simply untrue They have also claimed that the home is bigger than we need You may agree with this But we believe that we while following the city code Should be able to design a home that takes our needs and wants into consideration Overall, it seems the biggest argument is against growth in general None of that appellants live in an HOA community as far as I know Yet they want to be the ones to decide what looks good what fits in and what can be built I believe that the city could write codes that are more objective in their wording However, we are working with and have followed all the current codes Have not asked for variances or special exceptions and have been approved by the planning department and the zoning administrator This process of trying to get our plans approved has changed our lives I'm a private person who respects the privacy of others and this process has left me feeling extremely vulnerable The opposition has riled up neighbors with countless lies about us starting the moment our sign was posted They've spent the summer spreading these lies canvassing the neighborhood hosting gatherings across the street and Posting inflammatory statements on next door about us The fact that the Ferris wheel had a quarter of the pages in the agenda packet than our project Tells you something about the determination of the politically active neighbors on our block Also, the fact that they reached out to you all to talk to you ahead of time Like I said, I'm a private person the fact that my personal business and lies about me are posted online is upsetting The fact that every detail of my hopefully soon to be constructed home including interior details Our online feels like a violation. However, you have heard the stories of neighbors who say they just want to be able to see the sky So I want to take a few minutes to tell you a little bit about us So you hopefully understand our perspective where we are coming from and what my truth is So I moved to Santa Cruz when I was a teenager Justin was born and raised here. We both attended Brant's 40 middle school in Harbor High Both of us obviously separately Grew up in lower-income homes with single parents We grow up as struggling renters always at the whim of landlords Market forces and our own parents abilities or inabilities to pay rent utilities and so on Since graduating high school We have lived in and out of Santa Cruz because this place has always had such a feeling of comfort and home Even though there was so much instability in our childhoods We got married and bought our house on Windsor Street in 2000 to us. It was a dream come true However, we always knew it was too small to be a forever home Our kids were born at Dominican. Our life was established here But off and on we lived over the hill and a couple of years abroad for work During that time we kept our house and we lived in rentals So we could always have the Santa Cruz house to come home to we longed for the day when we could make our own decisions About our living situation We live frugally and we saved up over all of those years Fast forward to 2020 we decided that we wanted to make this our permanent home We started plans for an addition since we are a family of five And our house is approximately 940 square feet two bedrooms one bathroom We soon found out that we could not add on because the foundation for our current home is damaged or non-existent The foundation is so bad in fact that we are having issues closing doors and windows and the whole house shakes when we do laundry Last winter we thought we had a plumbing leak But when we opened up the wall we found that water had been seeping up into the wall from below and mold had been growing The foundation inspection company told us we have only a few more years left with the house being livable We have other issues as well due to poor materials and building methods when the house was remodeled just before we bought it These issues led to our decision to tear down and build new We spoke with all of our immediate neighbors except for Chris and Dory During the early phases of our plans for the past two years our neighbors have known that we planned on building two stories We understand that there are only two two-story homes on our particular block. However, there are many more in the neighborhood There is no one character or style that we or the planners have been able to identify I put together a small packet with photos taken of just some of the two-story homes On a that we took on a recent walk through the Seabright Central neighborhood and there's a map on there that shows I Took these photos From the sidewalk right in front of the houses not across the street from the houses Just so you know, so they'll look tall because I was closer up Um Okay, so those pictures will show you the variety of home shapes and sizes and also the normalcy of A two-story home beside a one-story home The two two-story homes on our block were built as additions as you already heard The most practical and also least expensive way to enlarge an existing home It is also what we had originally planned on doing before we found out that our house was not to be saved um Their design was one of convenience and cost not aesthetics or functionality Since we found out that our best option was to tear down. We had the opportunity to design something that we would love Honestly, we had no idea that our plans would cause such an uproar nor that it would impact any remote neighbors in any way I still don't understand how it impacts people who don't live right near us Besides the fact that allowing our home to be built Could start a domino effect of larger homes. This probably will happen, but most likely over a long period of time We want to create a home that is comfortable for our whole family Even though a couple of our kids are in college and the third will be close to leaving before we are able to get started with This project we know how hard it is for young people to make a start these days and our kids feel the same connection to Santa Cruz That we do they have asked for space in the new home We also have aging parents three of whom did not prepare well for their retirement Some live nearby some do not We are the only responsible and able children who can offer assistance to them We do not want to live in a compound But since we are building we would like to make sure we have space for those who may rely on us I'm telling you all of this because I think it makes sense for you to understand Where we are coming from emotionally and needs wise We want to build a family home. We are owner builders and Plan to do all the work. We are legally allowed to do on our own We are not millionaires. We do not own any other homes. We're not strangers to this neighborhood We're not developers. We have gone through many iterations of our house plans Including plans that were under 3,000 square feet However, based on our needs and the cost benefits involved We settled on a larger home This perhaps was our biggest mistake because it set off a flurry of concerns We did talk with neighbors a little but we quickly realized that there was no way to please everyone Our immediate neighbors Dory and Chris were concerned that we could see into their yard Even though they already have a two-story house that looks into our yard Our other immediate neighbors are Sue and Ken Sue was concerned about privacy And we tried to take that into account by only putting one bedroom with windows on that side of the house in the least intrusive position Ken wanted to be able to see the sky and does not support a two-story home of any type Which does not seem reasonable to us Our neighbors across the street Chuck and Sue want privacy Which we believe is taken care of by their privacy fence our plans for vegetation in the front yard and the distance between our houses Matt and Connie's biggest concern was the size They wanted us to keep it under 3,000 square feet since they thought that should be the maximum allowable size Our current plan allows for more privacy for ourselves and our neighbors than the smaller home We have also designed which as Nancy mentioned would require no public review Also, we have not asked for any variances or special exceptions At our first zoning administration meeting the neighborhood stood up together against us Many lies were told during that meeting and the neighbors who know us and who we had positive relationships with all these years Went along with and even led what felt like a mob That was a traumatic experience for me and one that taught me about their true nature and intentions Because of that, we have not been communicating directly with any of these neighbors Since then at the second meeting and in their appeal the neighbors have changed their concerns Shifting focus to drainage setbacks wall articulation, etc We've been working closely with Nancy in the planning department. Thank you Nancy Every time we've made a change they come up with another detail to focus on It is obvious to us that they're simply trying to slow us down Perhaps wear us down and also to make us feel hated. We are already far behind on our hoped-for schedule We will have to endure another winter in our current house and these relationships have been destroyed In addition, I think it's helpful for you to know that one neighbor down the street bragged to me that the neighborhood Had banded together to stop development on this street before At least two people on our street own the houses next to them Their way of controlling development Chris and Dory offered to buy our house at an off-market price I'd like to add to perpetuate this model I am also well aware that even if you approve our plans this group of neighbors will probably appeal to the city council Their goal is to control development. They don't want this in their backyard We feel so fortunate to be in a position where we have the opportunity to provide a stable home for ourselves and our family We're also at a point in life where we would like the power to make decisions for ourselves Since we are following the zoning codes and laws of Santa Cruz We're not asking for any variances or special exceptions and we have already made numerous changes and accommodations to our plans I hope you will see that our project is our right on our property. Thank you Thank you. All right, so the next step is to open the public hearing. I I'm gonna grant two minutes for each person to speak as a maximum Before we open public hearing. I'd like to set the table for that. I had three quick points for the public and everyone here And those were to be neighborly you could hear the pain in people's voices on both sides just continue to be neighborly, please Look for compromise. I want to set up here and Greek Orthodox priest versus a co-housing project We're at each other's throats like you wouldn't believe if there was a god like a lightning bolt probably would have come into that room So if those folks can work it out, you all can work it out So let's look for compromising consensus and then third. Let's finish this tonight and not have an appeal to council Okay, go ahead public comment is open Anyone can come up and speak if they would like Eric rollin 951 Windsor Street so my biggest concern in this Situation is the size where you'd said you talked about what was objective and Sizes it's not subjective 3600 is 3600 and if there wasn't a reason That something over 3,000 need to be reviewed then Why would it matter so seems to be there's a reason for the review and You know from my little thousand square foot house It's not next to me, but if 50% bigger than the biggest house is okay now then 5000 square foot place that gets next to me Does impact me and it's also about just the neighborhood as well. Thanks All right, would anyone else from the public like to come speak? I forgot to mention if you can put your name after you speak on the on the sign-in sheet That helps miss Fitzgerald spell it right in the minutes Jerry Spodak we live at 304 Darwin and we're just about three houses to the west of this project and I'm looking at the guidelines that the Planning Commission has said for and they seem so Subjective to me that there is really no way on God's green earth that this complies with the guidelines I don't know I don't understand how they found that but to me It's it's really an injustice and it's just not it's not fair. It's not fair in this This wash talks about this is wash talks about her privacy or private life, but she has no problems looking into other people's lives So I think this really needs a hard thought And I think it needs to go back and have them redesign it Thank you. All right, any other public comments Seeing none. I'll close the public comment part of the hearing and bring it back up here At this point the appellant has up to five minutes to rebut any of the things the applicant said if you'd like feral I Would like to say that we basically are As we stated in our presentation earlier, we're not saying that The owners don't have a right to a large home. We're saying that we want a large home that It's when scale with the neighborhood as a One person described this structure It's very boxy back someone All that a shoebox and I think more Articulation and setback the second story in the law at the Southern elevation basing Windsor Street and on the east side will provide some relief on that structure and no in our presentations the zoning administrator and Here we've never said that In our presentations that they couldn't Be able to hum we've asked for changes to the design right, so now we'll Close the public part of the hearing and bring it back up to the Commission for more questions discussion emotion Commissioner Gordon. I have a question Was there I mean we're we're not seeing a whole lot of intricate site plan information in this packet in regards to The details of the ADU in the back and a site plan that considers both Neighbors on either side and I'm wondering do you have that that we can look at more specifically? So for clarification for the site plan of where the ADU is relationship well in general as the Appellant had stated My understanding is that you're supposed to be able to see both sides of The property as well as the property The subject property and I didn't see any of that in our paperwork. I also know in past planning Commission meetings that a site section has been Requested or you know suggested in order to address some of the Public's concerns and so I'm just wondering if there's anything that you have that we can look at So for the for the ADU part, so there's no Changes that's the building that's at the back of the property understood so in terms of we do have a site plan that shows a general But front of it, but there's not like views from the interior of the lot looking to the Jason properties Understood it. Do you have a site plan that shows the subject property and relationship to the neighbors on either side? in terms of just the submittal which shows the Placement and the architectural style The building height the setbacks in the street. That's the code requires that but it doesn't require Like I guess the rendering of the Jason properties So for the most part when this ordinance was created, you know and back before we had Google Earth and People could take pictures That's what we have been utilizing to give a perspective of scale or what's the existing development given that We try to make it so that the application, especially if it's a single-family dwelling The applicant doesn't have to spend a lot of Money to to show that In terms of getting the actual height and such Again, you know we take it from pretty much what we have in place if there's any building plans So like for example the one to the east there was a building plan So that evidently was with the you know, the applicant utilized in terms of getting the height as well as getting the distance or the type of Drawing to enhance that the one to the left or to the west or their site There's no building plans for it, which is not unusual because especially for a single-family dwelling built in the 1940s Usually as we just the city just has a building card So without having to require an applicant to drop building plans for a single-family residence that From 1948 which in fact they don't even have plans for their own home that has that like an elevation or details We kind of landed on trying to get the purview over the perspective and the scale essentially through photographs And kind of utilizing that there's tools where you could actually take a picture and kind of figure out what the height is so So is there a document that shows the proposed project in Relationship specifically to the neighbors on the left and the right other than the the image that the appellant showed Not including the property to the left, okay And I think that mainly what we looked at too was There's like a 20-foot separation between the two understood in terms of a person's perspective of Streetscape, you know It's it's kind of it's true. It's gonna be that Those houses that are adjacent to it probably to either way right but in terms of just trying to see so what is an acceptable height or compatible scale especially in transitional Street that will again is predominantly single-story, but the the code does allow for Anybody to go to and have stories if they were like less than 3000 square feet understood I know I get that yeah, so I'm really just trying to understand You know the appellant says these heights are Different than what we're looking at in the drawings that were provided to us and I think our job is to understand What we're listening to versus what we have to make a decision about and so I was I'm hoping that you can help us figure out like When the appellant says these are actually the heights, but we're being told another thing I mean, I'm just kind of wondering how how do we how do we know what? is accurate Like I believe I haven't been really close to this project As it's wound through the process, but there was some verification and review of other plans that we had on file for Accuracy in you know the renderings that we have Okay, I guess that's about all I can say and ultimately what you're saying is that it could have been two and a half stories It's it That we're looking at this in relationship to the neighboring properties, but ultimately it could be taller If they wanted it to be in that would be in front of us, right? And if it was going to be and ultimately an SB 9 project It would likely be two and a half stories and it would have much Potentially four different units on it Yeah, I mean I think that you know in this with the zoning administrator did when she made her decision was To look at everything, you know, what what are the code requirements? What's going on in the immediate neighborhood? What's going on in the larger neighborhood? There were changes made and attempt to address these very subjective findings that we have before us And yes, it could have been taller. It could have been closer to the property lines on their certain Aspects of existing development such as the presence of a driveway That provides a lot more separation than would even be required in an R1 10 lot So that's that's how she arrived at her decision I'm just I Think that's I think that was I think that pretty much covers it Like between the drawings is great difference between the measurements It would always be nice to have more accurate information Okay, we're just in question I just had a question for the applicant. I See that I mean it says like no or I'm sorry new house and no gas appliances all electrical I know that there's been a lot of movement in the legal landscape around like requirements about You know Renewables and what is and is not allowed in terms of what the government can dictate in terms of the types of appliances that you have and things Like that, but I'm just curious about if that is still the case. No gas all appliance. No gas appliances all electric Yeah, given you're the contractor and the architect and the owner. I thought you'd be a good place to start There you're right there has been some changes to that We've already gone through pretty much the whole building department The only thing that we had left in the building department is to identify somebody To to supervise the structural work that was getting done So we had contracted out for somebody to do that but pretty much we've gone through all our green party reports We've done I mean we're we're done with our building department stuff And we don't plan on going back for that just for a few reasons. We're Somewhat into the environment. We both drive EVs We were planning on doing also. I think it's better air quality inside So no, we don't plan on going to gas inside Awesome. Thank you. That's it for now. All right Yeah, I guess I will move into the comment phase I think I got all my questions answered So, you know, I just want to kind of lay out my rationale and about how I'm thinking about this I've certainly Read everything Listen to the testimony and thank you both the applicant and the appellant for coming and providing really clear and Compelling testimony so We've heard that You know the large area ordinance. We've seen that quoted several times but one thing that really struck me in reviewing this whole project is is the lack of Policies we have in place to really address the climate crisis and You know, we're not putting I'm not putting this on this project But I do think this project and and we as a community need to decide if Building large homes is the best approach for us as we are in a climate crisis And for me personally the answer to that is no like so That's how I'm thinking about this because You know, we have the ability to have you know Building standards that allow us to You know make really really efficient use of space Provide privacy and all of those things and that's how I'm thinking about this I'm not coming at it from how it looks. I know that's very important to some people And really, you know, it is compliant with the coat like that's just a fact There are objective standards and it is compliant But the question is if we we can as a community build large homes But is that the best approach for us in a climate crisis and for me the answer is no so I just want to lay that out there I want to agree that I think a lot of what we're experiencing here really has to do with our Design standards in regards to this and I appreciate that the zoning administration planning department has worked really hard to help this owner designer build something that is better or design something that's better and Then what was originally? Designed I do agree, you know from a personal perspective, but I'm not up here You know necessarily to make judgment on what this family needs for themselves, but I do feel like We Set this project up for a lot of subjective Opinion and so I just wonder as planning commissioners if we can do something more to help with the With creating standards that might help even the zoning administration, you know and planning Require Something more when they come so as an example We could decide that we are going to require a large house Design permit to hire a design professional and we could have requirements that you know Address climate change, you know we can address these things more specifically, which obviously become more Objective but might help the process so I Think this is unfortunately more of a process thing than it is a specifically the project a major job I'm sure really difficult so I can't speak to that a little bit there have been Not only as a result of this project, but others Quite a bit of internal staff conversations Especially now that we have our objective standards in place for multifamily about the need for Or it to occur for single family as well And so we've been talking about that a lot lately and there are some grant opportunities Available and that we're you know Considering applying for in order to get some more objective development standards in place for single families I think that would be great because you know, maybe then there would be guidelines that the this family could have You know looked at in terms of design decisions and setbacks and Obviously, this is very design related and you know, that's just one piece of this puzzle But I think it could have helped everybody along the way and then yeah There's a whole Whole host of lists. I'm think of things. I'm sure you have that you've experienced through this I'd be happy to establish a subcommittee if anyone volunteers for that in the future Yes, I wanted to Make a couple comments, which of course are slipping my mind now You know, I'm a by profession I'm a high school teacher and so I always like to get the the youth perspective in here and I don't know if you mind but Do you guys as the? Youth in the situation we're talking about climate crisis. We're talking about staying in Santa Cruz Do you guys have anything to say about this? Yeah, I'd love to get your perspective just on the situation and just so you know that you know, this appeal does not The crux of the appeal is not on your opinion. I Just want to get your perspective on this whole matter You can take a second if you want if you want to talk about it Don't be shy though. Your thoughts are welcome.  I've spent my entire life here short, you know some time in college and Kick it around some soccer leagues around the US and You know, one of the things that strikes me about this town is almost everybody I know that I grew up with doesn't live here anymore and I it's I'm sure you know how I feel about that and that's always a really tough thing, you know when I'm up here I think about that a lot I'll be honest where I stand on this Just on my comments. I don't feel like the Appalachians really have a strong case here I think that there's the Santa Cruz Bible Church, which is about as big as Costco right around the block There's the star of the sea church. There's galt elementary. There's a lot of different structures around this place That are very very tall and everybody's fine that said, you know, I think with the square footage We are making an exception here and you know, it may not be a variance It may not be this but it does exceed the zoning standards and when we are doing things like that I like You know, whatever project it is to have some sort of a public benefit So that I think I've really struggled with this over the past since the agenda packet came out I've really struggled with this decision But that's kind of where I'm at right now. I'm very torn and I also grew up in a single parent, you know family I grew up low income we didn't have a lot and Over time, you know that changed and I totally understand Wanting to manifest yourself out of that situation, especially for your children, you know, I'm a father too. I get it At the same time, you know, I grew up on the west side and right next door to me was our neighbor Kay who you know, may she may she rest in peace.  I get that perspective from the neighbors. I get the impact that that can have in neighborhoods too So I'll be honest, I don't know where I'm at on this specifically I'll probably figure it out in the next few minutes Or I'd like to hear more from my colleagues about this but Those would be my comments. This is I think that there's Valid perspectives on both sides and This is a toughy This is a really tough one. So I'll just hold my comments there. All right, good comments. I've got a few to throw into the hopper Yeah, I had strong feelings about this one too I Wanted to point out a few small nice good things that the project did the heat pumps are in a super cool Spot they're very far away from your neighbors I don't think anyone noticed that but they're on the inside of a lot, you know heat pumps They don't make much noise. They sound like you're fridge. I just got one you can come by and see it But they do make noise So that's super cool to put that in the middle of a lot and not in your setback, which you're totally allowed to do It's not like a loud noise, but it's a small annoying noise, which is almost as bad Thank you for keeping that noise yourself Cindy and I don't agree on carbon in buildings. There's the first cost the carbon invested in building it This is what I do for a living I can assure you that from the day you move in on this will be the most efficient home in the city like the California code is Insanely hard it will basically make you do a net-zero house more or less including probably a big old Desla battery so it's gonna cost get used to it when I saw the solar panels on the roof I'm like, oh man, you're gonna need more than that, but rest assured once that first carbon is spent This would be a very efficient home It's gonna be there. I mean who knows in ten years 20 UCSC students might be living here. It might be turned into a ADU so I Have feelings about big homes I am living in a 900 square foot home with two kids that are younger than yours So I feel the pain of like the sewer breaking down. Oh my gosh, you know, my dad built our house he bought in 1976 into a 2600 square foot home some people remember and was was excoriated as betraying the hippie movement and not a true pacifist for having this huge 2600 square foot house on King Street. So I'm alright with building as big as you possibly can. I'm sorry to the neighbors. There are impacts I got to say like the shade from this house also goes north, you know So you'll have the morning in the afternoon that one hour of solar production. That's something But you know compared to a lot of other spots.  They're terrible. Thank you for building a house I can't make a motion, but let's move this along and And go build a house Yeah, I just want to make a couple clarifications for so my My comment is not about the efficiency of the house because obviously you're you're you're building You know as above and beyond in some cases, right? But the bottom line is the more resources you use to build a house It creates a bigger carbon footprint. That's just a that's a fact of science. That's that's indisputable So the bigger something is it takes more resources to build that thing So let's just be clear on that I also just want to point out that we're all on unceded land of indigenous people So let's be a little careful about my land my property and no nobody telling us what to do and again, I Think my hope is that as a community We think of ourselves in Santa Cruz as being the leading edge of the green movement That we think of ourselves as being progressive It is going to impact our lifestyles if we are going to make decisions as a community to address the climate crisis It we're not going to be able to do business as usual and part of that is thinking about scale And so that's that that is where my head is at on this one. So thanks Well, we're gonna need a motion here soon enough Let me just remind everybody that this is just about this this project, you know, and there's plenty of other city policies We could address large homes and What's in front of us today is to deny the appeal or uphold it. So I'd like to move back to that I'll be the bad guy. All right unless you want to No, I think we're all I mean, it seems like maybe with the exception of you I mean we all well even you said we've you've had struggles with that or it it hit Accord with you this, you know with and it's I wish that I was more Absolutely you are But it's a tough one I mean, I will say from a design perspective because that's what I do. I you know, we got ourselves into a situation where What they've done is I Mean that they've worked through through the system and they've and they've met the goals and I Want to support this family staying here and being here. I also appreciate the neighbors concerns Do I wish it was an SB 9 and for affordable by design units or that they would have designed it to grow differently with their family over time so that they could all live in individual units rather than five Suites like with a design firm They might have been able to come up with some creative solution, but that's not what's in front of us. So I'm you know, I think I I'm struggling with it, but I feel like I I'll be I'll make a motion if we want to get that going and then we can just vote so I'd like to make a motion to uphold the appeal Is there a second? Motion dies for lack of a second the middle road is continuing it, but I just I see that the Applicants have compromised and redesigned and redesigned and redesigned three four times So I don't know they continue yet. It's gonna like make some breakthrough Because we are not all up here all four of us have to agree or it continues naturally, right Eric Right you you more people next time You can make a motion to continue If if that's your will I would Recommend that you bring the applicant up because under the code the applicant can ask for a decision if if you're wanting to continue it I Would recommend that there be some direction if this is the continuance for redesign You know, is there is there something about the design that you take issue with that? You feel if we're changed it would make it easier for you to make the findings I just want to also make a couple comments Based on some of what I heard. I Just wanted to to reconfirm that the 3,000 square feet is not a limit It's it's it's where we drew the line back in the 1980s at what requires design review And what just needs a building permit so other than that there's there's no other meaning. It's not a restriction it's it's just a It's it's a line and if this was on a 7,000 square foot lot, which it's not we'd barely be talking about this So that is a that is a reality if it was zoned R17 and it was on a 7,000 square foot Yes, that's correct. Yeah, 3,500 We're only having a discussion because it's an R1. I mean in our 515. Yeah, the other thing I'd like to just mention from a personals perspective. I served as zoning administrator here for 12 years So I heard a lot of design review for single-family and one of the things I learned was that It's it's not always about square footage a 1500 square foot house Can look bigger than a 3,000 square foot house. It's all about the articulation So I I was never one to get hung up on on numbers It was really about the design and so I would encourage you to Perhaps think about that especially when your findings are directed at design. I Just wanted to mention though that Yes, it is just a line in the sand, but it is very common I did go down the Google rabble rabbit hole and looked at a lot of other Cities and municipalities where they required a large house review and 3,000 was pretty common So just you know that that's not out of bad like the standard of practice is pretty common to review for homes above 3,000 Yeah, I just I think that Right now from what I've heard from the appellants from the applicants. I think that if we approve this tonight right now There would be Or there would exist a What I assume already exists, which is bad blood in the neighborhood that probably would not be Reparable to what things would be Things were before this whole project came apart or you know came about so I'm inclined to ask both the appellants and the applicants if there's any way that You could agree to sit down and we could continue this if it's a no Then I'm fine with that But I do want to ask the main appellants and the applicants if that is a possible thing If things have progressed to the point where it's just like no, we're done. We're moving forward We are just at an impasse And that's what it is Speaking on behalf of the appellants We're perfectly happy to sit down with the applicant and have offered to do that numerous times So we'd be pleased as punch to do that. I do have a question I'm sorry. Take your time discussing to if it you know, I know you're probably not prepared to answer that question Nancy, can I ask you a question while they're discussing this? I meant to ask this earlier, but what is the it doesn't seem like there's actually a public Notification process for this because it's not a variance or anything, right? It's so the the notification to neighbors is just At will is that correct or is it is it? No, they're But is it notification through the city? It's not like I mean like it's the card that goes out in the mail or Yeah, like it's an ad put in the newspaper. Yeah, okay. Yes, and the site is also posted Right, but there's no like Meetings required or anything like that. Oh like community meetings like nothing like that. Yeah, it doesn't rise to that level. Yeah, yeah I have some concerns at this point of like sending these two parties off to meet amongst themselves I Guess I just want to get a feel for that because and you know not to bring up too many personal anecdotes But in the big house that went up next door to me I mean the people that built it there was bad blood They you know, they poisoned my mom's begonia plants because they didn't like it on the fence like there was like a little war going on in between me and our next-door neighbors literally like and I I It's not that's not positive, right? I mean things have a way of working themselves out even if some party prevails or the other prevails like I Don't want to see that happen. I don't you know, so I guess I'm just I'm Torn on on the issue. I mean and I think that maybe there's a way for people to sit down maybe in the Presence of staff to see if something can be worked out if nothing can be worked out then that that is what it is but You know, I guess that's where I stand on this but So Nancy, how do you feel about the idea of further work, do you think there'll be a breakthrough or? What's your gut feeling if they were to continue it and have some more discussions with you kind of in between How fruitful do you think that would be? Well in terms of just what I have seen through the course of reviewing this project, it seems You know with the public hearings are held. There's the concerns raised There's the direction given There's like the applicant is trying to revise it to address the neighborhood concerns, but I think some of the Bottom line is like just like it Eric mentioned, you know, you say 3500 square feet You can look at a house and it's like whoa. That's that is like 4000 square feet. How do you you know? So a lot of it is also in the context of what is trying to be achieved Again, this is a predominantly single-story neighborhood, but it evolved in 2005 with the two-story edition That direction and layout My guess it was not dictated by city codes. It was directed by reality They're want to do additional square footage the house a single-story house appeared fine They did the addition which most people do because in terms of having to upgrade the foundation upgrade the You know the electric, you know just all the details in that existing house Most people add to the back The situation, you know, the applicants had different circumstances that they needed to deal with Would they have if they could kept the front one-story house and build behind it? I don't know, you know, that's The application that came for us was what it is So in terms of trying to garner a compromise Again, you know, we had the public forum there was a Period of time where you know, it's like so what are the concerns, you know If if it was a no like no two-stories no three thousand or greater You know, I think that that's kind of where the dilemma is You know immediate neighborhood might have something in mind that they're not completely conveying if it was like You know, yeah, if you set your second story 40 feet back, we'd be happy if you said it was only three thousand square feet. We'd be happy It's this designed by committee part that that's the whole part with which is difficult with this process Yeah, you know, there's certain findings or certain criteria says, okay, if you kind of do this can you do that? That's the unfortunate part with it discretionary permit because You can't please everybody and then it's just like so where did where do you? What is the whole purpose of this type of permanent? And that's why it's even though the zone district is our one five You know five thousand square feet a minimum lot area these lots are larger, you know, and if it wasn't our one seven lot We probably wouldn't be having the discussion because the code would have said you can have a thirty five hundred square foot house You go higher than that then okay. We'll review it Yeah, and that's where I'm this is I mean I'm willing to put my own personal Feelings aside, okay go. Yeah, I mean I subjectively like this house. I think it's wonderful and green and should be immediately approved Let's go. That's my subjective opinion. Maybe we should like send it on to council. They could apply The global greenhouse policy, but unless we get four votes, we can't even do that Yeah, I think the only way it gets to council is on appeal. Yeah, so you'll need to make a decision I Mean if the applicants willing to sit down with the neighbors, we're willing to Participate in that discussion We haven't heard that that was our suggestion. You've heard you've heard, you know our recommendation the design is involved significantly and So we're in support. Yeah Yeah, I just want to say I'm not saying that it needs to be in compliance with the climate action plan I'm saying that we have the ability as the as the planning Commission today to to weigh in Yes or no on a large home like that that is what that is one thing that's before us, right? And what I am saying is I want to weigh in and say that I do not think it is In the community's best interest for us to continue to be really large homes into the future full stop That's a pretty good guess. I mean, I've said that several times You know, I mean they do have the I mean they've mentioned that they could and I Absolutely do not want to discount the time and energy and the emotional energy of doing anything on one's property Whether it's a redesign or like, you know changing the way a shed looks it. It's an intense process But but what I am saying is that I mean you do there is the option on the table for no review If they go back to you know 399.99 or 299.9999 square feet and then whatever they come up with goes your point, right? It's not like it's not like there's no building if if we don't encourage a large home permit there can be building Absolutely, I think your options are you can approve add conditions You can continue again if you that's the way you want to go I'd recommend you bring the applicant up to get their take on whether they want to vote or not if you continue I would provide some direction on design changes or You can deny and if you choose to deny we need to know what kind of findings you want us to write In that decision Do we need for to continue? Here's it a simple it's a simple majority of three votes Like we hear from the applicant the applicant Sad feelings on possibly continuing this number of discussions With our neighbors in the past. We've had the opportunity to listen to 20 of our neighbors During the first zoning administrative meeting We've had the opportunity to look at at least 30 or 40, but probably more like 60 or 70 letters in opposition With some very interesting findings about us personally our plans for the housing our plans as people Who we are? I think we've had a lot of communication And we've sat at each of these people's houses a number of times Chris and Dory had an idea that we could put a bedroom up on the second floor that would be enough because that's all they have So why would we need more than that? Matt and Connie though they didn't put it in their zoning administrative We're very clear that they did not want over 3,000 just like you did It's very similar in my mind to the sequel stuff where we fight against Building high-density stuff because that specific instance has an issue for sequel, but overall That's not actually what helps to higher density helps So I don't know that my children are going to be able forward to live here in Santa Cruz because it's very expensive partly because of people like my mom's generation who's decided that building is bad So I have a lot of history around you know how this all works And I feel like we're trying to provide a home for our kids So they can live here in Santa Cruz for a while in a high-density basic fashion I think we've tried very hard to be accommodating. We have another design for trying to make the east wall Better and potentially I have an architect friend that thinks it's much better way to articulate the wall We didn't even present it because I think our neighbors would not like it It's a projection instead of an inset on the east wall which does provide better relief But may and does not hit against any variances But I think maybe provides less privacy for the neighbors to the east and add square footage So like the house so there's a lot of stuff we have chosen not to do It was well within you know code and well within our rights is from what I understand from reading through that so Yeah, after a lot of conversations with a lot of our neighbors and a lot of very strong feedback from our neighbors and Because they're very politically active a lot of other neighbors within the whole city of Santa Cruz I think we've probably had enough communication It's firm Okay With that said I find an appeal to what at whatever we decide tonight to be very likely So I'm gonna make a motion to accept the staff recommendation that the planning commission deny the appeal upholding the zoning Administrators acknowledgment and approval of the environmental determination and approval of the demolition authorization Permit and design permit based upon the findings listed below and conditions of approval listed in exhibit a I'll second it Call for a roll call vote Oh, I just like to make one more comment so I Don't want this to be confused with high density housing, right? So, you know, this is for this is a single family home And if we looked at the floor area ratio on such a big home I mean so it we're not talking about high density housing This is a single family home. So just for clarification sake to the boat Single family home with an ADU okay to the vote with multiple families in it Commissioner Dawson, no Gordon. Yes Yes Chair Kennedy. Yes, and just for clarification that motion includes the enhanced Condition regarding relocation assistance Nancy put up on the board Correct do I do we need to go back just I I assume that that was consent in the okay in the original motion Okay, good. Thank you. Nice job So what happens next? Oh, that's information items. Yeah, I can I okay brief report. I would like to understand in terms of the subcommittee assembly and Unpacking some of the things that we talked about today Okay, I What happens there like what's the next step? What's the action item there? Yeah, I think you know as I mentioned we're looking at at some grant opportunities to look at Enhancing some of our objective development standards We've got SB 9 right now that requires ministerial review Through the creation of some standard lots so we're We're regulating design on old substandard lots, but doing nothing with design on new substandard lots So we're hoping to get a bit of reconciliation there. We'd like to get something around the large home and so You know if We pursue a Grant and Get funded for it. We can begin work on that and then then it would become part of our work Program, and I think at that time we would we could look to you to establish a subcommittee Around that so at a later date in the meantime you just email comments to Eric is Effective sure the appeal was just denied The appeal was denied by about three to one Good question. It's part of my job to state that Alright, so we will now move on to informational items sure So last month the Coastal Commission Heard an appeal of the project at 190 West Cliff Drive So this is the parking lot across from the dream in it's a mixed-use project It was actually approved by the city back in 2019 and the appeal didn't get heard for quite some time. It's a mixed-use project. It's 89 condominium units above ground floor commercial with some underground parking So they they found there was no substantial issue with the appeal Which is basically a decision not to hear the project So the the applications approved and now the applicants can go on to working drawings and building permitting process So that was good news and didn't make it through the little tiny roundabout Yeah, that's all part of the project. Yeah All of the the public improvements the bike lane improvements. That's all part of the the application So upcoming schedule on your next meeting, of course, we have the the Ferris wheel it was continued We also have a mixed-use project on so kill in there may it's a 43 unit mixed-use project So you heard that and then is that a new design and we saw that one before didn't we? No, I don't think so. There's been a couple iterations of the design. It's been on our website in May Avenue. Is that yes? Oh, yeah, right near May and then in September. We're looking at one of those two meetings to For a mixed-use project on the other end of so kill near Hagam and it's at 1800 so kill And that's that's also a mixed-use 84 unit project. So that's what you have on the horizon was near May sushi That's they used to be Tecara right That's that's all I have do we know in win in September. That's It's looking like it's probably gonna be the second meeting in September, which is the 21st Yeah, that's all I have Great, we don't have any items referred to future genders or subcommittees So with that I adjourn this meeting of the Santa Cruz Planning Commission. Thanks everybody. Thank you


Give me one example where Israel without any provocation went into what no a specific question Went into Gaza and massacred 1500 innocent people so extremely annoying man. So, okay His question was when did Israel ever enter Gaza in a thousand five hundred people? First and foremost, we do not have any proof for that. But that being said, let's get back to the statistics one more time Let's take the year 2014 so 2014 yes, Israel entered Gaza yet again and injured almost 20,000 people of which at least a sixth died so a sixth of 20,000 That is roughly 3,000 people dead. So there you have it peers. Those are the numbers 2014 Israel enters Gaza kills over 3,000 people injures roughly 20,000 people. Is this enough evidence for you? Probably not