COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZsccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/BDS/GovStream2/BDSvData/non_legacy/...COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ ... predictable factors or design elements that led to neighborhood compatibility

0 2 1 9

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ PLANNING DEPARTMENT

701 OCEAN STREET, qTH FLOOR, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 (831) 454-2580 FAX: (831) 454-21 31 TDD: (831) 454-21 23

TOM BURNS, PLANNING DIRECTOR

March 12, 2007 AGENDA DATE: March 27,2007

Board of Supervisors County of Santa Cruz 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060

SUBJECT: UPDATED REPORT ON NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY

Members of the Board:

Over the past two years your Board grappled with the issue of neighborhood compatibility, initially focused on specific projects and ultimately in a larger planning policy context. In response to Board direction, staff reported to you on several occasions on possible approaches to deal with the issue of neighborhood compatibility, particularly in coastal neighborhoods. Ultimately, your Board took action on several of the recommended policy changes. Other actions were deferred, at the recommendation of staff, to allow time to review pending and future projects and then develop further refinements to the compatibility review process. The purpose of this report is to update your Board on the status of these efforts and share our observations and approach to neighborhood compatibility review. 1

Summary of Past Discussions

Over the course of the last two years there have been numerous Board discussions regarding policy approaches for addressing neighborhood compatibility issues. Those are summarized below.

Immediate Regulatorv Responses

In December of 2005, staff brought a report on design issues in coastal neighborhoods to your Board. Topics covered in that letter included:

o Allowing front yard averaging for residential parcels; o Increasing allowed lot coverage from 30% to 40% for parcels 5,000 to 15,000 square feet in

size; and o Amending the “Net Site Area” definition.

These changes were ultimately codified and approved by your Board in December of 2006.

As part of the December 2005 discussion, other issues were discussed, including:

Neighborhood Corn pati bility Board of Supervisors Agenda: March 27, 2007 Page 2 of 5

022‘3

o Creating a definition of “Neighborhood”; o Standardizing various terms in the Chapter that refer to the “neighborhood” or “surrounding

areas”; and o Modifying the current regulations to create a hierarchy within the site and building design

p ri n ci p I es for deter m i n i ng co m pat i b i I i t y .

While there was some discussion about also proceeding with ordinance changes to address these issues, staff ultimately was successful in arguing that such changes should only be considered after a period of careful review of pending and future projects, to ensure the best approach for addressing these concerns. As part of this report we provide you additional recommendations with regard to these issues.

Pleasure Point Neiahborhood Compatibility

In our December 2005 Board letter, staff indicated that, due to the unique characteristics of the Pleasure Point Community (including lot sizes, housing types, style, age, and resident perspectives), it was recommended that a special community planning process occur in that area. With the assistance of RDA funding, MIG -- a planning consultant firm -- was selected to prepare the document, in conjunction with Planning and RDA staff. The first of several community meetings has occurred and the first product -- the Existing Conditions Report -- has been released.

Part of the final draft document preparation will include exploring innovative methods of guiding neighborhood compatibility for structures currently requiring only ministerial building permits. The goal is to guide design without subjecting property owners to additional discretionary review.

Additional community meetings will be held in the next few months with the goal of bringing the planning document to public hearing later this year.

Expansion of Areas within the Coastal Zone Requiring Neighborhood Compatibility Review

While the larger issues of compatibility may be addressed for the Pleasure Point area through the community planning effort, there are several other coastal neighborhoods that share similar concerns. In particular, residents of Rio Del Mar have expressed similar interests. At one point in time there was discussion of the possibility of expanding areas where discretionary compatibility reviews could be required to address this issue. However, staff is hopeful that lessons will be learned through the Pleasure Point planning process that can be adapted for these other areas. Again, the goal is to use traditional zoning standards to guide development in a fashion that enhances neighborhood compatibility without subjecting landowners to additional discretionary permit requirements. We will be able to evaluate this approach better once the Pleasure Point process is completed later this year.

Summary of Past Year’s Project Review Conclusions

As part of the December 2005 Board letter, staff requested that your Board allow us time to thoughtfully develop further refinements to the compatibility review process through the review of pending and future projects. At that time, staff stated that we planned to explore the following areas:

13

Neighborhood Corn pati bil ity Board of Supervisors Agenda: March 27, 2007 Page 3 of 5

022 1

o Clarify and quantify, as much as possible, the critical features in achieving compatibility; o Refine the current site standards for possible changes to allow compatible design; o Develop a neighborhood compatibility checklist and/or other tools to identify and quantify

compatibility; and o Identify additional ways to communicate the County’s sensibility of compatible development

to the public and design community.

For the past year, an informal staff group (including the Planning Director, several managers, the Urban Designer, and project planners) has met to review projects requiring design review for neighborhood compatibility issues. While those meetings began with the mindset of focusing primarily on mass, bulk, and scale and applying a static concept of neighborhood, those preconceived notions changed over time. Our goal was to determine if there were consistent, predictable factors or design elements that led to neighborhood compatibility or incompatibility.

As the months passed, several themes emerged from our reviews:

1. The area of concern (the neighborhood) varied depending on what design factor we were discussing.

For design factors such as size and number of stories, we were concerned about existing structures on each side of the street as well as behind the lot; for garage placement, we were concerned only with tke existing structures on the same side of the street.

2. Various design elements lead to a natural hierarchy of concern in determining compatibility.

We found that the overall size of a structure in relationship to its neighboring structures was the primary factor of concern. A IO, 000 square foot house in a neighborhood of I , 000 square foot houses is not going to seem compatible no matter the building articulation, fenestration, or materials used. The number of stories and the massing of the structure are also important.

3. Placement of an uninterrupted two-story structure adjacent to a one-story structure raised repeated concerns.

Every project we reviewed that contained a two-story vertical stacked structure adjacent to a one-story structure was looming and incompatible without some architectural relief such as a stepped back second story or recessed roof component.

4. The placement and prominence of the garage was often a factor in compatibility.

A proposed structure with the garags designed in a fashion different that surrounding houses (closer to the street than the rest of the house, prominent garage widths, or extensive front yard paving) sffen seemed incompatible, even if other design factors were in harmony with the neighborhood.

5. The proposed front setback was often a factor of compatibility.

c

Neighborhood Corn pati bility Board of Supervisors Agenda: March 27, 2007 Page 4 of 5

0222

6.

Structures that were proposed to be set back considerably closer or further from the street than the neighboring structures often seemed incompatible even if other design factors were compatible.

Colors and materials alone could lead to incompatibility.

We were surprised to find that in some unique situations, materials and color could have a profound effect on compatibility even if all other design factors were harmonious. Examples include a wood-sided house on a street of all stucco houses or a bright white house in a neighborhood of earth-tone houses.

Neiqhborhood Compatibility Guidelines

Based on these design factors and varying neighborhood contexts, staff has come to believe that the best next step with regard to administering neighborhood compatibility is through the use of guidelines rather than further regulatory actions. Therefore, staff has prepared the attached brochure, “Designing for Neighborhood Compatibility” (Attachment 1 ) to serve as a guide to staff, designers and the general public with regard to the meaning of current compatibility regulations.

This brochure sets forth the six compatibility factors (in descending order of importance) that staff identified through the project review process:

o Size o Number of Stories o Massing ,O Garage and Parking Location o Front Setbacks o Materials and Colors

Included for each factor is the neighborhood context for determining compatibility (as described above).

These guidelines were developed with input from project review staff and an informal subcommittee of neighborhood residents and architects. They are intended to provide a written guide for staff reviewing residential projects and developing recommendations to the various approving bodies in their review of projects for neighborhood compatibility. Of course, our intention is that the guidelines will also help landowriers and designers interject the concepts related to neighborhood compatibility in the early stages of formulating their designs.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

Staff and your Board have been engaged into the topic of neighborhood compatibility for nearly two years. Following the initial round of. regulatory changes and a year to carefully review projects in the context of compatibility, staff believes that the next logical step is not a regulatory one. Rather, staff has developed guidelines to provide greater consistency in the review process.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that your Board accept and file this report.

Neighborhood Corn pati bil ity Board of Supervisors Agenda: March 27, 2007 Page 5 of 5

Planning Director

RECOMMENDED: c \

SUSAN A. M A U R I ~ O County Administrative Officer

Attachment : 1. Neighborhood Compatibility Brochure

cc: Ellen Mellon Mike Guth Matthew Thompson Hugh Carter Architects Association of Santa Cruz County Cove Britton Patricia E. Curtin Martin Hess Burnie Thomason Susan and Barry Porter Lauren Greene and Glen Ceresa

TB: GH\G:\Board LetterAPending

0223

0 2 2 4

1 H H e designing tor NEIGHBORHOOD CO M PAT I B I L I TY

This is one of a series of informational brochures to assist the public and guide Planning staff with issues of concern regarding design in the County of Santa Cruz.

The Zoning Ordinance of the County of Santa Cruz contains required findings for Coastal Permits (13.20. I IO c & 13.20.130 b/l) and Development Permits (I 8. IO. 230 a/5) that include neighborhood compatibility.

0

County of Santa Cruz

DESIGN BROCHURE NO:

0225

GOALS / APPLICABILITY I I "To achieve functional high quality development through design

review policies that recognize the diverse characteristics of the area, maintain design creativity, and preserve and enhance

the visual fabric of the community." Objective 8.1 Quality Design, County of Santa Cruz General Plan

Preserve and enhance the character of neighborhoods in the County of Santa Cruz, recognizing the diversity of architectural styles, and evolving neighborhood character while respecting bulk, mass, and scale of nearby residences.

Promote streetscapes that are varied, while discouraging individual structures that are out of character with the neighborhood.

Encourage development that balances a diversity of style with repect for the surrounding context.

All new residences which require discretionary review, will be reviewed for consistency with these guidelines by planning staff (these guidelines apply primarily in urban neighborhoods, although discretionary projects in rural areas must also meet all applicable ordinance requirements for neighborhood compatibility).

All additions which require discretionary review in the Coastal Zone will be reviewed for compliance with these guidelines by Planning staff.

All new residences and additions which do not require discretionary review are encouraged to address the issues within these guidelines.


DESIGN BROCHURE N0.2

AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOOD

Neighborhoods are geographic areas that are often defined by physical boundaries.

The "affected neighbohood' consists of the lots

most influenced by the residence being considered.

I freeway f

r-, larger community-7

nnn J U

SUBJECT

FOR SOME COMPATIBlLlN FACTORS: the houses behind the subject residence for 5-6 lots in each direction

FOR EVERY COMPATIBILITY FACTOR: the adjacent houses 5-6 lots in each direction from the subject residence

FOR MOST COMPATILIN FACTORS: the houses on the opposite side of the street from the above

affected .-d neighborhood

1 County of Santa Cruz

DESIGN BROCHURE N0.2

0227

C 0 M PAT I B I L I TY FACTO RS rl The process of integrating a design for a new residence with the

significant characteristics of a neighborhood occurs at the beginning of the design process. Designers and owners should use the

following list to evaluate the characteristics of nearby residences.

(NOTE: These are listed in order of importance, however the ''aW of designing compatible new buildings is in using all categories skillfully)

I - what are the Sizes of the surrounding houses?

While the County establishes floor area ratio standards] those are the upper limits that govern house sizes. The design of a structure and the perception of its size should not overwhelm existing residences in terms of basic volume.

2 - how many Stories are present?

While the County's maximum height limit allows up to two-story structures] in some cases two-story structures in a predominantly one-story area may be out of character.

3 - how is the massing of the house arranged?

4 - where are parking and garages located? how much of

In addition to site and stories, the massing of a structure can dramatically impact the percieved size of a building.

the front setbacks are covered with paving for driveways? how big are the garages? do the garages have double or single doors?

In some neighborhoods, a critical element to a compatible design is the location and design of off-street parking and garages.

5 -what are the front setbacks? Often new structures which are significantly out of alignment do not fit into the existing street pattern.

6 - what materials and colors are common in the area? In some cases, the materials and colors of even a well designed residence may be so incongruous with the existing neighborhood that it will result in an incompatible design.


DESIGN BROCHURE NO. 2

0228

!- -.

l--

SIZE

If a residence is far larger in size than the houses in the

affected neighborhood, it will appear to overwhelm them. There is a range beyond which the new residence

will appear noticeably out of character.

"Stacking" floors to align upper and lower floors exaggerates the appearance of volume and often

Newer homes in a neighborhood when designed to the current zoning ordinance maximums are typically

Older homes in a neighborhood are typically smaller and predate the current zoning ordinance.

contributes to a new residence not much larger than most older homes. --\

\ - -

DISCOURAGED

Using the maximum lot coverage is encouraged to keep the lower floor larger than than the upper floor. 7

existing A- residence

E NCO U RAG ED

existing NEW existing residence RESIDENCE residence

CONTEXT for this Compatibility Factor -



STORIES

Continue or complement the prevalent patterns of stories and forms in the neighborhood, paying particular attention to the

adjacent neighbors. Seek to reflect the basic

building and rOOf forms that may be in the neighborhood.

EXAMPLE 1 - New two-story residence in a block of existing one-story residences. This is obviously incompatible with the block.

EXAMPLE 2 - New two-story residence in a block of existing two-story residences. This is obviously compatible with the block.

EXAMPLE 3 - New two-story residence in a block of existing one-story residences. This may be compatible with the block.

both upper story walls stepped back to respect the onestory neighbors

EXAMPLE 4 - New two-story residence in a block of existing one and two-story residences. This may be compatible with the block.

one-story wall next to two-story wall next to one-story neighbor two-story neighbor




c

0 2 3 0

MASSING The "massing" of a building will aid or hinder in its compatibility with its neighbors. Proper massing

breaks the bulk down into parts which have a

relationship to each other. A large blocky building elevation may be broken

up to produce a composition of elements in

scale and rhythm.

massive form overwhelms adjacent buildings

flat facade is too large for the neighborhood

lack of variation in form / massing

no respect for basic forms found in neighborhood

DISCOURAGED

repetition of stepped basic forms 1- roofs

setback at side reduces mass one-story portion

to ward stree t

ENCOURAGED


lots which are not

considered

proposed residence



PARKING & GARAGES

The location chosen for parking and a garage, the size of the garage door, and the design and material of the garage door

are factors in neighborhood compatibility. Garages and driveways should not be a dominant form in the streetscape,

and should respect the patterns of their location, size and design in the neighborhood.

When two-car garage doors are not common in the neighborhood, they appear out of scale from

On narrow lots, the driveway for a two car garage may comply with the maximum limitations (half the width of the lot) and still be incompatible with the existing pattern of parking.

DISCOURAGED Providing a single-door garage allows the

-------,- - - - - - ~ ------,------- _ _ - - - ------- On narrow lots, the second parking space on

I 1 I I I I #m I I I I I I Tandem garages and one-car width driveways are one example of a parking solution which is compatible with the neighborhood and may meet the zoning requirements for off-street parking.

ENCOURAGED


lots Which. are not

considered proposed residence


DESIGN BROC 0 . 2

9 laor

, ' '-T; . .. . . x.- . .,. ... ..i . ,_ I _. . . ~ . . . ._ -. -., ~ .. .. , . . . ., . .- . , - . . . , .. . 5 ^ . , , . , - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ~ _ _ _ _ . ~

SETBACKS

The distance that each residence is from the street creates

a rhythm. When a new house is Out Of alignment with the adjacent houses on the same side of the street, it

does not form a compatible pattern.

r--- I I I I

r---1

I I I I I I I I I I I I

id ' I I

I I

! I

! I I i i I

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I im] I

I L

I ' ~i I /

-J

i _I__ i .._I- I I -

maintains reg. 20 ft. from garage door to property line

difficult to see front door

DISCOURAGED

I r---1, I I

1 -- I I I I

r--- I I I I I I '

I i i I I ' I

i l I i I I i I 1 --t --I- E - - I-- 1 I

maintains req. 20 ft. from 1 garage door to property line

more prominant front door A neighbors toa min. of 10 ft. - (consult with Planning Department for details)

-

contributes to street activity

front yard (to first floor only) may be reduced to the average front yard of the adjacent

ENCOURAGED

CONTEXT lots which are not

for this considered Compatibility Factor -



proposed residence

0 2 3 3

MATERIALS / COLOR

In some cases, a building with exterior materials and colors which are not found in the immediate vicinity may seem

out of character with the "sense of place". Colors and types of roofing and siding materials can assist in establishing

a greater sense of compatibilty with the neighborhood.

(This compatibility factor will only be utilized in cases where the proposed structure is substantially incompatible with the neighborhood).

exterior siding material not found in area - roofing material not

I found in area

color(s) clash with those found in area

NEW RESIDENCE

DISCOURAGED

materials complementary to adjacent residences

color(s) complementary to adjacent residences

NEW RESIDENCE ENCOURAGED

, .- lots which

are not for this considered

Compatibility . \ - proposed

CONTEXT County of Santa Cruz


County of Santa Cruz 02007 PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Tom Burns, Director Glenda Hill, AICP, Principal Planner (Policy Section) Lawrence Kasparowitz, Urban Designer

0

RESIDENTIAL AND GENERAL DESIGN BOOKS

Alexander, Christopher, Sara lshikawa and Murray Silverstein. A Pattern Languaae. Oxford University Press, New York, 1977.

Jacobson, Max, Murray Silverstien and Barbara Winslow. The Good House, Contrast as a Design Tool, Taunton Press, Newtown, Connecticut, 1990.

Kern, Ken. The Owner Built Home, Scribners, New York, 1975.

McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses, Alfred Knopf, Inc. New York, 1984.

McCreight, Tim. Desian Language. Brynmorgen Press, 1997.

Mouzon, Stephen A. Traditional Construction Patterns. McGraw-Hill, New York, 2004.

Susanka, Sarah. Home by Design, Taunton Press, Newtown, Connecticut, 2004.

. The Not So Big House, Taunton Press, Newtown, Connecticut, 1998.

Walker, Les and Milstein, Jeff. Designinu Houses, an Illustrated Guide, Overlook Press, Woodstock, New York, 1976.

Page 1 of 1

CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL

Sent:

To: CBD BOSMAIL

Subject: Agenda Comments

Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:08 PM

Meeting Date : 3/27/2007 Item Number : 52

Name : Susan Porter Email : Not Supplied

Address : Santa Cruz Phone : Not Supplied

Comments : Dear Supervisors,

Please DO NOT accept and file this report. The Planning Dept. was told by your board to come back to you with recommendations for changes to County Code, not present you with a fait accompli. The public should have a chance to decide if they want Design Guidelines, and if so, what form they should take. With this report, the Planning Dept. is trying to circumvent that vital public process. Please do not let them do this.

3/26/2007 5A

Page 1 of 1

CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL

Sent: To: CBD BOSMAIL


Sunday, March 25, 2007 6:39 PM


Name : Phyllis Christensen Em ai I : p h y I I i sfc h r@s bcg lo ba I. net

Address : 102 32nd Avenue Santa Cruz, CA 95062

Phone : 831 -476-2997

Comments : I request that Agenda Item #52 be removed from the Consent Agenda and move to the Regular Agenda for a future date so as to allow the general public proper notice and the opportunity to comment. Thank you

3/26/2007

Page 1 of 1

CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL

Sent:

To: CBD BOSMAIL


Saturday, March 24, 2007 7:28 PM


Name : Cindy Trousdale Email : [email protected]

Address : 660 Bayview Drive Aptos CA 95003

Phone : 831 -662-0724

Comments : Why does a lynch mob of a few neighbors and my County Supervisor, who is obviously looking for votes, think that they have the right to control what I can do with my property? Neighborhood Compatibility is an effort by those with smaller lots and homes not on the ocean to dictate what people with more expensive, larger lots can do with their property. They want to steal my ocean front views without paying the property taxes I do. I have worked long and hard to build my dream home and will do everything in my power to fight this illegal taking of my land. This is America where people work hard and are rewarded with the abilty to reasonably enjoy their property. This is an unreasonable attempt to legislate what people want to do to improve their lives and property. I didn't pay over $2,000,000 to keep the old, inefficient home we have now. Nor did our next door neighbors who are also planning to build a new home. We already have more restrictions as far as set backs etc. than the other neighbors. How can this be fair? We're asking for fair, proportional treatment. That is a reasonable expectation. This item should be canned or at least removed from the Consent Agenda.

I

3/26/2007 5%

mailto:[email protected]

Page 1 of 1

CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL



Saturday, March 24, 2007 550 PM


Name : Kelley Trousdale Email : kt@c21 lad.com

Address : 660 Bayview Drive Aptos, CA 95003

Phone : 831 -566-7070

Comments : Hello, As I awoke to read the morning paper, I was shocked to learn that my Supervisor and a few neighbors are still trying to take my property. This time under the guise of Neighborhood Compatability. The Net Site Area has been adopted with its many flaws but I thought our life savings was still intact because we had a large lot on the bluff which would allow us to build our dream house of approximately 4,000 square feet. We have submitted plans for our new home after struggling for four years to get to this point. The process of formulating Neighborhood Compatability guidelines has been unfair,non-inclusionary and one-sided. The results are consistent. Who represents my interests? Was a single owner of ocean front property invited to participate? Please remove this item from the Consent Agenda and get some real input from both sides of the street.

I

3/26/2007 53-

Page 1 of 1

CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL

Sent:

To: CBD BOSMAIL


Friday, March 23, 2007 9:41 PM


Name : Charles Paulden Email : Not Supplied

Address : Not Supplied Phone : Not Supplied

Comments : item 52. I am encouraged that you are trying to define Neighborhood Compatibility for those who do not understand what scale, bulk and style means. I think the visuals will help people understand what we are trying to achive. I would like to suggest that we included orientation to the sun in our plans. When a large house is added to the south side, it would help to preserve light and air if the setback for the second story was moved towards the south. This will allow the sun to come into the northern neighbors home. Thank you for your work.

3/26/2007

Mar 26 07 01:31p P.2

March 26,2007

Jan Beautz Chai p e r s on Board of Supervisors 701 Ocean StYeet, jth Floor Santa Cruz, CA 95060

RE: Neighborhood Compatibility, Pleasure Point (Item 52)

Dear Chair Beautz :

I am writing as a resident of Pleasure Point, in response to the Neighborhood Compatibility Report submitted to the Board dated bfarch 12, 2007. I know that a lot of thought has gone into this issue over the last two years, and staff prepared a report that attempted to identify the issues of concern that come up as residents strive to maintain aid improve their individual properties. I ~vould agree that there have been instances where a small beach bungalow style rssidence (insert here the word “charming”) has been replaced with what some might call a monster house, or an ugly house, or simply a house that doesn’t seem to go with the neighborhood.

However, when you try to define neighborhood style, or compatible style, it gets a bit sticky, €or lack of a better word. On my own street at the bottom of illst Avenue, I hav2 seen small homes replaced with two story Mediterranean style homes, or two story concrete exteriors, or homes that siitiply look %rang'' to my own eye. When you try to define exactly what it is that is wrong, it can be anything fiom <*I don‘t like the color” to “maybe there should be more iYind0~7s‘’ to ‘k7hy the heck is the front door where it is” and the examples of possible responses go on and on. They are individual responses, and if you attempt to take them as a group, I believe you would find a long laundry list which would encompass lots of possible objections.

That list would certainly include the six compatibility factors identified by staff, and recommended to your board for adoption as guidelines rather than regulations. Nonetheless, I am concerned that these guidelines could harden over time, and limit homeowners in their eEorts to maintain and improve their homes. I applaud the recent change in lot coverage, which I hope will address the size issue. I feel the same about the use of size to look at compatibility, but would ask that some effort go towards maintaining options for homeowners who have not yet had the opportunity to improve and/or expand their residence prior to the adoption of these guidelines. It doesn’t seem fair that a homeowner who has waited for favorable economic times to improve their home now be held to a new standard that their neighbors did not have to consider.

Mar 26 07 01:31p P.3

There are numerous examples in the Pleasure Point area of the new and ‘*improved” homes, and some of them do seem out of character, given the original cottage/bungalow look of many residences in the area. I would hope that families who will need more space or do not currently have the ability to expand, change, or improve their homes wiII not be held to a set of guidelines that their neighbor was fortunate enough to amid.

T frankly do not have the solution, but the phrase “discretionary” review does bring up the source of my fears on this new set of guidelines. It seems to me that planning staff will be in charge of detemining whether one‘s project is or is not compatible. Staff will be asked to decide whether a plan is overwhelming in volume; out of character as a two story structure; seems too big in temis of mas ; driveway paving, double door garages are incompatible; front setbacks, while legal, don’t fit with what’s there now; and perhaps most scary in terms of what could be arbitrary, do the materials andfor color seem compatible .

Once these deterniinations are made, the question is: how does a homeowner know- if the planner will encourage or discourage their attempt at improvement? Does encourage mean to insist, or to suggest? If the homeowner absoIutely hates the look of their neighbors’ paint or paving or garage door arrangement, will they be required to copy it so as to “encourage” compatibility-? The same question could be applied to each category of character, and in those neighborhoods where half the homes are original and half are not, will the homeownsr of a “not improved’’ home be able to do what their neighbor was able to do, or will they be told that it would not be in character. It seems to me to be very discretionary, giving individuat planners the ability to determine aesthetics as part of the already challenging pe rinit process

One last word: Lawrence Kasparowitz has been working in these neighborhoods for quite some time, and has handled applications with respect and underst anding, somehow not falling prey to the development of“it’s my way or the highway” or bibecause I said SO”. If he were to continue as staffplanner in ths Pleasure Point neighborhoods, 1 would 1101: be as concerned as 1 am. It is diEicult for staff to come to understand the people and places we are and we have, and with these proposed guidelines which are so subjective, it causes great concern to me and to many of my neighbors.

\

Very truly yours, ,,-3

Page 1 of 1

----- _ _ _ " _ l _ - - x - - ~ " _ " ---"_1-" -- -x _. I_______

CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL

Sent:

To: CBD BOSMAIL


-,*I-,-,.,"- --~ -wp--pp+

Monday, March 26, 2007 1051 PM


Name : Rose Marie McNair Email : [email protected]

Address : Not Supplied Phone : 831 476 2102

Comments : 0312 7/07 Honorable Supervisors,

Frankly, once again, I am confused. Are the Design Review Guidelines law? Whose decision will be final regarding color or architectural design? Planning Staff? Planning Director? Supervisors?

Santa Cruz is eclectic; the drawings within the Design Brochure #2 appear to have come from a subdivision tract--and the new "odd" house does not match. My design idea may not be the design you like, nor your design mine. Subjective review cannot be mandated.

I don't know which cities or counties have crafted the best Design Review Guidelines, and of course, which city closely resembles Santa Cruz. Ah, there's the rub: there are none! Variety is the spice of life. Even cities and counties are different. Thank heaven.

Rose Marie McNair, Broker

3/27/2007


Page 1 of 1

CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL



Monday, March 26, 2007 11 :36 PM


Name : Michael Mellon Email : [email protected]

Address : Not Supplied Phone : Not Supplied

Comments : In my capacity as a Director in the Rio Del Mar Improvement Association, chairing the Planning, Zoning, and Governmental Affairs Committee, I would like to applaud the efforts of the County Planning Department to address the issues around Neighborhood Compatibility. This is something of great importance in the Rio Del Mar community. However, we feel that policy guidelines, as good as these are, are not strong enough to deter the problems of incompatible houses springing up in our neighborhoods. We would like to see these policy guidelines take the form of design ordinances to replace the current criteria in 13.1 1.073, Building Design, (I), (ii), A-I.

3/27/2007


Page 1 of2

CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL

Sent:

To: CBD BOSMAIL


Monday, March 26, 2007 4:20 PM

Meeting Date : 3/27/2007

Name : neil frank

Address : 1206 V. St. NW Washington, DC 20009

Item Number : 52

Email : [email protected]

Phone : 925.351 5364

Comments : To Santa Cruz County Supervisors:

I am writing this in response to your agenda item #52: neighborhood compatibility.

I am very angry. I just became aware that some want to harm me by imposing new size limits on the structure that I choose to build. And perhaps, as Sentinel staff writer Bookwalter suggests, even to decide "the color of the house."

Gentlemen, I've purchased three ocean front lots-of-record on Bayview in Aptos, with the plan to build my lifelong dream home. I've worked, saved, and planned this move for years. I have my life savings invested in this project; I am not independently wealthy. Beach front real estate in Aptos is expensive, very expensive, and the property that I've purchased is no exception. So, I bought the Bayview lots with the understanding that I would be willing to live with the existing rules on size and height. But now, some want to steal my dream, my property, and hence my money. These suggested new-changes to existing controls will cost me millions, and I don't have it to lose. Your decision could bankrupt me. If this is passed, the value of my lots will be half it's previous value. Are you going to give me the difference? This notion of "giant houses" and "neighborhood compatibility" is demagoguery. They represent an ad hominem attack on my personal rights. I suggest you read the "Republic" and appreciate the weaknesses and dangers of ochlocracies. So yes, I'm angry because your cavalier suggestion is so very wrong and misguided.

Allowing me to be harmed with impunity is not only wrongful thinking, it's immoral, and it violates our basic Western values of a free society. In a free society, the question of "who may harm whom, and in what ways" is decided through private property rights. The crowning achievement of the West is the concept of individual rights. Western values holds that individuals have certain inalienable rights, and individuals do not exist to serve government but rather, governments exist to protect these inalienable rights. It took until the 17th century for that idea to take root, mostly through the works of English philosophers such as John Locke and David Hume. Notions like these make Western values superior to all others. These

3/27/2007


Page 2 of 2

are our values as citizens of the United States, and I would also hope, as citizens of Santa Cruz. As our second President, John Adams, put it, "Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty." Adding, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

Gentlemen, what you are proposing is very wrong. I've worked my entire life to save enough money to purchase this ocean front property on Bayview. It's been my dream. And with one stroke of a pen, you would allow one group to do enormous harm to me, and to make me dependent on their whims, to essentially make me their slave. Why would you even consider this? It's untenable.

All Americans should read the wise words of James Madison in Federalist Paper No. I O . There's no clearer statement that the Framers fashioned a republic and not a pure, tyrannical democracy as some have come to believe. Our Constitution set limits on not only the power of the three branches of the federal government, it also set limits on the arbitrary will of the people that might be expressed through a majority v0te.a vote that might make derisory decisions regarding building limitations on others' property. Madison said, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

Make no mistake, there is enormous money at risk as a result of this polemical proposal, and hence there will be repercussions. If these new ineffable restrictions replace the already existing and substantial restrictions, there will be litigation, and I'm guessing there will be "class" litigation because of the enormous decrease in property values that's owned by a special targeted class.

Si nce re I y ,

Neil Frank 1206 V. St. NW Washington, DC 20009-4449

3/27/2007

Page 1 of 1

David Reek

From: mike guth [[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 3:46 PM To: Jan Beautz

Subject: comments of agenda item 52 3/27

I believe that the guidelines prepared by the Planning Department do an excellent job of clarifying the neighborhood compatibility analysis task that the Planning Department performs. In addition, I believe that the factors considered are proper and that the description of context (the area against which a factor is weighed) is very good. I understand that these guidelines do not represent new law, but merely give transparency to the already required analysis. I fully support the continuation of these compatibility requirements and believe that they would be of help to the community if they were required in more areas than the limited area to which they now pertain.

Yours Sincerely, Nicha eCA. Gut ti Attorney a t Law

( 8 3 1 ) 462- 8270 office ( 8 3 1 ) 462- 8273 fax

3/2 6/200 7

Documents

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZsccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/BDS/GovStream2/BDSvData/non_legacy/...COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ ... predictable factors or design elements that led to neighborhood compatibility