sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.ussccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/BDS/GovStream2/BDSvData/non_legacy/... · Date: June 11, 2010 2: 12:57 PM PDT To: ellen. [email protected] Dear

Page 1 of2

CBO BOSMAIL

'm: [email protected]

.._Ilt: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:35 AM

To: CBD BOSMAIL

Subject: Agenda Comments

Meeting Date: 6/15/2010 Item Number: 62

Name: Kate Minott Email: [email protected]

Address: 745 Oak Hil Rd.Aptos CA 95003

Phone: 2612219

Comments:To: The County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors701 Ocean Street, 4th Floor. Santa Cruz, California 95060clo Robin Bolster-Grant, Project Planner, pln111 @co.santa-cruz.ca.us

Re: Application 09-139 (APN 038-151-891 no address Oak Hill Road Aptos, CA.

d 14, 2010~

Dear Robin,

i, along with Mrs. Josie Little, plan to attend the upcoming Board of Supervisor's hearingconcerning the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the Arthur application to build anew house on Oak Hill Road. Some of our bluff-top Oak Hill Road and down-slope Las OlasDrive neighbors are not able to attend the June 15, 2010 hearing due to employmentconsiderations or health concerns. Mrs. Little and I have been requested to speak on their behalf.

Before you take action on this appeal, we request the County refine additional conditions to theArthur application. There are three concentrated areas of concern:

Public Notice

Public notification and regular communication between the County and the neighbors on OakHill Road needs improvement. Apparently, it is too late to reverse the County's approval of theUnconditional Certificate of Compliance that created this lot in 2003. We remain disappointedthat the Oak HHI Road neighborhood was not properly noticed and we did not have theopportunity to express our concerns about the existing house at 747 Oak Hill Road and thereduction of its west side-yard setback to a non-conforming zero lot line. From this lesson, wehave learned we must be vigilant as the proposed Arthur development proceeds. The residents onOak Hill Road request continued notification of the construction schedules and infrastructure

xovements concerning drainage.

Neighborhood Compatibility and Coastal ViewsShould the County approve the submitted design on this site, we are deeply concerned that thefinal designs conform to the rustic, beach character of the neighborhood by maintaining an

6/15/2010~;;

Page 2 of2

appropriate house size (square footage and height) and without negatively impacting coastalviews.

Stormwater Drainage

The applicant and engineers remain naïve concerning the collection and dissemination of stormwaterfrom the Arthur lot. There has been the persistent presumption that storm-water can sheetacross Oak Hill Road and drain into Borregas Creek without consideration of the interveningstructures and property owned by Mrs. Gwynn Hanchett. For example, Mrs. Hanchett owns thepool and pool house directly across the street from the Arthur lot. Not one of us has been able todiscover what legal authority would allow Mr. Arthuts storm water to flow freely through Mrs.Hanchett's property. This has the potential for an unaddressed legal issue with accompanyingdamages. Therefore, we request the drainage design be engineered to offer appropriate protectionto Mrs. Hanchett's property.

Robin, I know this project has been complex and I wish to thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,Kate

Katharine P. Minott745 Oak Hill Road. Aptos C,I1, 95003

foglady1 @hotmail.com

Cc: Supervisor Ellen Pirie; Robin Musitelli; William Parkin, Esq.; Josephine F. Little; AmyLove and Marile Robinson; Laura and Pat Murphy; Mrs. Gwynn Hanchett; Mr. James Wilder

(r~6/15/2010

Josephine F. Little753 Oakhill Road, Aptos, CA 95003

May 16, 2010

To: Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors

Re: May 18, 2010, Agenda Item #63Brian Arthur House proposed between 735 and 749 Oakhil Road

I am writing regarding the Brian Arthur Property. In case you do not have myprevious letter, written for the March 24 Planning Commission hearing, it isattached. While I understand that Mr. Arthur's property is now on the marketand some or all of these issues may be moot, I nevertheless wish to make clearthat I am opposed to the granting of a permit for many reasons, which I hope tomake clear in this letter.

Compatibilty with the neighborhood:

At the March 24 Planning Commission hearing, I asked if any member of theCommission had visited Oakhil Road. The one person who had visiteddescribed the area as peaceful, almost ruraL. In fact, the vacant property on theright side of the road has been designated as open space. As I wil describefurther, squeezing a 2544 square foot house into a space where a one-car carportformerly stood would drastically change the neighborhood. It was shocking to allof the neighbors that a legal lot was ever created in this space.

History 1956-1990: Oakhil Road was created and named by the Hanchetts in 1956when they bought all of the property on the north side of the road andeverything west of 735 Oakhil Road on the south side. They first built theirhouse at 735 Oakhil, then the house at 751, the pool and the pool house, andfinally the house at 755. The Little house (753 Oakhil, built in 1965) was the lasthouse on the road to be built from the ground up.

Two houses that have been built since have seriously affected the neighborhood.The house at 743 Oakhil was not a new construction, but a major remodel thattripled both the size of the house and the lot coverage. Neighbors objected. Alsoagainst neighbor's objections, the planning commission allowed the property at737 Seacliff to be developed by raising the lot level three feet. As a result,drainage was

J-TÐV-l 0 i

diverted onto Oakhil Road, resulting in serious drainage and erosion problemsin wet weather.

Drainage:

At the March 24 zoning commission hearing when the issue of drainage wasbrought up, the Commission suggested forming a street association to solve anydrainage problems. From the beginning, neighbors have found it easy to solveproblems. The lots were large enough in proportion to the structures that theuncovered land absorbed the majority of the water. The property that nowcauses the drainage problem isn't on Oakhil Road, but is the overbuilt propertyat 737 Seacliff.

The lot coverage proposed for the Arthur property would compound thedrainage issues we already face from overbuilding.

Geological Hazard:

During the zoning hearing, it was decided that future buyers of the propertywould be warned of the geological hazard specific to this property. Was Mr.Arthur given notice of this hazard before he bought the property? Since Mr.Arthur has the property for sale, I presume that he wil have to inform any buyerof this hazard.

Also at the hearing Mr. Arthur's lawyer said that two truckloads of soil would beremoved. Upon closer examination, I see that the notice proposes that 160 cubicyards of soil be removed. The truckloads must be massive since a pick-up onlycarries half of one cubic yard. Removing this much soil from this cliff side sitecan't help worsen the geological hazards that have already been identified.

Building Height:

At the March 24 meeting, a new interpretation of the height restrictions was citedby the planner to refute the claim that the structure in question exceeded theheight limit. Has this interpretation been used for other properties, either beforeor since?

To squeeze a house into the space between 735 and 749 Oakhil Road wouldchange the nature of this road, and at the same time cause serious drainageproblems and compound potentially grave geological risk. All wouldsignificantly reduce the value of the surrounding properties.

ji8W ~~1

I urge any of you who have not seen the area to visit before making a judgmentabout granting a building permit in this matter.

Sincerely,

Josephine F. Little

I --8V *-tol.

From: [email protected]: the Arthur Lot

Date: June 11, 2010 2: 12:57 PM PDTTo: ellen. [email protected]

Dear Ellen,

I am enclosing two letters i wrote previously about the Arthur Lot;I'm surprised that Robin says they are not in your file. In addition, Iwant to make a further point: John David, Prime Landscaping, who isin charge of the work on my bluff, has also worked on the Arthurproperty. He tells me that in last winter's storms at least a foot of thefrontage disappeared and has given me pictures showing this. Muchof the land disappeared leaving a cornice so that it is hard to seeunless you closely inspect the edge of the property. If this is the case,I would think that a new citing of the house would be necessary tocomply with the setback, right?

I am also unimpressed by the photos of other houses in theneighborhood that Brian Arthur has submitted with this latest request.The whole point of our many objections (and by "our", I mean the fulltime residents of this street) is that Oakhill Road is different from therest of Seacliff in the size of the lots and placement of the houses. Asfar as i could tell from the pictures on Page 2, only one house isrecognizable as being on Oakhill. When it was remodeled, there wascontroversy about the height, and as I recall it clearly fell within theheight limits because of the pitched roof. None of the houses shownon Page 3 are in the Seacliff area, and it is exactly this look that wehope to avoid. On Page 4, the town house look is clearly not inkeeping with the other houses on this street.

I do appreciate all the help that you have given to Gwynn, Kate,and me with previous problems. Please do not hesitate to call me(688-5385) if you have any further questions. Naturally, i hope thatyou will see that a "townhouse" is not in keeping with this area.

Thanks Ellen,Josie

ì1FM *&1

Page 1 of 1

Robin Bolster

From: Marile Robinson ([email protected]

Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 1:55 PM

To: [email protected]; foglady1 @hotmail.com; [email protected]; Robin Bolster

Cc: 'Marile Robinson'; 'Amy Love'

Subject: FW: Notice of Public Hearing on June 17th 2010...letter of concern

To: Santa Cruz Planning Commission

Robin Bolster-Grant, Project Planer

From: Amy Love and Marile Robinson749 Oakhil RdAptos CA 95003

Date: June 17th, 2010

Re: Tuesday, June 15th 2010 Morning Agenda 9:00am

Application: 09-0139(**); Vicinity of Oak Hil Road APN: 038-151-89

As adjacent neighbors to the property in question, we have sought to be "good neighbors" and respecteveryone's right to enjoy the beauty ofliving on the coast.

As addressed at the last public hearing, we are concerned over who, either the county of Santa Cruz orproperty owner, wil assume responsibility should the drilling, grading and removal of 160 square yardsand development of a new home on a suspect bluff cause further failure - as we are all connected to thisbluff.

In the course of the last six months - there have been several additional failures - wil the countyassume responsibility given their decision to approve the property division and building approval? Ifnot, who wil?

Sincerely,Amy Love and Marile Robinson

6/14/2010 l-rEM ~0L

Jonathan Wittr

Willam P. ParkiRyan D. Moroney

WIR & PAR, LLP147 SOUTH RIR STREET, SUIE 221

SANA CRUZ, CALIFORN 95060TELEPHONE: (831) 429-4055FACSIME: (831) 429-4057

E-MA: offce@witirparlúoom

OF COUNSELGary A. Pattn

June 14,2010

HAND DELIVERED and SENT VIA E-MAIL

Board of SupervisorsCounty of Santa Cruz701 Ocean Street, 5th FloorSanta Cruz, CA 95060

Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Split (3-2) Decision on March 24, 2010Development Permit Application 09-0139APN: 038-151-89Owner: Brian ArthurAgenda Item 62 (June 15,2010)

Dear Board of Supervisors:

This letter is submitted on behalf of Appellants Patrick and Laura Murhy in response tothe Staff Report released with the agenda packet. We want to focus the Board's attention on thepolicy implications of the latest Staff recommendation, which continues to be that the Boardshould approve the (now modified) project. We deeply appreciate the Board's wilingness totake jurisdiction of the Murphy's appeal, and we know you did so because of your concern abouthow the Staff has been interpreting the County's official zoning ordinance with respect todeciding what is, and what is not, a two-story residential structure. The Board's decision wilhave countyide ramifications, since the policy approach ultimately decided upon in this appealwil be used for many subsequent projects throughout the County.

We respectfully submit that the staff interpretation of the zoning ordinance is wrong, andwould have terrible policy implications, and that the Board should reject it, and should deny theproposed Project. Ifthe Board does as we request, the Applicant wil stil be able to propose ahouse, perhaps a smaller house, consistent with the two-story limitation found in the County'soffcial zoning code and in the County General Plan.

1

1 We stil contend that the "lot" is not a legal lot. However, we recognize that it appearsthat the Board wil not decide this issue favorably to Appellants. We incorporate our previouscomments to the Planning Commission, and in our appeal letter to the Board on April 2, 2010,

*~.)

Board of SupervisorsRe: Application 09-0139June 14,2010Page 2

The Project Violates the County's Standards for the Number of Permitted Stories

Despite the Staff Report's alleged resolution of this issue because of proposed revisionsto the Project, the proposed (and modified) Project stil violates the zoning standards for thenumber of stories permitted.2 We reiterate that the Zoning Administrator has stated that whilethe house wil indeed look like it is three stories, it is only two stories according to the way theCounty staff interprets the County Code. However, the entire purose of the limitation on threestories, as contained in the official zoning ordinance, is clearly to protect neighborhoods. It alsoprevents overbuilding of substandard lots. If this substandard lot can accommodate what"appears" to be a three-story house (and we urge you to realize that it really is a three-storyhouse), then so can other substandard lots along the coast, and in other Supervisorial Districts.

The Staffs new analysis concerning the number of stories is plainly wrong. UnderCounty Code § 17.10.700S, a "First Story" is "(t)he lowest story in a building which qualifies asa story... ." (Emphasis added). In this case, the lowest story is the garage, and it is admitted thatit counts as a story. However, Staff now asserts that stories can be stepped up a slope inconsecutive order so that at each level another first story is designated. See Staff Report, p. 3,Figure 1. This interpretation of the County Code would lead to absurd results. The definition ofthe first story is the "lowest" story. In this case, the lowest story is the garage. A "higher" storycanot be par of the first story.

Figure 1 in the Staff Report (found on Page 433 of the Agenda Packet) indicates howthe Staff interprets the County Code. There are two "first" stories indicated, and therefore two"second" stories. (Because the Staff thinks that there can, indeed, be two "second stories," staffavoids reaching the obvious conclusion, which is that the applicant has proposed a three-storyhouse in a two-story zone.) We submit that the Staffs interpretation does not make sense, andthat the Board needs to be sure that this is not the way that the two-story restriction in its officialzoning ordinance is interpreted.

and continue to believe that all the issues raised in our appeal have validity.

2 The Staff Report states that the Applicant's proposed revisions resolve "the appellant's

argument regarding both the County Code definition of a basement and the County Interpretationregarding the treatment of exterior basement walls." Staff Report, p. 2. Assuming for the sake ofargument that the Applicant's revisions do not implicate the previous policy interpretationsconcerning "basements," the revisions do not resolve the violations concerning the limitation onthe number of stories that is the crux of the Appellants' complaint. Indeed, the Appellants'arguments concerning basements was simply refuting Staffs analysis that the Project was onlytwo stories.


It should also be noted that the scenario painted in the Staff Report in Figure 2 ismisleading. Figure 2 is based on the assumption that an applicant must be permitted to grade theslope to have a full first story. Nothing in the County Code suggests this. As everyone knows,lots with slopes are constrained. Therefore, those who purchase sloping lots know that there arebuilding limitations. In this case, a house can be built on the "lot", and conform to the two-storylimitation, except that it would have less square footage than desired by Applicant. The desire ofthe Applicant to build a larger home is not a basis to jettison the limitation on the number ofstories, which is dictated by the County General Plan and the County Code.

It is axiomatic that a house canot have two or more "first" stories. It is also axiomaticthat a "first" story and a "second" story canot be on the same level, but that is what is portrayedin Figure 1. Moreover, in the case of the Project before the Board, the "third" story (or as theStaff states, the "second" story because the Staff concludes there are two first stories) is partiallycantilevered over the garage, which is admitted to be a story. To conclude that a house that is nota three-story house when the third story is actually cantilevered out over the first story (labeled asa garage) is incomprehensible.

The Staffs interpretation is also dangerous because nowhere in the Code is it stated that astory is something different if a lot has a slope. Thus, how much of a slope is necessary in orderfor the Staff s interpretation to apply? There is absolutely no standard or guidance for decidingthis question. This is another reason for the Board to reject the Staffs proposed interpretation ofthe County Code.

The Staff Report states that the County's Erosion Control Ordinance modifies and shouldbe read in conjunction with the limitation on stories. Nothing in the Erosion Control Ordinancealters the limitation or definition of a story. Indeed, the Erosion Control Ordinance simply statesthat "(sJtructures on slopes that would normally require major grading shall utilize pole, step, orotherfoundations that do not require major grading." County Code § 16.22.050(a) (emphasisadded). This Code section concerns "foundations," not "stories." Rather than slab foundations,the Code section merely wants applicants to avoid altering the existing grade significantly. Itdoes not allow successive stories to be stepped up a slope.

The Staff Report implies that because the 28 foot height limit on the slope is maintained,there should not be any concern with multiple stories in any event. However, the height limit is adifferent requirement than the story limitation. Otherwise, there would not be a need for a storylimitation. As the Staff Report states, that prior to 1992, the County "relied on the height limit..to ensure that that a proposed structure would not negatively affect surrounding properties andmaintain compatibility." The story limitation was added as an additional requirement to protect


neighborhoods. This neighborhood protection feature of the County zoning ordinance wil belost if the Staff s interpretation is accepted.

The Staff Report paints a dire picture of what would result if applicants could not stepstories up a slope. The Staff Report also says that this is how the Code has been interpreted for"decades." The Board should remember that the General Plan imposed the limit on stories in1994. (An urgency ordinance was put in place in 1992 because clearly the Board at the timefeared that there were an inappropriate number of homes being proposed with more than twostories). Prior to that time, there were no limitations. Therefore, there are indeed many olderhomes that are three stories in height. The Board of Supervisors in 1994 thought it wise to endthe practice of building homes with more than two stories and changed that policy going forward.To adopt the staffs recommended interpretation of the zoning ordinance would be to go againstwhat the Board did in the 1994 General Plan revisions. Moreover, the argument that building insensitive habitats, such as riparian areas and salamander protection zones, would be moreproblematic if the Staff interpretation is rejected does not make sense either. Building in theseareas is generally prohibited.

The Board should be wary of the dangerous precedent Staff s analysis and conclusionswould set for future projects. Attached to this letter is a modification of Figure 1 presented in theStaff Report. This modified Figure 1 dramatizes why the Staff s interpretation of the CountyCode is wrong. The modified Figure 1 makes the distortion of the two-story zoning code limiteven more visible, but the principles here are the same ones that the staff is urging upon you. Asyou can see from our alteration of the figure, under the logic put forth by Staff there is virtuallyno limit to the number of stories as long as a lot is deep enough to continue to step stories up aslope. A future applicant might use the Staffs logic to argue for four or even five stories if aslope permitted it.

In sum, the appeal should be granted and the proposed Project denied, because the curentproposal is, in fact, for a "three" -story house, not a "two" -story house. In view of the policyimplications of the Staff interpretation of the County's official zoning ordinance, it is paricularlyimportant that the Board not approve the current application.

The Chart in the Staff Report is Misleadini:

Appellants believe that the policy issues outlined above should be dispositive of theappeal, and that the Board needs to focus its attention on those policy issues. Nonetheless,because the Staff Report attempts to show that the proposed Project is compatible with theneighborhood, by including a comparison char of properties on Oakhil Road, Appellants make

Board of SupervisorsRe: Application 09-0139June 14, 2010Page 5

the following comments in response. From Appellants' perspective, the Char being used to showthat the Project is compatible with the neighborhood is seriously misleading.

First, the Chart attempts to portray the majority of the lots as substandard. However, twoofthe lots, the subject lot and 749 Oakil Road, consists ofthe two "lots" that the Countyapproved through the Certificate of Compliance granted unlawfully without a required CoastalDevelopment Permit. If these two "lots" were represented as one, as they legally should be, theywould exceed 10,000 square feet. Two other lots are approximately 9,000 square feet. Only onelot is comparable to the Project site. This lot, 743 Oakill Road, is an odd shaped lot up thestreet from the Project site. But, the Staff excluded a significantly larger lot from the analysisbecause in its view that lot "contains land on both sides of the street, including large areas ofriparian corridor." Of course, Staff felt compelled to include the oddest and smallest lot (whichis actually larger than the Project site) in the analysis to justify the Project's compatibility. Inshort, the Project site is the smallest of the "parcels" and there can be no denying that the Projectsite is a substandard lot.

Second, the Staff Report includes decks in the analysis of habitable area. However, theCounty Code does not count decks in the Floor Area Ratio. County Code § 13.1 0.323( c). Thus,this attempt to add these areas to the habitable area as a comparison is misleading and untenable.The Staff clearly did this because the majority of lots had larger decks than the Project andwanted to portray the Project as similar in size to other homes on OakilL. The Char and itsaccompanying analysis should be ignored.

Thank you for your consideration of these additional comments.

Very truly yours,ITWER~~

Wiliam P. Parkin

EncL.

2nd story

28-foot Height Limit

1 st story 2nd Story

1st Story 2nd Story

Existing Grade

1st Story

(Garage)

Figure 1

Page 1 of3

Robin Bolster

From: Frank Minuti ([email protected]

Tuesday, June 15, 2010 8:04 AM

Katharine Minott; Robin Bolster

Katharine Minott; Ellen Pirie; William LANDUSEJegal_Parkin; Jim LandUse_OakHill_Wilder; Laura& Pat LandUse_OakHill_Murphy; Josie FRIEND_Little; Robin Musitelli; Marile & AmyFRIEND_Robinson-Love; Mona SIA_Daniels

Subject: RE: Appeal of Arthur Proposal Application 09-139 (APN 038-151-89/ no address Oak Hill RoadAptos, CA.

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Good Morning:

I am the co-trustee of the trust that owns the real property located at 753 Oak Hill Road that is occupied by

Josephine Little. I am unable to attend today's meeting. I ask that you listen to the issues brought forth by Ms.Little, Katharine Minott and any others that speak in opposition to this matter before making your decision.Water erosion on both the cliff face and across the road and into the creek area are a major concern.

Sincerely,

Frank

Frank A. Minuti, Jr. CPAPrincipalBerger/Lewis Accountancy Corp.740 Front St. Suite 365Santa Cruz, CA 95060Phone: 831-423-6500Fax:831-423-5206http://ww.bergerlewis.com

Berger/Lewis is a member of AGN International, an association of accounting f!rms with 195 memberfirms throughout North America and the World.

As required by U.S.Treasury Regulations governing tax practice, you are hereby advised that anywritten tax advice contained herein was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, bythe recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the InternalRevenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and itsdisclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged materialfor the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential orprivileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact thesender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication. For more information about Berger/Lewis Accountancy Corporation,contact us at 408- 494-1200

From: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) On Behalf Of Katharine Minott

6/1512010 rír.v/\.H 6' ...rì.H i f" /'"1~

Page 2 of3

Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:22 AMTo: Robin MurbP _Bolster

Cc: Katharine Minott; Frank Minuti; [email protected]; William LANDUSE_legal_Parkin; JimLandUse_OakHill_Wilder; Laura & Pat LandUse_OakHiI_Murphy; Josie FRIEND_Little; Robin CO_SUPS_Musitelli;Marile & Amy FRIEND_Robinson-Love; Mona SIA_DanielsSubject: Appeal of Arthur Proposal Application 09-139 (APN 038-151-89/ no address Oak Hill Road Aptos, CA.

Katharine P. Minott745 Oak Hill Road · Aptos CA 95003

foglady1 @hotmail.com

To: The County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors701 Ocean Street, 4th Floor · Santa Cruz, California 95060c/o Robin Bolster-Grant, Project Planner, [email protected]

Re: Application 09-139 (APN 038-151-89/ no address Oak Hill Road, Aptos, CAJune 14, 2010

Dear Robin,

I, along with Mrs. Josie Little, plan to attend the upcoming Board of Supervisor's hearingconcerning the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the Arthur application to build anew house on Oak Hill Road. Some of our bluff-top Oak Hill Road and down-slope Las OlasDrive neighbors are not able to attend the June 15, 2010 hearing due to employmentconsiderations or health concerns. Mrs. Little and I have been requested to speak on theirbehalf.

Before you take action on this appeal, we request the County refine additional conditions to theArthur application. There are three concentrated areas of concern:

Public NoticePublic notification and regular communication between the County and the neighbors on OakHill Road needs improvement. Apparently, it is too late to reverse the County's approval of theUnconditional Certificate of Compliance that created this lot in 2003. We remain disappointedthat the Oak Hill Road neighborhood was not properly noticed and we did not have theopportunity to express our concerns about the existing house at 747 Oak Hill Road and thereduction of its west side-yard setback to a non-conforming zero lot line. From this lesson, wehave learned we must be vigilant as the proposed Arthur development proceeds. Theresidents onOak Hill Road request continued notification of the construction schedules and infrastructureimprovements concerning drainage.

Neighborhood Compatibility and Coastal ViewsShould the County approve the submitted design on this site, we are deeply concerned thatthefinal designs conform to the rustic, beach character of the neighborhood by maintaining anappropriate house size (square footage and height) and without negatively impacting coastalviews.

Stormwater DrainageThe applicant and engineers remain naïve concerning the collection and dissemination ofstormwaterfrom the Arthur lot. There has been the persistent presumption that storm-water can sheet

6115/2010 -ií8-V/\-r 01-

Page 3 of3

across Oak Hill Road and drain into Borregas Creek without consideration of the interveningstructures and property owned by Mrs. Gwynn Hanchett. For example, Mrs. Hanchett owns thepool and pool house directly across the street from the Arthur lot. Not one of us has been abletodiscover what legal authority would allow Mr. Arthur's storm water to flow freely through Mrs.Hanchett's property. This has the potential for an unaddressed legal issue with accompanyingdamages. Therefore, we request the drainage design be engineered to offer appropriateprotectionto Mrs. Hanchett's property.


Sincerely,

KateKatharine P. Minott745 Oak Hill Road · Aptos CA [email protected]

Cc: Supervisor Ellen Pirie; Robin Musitelli; William Parkin, Esq.; Josephine F. Litte; AmyLove and Marile Robinson; Laura and Pat Murphy; Mrs. Gwynn Hanchett; Mr. James Wilder

Katharine P. MinottMaster of Urban and Regional PlanningSan José State University

Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn more.

Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5196(20100614)

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signatue database 5198(20100615)

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://ww.eset.com

6115/2010

.-. 1l/ /llT~Vií\ (J V


fogladyl @hòtmail.com

To: The County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors

701 Ocean Street, 4th Floor. Santa Cruz, California 95060clo Robin Bolster-Grant, Project Planner, [email protected]

Re: Application 09-139 (APN 038-151-891 no address Oak Hil Road Aptos, CA.

June 14,2010

Dear Robin,

I, along with Mrs. Josie Little, plan to attend the upcoming Board of Supervisor's hearingconcerning the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the Artur application to build anew house on Oak Hil Road. Some of our bluff-top Oak Hill Road and down-slope Las OlasDrive neighbors are not able to attend the June 15,2010 hearing due to employmentconsiderations or health concerns. Mrs. Little and I have been requested to speak on their behalf.

Before you take action on this appeal, we request the County refine additional conditions to theArhur application. There are three concentrated areas of concern:

Public NoticePublic notification and regular communication between the County and the neighbors on OakHil Road needs improvement. Apparently, it is too late to reverse the County's approval of

the

Unconditional Certificate of Compliance that created this lot in 2003. We remain disappointedthat the Oak Hill Road neighborhood was not properly noticed and we did not have theopportnity to express our concerns about the existing house at 747 Oak Hil Road and thereduction of its west side-yard setback to a non-conforming zero lot line. From this lesson, wehave learned we must be vigilant as the proposed Arthur development proceeds. The residents onOak Hil Road request continued notification of the construction schedules and infrastructureimprovements concerning drainage.

Neighborhood Compatibilty and Coastal ViewsShould the County approve the submitted design on this site, we are deeply concerned that thefinal designs conform to the rustic, beach character of the neighborhood by maintaining anappropriate house size (square footage and height) and without negatively impacting coastalviews.

Stormwater Drainage

The applicant and engineers remain naïve concerning the collection and dissemination of storm-water from the Arhur lot. There has been the persistent presumption that storm-water can sheetacross Oak Hill Road and drain into Borregas Creek without consideration of the interveningstructures and propert owned by Mrs. Gwy Hanchett. For example, Mrs. Hanchett owns thepool and pool house directly across the street from the Arhur lot. Not one of

us has been able to

discover what legal authority would allow Mr. Arhur's storm water to flow freely through Mrs.Hanchett's propert. This has the potential for an unaddressed legal issue with accompanyingdamages. Therefore, we request the drainage design be engineered to offer appropriate protectionto Mrs. Hanchett's propert.

LrE:V\ :( 0 Z


foglady 1 @hotmail.com


Sincerely,

Kcd~

Katharine P. Minott

Cc: Supervisor Ellen Pirie; Robin Musitelli; Wiliam Parkin, Esq.; Josephine F. Little; AmyLove and Mari1e Robinson; Laura and Pat Murhy; Mrs. Gwynn Hanchett; Mr. James Wilder

2~ 1t//ìh0tV\ ! lOZ-

sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.ussccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/BDS/GovStream2/BDSvData/non_legacy/... · Date: June 11, 2010 2: 12:57 PM PDT To: ellen. [email protected] Dear

Documents