Building Review



Building Review
Review No:1 B-245830_2024-11-04_1st Review by MRS The submittal was considered with the Unified Permit Center Manager and Senior Building Plans Examiner. The submittal is a different scope of work than the emergency tree damage repair. This project did not qualify as a CCD to an emergency tree damage repair and should have been submitted as a new standalone permit. For this new scope of work, the submittal is incomplete and review by all appropriate agencies should be anticipated at resubmittal. Building Review Comments 1. Bookmarks: The files do not meet requirements for acceptance and additional permit fees are being added until addressed. Bookmark names must be the sheet number/title matching the sheet index. ePlan User Guide (pp.6-7), ePlan Video Series. 2. Clouding/Revisions: Sheets have been significantly revised and all revisions/changes need to be clouded. Some new information such as A0.0 green code chapter 5 about smoking has no applicability for residential projects, please perform a quality assurance review prior to resubmittal. 3. PLG-205: A0.0 show replacement of the entire mechanical system missing from the form. Revise to match the entire scope of work at resubmittal. See SB13 comments below and include as appropriate. 4. Scope of work: Revise A0.0 to show the original scope of work, then provide a separate scope of work for the CCD as noted on PLG-205. Carefully implement all PLG-205 submittal requirements. Otherwise, withdraw and resubmit a new permit application for the new scope of work. 5. SB13 ADU: In contrast to an emergency tree repair, this is an improvement and expansion of the existing dwelling and must show complete documentation for all existing and proposed construction. The ADU is missing any documentation including but not limited to plans, elevations, sections, structural, lighting, mechanical, fire/sound, energy, etc. All documentation must harmonize and SB13 compliance is a requirement. To provide further review, submit complete documentation at resubmittal for an ADU as part of the current scope of work, or as a concurrent separate permit. Contact the Unified Permit Center Manager prior to any type of resubmittal with any questions and include any pertinent written information by the UPCM in the resubmittal documentation. 6. Zoning: As noted above, a comprehensive building review can only be provided upon resolution of the current Zoning comments. Please obtain prior to resubmittal. 7. Survey: The new scope requires a survey to document all existing and proposed construction. In contrast to the issued permit, the SB13 ADU shows as expanded on the site plan, and over the property line on other sheets. All available satellite images seem to show additional construction on the site, that must be included. CRC R106.2, CBC 107.2.6 8. Energy: The floor areas, number of bedrooms, number of stories, average ceiling heights, etc do not match the proposed. Further the ADU must be documented. A mezzanine is not a 3^rd story. Areas were opened to the second floor making the vaults and floor areas increased. Harmonize documentation. 9. Mezzanine: This area does not meet the code requirements for a mezzanine. Please address. CRC R325 10. Spiral Stairway: Complete structural and architectural documentation, engineering, details, lighting, etc. required for review. 11. Due to the incomplete nature of the submittal, additional review comments are likely. The above only highlights some missing aspects and a general review will only be provided once complete documentation is submitted including but not limited to complete drawings, specifications, details and supporting documents. CRC R106, CBC 107 Michael Sotero Certified Plans Examiner - Architect \| Tel: 831-454-3249 \| michael.sotero@santacruzcountyca.gov Review No:2 B-245830_2025-01-03_2nd MRS B-245830 is for an unrelated increased scope of work to B-244865 issued for a tree damaged roof. Building Review Comments 1. ADU: See B-244865 for additional information. The unpermitted ADU is currently shown to be processed under a separate SB13 permit for which complete documentation will be required for review as for new construction of attached dwelling units, along with complete verification/ultrasonic foundation steel verification, etc. Although the current review will not include SFD/ADU related review/comments, since this is an attached unit, the basic ADU must be shown on current documentation to reflect the actual existing conditions. Provide the basic floor plan layout and exterior elevations for the attached dwellings. Zoning comments also highlight other requirements/permits that must be addressed prior to resubmittal. Review to follow. 2. Survey/Site Plan: Overlaying the survey on the A0.0 site plans shows discrepancies that must be fully harmonized, on related documentation, including but not limited to building locations, footprint, size, angles, deck posts, exterior elevations, etc. Review to follow. 3. Energy: The first resubmittal was rejected because all energy forms were replaced with a message “waiting on new T24” and the set was uploaded again with energy forms. The written response states “T24 has been revised” however, the forms are from the original submittal and are not revised. Since the ADU is not recognized the attached SFD/ADU walls should be shown as exterior on the forms. The forms should reflect all revisions and fully address the previous comment. Review to follow. Previous Comment: The floor areas, number of bedrooms, number of stories, average ceiling heights, etc do not match the proposed. Further the ADU must be documented. A mezzanine is not a 3^rd story. Areas were opened to the second floor making the vaults and floor areas increased. Harmonize documentation. 4. Loft: The response states “we have renamed this to coincide with its approval as a loft.” There cannot be an “approval” as a loft as this area is reconstructed and altered. Clarify the type of loft along with complete documentation for zoning requirements (verify with zoning) and SCC building code amendments for lofts. Review to follow. SCC 12.10.220 (E) 5. Spiral Stairway: Response “please see stair specs in SUP file.” There appears to be a generic sheet on page 49 by Paragon stairs. This sheet does not address the comment. Unless a “listing” by ICC or similar is submitted, engineering must be provided by a licensed California Engineer and welding/agency included in PLG240. As previously commented all foundation details, attachment details, or similar must be show on structural sheets/calculations or anything else not contained in a “listing”. A “listing” is not a product cut sheet nor a generic stair sheet as submitted in the SUP file. Further, a sheet such as submitted, must clarify what exact stairs is being proposed, as the sheet contains many options. Fully address the previous comment, review to follow. Previous comment: Complete structural and architectural documentation, engineering, details, lighting, etc. required for review. Michael Sotero Certified Plans Examiner - Architect \| Tel: 831-454-3249 \| michael.sotero@santacruzcountyca.gov Review No:3 B-245830_2025-01-24_3rd MRS B-245830 is for an unrelated increased scope of work to B-244865 issued for a tree damaged roof. · Previous comments can be read online, they are not being repeated/referenced again. · A pdf with 7 marked sheets of the set related to the comments are being emailed to the applicant. Building Review Comments 1. Survey/Site Plan: Overlaying the survey on the A0.0 site continues to show significant discrepancies. A graphic will be emailed to the applicant highlighting the discrepancies. 2. Energy: The energy forms continue to show inaccurate information. The CFA area for total CFA, first floor, and second floor all must be revised. It seems the ADU is included in CFA and must be removed. A graphic will be emailed to the applicant highlighting the discrepancies. · Conditioned Floor Area (cfa) is the floor area (in square feet) of enclosed conditioned space on all floors of a building, as measured at the floor level of the exterior surfaces of exterior walls enclosing the conditioned space. CEnC 100.1 It includes lofts and mezzanines; the floor area of an interior stairway is determined as the CFA beneath the stairs and the tread area of the stairs themselves. Res Compliance Manual Ref 1.8 3. PLG235: The SUP file should not have been accepted for review because it must identify all included documents on the index. 4. Spiral Stair, Generic Sheet: The generic unnumbered sheet by Paragon must be removed as it not only shows conflicting codes and information but does not serve a purpose because the engineer has provided 4 sheets about stairs. If it does serve a purpose fully revise everything, remove every non-applicable aspect as needed to match the EOR sheets. 5. Spiral Stair, Calculations: As previously commented, this is not a listed product and structural calculations by a California Engineer are required. 6. Spiral Stair, Special Inspections: As previously commented, welding requires special inspections. The EOR must revise the PLG240 to include the welds. There are no known shops in the area for welding without special inspections, but if intended, must be submitted for review and approval prior to permit issuance (may not be deferred). 7. Spiral Stair, Design: The EOR sheets show the proposed stair height and width. The architectural sheets show a much wider stair with a lower vertical height. Harmonize all documentation. 8. Spiral Stair, Design: The EOR sheet show a landing “platform” not show on architectural plans and a 36 inch tall guard. A 42 inch guard is the minimum allowed by California codes and any landing must be 36 inches minimum in the path of direction and at least as wide as the stair. Revise and harmonize all documentation to demonstrate code compliance and the proposed design. Michael Sotero Certified Plans Examiner - Architect \| Tel: 831-454-3249 \| michael.sotero@santacruzcountyca.gov

Building Review

Review No:1

B-245830_2024-11-04_1st Review by MRS

The submittal was considered with the Unified Permit Center Manager and Senior Building Plans Examiner. The submittal is a different scope of work than the emergency tree damage repair. This project did not qualify as a CCD to an emergency tree damage repair and should have been submitted as a new standalone permit. For this new scope of work, the submittal is incomplete and review by all appropriate agencies should be anticipated at resubmittal.

Building Review Comments

1. Bookmarks: The files do not meet requirements for acceptance and additional permit fees are being added until addressed. Bookmark names must be the sheet number/title matching the sheet index. ePlan User Guide (pp.6-7), ePlan Video Series.

2. Clouding/Revisions: Sheets have been significantly revised and all revisions/changes need to be clouded. Some new information such as A0.0 green code chapter 5 about smoking has no applicability for residential projects, please perform a quality assurance review prior to resubmittal.

3. PLG-205: A0.0 show replacement of the entire mechanical system missing from the form. Revise to match the entire scope of work at resubmittal. See SB13 comments below and include as appropriate.

4. Scope of work: Revise A0.0 to show the original scope of work, then provide a separate scope of work for the CCD as noted on PLG-205. Carefully implement all PLG-205 submittal requirements. Otherwise, withdraw and resubmit a new permit application for the new scope of work.

5. SB13 ADU: In contrast to an emergency tree repair, this is an improvement and expansion of the existing dwelling and must show complete documentation for all existing and proposed construction. The ADU is missing any documentation including but not limited to plans, elevations, sections, structural, lighting, mechanical, fire/sound, energy, etc. All documentation must harmonize and SB13 compliance is a requirement. To provide further review, submit complete documentation at resubmittal for an ADU as part of the current scope of work, or as a concurrent separate permit. Contact the Unified Permit Center Manager prior to any type of resubmittal with any questions and include any pertinent written information by the UPCM in the resubmittal documentation.

6. Zoning: As noted above, a comprehensive building review can only be provided upon resolution of the current Zoning comments. Please obtain prior to resubmittal.

7. Survey: The new scope requires a survey to document all existing and proposed construction. In contrast to the issued permit, the SB13 ADU shows as expanded on the site plan, and over the property line on other sheets. All available satellite images seem to show additional construction on the site, that must be included. CRC R106.2, CBC 107.2.6

8. Energy: The floor areas, number of bedrooms, number of stories, average ceiling heights, etc do not match the proposed. Further the ADU must be documented. A mezzanine is not a 3^rd story. Areas were opened to the second floor making the vaults and floor areas increased. Harmonize documentation.

9. Mezzanine: This area does not meet the code requirements for a mezzanine. Please address. CRC R325

10. Spiral Stairway: Complete structural and architectural documentation, engineering, details, lighting, etc. required for review.

11. Due to the incomplete nature of the submittal, additional review comments are likely. The above only highlights some missing aspects and a general review will only be provided once complete documentation is submitted including but not limited to complete drawings, specifications, details and supporting documents. CRC R106, CBC 107

Michael Sotero Certified Plans Examiner - Architect | Tel: 831-454-3249 | michael.sotero@santacruzcountyca.gov

Review No:2

B-245830_2025-01-03_2nd MRS

B-245830 is for an unrelated increased scope of work to B-244865 issued for a tree damaged roof.

Building Review Comments

1. ADU: See B-244865 for additional information. The unpermitted ADU is currently shown to be processed under a separate SB13 permit for which complete documentation will be required for review as for new construction of attached dwelling units, along with complete verification/ultrasonic foundation steel verification, etc. Although the current review will not include SFD/ADU related review/comments, since this is an attached unit, the basic ADU must be shown on current documentation to reflect the actual existing conditions. Provide the basic floor plan layout and exterior elevations for the attached dwellings. Zoning comments also highlight other requirements/permits that must be addressed prior to resubmittal. Review to follow.

2. Survey/Site Plan: Overlaying the survey on the A0.0 site plans shows discrepancies that must be fully harmonized, on related documentation, including but not limited to building locations, footprint, size, angles, deck posts, exterior elevations, etc. Review to follow.

3. Energy: The first resubmittal was rejected because all energy forms were replaced with a message “waiting on new T24” and the set was uploaded again with energy forms. The written response states “T24 has been revised” however, the forms are from the original submittal and are not revised. Since the ADU is not recognized the attached SFD/ADU walls should be shown as exterior on the forms. The forms should reflect all revisions and fully address the previous comment. Review to follow. Previous Comment: The floor areas, number of bedrooms, number of stories, average ceiling heights, etc do not match the proposed. Further the ADU must be documented. A mezzanine is not a 3^rd story. Areas were opened to the second floor making the vaults and floor areas increased. Harmonize documentation.

4. Loft: The response states “we have renamed this to coincide with its approval as a loft.” There cannot be an “approval” as a loft as this area is reconstructed and altered. Clarify the type of loft along with complete documentation for zoning requirements (verify with zoning) and SCC building code amendments for lofts. Review to follow. SCC 12.10.220 (E)

5. Spiral Stairway: Response “please see stair specs in SUP file.” There appears to be a generic sheet on page 49 by Paragon stairs. This sheet does not address the comment. Unless a “listing” by ICC or similar is submitted, engineering must be provided by a licensed California Engineer and welding/agency included in PLG240. As previously commented all foundation details, attachment details, or similar must be show on structural sheets/calculations or anything else not contained in a “listing”. A “listing” is not a product cut sheet nor a generic stair sheet as submitted in the SUP file. Further, a sheet such as submitted, must clarify what exact stairs is being proposed, as the sheet contains many options. Fully address the previous comment, review to follow. Previous comment: Complete structural and architectural documentation, engineering, details, lighting, etc. required for review.

Michael Sotero Certified Plans Examiner - Architect | Tel: 831-454-3249 | michael.sotero@santacruzcountyca.gov

Review No:3

B-245830_2025-01-24_3rd MRS

B-245830 is for an unrelated increased scope of work to B-244865 issued for a tree damaged roof.

· Previous comments can be read online, they are not being repeated/referenced again.

· A pdf with 7 marked sheets of the set related to the comments are being emailed to the applicant.

Building Review Comments

1. Survey/Site Plan: Overlaying the survey on the A0.0 site continues to show significant discrepancies. A graphic will be emailed to the applicant highlighting the discrepancies.

2. Energy: The energy forms continue to show inaccurate information. The CFA area for total CFA, first floor, and second floor all must be revised. It seems the ADU is included in CFA and must be removed. A graphic will be emailed to the applicant highlighting the discrepancies.

· Conditioned Floor Area (cfa) is the floor area (in square feet) of enclosed conditioned space on all floors of a building, as measured at the floor level of the exterior surfaces of exterior walls enclosing the conditioned space. CEnC 100.1 It includes lofts and mezzanines; the floor area of an interior stairway is determined as the CFA beneath the stairs and the tread area of the stairs themselves. Res Compliance Manual Ref 1.8

3. PLG235: The SUP file should not have been accepted for review because it must identify all included documents on the index.

4. Spiral Stair, Generic Sheet: The generic unnumbered sheet by Paragon must be removed as it not only shows conflicting codes and information but does not serve a purpose because the engineer has provided 4 sheets about stairs. If it does serve a purpose fully revise everything, remove every non-applicable aspect as needed to match the EOR sheets.

5. Spiral Stair, Calculations: As previously commented, this is not a listed product and structural calculations by a California Engineer are required.

6. Spiral Stair, Special Inspections: As previously commented, welding requires special inspections. The EOR must revise the PLG240 to include the welds. There are no known shops in the area for welding without special inspections, but if intended, must be submitted for review and approval prior to permit issuance (may not be deferred).

7. Spiral Stair, Design: The EOR sheets show the proposed stair height and width. The architectural sheets show a much wider stair with a lower vertical height. Harmonize all documentation.

8. Spiral Stair, Design: The EOR sheet show a landing “platform” not show on architectural plans and a 36 inch tall guard. A 42 inch guard is the minimum allowed by California codes and any landing must be 36 inches minimum in the path of direction and at least as wide as the stair. Revise and harmonize all documentation to demonstrate code compliance and the proposed design.

Michael Sotero Certified Plans Examiner - Architect | Tel: 831-454-3249 | michael.sotero@santacruzcountyca.gov

CDI - Application Status