Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, January 25, 2022 (part 4 of 4)

Page 2 of 31 ends

Lot Area: 1.19 acres (51,836 square feet)
Environmental
Determination: Categorical Exemption, 15332, In-Fill Development Projects Planning Staff: Ryan Bane, Senior Planner

PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
This project involves a proposal to construct a six-story, mixed-use project consisting of one level of underground parking, ground level commercial space, and 233 single-room occupancy (SRO) units.

The parcel is 51,692 square feet and zoned RTC/CZ-O/FP-O (Tourist Residential Beach Commercial/Coastal Zone Overlay/Floodplain Overlay). The purpose of the Tourist Residential Beach Commercial district is to establish standards for development of residential uses mixed with neighborhood commercial, motel, and regional tourist commercial use. These standards are designed both to improve existing uses and encourage new developments in a manner that maintains a harmonious balance between residential and regional commercial uses. SRO developments of sixteen or more units and mixed residential and commercial developments with noncommercial uses on the ground floor are permitted with the approval of a Special Use Permit and Design Permit. The project also requires approval of a Coastal Permit because the site is located within the CZ-O (Coastal Zone Overlay) district.

29.621

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 3 of 31 ends

ANALYSIS
Project Site and Surroundings. The approximately 1.19 acres (51,692 square feet) project site is located on the eastern side of Center Street, just north of the intersection of Center and Front Streets. Commercial and residential uses surround the project site; the site is bounded by an auto body shop to the north, a hotel use to the south, multi-family residential to the east, and commercial as well as Depot Park across Center St. to the west.

Archaeological Report. The property is located within a sensitive archaeological area. A cultural resource evaluation was conducted in July of 2020 by Archaeological Resource Management, which included an archival search, a surface reconnaissance, and a written report of the findings with appropriate recommendations. The archival research revealed that no previously recorded archaeological resources are located within the proposed project area. Two previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site, CA-SCR-12 and CA-SCR-273/H are located within a one-eighth of a mile radius. No significant cultural materials, prehistoric or historic were noted during surface reconnaissance. However, the subject area is located within the vicinity of historic lumber processing activities dating to the late 19th Century. There is a potential for subsurface historic deposits associated with these activities to be present within the proposed project area.

Thus, due to the potential for both prehistoric and historic subsurface cultural materials within the proposed project area, it is recommended that periodic archaeological monitoring take place during earth moving activities for the proposed project.

Due to the recorded sites and the general sensitivity of the area, a standard condition of approval has been included that requires that a qualified archaeologist monitor construction activities into native soils for the proposed project. If prehistoric and/or historic deposits or features are discovered during construction, construction will be required to cease and a qualified archaeologist will be required to inspect and prepare recommendations for handling of the artifacts.

Geotechnical Reports. A geotechnical investigation was prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group in September of 2020 to evaluate the subsurface soil and geologic conditions on the site and to provide recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of the project design and construction. The report concludes that from a geotechnical viewpoint the project is feasible provided the concerns listed in the report are addressed in the project design. Issues addressed by the report include potential for seismic and static settlements, shallow ground water, shoring considerations for below-grade excavations, differential movement at on-grade to on-structure transitions, and soil corrosion potential. A condition of approval has been included that requires the geotechnical report be submitted as part of the building permit application, and that the geotechnical recommendations are incorporated into the building design.

29.622

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 4 of 31 ends

Consistency with General Plan, Beach and South of Laurel Plan, and Zoning. The subject parcel has a Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC) General Plan designation. This designation applies to areas that “emphasize a variety of commercial uses that serve Santa Cruz residents as well as visitors. Mixed-use development is strongly encouraged in RVC districts”. Specifically, the General Plan RVC designation calls out the South of Laurel area to “mixed-use and residential development along with visitor-serving and neighborhood commercial uses to connect the Beach Area with Downtown Santa Cruz. The Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan provides detailed requirements for this area.” The General Plan allows a floor area ratio (FAR) for the RVC land use designation of up to 0.25 to 3.5. The project’s FAR is 2.94, which is within the allowed FAR established in the General Plan. The proposed mixed-use project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, including the following:
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.4 - In neighborhoods near visitor areas, give priority to uses that serve both visitors and residents.  Land Use Development Policy LU3.7 - Encourage higher-intensity residential uses and maximum densities in accordance with the General Plan Land Use designations.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.7.1 - Allow and encourage development that meets the high end of the General Plan Land Use designation density unless constraints associated with site characteristics and zoning development standards require a lower density.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.8 - Allow the following residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter: Density bonus units.  Mobility Development Policy M1.1 - Reduce automobile dependence by encouraging appropriate neighborhood and activity center development.  Mobility Development Policy M1.3 - Create pedestrian-friendly frontage and streetscapes and attractive pedestrian-oriented areas.
 Economic Development Policy 1.1.2 - Support the development and expansion of businesses that make a balanced contribution to the cultural, environmental, and economic health of the city.
 Economic Development Policy 1.1.3 - Encourage the development of year-round businesses and visitor activities, resources, and destinations that can also attract and engage local residents.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2 - Provide for residents’ daily shopping needs in local-serving neighborhood commercial centers.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.1 - Encourage neighborhood shopping in nodes of commercial development that serve residential areas and have adequate transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.2 - Support the development of neighborhood gathering places in conjunction with local-serving neighborhood commercial.

29.623

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 5 of 31 ends

Pacific Railroad tracks form an historical hard rail connection between the beach, the wharf and downtown. As the physical link between these two areas, the revitalization of the South of Laurel is seen as a strategic economic and transportation component of a comprehensive strategy. The purpose of the B/SOL Plan is to:

1. Propose a sensitive and realistic program for neighborhood preservation and revitalization targeted to the Beach Flats, Beach Hill, and South of Laurel areas;

2. Establish a comprehensive program for managing:
 Traffic and transportation,
 Tourism and maritime assets, and
 Expansion of the season and linkage with the Downtown; and

3. Enhance the historic resort attributes of the Beach area for residents and visitors.

The B/SOL Plan generally provides land use, transportation, and design recommendations.

2.10)
 Multi-level, large scale development to optimize use of opportunity sites;  Locating parking lots to the rear of structures, and wherever possible underground or within structures;
 Balconies, terraces, courtyards, and similar outdoor spaces to take advantage of views and create street vitality;
 Establish levels of public benefit for higher residential designations.  Encourage mixed-use development in the residential sections of the area on major arterials by overlaying the mixed-use zoning district on appropriate areas.  Implement mechanisms to increase rental housing including stock in the South of Laurel area, including a possible waiver of inclusionary requirements for rental project.  Encourage a mixture of market rate and affordable housing.

29.624

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 6 of 31 ends

project is consistent with the City’s vision for development in the South of Laurel area in that it provides a mixed use development with affordable rental housing and street level commercial uses that connect the downtown to the beach area.

Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit
There are two commercial buildings on the site that are proposed for demolition. The primary structure is a single story commercial building that was constructed in 1963 based on City of Santa Cruz Building Permit records, and the other is the Hertz Rental Car structure that was constructed in 1981 as a detached showroom. Pursuant to the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit ordinance, the purpose of this permit is to evaluate requests for demolition of nonresidential structures fifty years of age or older, and of undetermined age, to ensure that those which may have historic value are not demolished. A historic evaluation (DPR 523) was prepared by city approved historian Robert Cartier of Archaeological Resource Management in July of 2020 which concluded that that the property is not listed on the California Register of Historic Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, or the City of Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, and does not appear eligible for listing in any of the registers. Thus the structures do not appear to be historically significant and are not eligible for listing on the City Historic Building Survey.

Design Permit
Site Layout. The unconventionally shaped lot is generally flat with approximately 182 feet of frontage along Center Street. The parcel is not located within any mapped potentially sensitive habitat or resource area. The proposed mixed-use project consists of six stories above one level of underground parking garage with a footprint that covers the majority of the site area. The proposed site plan includes a “U”-shaped building, with access to the project site provided from a new driveway from Center Street near the northern property line. The driveway provides access to both grade level parking as well as an underground level. With a combination of over 13-feet of sidewalk right-of-way, in addition to a 15-foot setback, the building is proposed to be setback approximately 28-feet from the back of curb to provide a wide expanse of sidewalk with almost a public plaza feel. The first floor frontage consists of two commercial spaces totaling 2,356 square feet that can be used as retail or restaurant space, as well as a lobby and leasing office for the residential use. Also located on the first floor is a bike café, storage units, as well as nine residential units that open on to a shared community open space.

Residential uses will be located primarily on levels 2 through 6, with the second floor also including residential amenities such as a game room, fitness center and a large podium level open space with seating and landscaping. Additionally, the sixth floor contains a community room and larger outdoor recreation deck facing Center Street. The proposed 233 SRO units are broken down into three configurations: 78 “micro” units averaging 295 square feet; 65 “standard” units averaging 328 square feet; and “extended” units averaging 400 square feet.

Between the three unit types, the average unit size will be 345 square feet. Thirty-one (31) of the residential units will be available as affordable housing units, with 23 units (15%) as very-low income, and 8 units (5%) as moderate income.

29.625

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 7 of 31 ends

R-T(C) (Tourist Residential Beach Commercial) Zone District Regulations. The purpose of the Tourist Residential Beach Commercial district is “to establish standards for development of residential uses mixed with neighborhood commercial, motel, and regional tourist commercial use. These standards are designed both to improve existing uses and encourage new developments in a manner that maintains a harmonious balance between residential and regional commercial uses”. Pursuant to 24.10.620.2(i), “Mixed residential and commercial developments with noncommercial uses on the ground floor, subject to the R-T(A) District regulations”, and

24.10.620.2(p), “Single-room occupancy housing with sixteen units or more” are allowed subject to approval of a Special Use Permit and Design Permit, both of which are included as part of this application.

Zoning Code Section 24.10.620.2(i) states that the R-T(A) (Subdistrict A – Medium-Density Residential) Zone District standards are to be applied to the project. The maximum height of buildings in the R-T(A) zoning district is 36 feet. However, California State Density Bonus Law and the City’s corresponding Density Bonus Ordinance provide tools to incentivize affordable housing and/or deeper levels of affordability. One incentive is that applicants can utilize a waiver or modification to development standards if those standards would “physically preclude” construction of the density bonus project. For the subject project, the applicants are proposing a waiver to the district height standard to allow for three additional stories, with the highest point of the building proposed at approximately 75 feet. There are roof structures that extend above the 75-foot height, including stairway housing for access to roof decks and a decorative bell tower. Section 24.12.150 of the Zoning Ordinance allows specific architectural features to exceed the height limit, including “cupolas, scenery lofts, or other roof structures for the housing of elevators, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans, air conditioning, or similar equipment used solely to operate and maintain a building”. Additionally, the B/SOL Plan Design Guidelines call for “Flat roofed buildings (to) incorporate porches, window overhangs, trellises, wall and opening articulation or other features to avoid a bare box appearance”. The stairway housing and bell tower would therefore be exempt from the height limitations and follow the B/SOL Design Guidelines.

In addition to the height waiver, the applicants are requesting a reduction to the required setbacks. With the exception of height and setbacks, the R-T(A) zone district requirements are all being met. The table below summarizes the project’s compliance with the R-T(A) setback requirements:

R-T(A) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
Provision Required Proposed Complies?
Building Height 36 feet 75 feet (Allowed per
Density Bonus Law)
Yes
Front Setback 1st Story
(Center Street)
15 feet (portions
allowed at 6-feet)
15’ (portion at 9’) Yes
Front Setback 2nd Story
(Center Street)
15 feet (portions
allowed at 6-feet)
15’ (portion at 9’) Yes
Front Setback 3rd Story
(Center Street)
15 feet (portions
allowed at 6-feet)
15’ (portion at 9’) Yes

29.626

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 8 of 31 ends

R-T(A) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
Provision Required Proposed Complies?
Front Setback 4th Story
(Center Street)
15 feet (portions
allowed at 6-feet)
15’ (portion at 9’) Yes
Front Setback 5th Story
(Center Street)
18’-4” (portions allowed
at 6-feet)
15’ (portion at 9’)
(Allowed per Density
Bonus Law)
Yes
Front Setback 6th Story
(Center Street)
21’-8” (portions allowed
at 6-feet)
15’ (portion at 9’)
(Allowed per Density
Bonus Law)
Yes
Side Setback 1st Story
(North)
5 feet 12 feet Yes
Side Setback 2nd Story
(North)
8’-4” 12 feet Yes
Side Setback 3rd Story
(North)
11’-8” 12 feet Yes
Side Setback 4th Story
(North)
15’ 12 feet
(Allowed per Density
Bonus Law)
Yes
Side Setback 5th Story
(North)
18’-4” 12 feet
(Allowed per Density
Bonus Law)
Yes
Side Setback 6th Story
(North)
21’-8” 12 feet
(Allowed per Density
Bonus Law)
Yes
Rear Setback 1st Story 10 feet 10 feet Yes
Rear Setback 2nd Story 10 feet 10 feet Yes
Rear Setback 3rd Story 11’-8” 10 feet
(Allowed per Density
Bonus Law)
Yes
Rear Setback 4th Story 15’ 10 feet
(Allowed per Density
Bonus Law)
Yes
Rear Setback 5th Story 18’-4” 10 feet
(Allowed per Density
Bonus Law)
Yes
Rear Setback 6th Story 21’-8” 10 feet
(Allowed per Density
Bonus Law)
Yes
Side Setback 1st Story
(South)
5 feet 11-feet Yes
Side Setback 2nd Story
(South)
8’-4” 11-feet Yes
Side Setback 3rd Story
(South)
11’-8” 11-feet
(Allowed per Density
Bonus Law)
Yes
Side Setback 4th Story
(South)
15’ 11-feet Yes

29.627

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 9 of 31 ends

R-T(A) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
Provision Required Proposed Complies?
(Allowed per Density
Bonus Law)
Side Setback 5th Story
(South)
18’-4” 11-feet
(Allowed per Density
Bonus Law)
Yes
Side Setback 6th Story
(South)
21’-8” 11-feet
(Allowed per Density
Bonus Law)
Yes
Architectural Design and Beach and South of Laurel Area Plan (B/SOL). The “Beach and South of Laurel Plan Design Guidelines,” adopted by the City in October 1998, is both an appendix to the B/SOL Area Plan and part of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). The purpose of the Guidelines is to “promote development that respects the physical and environmental characteristics of the community and site, and which reflects functional and attractive site planning and high quality design.” Guidelines are provided for the South of Laurel area in which the proposed project is located, which recommends the use of Victorian, Spanish Colonial Revival, or other traditional architectural themes. New residential development is to exhibit the high quality design and detail of traditional architecture in the community The applicant has opted to design the mixed-use project in the Spanish Colonial Revival style.

The project is consistent with the following B/SOL Design Guidelines:

Multiple Family Residential
 Courtyard style developments are encouraged for usable open space. Open space shall be consolidated to create usable open space.
 Parking shall be located within or at the rear of structures and parking lots shall not be visible from the public right-of-way.
 Large parking lots are not allowed. Parking shall be incorporated within residential structures and small parking courts wherever possible.
 Landscaping shall be designed to enhance the development architectural style.  Permanent containers for flowering plants are encouraged for us in limited space areas, at entries and in courtyards and plazas. Containers may also serve as seating.  Vines and climbing plants integrated with building design and used on walls and trellises are encouraged to enhance structures, soften blank walls, provide passive security barriers and deter graffiti.
 Lighting type shall be suitable to the project architectural style.

Commercial
 Multi-level, large scale development is encouraged to optimize use of opportunity sites in the area.
 The number of site access points on primary thoroughfare streets shall be limited. Site access and internal circulation shall promote safety, efficiency and convenience. Avoid conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and provide adequate areas for maneuvering,

29.628

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 10 of 31 ends

stacking, truck staging and loading and accommodating emergency vehicles on side streets and alleys.
 Roof design shall be appropriate to the architectural style of the building. All unsightly views of flat roofs and roof top mechanical equipment shall be screened.  Balconies, terraces, courtyards and similar outdoor spaces shall be provided along building street facades to take advantage of views and create street vitality.

Architecture
 Buildings shall be designed with stucco walls, courtyards, arches, towers, balconies, wood doors and windows, decorative iron and tile details, or other features typical of the Spanish Colonial Revival style.
 Building forms shall suggest thick masonry reminiscent of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture and incorporate features such as recessed doors and windows.  Building walls shall be stucco and colored white, off-white, or very light-to-medium value, warm-toned hues.
 Multiple color combinations may be used, provided they are subtle and consist of a limited number of colors. Variations in shade or tone can be used to articulate architectural features.
 Roofs shall be hipped terra cotta tile roofs or flat roofs completely surrounded by a parapet.  Flat-roofed buildings shall incorporate porches, window overhangs, trellises, wall and opening articulation, or other features to avoid a bare-box appearance. Wall surfaces shall have decorative texture or ornament concentrated around doors and windows.  Tile roof colors shall be natural clay terra cotta tones.  Stained wood is preferred; however, trim also may be painted a darker-value color than the main building color.
 Wood sash or casement windows shall be used to maintain compatible architectural character. Vinyl-clad wood or baked enamel aluminum frame windows are acceptable if they duplicate the established architectural style.
 Building articulation shall be used to create interest and reduce the visual impact of large buildings. This can be achieved through varying height, and setbacks within the same building, affecting wall planes and adding architectural interest with roof overhangs, awnings, trellises, windows, moldings and other elements.  Whenever possible, new structures shall be clustered to create plazas and pedestrian spaces.

Such spaces shall provide amenities like shade, benches.  Balconies, terraces, courtyards and similar outdoor spaces should be provided along building street facades to take advantage of view, create street vitality and enhance the resort character of the area.
 Create the opportunity for specialized, pedestrian-oriented commercial uses.

29.629

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 11 of 31 ends

Materials. The Spanish Colonial Revival design incorporates a variety of exterior finish materials including: white cement plaster stucco, Spanish tile roof, cobalt blue tile, colored mosaic tile, decorative ironwork, Spanish tile stair risers, crown molding, metal railings, wood trellises, single hung vinyl windows, and decorative exterior lighting. To ensure that the final building design is well-articulated with the proposed material palette, a condition of approval requires the plans submitted for building permits shall have the same level of articulation, detailing, and dimensionality as shown in the approved plans.

Single-Room Occupancy Requirements. Part 11 of Zoning Code Chapter 12 regulates SingleRoom Occupancy Housing projects. The proposed table demonstrates how the development meets these standards:

SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
Provision Required Proposed Complies?
SRO Unit Range 150 to 400 square feet 295 to 400 square feet Yes SRO Average Unit Size 345 square feet 345 square feet Yes SROs greater than 220
square feet required to
have:

Kitchen and Full
Bathroom
All SROs have a
Kitchen and Full
Bathroom
Yes
Closet All SROs have a
closet
Yes
Common Facilities: 10 square feet of
common usable open
space per unit
233 x 10 = 2,330 sq. ft.
19,388 square feet of
common usable open
space
Yes
Laundry facilities
1 washer/dryer for
every 20 units
12 washer/dryers
Minimum of 12
washer/dryers
provided
Yes
1 storage space per unit
233 storage units
Basement – 179
1 st Floor – 54
233 storage spaces
Yes
1 easily accessible
space for storing and
locking a bicycle per
unit
233 bike spaces
Bike Café – 72 bike
spaces
Large Lockers – 233
bike spaces
Total – 295 bike
spaces
Yes

29.630

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 12 of 31 ends

SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
Provision Required Proposed Complies?
Management Plan Must contain
management
policies/maintenance
plans/rental
procedures/tenant
rules/security
procedures
Management Plan
provided
Attachment 4
Yes
Off-Street Parking. A parking garage with two levels (one at grade and one underground) will be located on site, providing parking for a total of 209 vehicles. The parking requirement for SROs is one space for each dwelling unit, and under the assumption that the commercial spaces are calculated at the higher restaurant parking requirement (1/120 gross square feet), a total of 20 parking spaces would be required, for a total of 253 off-street spaces. However, pursuant to section 24.16.256 of the City’s Density Bonus ordinance, rental housing developments with at least 11% very-low income or 20% lower income units; are within one-half mile of a major transit stop; and have unobstructed access to the major transit stop; the residential parking requirement is reduced to .5 spaces per bedroom. With 233 bedrooms, and the project meeting these standards, 117 parking spaces are required for the residential portion of the project. Based on the 117 residential requirement, and the 20 spaces required for the commercial, a total of 137 off-street spaces are required for the project. With 209 spaces provided on the site, and 137 provided, the overall project has a surplus of 72 parking spaces.

Refuse Collection. The trash room is proposed just inside the main driveway to the parking garage.

The trash rooms accommodate a dumpster and recycling bins. The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the proposed trash room layout and interface with the street.

Landscaping. The project’s proposed tree and planting plan includes a total of 61 new trees:
 24-inch box Osakazuki Japanese Maple Trees
 24-inch box Ace of Hearts Redbud Trees
 24-inch box London Plane Trees
 24-inch box Majestic Beauty Olive Trees
 26 foot Mexican Fan Palms
 15-gallon Sweet Bay
Other new landscape plants proposed throughout the project would be coastal native and regionally adapted, with a focus on minimizing water use.

Coastal Permit
The proposed project requires a Coastal Permit because it is located within the Coastal Zone Overlay (CZ-O) district. The project is consistent with Beach-South of Laurel Area Plan LCP Policies, including:

29.631

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 13 of 31 ends

 Protect and enhance the charming small-scale residential neighborhoods in the South of Laurel while encouraging the significant development opportunities presented by vacant and underutilized parcels. (LU 2.9)
 Encourage mixed-use development in the residential sections of the South of Laurel area on major arterials by overlaying the mixed-use zoning district on appropriate areas (LU 2.10)  Multi-level, large scale development to optimize use of opportunity sites;  Locating parking lots to the rear of structures, and wherever possible underground or within structures;
 Balconies, terraces, courtyards, and similar outdoor spaces to take advantage of views and create street vitality;
The project will not affect coastal views because the property is located approximately 1,500 feet inland from Beach Street, which is the first public roadway from the sea. The project site is not located within any sensitive natural habitat or resource areas as mapped in the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. The site is mostly paved with associated areas of landscaping but no mature trees. New landscaping proposed throughout the project will be coastal native and regionally adapted, with a focus on minimizing water use.

The project includes ground floor commercial space providing food and retail uses for visitors, the new residences of the development, as well as existing residences in the South of Laurel area. As proposed, the project is consistent with applicable policies of the Local Coastal Program, which seek to minimize the impact of development on coastal resources and provide visitor-serving uses in the beach area.

Special Use Permit
Both “single-room occupancy housing with sixteen units or more” and “Mixed residential and commercial developments with noncommercial uses on the ground floor, subject to the R-T(A) District regulations” are permitted with the approval of a Special Use Permit and Design Permit in the R-T(C) zoning district. The purpose of consideration of the Special Use Permit is to ensure the proper integration of essential or desirable uses in certain locations or zoning districts. The project is consistent with the 2030 General Plan and B/SOL Plan in that it will provide important affordable rental housing, and it maximizes the development potential of an underutilized infill site. With the purpose of the Tourist Residential Beach Commercial district being “to establish standards for development of residential uses mixed with neighborhood commercial, motel, and regional tourist commercial use. These standards are designed both to improve existing uses and encourage new developments in a manner that maintains a harmonious balance between residential and regional commercial uses”, the proposed mixed-use project that provides much needed housing, as well as neighborhood commercial, meets the purpose of the district.

The proposed building has been designed in a Spanish Colonial Revival style and is consistent with the Beach/South of Laurel Area Plan design guidelines. The project meets all district development standards and the overall building mass is broken up by architectural treatments, including decks, trellises and overhangs. Rooftop equipment is incorporated into the roof design

29.632

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 14 of 31 ends

and screened from adjacent properties. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, and parking are designed into the building, making them accessible but screened from view.

Taking all of these into consideration, the proposed uses incorporated in to the project will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community.

Density Bonus
To address California’s need for affordable housing, the State enacted the density bonus law (Government Code §§ 65915 – 65918) in 1979 to encourage the provision of affordable housing units by offering a combination of benefits to developers. For projects that include the requisite number of affordable housing units, and upon the request of an applicant, cities are required to (i) allow more market rate units to be built than otherwise allowed by the applicable zoning designation); (ii) provide “incentives or concessions,” such as reduced development standards, that result in actual and identifiable cost savings for the project; (iii) provide “waivers or modifications” of development standards that would physically preclude the project from being constructed; and (iv) allow reduced parking requirements.

Cities have very limited discretion when reviewing density bonus applications. Cities are generally obligated to grant a density bonus and incentives, concessions, waivers, or reductions in development standards to the developer so long as the proposed development complies with the applicable affordability requirements and the waivers or incentives/concessions meet certain standards. Projects that include a specified amount of affordable housing are entitled to a density bonus, even if the density bonus would allow a project to exceed the maximum density under the City’s general plan and zoning code.

The amount of the density bonus is based on the number of affordable units at each income level that are included in a project. To determine whether a project qualifies for a density bonus, the percentage of affordable units is based on the maximum number of units that would be permitted under the City’s zoning code (i.e., the “base density”). In areas where there is no density range, or in the case with a project that proposes SROs, Section 24.16.255(6) of the Zoning Ordinance requires an applicant to submit base plans, or plans showing a project that fully conforms to objective standards, in order to determine the number of units that could be constructed on the site, thus establishing the base density. The applicant has provided plans for a base project that meets all of the R-T(A) (Subdistrict A – Medium-Density Residential) Zone District development standards (Attachment 3), including height, setbacks, open space, etc., and the determined base density is 155 units.

Market-rate projects providing certain percentages of affordable units or units at deeper levels of affordability are entitled to an increase in density up to 50% of the total number of units that are allowed under the City's Zoning Ordinance, depending on specified percentages and levels of affordability. The additional units help offset the increased costs associated with the increased number of or more deeply affordable units. The density bonus units themselves are not required to be affordable and, pursuant to Section 24.16.250(2) of the Zoning Code (as well as the State Density Bonus and California case law), “density bonus units shall not be included in the “total units” when determining the number of affordable units required to qualify a housing

29.633

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 15 of 31 ends

development for a density bonus.” Thus, by law, the percentages of affordable units that qualify a project for the density bonus are based on the base project only and not the base project plus the density bonus units.

The City’s Inclusionary Ordinance requires all new projects to provide 20% inclusionary units at moderate-income levels. The applicants are proposing a total of 31 inclusionary units (20%) of the base conforming 155 units, allocating 23 units (15%) as very low-income and 8 units (5%) as moderate income. According to AB 2345 Government Code Section 65915(f)(2), if 15% of the total conforming base density is designated very low-income, development projects then qualify for a 50% density bonus, or for this particular project, up to 233 total units.

In addition to allowing more market rate units to offset the cost of providing affordable units, the law also provides a variety of tools that applicants can utilize to make projects physically or more economically feasible, including incentives/concessions and waivers that allow for modification of development standards if those standards would result in “actual and identifiable cost reductions” to the project or that “physically preclude” construction of the density bonus project. The project applicant is allowed to request as many waivers from development standards as needed if the development standard would preclude the density bonus project from being built at the allowed density. The applicant has requested two waivers of development standards, both of which are required to be waived if they preclude project development. The city must grant these waivers unless they violate state or federal law, create a specific adverse impact on health and safety or the physical environment that cannot be mitigated, or adversely impact real property listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. There is no evidence that the following waivers requested should not be granted as required by state law:

Waiver 1: The project proposes to exceed the maximum height 36 feet as required in the R-T(A) zone district, proposing a six story building at approximately 75 feet. Complying with the 36-foot standard would require the building to reduce the number of floors and eliminate a substantial number of residential units. This would physically preclude the construction of the project that would include the number of residential units allowed under the State Density Bonus Law.

Waiver 2: The project proposes a reduction to setback requirements. Complying with the setbacks required in the R-T(A) zone district would require the building to be increasingly stepped back as the height increases. These increased building setbacks would reduce the volume of the building and eliminate a substantial number of residential units. This would physically preclude the construction of the project that would include the number of residential units allowed under the State Density Bonus Law.

Pursuant to density bonus state law and the City’s zoning ordinance, the applicant will be required to provide justification for any requested waivers, and the City must approve the requests unless it can make any of following findings based on “substantial evidence”:

Waivers (California Government Code Section 65915(e))
Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards if the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there

29.634

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 16 of 31 ends

is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or to grant any waiver or reduction that would be contrary to state or federal law.

As part of staff’s review of the project, there was no evidence of the height or setback waivers having a specific adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment. Additionally, there are no properties listed on the California Register of Historic Resources adjacent to the property, and the modification is not contrary to state or federal law.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Consistent with the City’s Community Outreach Policy for Planning Projects, the applicants held an online webinar for the community to learn about the project, ask questions, and give input. The community outreach webinar was held on August 4, 2021 and was noticed with signage on the property, notices mailed to property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the project site, and advertised on the City’s website. Email notifications were also sent to those who had signed up for such alerts. Approximately 25 members of the public attended the meeting, with questions and discussion items involving traffic, parking, water consumption, and property management and leasing restrictions regarding the number of tenants per unit and vacation rentals. While the previously mentioned issues were part of the discussion, overall the responses to the project were supportive, specifically in regards to the design, the addition of high density housing in the South of Laurel corridor, and the provision of very-low income units. In addition to the webinar, a project webpage was created and posted to the City of Santa Cruz website that provided a link to the recorded webinar and allowed for members of the public to submit comments to the project planner.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides several “categorical exemptions” which are applicable to categories of projects and activities that the Lead Agency has determined generally do not pose a risk of significant impacts on the environment. The project consists of a 233 SROs and ground floor commercial within the developed urban area of the city of Santa Cruz.

The project has been determined to be exempt from CEQA under a Categorical Exemption pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32-Infill Development Projects).

SUMMARY
This project involves a proposal to construct a six-story, mixed-use project consisting of one level of underground parking, ground level commercial space, and 233 SRO units. The development will implement the City’s vision for the South of Laurel area as expressed by the General Plan and the Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan by providing much needed deeply affordable and market rate residential units and providing a connection between the downtown and the beach area. The project has been thoughtfully designed to be attractive to both

29.635

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 17 of 31 ends

permanent residents and tourists, with emphasis placed on compatibility of design, landscaping, and site planning in compliance with the Design Guidelines of the Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan. Additionally, with a request for a Density Bonus, the project will maximize density while providing 23 very-low income and 8 moderate-income units, which will be a significant addition to the city’s affordable housing stock. As conditioned, the proposed project meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and provides a development that is compatible with the surrounding area in terms of its use, scale, and design.

Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission acknowledge the environmental determination and recommend approval of the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, Special Use Permit, and Density Bonus Request to exceed height and reduce setbacks for the proposed project based on the Findings below and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit A.

FINDINGS
Coastal Permit, Section 24.08.250

1. Maintain views between the sea and the first public roadway parallel to the sea.

The project will not affect coastal views because the property is located approximately 1,500 feet inland from Beach Street, which is the first public roadway from the sea.

2. Protect vegetation, natural habitats and natural resources consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

The project site is not located within any sensitive natural habitat or resource areas as mapped in the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. The site is mostly paved with associated areas of landscaping but no mature trees. New landscaping proposed throughout the project will be coastal native and regionally adapted, with a focus on minimizing water use.

3. Be consistent with any applicable design plans and/or area plans incorporated into the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

The project is consistent with Beach-South of Laurel Area Plan LCP Policies, including:
 Protect and enhance the charming small-scale residential neighborhoods in the South of Laurel while encouraging the significant development opportunities presented by vacant and underutilized parcels. (LU 2.9)  Encourage mixed-use development in the residential sections of the South of Laurel area on major arterials by overlaying the mixed-use zoning district on appropriate areas (LU 2.10)  Multi-level, large scale development to optimize use of opportunity sites;  Locating parking lots to the rear of structures, and wherever possible underground or within structures;

29.636

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 18 of 31 ends

 Balconies, terraces, courtyards, and similar outdoor spaces to take advantage of views and create street vitality;
The proposed project is consistent the Beach and South of Laurel Design Guidelines as articulated in the staff report, as well as with the purpose of the Tourist Residential Beach Commercial district, which is “to establish standards for development of residential uses mixed with neighborhood commercial, motel, and regional tourist commercial use. These standards are designed both to improve existing uses and encourage new developments in a manner that maintains a harmonious balance between residential and regional commercial uses”. Overall, the project is consistent with the City’s vision for development in the South of Laurel Area in that it provides much needed housing, as well as neighborhood commercial, and meets the purpose of the district.

4. Maintain public access to the coast along any coastline as set forth in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

The project involves construction of a mixed-use development along an established street approximately 1,500 feet inland from the coast and will maintain public access to the coast.

5. Be consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan goal of providing visitor-serving needs as appropriate.

The project includes ground floor commercial space providing food and retail uses for visitors, the new residences of the development, as well as existing residences in the South of Laurel area.

6. Be consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan goal of encouraging coastal development uses as appropriate.

The project is consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan goal of redeveloping an underutilized piece of land in the South of Laurel area that will provide much needed housing and attractive retail that will appropriately extend the operational activities of the coastal area.

Design Permit, Section 24.08.430

7. The site plan shall be consistent with physical development policies of the General Plan, any required or optional element of the General Plan, any area plan or specific plan or other city policy for physical development. If located in the Coastal Zone, a site plan shall also be consistent with policies of the Local Coastal Program.

The subject parcel has a Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC) General Plan designation. This designation applies to areas that “emphasize a variety of commercial uses that serve Santa Cruz residents as well as visitors. Mixed-use development is strongly encouraged in RVC districts”. Specifically, the General Plan RVC designation calls out the South of Laurel area to “mixed-use and residential development along with visitor-serving and neighborhood

29.637

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 19 of 31 ends

commercial uses to connect the Beach Area with Downtown Santa Cruz. The Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan provides detailed requirements for this area.” The General Plan allows a floor area ratio (FAR) for the RVC land use designation of up to 0.25 to 3.5. The project’s FAR is 2.94, which is within the allowed FAR established in the General Plan. The proposed mixed-use project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, including the following:
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.4 - In neighborhoods near visitor areas, give priority to uses that serve both visitors and residents.  Land Use Development Policy LU3.7 - Encourage higher-intensity residential uses and maximum densities in accordance with the General Plan Land Use designations.  Land Use Development Policy LU3.7.1 - Allow and encourage development that meets the high end of the General Plan Land Use designation density unless constraints associated with site characteristics and zoning development standards require a lower density.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.8 - Allow the following residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter: Density bonus units.  Mobility Development Policy M1.1 - Reduce automobile dependence by encouraging appropriate neighborhood and activity center development.  Mobility Development Policy M1.3 - Create pedestrian-friendly frontage and streetscapes and attractive pedestrian-oriented areas.
 Economic Development Policy 1.1.2 - Support the development and expansion of businesses that make a balanced contribution to the cultural, environmental, and economic health of the city.
 Economic Development Policy 1.1.3 - Encourage the development of year-round businesses and visitor activities, resources, and destinations that can also attract and engage local residents.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2 - Provide for residents’ daily shopping needs in local-serving neighborhood commercial centers.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.1 - Encourage neighborhood shopping in nodes of commercial development that serve residential areas and have adequate transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.2 - Support the development of neighborhood gathering places in conjunction with local-serving neighborhood commercial.

The Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan (B/SOL Plan) was adopted by the City Council in October 1998. The project site is located in the “South of Laurel” subarea that is strategically located between the revitalized Downtown and the Monterey Bay. Its street system, particularly Pacific Avenue, Front Street and Center Street link the two areas, while the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks form an historical hard rail connection between the beach, the wharf and downtown. As the physical link between these two areas, the revitalization of the South of Laurel is seen as a strategic economic and transportation component of a comprehensive strategy. The purpose of the B/SOL Plan is to:

29.638

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 20 of 31 ends

4. Propose a sensitive and realistic program for neighborhood preservation and revitalization targeted to the Beach Flats, Beach Hill, and South of Laurel areas;

5. Establish a comprehensive program for managing:
 Traffic and transportation,
 Tourism and maritime assets, and
 Expansion of the season and linkage with the Downtown; and

6. Enhance the historic resort attributes of the Beach area for residents and visitors.

The B/SOL Plan generally provides land use, transportation, and design recommendations.

According to the Plan, the basic policy direction for the area is provided in the City’s General Plan, which designates the area as Regional Visitor Commercial. The project is consistent with the 2030 General Plan and B/SOL Plan in that it will provide an important connection between the downtown area and the beach area by providing commercial retail along the street for both residents of the area as well as visitors, and maximizes the development potential of an underutilized infill site. The development is also consistent with the following Beach and South of Laurel Plan policies:
 Protect and enhance the charming small-scale residential neighborhoods in the South of Laurel while encouraging the significant development opportunities presented by vacant and underutilized parcels. (LU 2.9)
 Encourage mixed-use development in the residential sections of the South of Laurel area on major arterials by overlaying the mixed-use zoning district on appropriate areas (LU 2.10)  Multi-level, large scale development to optimize use of opportunity sites;  Locating parking lots to the rear of structures, and wherever possible underground or within structures;
 Balconies, terraces, courtyards, and similar outdoor spaces to take advantage of views and create street vitality;
 Establish levels of public benefit for higher residential designations.  Encourage mixed-use development in the residential sections of the area on major arterials by overlaying the mixed-use zoning district on appropriate areas.  Implement mechanisms to increase rental housing including stock in the South of Laurel area, including a possible waiver of inclusionary requirements for rental project.  Encourage a mixture of market rate and affordable housing.

The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the Tourist Residential Beach Commercial district which is “to establish standards for development of residential uses mixed with neighborhood commercial, motel, and regional tourist commercial use. These standards are designed both to improve existing uses and encourage new developments in a manner that maintains a harmonious balance between residential and regional commercial uses.” Overall the project is consistent with the City’s vision for development in the South of Laurel area in that it provides a mixed use development with affordable rental housing and street level commercial uses that connect the downtown to the beach area.

29.639

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 21 of 31 ends

8. The exterior design and appearance of buildings and structures and the design of the site plan shall be compatible with design and appearance of other existing buildings and structures in neighborhoods which have established architectural character worthy of preservation.

The “Beach and South of Laurel Plan Design Guidelines,” adopted by the City in October 1998, is both an appendix to the B/SOL Area Plan and part of the City’s certified LCP. The purpose of the Guidelines is to “promote development that respects the physical and environmental characteristics of the community and site, and which reflects functional and attractive site planning and high quality design.” Guidelines are provided for the South of Laurel area in which the proposed project is located, which recommends the use of Victorian, Spanish Colonial Revival, or other traditional architectural themes. New residential development is to exhibit the high quality design and detail of traditional architecture in the community.

The proposed building has been designed in a Spanish Colonial Revival style and is consistent with the previously listed Beach/South of Laurel Area Plan design guidelines. Additionally, the overall building mass is broken up by architectural treatments, including decks, trellises and overhangs. Rooftop equipment is incorporated into the roof design and screened from adjacent properties. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, and parking are designed into the building, making them accessible but screened from view. The Spanish Colonial Revival design incorporates a variety of exterior finish materials including: white cement plaster stucco, Spanish tile roof, cobalt blue tile, colored mosaic tile, decorative ironwork, Spanish tile stair risers, crown molding, metal railings, wood trellises, single hung vinyl windows, and decorative exterior lighting. To ensure that the final building design is well-articulated with the proposed material palette, a condition of approval requires the plans submitted for building permits shall have the same level of articulation, detailing, and dimensionality as shown in the approved plans.

9. Design of the site plan shall respect design principles in terms of maintaining a balance of scale, form and proportion, using design components, which are harmonious, materials and colors that blend with elements of the site plan and surrounding areas.

Location of structures should take into account maintenance of view; rooftop mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into roof design or screened from adjacent properties.

Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, traffic-control devices, transformer vaults and electrical meters shall be accessible and screened.

The General Plan allows a floor area ratio (FAR) for the RVC land use designation of up to

0.25 to 3.5. The project’s FAR is 2.94, which is within the allowed FAR established in the General Plan. With the exception of height and setbacks, the R-T(C) zone district standards are being met, and siting and design standards are consistent with the Design Guidelines of the Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan. The proposed building has been designed in a Spanish Colonial Revival style and is consistent with the previously listed Beach/South of Laurel Area Plan design guidelines. Additionally, the overall building mass is broken up by architectural treatments, including decks, trellises and overhangs. Rooftop

29.640

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 22 of 31 ends

equipment is incorporated into the roof design and screened from adjacent properties. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, and parking are designed into the building, making them accessible but screened from view.

10. Where a site plan abuts, or is in close proximity to, uses other than that proposed, the plan should take into account its effect on other land uses. Where a nonresidential use abuts or is in close proximity to a residential use, the effect of the site plan should maintain the residential quality of adjacent or nearby areas.

The project abuts a variety of uses, including hotels, multiple-family residential, and industrial uses. With a variety of uses surrounding the site, the mixed-use nature of the proposed project maintains compatibility and harmony with the neighboring uses.

11. The orientation and location of buildings, structures, open spaces and other features of the site plan shall be such as to maintain natural resources including significant trees and shrubs to the extent feasible, maintain a compatible relationship to and preserve solar access of adjacent properties, and minimize alteration of natural land forms; building profiles, location, and orientation must relate to natural land forms.

The flat site is mostly paved with two separate buildings, one containing an auto body shop, and the other housing a Hertz rental car business. There are no trees located on the site, though a tree survey has been submitted that identifies four trees on adjacent properties that border the property lines of the parcel. With a significant variety of scale surrounding the site, the proposed structure maintains compatibility and harmony with the neighboring uses through site orientation. A solar study has been included with the attached plan set.

12. The site plan shall be situated and designed to protect views along the ocean and of scenic coastal areas. Where appropriate and feasible, the site plan shall restore and enhance visual quality of visually degraded areas.

The project site is not located adjacent to the coastline or within any scenic view area.

13. The site plan shall minimize the effect of traffic conditions on abutting streets through careful layout of the site with respect to location, dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exit drives and walkways; through the adequate provision of off-street parking and loading facilities; through an adequate circulation pattern within the boundaries of the development; and through the surfacing and lighting of off-street parking facilities.

The proposed mixed-use project consists of six stories above one level of underground parking garage with a footprint that covers the majority of the site area. The proposed site plan includes a “U”-shaped building, with access to the project site provided from a new driveway from Center Street near the northern property line. The driveway provides access to both grade level parking as well as an underground level. With a combination of over 13-feet of sidewalk rightof-way, in addition to a 15-foot setback, the building is proposed to be setback approximately 28-feet from the back of curb to provide a wide expanse of sidewalk with almost a public plaza feel.

29.641

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 23 of 31 ends

14. The site plan shall encourage alternatives to travel by automobile where appropriate, through the provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, including covered parking for bicycles and motorcycles where appropriate. Public transit stops and facilities shall be accommodated as appropriate, and other incentive provisions considered which encourage non-auto travel.

The project incorporates 233 private lockers for bike storage, as well a bike café for residents to store and work on bikes. The bike café has the capacity to store up to 72 bikes. With the project located near the beach, West Cliff path, and Boardwalk, visitor-serving facilities will result in many pedestrian trips between the mixed-use development and these surrounding facilities. The project is also adjacent to transit routes and beach shuttle operations.

15. The site shall provide open space and landscaping which complement buildings and structures. Open space should be useful to residents, employees, or other visitors to the site. Landscaping shall be used to separate and/or screen service and storage areas, separate and/or screen parking areas from other areas, break up expanses of paved area, and define open space for usability and privacy.

The development incorporated a number of common open space areas, with the second floor including residential amenities such as a game room, fitness center and a large podium level open space with seating and landscaping. Additionally, the sixth floor contains a community room and larger outdoor recreation deck facing Center Street. The SRO ordinance requires a minimum of 10 square feet of common usable open space per unit, requiring 2,330 square feet for the project. The project far exceeds the requirement by providing approximately 19,388 square feet of common usable open space. Additionally the majority of units have an associated private patio or deck connected to the unit.

16. The site plan shall reasonably protect against external and internal noise, vibration and other factors, which may tend to make the environment less desirable. The site plan should respect the need for privacy of adjacent residents.

The applicant will be required to obtain a building permit for the new building. The structure will be required to meet all applicable regulations of the California Building Code pertaining to noise, vibration, and other factors affecting indoor and exterior environmental quality. The project respects the privacy of the abutting residents by orienting most balconies and outdoor spaces toward Center Street and the neighboring commercial uses.

17. Signs shall complement the site plan and avoid dominating the site and/or existing buildings on the site or overwhelming the buildings or structures to which they are attached. Multiple signs on a given site should be of a consistent theme.

The applicant will be required to prepare a final signage plan for the project and submit it for Design Permit review and approval by the Planning and Building Divisions prior to occupancy.

29.642

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 24 of 31 ends

A project condition requires a signage plan that has a consistent style and material that integrates with the architectural design of the building.

18. Building and structures shall be so designed and oriented to make use of natural elements such as solar radiation, wind, and landscaping for heating, cooling and ventilation.

The proposed building will be designed to meet the City’s Green Building Program requirements. New planted trees and landscaping will reduce the heat island effect.

19. The site plan shall incorporate water-conservation features where possible, including in the design of types of landscaping and in the design of water-using fixtures. In addition, water restricting showerheads and faucets shall be used, as well as water-saving toilets utilizing less than three gallons per flush.

The building will require issuance of a building permit and water-saving elements will be required consistent with the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance. A project condition requires detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted at the time of the building permit application for review by both the Planning and Water Departments. The landscaping and irrigation plans will need to comply with all requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, prior to approval and issuance of the building permit.

The project will be required to comply with the City’s mandatory Green Building Program and CAL Green of the California Building Code), including requirements for high-efficiency appliances and low-water usage fixtures plumbing fixtures. The Building Division will verify that the project has incorporated such water conservation features through the building permit plan check process.

20. In all projects in Industrial (I) Zones, building design shall include measures for reusing heat generated by machinery, computers and artificial lighting.

Due to the project location, this finding is not applicable.

21. In all projects in Industrial (I) Zones, all buildings and structures shall be so designed and oriented to make use of natural lighting wherever possible.

Due to the project location, this finding is not applicable.

22. Heating systems for hot tubs and swimming pools shall be solar when possible but in all cases energy efficient.

The project includes a small spa that will be required to meet green building energy efficiency requirements.

23. Enhance the West Cliff Drive streetscape with appropriate building mass, modulation, articulation, coloring and landscaping that is compatible with and would not diminish the visual prominence of the public open space.

29.643

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 25 of 31 ends

The project site is not located on West Cliff Drive.

Special Use Permit, Section 24.08.050

24. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this title, and of the General Plan, relevant area plans, and the Coastal Land Use Plan, where appropriate;
The subject parcel has a Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC) General Plan designation. This designation applies to areas that “emphasize a variety of commercial uses that serve Santa Cruz residents as well as visitors. Mixed-use development is strongly encouraged in RVC districts”. Specifically, the General Plan RVC designation calls out the South of Laurel area to “mixed-use and residential development along with visitor-serving and neighborhood commercial uses to connect the Beach Area with Downtown Santa Cruz. The Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan provides detailed requirements for this area.” The General Plan allows a floor area ratio (FAR) for the RVC land use designation of up to 0.25 to 3.5. The project’s FAR is 2.94, which is within the allowed FAR established in the General Plan. The proposed mixed-use project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, including the following:
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.4 - In neighborhoods near visitor areas, give priority to uses that serve both visitors and residents.  Land Use Development Policy LU3.7 - Encourage higher-intensity residential uses and maximum densities in accordance with the General Plan Land Use designations.  Land Use Development Policy LU3.7.1 - Allow and encourage development that meets the high end of the General Plan Land Use designation density unless constraints associated with site characteristics and zoning development standards require a lower density.
 Land Use Development Policy LU3.8 - Allow the following residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter: Density bonus units.  Mobility Development Policy M1.1 - Reduce automobile dependence by encouraging appropriate neighborhood and activity center development.  Mobility Development Policy M1.3 - Create pedestrian-friendly frontage and streetscapes and attractive pedestrian-oriented areas.
 Economic Development Policy 1.1.2 - Support the development and expansion of businesses that make a balanced contribution to the cultural, environmental, and economic health of the city.
 Economic Development Policy 1.1.3 - Encourage the development of year-round businesses and visitor activities, resources, and destinations that can also attract and engage local residents.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2 - Provide for residents’ daily shopping needs in local-serving neighborhood commercial centers.

29.644

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 26 of 31 ends

 Economic Development Policy 5.2.1 - Encourage neighborhood shopping in nodes of commercial development that serve residential areas and have adequate transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access.
 Economic Development Policy 5.2.2 - Support the development of neighborhood gathering places in conjunction with local-serving neighborhood commercial.

7. Propose a sensitive and realistic program for neighborhood preservation and revitalization targeted to the Beach Flats, Beach Hill, and South of Laurel areas;

8. Establish a comprehensive program for managing:
 Traffic and transportation,
 Tourism and maritime assets, and
 Expansion of the season and linkage with the Downtown; and

9. Enhance the historic resort attributes of the Beach area for residents and visitors.

The B/SOL Plan generally provides land use, transportation, and design recommendations.

29.645

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 27 of 31 ends

 Implement mechanisms to increase rental housing including stock in the South of Laurel area, including a possible waiver of inclusionary requirements for rental project.  Encourage a mixture of market rate and affordable housing.

25. That any additional conditions stipulated as necessary in the public interest have been imposed;
Additional conditions have been added to the approval in order to ensure the commercial and residential activities do not negatively impact surrounding uses.

26. That such use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community; and
The project meets all district development standards and the overall building mass is broken up by architectural treatments, including decks, trellises and overhangs. Rooftop equipment is incorporated into the roof design and screened from adjacent properties. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, and parking are designed into the building, making them accessible but screened from view. The outdoor public seating spaces are oriented away from nearby residences and separated from those adjacent residential uses by building areas.

Taking all of these into consideration, the proposed uses incorporated in to the project will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Additional conditions have been added to the approval in order to ensure the development does not constitute a nuisance or would be detrimental to the public welfare of the community.

27. That all thrift store uses shall include a management plan that identifies collection facilities for donated items, operating hours for donation facilities which discourage unsupervised dropoffs, adequate storage areas for sorting the materials, and provides a plan to properly dispose of unusable items in a timely, secure, and orderly fashion and maintains premises in a clean and attractive condition.

Not applicable.

Density Bonus, Section 24.16.270

28. The housing development is eligible for a density bonus and any concessions, incentives, waivers, modifications, or modified parking standards requested; conforms to all

29.646

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 28 of 31 ends

standards for affordability included in this section; and includes a financing mechanism for all implementation and monitoring costs.

29. Any requested incentive or concession will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable rents or affordable ownership costs based upon appropriate financial analysis and documentation if required by Section.

Not applicable.

30. If the density bonus is based all or in part on dedication of land, the approval body has made the findings included in Section 24.16.230.

Not applicable.

31. If the density bonus, incentive, or concession is based all or in part on the inclusion of a child care center, the development conforms to the standards included in Section

24.16.235.

Not applicable.

32. If the density bonus incentive or concession is approved for a condominium conversion, the development conforms to the standards included in Section 24.16.240.

Not applicable.

33. If the incentive or concession includes mixed-use buildings or developments, the nonresidential land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and the proposed nonresidential uses are compatible with the housing development and with existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing development will be located.

Not applicable.

34. If a waiver or modification is requested, the applicant has shown that the development standards for which the waiver or modification is requested will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the densities or with the incentives or concessions permitted by this Part 3.

29.647

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 29 of 31 ends

The project proposes to exceed the maximum height 36 feet as required in the R-T(A) zone district, proposing a six story building at approximately 75 feet. Complying with the 36-foot standard would require the building to reduce the number of floors and eliminate a substantial number of residential units. This would physically preclude the construction of the project that would include the number of residential units allowed under the State Density Bonus Law. Additionally, the project proposes a reduction to setback requirements. Complying with the setbacks required in the R-T(A) zone district would require the building to be increasingly stepped back as the height increases. These increased building setbacks would reduce the volume of the building and eliminate a substantial number of residential units.

This would physically preclude the construction of the project that would include the number of residential units allowed under the State Density Bonus Law.

35. If a commercial development bonus is requested, the project complies with the requirements of Section 24.16.258, the city has approved the partnered housing agreement, and the bonus has been mutually agreed upon by the city and the commercial developer.

Not applicable.

36. If the housing development or the commercial development is in the coastal zone, any requested density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, modification, modified parking standard, or commercial development bonus is consistent with all applicable requirements of the certified Santa Cruz local coastal program, with the exception of density.

The mixed-use development is in the coastal zone and is consistent with the Santa Cruz local coastal program and the Beach-South of Laurel Area Plan LCP Policies, including:
 Protect and enhance the charming small-scale residential neighborhoods in the South of Laurel while encouraging the significant development opportunities presented by vacant and underutilized parcels. (LU 2.9)
 Encourage mixed-use development in the residential sections of the South of Laurel area on major arterials by overlaying the mixed-use zoning district on appropriate areas (LU 2.10)  Multi-level, large scale development to optimize use of opportunity sites;  Locating parking lots to the rear of structures, and wherever possible underground or within structures;
 Balconies, terraces, courtyards, and similar outdoor spaces to take advantage of views and create street vitality;
The project will not affect coastal views because the property is located approximately 1,500 feet inland from Beach Street, which is the first public roadway from the sea. The project site is not located within any sensitive natural habitat or resource areas as mapped in the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. The site is mostly paved with associated areas of landscaping but no mature trees. New landscaping proposed throughout the project will be coastal native and regionally adapted, with a focus on minimizing water use.

29.648

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 30 of 31 ends

With Respect to the California Environmental Quality Act

37. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides several “categorical exemptions” which are applicable to categories of projects and activities that the Lead Agency has determined generally do not pose a risk of significant impacts on the environment. The project consists of a 233 SROs and ground floor commercial within the developed urban area of the city of Santa Cruz. The project has been determined to be exempt from CEQA under a Categorical Exemption pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32-Infill Development Projects).

Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Section 24.08.1230

38. The cultural resources evaluation is accepted as accurate and complete; and the cultural resources evaluation concludes that the building or structure is not eligible for listing on the city historic building survey.

There are two commercial buildings on the site that are proposed for demolition. The primary structure is a single story commercial building that was constructed in 1963 based on City of Santa Cruz Building Permit records, and the other is the Hertz Rental Car structure that was constructed in 1981 as a detached showroom. Pursuant to the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit ordinance, the purpose of this permit is to evaluate requests for demolition of nonresidential structures fifty years of age or older, and of undetermined age, to ensure that those which may have historic value are not demolished. A historic evaluation (DPR 523) was prepared by city approved historian Robert Cartier of Archaeological Resource Management in July of 2020 which concluded that that the property is not listed on the California Register of Historic Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, or the City of Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, and does not appear eligible for listing in any of the registers. Thus the structures do not appear to be historically significant and are not eligible for listing on the City Historic Building Survey.

39. The project which will replace the demolished building or structure has been, or is concurrently being, approved by the city, and an appropriate building permit has been, or is concurrently being, issued; unless some other practical hardship can be documented rendering this requirement inappropriate.

The proposed mixed-use project is being approved concurrently with the approval to demolish the two subject structures.

29.649

AGENDA REPORT
PC Meeting of October 21, 2021
SUBJECT: 130 Center Street – Project No. CP21-0011

Page 31 of 31 ends

40. The property owner has been advised of the benefits of listing the property on the city historic building survey and incorporating the preservation of the historic resource into the proposed project.

Not applicable as the property has been determined to not be eligible for listing.

41. The cultural resources evaluation determines that the resource is eligible for listing on the city historic building survey, appropriate environmental review has been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the zoning administrator can make a finding of overriding consideration that the replacement project will have public benefits which will outweigh the impact of loss of the historic resource.

It has been determined that the property does not qualify as a historic resource. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

Submitted by:

Ryan Bane
Senior Planner
Approved by:

Samantha Haschert
Principal Planner
Attachments:

1. Conditions of Approval

2. Project Plans

3. Project Base Plans meeting R-T(A) development standards

4. Property Management Overview

5. Geotechnical Investigation dated September 11, 2020, prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group

6. Proposal for an Historic Evaluation and Cultural Resource Evaluation for the Property at 130 Center Street in the City of Santa Cruz dated July 16, 2020, prepared by Archaeological Resource Management

7. Tree Survey & Preliminary Impact Assessment dated December 13, 2020, prepared by Kurt Fouts Arborist Consultant

29.650

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES
October 21, 2021
7:00 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, COUNCIL

CHAMBERS
Call to Order-Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.

Roll Call-Commissioners Conway, Dawson, Greenburg, Maxwell, Nielsen, Spellman, Schiffrin present.

Absent w/notification-None.

Statements of Disqualification-None.

Oral Communications-The following members of the public addressed the Planning Commission: Rafa Sonnenfeld, Micah Posner, Randa Solick, Allen Speidel, Tom Noddy, Ron Pomerantz, Chris Krohn, Sheila Carrillo.

Chairperson Schiffrin requests staff to return with a status update on the proposed hotel project at 324 Front St. and the project at 418 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Public Hearings

1. 130 Center Street, Santa Cruz, CA Project No. CP21-0011 Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit to demolish an existing commercial building, a Density Bonus request to exceed height and reduce setbacks, and a Special Use Permit, Coastal Permit, and Design Permit to construct a six story, mixed-use building with 233 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units and 2,356 sq. ft. of ground floor commercial space on a parcel located in the RTC/CZ-O/FP-O (Tourist Residential Beach Commercial/Coastal Zone Overlay/Floodplain Overlay) zone districts and Beach and South of Laurel Area Plan.

Senior Planner Ryan Bane presented the item to the Commission.

29.651
Applicant Jessie Bristow addressed the Commission.

The public hearing was opened.

The following members of the public addressed the
Commission: Rafa Sonnenfeld, Emily Ham, Michael Lozeau, Ryan McGrody, Elizabeth Conlan, Henry Hooker, Zennon Ulyate-Crow.

The public hearing was closed.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Spellman, seconded by Commissioner Conway to acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Density Bonus request to exceed height and reduce setbacks, Special Use Permit, Coastal Permit, and Design Permit based on the Findings listed below and the attached Conditions of Approval in Exhibit “A” of the staff report dated October 11, 2021 with the following additional direction: the conditions of approval shall include a condition requiring the retail areas are constructed with adequate space for commercial kitchen hoods and ducting.

ACTION: The motion failed by the following vote:

AYES: Spellman, Conway, Nielsen
NOES: Dawson, Greenberg, Maxwell, Schiffrin
MOTION: Motion made Commissioner Dawson, seconded by Commissioner Greenberg, to continue the item with direction to staff to provide additional information relating to the environmental exemption, the traffic study, and base density calculations.

ACTION: Motion withdrawn by Commissioner Dawson.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Dawson, seconded by Commissioner Spellman, to acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Density Bonus request to exceed height and reduce setbacks, Special Use Permit, Coastal Permit, and Design Permit based on the Findings listed below and the attached Conditions of Approval in Exhibit “A” of the staff report dated October 11, 2021, with the following additional conditions: require the retail areas to be constructed to accommodate commercial kitchen hoods and ducting; memorializing the applicant’s voluntary offer of four additional affordable units (for a total of thirty-five) to the existing project if the project is approved by the Planning Commission and no appeal to the City Council is filed. In the event an appeal of the project approval is filed, the total number of affordable units would revert back to thirty one units.

29.652
ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Conway, Dawson, Greenburg, Maxwell, Nielsen, Spellman, Schiffrin NOES: None

29.653
From: [email protected]
To: Sara DeLeon; [email protected]; Ryan Bane Subject: 130 Center Street Question/Comment Received
Date: Tuesday, November 02, 2021 9:46:11 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 130 Center Street -Significant Project
Date & Time: 11/02/2021 9:45 PM
Response #: 9
Submitter ID: 85148
IP address: 2601:647:cb01:7a60:157f:a858:af14:f2d5
Time to complete: 4 min. , 36 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

Thank you for your interest in the proposed project for 130 Center Street. Please provide any project related question or comment in the fields provided. Your comment/question will be automatically directed to the City Planner assigned to this project. Please note that questions and/or comments entered here are public information and subject to release in accordance with the Public Records Act.

1. Select what applies:
[×] I have a comment(s).

2. If you have a question that needs a response, please enter your email address or phone number.

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 381-0976

3. Please select one of the following regarding the nature of your comment:
(○) In Support

4. Question/Comment:

Hello,
I learned today that Gillian Greensite and Santa Cruz Tomorrow, local anti-housing advocates, have appealed this project. I urge you to move forward with this housing project to increase the availability of housing for residents of Santa Cruz. Their concerns about traffic are unfounded as the neighborhood is incredibly walkable and bikeable. Please continue to use your best judgement in approving housing projects that will alleviate our terrible housing crisis.

Thank you,

29.654
Brendan Quirk
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

29.655
From: [email protected]
To: Sara DeLeon; [email protected]; Ryan Bane Subject: 130 Center Street Question/Comment Received
Date: Monday, March 15, 2021 10:20:50 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 130 Center Street -Significant Project
Date & Time: 03/15/2021 10:20 AM
Response #: 2
Submitter ID: 73411
IP address: 2602:306:80af:90b0:a4c3:f31e:120e:1eff
Time to complete: 8 min. , 7 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

1. Select what applies:
[×] I have a comment(s).

2. If you have a question that needs a response, please enter your email address or phone number.

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 252-4200

3. Please select one of the following regarding the nature of your comment:
(○) In Support

4. Question/Comment:

This is an excellent location for a project like this and I support it but I wish the city would encourage the development of buildings that have a variety of sizes and plans. More 2 and 3 bedroom apartments would be a great help to families who have few affordable options right now.

Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz

29.656
This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System™. Please do not reply directly to this email.

29.657
From: Joseph Gemignani
To: Ryan Bane
Subject: 130 city center
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 9:08:01 PM
Hi Ryan, I really like the 130 City Center project. It has a lot of style and I am a personal fan of early California / Spanish architecture. So many of the newer projects in California are modern and boxy with flat roofs. I think this is a beautiful project and I hope it gets approved.

I think it will really spruce up the area.

Thanks,
Joseph (amateur weatherman)
P. S. I don’t work in real estate or construction. I’m a retired accountant from Republic Services.

29.658
From: [email protected]
To: Sara DeLeon; [email protected]; Ryan Bane Subject: 130 Center Street Question/Comment Received
Date: Sunday, July 25, 2021 1:25:31 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 130 Center Street -Significant Project
Date & Time: 07/25/2021 1:24 PM
Response #: 5
Submitter ID: 80270
IP address: 67.169.51.88
Time to complete: 6 min. , 26 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

1. Select what applies:
[×] I have a comment(s).

2. If you have a question that needs a response, please enter your email address or phone number.

Email: Not answered
Phone: Not answered

3. Please select one of the following regarding the nature of your comment:
(○) In Support

4. Question/Comment:

I live almost directly across from this project and think it would be a great asset to the area. Currently the two car lots are huge and eyesores. This provides much needed housing and a much safer environment than dark empty expanses of asphalt in the evening.

Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz

29.659
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

29.660
From: [email protected]
To: Sara DeLeon; [email protected]; Ryan Bane Subject: 130 Center Street Question/Comment Received
Date: Monday, November 08, 2021 3:10:51 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 130 Center Street -Significant Project
Date & Time: 11/08/2021 3:10 PM
Response #: 10
Submitter ID: 85231
IP address: 63.249.98.44
Time to complete: 5 min. , 54 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

1. Select what applies:
[×] I have a comment(s).

2. If you have a question that needs a response, please enter your email address or phone number.

Email: [email protected]
Phone: (210) 213-8931

3. Please select one of the following regarding the nature of your comment:
(○) In Support

4. Question/Comment:

Wish I could live right here! Depot park rules. I welcome the new neighbors.

Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

29.661
January 4, 2022
Santa Cruz City Council
801 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: 130 Center Street Project (Calypso)
Dear Mayor Brunner, Vice Mayor Watkins and Council members Brown, Cummings, Golder and Kalahari-Johnson and Meyers:

I am writing on behalf of the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce in support of the housing project at 130 Center Street (the Calypso). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project last October. However, an appeal was submitted that was summarily denied by the City Planning staff.

The project is set to come before the City Council this month. At a time when we need to address the very low and low income housing needs in our community this project is the right development for the City. The project is conforming in all aspects to the zoning code, and to meet the objectives standards the home builder is applying for a Density Bonus increasing the height to allocate for these bonus units. The Calypso project is allocating 20% of the base units to VeryLow Income Units in accordance with city policy, and to maximize the Density Bonus option.

29.662
Smaller housing units are in demand for our residents and this project will have a total of 233 Single Room Occupancy units (SROs) or studios, 31 units will be Very-Low Income and will help address the city's RHNA allocation. 202 units will be market rate added to the much needed city housing stock.

The increase in smaller units will provide needed housing for students, couples, young professionals, and seniors who are aiming to downsize, and potentially small families. We all know that we have a shortage of housing options for UCSC students and this project offers an option to the off-campus student housing resident. A recent report noted the lack of supply for UCSC students, forcing them to opt-out of attending college, or delaying enrollment. The project is re-developing an older underutilized site, and fulfilling the designation by the Beach and south of Laurel Plan to provide high density housing.

One of the top policy priorities for Chamber members and our small businesses is access to affordable housing for their employees to reduce long commutes.

This project is located near the downtown in access to recreational and beach activities and access to public transportation to the University and beyond. On behalf of the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce we encourage you to support this project.

Respectfully submitted.

Casey Beyer
Chief Executive Officer Santa Cruz County
Chamber of Commerce
Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce *
3121 Park Avenue, Suite C, Soquel, CA 95073 831-457-3713 Phone * The SCACoC is a 501c (6) non-profit corporation * Employer ID 94-0841660

29.663
From: PLCounter
To: Ryan Bane
Subject: FW: Comment for 10/21 planning meeting
Date: Monday, October 18, 2021 10:50:41 AM
From: PLCounter On Behalf Of City Plan
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 8:08 AM
To: Tess Fitzgerald
Subject: FW: Comment for 10/21 planning meeting
From: Tamar Ragir [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2021 10:23 AM
To: City Plan
Subject: Comment for 10/21 planning meeting
Hi,
I'd really like to see the housing on center street approved and moved forward. We need housing really badly. Please approve this work.

Thanks,
Tamar Ragir
Santa Cruz resident

29.664
From: [email protected]
To: Sara DeLeon; [email protected]; Ryan Bane Subject: 130 Center Street Question/Comment Received
Date: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 7:16:30 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: 130 Center Street -Significant Project
Date & Time: 07/20/2021 7:16 AM
Response #: 3
Submitter ID: 80132
IP address: 2600:1010:b061:5ec1:28bf:84d3:9f57:b245
Time to complete: 3 min. , 42 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

1. Select what applies:
[×] I have a comment(s).

2. If you have a question that needs a response, please enter your email address or phone number.

Email: Not answered
Phone: Not answered

3. Please select one of the following regarding the nature of your comment:
(○) In Support

4. Question/Comment:

I believe that increased housing density in areas served by public transit is key to our response to the climate crisis. We need to house people away from wildfire-prone wild lands . We need to encourage use of public transit as opposed to private cars, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz

29.665
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

29.666
From: A Webb
To: City Plan; Ryan Bane
Subject: 130 Center St - ADUs, Parking reduction qualifiers, BSOL Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:52:37 PM
In addition to the impacts of parking in surrounding neighborhoods - both by residents and all of their visitors who arrive by car - and the added traffic congestion on these single lane each direction roadways throughout downtown & BSOL & Center St (impacts bus schedules too), and the ability of ER vehicle access in a timely manner (ER activity is daily in the beach area 6-8 months/year), there are 3 additional key areas of concerns and questions below on how legal interpretations, and data to support statements, are being made in the Agenda Staff Report.

1. Page 9 of Agenda Staff Report:

This doesn't make sense - how can 58 ADUs be created in this high density 233-unit SRO project? Where? Does this attempt to create a 291- or 293- unit development? Under what law is this allowed or "entitled"? ADU laws were intended to address single-family and multi-family (duplexes, triplexes) zoning. The only un-livable space in this SRO project is the required parking - note further comments on parking calculations below - are you stating parking will be converted to ADUs - and no parking required? Not only was this ADU information not posted as part of the project, it was not mentioned in the 45-min zoom "typing session" for the public. I believe staff is misinterpreting the law for ADUs - they are allowed in all ZONES where single family and multi-family residential is designated, not in "ALL projects". Nowhere does it allow entitlements to market rate developers of State high density bonus rental projects.

Reference CA regulatory guidelines ADUs:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policyresearc/docs/adu_december_2020_handbook.pdf Staff Report:
"Like all multi-family property in the state, this project is entitled to create ADUs in addition to the units proposed. Up to 25% of the total number of units (for this project, a total of 58) can potentially be created by converting non-livable space, and up to two New Construction ADUs can also potentially be built – either attached to or detached from the proposed structure."

2. The 2030 GP is being used, even though the 1998 BSOLA is part of the previous GP and LCP. Has a project of this type, density, and specific heights been evaluated for Center Street in the either GP EIR?
BSOLA identifies Pacific Ave as the connection between downtown and the beach area, not Center St, for development of visitor services, etc.

How does it: " Protect and enhance the charming small-scale residential neighborhoods in the South of Laurel while encouraging the significant development opportunities presented by vacant and underutilized parcels. (LU 2.9)"?

3. Parking requirements have been reduced, with 2 of the 3 qualifiers being due to 1/2 mile

29.667
proximity to a "major transit stop" - meaning the Metro Center as per the community zoom typing session.

Under housing/density bonus laws, “Major transit stop” has the same meaning as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. The Metro Center was used as the "major transit stop" but does not meet this definition, nor does any of the bus route/stops meet the definition of high-quality transit corridor. There is no bus service intervals at 15 mins or less, and the City does have (a) or (b) under Section 21064.3 either - see below. All posted Metro Schedules are hourly, with 1/2 hour schedules on the UCSC routes during the M-F school year.

There were cuts to bus routes prior to Covid, and now a shortage atop of that with more routes cut.

Further, the 7-story PacificStationNorth/Metro was approved by Zoning Adminstrator earlier this year. In the 1-hr public zoom meeting, they stated they do not have plans worked out yet for what happens with the current Metro Center and their ridership when its demolished and for the 2-3 years of construction period. A city report claimed this project was 20 years in the making, and yet this critical component has not been addressed.

There is no "surplus" parking of "72" spaces onsite - in fact, it is short by 44 spaces. 233 residential, 20 assumed commercial, is 253 with only 209 provided. Under city code there must be 44 available off-site parking spaces planned for this project.

Definitions:

Implementation of the Sustainable Communities Strategy [21155 - 21155.4] A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan. For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

Section 21064.3.
“Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following:
(a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station.*
(b) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
(Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 631, Sec. 2. (AB 1560) Effective January 1, 2020.) * Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a high-quality bus-based transit system that delivers fast, comfortable, and cost-effective services at metro-level capacities. It does this through the provision of dedicated lanes, with busways and iconic stations typically aligned to the center of the road, off-board fare collection, and fast and frequent operations.

Staff Report states:
"Off-Street Parking. A parking garage with two levels (one at grade and one underground) will be located on site, providing parking for a total of

29.668
209 vehicles. The parking requirement for SROs is one space for each dwelling unit, and under the assumption that the commercial spaces are calculated at the higher restaurant parking requirement (1/120 gross square feet), a total of 20 parking spaces would be required, for a total of 253 off-street spaces. However, pursuant to section 24.16.256 of the City’s Density Bonus ordinance, rental housing developments with at least 11% very-low income or 20% lower income units; are within one-half mile of a major transit stop; and have unobstructed access to the major transit stop; the residential parking requirement is reduced to .5 spaces per bedroom. With 233 bedrooms, and the project meeting these standards, 117 parking spaces are required for the residential portion of the project. Based on the 117 residential requirement, and the 20 spaces required for the commercial, a total of 137 off-street spaces are required for the project. With 209 spaces provided on the site, and 137 provided, the overall project has a surplus of 72 parking spaces." Please give these points serious attention - this project is precedentsetting for Center Street in BSOLA.

Sincerely,
Anita Webb

29.669
From: Dana Bagshaw
To: Ryan Bane
Subject: Center Street project
Date: Tuesday, April 06, 2021 9:30:55 AM
I live near Depot Park. I welcome a housing project as long as the low-income rentals are honored.

Since the main objection seems to the additional traffic, and the location is within walking distance of both the metro and the proposed rail trail, I would urge you to make this a transit-oriented building with unbundled and shared parking, giving residents without cars a discount in their rent.

Thank you,
Dana Bagshaw
145 Jenne Street
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

29.670
Save Santa Cruz
Stop Overbuilding Santa Cruz
Post Office Box 4086, Santa Cruz, CA 95063
Email: [email protected]
October 20, 2021
RE: Planning Commission Agenda, October 21, 2021
Agenda Item #1
Members, Santa Cruz Planning Commission:

This letter is to comment on the Agenda Report and attachments for the proposed development at 130 Center Street, which is Agenda Item #1 on your agenda for October 21, 2021.

As you know, the current zoning for this Beach/South of Laurel area has a maximum height limit of 36 feet. The proposed development under consideration is recommended to be 75 feet with additional amenities above that height.

Reduced setbacks are also recommended.

We understand this more than doubling of the zoned height results from the developer seeking density bonuses and waivers in accordance with state law.

As we understand the proposal, the project at its base density and at the current zoning height limit of 36 feet would require 31 affordable SRO units. It appears that the project at the density bonus height of 75 feet is offering 31 affordable SRO units.

A project which doubles the maximum zoned height with no commensurate increase in required affordable units is a classic case of overbuilding. It appears that the community will experience all of the impacts of the increased density, with no additional affordability benefits for the community.

We also believe that the Traffic Study is inadequate, and that traffic impacts are not properly accounted for. We are specifically concerned that only weekdays were counted. Weekends were omitted. This omission skews the results and invalidates the conclusion that the projected increase of 1,112 new daily trips due to the project will not affect the roundabout (Intersection 5) which the study concludes will remain at an A level despite the project.

Center Streets and Front Streets as they approach the roundabout on weekends are backed up to Laurel Street. The roundabout is frequently gridlocked. Not all the traffic is tourist traffic. Front Street and Center Street are the two main arteries for local traffic returning to the lower westside from downtown and the Eastside. The impact of the extra traffic due to the project may well divert traffic to neighborhood streets such as Laurel, California, and Bay. Or worsen the gridlock at the roundabout.

29.671
2 We request that a revised Traffic Study be done to include the weekends in the analysis and conclusion.

Thank you for taking our comments into consideration.

Very truly yours,
Gary A. Patton, Co-Chair
Save Santa Cruz
cc: Save Santa Cruz Steering Committee
Other interested persons
Save Santa Cruz is a community-based group with almost 3,000 local supporters, committed to city policies that will protect and preserve the historic and unique character of the community and its unique and vital neighborhoods.

29.672
[email protected] www.housingsantacruzcounty.com October 18, 2021
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
We write to encourage your support for the approval of the SRO project at 130 Center Street.

We are particularly supportive of this project for the following reasons:

The project will provide 31 very-low income, deed-restricted affordable units, much needed for the City of Santa Cruz to meet both the community need for truly affordable apartments and to meet the City’s RHNA numbers.

This is a unique project in that it provides 233 small units. There is a shortage of smaller units in the city and great demand for them for work-force housing, students, and renters not wanting to share apartments with others.

The project’s siting is appropriate: close to transit, walking distance to downtown and basic shopping needs. And it replaces underutilized older structures in an area that would benefit from additional revitalization.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,
The Governing Board of Housing Santa Cruz County
Housing Santa Cruz County (HSCC) is made up of individuals, nonprofit and for-profit businesses, service providers, homelessness organizations and advocates, agriculture leaders, faith-based organizations, labor leaders, financial institutions, housing professionals, sustainable community leaders (transportation, environment, health, education and energy professionals) nonprofit and for-profit housing developers, and many other community leaders.

29.673
From: Michael Lozeau
To: City Plan; Ryan Bane
Cc: Hannah Hughes; Sophie Roberts
Subject: Comments Re: 130 Center Street Project, Item No. CP21-0011 - Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 1 Date: Thursday, October 21, 2021 1:12:33 PM
Attachments: 2021.10.21 LIUNA Comment Letter re 130 Center Street - Final.pdf Dear Chair Schiffirn, Vice-Chair Spellman, Commissioners Conway, Dawson, Greenberg, Maxwell, and Nielsen, and Mr. Bane,
On behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 270, attached please find written comments regarding the proposed project at 130 Center Street being considered by the Planning Commission at this evening's meeting.

Please include the attached comments in the record. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,
Michael Lozeau
--
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
(510) 836-4200
(510) 836-4205 (fax)
[email protected]
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [email protected], and delete the message.

29.674
Via E-mail October 21, 2021
Andy Schiffrin, Chair
Peter Spellman, Vice Chair
Julie Conway
Cyndi Dawson
Miriam Greenberg
Sean Maxwell
Christian Nielsen
Planning Commission
City of Santa Cruz
City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
[email protected]
Ryan Bane, Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz
Planning and Community Development
809 Center Street, Room 107
Santa Cruz, California 95060
[email protected]
Re: Comments Regarding 130 Center Street Project, Item No. CP21-0011 – October 21, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting, Public Hearings Agenda Item No. 1
Dear Chair Schiffirn, Vice-Chair Spellman, Commissioners Conway, Dawson, Greenberg, Maxwell, and Nielsen, and Mr. Bane:

I am writing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 270 and its members living in the City of Santa Cruz (“LIUNA”), regarding the Commercial Street Hotels Project (“Project”). The Project proposes to demolish several existing structures and construct a six-story mixed use building with 233 units, 2,356 square feet of commercial space and underground parking, and related site improvements on a 1.19 acre site located at 130 Center Street (APN: 007-023-26) by applicant Barry Swenson Builders in the City of Santa Cruz (“City”).

LIUNA is concerned that the City is proposing to approve the Project without environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq., based on the assertion that the Project is eligible for a Class 32 In-fill Exemption.

Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH has conducted a review of the Project and the documents provided to the Planning Commission and prepared expert comments on the Project’s indoor air emissions and associated health risks. Mr. Offermann concludes it is likely that the Project will expose future employees

29.675
City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission
Comments re: Item No. CP21-0011
October 21, 2021

Page 2 of 5 ends

of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A. Because the Project’s air quality emissions to indoor air will have significant effects relating to air quality, the City is precluded from relying on the Class 32 In-fill development exemption for the Project. LIUNA respectfully requests that the Commission not approve the Project and instead direct staff to prepare a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) or an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project prior to approval in compliance with CEQA.

I. LEGAL STANDARD
CEQA mandates that “the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions” throughout California. PRC § 21001(d). A “project” is “the whole of an action” directly undertaken, supported, or authorized by a public agency “which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” PRC § 21065; CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR § 15378(a). For this reason, CEQA is concerned with an action’s ultimate “impact on the environment.” Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283. CEQA requires environmental factors to be considered at the “earliest possible stage . . . before [the project] gains irreversible momentum,” Id. 13 Cal.3d at 277, “at a point in the planning process where genuine flexibility remains.” Sundstrom v.

Mendocino County (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.

To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered structure. 14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v.

City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86 (“Hollywoodland”). First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further agency evaluation is required. Id. Second, if there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must perform an initial threshold study.

Id.; 14 CCR § 15063(a). If the study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment the agency may issue a negative declaration. Id., 14 CCR §§ 15063(b)(2), 15070. Finally, if the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is required. Id. Here, since the City proposes to exempt the Project from CEQA entirely, we are at the first step of the CEQA process.

A. CEQA Exemptions.

CEQA identifies certain classes of projects which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. These are called categorical exemptions. 14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354. “Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and “‘[e]xemption categories are not to be

29.676
City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission
Comments re: Item No. CP21-0011
October 21, 2021

Page 3 of 5 ends

expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.’” Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125.

The determination as to the appropriate scope of a categorical exemption is a question of law subject to independent, i.e. de novo, review. San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1375 (“[Q]uestions of interpretation or application of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. (Citations.) Thus, for example, interpreting the scope of a CEQA exemption presents ‘a question of law, subject to de novo review by this court.’ (Citations).”)
The City asserts the Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA as an “in-fill” project (Class 32). In order to utilize a Class 32 In-Fill Exemption, the City must have substantial evidence that, among other findings, “[t]he project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species” or where “[a]pproval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.” 14 CCR §§ 15332(c), (d). These factual determinations required to be made in order for the City to invoke the Class 32 In-Fill Exemption must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Banker's Hill, Hillcrest, Park W. Cmty. Pres. Grp. v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 267-69.

Substantial evidence evident in the record and provided by LIUNA’s experts demonstrates that the City cannot make the prerequisite finding to utilizing a Class 32 In-Fill Exemption that the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to air quality. As a result, the City should prepare an MND or EIR to analyze the Project’s impacts on air quality and the resulting health risks to the Project’s future residents and employees, and the MND or draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA.

II. ANALYSIS
A. The Project Will Have Significant Air Quality Impacts, Precluding Reliance on the Categorical Exemption.

The Project will introduce toxic air contaminants to air inside the Project that poses significant risks to future residents and employees of the proposed building.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and listed by the State of California as a Toxic Air Contaminant (“TAC”). The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (“MBUAPCD”) has established a significance threshold of health risks for carcinogenic TACs of 10 in a million.
https://www.mbard.org/files/f665829d1/CEQA_full+%281%29.pdf. The City’s proposed exemption fails to acknowledge the significant indoor air emissions that will result from the Project.

29.677
City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission
Comments re: Item No. CP21-0011
October 21, 2021

Page 4 of 5 ends

Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products typically used indoors contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. Ex. A, pp. 2-3. He explains, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Id.

Mr. Offermann calculates that future residents of the Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id. at 4. This exceeds MBUAPCD’s CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk from TACs of 10 per million. Id. Mr. Offermann stresses that his calculations account for the fact that wood products for the project would be compliant with the most recent CARB standards. Id.; Id., Appendix A.

Mr. Offermann calculates that future employees of the Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 17.7 per million, assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id. at 5. This again exceeds MBUAPCD’s CEQA significance thresholds for airborne cancer risk from TACs of 10 per million. Id. Mr.

Offermann stresses that his calculations account for the fact that wood products for the project would be compliant with the most recent CARB standards. Id.

Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts must be analyzed, and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce employees’ formaldehyde exposure. Id., pp. 4-5. He prescribes a methodology for calculating the Project’s formaldehyde emissions in order to do a more project-specific health risk assessment. Id. at 6-10. Mr. Offermann also suggests several feasible mitigation measures, such as requiring the use of composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, which are readily available. Id. at 11-12.

When a Project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. See, e.g. Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 (County applies Air District’s “published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”); see also Communities for a Better Envt. v. California Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-11 (“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant”). It should be noted that the 10

29.678
City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission
Comments re: Item No. CP21-0011
October 21, 2021

Page 5 of 5 ends

in a million cancer risk significance threshold also has been adopted by other air districts around the State. See, e.g. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (May 2017) (https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en).

The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project.

People, and in particular the residents and commercial employees, will be using the Project once it is built and begins emitting formaldehyde. Once built, the Project will begin to emit formaldehyde at levels that pose significant direct and cumulative health risks. Mr. Offermann’s expert analysis demonstrates that the City cannot make the requisite finding needed to rely on the Class 32 exemption that “the project would not result in any significant effects relating to … air quality….” 14 CCR § 15332(d).

III. Conclusion
LIUNA respectfully requests that the Planning Commission withdraw the CEQA Exemption and prepare either an MND or EIR to analyze and mitigate the Project’s adverse environmental impacts. Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,
Michael R. Lozeau

29.679

EXHIBIT A

29.680

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: October 20, 2021
To: Michael Lozeau
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: 130 Center Street Project, Santa Cruz, CA. (IEE File Reference: P-4510)
Pages: 18
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a wellrecognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson,

29.681
2 of 18
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD, 2008) (https://www.mbard.org/files/f665829d1/CEQA_full+%281%29.pdf).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.

The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and

29.682
3 of 18
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentration of 22.4 µg/m3(18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products.

This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).

With respect to the 130 Center Street Project, Santa Cruz, CA, the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces.

29.683
4 of 18
The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.

Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3(Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences.

This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).

The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.

Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3(Singer et. al., 2020)

29.684
5 of 18
Assuming that the commercial spaces employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day is 161 µg/day.

Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day.

This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not ensure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can ensure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor

29.685
6 of 18
concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2of material/m2floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

29.686
7 of 18

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.

CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

29.687
8 of 18
If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.

Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.

𝐶𝑖𝑛 =
𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑄𝑜𝑎
(Equation 1)
where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

29.688
9 of 18

3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or NonCancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde

Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

29.689
10 of 18
Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to ensure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week.

Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

The 130 Center Street Project is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., Center Street, Pacific Avenue, Cedar Street, etc.).

29.690
11 of 18
According to the Project noise assessment (Pack Associates, 2021) the future noise levels at the Project range from 58-62 dBA DNL.

As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and

29.691
12 of 18
Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

References
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD). 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. MBUAPC, Monterey, CA.
https://www.mbard.org/files/f665829d1/CEQA_full+%281%29.pdf BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf

29.692
13 of 18
California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.

California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242.

29.693
14 of 18
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

Pack Associates, Edward L. 2021. Noise Assessment Study for the Planned Mixed-Use Development, 130 Center Street, Santa Cruz.

Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.

USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4

29.694
15 of 18

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3(18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the StandardMethod fortheTestingandEvaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical EmissionsforIndoor Sources UsingEnvironmental Chambers,Version1.1, 2017, California Department of Public Health,

29.695
16 of 18
Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.

For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.

The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2(0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2(1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2(2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2(2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA

29.696
17 of 18
cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e., Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins.

29.697
Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH
Indoor Environmental Engineering
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-567-7700
Email: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Education
M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985)
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980) University of California, Berkeley, CA.

B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.

Professional Experience
President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 - present.

Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance measurements, and chemical emission rate testing.

Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment.

Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new State of Washington Ecology Department building.

Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion Performance Index.

Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment.

Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern and southern California.

Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners, managers, hygienists, and engineers.

29.698
2 Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March, 1987.

Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication rooms, and indoor air quality investigations.

Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to August, 1984.

Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies (i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control).

Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross-stream contaminant transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting.

Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR).

Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny.

Co-designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates and radon concentrations.

Designed hardware and software for a multi-channel automated data acquisition system used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment.

Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January, 1980.

Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating Engineers.

Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to October, 1979.

29.699
3 Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new equipment purchases. Safety Director.

Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977.

Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment.

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

• Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992) • Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation Effectiveness (1986-97)
- Member of Drafting Committee
• Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010) - Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee
- Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee - Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper Committee
• Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000)
- Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

• D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres
- Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee
• E-06 Performance of Building Constructions
American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH)
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)

• Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013)

29.700
4 American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Cal-OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee
International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ) • Co-Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene
U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
- Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009) - Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012) Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON)

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists

SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA
Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.

Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.

Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July, 1993.

Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.

Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.

Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 6th International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998.

Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.

Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.

Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000.

29.701
5 Co-Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002.

Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003.

Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008.

Co-Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002.

Chair, ETS in Multi-Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.

Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011.

Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air 2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016.

SPECIAL CONSULTATION
Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1.

Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air cleaners and residential furnace filters.

Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive.

Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65 product labeling case. June, 1993.

Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff’s Department of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls who suffered simultaneous crib death.

Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality and environmental tobacco smoke.

29.702
6 Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation.

Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997.

Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA.

Selected by the State of California Attorney General’s Office in August, 2000 to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House.

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: “Cause and Prevention of Sick Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality Investigators”, Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004.

Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California Attorney General’s Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from ecigarettes.

PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS :

F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982.

W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537, 1983.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91- 1B, 1984.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Performance of Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985.

29.703
7 R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986.

W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987).

F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988.

F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International , Volume 15, pp 585-592 1989.

F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment in an Office Building," IAQ '89, The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989.

R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air, 1990.

S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991.

F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991.

F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'91, Healthy Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991).

F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992).

F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992.

F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air-Cleaning System in an Archival Book Storage Facility," IAQ'92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992.

S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L.

Chang, L. Webber, “Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings,” Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.

29.704
8 F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates Before and After a Building Bake-out," IAQ'93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.

L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.

L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K.

Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas in California Buildings," IAQ '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994.

L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., “Pressure and Ventilation Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage”, Ventilation and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers, Netherlands, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, “Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness,” Indoor Air, Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999.

F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, “Contaminant Emission Rates from PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, “A Survey of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings”, Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001.

F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, “Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.

F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, “The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.

M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M.

Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, “Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints

29.705
9 in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators”, submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005.

F.J. Offermann, “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.

F.J. Offermann, “ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What’s It Good For, Intermittently Poor IAQ”, IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010.

F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, “Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.

P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, “Chemical Concentrations in New California Homes and Garages”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.

W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, “Toluene and Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D102 May, 2012.

F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, “The Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in Residences”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.

F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips, “Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, HB 2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012.

R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, “Maximizing Information from Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.

W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai, “Area-Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S.

Single-Family Homes”, Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014.

F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, “Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.

F. J. Offermann, “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015.

F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Manufactured in China”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.

F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.

29.706
10 OTHER REPORTS:

W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, 1981.

F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-12777, 1981.

F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air-Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen, "Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983.

R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983.

F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984.

W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984.

29.707
11 R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984.

A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984.

R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525, Elsevier, 1984.

K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a SemiConductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988.

F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989.

F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989.

F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling, Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board, March, 1990.

29.708
12 L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August 1990.

A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August, 1990.

F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, “Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi-Room Buildings”, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.

F.J.Offermann, M. T. O’Flaherty, and M. A. Waz “Validation of ASHRAE 129 - Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Final Report of ASHRAE Research Project 891, December 8, 1997.

S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., “Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry”, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH, 1998.

F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, “A Practical Guide to Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings”, Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue.

F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design & Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

F.J. Offermann, “The IAQ Top 10”, Engineered Systems, November, 2008.

L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, “Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010.

F.J. Offermann, “ IAQ in Air Tight Homes”, ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010.

F.J. Offermann, “The Hazards of E-Cigarettes”, ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014.

PRESENTATIONS :
"Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981.

29.709
13 "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983. "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements," Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.
"Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA, May 29, 1986.
"Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26, 1986 and September 25, 1987.
"Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986. "Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno, NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987.
"Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987. "Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987. "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988. "Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21, 1988.
"Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988.
"A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air '89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989.

29.710
14 "Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20, 1989.
"Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, September 7, 1989.
"How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21, 1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando, FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C., February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24, 1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991; Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991; Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ, November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992.
"Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23, 1990.
"Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990.

"Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium & International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA, September 25, 1990.
"Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001, Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY, January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991; Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV, December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6, 1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas,

29.711
15 NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV, March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996. "Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs ?" What Are the Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23, 1991.
"Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November 14, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi-Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992.
"Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992.
"International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness", Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992. "Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers; Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles, March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas, August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993; Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997. "Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995.
“Techniques for Airborne Disease Control”, EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994.

29.712
16 “Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems”, CIHC Conference; San Francisco, September 29, 1994.
”Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools,” an EPA one day air quality management workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco, October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose, March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton, November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa Rosa, March 2, 1998.

ASHRAE 62 Standard “Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ”, ASCR Convention; San Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995.
“New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems”, AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995.
"Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22, 1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, American Society of Safety Engineers Seminar: ‘Indoor Air Quality – The Next Door’; San Jose Chapter, September 27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3, 1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems”, CSU-PPD Conference; October 24, 1995.
“Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements”, AIHA; October 25, 1995.
“IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant Transport”, EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9, 1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996.
“Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Room Vent ‘96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996. “IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development”, CCEHSA 1996 Annual Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996. “The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments”, California Industrial Hygiene Conference ‘96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996.

29.713
17 “ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments”, Pacific Gas and Electric Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996.
“Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings”, April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30, 1997, Monterey, CA.
“IAQ Primer”, Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State Compensation Insurance Fund’s Safety & Health Services Department, November 21, 1996.
“Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates”, ASHRAE, Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997.
“How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems”; Women in Waste; March 19, 1997.
“Environmental Engineer: What Is It?”, Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10, 1997.
“Indoor Environment Controls: What’s Hot and What’s Not”, Shaklee Corporation; San Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997.
“Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE Study”, Healthy Buildings/IAQ’97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997. “Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, PASMA; October 7, 1997.
“Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, Construction Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997. “Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ”, University of Tulsa 10th Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998.
“The Building Shell”, Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28, 1998.
“Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings”, The City of Oakland Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998.
“Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble”, CASBO, Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998.
“Indoor Air Quality”, CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998. “Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration”, ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998.

29.714
18 “Building Air Quality Facts and Myths”, The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998.
“Building Engineering and Moisture”, Building Contamination Workshop, University of California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999.
“Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings”, Western Construction Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3, 2001.
“Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication”, Joint Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County & Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000. “Ventilation,” Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 21st Century Symposium, sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000.
“Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
“Closing Session Summary: ‘Building Investigations’ and ‘Building Design & Construction’, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. “Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care”, BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23rd, 2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000.
“Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad,” University of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001.
“Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do”, Redwood Empire Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002. “Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade”, Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX; April 22, 2002.
“Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations”, AIHA Northern California Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002.
“Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings”, Cal/OSHA Training; Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003.

29.715
19 “Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation”, Invited Speaker, ACGIH Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003.

Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9, 2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA, January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004; Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA, November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November 18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005.
“Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003.
“Mold and Moisture Control”, Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003. “Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004.
“Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings”, American Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005. “Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005.
“Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007.
“Defining Safe Building Air”, Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008.
“Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration”, Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008 Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008.
“Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes”, National Center of Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008.
“Indoor Air Quality in New Homes”, California Energy and Air Quality Conference, October 29, 2008.
“Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009. “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.

29.716
20 “Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009.
“New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings”, Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010.
“Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ”, ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010.
“Measured IAQ in Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21, 2010.
“Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation”, AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings, Denver, CO, May 23, 2010.
“IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010. “Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings”, Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011.
“What Pollutants are Really There ?”, ACI Home Performance Conference, San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011.
“Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences”, US EPA Weatherization Plus Health, September 7, 2011.
“Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been”, Westcon, May 21, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes”, IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington, DC, February 18, 2015.
“Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes”, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014.
“Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM”, Harris Martin’s Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis Hotel, May 27, 2015.

29.717
21 “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure”, FDA Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2, 2015.
“Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces”, Chautauqua Institution, Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015.
“Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015.
“Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings”, BEST Center Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016. “A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood Products”, AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016.
“Admissibility of Scientific Testimony”, Science in the Court, Proposition 65 Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016. “Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation”, ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December 1, 2016.

29.718
From: Patti U
To: [email protected]; Ryan Bane
Subject: We support 130 Center Street
Date: Monday, July 19, 2021 10:07:26 AM
Good Morning,
We are writing to support the project at 130 Center Street. This will be a great improvement to the current space of an old one story building that houses a car body shop. We have friends who have studied sustainable urban planning. Good environmental design supports infilling in the city center and the main road arteries with a mixture of commercial and residential. This project meets these requirements and will add to the character and energy of downtown.

Although we have a small group of vocal neighbors who are against any kind of development they do not speak for all of the residents of downtown. There are many other residents like us who support well planned improvements to our downtown neighborhood.

Thank you,
Patricia Unruhe & Andrew Jarvis
905 Laurel St

29.719
From: Emily Ham
To: City Plan
Subject: Public Comment on Item #1 - 130 Center Street
Date: Thursday, October 21, 2021 3:11:47 PM
Attachments: unnamed.png
SCCBC Letter of Support_130 Center Street_102121 (1).pdf Good afternoon,
I apologize for the delay in submitted this comment letter. I realize it might be too late to include in the agenda. I was hoping to send it along to individual Planning Commissioners for review at their convenience, however I wasn't able to locate their email address on your website. Are you able to provide me with their contact information? If not, I will provide verbal comment during the meeting.

Thank you,
Emily
--
Emily Ham
Executive Director
Santa Cruz County Business Council
(207) 274-8097

29.720
Date: October 21, 2021
Subject: Santa Cruz County Business Council Support for 130 Center Street Dear Chair Schiffrin, Vice Chair Spellman and City of Santa Cruz Planning Commissioners, On behalf of the Santa Cruz County Business Council, I write to express our support for 130 Center Street and respectfully request your “aye” vote for the project.

The Santa Cruz County Business Council (SCCBC) was founded in 1996 to provide a collective voice for countywide business owners and executives. Our large and growing number of members practices informed advocacy for countywide businesses and communities. As Santa Cruz County undergoes a profound period of recovery and growth, we strive to be leaders of projects, policies and practices that promote economic and community vitality. 130 Center Street is one of those projects.

In a recent meeting, our Board of Directors, members, and guests heard directly from the project application and engaged in a rich discussion on housing needs in Santa Cruz - one of which is single room occupancy rental units for students, young professionals, and very low income residents. The Board unanimously voted to endorse the project on the basis that it supports these needs and fulfills several City objectives including the promotion of “sustainable and compact community within defined urban boundaries” as stated in the City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan.

The City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element also calls for “transit-oriented housing...redeveloping underutilized sites with the Downtown and along major corridors, increasing density, and facilitating housing at key opportunity sites.” The project meets the mark on each of these objectives, adds 31 affordable units to contribute to the fulfillment of our RHNA goals and provides housing that is critical to attracting and retaining qualified professionals for a sustainable local workforce.

We are grateful for strong and enlightened leadership in addressing our local housing crisis. Approval of 130 Center Street will set enormous precedent for smart development, affordable and walkable cities, and a thriving Santa Cruz economy. We urge you to support this important project.

Sincerely,
Emily Ham
Executive Director
Santa Cruz County Business Council

29.721
From: [email protected]
To: City Plan; Sara DeLeon; Tess Fitzgerald; Allison Webster Subject: Planning Commission Comments
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:37:19 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: Planning Commission Comments
Date & Time: 10/19/2021 3:37 PM
Response #: 13
Submitter ID: 84903
IP address: 2600:1700:87f0:1290:61f3:dc64:a365:f060
Time to complete: 11 min. , 30 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

You are currently able to comment for all items scheduled for the October 21, 2021 Planning Commission meeting.

COMMENT PERIOD
The comment period for items scheduled will close at 12 PM the day prior to the meeting. Please select an item and provide your comment. Please note that all information submitted is releasable per the Public Records Act.

1. Please select the agenda item you would like to discuss. (○) 130 CENTER STREET

2. Please select one of the following regarding the item you are commenting on:
(○) Concerns

3. Comment/Question:

Planning Commissioners, October 19, 2021
Even though I remembered the 4.4 section from GP2030 stating it is city policy to disregard visitor traffic impacts , I was still surprised that the traffic study for 130 Center Street was recorded only from weekday data. This location demands understanding of the traffic patterns and intensity that exist on the weekends.

Traffic has increased since this policy was " decided upon , GPS appeared to guide drivers through neighborhoods, and only providing weekday numbers in the traffic study gives no recognition to how impacted Center St. already is now, for both residents and visitors . That's why a roundabout was put there, with the clear understanding by the city that the area is a huge problem. And the roundabouts can't handle even what's there now on a beach day for the ever increasing numbers of Valley residents who flock here

29.722
for relief from the heat. With a lack of transit options for residents and visitors , I feel it's the time and definitely a location that demands the inclusion of weekends in the traffic study . The current and additional traffic will use GPS and traffic will be diverted onto residential streets, which goes against your stated policy in 4.4 .
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showdocument?id=22462 From G.P. 2030 4.4 Transportation and Traffic, page 12 Summer and Weekend Peak Hour Traffic Conditions " A portion of the city's circulation system is affected by seasonal surges resulting from coastal access demands from all of Northern California. Santa Cruz has recognized that it is not practical to build to accommodate this seasonal demand, and has considered beach access congestion to be acceptable as long as it does not divert traffic onto residential streets. The 2030 General Plan has focused on addressing the congestion associated with the weekday travel of City residents, employees and customers. " Because the city decided then that the weekend and summer weekday numbers are just too much to deal with on paper, we're left to deal with it on our increasingly crowded streets. Does anyone believe that traffic and idling haven't increased since this was wriitten, and now GPS guides visitor cars through neighborhoods to avoid just the situation that will be created on Center Street. GHG omissions don't stand a chance of decreasing here, especially with so much growth in hotter areas and their residents who drive and idle in their cars on the road to cooling off in Santa Criz. Not being able to access the important data that is not included in the traffic study and not seriously considering current and additional idling and emissions on weekends goes against any climate change objectives our city claims to care about.

Shelley Hatch

4. Contact Information: If you would like us to contact you regarding your comment or question, please provide your contact information. Contact information will not be included as part of the list provided during the public meeting.

First Name: Shelley
Last Name: Hatch
Phone Number: 831-426-078
Email: [email protected]
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

29.723
From: YIMBY Law Intake
To: City Plan
Subject: 130 Center St - Comment Letter from YIMBY Law
Date: Monday, October 18, 2021 7:26:05 PM
Attachments: 130 Center Street - HAA Letter 2021-10-18.pdf Please find attached our firm's comment letter in connection to the proposed project at 130 Center St. The city of Santa Cruz is obligated to approve this project under the Housing Accountability Act unless it makes findings that the project causes specific adverse health or safety impacts which cannot be mitigated. The planning staff have found this project does not cause any specific health or safety impacts, therefore the city is required to approve this project.

29.724
YIMBY Law
57 Post St, Suite 908
San Francisco, CA 94104
[email protected]
10/18/2021
Santa Cruz Planning Commission
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]
Via Email
Re: 130 Center St
Dear Santa Cruz Planning Commission,
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). As you know, the Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the HAA. Should the City fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure that the law is enforced.

This project involves a proposal to construct a six-story, mixed-use project consisting of one level of underground parking, ground level commercial space, and 233 SRO units. The development will implement the City’s vision for the South of Laurel area as expressed by the General Plan and the Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan by providing much needed deeply affordable and market rate residential units and providing a connection between the downtown and the beach area. The project has been thoughtfully designed to be attractive to both permanent residents and tourists, with emphasis placed on compatibility of design, landscaping, and site planning in compliance with the Design Guidelines of the Beach and South of Laurel Comprehensive Area Plan. Additionally, with a request for a Density Bonus, the project will maximize density while providing 20% of the units at the very low income level, which will be a significant addition to the city’s affordable housing stock. As conditioned, the proposed project meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and provides a development that is compatible with the surrounding area in terms of its use, scale, and design.

California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality’s zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety.
1 29.725
In this case, a Density Bonus is being sought in order for the Project proponent to be granted waivers to which they are entitled under California state Density Bonus Law, California Government Code § 65915(e), so long as there are no specific, adverse impacts, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and there are no feasible methods to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impacts. The HAA, § 65589.5 (j)(3) specifies that the receipt of a density bonus does not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.

The above captioned proposal is zoning compliant and general plan compliant, therefore, your local agency must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. Should the City fail to comply with the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to take legal action to ensure that the law is enforced.

I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
YIMBY Law, 57 Post Street, Suite 908, San Francisco, CA 94104 2 29.726
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 2:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: I support 130 Center Street
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
831-420-5035
Begin forwarded message:

From: Kate Roberts <[email protected]>
Date: January 20, 2022 at 2:50:04 PM PST
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: I support 130 Center Street
Dear City Clerk Bush,
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council,
I am writing in support of the proposed Calypso project at 130 Center Street. This is an excellent example of utilizing affordable housing tools such as the State's Density Bonus law and the City's inclusionary housing ordinance that assist builders in the development of more affordable units. This project provides an opportunity for those currently working in downtown Santa Cruz but cannot afford to live there to access to Very Low Income, Moderate Income and general workforce housing units. Please advance this project.

Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Kate Roberts
266 Meadow Rd
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]

29.727
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 2:52 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: I support 130 Center Street
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
831-420-5035
Begin forwarded message:

From: John Beleutz <[email protected]>
Date: January 20, 2022 at 2:50:04 PM PST
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: I support 130 Center Street
Dear City Clerk Bush,
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council,
I am writing in support of the proposed Calypso project at 130 Center Street. This is an excellent example of utilizing affordable housing tools such as the State's Density Bonus law and the City's inclusionary housing ordinance that assist builders in the development of more affordable units. This project provides an opportunity for those currently working in downtown Santa Cruz but cannot afford to live there to access to Very Low Income, Moderate Income and general workforce housing units. Please advance this project.

Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
John Beleutz
9000 Soquel Ave Ste 104
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
[email protected]

29.728
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 3:16 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: I support 130 Center Street
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
831‐420‐5035
Public Records Requests may be submitted online via the Public Records Request form, by email, or by hard copy form available at the City Clerk’s Office located at 809 Center Street, Room 9, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.

Dear Mayor and Members of the Council,
I am writing in support of the proposed Calypso project at 130 Center Street. This is an excellent example of utilizing affordable housing tools such as the State's Density Bonus law and the City's inclusionary housing ordinance that assist builders in the development of more affordable units. This project provides an opportunity for those currently working in downtown Santa Cruz but cannot afford to live there to access to Very Low Income, Moderate Income and general workforce housing units. Please advance this project.

Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,

29.729
2 David Evans
600 Pelton Ave
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]

29.730
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 5:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: 130 Center St letter of support for Jan 25th meeting Attachments: center st Scan.bmp
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
831-420-5035
Begin forwarded message:

From: fred willoughby <[email protected]>
Date: January 20, 2022 at 5:19:05 PM PST
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: 130 Center St letter of support for Jan 25th meeting

29.731

29.732
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Nancy Maynard <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 7:00 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 130 Center St... appeal
Please consider appeal
It needs an environmental review
It needs a traffic study
Also all SRO's will not improve our city... we need family housing. But that would mean schools... which costs $$$
What is the reason the city only wants singles... with little reason to settle here? We should not be rewarding developers...for this
Nancy Herr

29.733
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Gillian Greensite <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 2:53 PM
To: City Council; Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Sandy Brown; Justin Cummings; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Donna Meyers; Renee Golder
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Mistake Alert in Agenda Report re Appeal of 130 Center St.

Dear Mayor and Council members,
There is a mistake in the Agenda Report on page 4 that significantly distorts the language and meaning of our Appeal. I am writing with the correction so you can be aware of this error ahead of time and have accurate information on which to base your deliberations.

Not only is the street name incorrect in the Agenda Report summary of our Appeal, the content is an incorrect summary of our concerns. A careful reading of what we actually do say will correct the mistake.

Our Appeal states, inter alia:

The Traffic Study for this project examined only weekday traffic. Weekends were not included. While this is not unusual as a general approach, it ignores the fact that on summer weekends, Center Street, Front St. and especially the roundabout are often at gridlock. With this project adding an estimated 1,112 daily trips and with the roundabout half a block to the south, to not assess the impact on the roundabout and feeder roads on weekends violates M3; M3.1; M3.2; M3.3.3 and LU4.1.2 Thus we do not have a valid, inclusive measure of the impact of this project on traffic. In addition, given weekend gridlock with the added impact of this project’s traffic, local traffic to and from the lower Westside will likely divert to other neighborhood streets violating LU 4.1.2, increasing VMT.

The Agenda Report entry on page 4 reads:

The appellant claims that Cedar Street congestion will divert traffic to lower westside neighborhoods. However, on busy summer afternoons, drivers already divert away from Cedar Street to avoid existing congestion that already exists in that area.

The project would not cause any additional diversions, because substantial congestion is already present that causes diversions for those seeking to take alternative routes. Further, the lower westside is equipped with a network of arterial and collector streets that is intended to handle traffic going to/from that area.

Thank you,
Gillian
Santa Cruz Tomorrow

29.734
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 7:23 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: I support 130 Center Street
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
831-420-5035
Begin forwarded message:

From: Diane Cowen <[email protected]>
Date: January 20, 2022 at 7:13:35 PM PST
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: I support 130 Center Street
Reply-To: [email protected]
Dear City Clerk Bush,
Please, we need housing of all types, and most importantly affordable housing here. Any relief is a move in the right direction.

Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Diane Cowen
506 San Juan Ave
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
[email protected]

29.735
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 7:23 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: I support 130 Center Street
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
831-420-5035
Begin forwarded message:

From: geri Lieby <[email protected]>
Date: January 20, 2022 at 7:13:49 PM PST
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: I support 130 Center Street
Reply-To: [email protected]
Dear City Clerk Bush,
I mailed a letter of support for this project. I am in such great support of it that I'm emailing you also. This will be essentially in my front yard. A wonderful asset for our neighborhood. Homes and businesses instead of dark asphalt parking lots and seedy looking repair shops.

Dear Mayor and Members of the Council,
I am writing in support of the proposed Calypso project at 130 Center St.Please advance this project.

Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
geri Lieby
310 Everson Dr
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]

29.736
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 7:17 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
831-420-5035
Begin forwarded message:

From: dmitrius rodriguez <[email protected]>
Date: January 22, 2022 at 7:16:16 AM PST
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Reply-To: [email protected]

City Clerk Bonnie Bush,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

As a city resident and student/faculty member at UCSC, I know the struggle I myself and my loved ones have faced to find a decent, affordable, place to live within 20 minutes of destinations such as UCSC, Downtown, the Boardwalk, and Midtown. Currently, over 10,000 students and faculty live off campus, many forced into cramped conditions where multiple people live in a one bedroom apartment paying on average $2,575 per month. Additionally, according to the 2021 UC Accountability Report, 9% of UCSC students are experiencing homelessness. We need more small-scale living options for students, faculty, first-time renters, seniors looking to downsize, and individuals priced out of larger living spaces. 130 Center Street is 233 homes between 295-400 sqft, perfect for these Santa Cruz residents.

29.737
2 the deed-restricted affordable homes is crucial to the viability of creating more deeply affordable homes in Downtown and the city.

I support the efforts of the City and University to engage in a shared responsibility to build more housing to alleviate the housing crisis from all angles. Making sure we can build more housing of all types, especially near campus, significantly reduces our carbon footprint. Over 60% of our county emissions are from transportation. By allowing students who currently commute from more affordable areas, such as Watsonville, to live in the city, we give people the opportunity to use other transportation modes. Building new structures also reduces gentrification and displacement pressures on sensitive communities. By providing a new place for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. Thank you!
This letter is powered by the Student Housing Coalition. The Student Housing Coalition is a student-led organization dedicated to advocacy surrounding the housing crisis in the Santa Cruz region. We value intersectionality, sustainability, and access to opportunity, with the overall goal of guaranteeing housing as a human right.
dmitrius rodriguez
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.738
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Judi Grunstra <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 9:06 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 29_ Jan. 25 2022 meeting
Dear Mayor and Council:

Please consider the appeal regarding this project at 130 Center St. It is disingenuous, to say the least, to approve this project without doing a traffic study during one or more summer weekends, when traffic is far heavier than during other times of the year. Additionally, impacts to neighboring streets should be considered. I realize new state laws are attempting to restrict the voices of local governments (and in turn, their residents), but I urge you to take any steps you can when projects are seemingly being pushed through without thorough evaluation as to their impacts.

Thank you.

Judi Grunstra

29.739
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Santa Cruz YIMBY <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 1:20 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Bonnie Bush
Subject: Santa Cruz YIMBY - Deny the 130 Center Appeal - Item #29, Jan 25th Attachments: Santa Cruz YIMBY - Deny 130 Center Appeal - Jan25th - Item29.pdf Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please find attached our letter urging denial of the appeal of 130 Center St., item #29 on the Jan 25, 2022 agenda for Santa Cruz City Council meeting.

Thank you,
Santa Cruz YIMBY

29.740
January 22, 2022
To: Santa Cruz City Council
From: Santa Cruz YIMBY
Re: Agenda Item #29 : 130 Center Street - Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers:

Santa Cruz YIMBY writes in support of the 130 Center Street project. We urge you to accept the staff recommendation and DENY the appeal of the 130 Center St. project. This project is consistent with the General Plan, Beach and South of Laurel Plan, and Zoning and includes 233 new homes, including 31 for very-low (50%) income level. This project implements the city’s vision of more housing South of Laurel and strengthening the connection between downtown and the beach.

Santa Cruz YIMBY seeks to build a community where our neighbors of all ages, cultures, and incomes, can make Santa Cruz their home. The City of Santa Cruz desperately needs more affordable housing. 9% of UC Santa Cruz students are experiencing homelessness and the average one bedroom home in the community costs $2,575 per month. We need these new student-oriented homes to provide more options for the over 10,000 students currently living off campus.

Santa Cruz YIMBY also advocates for sustainable growth with more dense housing near transit. We must respond to the climate crisis with housing opportunities like 130 Center St. that locate more housing near jobs and schools with options for public transit, biking and walking. We note and applaud the reduced off-street parking based on the use of density bonus and proximity to a major transit stop as well as the 233 private lockers and 72 cafe spaces for bike storage.

Sincerely,
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY Mission: We envision a community where our neighbors of all ages, cultures, abilities, and incomes, can make Santa Cruz County their home. In response to the ever-increasing cost of living, we advocate for more affordable housing to meet the needs of our growing population.

Santa Cruz YIMBY is a chapter of YIMBY Action, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization.

29.741
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Emma Ley <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 12:13 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

Additionally, 31 of these homes are reserved affordable, with 23 for Very-Low Income families of 4 making $66,200 or less, and 8 for Moderate Income families of 4 making $132,000 or less. This cross-subsidization between comparably affordable smaller market-rate homes and the deed-restricted affordable homes is crucial to the viability of creating more deeply affordable homes in Downtown and the city.

29.742
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Emma Ley
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.743
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Safwan Agmayah <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 12:21 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.744
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Safwan Agmayah
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.745
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ray Diaz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 12:35 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.746
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Ray Diaz
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.747
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Stephen Lloyd <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 12:27 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.748
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Stephen Lloyd
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.749
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Joseph Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 12:29 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.750
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Joseph Thompson
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.751
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 12:27 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.752
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

29.753
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Carlo Plascencia <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 12:49 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.754
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Carlo Plascencia
[email protected]
Ventura, California 93003

29.755
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: sarina bozorgnia <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 1:14 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.756
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. Thank you!
This letter is powered by the Student Housing Coalition. The Student Housing Coalition is a student-led organization dedicated to advocacy surrounding the housing crisis in the Santa Cruz region. We value intersectionality, sustainability, and access to opportunity, with the overall goal of guaranteeing housing as a human right.
sarina bozorgnia
[email protected]
Marina, California 93933

29.757
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Talia Jordan <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 1:17 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.758
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Talia Jordan
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.759
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ryan Meckel <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 12:59 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

As a city resident and staff member at UCSC, I know the struggle I myself and my loved ones have faced to find a decent, affordable, place to live within 20 minutes of destinations such as UCSC, Downtown, the Boardwalk, and Midtown. Currently, over 10,000 students and faculty live off campus, many forced into cramped conditions where multiple people live in a one bedroom apartment paying on average $2,575 per month. Additionally, according to the 2021 UC Accountability Report, 9% of UCSC students are experiencing homelessness. We need more small-scale living options for students, faculty, first-time renters, seniors looking to downsize, and individuals priced out of larger living spaces. 130 Center Street is 233 homes between 295-400 sqft, perfect for these Santa Cruz residents.

29.760
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Ryan Meckel
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.761
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Eva Chen <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 1:18 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

As a city resident and student at UCSC, I know the struggle I myself and my loved ones have faced to find a decent, affordable, place to live within 20 minutes of destinations such as UCSC, Downtown, the Boardwalk, and Midtown. Currently, over 10,000 students and faculty live off campus, many forced into cramped conditions where multiple people live in a one bedroom apartment paying on average $2,575 per month. Additionally, according to the 2021 UC Accountability Report, 9% of UCSC students are experiencing homelessness. We need more small-scale living options for students, faculty, first-time renters, seniors looking to downsize, and individuals priced out of larger living spaces. 130 Center Street is 233 homes between 295-400 sqft, perfect for these Santa Cruz residents.

29.762
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Eva Chen
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.763
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Theresa Bostic <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 1:22 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.764
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Theresa Bostic
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.765
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Zachary Entenman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 1:15 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.766
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Zachary Entenman
[email protected]
Albany, California 94706

29.767
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Milan Wilkerson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 1:29 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.768
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Milan Wilkerson
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.769
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Lilianna Grigoryan <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 1:42 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.770
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Lilianna Grigoryan
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.771
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: max henri rogozienski <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 1:56 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.772
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Please, please, please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. We need you. This is my future. Please consider that you do not inherent the Earth from your ancestors, you borrow it from me, and all my brothers and sisters!! You borrow the Earth from your children my friend.

This letter is powered by the Student Housing Coalition. The Student Housing Coalition is a student-led organization dedicated to advocacy surrounding the housing crisis in the Santa Cruz region. We value intersectionality, sustainability, and access to opportunity, with the overall goal of guaranteeing housing as a human right. Thank you! max henri rogozienski
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.773
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Robert Corning <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 1:59 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

I would like to mention that I am personally affected by the housing crisis as I have to live in Aptos to be able to even find a home. This adds an hour to my commute to UCSC each way.

29.774
2 gentrification and displacement pressures on sensitive communities. By providing a new place for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. Thank you!
Robert Corning
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.775
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: lola quiroga <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 2:40 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.776
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. Thank you!
This letter is powered by the Student Housing Coalition. The Student Housing Coalition is a student-led organization dedicated to advocacy surrounding the housing crisis in the Santa Cruz region. We value intersectionality, sustainability, and access to opportunity, with the overall goal of guaranteeing housing as a human right.
lola quiroga
[email protected]
Burbank, California 91505

29.777
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Aiko Ponce <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 3:17 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.778
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Aiko Ponce
[email protected]
North Hollywood, California 91601

29.779
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bodie Shargel <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 6:42 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I live in Santa Cruz. I am a student. I pay $3,000 for a 1 bedroom apartment. I can barely afford my rent. Many people can't afford that at all. 130 Center Street would build hundreds of units of affordable housing. Building affordable housing makes the cost of housing go down.

Please ensure that 130 Center Street gets built.

Bodie Shargel
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.780
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Kai Ando <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 6:47 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.781
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Kai Ando
[email protected]
Foster City, California 94404

29.782
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jason Samaha <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 6:25 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.783
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Jason Samaha
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.784
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Riya Rao <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 7:15 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.785
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Riya Rao
[email protected]
Dublin, California dublin

29.786
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Brent Insua <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 7:18 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.787
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Brent Insua
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.788
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Pierce Brownstone <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 7:31 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street Mayor Sonja Brunner,
130 Center Street is a perfect location to build the desperately needed dense affordable housing in Santa Cruz. It’s one of the few locations in the county that is surrounded by single family homes that would complain about a “loss of sunlight” not to mention it’s in our only truly walkable neighborhood. I’m not even a student at UCSC, but I’m was born and raised in Santa Cruz and would love to return someday but could never afford the homes available on a musicians salary. KEEP ARTISTS IN SANTA CRUZ by building places for them to live.

Pierce Brownstone
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.789
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Megan Melis <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 7:32 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.790
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Megan Melis
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.791
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Michelle Ahwal <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 7:38 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.792
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Michelle Ahwal
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95062

29.793
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Sneha S <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 7:44 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.794
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Sneha S
[email protected]
La Jolla, California 92092

29.795
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Pablo Velasquez <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 7:46 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.796
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Pablo Velasquez
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.797
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Natalya Gonzalez <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 7:47 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.798
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Natalya Gonzalez
[email protected]
Los Angeles, California 90034

29.799
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Rowena Bush <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 7:52 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.800
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Rowena Bush
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.801
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Kiara Bremner <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 7:54 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.802
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Kiara Bremner
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.803
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Serena Campbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 8:23 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.804
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Serena Campbell
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.805
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Kaitlyn Maleman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 8:23 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.806
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Kaitlyn Maleman
[email protected]
Redwood City, California 94065

29.807
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Imogen Krause <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 8:38 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.808
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Imogen Krause
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.809
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Marieke Sillevis Smitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 8:55 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.810
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Marieke Sillevis Smitt
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.811
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: lauren tivy <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 9:08 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.812
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. Thank you!
This letter is powered by the Student Housing Coalition. The Student Housing Coalition is a student-led organization dedicated to advocacy surrounding the housing crisis in the Santa Cruz region. We value intersectionality, sustainability, and access to opportunity, with the overall goal of guaranteeing housing as a human right.
lauren tivy
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.813
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Hema Prasanna <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 9:09 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.814
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Hema Prasanna
[email protected]
San Ramon, California 94583

29.815
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Louis Avalos <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 10:02 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.816
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Louis Avalos
[email protected]
Bloomington, California 92316

29.817
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Giulia Santos <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 8:55 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.818
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Giulia Santos
[email protected]
La Jolla, California 92092

29.819
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Wumi Ogunlade <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 10:03 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.820
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Wumi Ogunlade
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.821
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ivy Justice <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 10:28 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.822
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Ivy Justice
[email protected]
Los Angeles, California 90064

29.823
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Sarah Harnden <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 10:06 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.824
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Sarah Harnden
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.825
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Mark Yang <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 10:30 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.826
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Mark Yang
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.827
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ilse Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 11:10 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.828
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Ilse Garcia
[email protected]
El Cajon, California 92020

29.829
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Smrithi Manickam <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 11:11 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.830
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Smrithi Manickam
[email protected]
Capitola, California 95010

29.831
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ranvir Singh <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 12:11 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.832
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Ranvir Singh
[email protected]
Palo Alto, California 94306

29.833
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: dmitrius rodriguez <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 11:15 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.834
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

29.835
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jon Carnero <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 4:36 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.836
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Jon Carnero
[email protected]
Fresno, California 93720

29.837
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Melanie Granados <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 12:31 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.838
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Melanie Granados
[email protected]
Bakersfield, California 93304

29.839
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Melanie Velasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:11 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.840
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Melanie Velasco
[email protected]
San Diego, California 92104

29.841
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: ell rintoul <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 7:41 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.842
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

29.843
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Chelsea Muller <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 9:11 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
Dear, Council & City Leadership,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

To address our housing and homelessness crises, we must embrace new, denser, affordable housing wherever possible. According to the 2021 UC Accountability Report, 9% of UCSC students are experiencing homelessness. We need more small-scale living options for students, faculty, first-time renters, seniors looking to downsize, and individuals priced out of larger living spaces.
130 Center Street is 233 homes between 295-400 sqft, perfect for these Santa Cruz residents.

29.844
2 Please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. Thank you!
Chelsea Muller
1694 Glen Canyon Rd
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Chelsea Muller
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.845
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Sarah Dunwoody <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 9:15 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.846
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Sarah Dunwoody
[email protected]
Belmont, California 94002

29.847
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Maya Lozano <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 11:12 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.848
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Maya Lozano
[email protected]
Temecula, California 92592

29.849
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Isabella Rodríguez-Ginnold <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 9:41 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.850
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Isabella Rodríguez-Ginnold
[email protected]
Los Angeles, California 90291

29.851
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Lydia Benga <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 11:40 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.852
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Lydia Benga
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.853
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Tiffany Edwa <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 11:59 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.854
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Tiffany Edwa
[email protected]
Altadena, California 91001

29.855
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Lola Kitchell <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 12:25 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.856
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Lola Kitchell
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.857
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Sophia Lewis-Mussa <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 12:11 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

As an undergraduate student at UCSC, it’s extremely hard to find affordable housing. Adding commuter fees and the ecological impacts that follow it mean the most reasonable idea is to develop affordable housing close to public transportation. Help us and the environment at the same time.
130 Center Street is 233 homes between 295-400 sqft, perfect for these Santa Cruz residents.

Please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. Thank you!

29.858
2 This letter is powered by the Student Housing Coalition. The Student Housing Coalition is a student-led organization dedicated to advocacy surrounding the housing crisis in the Santa Cruz region. We value intersectionality, sustainability, and access to opportunity, with the overall goal of guaranteeing housing as a human right.

Sophia Lewis-Mussa
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.859
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Stephanie Zamora <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 1:44 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.860
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Stephanie Zamora
[email protected]
Los Angeles, California 90032

29.861
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: yulissa lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 1:16 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.862
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. Thank you!
This letter is powered by the Student Housing Coalition. The Student Housing Coalition is a student-led organization dedicated to advocacy surrounding the housing crisis in the Santa Cruz region. We value intersectionality, sustainability, and access to opportunity, with the overall goal of guaranteeing housing as a human right.
yulissa lopez
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95062

29.863
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Caroline Grant <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 2:14 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.864
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Caroline Grant
[email protected]
San Francisco, California 94122

29.865
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Prasumi Chand <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 2:40 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.866
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Prasumi Chand
[email protected]
Martinez, California 94553

29.867
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Annie Meyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 2:04 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.868
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Annie Meyer
[email protected]
Arlington, Virginia 22213

29.869
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ashley Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 2:58 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.870
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Ashley Perez
[email protected]
San Jose, California 95112

29.871
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Emily Carlton <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 4:22 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.872
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Emily Carlton
[email protected]
Boulder Creek, California 95006

29.873
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: a s <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 4:16 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.874
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. Thank you!
This letter is powered by the Student Housing Coalition. The Student Housing Coalition is a student-led organization dedicated to advocacy surrounding the housing crisis in the Santa Cruz region. We value intersectionality, sustainability, and access to opportunity, with the overall goal of guaranteeing housing as a human right.
a s
[email protected]
Scotts Valley, California 95066

29.875
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Marian Zlateva <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 1:49 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.876
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Marian Zlateva
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.877
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 5:45 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.878
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

29.879
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Erin Overton <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:33 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.880
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Erin Overton
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.881
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Samantha Fonseca-Vallejo <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:31 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

As a city resident and student UCSC, I know the struggle I myself and my loved ones have faced to find a decent, affordable, place to live within 20 minutes of destinations such as UCSC, Downtown, the Boardwalk, and Midtown. Currently, over 10,000 students and faculty live off campus, many forced into cramped conditions where multiple people live in a one bedroom apartment paying on average $2,575 per month. Additionally, according to the 2021 UC Accountability Report, 9% of UCSC students are experiencing homelessness. We need more small-scale living options for students, faculty, first-time renters, seniors looking to downsize, and individuals priced out of larger living spaces. 130 Center Street is 233 homes between 295-400 sqft, perfect for these Santa Cruz residents.

29.882
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Samantha Fonseca-Vallejo
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.883
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:39 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.884
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

29.885
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Natalie Gerber <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:41 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.886
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Natalie Gerber
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.887
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ysabella Mello <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:45 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.888
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Ysabella Mello
[email protected]
Folsom, California 95630

29.889
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ethan Nunez <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:48 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.890
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Ethan Nunez
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.891
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Megan Deevy <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:48 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.892
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Megan Deevy
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.893
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ojal Mapuskar <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 10:01 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.894
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Ojal Mapuskar
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.895
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Isaac Recinos <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 9:31 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.896
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Isaac Recinos
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.897
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Samantha Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 12:13 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.898
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Samantha Garcia
[email protected]
Sacramento, California 95838

29.899
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Angel Camarena <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 11:29 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.900
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Angel Camarena
[email protected]
Aptos, California 95003

29.901
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Margarida Costa <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 8:08 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.902
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Margarida Costa
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.903
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Joanne F <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 8:08 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.904
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Joanne F
[email protected]
San Diego, California 92191

29.905
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jade Jaca <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 9:28 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.906
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Jade Jaca
[email protected]
Pleasant Hill, California 94523

29.907
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: River Eisenbach <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 9:35 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.908
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

River Eisenbach
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.909
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Amos Cao <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 10:36 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.910
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Amos Cao
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.911
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Aila Dismore <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 10:48 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

As a city resident and student at UCSC, I know the struggle my peers and myself have faced to find a decent, affordable, place to live within 20 minutes of destinations such as UCSC, Downtown, the Boardwalk, and Midtown. Currently, over 10,000 students and faculty live off campus, many forced into cramped conditions where multiple people live in a one bedroom apartment paying on average $2,575 per month. Additionally, according to the 2021 UC Accountability Report, 9% of UCSC students are experiencing homelessness. We need more small-scale living options for students, faculty, first-time renters, seniors looking to downsize, and individuals priced out of larger living spaces.
130 Center Street is 233 homes between 295-400 sqft, perfect for these Santa Cruz residents.

29.912
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Aila Dismore
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.913
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ciel McKay <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 1:21 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.914
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Ciel McKay
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.915
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: leslie Lazo <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 1:43 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.916
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. Thank you!
This letter is powered by the Student Housing Coalition. The Student Housing Coalition is a student-led organization dedicated to advocacy surrounding the housing crisis in the Santa Cruz region. We value intersectionality, sustainability, and access to opportunity, with the overall goal of guaranteeing housing as a human right.
leslie Lazo
[email protected]
Watsonville, California 95076

29.917
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jemzi Ortiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 1:47 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.918
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Jemzi Ortiz
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.919
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Lukas Svendsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 2:27 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.920
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Lukas Svendsen
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.921
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Michael Wool <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 4:23 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.922
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Michael Wool
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.923
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Esme Singer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 5:20 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.924
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Esme Singer
[email protected]
Bend, Oregon 97701

29.925
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: aryan bhide <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 7:34 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.926
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. Thank you!
This letter is powered by the Student Housing Coalition. The Student Housing Coalition is a student-led organization dedicated to advocacy surrounding the housing crisis in the Santa Cruz region. We value intersectionality, sustainability, and access to opportunity, with the overall goal of guaranteeing housing as a human right.
aryan bhide
[email protected]
San Ramon, California 94582

29.927
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Andrew Barber <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 8:48 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.928
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Andrew Barber
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95062

29.929
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Tyler Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 11:00 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

As a city resident and UCSC alumni, I know the struggle students and my loved ones have faced to find a decent, affordable, place to live within 20 minutes of destinations such as UCSC, Downtown, the Boardwalk, and Midtown. Currently, over 10,000 students and faculty live off campus, many forced into cramped conditions where multiple people live in a one bedroom apartment paying on average $2,575 per month. Additionally, according to the 2021 UC Accountability Report, 9% of UCSC students are experiencing homelessness. We need more small-scale living options for students, faculty, first-time renters, seniors looking to downsize, and individuals priced out of larger living spaces. 130 Center Street is 233 homes between 295-400 sqft, perfect for these Santa Cruz residents.

29.930
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Tyler Olson
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.931
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Kyle Kelley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:01 AM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student and transit-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

Kyle Kelley
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.932
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: John Juncos <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 1:06 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.933
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

John Juncos
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.934
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Christine Romero <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 4:58 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.935
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Christine Romero
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.936
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Danielle Garciano <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 4:59 PM
To: Sonja Brunner
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! Mayor Sonja Brunner,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.937
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Danielle Garciano
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.938
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Emily Ham <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 9:56 AM
To: City Council; Bonnie Bush; Sonja Brunner
Cc: Martine Watkins; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Donna Meyers
Subject: SCCBC Support for 130 Center Street
Attachments: SCCBC Letter of Support_130 Center Street_012422.pdf Good morning,
Please find the attached letter of support for 130 Center Street submitted on behalf of the Santa Cruz County Business Council. Thank you for your leadership on housing and all issues of equity and sustainable development.

Best,
Emily
--

EMILY HAM
Executive Director
Santa Cruz County Business Council
(831) 204-1387
Sign up for our newsletter!

29.939
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, California 95060
[email protected]
January 24, 2022
Dear Mayor Brunner, Vice Mayor Watkins and members of the Santa Cruz City Council, On behalf of the Santa Cruz County Business Council, I write to express our support for 130 Center Street and respectfully request your “aye” vote for the project.

Sincerely,
Emily Ham
Executive Director
Santa Cruz County Business Council

29.940
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:09 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: MBEP Comment Letter RE: Agenda #29, 130 Center St Attachments: MBEP Letter for 130 Center St.pdf
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
831-420-5035
Public Records Requests may be submitted online via the Public Records Request form, by email, or by hard copy form available at the City Clerk’s Office located at 809 Center Street, Room 9, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.

From: Ashley Gauer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:50 PM
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: MBEP Comment Letter RE: Agenda #29, 130 Center St Hi Bonnie,
Hope this finds you well! Attached is our comment letter for tomorrow's Appeal Hearing re: 130 Center Street.

Please let me know if you have any questions, thank you! --
--------------------------------------
Ashley Gauer, MA, MPA
808.927.1535
Program Manager, Special Projects

29.941
January 24, 2022
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 9506
Subject: Support for 130 Center Street, Calypso Project, Agenda Item #29 Dear Mayor Meyers and Santa Cruz City Councilmembers,
The Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) supports the proposed mixed-use development at 130 Center Street otherwise known as the Calypso Project, and staff’s recommendation to to approve a resolution to deny the appeal submitted on November 1st, and uphold the Planning Commission’s acknowledgment of the environmental determination and approval of the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Density Bonus Request, Special Use Permit, Coastal Permit, and Design Permit based on the findings listed in the draft resolution and the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “A.” This project answers a critical need for affordable and workforce housing in a transit-rich, walkable part of downtown Santa Cruz.

The initial proposal for a three-story conforming project consisting of 155 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) residential units includes 31 inclusionary units, which meets the city’s inclusionary affordability ordinance requirements. Of the 155 SROs, 23 units (15%) will be designated as Very Low-Income and 8 units (5%) as Moderate Income. Based on the more deeply affordable designation of the inclusionary units, the conforming project qualifies for a Density Bonus of up to a 50% increase, which has resulted in a proposal for up to 233 mixed-income SRO units. Over 200 individuals such as teachers and seniors, couples and service industry workers will be able to benefit from these units who may not have otherwise. The state’s Density Bonus tool can be an effective way to improve housing affordability and production over time that does not involve additional public subsidy. More information on the benefits of Enhanced Density Bonus can be found in our white paper co-published with Envision Housing.

MBEP’s Housing and Climate Change Initiatives support projects that reflect high quality design that incorporate green building principles where possible, higher density housing serving all income levels, and in appropriate low fire-risk locations near jobs and service amenities. MBEP also supports infill development to optimize land use and housing outcomes, reduce urban sprawl and meet climate action goals, especially reducing vehicle miles traveled. This project serves as a model for mixed-income higher density proposals and successful utilization of the Housing Affordability Act and Density Bonus on a major commercial corridor. In addition to the 50% Density Bonus qualifier, the project is seeking a parking requirement reduction to provide more housing and equitable access to public transit as it is located within a half-mile of the Downtown Transit Station. Additionally, the development will provide EV charging and bicycle storage to residents to promote green infrastructure and sustainable mobility. The Calypso project is in alignment with our housing production and climate change resiliency goals. We encourage the Council to advance this project. Thank you for your leadership.

Sincerely,
Tahra Goraya
President & CEO
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806

29.942
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jane Mio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 1/25 meeting: agenda item 29
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I strongly favor very low/low/affordable housing projects as well as mitigating any foreseeable impacts that are caused by any planned projects.

Because the 130 Center St. project location is in the round-about area that severely suffers from summer week-end gridlock, it is vital that a factual, measurable traffic study is available that allows for appropriate mitigations to avoid further increased summer weekend gridlocks at Front St./Center St & its roundabout.

Based on my summer weekend experiences in that area the 130 Center St. appeal upholds M3; M3.1; M3.2; M3.3.3 and LU4.1.2, which assure that project impacts are evaluated for necessary mitigations that safeguard the community's quality of life.

Had the project traffic study plans included the summer weekend traffic data then the appropriate mitigations could have been applied thus avoided the 130 Center St. appeal.

When the City Council upholds the appeal then it will be possible to put mitigations in to place that do justice for all involved.

Thank you for your time!
Sincerely,
jane mio

29.943
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: I support 130 Center Street
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
831‐420‐5035
Public Records Requests may be submitted online via the Public Records Request form, by email, or by hard copy form available at the City Clerk’s Office located at 809 Center Street, Room 9, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.

Please note: Public Record Act Requests submitted via email, fax, USPS, or dropoff after 5:00 p.m. on a business day, Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays will be processed as received on the next open business day. The 10‐day response period begins when the request is received. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Mila Colfer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: I support 130 Center Street
Dear City Clerk Bush,
We need these 23 low income units
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council,
I am writing in support of the proposed Calypso project at 130 Center Street. This is an excellent example of utilizing affordable housing tools such as the State's Density Bonus law and the City's inclusionary housing ordinance that assist builders in the development of more affordable units. This project provides an opportunity for those currently working in downtown Santa Cruz but cannot afford to live there to access to Very Low Income, Moderate Income and general workforce housing units. Please advance this project.

Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Mila Colfer

29.944
2 1831 Lotman Dr
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
[email protected]

29.945
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 2:18 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: I support 130 Center Street
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
831‐420‐5035
Public Records Requests may be submitted online via the Public Records Request form, by email, or by hard copy form available at the City Clerk’s Office located at 809 Center Street, Room 9, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.

Please note: Public Record Act Requests submitted via email, fax, USPS, or dropoff after 5:00 p.m. on a business day, Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays will be processed as received on the next open business day. The 10‐day response period begins when the request is received. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Heather Putnam <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: I support 130 Center Street
Dear City Clerk Bush,
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council,
I am writing in support of the proposed Calypso project at 130 Center Street. This is an excellent example of utilizing affordable housing tools such as the State's Density Bonus law and the City's inclusionary housing ordinance that assist builders in the development of more affordable units. This project provides an opportunity for those currently working in downtown Santa Cruz but cannot afford to live there to access to Very Low Income, Moderate Income and general workforce housing units. Please advance this project.

Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Heather Putnam
121 Glenwood Ave
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

29.946
2 [email protected]

29.947
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ron Pomerantz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 4:06 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Sonja Brunner; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Martine Watkins; Donna Meyers; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Subject: 1-25-2022 Council Agenda item #29: 130 Center Street Appeal RE: 1-25-2022 Council Agenda item #29: 130 Center Street: CP21-0011 (APN 007-023-26) – Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of a Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit to Demolish an Existing Commercial Building; a Density Bonus Request to Exceed Height and Reduce Setbacks; and a Special Use Permit, Coastal Permit, and Design Permit to Construct a Six-story, Mixed-use Building with 233 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units and 2,356 sq. ft. of Ground Floor Commercial Space on a Parcel Located in the RTC/CZ-O/FP-O (Tourist Residential Beach Commercial/Coastal Zone Overlay/Floodplain Overlay) Zoning Districts and Beach and South of Laurel Area Plan. (Owner:

Green Valley Corporation) (PL)
Good day Mayor and Councilmembers.

I am compelled to request that the 130 Center Street appeal is approved. The Planning staff’s report to Council provides only half of the story about the Planning Commission’s project approval. The Planning Commission had some very strong reasons to withhold approval of this project during their discussion. When a motion was on the table to withhold approval of this project the developer’s representative stepped-in to propose adding a few affordable units if the development was approved without any objections. The Commissioners then withdrew their motion and swallowed their compelling objections. Please ask for their thinking and deliberations.

I do not oppose development at this site, only to make the best land use decisions that serve to improve this project for the community’s benefit. Staff says added traffic from the 233-unit SRO Calypso development will not be caused by the project. At over 1100 daily trips, how can that not have a significant impact? Would the City knowingly allow consequentially more traffic due to this development, as well as push more traffic and congestion into surrounding residential neighborhoods? Why would City staff knowingly agree to this area be further impacted and not even try to improve the current situation? Why would staff not want a traffic study to assist in making a potentially intolerable situation better? A reasonable and accurate traffic study that includes summer and weekend traffic would be a big step to assure improving a knowingly horrible situation for residents and tourists alike?
Additionally an Environmental Impact Study (EIR) is essential. Traffic impacts are one aspect. Shadowing and solar access another. Noise, parking, and auto exhaust are others an EIR should discuss. The proposed development's land has a long history as an auto repair and paint site. Do we know what solvents and lubricants are in the ground and how to safely expedite their removal? An EIR would also assist in predicting and mitigating public health problems for everyone. In-fill development does not negate the need to comply with CEQA nor the General plan.

I strongly encourage you to support the appeal and require a full traffic study that at least includes summer weekend traffic and an EIR before approval of this project.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful attention.

Ron Pomerantz

29.948
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Lira Filippini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 4:44 PM
To: City Council; Sonja Brunner; Donna Meyers; Justin Cummings; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Sandy Brown; Martine Watkins; Renee Golder Subject: 130 Center Appeal; Agenda Item 29, 1/25/22
Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Elect,
Reading through the public correspondence for this item, it's clear that the developer advocacy groups didn't read the appeal or understand what is being appealed.

Santa Cruz Tomorrow's appeal concerning 130 Center St, is not appealing the project itself or asking for its denial. The design, height, and housing capacity are not being challenged.

What is being appealed is the CEQA exemption due to lack of due diligence in the traffic study for not including weekends in summer - arguably one of the most important time periods to study traffic for any significant development South of Laurel.

The Planning Commission had many questions about this exemption determination and was on the road toward further investigation when the developer offered to include a couple additional affordable units in exchange for dropping their other concerns. Extra affordable units are great, but local government should not be bartering for them by looking the other way on environmental concerns.

Upholding the appeal is NOT denying the project; it's only recognizing that there is insufficient evidence making this project exempt from the CEQA process and associated standards.

Staff report refers to DUDEK's report, which states:

CEQA provides “categorical exemptions” that are applicable to categories of projects and activities that the California Natural Resources Agency has determined generally do not pose a risk of significant impacts on the environment. The Class 32 categorical exemption is for “infill development” projects that meet the following criteria:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

With an insufficient traffic report excluding weekend traffic, it cannot be known that letters (a) or (d) are in compliance with the requisites for a CEQA exemption.

Please uphold the appeal and find that the environmental determination of CEQA exemption cannot be granted due to insufficient evidence.

Another option is that the City can approve the project, and add an additional condition of approval that a complete traffic study be done that includes summer weekends, CEQA exemption reassessed, and mitigation measures applied as needed.

Thank you for your careful consideration,
Lira Filippini

29.949
2 130 Belvedere Terrace
Santa Cruz, CA 95062

29.950
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Andrew Ow <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 9:37 AM
To: Bonnie Bush
Subject: I support 130 Center Street
Dear City Clerk Bush,
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council,
I am writing in support of the proposed Calypso project at 130 Center Street. Our community desperately needs more housing, including affordable housing, and this project will provide a significant amount of both.

The location is also a great example of where housing should be built: in an already developed area near open space (Depot Park and the beach). This is an excellent example of utilizing affordable housing tools such as the State's Density Bonus law and the City's inclusionary housing ordinance that assist builders in the development of more affordable units. This project provides an opportunity for those currently working in downtown Santa Cruz but cannot afford to live there to access to Very Low Income, Moderate Income and general workforce housing units. Please advance this project! Thank you for your time and service to our community!
Sincerely,
Andrew Ow
151 Estates Dr
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]

29.951
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Elizabeth Conlan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 10:34 AM
To: Bonnie Bush
Subject: Please Support Permitting 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! City Clerk Bonnie Bush,
I urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed homes, particularly for university students, in Downtown Santa Cruz.

As a city resident, I know the struggle faced finding a place to live in Santa Cruz, let alone one within budget. Given that housing is a struggle for me, a young professional with a salaried job, I deeply empathize with the stress and hardships faced by UCSC students. Currently, over 10,000 students and faculty live off campus, many forced into cramped conditions where multiple people live in a one bedroom apartment paying on average $2,575 per month.

Additionally, according to the 2021 UC Accountability Report, 9% of UCSC students are experiencing homelessness.

We need more small-scale living options for students, faculty, first-time renters, seniors looking to downsize, and individuals priced out of larger living spaces and the apartments are 130 Center Street will add those much needed options. Additionally, 31 of these homes are reserved affordable, with 23 for Very-Low Income families and 8 for Moderate Income families. This cross-subsidization between comparably affordable smaller market-rate homes and the deed-restricted affordable homes is crucial to the viability of creating more deeply affordable homes in Downtown and the city.

I support the efforts of the City and University to engage in a shared responsibility to build more housing to alleviate the housing crisis. Making sure we can build more housing of all types, especially near campus, significantly reduces our carbon footprint. Over 60% of our county emissions are from transportation. By allowing students who currently commute from more affordable areas, such as Watsonville, to live in the city, we give people the opportunity to use other transportation modes. Building new structures also reduces gentrification and displacement pressures on sensitive communities. By providing a new place for students and

29.952
2 others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t risk displacing an existing resident out of their home.

Please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. Thank you!
I am sending this letter as an ally of the Student Housing Coalition. The Student Housing Coalition is a student-led organization dedicated to advocacy surrounding the housing crisis in the Santa Cruz region. We value intersectionality, sustainability, and access to opportunity, with the overall goal of guaranteeing housing as a human right.

Elizabeth Conlan
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.953
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Michelle Bakin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 10:58 AM
To: Bonnie Bush
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! City Clerk Bonnie Bush,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.954
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Michelle Bakin
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.955
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Celine Ertekin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 11:00 AM
To: Bonnie Bush
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! City Clerk Bonnie Bush,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.956
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Celine Ertekin
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.957
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jennifer Overklift <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:16 PM
To: Bonnie Bush
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! City Clerk Bonnie Bush,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.958
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Jennifer Overklift
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.959
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: damiana rojas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:05 PM
To: Bonnie Bush
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! City Clerk Bonnie Bush,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.960
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. Thank you!
This letter is powered by the Student Housing Coalition. The Student Housing Coalition is a student-led organization dedicated to advocacy surrounding the housing crisis in the Santa Cruz region. We value intersectionality, sustainability, and access to opportunity, with the overall goal of guaranteeing housing as a human right.
damiana rojas
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.961
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Anika Mahajan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 2:04 PM
To: Bonnie Bush
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! City Clerk Bonnie Bush,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.962
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Anika Mahajan
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.963
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Erin Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 2:08 PM
To: Bonnie Bush
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! City Clerk Bonnie Bush,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

As a city resident , I know the struggle I myself and my loved ones have faced to find a decent, affordable, place to live within 20 minutes of destinations such as UCSC, Downtown, the Boardwalk, and Midtown. Currently, over 10,000 students and faculty live off campus, many forced into cramped conditions where multiple people live in a one bedroom apartment paying on average $2,575 per month. Additionally, according to the 2021 UC Accountability Report, 9% of UCSC students are experiencing homelessness. We need more small-scale living options for students, faculty, first-time renters, seniors looking to downsize, and individuals priced out of larger living spaces.
130 Center Street is 233 homes between 295-400 sqft, perfect for these Santa Cruz residents.

29.964
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Erin Lee
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.965
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ivy Chan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 3:47 PM
To: Bonnie Bush
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! City Clerk Bonnie Bush,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.966
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Ivy Chan
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.967
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Nicholas Mazzotti <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 4:12 PM
To: Bonnie Bush
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! City Clerk Bonnie Bush,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.968
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Please support a greener and more equitable Santa Cruz for all and vote to deny the appeal of 130 Center Street. Thank you!
Thank you,
Nicholas Mazzotti
he/him

UCSC ENVS
Nicholas Mazzotti
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.969
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Grace Casteel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 4:17 PM
To: Bonnie Bush
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! City Clerk Bonnie Bush,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.970
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Grace Casteel
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95060

29.971
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Amanda Pepe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 5:09 PM
To: Bonnie Bush
Subject: I Support Building 233 Student-Oriented Homes at 130 Center Street! City Clerk Bonnie Bush,
I am writing today to urge you to deny the appeal for 130 Center Street, which will provide 233 much-needed student-oriented homes in Downtown Santa Cruz.

29.972
2 for students and others to live, it means when they move and join our community they don’t need to evict an existing resident out of their home.

Amanda Pepe
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95064

29.973
130 Center Street
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval
January 25, 2022 29.974
Background
 Planning Commission – October 21, 2021
 PC approved 7-0
 Santa Cruz Tomorrow appeal –
November 1, 2021
CEQA Review
Soil Contamination
Traffic Study
 CEQA Categorical Exemption Review

29.975
Site Location

29.976
Project Proposal
Six story mixed-use project
One level of underground
parking
2,356 sq ft Commercial Space
233 Single-Room Occupany
units

29.977
General Plan Designation
 Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC)
 “Emphasize a variety of commercial uses that
serve Santa Cruz residents as well as visitors.

Mixed-use development is strongly encouraged
in RVC districts”
 South of Laurel intended for “…mixed-use and
residential development along with visitor-serving
and neighborhood commercial uses to connect
the Beach Area with Downtown Santa Cruz.
 Floor Area Ratio allows .25 - 3.5
 Project FAR is 2.94

29.978
R-T(C) (Tourist Residential Beach
Commercial) Zone District
 Purpose: “to establish standards for development of
residential uses mixed with neighborhood commercial,
motel, and regional tourist commercial use. These standards are designed both to improve existing uses and encourage new developments in a manner that maintains a
harmonious balance between residential and regional
commercial uses”
 Special Use Permit and Design Permit required for:
 Mixed residential and commercial developments with
noncommercial uses on the ground floor, subject to the
R-T(A) District regulations”
 Single-room occupancy housing with sixteen units or
more

29.979
R-T(A) Development
Standards
Maximum Height – 36 feet
Density Bonus Height Waiver –
75 feet
Density Bonus Setback
Reductions

29.980
Project Consistent with:
General Plan Policies
Beach and South of Laurel
Comprehensive Plan, Policies, and
Design Guidelines
R-T(A) Development Standards
Single-room Occupancy
Development Standards

29.981
Project Permits
Nonresidential Demolition
Authorization Permit
Design Permit
Coastal Permit
Special Use Permit
Density Bonus

29.982
Design Permit

29.983
Southwest Elevation

29.984
North Elevation

29.985
Center St. Elevation

29.986
Underground Parking

29.987
Ground Level

29.988
Level 2

29.989
Level 3

29.990
Level 4

29.991
Level 5

29.992
Level 6

29.993
Parking
209 Off-Street Parking Spaces
Provided
Standard Parking – 253 spaces
required
Density Bonus Parking – 137 spaces
required
72 space surplus

29.994
Density Bonus
 Encourages affordable housing units
 Density bonus based on the number of affordable units at each income level
 Additional market rate units offset increased costs of deeply affordable units
 Provide incentives/concessions to development standards to reduce costs
 Provide waiver/modification to development standards that would physically preclude the project from being constructed  Reduced parking
 Limited discretion

29.995
Density Bonus
 Base density (155 units)
 Percentage of affordable units/level of
affordability determine increased density
 SRO developments require 20% of base units to
be very-low income
 31 very-low income (50% AMI) units provided
 AB 2345 – 15% provided at very-low qualify for
50% density bonus
 Meets City inclusionary 20% of base at 80% AMI
 Will meet Density Bonus affordability
requirements – based on funding source

29.996
Waivers
Waiver 1 – Exceed maximum
height
Waiver 2 – Reduction of
setbacks

29.997
Appeal
General Plan Policies
Traffic Study
Noise/Air Quality
Soil Contamination

29.998
General Plan Policies
 LU 4.1.2 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that infill and intensified development is sensitive to existing neighborhood and business districts.
 M3 A safe, efficient, and adaptive road system
 M3.1 Acknowledge and manage congestion
 M3.3.2 Improve access along the Visitor/Beach Area travel corridors through coordinated signs and street naming,
protected turn lanes, remote parking/shuttle programs, and other strategies Cf. PR1.6.3
 M3.3 Discourage, reduce and slow through traffic and truck on neighborhood streets
 M3.3.3 Update the Beach and South of Laurel Area Plan to reflect needed improvements along the Visitor/Beach Area travel corridors

29.999
Traffic Study
 Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) & VMT (CEQA)
 TIF – Address locations identified in the TIF program  Transportation Study Requirements for Development
 Development with peak weekend usage
 SRO weekday PM peak double of weekend PM
peak
 City adopted VMT threshold – CEQA/State
requirements
 City threshold 8.7 VMT/ Project VMT 4.2
 Less than significant impact related to traffic

29.1000
Noise/Air Quality
Minor traffic increase
CalEEMod – estimate criteria air pollutant
emissions
Emissions would not exceed Monterey
Bay Air Resources District threshold
Less than significant impact related to
noise and air quality

29.1001
Soil Contamination
 Cortese List data resources
DTSC EnviroStor
SWRCB GeoTracker
EPA – Waste Constituent Above Hazardous Waste
Levels
SWRCB – Active Cease & Desist Orders and
Cleanup and Abatement Orders
 Project site not located on any of the DTSC lists
of hazardous materials sites
 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment

29.1002
Environmental Review
Consistent with GP designation/policies
Within city limits/site no more than 5 acres
No value as habitat for endangered
species
No significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, water quality
Site adequately served by utilities/public
services

29.1003
Recommendation
That the City Council:
 That the City Council denies the appeal
upholding the Planning Commission’s
acknowledgment of the environmental
determination and approval of the
Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit,
Density Bonus Request, Special Use Permit,
Coastal Permit, and Design Permit based on the
findings listed in the Draft Resolution and the
attached Conditions of Approval.

29.1004
End

29.1005

Santa Cruz City CouncilJanuary 25, 2022

Santa Cruz City Council
January 25, 2022