Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, April 26, 2022 (part 2 of 5)

Project: 7 ScheduleDate: 4/14/22

21.31 1
U4 RESERVOIR SUMMARY OF RESOURCE DOCUMENTS (SRD) AND TECHNICAL MEMORANDA (TM) AND

SUBMITTALS
RFP
Task SRD/TM Description
RFP
Submittal Project phases and Submittal Contents
1,2,3,4,5.1 SRD 1 Site Surveys 10% Mobilization, Site Resources, Project Concept. SRDs and TMs as listed, plus development of project concept, concept process flow diagram (PFD), lists of the
anticipated drawings and specification sections, and
preliminary estimate of construction and project costs.

SRD 2 Geotechnical Report
SRD 3 Geologic Hazard Assessment
TM 2 Reservoir Operation
TM 13 Design and Construction Schedule
TM 14 Project Quality Plan

5.3 TM 1 0.4 MG Reservoir Structure 30% Preliminary Design. SRDs and TMs as listed, plus initial versions of site and yard piping drawings,
pumping station mechanical plan and section drawings,
an advanced PFD, pumping station roof wildfire
resistance upgrades, draft specifications for critical
equipment, valves, and reservoirs, to allow interaction and review with potential suppliers and reservoir
contractors. The bidding strategy will determine if
multiple construction contracts will be necessary.

TM 4 Yard Piping and Site Design
TM 5 Pumping Station Modifications
TM 6 Pumping Station Roof Wildfire
Damage Resistance (Optional)
TM 9 Reservoir Materials Assessment
(Optional)
TM 10 Instrumentation/Control/Electrical
Systems (Optional)
TM 11 Baseline Cost Estimate

5.5 TM 3 Reservoir Operations During
Construction
60% Intermediate Design. Following review, decisions, and refinements based upon the 30 percent submittal, the 30 to 60 percent work is the start of the detailed design
phase. SRDs and TMs as listed. In the intermediate
design phase drawings and specifications are advanced
to a stage that allows final completion with a remaining effort of about 40 percent of the total design effort.
6 TM 7 Reservoir Removal Plan
7 TM 8 Constructability Review

5.7 TM 12 Final Estimate of Construction Cost 90-100% Final Design. The 60 to 90 percent work is the design production phase wherein the detailed drawings and
specifications are completed. This phase concludes with an effort of about 10 percent to conduct final detailed checking of the bidding documents, backchecking, final
Water Department review, and the final cost estimate.

21.32 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 17
EXHIBIT D: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
A. CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENTS
The City will be issued a Certificate of Insurance (a Memorandum of Understanding will not be accepted) with the following minimum requirements:
 Certificate(s) will show current policy number(s) and effective dates,  Coverage and policy limits will meet, or exceed, requirements below,  The Certificate Holder will be City of Santa Cruz, Risk Management, 333 Front Street., Suite 200, Santa Cruz, CA 95060,
 Certificate will be signed by an authorized representative,  An endorsement, if required below, will be provided to show the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers as additional insureds, and
 Coverages must be maintained during the term of the Agreement with the City, unless a longer duration is required.

B. MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMITS OF INSURANCE
Consultant acknowledges that the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage required. If Consultant maintains broader insurance coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown below, the City of Santa Cruz requires and shall be entitled to the broader insurance coverage and/or higher limits maintained by Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Santa Cruz.

Coverage will be at least as broad as:
 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY (CGL): $1,000,000 PER OCCURRENCE; $2,000,000 AGGREGATE Proof of coverage for $1 Million per occurrence including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, personal and advertising injury will be provided on Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 covering CGL. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit will apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit will be at least twice the required occurrence limit.
 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY (ERRORS AND OMISSIONS): $2,000,000 PER OCCURRENCE OR CLAIM, $2,000,000 AGGREGATE.

Consultant will maintain insurance appropriate to Consultant’s profession; with limit no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after date of completion of the services under this Agreement. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date or start of work date, Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.
 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY:

Proof of coverage for $1,000,000 provided on ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Consultant has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WITH STATUTORY LIMITS, AND EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY INSURANCE: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

The Worker’s Compensation policy must be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the Consultant and its employees.

21.33 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 18
C. OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The insurance policies are to comply with the following provisions:
 ADDITIONAL INSURED STATUS
The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL [CPL and automobile insurance (if transporting hazardous materials)] policy(ies) with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage will be provided in the form of an endorsement to Consultant’s insurance at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85, or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10 CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 (if a later edition is used).
 PRIMARY COVERAGE
For any claims related to this Agreement, Consultant’s insurance coverage will be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or selfinsurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers will be excess of Consultant’s insurance and will not contribute with it.  NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
Each insurance policy required above shall state that the coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.
 WAIVER OF SUBROGATION
Consultant hereby grants to the City a waiver of any right to subrogation, except as otherwise not applicable, which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss, including attorney’s fees under such insurance. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effectuate this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.  EXCESS LIABILITY/UMBRELLA INSURANCE POLICIES
The excess/liability policies will provide similar coverage as the primary CGL policy with no new exclusions - Excess liability insurance must follow form the terms, conditions, definitions, and exclusions of the underlying CGL insurance. The excess/umbrella policy must also be written on a primary and noncontributory basis for an additional insured, and that it will apply before any other insurance that is available to such additional insured which covers that person or organization as a named insured, and we will not share with that other insurance.

The policy regarding Limits of Insurance regarding Aggregates must provide that the aggregate limits if applicable shall apply in the same manner as the aggregate limits shown in the Schedule of the Underlying Insurance.
 SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. City may require Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related expenses.

The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City.
 ACCEPTABILITY OF INSURERS
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.
 CLAIMS MADE POLICIES
If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:

21.34 City of Santa Cruz Professional Services Agreement for University Tank 4 Replacement Project April 2022 Page 19

1. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.

2. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.

3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.  VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE
Consultant will furnish the City with original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL [,CPL, and automobile] Policy(ies) listing all policy endorsements to be approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning will not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

D. SUBCONTRACTORS
Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that City is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors.

E. SPECIAL RISKS/CIRCUMSTANCES
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances and provide notice to Consultant.

21.35 CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/17/2022
AGENDA OF: 04/26/2022
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Development
SUBJECT: Municipal Code Amendments Relating to Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Responding to Modifications Requested by the California Coastal Commission (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Adopt resolution acknowledging receipt of the resolution of certification from the California Coastal Commission, including the suggested modifications. 2) Introduce for publication an ordinance amending Chapters 24.04 and 24.12 of the Municipal Code related to small cell wireless telecommunications facilities in response to action by the California Coastal Commission.

BACKGROUND: The City of Santa Cruz adopted an ordinance making amendments to the City’s Wireless Telecommunications Facilities regulations, which were heard in April 2019 with final adoption December 2019. The amendments included changes to text that is part of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and therefore subject to review by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) prior to taking effect inside the Coastal Zone.

City staff submitted the proposed LCP amendments to the CCC in February 2020. Coastal Commission staff reviewed the amendments and shared concerns over certain aspects of the amendments. City staff then worked with CCC staff to find a compromise. The culmination of that work was a set of recommended modifications to the adopted ordinance that CCC staff presented to the Coastal Commission on February 11, 2022. The Commission passed a motion denying the City’s application for the LCP amendment as proposed and then passed a motion approving the LCP amendment conditional upon the City accepting the modifications requested by Commission staff and incorporating them into the City’s ordinance and LCP Implementation Plan.

City ordinances amending portions of the LCP are submitted to the CCC for review after they have been adopted by the City. LCP amendments are reviewed by Coastal Commission staff, and often CCC staff will have questions about the effects certain ordinances may have on coastal resources or various protected features called out as part of the LCP. In the case of the amendments to the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities regulations made in 2019, CCC staff was not convinced that a few areas the City’s Wireless Telecommunications Facilities ordinance could be reconciled with the LCP, and, therefore, they recommended modifications (edits) to the adopted City ordinance. This report will summarize the content of those modifications and discuss the process of LCP amendment approval.

22.1 DISCUSSION: The City’s Wireless Telecommunications Facilities regulations have been amended to fully comply with new Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations regarding small cell wireless telecommunication facilities. On September 26, 2018, the (FCC) adopted the Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment (the “FCC Ruling”).

On October 15, 2018, the FCC published the declaratory ruling. The FCC Ruling limits the City’s ability for aesthetic review and requirements to what is reasonable, comparable to requirements for other types of infrastructure deployments, and objective. New shot clock permit processing limitations apply to small cell wireless telecommunications facilities as well as new tolling time periods for the shot clock. The FCC Ruling also includes limitations on the allowable fees that the City can charge.

In an effort to meet the FCC regulations, in April 2019, City Council adopted several amendments to the Wireless Telcommunications Facilities regulations, including: defining small cell facilities and exempting small cell facilities in the right of way from the land use entitltements otherwise required by the regulations,. The modifications indicate that small cell facilities in the public right of way are instead subject to Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 15.38, a new chapter created to streamline permitting of these facilities, and the “Standards and Guidelines policy for small cell facilities in the public right-of-way” that the City Council had adopted by resolution. In short, these facilities are required to obtain an administratively-approved Small Cell Wireless Facilities Permit from the Public Works Department. By streamlining approval of these facilities through Chapter

15.38 and the adopted design standards, permitting timelines will now meet the shot clock limitations.

City staff analyzed the modifications for consistency with the Coastal Act and the Local Coastal Program. Staff found the modifications consistent in that small cell facilities in the public right of way and in the appeal area of the Coastal Zone would still be subject to the Coastal Permit requirements under Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 24.12 Part 3. In addition, while the design standards approved by resolution and associated with Chapter 15.38 are not part of the LCP, they were found to be consistent with the design standards under the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities regulations, which are part of the LCP.

Despite this analysis, Coastal Commision staff suggested modifications to the amendments. The requested modifications generally fall into three categories – (1) incorporating small cell specific design standards within the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities ordinance and not only as a separate standard; (2) adding other clarifying language; and (3) allowing Coastal Permits for small cell facilities to be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission or City Council. Each requested modification is discussed in detail in the CCC staff report included as the attachment entitled “Re:

City of Santa Cruz LCP Amendment Number LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2(Wireless Telecommunications Facilities),” and the three categories are also discussed here briefly.

Small cell specific design standards
The requested modifications to Municipal Code Section 24.12.1425 for wireless facility location standards and addition of new Section 24.12.1434 regarding requirements for small cell facilities in the public right of way and within the coastal zone create provisions specific to small cell facilities that are located in the public right of way and that also require a Coastal Permit. These provisions are a collage of standards drawn from the existing location and design standards from the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities ordinance and from the City’s “Standards and Guidelines policy for small cell facilities in the public right-of-way.” The modifications therefore do not include substantially new or different standards but format the ordinance in a way that

22.2 clarifies which standards will specifically apply to the small cell facilities in the right of way that require approval of a Coastal Permit. This modification satisfies the Coastal Commission’s desire to retain standards specific to small cell facilities within the LCP, even though these standards would have been applied anyway through the Coastal Permit process and the City’s “Standards and Guidelines policy for small cell facilities in the public right-of-way.” Additional clarifying language
The requested modifications to Municipal Code Section 24.12.1405 make minor adjustments to the definitions by adding a new definition for the word “feasible,” a definition for “small cell aesthetic design standards” and adding clarifying language to the “Stealth facility” definition.

Requested modifications to 24.12.1410 make minor adjustments to the language describing applicability of the Wireless Telecommunications Standards regulations. These adjustments include replacing language regarding amateur radios, radio facilities not licensed by the FCC, and facilities owned by the state or the U.S. with broader language exempting any facility identified by the FCC or CPUC as exempt from local regulations, and clarifying language regarding Over the Air Receptions Devices (OTARDs). City staff agreed with these changes as the definitions provide additional clarity and the applicability modifications bring the language of the ordinance into better alignment with the federal regulations to which this section was already alluding.

The requested modifications to Municipal Code Section 24.12.1415 adds clarifying language for when a Coastal Permit is required, reflecting and reiterating the Coastal Permit requirements already in place and described in Chapter 24.08 Part 3. This section also includes additional language reiterating that small cell facilities in the public right of way are not subject to other land use permit entitlements and that small cell facilities that require a Coastal Permit are also subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.38, a related master license agreement, and the City’s small cell design standards. Staff felt that these changes were not necessary, as the Coastal Permit requirements are already clearly defined in Chapter 24.08, Part 3, and language already exists exempting the small cell facilities in the public right of way from other permit entitlements.

However, Coastal Commission staff was still concerned that these same requirements should be stated clearly in various sections of the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities regulations to ensure clarity to the reader.

The proposed modification to 24.12.1435, which includes the general design requirements for small cell facilities within the public right of way and in the Coastal Zone, includes clarifying language directing small cell facilities within the public right of way to the newly created

24.12.1434 standard section and confims that the standards under 24.12.1435 apply to all other wireless telecommunications facilities. Again, while City staff found this insertion redundant, it served to allay concerns from Coatsal Commission staff regarding clarity for the reader.

24.04.130 adds accessory dwelling unit (ADU) language that was incorporated into the Santa Cruz Municipal Code and the LCP after the 2019 approval of the ordinance amending the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities regulations was approved and makes this section consistent with today’s municipal code. It does not make changes to the munipal code with regard to ADUs.

Appeals direct to Coastal Commission or City Council
The requested modifications to Municipal Code Sections 24.04.130 and 24.04.186 allow Coastal Permits for small cell facilities in the public right of way that are appealable to the Coastal Commission to be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission, eliminating appeals to the Planning Commission and City Council that would otherwise be required under the current ordinance. Similarly, the modifications to these sections would allow such Coastal Permits that are not appealable to the Coastal Commission to be appealed directly to City Council, eliminating

22.3 the appeal to Planning Commission that would be required prior to a City Council appeal under the current ordinance. A minor change in the language of Section 24.12.1415A.2 also refers to these changes in the appeal process. Because it is likely that the timeline associated with multiple appeals is likely to cause the approval process to run out the shot clock, these amendments strike a balance beween the Coastal Commission’s desire to include the option for an appeal with a public hearing as part of the public process and the City’s need to meet the shot clock. City staff pointed out that even with this shortened timeline, given Coastal Commission hearing scheduling timelines, direct appeals to the Coastal Commission could still result in the possibility of running out the shot clock and potentially resulting in a project that would not be consistent with the Coastal Act. To address shot clock expiration concerns, City staff advocated for a provision that would allow for administrative approval of a Coastal Permit (as is currently done for ADU’s).

Unfortunately, City staff was unsuccessful at persuading Coastal Commission staff to change their recommendation.

Overall, staff believes the above discussed amendment modifications by the Coastal Commission represent a negotiation done in good faith and a reasonable compromise.

The California Coastal Act requires the City to either accept the modifications as recommended by the Coastal Commission or withdraw the application entirely. Any edits to the recommended language would require that the City re-start the entire amendment process over again. Given that these modifications are the culmination of over a year-long process and are generally consistent with the approach adopted by Council in 2019, staff recommends that the Council accept these modifications at this time.

Next Steps. Should the City Council introduce the CCC’s changes for publication on March 22, a second reading of the ordinance will take place at the next available Council hearing. As summarized in Attachment 5, the CCC Action Notice, the ordinance will take effect inside the coastal zone as soon as “the Commission’s Executive Director reports to the Commission his determination that the City’s actions are legally adequate, and the Commission does not object to the Executive Director’s determination.” If the City Council moves to adopt the modifications as requested (shown in Attachments 2 and 3), City staff is optimistic that the Coastal Commission could take this action during their May meeting, which would allow the City to operate under the modified ordinance by the middle of that month, being 30 days after the second reading.

Should the City Council disagree with the requested modifications, the ordinance would need to return to the Planning Commission for a formal recommendation to Council and then be resubmitted to the Coastal Commission as a new LCP amendment triggering a new round of review.

Health in All Policies. Health in All Policies is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. This approach is based on 3 pillars: equity, public health, and sustainability. Health in All Policies aims to ensure that decision-makers are informed about the health, equity, and sustainability impacts of various policy options during the policy development process. The ordinance amendments are consistent with the three pillars in that they do not substantially change the access to, health effects, or power usage of small cell facilities.

Environmental Review. The proposed ordinance amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines which specifically exempts any local ordinance implementing sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of the Government Code.

22.4 FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed modifications do not change what permits are required for a small cell facility in the public right of way, and revenue changes from permit fees therefore are not anticipated. The amendments eliminate potential appeals of facilities to Planning Commission and, in some instances, City Council, which will not affect revenue as appeals to Coastal Permits are processed at no cost to the appellant but will eliminate staff time dedicated to such an appeal and therefore improve staff efficiency. The amendments do not substantially change where such facilities may be located, so changes in property values as a result of these amendments is not anticipated.

Prepared by:

Clara Stanger
Senior Planner
Eric Marlatt
Assistant Director of Planning
and Community Development
Submitted by:

Lee Butler
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Approved by:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution acknowledging receipt of CCC Modifications

2. Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance, Clean Copy

3. Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance, track changes Copy

4. Letter Re City of Santa Cruz LCP Amendment Number LCP-3-STC-21-0071- 2(Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

5. CCC Action Notice

22.5 1
RESOLUTION NO. NSRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ACCEPTING

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION MODIFICATIONS TO AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 24.04.130, 24.10.510, 24.10.565, 24.12.140, AND

24.12.240 RELATING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND

DIRECTING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO TRANSMIT THE ACCEPTANCE TO THE

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
WHEREAS, pursuant to authority delegated to the City of Santa Cruz by the California Coastal Commission, the City of Santa Cruz regulates development in the portion of the coastal zone that lies within the City Limits and that is outside of the original jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission; and
WHEREAS, City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code Sections 24.04 and 24.12 are implementing ordinances of the Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted Ordinance 2019-06 amending Santa Cruz Municipal Code Sections 24.12.1405, 24.12.1410, and 24.12.1425 to amend existing regulations related to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, and directed City Staff to submit those amendments to the California Coastal Commission for certification; and
WHEREAS, on February 11, 2022, the California Coastal Commission held a public hearing on the amendments to the Local Coastal Program implementing ordinance adopted by the City Council and certified the amendments to the Municipal Code with modifications; and WHEREAS, the modifications proposed by the California Coastal Commission to Santa Cruz Municipal Code Sections 24.12.1405, 24.12.1410, 24.12.1415, 24.12.1425, 24.12.1435,

24.04.130, and 24.04.186 and the addition of Section 24.12.1434 were submitted to the City by correspondence dated February 15, 2022, and
WHEREAS, insofar as the proposed changes to the Municipal Code are amendments to the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan, the application of the proposed amendments in the coastal zone is statutorily exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265 and the California Public Resources Code Section 21089.9;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Santa Cruz City Council hereby accepts each of the California Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications to Santa Cruz Municipal Code Sections 24.12.1405, 24.12.1410, 24.12.1415, 24.12.1425,

24.12.1435, 24.04.130, and 24.04.186 and the addition of Section 24.12.1434 as shown in City of Santa Cruz Ordinance 2022-____ and incorporated herein by reference.

22.6 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Santa Cruz City Council hereby directs the Director of the Planning Department or their designee to transmit this acceptance and any adopted ordinance that incorporates these modifications to the California Coastal Commission for concurrence by its Executive Director.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: _________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

22.7 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING TITLE 24 OF THE

SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) AND THE LOCAL COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: AMENDING SECTION 24.12.1400 ET SEQ. REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR “SMALL CELL” WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE, AMENDING SECTION 24.04.130 “DECISION-MAKING BODY WITH FINAL AUTHORITY ON APPLICATION APPROVAL”, SECTION 24.04.186 “APPEALS TO COASTAL COMMISSION”
BE IT ORDAINED By the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

Section 1. Section 24.12.1405 (Definitions) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.1405 DEFINITIONS.

A. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below, unless the context clearly dictates a different meaning.

1. “Amateur radio facilities” are antennas and related equipment for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication, or technical investigations carried out by an amateur radio operator who operates without commercial interest, and who holds a written authorization from the Federal Communications Commission to operate an amateur radio facility.

2. “American National Standards Institute” or “ANSI” is a private organization that develops widely accepted standards for various modern-day equipment.

3. “Antenna” is a device or system of wires, poles, rods, dishes, discs or similar devices used for the transmission and/or receipt of electromagnetic waves.

4. “Base transceiver station” or “BTS” is the electronic equipment housed in cabinets that together with antennas comprises a PCS facility or “site”. The cabinets include an air conditioning unit, heating unit, electrical supply, telephone hook-up and back-up power supply.

5. “California Public Utility Commission” or “CPUC” is the state-level regulatory agency responsible for regulating wireless telecommunications.

6. “Cell” is the coverage area through which wireless receiving and transmitting equipment from a particular cell site successfully propagates.

7. “Cell site” is a parcel of real property or public right-of-way on which a wireless telecommunications facility is to be located.

22.8 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
2 8. “Co-location” is a wireless telecommunications facility comprising a single telecommunications tower, monopole or building supporting antennas owned or used by more than one wireless telecommunications carrier.

9. “Direct-to-home” generally means the distribution or broadcasting of programming or services by satellite directly to the subscriber’s premises without the use of ground receiving or distribution equipment, except at the subscriber’s premises.

10. “Facade-mounted antenna” is an antenna that is directly attached or affixed to any facade of building.

11. “Feasible” shall mean, for the purpose of this Chapter 24.12 Part 15, capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account environmental, social, and technological factors.

12. “Federal Communications Commission” or “FCC” is the federal agency responsible for licensing and regulating wireless telecommunications providers. The agency has primary regulatory control over communications providers through its powers to control interstate commerce and to provide a comprehensive national system in accordance with the Federal Communications Act.

13. “Freestanding monopole” is a structure composed of a single spire used to support communications equipment.

14. “Ground-mounted” is an antenna with its support structure placed directly on the ground.

15. Monopole. See “Freestanding monopole.”

16. “Non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation” or “NIER” means low energy and low frequency electromagnetic energy, including visible light, television, pagers, AM/FM radio, cellular systems, enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR) systems and personal communications services (PCS) systems.

17. “Omni-directional” means an antenna that is equally effective in all directions (360 degrees) and is typically cylindrical in shape, the size of which varies with the frequency for which it is designed. Whip antennas are often referenced by this name.

18. “Panel antenna” means an antenna or array of antennas designed to concentrate a radio signal in a particular area. Panel antennas are typically flat, rectangular, long devices generally three square feet in size, although some technologies utilize larger panel antennas. Also known as directional antennas.

19. “Roof-mounted” means an antenna directly attached or affixed to the roof of an existing building, water tank, tower or structure other than a telecommunications tower.

This type of installation is sometimes called a freestanding roof mounted antenna.

22.9 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
3 20. “Service provider” means a wireless telecommunications provider, a company or organization, or the agent of a company or organization that provides wireless telecommunications services.

21. “Significant gap” is a gap in the service provider’s own wireless telecommunications facilities, as defined in federal case law interpretations of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.

22. “Small Cell Facilities” means, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.6002, any facilities that meet each of the following conditions:

1. The facilities:
a. Are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas; or
b. Are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures; or
c. Do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent whichever is greater;

2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna), is no more than three cubic feet in volume;

3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume;

4. The facilities do not require antenna structure registration by the FCC;

5. The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and

6. The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified by the FCC.

23. “Small Cell Aesthetic/Design Standards” means the aesthetic and design standards for small cell wireless facilities adopted by the city council.

24. “Stealth facility” is any telecommunications facility, which is designed to blend into the surrounding environment, and is visually unobtrusive. Examples of stealth facilities may include architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, facade-mounted antennas painted and treated as architectural elements to blend with the existing building, or elements designed to appear as vegetation, trees, or commonly expected strucures for the area in question. Also known as concealed telecommunications facilities.

22.10 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
4 25. “Stealth technologies/techniques” are camouflaging methods applied to wireless telecommunications facilities which render them visually inconspicuous.

26. “Telecommunications” is any transmission, emission or reception of signals, images and sound or information of any nature by wire, radio, visual or electromagnetic system that work on a “line-of-sight” principle.

27. “Telecommunication tower” is a monopole, lattice tower, free standing tower or other structures designed to support antennas.

28. “Visual impact” means the placement or design of an antenna or the associated equipment and/or buildings such that they are not screened or shielded or are plainly visible and are likely to be noticeable or otherwise conspicuous.

29. Whip antenna. See “Omni-directional antenna.”

30. “Wireless telecommunications facility” is a land use facility that sends and/or receives radio frequency signals. Wireless telecommunications facilities include antennas and all other types of equipment for the transmission or receipt of such signals; telecommunication towers or similar structures built to support such equipment; equipment cabinets, base transceiver stations, and other accessory development. Also referred to as a telecommunication facility.

31. “Wireless telecommunications provider” is any company or organization that provides or who represents a company or organization that provides wireless telecommunications services.

Section 2. Section 24.12.1410 (Applicability) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.1410 APPLICABILITY.

A. These regulations shall apply to all property owned by private persons, firms, corporations or organizations, and property owned by the city, and property owned by any agencies of the city, or by any local, state, or federal government agency or political subdivision thereof required to comply with local government regulations or by written agreement.

B. These regulations (Chapter 24.12, Part 15) shall not apply to the following facilities:

1. Amateur radio facilities as provided in 47 Code of Federal Regulations Part 97.

2. Over the Air Receptions Devices (OTARDs) as defined and further provided in 47 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1.4000 et seq.

3. Wireless telecommunication facilities used solely for public safety purposes, installed and operated by authorized public safety agencies (e.g. county 911 emergency

22.11 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
5 services, police, sheriff, fire departments, first responder medical services, hospitals, etc.) and incorporating stealth technologies.

4. Small Cell Facilities located in the public right-of-way outside the coastal zone, which are subject to the requirements of Chapter 15.38 of the Municipal Code.

5. Any other antennas and wireless communications facilities identified by the FCC or the CPUC as exempt from local regulations.

Section 3. Section 24.12.1415 (Permit Requirements and Findings) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.1415 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND FINDINGS.

A. Unless a coastal exclusion or exemption as defined in Sections 24.08.230 through

24.08.230.2 applies, and in addition to any other required permit or authorization, a coastal permit shall be required for all wireless telecommunication facilities located within the coastal zone, as follows:

1. For all wireless telecommunication facilities other than Small Cell Facilities located in the public right-of-way as specified in subsection 2 below, the coastal permit shall be governed by the findings and standards in the Local Coastal Program (LCP), including, but not limited to Chapter 24.08 Part 3, as well as the standards and findings specified herein at Chapter 24.12 Part 15.

2. For Small Cell Facilities in the public right-of-way, the coastal permit shall be governed by the findings and standards in the LCP, including, but not limited to

24.08.200 et seq, as well as the standards and findings specified herein at

24.12.1425 and 24.12.1434. City approval of the coastal permit may be appealed directly to the California Coastal Commission (as further provided in Section

24.04.186).

In case of conflict between the coastal permit and any other permit or authorization, the requirements of the coastal permit shall prevail.

B. Any proposed facade-mounted or roof-mounted wireless telecommunications facility (other than Small Cell Facilities located in the public right-of-way, which are covered by Sections

24.12.1425 and 24.12.1434) that is determined by the zoning administrator to be consistent with all of the requirements of this Part 15, and that incorporates stealth technologies and/or is not visible from public areas, shall require a design permit from the zoning administrator based on the following findings:

1. The wireless telecommunications facility has demonstrated consistency with Sections 24.12.1430 and 24.12.1435 (as applicable).

22.12 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
6 2. The wireless telecommunications facility has been located and designed so as to be compatible with the purpose of Chapter 24.12 Part 15 and the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program (if applicable).

3. The wireless telecommunications facility is in compliance with all FCC and California PUC standards and requirements and with all other applicable requirements of Chapter 24.12 Part 15.

C. Small Cell Facilities located in the public right-of-way within the coastal zone are exempt from the requirements of Sections 24.12.1415 (B) and 24.12.1415 (D) regarding design permit and administrative use permit requirements. Instead, such Small Cell Facilities shall require, in addition to a coastal permit as specified in 24.12.1415(A)(2), the following:

1. A small cell wireless facilities permit in compliance with Chapter 15.38 and the city’s Small Cell Aesthetic/Design Standards;

2. A master license agreement, in a form approved by the city attorney for the use of a city pole in a specified license area, and shall pay a license fee subject to the city’s fee schedule, if any Small Cell Facilities are proposed to be installed on a city pole controlled by the city and located within the public right-of-way. Any applicant seeking a master license agreement shall pay a master license agreement administrative fee subject to the city’s fee schedule to reimburse the city for reasonable costs in connection with its preparation, review of, and action upon the request for such an agreement. The absence of a city-approved master license agreement shall be an independently sufficient basis to deny any application for a Small Cell Facility on such a city pole.

D. All wireless telecommunications facilities that do not meet the criteria defined in subsections (B) or (C) above, shall require an administrative use permit with a public hearing before the zoning administrator, in addition to a design permit with the required findings provided in subsection (B) above.

E. In approving an application, the city may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate or necessary to further the purposes of this chapter, including, but not limited to, requiring the redesign or relocation of the facility. Alternatively, the city may direct the applicant to resubmit a revised proposal for further consideration.

F. Minor modifications to wireless telecommunications facility equipment design, location, height, and other elements may be allowed, subject to the approval of the zoning administrator, if such modifications are in keeping with the architectural statement and layout design of the original approval, and meet the requirements of this chapter.

Section 4. Section 24.12.1425 (Location Standards) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

22.13 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
7 24.12.1425 LOCATION STANDARDS.

A. Prohibited Zoning Districts. Wireless telecommunications facilities shall not be allowed in the zoning districts listed below, except as set forth in 24.12.1425(B). This prohibition shall also not apply to Small Cell Facilities in the public right-of-way.

1. Single-Family Residence (RS, R-1).

2. Multiple-Family Residence (RL, RM, RH).

3. Beach Residential (RT(A), RT(D), RT(E)).

4. Ocean Front Recreational (OFR).

5. Flood Plain (FP).

6. Agriculture (EA-20).

B. Wireless telecommunications facilities may be sited in the prohibited zoning districts described above in Section 24.12.1425 (A) with an administrative use permit, in addition to any other required permits; provided, that the applicant can demonstrate to the zoning administrator that:

1. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility would eliminate or substantially reduce one or more significant gaps in the applicant carrier’s network; and

2. There are no viable, feasible, and environmentally (e.g., visually) equivalent or superior potential alternatives (i.e., sites/facility types) outside the prohibited zoning districts that could eliminate or substantially reduce said significant gap(s).

C. Location preference for all wireless telecommunications facilities should be given to the following locations:

1. Locations that do not adversely impact significant public views (e.g., of the beach, shorline, ocean, natural areas, etc.).

2. Industrial or commercial sites.

3. Facilities attached or sited adjacent to existing structures. Appropriate types of existing structures may include, but not be limited to buildings, traffic signals, flagpoles, signs and sign standards.

4. Sites which are not highly visible from adjacent roadways, public areas, parks, schools, greenbelts or other visually sensitive areas, as determined by the zoning administrator.

5. Sites outside the coastal zone, and particularly sites located within the Coastal Zone Overlay zone district (as defined in Chapter 24.10 Part 26) where city decisions can be appealed.

22.14 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
8 D. When feasible and in conformance with other provisions of this chapter, wireless telecommunications providers shall be encouraged to locate their wireless telecommunications facilities on publicly owned or controlled property.

E. Wireless telecommunications facilities are prohibited in all natural areas designated in the General Plan or LCP.

F. To the maximum extent feasible, wireless telecommunication facilities are prohibited within one thousand feet of any public elementary school or daycare facility.

G. Additional Site Location Standards for Small Cell Facilities in the public right-of-way and in the coastal zone. In addition to the requirements listed above, the following location standards shall also apply to Small Cell Facilities located in the public right-of-way and within the coastal zone:

1. Site locations shall be selected in the following order of preference:
a. Area not visible to the public or area that does not significantly impair public views (such as in alleys, on rooftops, near property corners or side property lines, or in inconspicuous areas);
b. Attached or sited adjacent to existing structures. Appropriate types of existing structures may include, but not be limited to telephone/utility poles and non-decorative light standards;
c. Area not requiring the removal of existing infrastructure, parkway trees or reductions of the parkway landscape planters;
d. Within the public parkway landscaping and requiring only minor alterations to the existing parkway landscaping (including planter size) and/or infrastructure;
e. Within the public right-of-way in a manner that requires significant but feasible alteration to the existing public improvements and/or infrastructure.

22.15 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
9 zoning administrator upon a demonstration that the refusal to allow an additional facility within a 1500-foot radius will otherwise violate an applicable state or federal law.
e. Facilities on strand or overhead lines.
f. Facility site locations that will negatively impact public recreation and access, or damage a known or sensitive archeological site. g. Site locations that adversely impact significant public views (e.g., of the beach, shorline, ocean, natural areas, etc.), including those locations identified in Map CD-3 of the Local Coastal Program.

Section 5. Section 24.12.1434 (Requirements For Small Cell Facilities in the Coastal Zone) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby added as follows:

24.12.1434 REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL CELL FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE.

Small Cell Facilities located in the public right- of-way and which require a coastal permit shall comply with the following standards and requirements:

A. Pole Type Preferences. Facilities on poles shall be sited in the following order of preference:

1. On an existing or replacement street light pole;

2. On an existing or replacement structure other than a street light pole or utility pole;

3. On an existing or replacement utility pole.

B. Equipment preferences. Equipment (including, but not limited to, radio units, power supplies, voltage converters, electrical service connections, shut off switches and electric meters) shall be sited in the following order of preference:

1. Within a below-grade equipment vault;

2. In an at grade equipment cabinet provided the size of the cabinet is minimized to the maximum extent feasible; At grade equipment cabinets shall participate in the Traffic Graphics program or pay an in lieu fee depending on the location (i.e. commercial or residential areas) at the discretion of the decision making body.

3. Enclosed at the base of the pole on which the antenna is mounted provided the size of the base of the pole is minimized to the maximum extent feasible;

4. Equipment boxes using stealth techniques mounted on a utility pole, provided the size of the boxes is minimized to the maximum extent feasible.

22.16 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
10 C. Visual, Public Access, and Archealogical Impact Avoidance. To the maximum extent feasible, such facilities shall be sited and designed in a manner that avoids overall visibility, and eliminates or substantially reduces their visual and aesthetic impact upon the surrounding public right-of-way, archeologic resources, public views and public access. Measures to achieve this objective may include, but are not limited to the following:

1. The number of antennas on each site shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible with the goal of minimizing adverse visual impacts.

2. To the maximum extent feasible, the antenna size, cabinet equipment and other facilities shall minimize visual clutter.

3. The project shall use the smallest and least visible antennas feasible to accomplish the coverage objectives. Facilties that are proposed for locations where they would be readily visible from the public right-of-way or from the habitable living areas of residential units within 100 feet shall incorporate appropriate techniques to camouflage or disguise the facility, and/or blend it into the surrounding environment, to the maximum extent feasible.

4. To the maximum extent feasible, facilities shall not be designed in such a manner that will negatively impact public recreation and access, or damage a known or sensitive archeological site.

5. Applicants are encouraged to consider providing architectural treatments and to use “stealth techniques” to reduce potential visual impacts of the facilities to the maximum extent feasible. Stealth techniques are especially encouraged in areas easily visible from a major traffic corridor or commercial center or in residential areas. Stealth techniques may be required as conditions of approval for a coastal permit when determined to be necessary to mitigate adverse visual impacts.

D. Design Standards:

1. Any pole to be installed in the public right-of-way shall be disguised to resemble a utility pole to the maximum extent feasible. Facility’s antennas shall not exceed a diameter of 15 inches. All antennas and screening devices shall be painted or finished to match the pole. All pole or equipment shall be painted or otherwise coated to be visually compatible with existing poles and equipment. Facilities shall be placed on the same vertical axis as the center of the pole.

2. Small Cell Facility installations on existing city infrastructure shall be placed in a manner so that the size, appearance and function of the final installation is essentially identical to the installation prior to the antenna installation taking place.

3. Small Cell Facility installations shall not be located on decorative street light poles.

22.17 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
11 4. Small Cell Facility equipment located above the surface grade in the public right-of-way including, but not limited to those on certain street lights, shall consist of small equipment components that are compatible in structure, scale, function and proportion to the poles they are mounted on. Equipment shall be painted or otherwise coated to be visually compatible with the subject pole (may include public art). Underground vaults shall employ flush-to-grade access portals and vents that are heel shoe safe and slip safe; provided, however, that this restriction shall not apply in flood prone areas.

5. All cables and conduits shall be routed through the interior of the subject pole to be screened from public view; provided, however, that for wood poles, all cables shall be contained within conduit, and conduits shall be mounted and routed in a manner calculated to minimize their visibility to the maximum extent feasible.

6. All base-mounted accessory equipment must be installed within a shroud, enclosure or pedestal integrated into the base of the support structure. All cables, wires and other connectors routed between the antenna and base-mounted equipment shall be concealed from public view.

7. Small Cell Facilities may not encroach onto or over any private or other property outside the public right-of-way without the property owner’s express written consent.

8. To reduce clutter and deter vandalism, excess fiber optic or coaxial cables shall not be spooled, coiled or otherwise stored on the pole outside equipment cabinets or shrouds.

E. Noise Standards. Facilities and all accessory equipment and transmission equipment shall comply with all applicable noise control standards and regulations in the LCP and shall be operated in such a manner as to minimize the amount of noise impacts to adjacent uses and activities to the maximum extent feasible. To the maximum extent feasible fans shall not be used. If not feasible, noise attenuation measures shall be required for all fans. Backup generators shall only be operated during power outages and for testing and maintenance purposes. At any time, noise attenuation measures may be required by the zoning administrator when deemed necessary.

1. Testing and maintenance activities of Small Cell Facilities which generate audible noise shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., weekdays (Monday through Friday, non-holiday) excluding emergency repairs, unless allowed at other times by the zoning administrator. Testing and maintenance activities, which do not generate audible noise, may occur at any time, unless otherwise prohibited by the zoning administrator.

F. Lighting Standards. Small Cell Facilities shall not include any lights that would be visible from publicly accessible areas except for during night maintenance checks or emergencies, and except as may be required under Federal Aviation Administration, FCC, or other applicable regulations for health and safety. Facility lighting shall be designed so as to meet but not exceed minimum requirements for security and safety. All Small Cell Facilities and equipment (such as indicator or status lights) must be installed in locations and within enclosures that mitigate illumination impacts visible from publicly accessible areas, and shall avoid glare and illumination of adjacent properties to the maximum extent feasible. The provisions in this subsection shall not

22.18 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
12 be interpreted or applied to prohibit installations on streetlights or luminaires installed on new or replacement poles as may be required by the city.

G. Signage. Small Cell Facilities must include signage that accurately identifies the site owner/operator, the owner/operator’s site name or identification number and a toll-free number to the owner/operator’s network operations center. Small Cell Facilities shall also include signage for hazardous or toxic materials warning where applicable. Small Cell Facilities may not bear any advertisements, identifying logos, or any other signage unless expressly approved by the city, required by law or recommended under FCC, OSHA or other United States governmental agencies for compliance with RF emissions regulations. To the maximum extent feasible, signs shall be above eye level and hidden from public view with background matching the color of equipment unless otherwise required by the FCC or other regulatory agencies. All signs shall be legible from a distance of at least ten feet from the Small Cell Facility. No sign shall be greater than two square feet in size. The design, materials, colors and location of any signage shall be subject to zoning administrator’s review and approval.

H. Maintenance and Repair.

1. Small Cell Facilities, including, but not limited to, antennas, towers, equipment, cabinets, structures, accessory structures, and signs shall be maintained by the wireless telecommunication provider in good condition and in their approved and/or required state. This shall include keeping all facilities graffiti-free and maintaining security walls/fences in good condition. All graffiti must be removed as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than seventy-two hours from the time of notification by the city.

2. Any landscaping associated with or required in connection with the permitting of the Small Cell Facility, including landscaping of the public right-of-way, shall be maintained in good, healthy condition at all times. Any dead or dying landscaping shall be promptly replaced or rehabilitated by the wireless telecommunications provider.

3. The applicant or successor in interest shall repair, at its sole cost and expense, any damage (including, but not limited to subsidence, cracking, erosion, collapse, weakening, or loss of lateral support) to public utilities, infrastructure, and property, incluidng city streets, sidewalks, walks, curbs, gutters, trees, parkways, or utility lines and systems, underground utility line and systems, or sewer systems or sewer lines that results from any activities performed in connection with the installation and/or maintenance of a Small Cell Facility by applicant or successor in interest. In the event the applicant or successor in interest fails to complete said repair within the number of days stated on a written notice by the city, the city shall cause said repair to be completed and shall invoice the applicant or successor in interest for all costs incurred by city as a result of such repair.

4. All sidewalk panels affected by any work associated with the installation of a Small Cell Facility shall be restored to their original condition.

22.19 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
13 5. Structural foundations must be removed when removing structures from the right-ofway.

I. Security and Safety.

1. Facilities shall be designed to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti, and other conditions that would result in hazardous conditions, visual blight, or attractive nuisances. Facilities may incorporate reasonable and appropriate site security measures, such as locks and anti-climbing devices. No barbed wire, razor ribbon, electrified fences or any similarly dangerous security measures shall be permitted. All exterior surfaces on Small Cell Facilities shall be constructed from or coated with graffiti-resistant materials.

2. Small Cell Facilities shall be reviewed by an electrical engineer licensed by the state according to the following guidelines:
a. Within forty-five days of initial operation or modification of a Small Cell Facility, the wireless telecommunications provider shall submit to the zoning administrator a written certification by an electrical engineer licensed by the state that the wireless telecommunications facility, including the actual radio frequency radiation of the facility, is in compliance with the application submitted, any conditions imposed, and all other provisions of this chapter in order to continue operations past the fortyfive day period. At the wireless telecommunications provider’s expense, the zoning administrator may employ on behalf of the city an independent technical expert to confirm and periodically reconfirm compliance with the provisions of this chapter. b. All Small Cell Facilities shall demonstrate continued compliance with all radio frequency standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The wireless telecommunications provider shall hire a professional engineer registered in the State of California, and approved by the zoning administrator to measure the actual radio frequency radiation of the approved facility and determine if it meets the FCC’s standards. A report of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer’s findings with respect to compliance with the FCC standards shall be submitted to the zoning administrator every three years thereafter. In the case of a change in standards, the required report shall be submitted within ninety days of the date the said change becomes effective. In order to assure the objectivity of the analysis, the city may require, at the wireless telecommunications provider’s expense, independent verification of the results of any analysis. If a wireless telecommunications provider fails to supply the required reports or remains in continued noncompliance with the FCC standard, the zoning administrator may schedule a public hearing to consider revocation of the permit in accordance with Section 24.04.225.

J. Natural Disaster. Small Cell Facilities providing service to the government or general public shall be designed to survive a natural disaster without interruption in operation. To this end, the following measures shall be implemented:

22.20 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
14 1. Openings in all above ground equipment shelters and cabinets shall be protected against penetration by fire and windblown embers.

2. The material used as supports for the antennas shall be fire resistant, termite proof, and subject to all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.

3. Small Cell Facilities shall be designed to withstand the forces expected during an earthquake in a manner subject to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. All equipment mounting racks and attached equipment shall be anchored in such a manner that such a quake will not tip them over, throw the equipment off its shelves, or otherwise act to damage it.

4. All connections between various components of the Small Cell Facility and with necessary power and telephone lines shall be protected against damage by fire, flooding and earthquake.

5. Measures shall be taken to keep Small Cell Facilities in operation in the event of a disaster.

6. An electrical permit from the Planning and Community Development Department shall be required for the electric service associated with construction, installation, repair or alteration of all support structures for Small Cell Facilities.

K. Cessation, Abandonment, or Revocation. Upon 6 months after the cessation or abandonment of the use of a Small Cell Facility under this Section for any reason, or revocation of any applicable permits, the wireless telecommunications provider shall restore the site to its original preconstruction condition to the satisfaction of the city and comply with any notice or other requirements provided in Section 24.12.1435 (J).

L. Transfer of Ownership. In the event that the original permittee sells its interest in or transfers ownership of a Small Cell Facility under this Section, the succeeding carrier shall provide proof of obtaining all required approvals to operate the Small Cell Facility satisfactory to the cty, shall assume all responsibilities concerning the facility, and shall be held responsible to the city for maintaining consistency with all project conditions of approval, including proof of liability insurance. A new contact name for the project shall be provided by the succeeding carrier to the planning and community development department within thirty (30) days of transfer of interest of the facility. Any required signs by the city shall be updated within thirty (30) days to reflect the name and phone number of the new wireless telecommunication provider. The colors, materials and design of the updated signs shall match those of the required and approved signs.

M. Compliance with Applicable Laws.

1. The applicant or successor in interest shall install and maintain permitted Small Cell Facilities in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Building, National

22.21 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
15 Electrical Code, and any and all applicable federal and state laws, codes, and regulations.

2. The applicant or successor in interest shall also install and maintain permitted Small Cell Facilities in compliance with any applicable city noise standards, the city’s Small Cell Aesthetic/Design Standards, and all other applicable local codes, laws, and regulations, except to the extent that such standards conflict with those specified herein, in which case this section shall apply.

3. Americans with Disabilities Act. All Small Cell Facilities and their locations shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Section 6. Section 24.12.1435 (General Requirements) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.1435 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

The following requirements are applicable to all wireless telecommunications facilities, except for Small Cell Facilities in the public right-of-way and within the coastal zone, and except for exempt facilities described in Section 24.12.1410:

A. Visual Effect. All proposed wireless telecommunications facilities shall be located so as to minimize their visual impact to the maximum extent feasible. Measures to achieve this objective may include but are not limited to the following:

1. The applicant shall use the smallest and least visible antennas feasible to accomplish the owners/operator’s coverage objectives. All wireless telecommunications facilities proposed for locations where they would be readily visible from the public right-of-way or from the habitable living areas of residential units within 100 feet shall incorporate appropriate techniques to camouflage or disguise the facility, and/or blend it into the surrounding environment, to the maximum extent feasible.

2. Facilities shall be compatible in scale and integrated architecturally with the design of surrounding buildings or the natural setting. Wireless telecommunications facilities shall not be located on city, state or federal registered historic buildings. When proposed within a designated historic district wireless telecommunications facilities shall be limited to facade-mounted facilities only and integrated architecturally with the style and character of the structure and the district or otherwise made unobtrusive. No wireless telecommunications facility shall be sited such that its design and/or construction will damage a known or sensitive archeological site.

22.22 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
16 minimize its appearance from off-site locations and to visually blend with the surrounding natural and built environment. Equipment buildings should be designed in an architectural style and constructed of exterior building materials that are consistent with surrounding development and/or land use setting (if applicable) and should be a visually pleasing feature.

4. All ground-mounted base transceiver stations, equipment cabinets, and utility panels for telecommunications facilities shall be limited to a maximum height of ten feet above grade unless other techniques are adopted to ensure minimal visual impact. Base transceiver stations, equipment cabinets, and utility panels that are taller may be partially buried underground or installed by use of another technique to maintain the ten foot height limit. Greater height may be granted upon a finding that it is not possible to meet the height limitation and that adequate screening of the equipment is provided.

5. No advertising signage or identifying logos shall be displayed on wireless telecommunication facilities, except for small identification plates used for emergency notification or hazardous or toxic materials warning.

6. Applicants are encouraged to consider providing architectural treatments and to use “stealth techniques” to reduce potential visual impacts for all telecommunication facilities.

Stealth techniques are especially encouraged in areas easily visible from a major traffic corridor or commercial center or in residential areas. Stealth techniques may be required as Conditions of Approval when determined to be necessary to mitigate adverse visual impacts.

7. All facilities shall be designed to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti, and other conditions that would result in hazardous conditions, visual blight, or attractive nuisances. The zoning administrator may require the provision of warning signs, fencing, anti-climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location and/or accessibility, antenna facilities have the potential to become an attractive nuisance. The design of the fencing and other access control devices shall be subject to review. The use of chain-link fencing is discouraged and the use of razor wire is prohibited.

B. Landscaping. Landscaping may be required to visually screen wireless telecommunications facilities from adjacent properties or public view and/or to provide a backdrop to camouflage the facilities. All proposed landscaping is subject to the zoning administrator’s review and approval.

Landscaping guidelines include but are not limited to the following:

1. To the extent feasible, existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved or improved, and disturbance of the existing topography shall be minimized. Additional trees and other vegetation shall be planted and maintained around the facility, in the vicinity of the project site, and along access roads in appropriate situations where such vegetation is deemed necessary to provide screening of wireless communications facilities and related access roads.

22.23 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
17 2. All trees used in landscaping shall be a minimum of fifteen gallons in size and all shrubs in a minimum of five gallons, unless otherwise approved.

3. Existing trees and other screening vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed facility and associated access-ways shall be protected from damage both during and after construction.

4. The applicant shall enter into a landscape performance and maintenance agreement with the city to ensure the installation and establishment of required landscaping. This agreement shall be secured by financial guarantees acceptable to the zoning administrator in an amount equal to 150 percent of the estimated cost of materials and labor for required improvements. The duration of the landscape maintenance agreement shall be for the length of the permit.

5. All landscape design shall meet the water efficiency landscaping requirements of the Municipal Code, including installing or upgrading existing irrigation systems if necessary.

C. Access Roads. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall use existing access roads, where available. Unless visual impacts can be adequately mitigated, no new access roads shall be allowed with any proposed wireless telecommunications facility.

D. Setbacks. Wireless telecommunication facilities shall comply with all applicable setback regulations of the zoning district in which they are situated.

1. All setbacks shall be measured from the furthest extent of a wireless telecommunications facility to the closest applicable property line or structure, with the exception of equipment shelters.

2. Ground mounted or freestanding monopole facilities shall be setback at a distance not less than the height of the structure from any residentially zoned land.

3. Equipment shelters shall be measured from the outside wall of the shelter to the closest applicable property line or structure. Underground equipment shelters or cabinets may adjoin property lines, if approved by the building official.

E. Number of Antennas and Facilities Permitted. The number of antennas allowed per site shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by the zoning administrator with the goal of minimizing adverse visual impacts.

F. Noise. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall be constructed and operated in such a manner as to minimize the amount of noise impacts to adjacent uses and activities. Noise attenuation measures shall be required for all air-conditioning units. Backup generators shall only be operated during power outages and for testing and maintenance purposes. At any time, noise attenuation measures may be required by the zoning administrator when deemed necessary.

22.24 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
18 1. Testing and maintenance activities of wireless telecommunications facilities which generate audible noise shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., weekdays (Monday through Friday, non-holiday) excluding emergency repairs, unless allowed at other times by the zoning administrator. Testing and maintenance activities, which do not generate audible noise, may occur at any time, unless otherwise prohibited by the zoning administrator.

G. Interference. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall be operated in a manner, which complies with the Federal Communication Commission’s regulations regarding signal interference.

H. Maintenance and Safety. All wireless telecommunications providers shall provide signage, as required by the zoning administrator, which shall identify the name and phone number of the wireless telecommunications provider for use in case of an emergency.

1. The design, materials, colors and location of the identification signs shall be subject to zoning administrator’s review and approval. All signs shall be legible from a distance of at least ten feet from the wireless telecommunications facility. No sign shall be greater than two square feet in size.

2. If at any time a new wireless telecommunications provider takes over operation of an existing wireless telecommunications facility, the new wireless telecommunications provider shall notify the planning and community development department of the change in operation within thirty days and the required and approved signs shall be updated within thirty days to reflect the name and phone number of the new wireless telecommunication provider. The colors, materials and design of the updated signs shall match those of the required and approved signs.

3. All wireless telecommunications facilities, including, but not limited to, antennas, towers, equipment, cabinets, structures, accessory structures, and signs shall be maintained by the wireless telecommunication provider in good condition. This shall include keeping all wireless telecommunications facilities graffiti-free and maintaining security walls/fences in good condition. All graffiti must be removed as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than seventy-two hours from the time of notification by the city.

22.25 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
19 independent technical expert to confirm and periodically reconfirm compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
b. Every wireless telecommunications facility shall demonstrate continued compliance with all radio frequency standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. The wireless telecommunications provider shall hire a professional engineer registered in the State of California, and approved by the zoning administrator to measure the actual radio frequency radiation of the approved facility and determine if it meets the Federal Communications Commission’s standards. A report of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer’s findings with respect to compliance with the Federal Communications Commission standards shall be submitted to the zoning administrator every three years thereafter. In the case of a change in standards, the required report shall be submitted within ninety days of the date the said change becomes effective. In order to assure the objectivity of the analysis, the city may require, at the wireless telecommunications provider’s expense, independent verification of the results of any analysis. If a wireless telecommunications provider fails to supply the required reports or remains in continued noncompliance with the Federal Communications Commission standard, the zoning administrator may schedule a public hearing to consider revocation of the permit. After conducting the hearing, if the hearing body determines that the wireless telecommunications provider has failed to supply the required reports or remains in continued noncompliance, the hearing body may modify or revoke all approvals.

I. Natural Disaster. All wireless telecommunications facilities providing service to the government or general public shall be designed to survive a natural disaster without interruption in operation. To this end, the following measures shall be implemented:

1. Nonflammable exterior wall and roof covering shall be used in the construction of all above ground equipment shelters and cabinets.

2. Openings in all above ground equipment shelters and cabinets shall be protected against penetration by fire and windblown embers.

3. The material used as supports for the antennas shall be fire resistant, termite proof, and subject to all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.

4. Wireless telecommunications facility towers shall be designed to withstand the forces expected during an earthquake in a manner subject to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. All equipment mounting racks and attached equipment shall be anchored in such a manner that such a quake will not tip them over, throw the equipment off its shelves, or otherwise act to damage it.

5. All connections between various components of the wireless telecommunications facility and with necessary power and telephone lines shall be protected against damage by fire, flooding and earthquake.

22.26 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
20 6. Measures shall be taken to keep wireless telecommunications facilities in operation in the event of a disaster.

7. All equipment shelters and wireless telecommunications facility towers shall be reviewed and approved by the city fire department.

8. A building permit shall be required for the construction, installation, repair or alteration of all support structures for wireless telecommunications facilities equipment.

Wireless telecommunications facilities must be stable and must comply with the Uniform Building Code and any conditions imposed as a condition of issuing a building permit.

9. All reports, certifications and verifications required to be prepared and maintained by this section shall at all times be readily available for public examination and review. To this end, upon the request of any person to the city or any wireless telecommunications provider, the city or provider shall promptly make any such report, certification or verification available for review and/or copying. Reasonable copying cost reimbursement may be required. In addition, the wireless telecommunications provider shall post all current reports, certifications and verifications at the site of the wireless telecommunications facility to which they pertain.

J. Cessation of Operation On-Site.

1. Wireless telecommunications providers shall provide the city with a notice of intent to vacate a site a minimum of thirty days prior to the vacation.

2. A new permit shall be required if a site is to be used again for the same purpose as permitted under the original permit if a consecutive period of six months have lapsed since cessation of operations.

3. All equipment associated with a wireless telecommunications facility shall be removed by the property owner after cessation of the said use for more than six consecutive months, and the site shall be restored to its original pre-construction condition. An exception to this subsection may be made by the zoning administrator for an one extension of up to twelve months if the property owner continues to make a good faith attempt to sell or lease the property as a wireless telecommunications facility site, as certified by a licensed real estate broker who is under contract with a right to sell or lease the property.

4. Any wireless telecommunications provider that is buying, leasing, or is considering a transfer of ownership of an already approved facility shall submit a letter of notification of intent to the zoning administrator.

K. Transfer of Ownership. In the event that the original permittee sells its interest in a wireless telecommunications facility, the succeeding carrier shall assume all responsibilities concerning the project and shall be held responsible to the city for maintaining consistency with all project conditions of approval, including proof of liability insurance. A new contact name for the project

22.27 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
21 shall be provided by the succeeding carrier to the planning and community development department within thirty days of transfer of interest of the facility.

L. Co-location. Where technically, legally, and fiscally feasible, co-location of new wireless telecommunications facilities onto existing telecommunications ground-mounted and freestanding monopole towers shall be required. Co-location may require that height extensions be made to existing towers or wireless telecommunications facilities to accommodate additional users, or may involve constructing new multi-user facilities that replace existing single-user capacity towers.

M. Lighting. The use of exterior lighting shall be manually operated and used only during night maintenance checks and emergencies unless specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other governmental agencies. Facility lighting shall be designed so as to meet but not exceed minimum requirements for security and safety and in all instances be designed so as to avoid glare and illumination of adjacent properties.

Section 7. Section 24.04.130 (Decision-Making Body with Final Authority on Application Approval) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.04.130 DECISION-MAKING BODY WITH FINAL AUTHORITY ON APPLICATION APPROVAL.

The following table indicates the decision-making body who can approve, deny or conditionally approve an application, whether or not a public hearing is required, and the bodies to which appeals can be made:

1. The planning commission and city council may refer certain aspects of any application to the zoning administrator for final action.

2. The zoning administrator may refer any of the matters on which he/she is authorized to act to the planning commission or historic preservation commission.

3. Recommendations for approval on General Plan matters and zoning ordinance text and map amendments shall require a majority vote of the planning commission; all other actions shall require a majority of the hearing body present at the meeting.

22.28 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
22 Public Hearing Requirement and Decision-Making Body
Which Can Approve an Application
No
Public
Hearing
Public Hearing Permits/Actions****
Action Recommendation Action
Appeal Bodies
(in order)
Coastal Permit ZA
(ADU*)
ZA* CPC/CC/CCC*
Administrative Use Permit:

Large family daycare homes,
temporary uses, and half baths
in accessory buildings

ZA CPC/CC
Administrative Use Permit:

Variations to parking design
requirements or variations to
number of required spaces

ZA CPC/CC/CCC
Other uses as listed by
individual zoning districts as
requiring an Administrative Use
Permit

ZA CPC/CC
Conditional Fence Permit ZA ZA CPC/CC
Slope Regulations
Modifications (Variance)
CPC CC
Slope Regulations
Modifications (Design Permit)

ZA CPC/CC
Design Permit ZA CPC/CC
Substandard lots: New twostory structures and secondstory additions, including ADUsZA CPC/CC Large homes per
Section 24.08.450

ZA CPC/CC
Wireless telecommunications
facilities
ZA* ZA CPC/CC
New structures or improvements
to existing structures in the
WCD Overlay which are
exempt or excluded from coastal
permit requirements

ZA CPC/CC
New structures or improvements
to existing structures in the

ZA CPC/CC

22.29 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
23 Public Hearing Requirement and Decision-Making Body
Which Can Approve an Application
No
Public
Hearing
Public Hearing Permits/Actions****
Action Recommendation Action
Appeal Bodies
(in order)
WCD Overlay which require a
coastal permit
Demolition Permit

1. Single-family residential ZA CPC/CC

2. Multifamily residential CPC CC

3. Historic demolition permit HPC CC

4. Nonresidential ZA** ZA** CPC/CC
General Plan Text and Map
Amendments
CPC CC/CCC***
Historic Alteration Permit HPC CC
Administrative Historic
Alteration Permit

ZA HPC/CC
Historic Building Survey:

Building designation, deletion HPC CC
Historic District Designation HPC/CPC CC
Historic Landmark Designation HPC CC
Mobile Homes (Certificate of
Compatibility)

ZA CPC/CC
Mobile Home Park Conversion CPC CC
Outdoor Extension Areas per
Section 24.12.192

ZA CPC/CC
Planned Development Permit CPC CC
Project (Major) Modification Reviewed by ZA or body
approving application
Appeal to next
highest body(ies)
Project (Minor) Modification ZA CPC/CC
Relocation of Structures Permit ZA CPC/CC
Revocation Permit Hearing by ZA or body
approving application
Appeal to next
highest body(ies)
Sign Permit ZA CPC/CC

22.30 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
24 Public Hearing Requirement and Decision-Making Body
Which Can Approve an Application
No
Public
Hearing
Public Hearing Permits/Actions****
Action Recommendation Action
Appeal Bodies
(in order)
Special Use Permit CPC CC
Variance ZA CPC/CC
Watercourse Variance CPC CC
Watercourse Development
Permit

ZA CPC/CC
Zoning Ordinance Text and
Map Amendments
Amendments recommended by
CPC
CPC CC/CCC***
Amendments not recommended
by CPC
CPC CC/CCC***
CCC = California Coastal Commission CC = City Council CPC = City Planning Commission
HPC = Historic Preservation Commission ZA = Zoning Administrator * For projects seaward of the mean high tide line, and in the case of appealable actions, the California Coastal Commission shall be the decision-making body which can finally approve an application. In the coastal zone, all proposed accessory dwelling units shall require a coastal permit (unless they are exempt or excluded from coastal permit requirements) and shall be processed in the manner described in Chapter 24.04 and Section

22.31 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
25 Public Hearing Requirement and Decision-Making Body
Which Can Approve an Application
No
Public
Hearing
Public Hearing Permits/Actions****
Action Recommendation Action
Appeal Bodies
(in order)
*** California Coastal Commission in case of CLUP policy, CLIP elements. **** At a regularly scheduled meeting, a majority of the council may take an action to direct any project or amendment to be called from a lower hearing body prior to a final action or during an appeal period in accordance with Section 24.04.175(2). (Ord. 2020-22 § 2, 2020; Ord. 2016-11 § 2, 2016: Ord. 2016-04 § 1, 2016: Ord. 2012-19 § 6 (part), 2012; Ord. 2012-06 § 1, 2012: Ord. 2008-17 § 2 (part), 2008: Ord. 2006-02 § 1 (part), 2006: Ord. 2004-27 § 3, 2004: Ord. 2004-02 § 6, 2004: Ord. 2003-17 § 10, 2003: Ord. 2003-16 § 10, 2003: Ord. 2000-27 § 1, 2000: Ord. 99-17 § 2, 1999: Ord. 94-34 § 2, 1994: Ord. 94-33 § 5, 1994: Ord. 91-14 § 1, 1991; Ord. 90-09 § 1, 1990; Ord. 86-12 § 1, 1986: Ord. 85-05 § 1 (part), 1985).

Section 8. Section 24.04.186 (Appeals to Coastal Commission) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.04.186 APPEALS TO COASTAL COMMISSION.

1. Coastal permits fall into either of two categories: appealable or nonappealable to the Coastal Commission.

The determination of whether a project is appealable or nonappealable, or categorically exempt, shall be made by the zoning administrator at the time the application is filed. This determination is appealable pursuant to the provision of California Coastal Commission Local Coastal Program Regulations Section 13569.

22.32 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
26 Section 30603(A)(5) and these regulations shall mean any proposed public works projects as defined by Section 13012 of the Coastal Commission Regulations, or “energy facility” as defined by Public Resources Code Section 13012 of the Coastal Commission Regulations, or “energy facility” as defined by Public Resources Code Section 30107 and exceeding $50,000.00 in estimated cost of construction. (2) Development approved between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within three hundred feet of the inland extent of any beach or the mean high tide line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance. (3) Developments approved not included within subsection (a)(2) above, located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within one hundred feet of any wetland, estuary, stream, or within three hundred feet of the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff.
(a) Subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) above are shown as the SP-O Shoreline Protection Overlay zone on the zoning map.
(4) Developments approved that are located in a sensitive coastal resource area. b. An appeal may be filed only by the applicant, an aggrieved person as defined by this title, or any two members of the Coastal Commission. An appeal must be filed in accordance with the appeal procedures contained in this title, except that appeals by any two members of the Coastal Commission do not require exhaustion of local appeals and may be made following the decisions of the reviewing body, zoning administrator, zoning board or city council.

However, commissioner appeals taken prior to exhaustion of all local appeals shall be transmitted to the appropriate local appellate body and the appeal to the commission may be suspended pending a decision on the merits by that local appellate body. If the decision of the local appellate body modifies or reverses the previous decision, the commissioners shall be required to file a new appeal from that decision. c. Grounds for appeal, pursuant to subsection (a)(2) above, shall be limited to an allegation that the development does not conform to standards set forth in the certified Local Coastal Program or the Public Access Policies set forth in the California Coastal Act. d. The grounds for an appeal of a denial of a permit pursuant to subsection (a)(1) shall be limited to an allegation that the development conforms to the standards set forth in the certified Local Coastal Program and the public access policies set forth in the California Coastal Act.
e. Appeals to the Coastal Commission pursuant to this section must be filed with the Coastal Commission on forms prescribed by and available from the Coastal Commission.

22.33 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
27 (Ord. 94-42 § 1, 1994: Ord. 94-33 § 8, 1994: Ord. 88-58 § 7, 1988; Ord. 85-47 § 2, 1985: Ord. 85-05 § 1 (part), 1985).

Section 9. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption, except that in the Coastal Zone, the ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption and following the Coastal Commission’s Executive Director reporting to the Commission his determination that the City’s actions are legally adequate and the Commission not objecting to the Executive Director’s determination.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 22nd day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: __________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this __th day of __, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: __________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above
and foregoing document is the
original of Ordinance No. 201X-XX
and that it has been published or
posted in accordance with the
Charter of the City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

22.34 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX
28 22.35
ORDINANCE NO. 2019-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING TITLE 24 OF THE

SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) AND THE LOCAL COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: AMENDING
SECTION 24.12.1400 ET SEQ. REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR “SMALL CELL”

WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE, AMENDING SECTION 24.04.130 “DECISIONMAKING BODY WITH FINAL AUTHORITY ON APPLICATION APPROVAL”, SECTION

24.04.186 “APPEALS TO COASTAL COMMISSION”
BE IT ORDAINED By the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

Section 1. Section 24.12.1405 (Definitions) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.1405 DEFINITIONS.

A. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below, unless the context clearly dictates a different meaning.

2. “American National Standards Institute” or “ANSI” is a private organization that develops widely accepted standards for various modern-day equipment.

3. “Antenna” is a device or system of wires, poles, rods, dishes, discs or similar devices used for the transmission and/or receipt of electromagnetic waves.

5. “California Public Utility Commission” or “CPUC” is the state-level regulatory agency responsible for regulating wireless telecommunications.

6. “Cell” is the coverage area through which wireless receiving and transmitting equipment from a particular cell site successfully propagates.

7. “Cell site” is a parcel of real property or public right-of-way on which a wireless telecommunications facility is to be located.

22.36 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
2 8. “Co-location” is a wireless telecommunications facility comprising a single telecommunications tower, monopole or building supporting antennas owned or used by more than one wireless telecommunications carrier.

10. “Facade-mounted antenna” is an antenna that is directly attached or affixed to any facade of building.

13. “Freestanding monopole” is a structure composed of a single spire used to support communications equipment.

14. “Ground-mounted” is an antenna with its support structure placed directly on the ground.

15. Monopole. See “Freestanding monopole.”

19. “Roof-mounted” means an antenna directly attached or affixed to the roof of an existing building, water tank, tower or structure other than a telecommunications tower.

This type of installation is sometimes called a freestanding roof mounted antenna.

22.37 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
3 20. “Service provider” means a wireless telecommunications provider, a company or organization, or the agent of a company or organization that provides wireless telecommunications services.

22. “Small Cell Facilities” means, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.6002, any facilities that meet each of the following conditions:

2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna), is no more than three cubic feet in volume;

4. The facilities do not require antenna structure registration by the FCC;

5. The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and

6. The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified by the FCC.

23. “Small Cell Aesthetic/Design Standards” means the aesthetic and design standards for small cell wireless facilities adopted by the city council.

22.38 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
4 25. “Stealth technologies/techniques” are camouflaging methods applied to wireless telecommunications facilities which render them visually inconspicuous.

27. “Telecommunication tower” is a monopole, lattice tower, free standing tower or other structures designed to support antennas.

29. Whip antenna. See “Omni-directional antenna.”

31. “Wireless telecommunications provider” is any company or organization that provides or who represents a company or organization that provides wireless telecommunications services.

Section 2. Section 24.12.1410 (Applicability) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.1410 APPLICABILITY.

B. These regulations (Chapter 24.12, Part 15) shall not apply to the following facilities:

1. Amateur (including ham and short-wave) radio facilities as provided in 47 Code of Federal Regulations Part 97. on private property provided that the antenna does not exceed sixty-five feet in height or is not more than twenty-five feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the facility is located, whichever is less.

2. Amateur (including ham and short-wave) radio facilities on public property provided the facilities do not exceed sixty-five feet in height or are not more than twenty22.39 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
5 five feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the facilities are located, whichever is less.

2. Wireless telecommunications facilities, which are not licensed by the Federal Communications Commission and are determined by the planning director to have little or no adverse visual impact.

2. Over the Air Receptions Devices (OTARDs) as defined and further provided in 47 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1.4000 et seq..Direct-to-home satellite services smaller than two feet in diameter provided that such facilities are in accordance with other sections of this title.

5. Any wireless telecommunications facility located on land owned by one of the public entities listed below and operated for the public entity’s public purpose only and not for commercial reasons:
a. The United States of America or any of its agencies; b. The state or any of its agencies or political subdivisions of the state not required by state law to comply with local zoning ordinances.

3. Wireless telecommunication facilities used solely for public safety purposes, installed and operated by authorized public safety agencies (e.g. county 911 emergency services, police, sheriff, fire departments, first responder medical services, hospitals, etc.) and incorporating stealth technologies.

4. Small Cell Facilities located in the public right-of-way outside the coastal zone, which are subject to the requirements of Chapter 15.38 of the Municipal Code.

5. Any other antennas and wireless communications facilities identified by the FCC or the CPUC as exempt from local regulations.

Section 3. Section 24.12.1415 (Permit Requirements and Findings) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.1415 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND FINDINGS.

A. Unless a coastal exclusion or exemption as defined in Sections 24.08.230 through

22.40 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
6 2. For Small Cell Facilities in the public right-of-way, the coastal permit shall be governed by the findings and standards in the LCP, including, but not limited to

24.08.200 et seq, as well as the standards and findings specified herein at

24.12.1425 and 24.12.1434. City approval of the coastal permit may be appealed directly to the California Coastal Commission (as further provided in Section

24.04.186).

In case of conflict between the coastal permit and any other permit or authorization, the requirements of the coastal permit shall prevail.

B. Any proposed facade-mounted or roof-mounted wireless telecommunications facility (other than Small Cell Facilities located in the public right-of-way, which are covered by Sections

24.12.1425 and 24.12.1434) that is determined by the zoning administrator to be consistent with all of the requirements of this Part 15, and that incorporates stealth technologies and/or is not visible from public areas, shall require a administrative design permit from the zoning administrator based on the following findings:

1. The wireless telecommunications facility has demonstrated consistency with Sections 24.12.1430 and 24.12.1435 (as applicable).

2. The wireless telecommunications facility has been located and designed so as to be compatible with the purpose of Chapter 24.12 Part 15 and the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program (if applicable).

3. The wireless telecommunications facility is in compliance with all FCC and California PUC standards and requirements and with all other applicable requirements of Chapter 24.12 Part 15.

1. A small cell wireless facilities permit in compliance with Chapter 15.38 and the city’s Small Cell Aesthetic/Design Standards;

22.41 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
7 D. All wireless telecommunications facilities that do not meet the criteria defined in subsections (B) or (C) above, shall require an administrative use permit with a public hearing before the zoning administrator, in addition to aA design permit with the required findings provided in subsection (B) above.shall also be required to be made
E. In approving an application, the city may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate or necessary to further the purposes of this chapter, including, but not limited to, requiring the redesign or relocation of the facility. Alternatively, the city may direct the applicant to resubmit a revised proposal for further consideration.

Section 4. Section 24.12.1425 (Location Standards) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.1425 LOCATION STANDARDS.

A. Prohibited Zoning Districts. Wireless telecommunications facilities shall not be allowed in the following zoning districts listed below, subject only to except as set forth in

24.12.1425(B). This prohibition shall also not apply to Small Cell Facilities in the public right-of-way.

1. Single-Family Residence (RS, R-1).

2. Multiple-Family Residence (RL, RM, RH).

3. Beach Residential (RT(A), RT(D), RT(E)).

4. Ocean Front Recreational (OFR).

5. Flood Plain (FP).

6. Agriculture (EA-20).

B. Exceptions to Prohibited Districts. Wireless telecommunications facilities may be sited in the prohibited zoning districts described above in Section 24.12.1425 (A) with an administrative use permit, in addition to any other required permits; provided, that the applicant can demonstrate to the zoning administrator that:

1. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility would eliminate or substantially reduce one or more significant gaps in the applicant carrier’s network; and

22.42 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
8 2. There are no viable, feasible, and environmentally (e.g., visually) equivalent or superior potential alternatives (i.e., sites/facility types) outside the prohibited zoning districts that could eliminate or substantially reduce said significant gap(s).

C. Location preference for all wireless telecommunications facilities should be given to the following locations:

1. Locations that do not adversely impact significant public views (e.g., of the beach, shorline, ocean, natural areas, etc.).

2. Industrial or commercial sites.

3. Facilities attached or sited adjacent to existing structures. Appropriate types of existing structures may include, but not be limited to buildings, telephone and utility poles, traffic signals, flagpoles, signs and sign standards.

4. Sites which are not highly visible from adjacent roadways, public areas, parks, schools, greenbelts or other visually sensitive areas, as determined by the zoning administrator.

5. Sites outside the coastal zone, and particularly sites located within the Coastal Zone Overlay zone district (as defined in Chapter 24.10 Part 26) where city decisions can be appealed.

D. When feasible and in conformance with other provisions of this chapter, wireless telecommunications providers shall be encouraged to locate their wireless telecommunications facilities on publicly owned or controlled property.

E. Wireless telecommunications facilities are prohibited in all natural areas designated in the General Plan or LCP.

F. To the maximum extent feasible, wireless telecommunication facilities are prohibited within one thousand feet of any public elementary school or daycare facility.

22.43 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
9 b. Attached or sited adjacent to existing structures. Appropriate types of existing structures may include, but not be limited to telephone/utility poles and non-decorative light standards;
c. Area not requiring the removal of existing infrastructure, parkway trees or reductions of the parkway landscape planters;
d. Within the public parkway landscaping and requiring only minor alterations to the existing parkway landscaping (including planter size) and/or infrastructure;
e. Within the public right-of-way in a manner that requires significant but feasible alteration to the existing public improvements and/or infrastructure.

2. To the maximum extent feasible, the following site locations shall be prohibited:
a. Facility site locations that lead to removal of any existing public parking areas.
b. Facility site locations directly in front of residences and businesses. c. Facilities with components located within driveway and intersection sight lines.
d. Site locations in Residential and Commercial Zoning Districts that are within 1500 feet of another Small Cell Facility and any associated equipment; provided, however, that this restriction may be waived by the zoning administrator upon a demonstration that the refusal to allow an additional facility within a 1500-foot radius will otherwise violate an applicable state or federal law.
e. Facilities on strand or overhead lines.
f. Facility site locations that will negatively impact public recreation and access, or damage a known or sensitive archeological site. g. Site locations that adversely impact significant public views (e.g., of the beach, shorline, ocean, natural areas, etc.), including those locations identified in Map CD-3 of the Local Coastal Program.

Section 5. Section 24.12.1434 (Requirements For Small Cell Facilities in the Coastal Zone) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby added as follows:

24.12.1434 REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL CELL FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE.

Small Cell Facilities located in the public right- of-way and which require a coastal permit shall comply with the following standards and requirements:

22.44 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
10 A. Pole Type Preferences. Facilities on poles shall be sited in the following order of preference:

1. On an existing or replacement street light pole;

2. On an existing or replacement structure other than a street light pole or utility pole;

3. On an existing or replacement utility pole.

1. Within a below-grade equipment vault;

3. Enclosed at the base of the pole on which the antenna is mounted provided the size of the base of the pole is minimized to the maximum extent feasible;

4. Equipment boxes using stealth techniques mounted on a utility pole, provided the size of the boxes is minimized to the maximum extent feasible.

C. Visual, Public Access, and Archealogical Impact Avoidance. To the maximum extent feasible, such facilities shall be sited and designed in a manner that avoids overall visibility, and eliminates or substantially reduces their visual and aesthetic impact upon the surrounding public right-of-way, archeologic resources, public views and public access. Measures to achieve this objective may include, but are not limited to the following:

1. The number of antennas on each site shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible with the goal of minimizing adverse visual impacts.

2. To the maximum extent feasible, the antenna size, cabinet equipment and other facilities shall minimize visual clutter.

4. To the maximum extent feasible, facilities shall not be designed in such a manner that will negatively impact public recreation and access, or damage a known or sensitive archeological site.

22.45 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
11 5. Applicants are encouraged to consider providing architectural treatments and to use “stealth techniques” to reduce potential visual impacts of the facilities to the maximum extent feasible. Stealth techniques are especially encouraged in areas easily visible from a major traffic corridor or commercial center or in residential areas. Stealth techniques may be required as conditions of approval for a coastal permit when determined to be necessary to mitigate adverse visual impacts.

D. Design Standards:

3. Small Cell Facility installations shall not be located on decorative street light poles.

No faux or otherwise nonfunctioning street lights, decorative elements, signs, clock towers, or artificial trees or shrubs or other such nonfunctioning screening elements made to resemble other objects shall be permitted.

4. Small Cell Facility equipment located above the surface grade in the public rightof-way including, but not limited to those on certain street lights, shall consist of small equipment components that are compatible in structure, scale, function and proportion to the poles they are mounted on. Equipment shall be painted or otherwise coated to be visually compatible with the subject pole (may include public art). Underground vaults shall employ flush-to-grade access portals and vents that are heel shoe safe and slip safe; provided, however, that this restriction shall not apply in flood prone areas.

22.46 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
12 7. Small Cell Facilities may not encroach onto or over any private or other property outside the public right-of-way without the property owner’s express written consent.

8. To reduce clutter and deter vandalism, excess fiber optic or coaxial cables shall not be spooled, coiled or otherwise stored on the pole outside equipment cabinets or shrouds.

22.47 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
13 H. Maintenance and Repair.

4. All sidewalk panels affected by any work associated with the installation of a Small Cell Facility shall be restored to their original condition.

5. Structural foundations must be removed when removing structures from the rightof-way.

I. Security and Safety.

22.48 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
14 administrator a written certification by an electrical engineer licensed by the state that the wireless telecommunications facility, including the actual radio frequency radiation of the facility, is in compliance with the application submitted, any conditions imposed, and all other provisions of this chapter in order to continue operations past the forty-five day period. At the wireless telecommunications provider’s expense, the zoning administrator may employ on behalf of the city an independent technical expert to confirm and periodically reconfirm compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
b. All Small Cell Facilities shall demonstrate continued compliance with all radio frequency standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

1. Openings in all above ground equipment shelters and cabinets shall be protected against penetration by fire and windblown embers.

2. The material used as supports for the antennas shall be fire resistant, termite proof, and subject to all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.

4. All connections between various components of the Small Cell Facility and with necessary power and telephone lines shall be protected against damage by fire, flooding and earthquake.

22.49 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
15 5. Measures shall be taken to keep Small Cell Facilities in operation in the event of a disaster.

M. Compliance with Applicable Laws.

1. The applicant or successor in interest shall install and maintain permitted Small Cell Facilities in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Building, National Electrical Code, and any and all applicable federal and state laws, codes, and regulations.

3. Americans with Disabilities Act. All Small Cell Facilities and their locations shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Section 6. Section 24.12.1435 (General Requirements) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.1435 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

22.50 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
16 The following requirements are applicable to all wireless telecommunications facilities, except for Small Cell Facilities in the public right-of-way and within the coastal zone, and except for exempt facilities described in Section 24.12.1410:

3. Whenever possible, base transceiver stations, equipment cabinets and buildings, backup generators, and other equipment associated with building-mounted antennas should be installed within the existing building envelope. If this is not feasible, the equipment shall be low profile, screened, fenced, landscaped, painted, or otherwise treated architecturally to minimize its appearance from off-site locations and to visually blend with the surrounding natural and built environment. Equipment buildings should be designed in an architectural style and constructed of exterior building materials that are consistent with surrounding development and/or land use setting (if applicable) and should be a visually pleasing feature.

22.51 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
17 6. Applicants are encouraged to consider providing architectural treatments and to use “stealth techniques” to reduce potential visual impacts for all telecommunication facilities.

Landscaping guidelines include but are not limited to the following:

2. All trees used in landscaping shall be a minimum of fifteen gallons in size and all shrubs in a minimum of five gallons, unless otherwise approved.

3. Existing trees and other screening vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed facility and associated access-ways shall be protected from damage both during and after construction.

5. All landscape design shall meet the water efficiency landscaping requirements of the Municipal Code, including installing or upgrading existing irrigation systems if necessary.

22.52 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
18 C. Access Roads. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall use existing access roads, where available. Unless visual impacts can be adequately mitigated, no new access roads shall be allowed with any proposed wireless telecommunications facility.

D. Setbacks. Wireless telecommunication facilities shall comply with all applicable setback regulations of the zoning district in which they are situated.

1. All setbacks shall be measured from the furthest extent of a wireless telecommunications facility to the closest applicable property line or structure, with the exception of equipment shelters.

2. Ground mounted or freestanding monopole facilities shall be setback at a distance not less than the height of the structure from any residentially zoned land.

1. Testing and maintenance activities of wireless telecommunications facilities which generate audible noise shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., weekdays (Monday through Friday, non-holiday) excluding emergency repairs, unless allowed at other times by the zoning administrator. Testing and maintenance activities, which do not generate audible noise, may occur at any time, unless otherwise prohibited by the zoning administrator.

G. Interference. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall be operated in a manner, which complies with the Federal Communication Commission’s regulations regarding signal interference.

1. The design, materials, colors and location of the identification signs shall be subject to zoning administrator’s review and approval. All signs shall be legible from a distance of at

22.53 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
19 least ten feet from the wireless telecommunications facility. No sign shall be greater than two square feet in size.

4. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall be reviewed by an electrical engineer licensed by the state according to the following guidelines:
a. Within forty-five days of initial operation or modification of a wireless telecommunications facility, the wireless telecommunications provider shall submit to the zoning administrator a written certification by an electrical engineer licensed by the state that the wireless telecommunications facility, including the actual radio frequency radiation of the facility, is in compliance with the application submitted, any conditions imposed, and all other provisions of this chapter in order to continue operations past the forty-five day period. At the wireless telecommunications provider’s expense, the zoning administrator may employ on behalf of the city an independent technical expert to confirm and periodically reconfirm compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
b. Every wireless telecommunications facility shall demonstrate continued compliance with all radio frequency standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. The wireless telecommunications provider shall hire a professional engineer registered in the State of California, and approved by the zoning administrator to measure the actual radio frequency radiation of the approved facility and determine if it meets the Federal Communications Commission’s standards. A report of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer’s findings with respect to compliance with the Federal Communications Commission standards shall be submitted to the zoning administrator every three years thereafter. In the case of a change in standards, the required report shall be submitted within ninety days of the date the said change becomes effective. In order to assure the objectivity of the analysis, the city may require, at the wireless telecommunications provider’s expense, independent verification of the results of any analysis. If a wireless telecommunications provider fails to supply the required reports or remains in

22.54 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
20 continued noncompliance with the Federal Communications Commission standard, the zoning administrator may schedule a public hearing to consider revocation of the permit. After conducting the hearing, if the hearing body determines that the wireless telecommunications provider has failed to supply the required reports or remains in continued noncompliance, the hearing body may modify or revoke all approvals.

1. Nonflammable exterior wall and roof covering shall be used in the construction of all above ground equipment shelters and cabinets.

2. Openings in all above ground equipment shelters and cabinets shall be protected against penetration by fire and windblown embers.

3. The material used as supports for the antennas shall be fire resistant, termite proof, and subject to all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.

6. Measures shall be taken to keep wireless telecommunications facilities in operation in the event of a disaster.

7. All equipment shelters and wireless telecommunications facility towers shall be reviewed and approved by the city fire department.

8. A building permit shall be required for the construction, installation, repair or alteration of all support structures for wireless telecommunications facilities equipment.

Wireless telecommunications facilities must be stable and must comply with the Uniform Building Code and any conditions imposed as a condition of issuing a building permit.

22.55 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
21 current reports, certifications and verifications at the site of the wireless telecommunications facility to which they pertain.

J. Cessation of Operation On-Site.

1. Wireless telecommunications providers shall provide the city with a notice of intent to vacate a site a minimum of thirty days prior to the vacation.

22.56 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
22 Section 7. Section 24.04.130 (Decision-Making Body with Final Authority on Application Approval) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.04.130 DECISION-MAKING BODY WITH FINAL AUTHORITY ON APPLICATION APPROVAL.

1. The planning commission and city council may refer certain aspects of any application to the zoning administrator for final action.

2. The zoning administrator may refer any of the matters on which he/she is authorized to act to the planning commission or historic preservation commission.

Public Hearing Requirement and Decision-Making Body
Which Can Approve an Application
No
Public
Hearing
Public Hearing Permits/Actions****
Action Recommendation Action
Appeal Bodies
(in order)
Coastal Permit ZA
(ADU*)
ZA* CPC/CC/CCC*
Administrative Use Permit:

Large family daycare homes,
temporary uses, and half baths
in accessory buildings

ZA CPC/CC
Administrative Use Permit:

Variations to parking design
requirements or variations to
number of required spaces

ZA CPC/CC/CCC
Other uses as listed by
individual zoning districts as
requiring an Administrative Use
Permit

ZA CPC/CC
Conditional Fence Permit ZA ZA CPC/CC

22.57 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
23 Public Hearing Requirement and Decision-Making Body
Which Can Approve an Application
No
Public
Hearing
Public Hearing Permits/Actions****
Action Recommendation Action
Appeal Bodies
(in order)
Slope Regulations
Modifications (Variance)
CPC CC
Slope Regulations
Modifications (Design Permit)

ZA CPC/CC
Design Permit ZA CPC/CC
Substandard lots: New twostory structures and secondstory additions, including ADUsZA CPC/CC Large homes per
Section 24.08.450

ZA CPC/CC
Wireless telecommunications
facilities
ZA* ZA CPC/CC
New structures or improvements
to existing structures in the
WCD Overlay which are
exempt or excluded from coastal
permit requirements

ZA CPC/CC
New structures or improvements
to existing structures in the
WCD Overlay which require a
coastal permit

ZA CPC/CC
Demolition Permit

1. Single-family residential ZA CPC/CC

2. Multifamily residential CPC CC

3. Historic demolition permit HPC CC

4. Nonresidential ZA** ZA** CPC/CC
General Plan Text and Map
Amendments
CPC CC/CCC***
Historic Alteration Permit HPC CC
Administrative Historic
Alteration Permit

ZA HPC/CC
Historic Building Survey:

22.58 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
24 Public Hearing Requirement and Decision-Making Body
Which Can Approve an Application
No
Public
Hearing
Public Hearing Permits/Actions****
Action Recommendation Action
Appeal Bodies
(in order)
Building designation, deletion HPC CC
Historic District Designation HPC/CPC CC
Historic Landmark Designation HPC CC
Mobile Homes (Certificate of
Compatibility)

ZA CPC/CC
Mobile Home Park Conversion CPC CC
Outdoor Extension Areas per
Section 24.12.192

22.59 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
25 Public Hearing Requirement and Decision-Making Body
Which Can Approve an Application
No
Public
Hearing
Public Hearing Permits/Actions****
Action Recommendation Action
Appeal Bodies
(in order)
* For projects seaward of the mean high tide line, and in the case of appealable actions, the California Coastal Commission shall be the decision-making body which can finally approve an application. In the coastal zone, all proposed accessory dwelling units shall require a coastal permit (unless they are exempt or excluded from coastal permit requirements) and shall be processed in the manner described in Chapter 24.04 and Section

24.08.200 et seq. (including in terms of public noticing and process for appeal to the Coastal Commission) except that no public hearing shall be required. In addition to all other applicable LCP requirements, standards for ADUs in the coastal zone are specified in Section 24.12.140(10). For Small Cell Facilities projects that are in the public right-of-way and in the portion of the Coastal Zone Overlay zone district where city decisions can be appealed to the California Coastal Commission, appeals shall be made directly to the Coastal Commission. For Small Cell Facilities projects that are in the public right-of-way but are not in the portion of the Coastal Zone Overlay zone district where such Coastal Commission appeals are allowed, appeals shall be made directly to the City Council. ** Such permits shall be issued administratively, without a public hearing, unless a cultural resources evaluation, prepared by a qualified consultant as determined by the zoning administrator, determines that the building or structure is eligible for listing on the city Historic Building Survey.
*** California Coastal Commission in case of CLUP policy, CLIP elements. **** At a regularly scheduled meeting, a majority of the council may take an action to direct any project or amendment to be called from a lower hearing body prior to a final action or during an appeal period in accordance with Section 24.04.175(2). (Ord. 2020-22 § 2, 2020; Ord. 2016-11 § 2, 2016: Ord. 2016-04 § 1, 2016: Ord. 2012-19 § 6 (part), 2012; Ord. 2012-06 § 1, 2012: Ord. 2008-17 § 2 (part), 2008: Ord. 2006-02 § 1 (part), 2006: Ord. 2004-27 § 3, 2004: Ord. 2004-02 § 6, 2004: Ord. 2003-17 § 10, 2003: Ord. 2003-16 § 10, 2003: Ord. 2000-27 § 1, 2000: Ord. 99-17 § 2, 1999: Ord. 94-34 § 2, 1994: Ord. 94-33 § 5, 1994: Ord. 91-14 § 1, 1991; Ord. 90-09 § 1, 1990; Ord. 86-12 § 1, 1986: Ord. 85-05 § 1 (part), 1985).

22.60 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
26 Section 8. Section 24.04.186 (Appeals to Coastal Commission) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.04.186 APPEALS TO COASTAL COMMISSION.

1. Coastal permits fall into either of two categories: appealable or nonappealable to the Coastal Commission.

2. Coastal permits are only appealable after all city appeals are exhausted except for (a) appeals by members of the Coastal Commission and (b) appeals of city decisions on Small Cell Facilities in the public right of way and in the portion of the Coastal Zone Overlay zone district where city decisions can be appealed to the California Coastal Commission, in which case the appeal may be made directly to the Coastal Commission. No fee shall be charged for coastal permit appeals. a. Only the following coastal permit applications are appealable to the Coastal Commission:
(1) Any major public works project or facility. The phrase “major public works project or energy facility” is the same as used in Public Resources Code Section 30603(A)(5) and these regulations shall mean any proposed public works projects as defined by Section 13012 of the Coastal Commission Regulations, or “energy facility” as defined by Public Resources Code Section 13012 of the Coastal Commission Regulations, or “energy facility” as defined by Public Resources Code Section 30107 and exceeding $50,000.00 in estimated cost of construction. (2) Development approved between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within three hundred feet of the inland extent of any beach or the mean high tide line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance. (3) Developments approved not included within subsection (a)(2) above, located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within one hundred feet of any wetland, estuary, stream, or within three hundred feet of the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff.
(a) Subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) above are shown as the SP-O Shoreline Protection Overlay zone on the zoning map.
(4) Developments approved that are located in a sensitive coastal resource area. b. An appeal may be filed only by the applicant, an aggrieved person as defined by this title, or any two members of the Coastal Commission. An appeal must be filed in accordance with the appeal procedures contained in this title, except that appeals by any

22.61 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
27 two members of the Coastal Commission do not require exhaustion of local appeals and may be made following the decisions of the reviewing body, zoning administrator, zoning board or city council.

However, commissioner appeals taken prior to exhaustion of all local appeals shall be transmitted to the appropriate local appellate body and the appeal to the commission may be suspended pending a decision on the merits by that local appellate body. If the decision of the local appellate body modifies or reverses the previous decision, the commissioners shall be required to file a new appeal from that decision. c. Grounds for appeal, pursuant to subsection (a)(2) above, shall be limited to an allegation that the development does not conform to standards set forth in the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) or the Public Access Policies set forth in the California Coastal Act.
d. The grounds for an appeal of a denial of a permit pursuant to subsection (a)(1) shall be limited to an allegation that the development conforms to the standards set forth in the certified Local Coastal Program and the public access policies set forth in the California Coastal Act.
e. Appeals to the Coastal Commission pursuant to this section must be filed with the Coastal Commission on forms prescribed by and available from the Coastal Commission. (Ord. 94-42 § 1, 1994: Ord. 94-33 § 8, 1994: Ord. 88-58 § 7, 1988; Ord. 85-47 § 2, 1985: Ord. 85-05 § 1 (part), 1985).

Section 9. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this __th day of __, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: __________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

22.62 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
28 PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this __th day of __, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

22.63 STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427-4863
FAX: (831) 427-4877
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
F16a
Prepared January 21, 2021 for February 11, 2022 Hearing To: Commissioners and Interested Persons
From: Kevin Kahn, Central Coast District Manager
Ryan Moroney, Central Coast District Supervisor
Subject: City of Santa Cruz LCP Amendment Number LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City of Santa Cruz proposes to amend its Local Coastal Program (LCP) by updating LCP Implementation Plan (IP) standards associated with wireless telecommunications facilities, including a series of changes specific to small-cell wireless telecommunication facilities. As proposed, small-cell wireless facilities that are located in the public right-of-way would not be subject to existing LCP wireless provisions, and would instead be subject to a new Municipal Code section that is not part of the LCP. Thus, within the coastal zone, the standard of review for coastal development permit (CDP) purposes of such facilities would be the LCP’s general and broader policies requiring protection and enhancement of coastal resources, and not its wireless-specific provisions. The primary intent behind the proposed amendment is to more quickly process such permit applications in light of federal timing requirements.1 While the existing LCP’s non-wireless provisions that would apply in such cases provide a robust policy framework to protect and enhance coastal resources (and these policies would remain unchanged and continue to govern in any case), those policies are also appropriately augmented by the IP’s existing wireless telecommunication facilities provisions. These existing provisions provide detailed standards specific to these unique types of facilities, and addresses their particular issues and contexts. For example, it includes specific application requirements regarding siting and design, colocation analysis, visual screening, and a hierarchy of where such facilities are, and are not, allowed to be located. The existing wireless provisions also include technical requirements, including third-party technical review to justify any deviation from required 1 Specifically, the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012” (also known as the “Spectrum Act”) and its associated implementing regulations set certain requirements regarding the time period for review and action on such applications. Most relevant here, the Spectrum Act imposes a time period (or “shot clock”) by which a local jurisdiction must act on permit applications for small-cell wireless facilities.

This shot clock is 60 days from the date of deeming an application filed for co-located small-cell wireless facilities and 90 days from application filing for small-cell wireless facilities on new structures.

ADOPTED

22.64 LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

Page 2 ends

standards, to ensure that these standards can be met and do not run afoul of federal law (including providing for the relevant tests for same).

Staff is concerned that the City’s proposal to eliminate the applicability of these provisions in these small-cell cases in the coastal zone would lead to confusion, and would ultimately lead to adverse coastal resource outcomes. In fact, by exempting these facilities from existing IP standards in the coastal zone, there is the potential for such facilities to be approved in forms that would not adequately protect coastal resources, including significant public views.2 Thus, the amendment as proposed cannot be found consistent with and adequate to carry out applicable LUP policies (i.e., the standard of review for IP amendments such as this). It is also unclear whether this type of system would actually result in less processing time, as is the intent. In fact, it could conceivably result in a longer permitting processes due to the potential for appeals and other controversies that could be avoided with more clear and specific standards that help guide siting and design of such facilities, including ideally siting in locations that will not lead to significant coastal resource impacts. Fortunately, it is possible to continue to adequately protect coastal resources, including through specific provisions applicable to these unique uses, while also allowing for the City’s desired streamlining.

Toward this end, Commission and City staffs worked collaboratively to develop specific LCP language that can help to achieve the City’s streamlining objectives while making sure that there exist adequate LCP provisions capable of ensuring coastal resource protection. The primary way this is achieved is to include specific siting, design, and processing standards that would apply to small-cell wireless facilities located in the public right-of-way. Many of these standards are pulled from the LCP’s existing wireless provisions (e.g., siting away from significant public view areas) or from the new nonLCP design guidelines the City developed as part this submittal (e.g., colocation, undergrounding, camouflaging etc.) or both (i.e., there is significant substantive overlap between them). In addition, and to address the short time period allotted via the federal shot clock, the new language also allows for City CDP decisions on small-cell facilities in the public right-of-way to be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission.

As modified, the proposed amendment will include a more specific set of standards governing small-cell wireless facilities in the coastal zone that are located in the public right-of-way. And, when combined with other existing LCP streamlining tools, the proposed amendment, as modified, should help meet both the LCP’s coastal resource protection goals and City’s/Federal Communications Commission’s streamlining objectives. City staff indicates they are in agreement with the suggested modification language. Thus staff recommends that the Commission approve the amendment with suggested modifications. The required motions and resolutions are found on page 5.

Staff Note: LCP Amendment Action Deadline
2 And, by definition, these facilities would be located in highly visible places in the public right-of-way along the City’s streets and sidewalks, including in areas near the shoreline and other places that raise visual and other coastal resource concerns. It is therefore important to have specific tools to address potential issues for these types of proposed wireless facilities.

22.65 LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

Page 3 ends

This proposed LCP amendment was filed as complete on October 25, 2021. The proposed amendment affects the LCP’s Implementation Plan (IP) only, and the 60- working-day action deadline was December 24, 2021. On December 17, 2021, the Commission extended the deadline by one year, and thus the current action deadline is December 24, 2022.

22.66 LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

Page 4 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS ........................................................................ 5 A. Deny the IP Amendment as submitted ................................................................. 5 B. Certify the IP Amendment with Suggested Modifications ..................................... 5

2. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS......................................................................... 6

3. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS..................................................................... 6 A. Description of Proposed LCP Amendment ........................................................... 6 B. Evaluation of Proposed LCP Amendment ............................................................ 8 C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)..................................................... 11

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Proposed IP Amendment
Exhibit 2: Proposed IP Amendment Showing the Commission’s Suggested Modifications
Exhibit 3: Types of Small-Cell Wireless Facilities

22.67 LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

Page 5 ends

1. MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS
Staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, approve the proposed LCP amendment with suggested modifications. The Commission needs to make two motions on the IP amendment in order to act on this recommendation.

A. Deny the IP Amendment as submitted
Staff recommends a YES vote on the motion below. Passage of this motion will result in rejection of IP amendment as submitted and the adoption of the following resolution and findings in this staff report. The motion to reject passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.

Motion: I move that the Commission reject the LCP Amendment Number LCP-3- STC-21-0071-2 as submitted by the City of Santa Cruz, and I recommend a yes vote.

Resolution to Deny: The Commission hereby denies certification of LCP Amendment Number LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 as submitted by the City of Santa Cruz and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the amendment as submitted does not conform with, and is inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan. Certification of the amendment would not meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as there are feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result from certification of the amendment as submitted.

B. Certify the IP Amendment with Suggested Modifications Staff recommends a YES vote on the motion below. Passage of this motion will result in certification of the IP amendment with suggested modifications and the adoption of the following resolution and the findings in this staff report. The motion to certify with suggested modifications passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present:

Motion: I move that the Commission certify LCP Amendment Number LCP-3-STC21-0071-2 as submitted by the City of Santa Cruz if it is modified as suggested in this staff report, and I recommend a yes vote.

Resolution to Certify: The Commission hereby certifies LCP Amendment Number LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2, if modified as suggested, and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the amendment with the suggested modifications conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan. Certification of the amendment if modified as suggested complies with the California Environmental Quality Act, because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the plan on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on the environment.

22.68 LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

Page 6 ends

2. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
The Commission hereby suggests the following modifications to the proposed LCP amendment, which are necessary to make the requisite Land Use Plan consistency findings. If the City of Santa Cruz accepts the suggested modifications within six months of Commission action (i.e., by August 11, 2022), by formal resolution of the City Council, the modified amendment will become effective upon Commission concurrence with the Executive Director’s finding that this acceptance has been properly accomplished.

Where applicable, text in underline format denotes proposed text to be added by the City. Text in double cross-out and double underline denotes text to be deleted/added by the Commission’s suggested modifications.

1. Modify the IP amendment as show in Exhibit 2.

3. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
A. Description of Proposed LCP Amendment
The proposed amendment would modify the Implementation Plan’s (IP’s) existing wireless telecommunications ordinance (IP Sections 24.12.1400 et seq.) by adding a definition for small-cell wireless telecommunications facilities3 and by specifying that such small-cell facilities are not subject to the IP’s provisions and instead are subject to a new part of the Municipal Code that is outside of the LCP. While the legal definition of these facilities are quite technical and defined pursuant to federal law, in layman’s terms, small-cell facilities are a type of wireless broadband infrastructure that typically take the form of small antennas (3-4 feet tall) that are placed on existing infrastructure (such as utility poles) and are accompanied by equipment cabinets installed lower on the pole or underground. Examples of types of small-cell facilities are shown in Exhibit

3. The amendment would also exempt these facilities from all existing IP standards in the coastal zone. The impetus for the City’s proposed amendment is the enactment of the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012”, otherwise known as the “Spectrum Act,” and its associated implementing regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Spectrum Act seeks to implement national guidelines for how, among other things, federal, state, and local governments may regulate forthcoming small-cell wireless (also referred to as “5G”) networks 3 The proposed amendment defines “small-cell wireless facilities” as: “…any facilities that meet each of the following conditions: 1. The facilities: a. Antennas mounted on structures fifty feet or less in height including their antennas as defined above; or b. Antennas mounted on structures no more than ten percent taller than other adjacent structures; or c. Antennas that do not extend the height of existing structures more than ten percent or fifty feet, whichever is greater; 2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna), is no more than three cubic feet in volume; 3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than twenty-eight cubic feet in volume; 4. The facilities do not require antenna structure registration by the FCC; 5. The facilities are not located on tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and 6. The facilities do not result in human exposure to radio frequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified by the FCC.”

22.69 LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

Page 7 ends

nationwide.
4 These federal guidelines impose restrictions on state and local governments as to how they may regulate wireless telecommunication providers’ smallcell network installations, perhaps most importantly in terms of establishing time limits on permit processing, often referred to as “shot clocks.” Most relevant here, the Spectrum Act imposes a time period (or “shot clock”) by which a local jurisdiction must act on permit applications for small-cell wireless facilities. This shot clock is 60 days from filing for co-located small wireless facilities and 90 days from filing for small wireless facilities on new structures.

The LCP’s existing wireless telecommunications provisions require all such facilities to meet stringent siting and design requirements to protect visual and other coastal resources. The overall objective of these existing provisions is to ensure that wireless facilities “minimize adverse visual impact” and protect “the aesthetic quality of the city” (IP Section 24.12.1400), and they require a stringent review process to meet this objective. This includes requiring co-location on existing facilities (IP Section

24.12.1420), visual screening and being located outside of public view (IP Section

24.12.1420), and prohibiting such facilities in certain resource-sensitive locations, such as along the immediate shoreline and in agricultural areas (with certain exceptions pursuant to federal law as specified in IP Section 24.12.1425).

As discussed above, the proposed amendment would exempt small-cell wireless facilities within the public right-of-way from the existing LCP wireless ordinance’s provisions. Instead, the specific requirements regulating such facilities would be moved to the City’s “Streets and Sidewalks” section of Municipal Code Chapter 15.38, which is not part of the LCP. Pursuant to that non-LCP chapter, proposed small-cell wireless telecommunications facilities would require a “Small Cell Wireless Facilities Permit.” The standard of review for issuance of said permit would be conformance with a required “Standards and Guidelines Policy for Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way” document (which will be prepared and adopted by the City Council), as well as any other required permits or authorizations, including a coastal development permit (CDP) for facilities proposed in the coastal zone. For small-cell wireless facilities located in the public right-of-way for which a CDP is required, the standard of review would be the LCP’s more general provisions that protect coastal resources, but not the provisions specific to wireless facilities (i.e., IP Sections 24.12.1400 et seq.) because under the proposed amendment those IP provisions would not apply to small-cell wireless facilities located in the public right-of-way.
5 In sum, the proposed amendment adds a definition of small-cell wireless facilities to the IP and also seeks to exempt small-cell wireless telecommunications facilities located in the public right-of-way from the standards of IP Sections 24.12.1400 et seq. and instead requires such facilities to be governed by standards contained in a new Municipal Code section that is not part of the LCP. For those small-cell wireless facilities proposed in the 4 See FCC Declaratory Ruling and Report Order (FCC 18-133) released September 27, 2018. 5 However, small-cell wireless facilities not located in the public right-of-way—and all other wireless facilities—would remain subject to the requirements of IP Sections 24.12.1400 et seq.

22.70 LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

Page 8 ends

public right-of-way in the coastal zone for which CDPs would be required, the applicable standards would be the LCP’s broader policies addressing development and coastal resource requirements in general, including protection of visual resources, sensitive habitats, and agricultural lands.

See Exhibit 1 for the proposed IP amendment text.

B. Evaluation of Proposed LCP Amendment
Standard of Review
The proposed amendment affects the LCP’s IP, and the standard of review for IP amendments under Section 30513 of the Coastal Act is that they must be consistent with and adequate to carry out the policies of the certified LUP.

Applicable Land Use Plan Policies
The City of Santa Cruz’s LUP contains a number of provisions protecting coastal resources, including visual resources of scenic landscapes and ocean views, but also natural resources such as creeks, wetlands, and other sensitive habitats. With respect to visual resources, mirroring Coastal Act requirements, the LUP seeks to protect views, minimize visual clutter, restore visually degraded areas, and ensure that development blends in and is compatible with the character of the particular area in question.

Specifically, the LUP states:

Community Design Element Policy 1.4. Where development abuts open space land uses, utilize careful site planning to emphasize the natural topography and vegetation and maintain visual and physical access to open space areas.

Natural Setting and Scenic Resources Element Policy 2.1. Preserve natural features providing visual definition to an area of the City.

Natural Setting and Scenic Resources Element Policy 2.2.1. Develop siting, scale, landscaping, and other design guidelines to protect visually sensitive areas and ensure development is compatible with the character of the area.

Natural Setting and Scenic Resources Element Policy 3.4. Develop and maintain physical and visual linkages between key areas of the city.

Land Use Element Policy 1.4. Minimize, when practical, obstruction of important views and viewsheds by new development. In the coastal zone, development shall be sited and designed to and along the ocean and scenic areas to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and to restore visual quality in visually degraded areas.

Land Use Element Policy 3.3. Require development adjacent to natural areas and agricultural/grazing lands to be compatible with adjacent lands in terms of land use, visual transition, and siting.

22.71 LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

Page 9 ends

Consistency Analysis
While the LUP includes a robust policy framework to protect and enhance coastal resources, those policies are more general in nature. To augment these more general policies, the IP’s wireless provisions provide detailed standards specific to these unique types of facilities that address the particular issues raised by such development. For example, the IP’s certified wireless ordinance includes specific application requirements regarding siting and design, co-location analysis, visual screening, and a hierarchy of where such facilities are and are not allowed to be located. 6 The existing ordinance also
includes technical requirements, including documentation from third-party expert review, to ensure that these standards can be met (and to justify any deviations when they cannot) and do not conflict with federal law. All of this is to ensure that the particular needs and issues wireless facilities engender will be appropriately addressed in the LCP. As proposed, none of these more specific policies for small-cell facilities located in the public right-of-way would apply during the CDP process.

The City indicates that the reason for this proposed change is to respond to the recent FCC directives related to the Spectrum Act, particularly regarding permit processing time and the “shot clock” which sets a deadline for action on permit applications for small-cell wireless facilities.7 The City proposes to meet this shot clock time limit by eliminating most of the current applicable standards and offering a streamlined review approach for small-cell wireless facilities located in the public right-of-way. However, even if such facilities were exempt from review under the IP’s specific wireless ordinance (as the City is proposing), that would not negate the fact that CDPs are still required in the coastal zone for such proposed development, unless that development is otherwise exempt or excluded. Given this, under the City’s proposed construct, such CDPs may actually take longer to process, or be subject to additional appeals or other controversies, without the specific standards that help guide them to locations that will have the fewest (or no) impacts on coastal resources. In short, the City’s proposal would offer fewer specific coastal resource protections, while applying more general policies that are more likely to result in delays, thus negating the presumptive benefit of the proposed amendment. And, the expected outcome is reduced coastal resource protection for such facilities under the amended LCP as proposed. As a result, the amendment as proposed cannot be found consistent with and adequate to carry out the above-cited LUP policies that require protection of visual and other coastal resources.

Fortunately, these issues can be addressed via suggested modifications that seek to strike an appropriate balance between meeting the City’s (and FCC’s) stated objectives of streamlining permit processes for small-cell wireless facilities in the public right-ofway and the LUP’s requirements to ensure that such facilities protect coastal resources. 6 For example, wireless telecommunications facilities are prohibited in the LCP’s Ocean Front Recreation zoning district, which applies to the immediate shoreline and along the City’s iconic West Cliff Drive promenade. Conversely, the LCP’s Industrial zoning district is listed as a type of zone where such facilities are to be directed.
7 This shot clock is 60 days (from deeming an application complete) for co-located small-cell wireless facilities and 90 days from filing for small-cell wireless facilities on new structures. If the relevant shot clock is exceeded, the applicant is eligible for expedited relief in court.

22.72 LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

Page 10 ends

First, it is important to note that the City already has certain streamlining tools, including directing wireless facilities to locations outside of the coastal zone where no CDP would be required. For those projects in the coastal zone, the LCP (mirroring the Coastal Act and its implementing regulations) includes exemptions for certain improvements and repairs. The City also has a categorical exclusion order that allows certain projects that otherwise would require a CDP to be excluded from CDP requirements provided they are not located in certain coastal resource-sensitive locations.8 Again, these important tools are already at the City’s disposal to help direct these facilities to areas that do not raise coastal resource concerns. But for any proposed small-cell wireless projects located in the public right-of-way in non-excludable/exemptible areas of the coastal zone, it is important to include siting and design standards that would protect potentially impacted coastal resources, including aesthetics and coastal views, public recreational access and archeological resources.
9 In light of these concerns, Commission and City staff worked together to develop LCP language that could meet the City’s streamlining objectives while still providing appropriate provisions to protect coastal resources for small-cell facilities in the public right-of-way, including to make clear what standards apply to wireless telecommunications more broadly (i.e., the wireless telecommunications provisions specified in IP Section 24.12.1400 et. seq. as well the rest of the LCP) and what standards within the ordinance apply to the specific subtype of small-cell facility in the public right-of-way. Thus, suggested modifications are included that first make this ‘road-map’ clear for CDP evaluation purposes (see language to be added to Section

24.12.1415(A) to this effect on pages 5-7 of Exhibit 2). The modifications also add new provisions to address the particular issues and needs of small-cell facilities in the public right-of-way, including requirements addressing their siting and design to avoid and/or minimize impacts to sensitive coastal resources. Many of these standards are pulled from existing LCP wireless provisions (e.g., establishing location preferences outside the coastal zone and in areas that will not adversely impact significant public views, and in all cases outside of any sensitive habitats or natural areas) or from the new design guidelines the City developed as part this ordinance (e.g., requirements to locate such facilities on existing poles or below grade, to use camouflaging and other visual blending techniques, and to incorporate noise, lighting, and maintenance standards) (see pages 7-9 of Exhibit 2). The overall intent is: “To the maximum extent feasible, such facilities shall be sited and designed in a manner that avoids overall visibility, and eliminates or substantially reduces their visual and aesthetic impact upon the surrounding public right-of-way, archeologic resources, public views and public access” 8 Pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30610(e), the City’s categorical exclusion order excludes certain types and locations of development from CDP requirements. However, the exclusions do not apply (i.e., CDPs are required for development) in areas where sensitive coastal resources could be adversely affected, such as on lots fronting the ocean/shoreline, or in areas that are appealable to the Coastal Commission (e.g., between the sea and the first public road, within 100 feet of a wetland or stream, within 300 feet of a bluff, etc.).
9 And these facilities located in coastal zone public rights-of-way would, almost by definition, be located generally in highly visible areas along City streets and sidewalks, including in areas near the shoreline. It is thus important to have specific tools to address potential visual and other coastal resource issues.

22.73 LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

Page 11 ends

(see Section 24.12.1434(C) on pages 9-12 of Exhibit 2). Finally, to address streamlining issues, suggested modifications are added that provide that CDPs for small-cell facilities in the public right-of-way approved by the Zoning Administrator are appealable directly to the Coastal Commission (see pages 24-26 of Exhibit 2), and therefore able to bypass potential appeals to the City’s Planning Commission and City Council, which will allow for faster processing time should such City CDP decisions get appealed. This will allow for quicker processing that is mindful of the shot clocks set by the federal government but in a manner that will retain important regulatory standards governing such facilities.

As modified, the revised LCPA addresses the particular substantive and procedural issues that small-cell wireless facilities in the public right-of-way engender, and would make clear which siting and design standards apply to small-cell facilities located within the public right-of-way versus all other wireless types, provide specific siting and design requirements for these small-cell facilities, and provide for expedited permit review. The result is a more directive set of standards governing small-cell wireless facilities in the coastal zone that targets their specific issues. And, when combined with other existing LCP streamlining tools, such standards should help meet both coastal resource protection and City/FCC objectives.

C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) prohibits a proposed LCP or LCP amendment from being approved if there are feasible alternatives and/or feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect that the LCP or LCP amendment may have on the environment. Although local governments are not required to satisfy CEQA in terms of local preparation and adoption of LCPs and LCP amendments, many local governments use the CEQA process to develop information about proposed LCPs and LCP amendments, including to help facilitate Coastal Act review.

The Coastal Commission is not exempt from satisfying CEQA requirements with respect to LCPs and LCP amendments, but the Commission’s LCP/LCP amendment review, approval, and certification process has been certified by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency as being the functional equivalent of the environmental review required by CEQA (CCR Section 15251(f)). Accordingly, in fulfilling that review, this report has discussed the relevant coastal resource issues with the proposal, has addressed all comments received, and has concluded that the proposed LCP amendment is expected to result in significant environmental effects, including as those terms are understood in CEQA, if it is not modified to address the coastal resource issues identified herein (all above findings are incorporated herein in their entirety by reference). Accordingly, it is necessary for the Commission to suggest modifications to the proposed LCP amendment to ensure that it does not result in significant adverse environmental effects. Thus, the proposed LCP amendment as modified will not result in any significant adverse environmental effects for which feasible mitigation measures have not been employed, consistent with CEQA Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A).

22.74 STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427-4863
FAX: (831) 427-4877
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
F16a
LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (WIRELESS FACILITIES)
FEBRUARY 11, 2022 HEARING

EXHIBITS
Table of Contents
Exhibit 1: Proposed IP Amendment
Exhibit 2: Proposed IP Amendment Showing the Commission’s Suggested Modifications
Exhibit 3: Types of Small-Cell Wireless Facilities

22.75 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING TITLE 24 OF THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) AND THE LOCAL COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDING SECTION 24.12.1400 REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR “SMALL CELL” WIRELESS

TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BE IT ORDAINED By the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

Section 1. Section 24.12.1405 (Definitions) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

A. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below, unless the context clearly dictates a different meaning.

2. “American National Standards Institute” or “ANSI” is a private organization that develops widely accepted standards for various modern-day equipment.

3. “Antenna” is a device or system of wires, poles, rods, dishes, discs or similar devices used for the transmission and/or receipt of electromagnetic waves.

5. “California Public Utility Commission” or “CPUC” is the state-level regulatory agency responsible for regulating wireless telecommunications.

6. “Cell” is the coverage area through which wireless receiving and transmitting equipment from a particular cell site successfully propagates.

7. “Cell site” is a parcel of real property or public right-of-way on which a wireless telecommunications facility is to be located.

8. “Co-location” is a wireless telecommunications facility comprising a single telecommunications tower, monopole or building supporting antennas owned or used by more than one wireless telecommunications carrier.

Exhibit 1 (Proposed IP Amendment)
LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Small-Cell Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

22.76

Page 1 of 6 ends

10. “Facade-mounted antenna” is an antenna that is directly attached or affixed to any facade of building.

11. “Federal Communications Commission” or “FCC” is the federal agency responsible for licensing and regulating wireless telecommunications providers. The agency has primary regulatory control over communications providers through its powers to control interstate commerce and to provide a comprehensive national system in accordance with the Federal Communications Act.

12. “Freestanding monopole” is a structure composed of a single spire used to support communications equipment.

13. “Ground-mounted” is an antenna with its support structure placed directly on the ground.

14. Monopole. See “Freestanding monopole.”

15. “Non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation” or “NIER” means low energy and low frequency electromagnetic energy, including visible light, television, pagers, AM/FM radio, cellular systems, enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR) systems and personal communications services (PCS) systems.

16. “Omni-directional” means an antenna that is equally effective in all directions (360 degrees) and is typically cylindrical in shape, the size of which varies with the frequency for which it is designed. Whip antennas are often referenced by this name.

17. “Panel antenna” means an antenna or array of antennas designed to concentrate a radio signal in a particular area. Panel antennas are typically flat, rectangular, long devices generally three square feet in size, although some technologies utilize larger panel antennas. Also known as directional antennas.

18. “Roof-mounted” means an antenna directly attached or affixed to the roof of an existing building, water tank, tower or structure other than a telecommunications tower.

This type of installation is sometimes called a freestanding roof mounted antenna.

19. “Service provider” means a wireless telecommunications provider, a company or organization, or the agent of a company or organization that provides wireless telecommunications services.

20. “Significant gap” is a gap in the service provider’s own wireless telecommunications facilities, as defined in federal case law interpretations of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.

21. “Small Cell Facilities” means any facilities that meet each of the following conditions:

1. The facilities:

Exhibit 1 (Proposed IP Amendment)
LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Small-Cell Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

22.77

Page 2 of 6 ends

a. Antennae mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined above, or
b. Antennae mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or
c. Antennae that do not extend the height of existing structures more than 10 percent or 50 feet, whichever is greater;

2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna), is no more than three cubic feet in volume;

4. The facilities do not require antenna structure registration by the FCC;

5. The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and

6. The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified by the FCC.

22. “Stealth facility” is any telecommunications facility, which is designed to blend into the surrounding environment, and is visually unobtrusive. Examples of stealth facilities may include architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, facade-mounted antennas painted and treated as architectural elements to blend with the existing building, or elements designed to appear as vegetation or trees. Also known as concealed telecommunications facilities.

23. “Stealth technologies/techniques” are camouflaging methods applied to wireless telecommunications facilities which render them visually inconspicuous.

24. “Telecommunications” is any transmission, emission or reception of signals, images and sound or information of any nature by wire, radio, visual or electromagnetic system that work on a “line-of-sight” principle.

25. “Telecommunication tower” is a monopole, lattice tower, free standing tower or other structures designed to support antennas.

26. “Visual impact” means the placement or design of an antenna or the associated equipment and/or buildings such that they are not screened or shielded or are plainly visible and are likely to be noticeable or otherwise conspicuous.

27. Whip antenna. See “Omni-directional antenna.”
Exhibit 1 (Proposed IP Amendment)
LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Small-Cell Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

22.78

Page 3 of 6 ends

28. “Wireless telecommunications facility” is a land use facility that sends and/or receives radio frequency signals. Wireless telecommunications facilities include antennas and all other types of equipment for the transmission or receipt of such signals; telecommunication towers or similar structures built to support such equipment; equipment cabinets, base transceiver stations, and other accessory development. Also referred to as a telecommunication facility.

29. “Wireless telecommunications provider” is any company or organization that provides or who represents a company or organization that provides wireless telecommunications services.

Section 2. Section 24.12.1410 (Applicability) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

B. These regulations shall not apply to the following facilities:

1. Amateur (including ham and short-wave) radio facilities on private property provided that the antenna does not exceed sixty-five feet in height or is not more than twenty-five feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the facility is located, whichever is less.

2. Amateur (including ham and short-wave) radio facilities on public property provided the facilities do not exceed sixty-five feet in height or are not more than twentyfive feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the facilities are located, whichever is less.

3. Wireless telecommunications facilities, which are not licensed by the Federal Communications Commission and are determined by the planning director to have little or no adverse visual impact.

4. Direct-to-home satellite services smaller than two feet in diameter provided that such facilities are in accordance with other sections of this title.

Exhibit 1 (Proposed IP Amendment)
LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Small-Cell Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

22.79

Page 4 of 6 ends

6. Wireless telecommunication facilities used solely for public safety purposes, installed and operated by authorized public safety agencies (e.g. county 911 emergency services, police, sheriff, fire departments, first responder medical services, hospitals, etc.) and incorporating stealth technologies.

7. Small Cell Facilities located in the public right-of-way which are subject to the requirements of Chapter 15.38 of the Municipal Code and the adopted Standards and Guidelines policy for small cell facilities in the public right-of-way.

Section 3. Section 24.12.1425 (Location Standards) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

A. Prohibited Zoning Districts. Wireless telecommunications facilities shall not be allowed in the following zoning districts, subject only to exceptions as described in subsection (B).

1. Single-Family Residence (RS, R-1).

2. Multiple-Family Residence (RL, RM, RH).

3. Beach Residential (RT(A), RT(D), RT(E)).

4. Ocean Front Recreational (OFR).

5. Flood Plain (FP).

6. Agriculture (EA-20).

B. Exceptions to Prohibited Districts. Small Cell Facilities may be located in the public rightof-way of prohibited districts subject to the requirements of Chapter 15.38. Other wireless telecommunications facilities may be sited in the prohibited zoning districts described above with an administrative use permit; provided, that the applicant can demonstrate to the zoning administrator that:

1. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility would eliminate or substantially reduce one or more significant gaps in the applicant carrier’s network; and

2. There are no viable, technically feasible, and environmentally (e.g., visually) equivalent or superior potential alternatives (i.e., sites/facility types) outside the prohibited zoning districts that could eliminate or substantially reduce said significant gap(s).

C. Location preference for wireless telecommunications facilities should be given to the following locations:

1. Industrial or commercial sites.

Exhibit 1 (Proposed IP Amendment)
LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Small-Cell Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

22.80

Page 5 of 6 ends

2. Facilities attached or sited adjacent to existing structures. Appropriate types of existing structures may include, but not be limited to: buildings, telephone and utility poles, signage and sign standards traffic signals, light standards, and flagpoles.

3. Sites which are not highly visible from adjacent roadways, public areas, parks, schools, greenbelts or other visually sensitive areas, as determined by the zoning administrator.

E. Wireless telecommunications facilities are prohibited in all natural areas designated in the General Plan.

F. Wireless telecommunication facilities are prohibited within one thousand feet of any public elementary school.

Exhibit 1 (Proposed IP Amendment)
LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Small-Cell Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

22.81

Page 6 of 6 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 2019-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING TITLE 24 OF THE

SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) AND THE LOCAL COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: AMENDING
SECTION 24.12.1400 ET SEQ. REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR “SMALL CELL”

24.04.186 “APPEALS TO COASTAL COMMISSION”
BE IT ORDAINED By the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

Section 1. Section 24.12.1405 (Definitions) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.1405 DEFINITIONS.

A. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below, unless the context clearly dictates a different meaning.

2. “American National Standards Institute” or “ANSI” is a private organization that develops widely accepted standards for various modern-day equipment.

3. “Antenna” is a device or system of wires, poles, rods, dishes, discs or similar devices used for the transmission and/or receipt of electromagnetic waves.

5. “California Public Utility Commission” or “CPUC” is the state-level regulatory agency responsible for regulating wireless telecommunications.

6. “Cell” is the coverage area through which wireless receiving and transmitting equipment from a particular cell site successfully propagates.

7. “Cell site” is a parcel of real property or public right-of-way on which a wireless telecommunications facility is to be located.

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 1 of 28 ends

22.82 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
2 8. “Co-location” is a wireless telecommunications facility comprising a single telecommunications tower, monopole or building supporting antennas owned or used by more than one wireless telecommunications carrier.

10. “Facade-mounted antenna” is an antenna that is directly attached or affixed to any facade of building.

13. “Freestanding monopole” is a structure composed of a single spire used to support communications equipment.

14. “Ground-mounted” is an antenna with its support structure placed directly on the ground.

15. Monopole. See “Freestanding monopole.”

19. “Roof-mounted” means an antenna directly attached or affixed to the roof of an existing building, water tank, tower or structure other than a telecommunications tower.

This type of installation is sometimes called a freestanding roof mounted antenna.

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 2 of 28 ends

22.83 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
3 20. “Service provider” means a wireless telecommunications provider, a company or organization, or the agent of a company or organization that provides wireless telecommunications services.

22. “Small Cell Facilities” means, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.6002, any facilities that meet each of the following conditions:

2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna), is no more than three cubic feet in volume;

4. The facilities do not require antenna structure registration by the FCC;

5. The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and

6. The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified by the FCC.

23. “Small Cell Aesthetic/Design Standards” means the aesthetic and design standards for small cell wireless facilities adopted by the city council.

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 3 of 28 ends

22.84 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
4 25. “Stealth technologies/techniques” are camouflaging methods applied to wireless telecommunications facilities which render them visually inconspicuous.

27. “Telecommunication tower” is a monopole, lattice tower, free standing tower or other structures designed to support antennas.

29. Whip antenna. See “Omni-directional antenna.”

31. “Wireless telecommunications provider” is any company or organization that provides or who represents a company or organization that provides wireless telecommunications services.

Section 2. Section 24.12.1410 (Applicability) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.1410 APPLICABILITY.

B. These regulations (Chapter 24.12, Part 15) shall not apply to the following facilities:

2. Amateur (including ham and short-wave) radio facilities on public property provided the facilities do not exceed sixty-five feet in height or are not more than twentyExhibit 2 LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 4 of 28 ends

22.85 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
5 five feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the facilities are located, whichever is less.

2. Wireless telecommunications facilities, which are not licensed by the Federal Communications Commission and are determined by the planning director to have little or no adverse visual impact.

4. Small Cell Facilities located in the public right-of-way outside the coastal zone, which are subject to the requirements of Chapter 15.38 of the Municipal Code.

5. Any other antennas and wireless communications facilities identified by the FCC or the CPUC as exempt from local regulations.

Section 3. Section 24.12.1415 (Permit Requirements and Findings) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.1415 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND FINDINGS.

A. Unless a coastal exclusion or exemption as defined in Sections 24.08.230 through

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 5 of 28 ends

22.86 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
6 2. For Small Cell Facilities in the public right-of-way, the coastal permit shall be governed by the findings and standards in the LCP, including, but not limited to

24.08.200 et seq, as well as the standards and findings specified herein at

24.12.1425 and 24.12.1434. City approval of the coastal permit may be appealed directly to the California Coastal Commission (as further provided in Section

24.04.186).

In case of conflict between the coastal permit and any other permit or authorization, the requirements of the coastal permit shall prevail.

B. Any proposed facade-mounted or roof-mounted wireless telecommunications facility (other than Small Cell Facilities located in the public right-of-way, which are covered by Sections

24.12.1425 and 24.12.1434) that is determined by the zoning administrator to be consistent with all of the requirements of this Part 15, and that incorporates stealth technologies and/or is not visible from public areas, shall require a administrative design permit from the zoning administrator based on the following findings:

1. The wireless telecommunications facility has demonstrated consistency with Sections 24.12.1430 and 24.12.1435 (as applicable).

3. The wireless telecommunications facility is in compliance with all FCC and California PUC standards and requirements and with all other applicable requirements of Chapter 24.12 Part 15.

1. A small cell wireless facilities permit in compliance with Chapter 15.38 and the city’s Small Cell Aesthetic/Design Standards;

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 6 of 28 ends

22.87 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
7 D. All wireless telecommunications facilities that do not meet the criteria defined in subsections (B) or (C) above, shall require an administrative use permit with a public hearing before the zoning administrator, in addition to aA design permit with the required findings provided in subsection (B) above.shall also be required to be made
E. In approving an application, the city may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate or necessary to further the purposes of this chapter, including, but not limited to, requiring the redesign or relocation of the facility. Alternatively, the city may direct the applicant to resubmit a revised proposal for further consideration.

Section 4. Section 24.12.1425 (Location Standards) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.1425 LOCATION STANDARDS.

A. Prohibited Zoning Districts. Wireless telecommunications facilities shall not be allowed in the following zoning districts listed below, subject only to except as set forth in

24.12.1425(B). This prohibition shall also not apply to Small Cell Facilities in the public right-of-way.

1. Single-Family Residence (RS, R-1).

2. Multiple-Family Residence (RL, RM, RH).

3. Beach Residential (RT(A), RT(D), RT(E)).

4. Ocean Front Recreational (OFR).

5. Flood Plain (FP).

6. Agriculture (EA-20).

1. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility would eliminate or substantially reduce one or more significant gaps in the applicant carrier’s network; and Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 7 of 28 ends

22.88 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
8 2. There are no viable, feasible, and environmentally (e.g., visually) equivalent or superior potential alternatives (i.e., sites/facility types) outside the prohibited zoning districts that could eliminate or substantially reduce said significant gap(s).

C. Location preference for all wireless telecommunications facilities should be given to the following locations:

1. Locations that do not adversely impact significant public views (e.g., of the beach, shorline, ocean, natural areas, etc.).

2. Industrial or commercial sites.

4. Sites which are not highly visible from adjacent roadways, public areas, parks, schools, greenbelts or other visually sensitive areas, as determined by the zoning administrator.

5. Sites outside the coastal zone, and particularly sites located within the Coastal Zone Overlay zone district (as defined in Chapter 24.10 Part 26) where city decisions can be appealed.

E. Wireless telecommunications facilities are prohibited in all natural areas designated in the General Plan or LCP.

F. To the maximum extent feasible, wireless telecommunication facilities are prohibited within one thousand feet of any public elementary school or daycare facility.

Page 8 of 28 ends

22.89 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
9 b. Attached or sited adjacent to existing structures. Appropriate types of existing structures may include, but not be limited to telephone/utility poles and non-decorative light standards;
c. Area not requiring the removal of existing infrastructure, parkway trees or reductions of the parkway landscape planters;
d. Within the public parkway landscaping and requiring only minor alterations to the existing parkway landscaping (including planter size) and/or infrastructure;
e. Within the public right-of-way in a manner that requires significant but feasible alteration to the existing public improvements and/or infrastructure.

Section 5. Section 24.12.1434 (Requirements For Small Cell Facilities in the Coastal Zone) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby added as follows:

24.12.1434 REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL CELL FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE.

Small Cell Facilities located in the public right- of-way and which require a coastal permit shall comply with the following standards and requirements:

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 9 of 28 ends

22.90 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
10 A. Pole Type Preferences. Facilities on poles shall be sited in the following order of preference:

1.On an existing or replacement street light pole;

2.On an existing or replacement structure other than a street light pole or utility pole;

3.On an existing or replacement utility pole.

1.Within a below-grade equipment vault;

2.In an at grade equipment cabinet provided the size of the cabinet is minimized to the maximum extent feasible; At grade equipment cabinets shall participate in the Traffic Graphics program or pay an in lieu fee depending on the location (i.e. commercial or residential areas) at the discretion of the decision making body.

3.Enclosed at the base of the pole on which the antenna is mounted provided the size of the base of the pole is minimized to the maximum extent feasible;

4.Equipment boxes using stealth techniques mounted on a utility pole, provided the size of the boxes is minimized to the maximum extent feasible.

1.The number of antennas on each site shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible with the goal of minimizing adverse visual impacts.

2.To the maximum extent feasible, the antenna size, cabinet equipment and other facilities shall minimize visual clutter.

3.The project shall use the smallest and least visible antennas feasible to accomplish the coverage objectives. Facilties that are proposed for locations where they would be readily visible from the public right-of-way or from the habitable living areas of residential units within 100 feet shall incorporate appropriate techniques to camouflage or disguise the facility, and/or blend it into the surrounding environment, to the maximum extent feasible.

4.To the maximum extent feasible, facilities shall not be designed in such a manner that will negatively impact public recreation and access, or damage a known or sensitive archeological site.

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 10 of 28 ends

22.91 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
11 5.Applicants are encouraged to consider providing architectural treatments and to use “stealth techniques” to reduce potential visual impacts of the facilities to the maximum extent feasible. Stealth techniques are especially encouraged in areas easily visible from a major traffic corridor or commercial center or in residential areas. Stealth techniques may be required as conditions of approval for a coastal permit when determined to be necessary to mitigate adverse visual impacts.

D. Design Standards:

1.Any pole to be installed in the public right-of-way shall be disguised to resemble a utility pole to the maximum extent feasible. Facility’s antennas shall not exceed a diameter of 15 inches. All antennas and screening devices shall be painted or finished to match the pole. All pole or equipment shall be painted or otherwise coated to be visually compatible with existing poles and equipment. Facilities shall be placed on the same vertical axis as the center of the pole.

2.Small Cell Facility installations on existing city infrastructure shall be placed in a manner so that the size, appearance and function of the final installation is essentially identical to the installation prior to the antenna installation taking place.

3.Small Cell Facility installations shall not be located on decorative street light poles.

4.Small Cell Facility equipment located above the surface grade in the public right-of-way including, but not limited to those on certain street lights, shall consist of small equipment components that are compatible in structure, scale, function and proportion to the poles they are mounted on. Equipment shall be painted or otherwise coated to be visually compatible with the subject pole (may include public art). Underground vaults shall employ flush-to-grade access portals and vents that are heel shoe safe and slip safe; provided, however, that this restriction shall not apply in flood prone areas.

5.All cables and conduits shall be routed through the interior of the subject pole to be screened from public view; provided, however, that for wood poles, all cables shall be contained within conduit, and conduits shall be mounted and routed in a manner calculated to minimize their visibility to the maximum extent feasible.

6.All base-mounted accessory equipment must be installed within a shroud, enclosure or pedestal integrated into the base of the support structure. All cables, wires and other connectors routed between the antenna and base-mounted equipment shall be concealed from public view.

7.Small Cell Facilities may not encroach onto or over any private or other property outside the public right-of-way without the property owner’s express written consent.

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 11 of 28 ends

22.92 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
12 8.To reduce clutter and deter vandalism, excess fiber optic or coaxial cables shall not be spooled, coiled or otherwise stored on the pole outside equipment cabinets or shrouds.

1.Testing and maintenance activities of Small Cell Facilities which generate audible noise shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., weekdays (Monday through Friday, non-holiday) excluding emergency repairs, unless allowed at other times by the zoning administrator. Testing and maintenance activities, which do not generate audible noise, may occur at any time, unless otherwise prohibited by the zoning administrator.

H. Maintenance and Repair.

Page 12 of 28 ends

22.93 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
13 telecommunication provider in good condition and in their approved and/or required state. This shall include keeping all facilities graffiti-free and maintaining security walls/fences in good condition. All graffiti must be removed as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than seventy-two hours from the time of notification by the city.

2.Any landscaping associated with or required in connection with the permitting of the Small Cell Facility, including landscaping of the public right-of-way, shall be maintained in good, healthy condition at all times. Any dead or dying landscaping shall be promptly replaced or rehabilitated by the wireless telecommunications provider.

3.The applicant or successor in interest shall repair, at its sole cost and expense, any damage (including, but not limited to subsidence, cracking, erosion, collapse, weakening, or loss of lateral support) to public utilities, infrastructure, and property, incluidng city streets, sidewalks, walks, curbs, gutters, trees, parkways, or utility lines and systems, underground utility line and systems, or sewer systems or sewer lines that results from any activities performed in connection with the installation and/or maintenance of a Small Cell Facility by applicant or successor in interest. In the event the applicant or successor in interest fails to complete said repair within the number of days stated on a written notice by the city, the city shall cause said repair to be completed and shall invoice the applicant or successor in interest for all costs incurred by city as a result of such repair.

4.All sidewalk panels affected by any work associated with the installation of a Small Cell Facility shall be restored to their original condition.

5.Structural foundations must be removed when removing structures from the right-of-way.

I. Security and Safety.

1.Facilities shall be designed to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti, and other conditions that would result in hazardous conditions, visual blight, or attractive nuisances. Facilities may incorporate reasonable and appropriate site security measures, such as locks and anti-climbing devices. No barbed wire, razor ribbon, electrified fences or any similarly dangerous security measures shall be permitted. All exterior surfaces on Small Cell Facilities shall be constructed from or coated with graffiti-resistant materials.

Page 13 of 28 ends

22.94 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
14 provider’s expense, the zoning administrator may employ on behalf of the city an independent technical expert to confirm and periodically reconfirm compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
b. All Small Cell Facilities shall demonstrate continued compliance with all radio frequency standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

1.Openings in all above ground equipment shelters and cabinets shall be protected against penetration by fire and windblown embers.

2.The material used as supports for the antennas shall be fire resistant, termite proof, and subject to all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.

3.Small Cell Facilities shall be designed to withstand the forces expected during an earthquake in a manner subject to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. All equipment mounting racks and attached equipment shall be anchored in such a manner that such a quake will not tip them over, throw the equipment off its shelves, or otherwise act to damage it.

4.All connections between various components of the Small Cell Facility and with necessary power and telephone lines shall be protected against damage by fire, flooding and earthquake.

5.Measures shall be taken to keep Small Cell Facilities in operation in the event of a disaster.

6.An electrical permit from the Planning and Community Development Department shall be required for the electric service associated with construction, installation, repair or alteration of all support structures for Small Cell Facilities.

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 14 of 28 ends

22.95 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
15 K. Cessation, Abandonment, or Revocation. Upon 6 months after the cessation or abandonment of the use of a Small Cell Facility under this Section for any reason, or revocation of any applicable permits, the wireless telecommunications provider shall restore the site to its original preconstruction condition to the satisfaction of the city and comply with any notice or other requirements provided in Section 24.12.1435 (J).

M. Compliance with Applicable Laws.

1.The applicant or successor in interest shall install and maintain permitted Small Cell Facilities in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Building, National Electrical Code, and any and all applicable federal and state laws, codes, and regulations.

2.The applicant or successor in interest shall also install and maintain permitted Small Cell Facilities in compliance with any applicable city noise standards, the city’s Small Cell Aesthetic/Design Standards, and all other applicable local codes, laws, and regulations, except to the extent that such standards conflict with those specified herein, in which case this section shall apply.

3.Americans with Disabilities Act. All Small Cell Facilities and their locations shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Section 6. Section 24.12.1435 (General Requirements) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.12.1435 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 15 of 28 ends

22.96 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
16 1. The applicant shall use the smallest and least visible antennas feasible to accomplish the owners/operator’s coverage objectives. All wireless telecommunications facilities proposed for locations where they would be readily visible from the public right-of-way or from the habitable living areas of residential units within 100 feet shall incorporate appropriate techniques to camouflage or disguise the facility, and/or blend it into the surrounding environment, to the maximum extent feasible.

6. Applicants are encouraged to consider providing architectural treatments and to use “stealth techniques” to reduce potential visual impacts for all telecommunication facilities.

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 16 of 28 ends

22.97 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
17 7. All facilities shall be designed to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti, and other conditions that would result in hazardous conditions, visual blight, or attractive nuisances. The zoning administrator may require the provision of warning signs, fencing, anti-climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location and/or accessibility, antenna facilities have the potential to become an attractive nuisance. The design of the fencing and other access control devices shall be subject to review. The use of chain-link fencing is discouraged and the use of razor wire is prohibited.

Landscaping guidelines include but are not limited to the following:

2. All trees used in landscaping shall be a minimum of fifteen gallons in size and all shrubs in a minimum of five gallons, unless otherwise approved.

3. Existing trees and other screening vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed facility and associated access-ways shall be protected from damage both during and after construction.

5. All landscape design shall meet the water efficiency landscaping requirements of the Municipal Code, including installing or upgrading existing irrigation systems if necessary.

D. Setbacks. Wireless telecommunication facilities shall comply with all applicable setback regulations of the zoning district in which they are situated.

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 17 of 28 ends

22.98 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
18 1. All setbacks shall be measured from the furthest extent of a wireless telecommunications facility to the closest applicable property line or structure, with the exception of equipment shelters.

2. Ground mounted or freestanding monopole facilities shall be setback at a distance not less than the height of the structure from any residentially zoned land.

G. Interference. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall be operated in a manner, which complies with the Federal Communication Commission’s regulations regarding signal interference.

Page 18 of 28 ends

22.99 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
19 provider. The colors, materials and design of the updated signs shall match those of the required and approved signs.

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 19 of 28 ends

22.100
ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
20 I. Natural Disaster. All wireless telecommunications facilities providing service to the government or general public shall be designed to survive a natural disaster without interruption in operation. To this end, the following measures shall be implemented:

1. Nonflammable exterior wall and roof covering shall be used in the construction of all above ground equipment shelters and cabinets.

2. Openings in all above ground equipment shelters and cabinets shall be protected against penetration by fire and windblown embers.

3. The material used as supports for the antennas shall be fire resistant, termite proof, and subject to all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.

6. Measures shall be taken to keep wireless telecommunications facilities in operation in the event of a disaster.

7. All equipment shelters and wireless telecommunications facility towers shall be reviewed and approved by the city fire department.

8. A building permit shall be required for the construction, installation, repair or alteration of all support structures for wireless telecommunications facilities equipment.

Wireless telecommunications facilities must be stable and must comply with the Uniform Building Code and any conditions imposed as a condition of issuing a building permit.

J. Cessation of Operation On-Site.

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 20 of 28 ends

22.101
ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
21 1. Wireless telecommunications providers shall provide the city with a notice of intent to vacate a site a minimum of thirty days prior to the vacation.

Section 7. Section 24.04.130 (Decision-Making Body with Final Authority on Application Approval) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.04.130 DECISION-MAKING BODY WITH FINAL AUTHORITY ON APPLICATION APPROVAL.

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 21 of 28 ends

22.102
ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
22 The following table indicates the decision-making body who can approve, deny or conditionally approve an application, whether or not a public hearing is required, and the bodies to which appeals can be made:

1. The planning commission and city council may refer certain aspects of any application to the zoning administrator for final action.

2. The zoning administrator may refer any of the matters on which he/she is authorized to act to the planning commission or historic preservation commission.

Permits/Actions****
Public Hearing Requirement and Decision-Making Body
Which Can Approve an Application
No
Public
Hearing
Public Hearing Appeal Bodies
(in order)
Action Recommendation Action
Coastal Permit ZA
(ADU*)
ZA* CPC/CC/CCC*
Administrative Use Permit:

Large family daycare homes,
temporary uses, and half baths
in accessory buildings

ZA CPC/CC
Administrative Use Permit:

Variations to parking design
requirements or variations to
number of required spaces

ZA CPC/CC/CCC
Other uses as listed by
individual zoning districts as
requiring an Administrative Use
Permit

ZA CPC/CC
Conditional Fence Permit ZA ZA CPC/CC
Slope Regulations
Modifications (Variance)
CPC CC
Slope Regulations
Modifications (Design Permit)

ZA CPC/CC
Design Permit ZA CPC/CC
Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 22 of 28 ends

22.103
ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
23 Permits/Actions****
Public Hearing Requirement and Decision-Making Body
Which Can Approve an Application
No
Public
Hearing
Public Hearing Appeal Bodies
(in order)
Action Recommendation Action
Substandard lots: New twostory structures and secondstory additions, including ADUsZA CPC/CC Large homes per
Section 24.08.450

ZA CPC/CC
Wireless telecommunications
facilities
ZA* ZA CPC/CC
New structures or improvements
to existing structures in the
WCD Overlay which are
exempt or excluded from coastal
permit requirements

ZA CPC/CC
New structures or improvements
to existing structures in the
WCD Overlay which require a
coastal permit

ZA CPC/CC
Demolition Permit

1. Single-family residential ZA CPC/CC

2. Multifamily residential CPC CC

3. Historic demolition permit HPC CC

4. Nonresidential ZA** ZA** CPC/CC
General Plan Text and Map
Amendments
CPC CC/CCC***
Historic Alteration Permit HPC CC
Administrative Historic
Alteration Permit

ZA HPC/CC
Historic Building Survey:

Building designation, deletion HPC CC
Historic District Designation HPC/CPC CC
Historic Landmark Designation HPC CC
Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 23 of 28 ends

22.104
ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
24 Permits/Actions****
Public Hearing Requirement and Decision-Making Body
Which Can Approve an Application
No
Public
Hearing
Public Hearing Appeal Bodies
(in order)
Action Recommendation Action
Mobile Homes (Certificate of
Compatibility)

ZA CPC/CC
Mobile Home Park Conversion CPC CC
Outdoor Extension Areas per
Section 24.12.192

Page 24 of 28 ends

22.105
ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
25 Permits/Actions****
Public Hearing Requirement and Decision-Making Body
Which Can Approve an Application
No
Public
Hearing
Public Hearing Appeal Bodies
(in order)
Action Recommendation Action
require a coastal permit (unless they are exempt or excluded from coastal permit requirements) and shall be processed in the manner described in Chapter 24.04 and Section

Section 8. Section 24.04.186 (Appeals to Coastal Commission) of Title 24 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read as follows:

24.04.186 APPEALS TO COASTAL COMMISSION.

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 25 of 28 ends

22.106
ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
26 1. Coastal permits fall into either of two categories: appealable or nonappealable to the Coastal Commission.

Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 26 of 28 ends

22.107
ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
27 However, commissioner appeals taken prior to exhaustion of all local appeals shall be transmitted to the appropriate local appellate body and the appeal to the commission may be suspended pending a decision on the merits by that local appellate body. If the decision of the local appellate body modifies or reverses the previous decision, the commissioners shall be required to file a new appeal from that decision. c. Grounds for appeal, pursuant to subsection (a)(2) above, shall be limited to an allegation that the development does not conform to standards set forth in the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) or the Public Access Policies set forth in the California Coastal Act.
d. The grounds for an appeal of a denial of a permit pursuant to subsection (a)(1) shall be limited to an allegation that the development conforms to the standards set forth in the certified Local Coastal Program and the public access policies set forth in the California Coastal Act.
e. Appeals to the Coastal Commission pursuant to this section must be filed with the Coastal Commission on forms prescribed by and available from the Coastal Commission. (Ord. 94-42 § 1, 1994: Ord. 94-33 § 8, 1994: Ord. 88-58 § 7, 1988; Ord. 85-47 § 2, 1985: Ord. 85-05 § 1 (part), 1985).

Section 9. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this __th day of __, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: __________________________
Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 27 of 28 ends

22.108
ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX
28 Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above
and foregoing document is the
original of Ordinance No. 201X-XX
and that it has been published or
posted in accordance with the
Charter of the City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
Exhibit 2
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 28 of 28 ends

22.109
Examples of Acceptable Installations

Exhibit 3
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 1 of 2 ends

22.110
Examples of Unacceptable Installations
Exhibit 3
LCP-3-STC-21-0072-2

Page 2 of 2 ends

22.111
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CORRESPONDENCE

22.112

22.113
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427-4863
FAX: (831) 427-4877
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
February 15, 2022
Clara Stanger, Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz
Comprehensive Planning, Housing and Community Development 809 Center Street, Room 101
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Subject: Coastal Commission Action on City of Santa Cruz Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment No. LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Wireless Ordinance) Dear Clara:

At its meeting on February 11, 2022, the Coastal Commission took action on Santa Cruz County LCP Amendment No. LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Wireless Ordinance). The Commission approved the proposed amendments to the Implementation Plan, if modified as suggested. A copy of the adopted findings and suggested modifications will be sent to you electronically.

This letter formally transmits to you the Commission’s resolution of certification and adopted findings pursuant to Section 13544 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Pursuant to Section 13544, effective certification of LCP Amendment No.

LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2, whereby the City may begin issuing coastal development permits subject to this amendment, will occur after:

1. The City, by action of the City Council: (a) acknowledges receipt of this resolution of certification, including the suggested modifications; and (b) accepts and agrees to the modifications and takes whatever formal action is required to satisfy the modifications (e.g., implementation of ordinances).

2. The Commission’s Executive Director reports to the Commission his determination that the County’s actions are legally adequate, and the Commission does not object to the Executive Director’s determination.

3. Notice of the certification of the LCP amendment is filed with the Secretary of the Resources Agency.

Coastal Commission staff will take care of items #2 and #3 above, following completion of item #1 by the City. Note that the Commission’s regulations provide that the Commission’s action of certification with the suggested modifications shall expire six months from the date of the Commission’s action, or on August 15, 2022.

22.114
Clara Stanger
LCP-3-STC-21-0071-2 (Wireless Ordinance)

Page 2 of 2 ends

Please let me know if I can assist you in any way in completing action on this LCP amendment, or if you have any questions. Thanks for all of your help during this process.

Sincerely,
Ryan Moroney
District Supervisor
Central Coast District Office
Enclosure (Via Email): Adopted Staff Report with Suggested Modifications

22.115
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-04

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING CHAPTER 24.15 OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE TO SPECIFY THAT

THE FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THE GREEN BUILDING EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE

FUND WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL BE IT ORDAINED By the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

Section 1. Chapter 24.15 “Green Building Regulations” of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

Chapter 24.15 GREEN BUILDING REGULATIONS

24.15.010 through 24.15.070 – no change.

24.15.080 CREATION OF A GREEN BUILDING EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE FUND.

All permits issued by the city of Santa Cruz with the exception of sub-trade permits and permits issued in conjunction with a master permit shall be assessed a fee established by resolution of the City Council. Revenues collected shall be maintained by the finance department in a revolving green building education fund and shall be used only for program management, public educational purposes such as publications and local seminars.

Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after final adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of April, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Cummings, Brown, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: Councilmember Golder.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

APPROVED: ______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

23.1 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-04
2 PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _____, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 2022-04 and that
it has been published or posted in
accordance with the Charter of the
City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

23.2 Proof of Publication
(2015 C.C.P.)
I, the undersigned, declare:

That I caused the attached legal notice/advertisement to be published in the Santa Cruz Good Times, a weekly newspaper published and circulated in the County of Santa Cruz, and adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Santa Cruz, under Proceeding No. 68833; and that the legal notice/advertisement was published in the above-named newspaper on the following date(s), to wit:

April 20, 2022
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

This 20th day of April, 2022, Santa Cruz, California
____________________________
Julia Wood
Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Julia Wood

23.3 DECLARATION OF POSTING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ )
On the 18th day of April, 2022, I posted conspicuously in three public places within the City of Santa Cruz, Ordinance No. 2022-04, to wit:

1. City Hall: 809 Center Street: Bulletin Board outside Room 9/10

2. City Hall: Bulletin Board outside Council Chambers

3. The City of Santa Cruz website
The document, posted in its entirety, consists of pages 1—2.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 18th day of April, 2022, in Santa Cruz, California.
_______________________________
Julia Wood
Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Julia Wood

23.4 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 1:54 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Correction 6.26.22 Agenda Item #23, not #24 astronomic green fee increase

6.26.22 Agenda Item #23, astronomic green fee increase
Dear Council,
I would remind that the government must operate within the confines of the Constitution, and has authority granted only by the people to protect individual rights as in life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and provide for the pervasively agreed needs and wants of the people that the public is willing, not coerced, to pay for.

I wasn’t too happy about that massive 400% increase in green building fees you passed with the excuse the public was taking up too much time at the building dept counter. Perhaps the issue is your regulations are too complex or lack transparency.

Having spent time at the counter a dozen years ago, is sure does happen a lot of the public’s time is wasted waiting for them, not all of counter demands are legally defensible and I testify arguments do ensue, and some are won by the public. Note there are no charges for talking to a librarian, a police officer, or any other city employee working to provide public benefit whose salary is paid for with tax dollars. I have personally experienced the building dept insisting on design elements they were not legally entitled to demand, or requiring a structural engineering approval stamp of a single support beam that the eventually design engineer laughed at. Structural engineers are hard to come by, delay jobs, and cost a lot. My point... the building dept isn’t always all about performing a service, and increasingly service to everyone BUT the builder/occupant in green regulations.

I would point out green building regulations are not generally there to ensure health and safety, but are mostly based on assumed environmental sustainability community benefits, and almost zero benefit to builders or occupants and increase housing costs. What they do is remove liberty and dictate a minimum number of design elements that must be included that are on an approved list. Housing cost is not a consideration.

The permit process in this case then is a coercive mechanism governments use to extract money from the public really without their consent, to force spending their money for environmental benefit, and in this case, charging them extra for the “privilege” of that mandated monetary extraction.

23.5 2
I’m not talking about charges for plan checking or inspections which do have a benefit like quality control of which green regulation verification is a small part, but all of these fee are indiscriminate in that someone can waltz in with a perfect plan and take up little time, others more. Some regulations are tree hugger like using structural bamboo instead of sawn lumber, veneered flooring instead of sawn planks, and manufactured Ibeams instead of sawn timber to save on tree cutting volume. However, trees are themselves renewable. It’s really a matter of running out of trees, or not. Imagine dictating houses can be no larger than 1000 sq ft because that has a smaller ecofootprint than a big one. It’s the same logic.

I fear the coming climate change regulations will generate indefensible fees far worse in many ways, and this discussion needs to begin. Mostly I consider green building fees to be like if the IRS charged citizens fees to answer tax questions. I still object to the paying of salaries to an expanded number of city employees having little green fee connection, if any, to coercively mandate the forced spending of individual money only for public environmental benefit, to little or no benefit for applicants, then additionally make applicants pay extra for those city salaries who do that extraction with astronomic indiscriminate fees and not with already paid public benefit taxes. Really, does the bean counter known as the principal management analyst or climate action manager spend time behind the building dept counter anyway? You don’t do an end around the people’s willingness to pay for public benefit. You go to the people to approve higher taxes if you wish to do more public benefit. If they say no, you don’t do more, and I hope every one of you that voted yes on that increase does a remodel or buys a new house knowing you’re paying over $3000 more than it really should have cost.

23.6 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 10.65 - PUBLIC GATHERING AND

EXPRESSION EVENTS
WHEREAS, Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 10.65 regulates Public Gathering and Expression Events; and
WHEREAS, under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the government may impose content-neutral, reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on public gathering and expression events; and
WHEREAS, content neutral time, place, and manner regulations will generally be found to be permissible if the following four criteria are satisfied: (1) the government interest in adopting the regulation is substantial; (2) the regulation is narrowly tailored to meet that government interest; (3) the regulation leaves open ample alternatives for communication; and (4) the regulation does not confer “unbridled discretion” on the permitting official; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s office, in collaboration with the Parks & Recreation Department which administers permits under Chapter 10.65, has reviewed Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 10.65 and recommends limited changes, in order to clarify and more closely align the City’s regulations with established legal precedent; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:

Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 10.65 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“10.65.010 TITLE.

This chapter shall be known as the city of Santa Cruz public gathering and expression events ordinance.

10.65.020 PURPOSE AND INTENT.

This chapter establishes the standards for the issuance of a permit for public gathering and expression events on public property in the city of Santa Cruz. Its purpose is to promote public safety and welfare, to provide the city with a minimum amount of time to logistically accommodate public gathering and expression events, to assure that the First Amendment rights of those who wish to peacefully participate in public gathering and expression events on city of Santa Cruz public property are preserved and protected, and to assure reasonable access to public property by other community members not involved in the event.

24.1 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05
2 10.65.030 VIOLATIONS.
(a) It shall be an infraction for any person to conduct a public gathering and expression event, as defined in Section 10.65.050, unless a permit required under this chapter has been issued for the event.
(b) It shall be an infraction for any person to participate in a public gathering and expression event, as defined in Section 10.65.050, with the knowledge that a permit has not been issued for the event.
(c) It shall be an infraction for a public gathering and expression event permittee to willfully violate the terms and conditions of the event’s permit, or for any event participant to knowingly and willfully violate the terms or conditions of the permit. (d) It shall be an infraction for any person to hamper, interfere with, obstruct or impede any public gathering and expression event which has been permitted under this chapter. (e) When the public gathering and expression event permitted is a march on sidewalks, it shall be an infraction to knowingly drive any vehicle, including bicycles and skateboards, between the persons participating in the march unless it is done at the direction of a police officer, or an authorized security person or monitor.
(f) It shall be a misdemeanor for a public gathering and expression event participant to fail or refuse to comply with a revocation order made pursuant to Section 10.65.240, 10.65.270, or

10.65.280.
(g) Any violation of this Chapter, in addition to the penalties set forth in this section, is hereby declared a public nuisance and may be abated by any method authorized under Title 4 of this Code including, but not limited to, by civil injunction in accordance with Section 4.04.020.

10.65.040 DEFINITIONS.

As used in this chapter, the following terms and phrases shall have the following definitions:
(a) “Applicant” or “organizer” shall mean any person who, or organization which, seeks a public gathering and expression event permit to conduct, hold, plan, promote, produce, or sponsor an event governed by this chapter.
(b) “Public gathering and expression” means and denotes any political, civic, religious or other public activity intended primarily for the communication of ideas.. (c) “Permittee” shall mean any person or organization issued a public gathering and expression event permit.

24.2 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05
3 (d) “Sponsor” shall mean any person who, or organization which, furnishes some or all of the costs associated with a public gathering and expression event. An event sponsored or cosponsored by the city is not exempt from the provisions of this chapter. (e) “Permit officer” shall refer to the city employee designated by the director of parks and recreation.
(f) “Permit” shall refer to a public gathering and expression event permit. (g) “Event” shall refer to a public gathering and expression event. (h) “Director” shall refer to the director of parks and recreation, unless specified otherwise. (i) “Commission” shall refer to the parks and recreation commission. (j) “Secretary” shall refer to the secretary of the parks and recreation commission.

10.65.050 PUBLIC GATHERING AND EXPRESSION EVENT.
(a) Permits are generally not required for public gathering and expression events, except a permit issued pursuant to this chapter is required for public gathering and expression events that:
(1) are scheduled to take place on public property; on a city sidewalk, alley or other rightof-way; within a city park, city beach, or other City-owned open space; and/or at a city facility;
(2) will last for more than an hour in duration; and
(3) meet at least one of the following criteria below. The event:

A) Is likely to obstruct, delay or interfere with the normal flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic; and/or
B) Due to the crowd it generates, restricts access to or use of sidewalks, parks, beaches or other public areas; and/or
C) Will result in the placement of structures or objects on streets, sidewalks, or other pedestrian walkways exceeding twelve square feet in size or six feet in height; and/or
D) Is conducted on a regularly scheduled basis at a single location for more than four consecutive days per week; and/or
E) Will have more than seventy-five participants; and/or F) Will require additional temporary toilet and sanitary facilities; and/or

24.3 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05
4 G) Will occupy areas that are marked as by reservation only in a city park, beach, or open space; and/or
(H) Will occupy or negatively impact sensitive habitats of a city park, beach, or open space; and/or
(I) Event organizers and attendees will occupy more than twenty-five percent of a usable area of a city park, beach, or open space.
(b) Displays and/or gatherings that are scheduled for longer than one day, which are scheduled overnight, or which require a street closure shall be governed by Chapter 10.64. (c) Rallies and/or marches to be conducted on a city street rather than a city sidewalk require a street closure and are subject to the conditions of Chapter 10.64. (d) Events of a commercial nature, including the advertisement or promotion of products, goods, or services are subject to the conditions of Chapter 10.64.

10.65.060 Repealed.

10.65.070 EXCEPTION FOR SPONTANEOUS EVENTS.

A permit is not required for spontaneous events which are occasioned by news or affairs coming into public knowledge less than forty-eight hours prior to such event may be conducted in the City Hall courtyard or at the Town Clock without the organizers first having to obtain a permit. If practicable, the organizers should give notice to the permit officer at least four hours prior to the event, informing the City of the date and time of the event and providing an estimate of the approximate number of persons who will be participating. Events which require advance planning such as recreation events, competition/contests/spectator sports, fairs, festivals, carnivals, ticketed events, sales/trade shows, recurring events, or events which require a permit from Building and Safety or the Fire Department for the placement of structures are not considered “spontaneous events” under this subsection.

10.65.080 APPLICATION.

Any person desiring to conduct an event for which a permit is required pursuant to this chapter shall apply for a permit by filing a verified application with the permit officer on a form as approved by the director, which may be updated from time to time to comply with this chapter, city policies, and applicable rules. All applications shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of this chapter at least three business days but not more than six months prior to the commencement date of the event. Applicable fees related to the event may be required in an amount established by the director consistent with the resolution and policy of the city council.

24.4 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05
5 10.65.090 LATE APPLICATION.

Upon a showing of good cause, the permit officer shall consider a late application if there is sufficient time to process and investigate the application and possible impact on city services for the event. The permit officer shall make the determination of good cause and, in doing so, shall resolve all doubts in favor of allowing application to be made.

10.65.100 CONTENTS OF APPLICATION.

The event permit application may require the following information in addition to other information deemed necessary in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare:
(a) Name, address, home, mobile phone and business telephone numbers of the applicant and the person who will be present and in charge of the event; (b) If the event is to be sponsored by an organization, the name, address and telephone number of the organization and representative of the organization. If requested by the permit officer, written authorization to apply for the permit by an officer of the organization may also be required;
(c) Nature or purpose of the event;
(d) Date and estimated starting and ending time of the event; (e) Location of the event, including its boundaries, and/or assembly and disbanding locations for walks/marches;
(f) Estimated number of participants in the event;
(g) Type and estimated number of vehicles or structures which will be used at the event and information as to whether there will be sponsor-provided water or emergency aid stations at the event;
(h) Description of any sound amplification equipment which will be used at the event; (i) Whether any food or beverages, including alcoholic beverages, will be sold at the event; (j) Whether monitors will be deployed at the event;
(k) Anticipated parking needed for participants, including accessible parking for disabled persons;
(l) Anticipated security and/or police requirements necessitated by the event; (m) Anticipated toilet and sanitary requirements necessitated by the event;

24.5 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05
6 (n) Anticipated road closures or barriers necessitated by the event; and (o) Additional information to comply with city rules, policies, and all other applicable local, state, and federal statutes and regulations.

10.65.110 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC GATHERING AND

EXPRESSION EVENTS OCCURRING ALONG A PLANNED ROUTE, AND/OR ENTAILING A MARCH OR A RALLY.

When the event is a rally and/or march on city sidewalks, the application shall contain the following information:
(a) The assembly point for the event and the time when participants will begin to assemble; (b) The proposed sidewalk route to be traveled;
(c) Material and maximum size of any signs or banners to be carried along the route; and (d) Anticipated number of adult monitors.

10.65.120 ACTION ON APPLICATION.

The city’s permit officer shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny an event permit application on the grounds specified in Section 10.65.190, and consistent with this chapter.

10.65.130 TIME FOR ACTION.

Action on the permit application shall be expeditious and in no case later than five business days after the permit officer receives a completed event application form. The maximum five business days action period may be extended by agreement between the applicant and the permit officer.

As used in this section the term “action” means approval, conditional approval, or denial of the permit.

10.65.140 CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

Prior to approving, conditionally approving or denying the permit application, the city’s permit officer shall consult with all city departments which may be impacted by the proposed event.

10.65.150 NOTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OR CONDITIONS.

If the permit officer decides to deny or conditionally approve the permit application, the permit officer shall inform the applicant in writing of the grounds for denial or the conditions of approval.

The permit officer shall further inform the applicant of his or her right to appeal. This information shall be provided at the time of the decision. If the permit officer relied on information about the event other than that contained in the application, the permit officer shall inform the applicant of the additional information considered.

24.6 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05
7 10.65.160 NOTICE OF INTENDED ACTION.

Prior to notifying the permit applicant of the action to be taken on the applicant’s permit, the permit officer shall advise the impacted departments or divisions or their designees, as necessary, of the intended action.

10.65.170 DENIAL OF LATE APPLICATION.

If the permit officer determines that good cause to consider a late application does not exist under Section 10.65.090, within two business days of receipt of the late application, the permit officer shall inform the applicant of the reason for the determination regarding lack of good cause and of the applicant’s right of appeal.

10.65.180 EXPEDITED ACTION ON APPLICATION.

The time limitations for action set forth in this chapter are not to be construed as absolute when time is of the essence. To that end, when it is apparent that the purpose of the demonstration would be frustrated if not conducted at or before a certain date and time, the permit officer, if possible, shall expedite the action required by this chapter so as to assure that the action is taken prior to the date and time of the proposed event.

10.65.190 GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC GATHERING AND EXPRESSION EVENT PERMIT.

An event permit application may be denied only if it is determined from a consideration of the application and other pertinent information that one or more of the following circumstances exist:
(a) The application was submitted less than three business days prior to the event date; (b) Information contained in the application is found to be materially false or misleading; (c) The applicant failed to complete the application form after having been notified of the need to do so;
(d) The permit officer has already received an application for another event at the same time and place as that requested by the applicant, or is so close in time or proximity as to cause undue traffic congestion, and/or the police department or any other city department to be unable to meet the needs for services at both with the normal complement of staff; (e) The time, route, or size of the event is likely to substantially interrupt the safe and orderly movement of traffic in the vicinity of the event site or route, or to disrupt the use of a street at a time when it is usually subject to traffic congestion; (f) The concentration of persons, vehicles and/or structures at the site of the event, or its assembly and disbanding areas, is reasonably likely to prevent proper police, fire, or ambulance service to areas in the vicinity of the event;

24.7 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05
8 (g) The event is reasonably likely to require diversion of so many city police officers to ensure that participants stay within the boundaries or route of the event, or to protect participants and spectators, that normal protection to the rest of the city will be unreasonably compromised. Nothing herein authorizes denial of a permit because of the need to protect participants from the conduct of others, if reasonable permit conditions can be imposed to allow for adequate protection of participants with the number of police officers normally assigned to the requested area;
(h) The location of the event is likely to substantially interfere with construction or maintenance work previously scheduled to take place upon or along city streets, or to interfere with the exercise of a previously granted encroachment permit;
(i) The event is likely to occur at a time when a school is in session and at a route or location in the vicinity of a school, and the noise created by the event will substantially disrupt the educational activities of the school;
(j) The event will occur on a route or location in the vicinity of a hospital or extended care facility and the noise created by the event will substantially disrupt the operation of the hospital or extended care facility or disturb the patients within; (k) Event participants did not comply with conditions imposed in connection with similar prior events; or
(l) The event will conflict with an event permitted under Chapter 10.64.

In determining whether or not the permit application should be granted or denied, the permit officer shall resolve all doubts in favor of granting the application.

10.65.200 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.

When the grounds for denial of an application for a permit can be obviated by altering the date, time, duration, route or location of the event, the permit officer, instead of denying the application, shall conditionally approve the application pursuant to Section 10.65.210. The city permit officer shall conditionally approve a permit application rather than deny the application whenever conditional approval is possible. If the event is a major public special event as defined by Chapter

10.64, the applicant will be required to apply for and obtain a permit under Chapter 10.64.

10.65.210 PERMIT CONDITIONS.

When necessary to protect the safety of persons or property, or to provide for adequate traffic control, or provide reasonable public access to or use of sidewalks, parks, beaches, or other public areas, the permit officer may condition the issuance of a permit by imposing reasonable requirements concerning the time, place, and manner of the event. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following:

24.8 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05
9 (a) Reasonable alteration of the date, time, duration, route or location of the event; (b) When the event is a march, conditions pertaining to:
1) The area of participant assembly and disbanding;
2) Conditions concerning accommodation of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, including restricting the event to the sidewalk or designated public area, or allowing for intermittent safe traffic flow through an event site;
(c) Requirements for provision of first aid, sanitary or emergency facilities; (d) Requirements for use of event monitors and method for providing notice of permit conditions to event participants;
(e) Restrictions on the number or type of structures;
(f) Requirements for use of garbage containers, cleanup and restoration of public property; (g) Reasonable restrictions on the use of amplified sound necessary to achieve compliance with SCMC 9.40 and SCMC 9.36;
(h) Compliance with any other applicable ordinances or laws; (i) Restrictions on the service or sale of alcoholic beverages and any other edible or nonedible goods;
(j) Requirements for security personnel to be present when deemed necessary; and (k) Requirement for the applicant to provide advance written notification to those residents residing along the event route or within the immediate vicinity of the event, including notification of parking restrictions necessitated by the event.

10.65.220 PERMIT ISSUANCE.

The event permit shall be issued when:
(a) The application has been approved;
(b) The applicant has agreed in writing to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit; and
(c) All other applicable requirements of this chapter have been satisfied.

The permit is not assignable or transferable. The permit does not entitle the permittee to any vested property rights.

24.9 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05
10 10.65.230 APPEAL PROCEDURE.
(a) To the Parks and Recreation Commission. Any applicant may appeal any decision or action taken pursuant to the authority of this chapter by the permit officer to the commission according to the following rules and regulations:
1) A written notice of appeal, together with the appropriate appeal fee as set by city council resolution, must be received by the secretary of the commission not later than ten calendar days following the date of the decision or action from which such appeal is being taken. If the final day for filing an appeal occurs on a weekend day or holiday, the final filing date shall be extended to the next following business day. 2) The appellant shall state the basis for the appeal and shall specifically cite the provision of this chapter which is relied upon to appeal the action or decision of the permit officer. The appeal must be signed by the appellant or appellant’s legal representative, and must set forth the mailing address to which the secretary of the commission may direct the notice of a hearing.
3) Upon receipt of the appeal the secretary of the commission shall schedule the matter for a public hearing at the next regularly scheduled business meeting, but not sooner than ten business days after receipt.
4) Notice of the public hearing shall be sent by first class mail to the permit applicant and appellant at least ten calendar days prior to the hearing. All notices shall include:
i. The time, place and date of the public hearing;
ii. A brief description of the matter to be considered including a concise description of the event in question, its location and public impacts being proposed;
iii. A brief description of the general procedure for submission of comments; iv. The date of the filing of the permit application and the name of the applicant. 5) The commission shall consider the appeal de novo at a hearing. The appellant shall bear the burden of proof to establish the basis for seeking a reversal of the action or decision by the permit officer.
6) The commission shall make findings of fact on which it bases its action. The commission may grant the appeal, including requiring conditions, mitigations, or modifications to the permit, or deny the appeal; or issue other appropriate decision or relief.
7) The decision of the commission shall be final unless appealed to the city council by the permit applicant or permittee under Chapter 1.16.

24.10 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05
11 (b) To City Council. An applicant or permittee may appeal any decision or action taken pursuant to the authority of this chapter by the commission to the city council pursuant to Chapter

1.16. Members of the city council shall be exempt from the appeal fee specified in Chapter

1.16 when acting in their official capacity. The city council’s decision shall be final. (c) To City Manager. If there is insufficient time for a timely appeal to be heard by the parks and recreation commission or city council prior to the date on which the event is scheduled, the applicant may, at the applicant’s option, request that the city clerk schedule the appeal before the city manager. The city manager or designee shall hold a hearing no later than two business days prior to the time the event is scheduled to commence and will render a decision as soon as practicable and in no case later than the time the event is scheduled to commence.

The city manager’s decision shall be final.

The time limitations set forth in this section are not to be construed as absolute when time is of the essence. To that end, when it is apparent that the purpose of the event would be frustrated if not conducted at a certain date and time, the director or city manager, if possible, shall expedite the appellate process so as to assure a ruling on the appeal prior to the date and time of the proposed event.

10.65.240 REVOCATION BY PERMIT OFFICER.

The permit officer may revoke a permit at any time if:
(a) An emergency arises making it impossible to assign sufficient or appropriate personnel to the event so as to assure public safety; or
(b) Information is obtained after the permit is issued from which it may be reasonably concluded that the permit should have been denied under Section 10.65.190.

10.65.250 REASONS FOR REVOCATION STATED.

If the permit officer revokes a permit the applicant shall be informed in writing of the grounds for revocation.

10.65.260 APPEAL OF PERMIT REVOCATION.

The applicant may appeal a revocation in the manner provided for in Section 10.65.230 in all cases except where the revocation is based on an emergency and there is insufficient time available to present or schedule an appeal.

10.65.270 REVOCATION DURING PUBLIC GATHERING AND EXPRESSION EVENT.

A police officer or city staff may revoke the event permit during the event if he or she finds either:
(a) That the event has deviated from or will deviate from its approved route or area; or

24.11 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05
12 (b) Event participants are violating the law or permit conditions. City staff shall not revoke the permit for either of these reasons unless the city staff first advises the participants of their route deviation, law violation or permit condition violation and provides them with an opportunity to correct same.

10.65.280 EMERGENCY REVOCATION.

A police officer or city staff may revoke an event permit during the event if fire or another emergency requires the event to be terminated to assure public safety. When a permit is revoked for this reason, all event participants must immediately comply with the city staff instructions.

10.65.290 DOUBTS RESOLVED AGAINST REVOCATION.

In determining whether or not a permit should be revoked, all doubts shall be resolved in favor of allowing the event to proceed.

10.65.300 COMPATIBILITY WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW AND CONSTITUTIONS.

It is the intention of the city council and the people of the city of Santa Cruz that this chapter shall be interpreted in a manner compatible with the State of California Constitution and the United States Constitution and the statutory and decisional law of the state of California and the United States.

10.65.310 SEVERABILITY.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The city council hereby declares that it would have passed this chapter and every section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases might be declared unconstitutional or invalid.”

24.12 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05
13 PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 12th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Kalantari-Johnson, Golder, Cummings, Meyers; Vice Mayor Watkins; Mayor Brunner.

NOES: Councilmember Brown.

ABSENT: None.

DISQUALIFIED: None.

APPROVED: ______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this _____ day of _______, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
This is to certify that the above and
foregoing document is the original
of Ordinance No. 2022-05 and that
it has been published or posted in
accordance with the Charter of the
City of Santa Cruz.
________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

24.13 Proof of Publication
(2015 C.C.P.)
I, the undersigned, declare:

April 20, 2022
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

This 20th day of April, 2022, Santa Cruz, California
____________________________
Julia Wood
Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Julia Wood

24.14 DECLARATION OF POSTING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ )
On the 18th day of April, 2022, I posted conspicuously in three public places within the City of Santa Cruz, Ordinance No. 2022-05, to wit:

1. City Hall: 809 Center Street: Bulletin Board outside Room 9/10

2. City Hall: Bulletin Board outside Council Chambers

3. The City of Santa Cruz website
The document, posted in its entirety, consists of pages 1—13 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 18th day of April, 2022, in Santa Cruz, California.
_______________________________
Julia Wood
Deputy City Clerk Administrator
Julia Wood

24.15 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Sherry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 5:13 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Next Meeting
Dear Council Members,
I implore you to reconsider and vote against allowing FNB to remain for any amount of days at the Clock Tower. You are not aware of what it has done to our community. We have been yelled at, repeatedly asked for money when trying to walk by, made to walk in the street because people there would not move their legs, etc. The after flow of people eating there has caused so many problems at our residences which is 2030 N Pacific Ave. We have a huge uptick of people sleeping on our porches, stairs and under our awnings, smoking and leaving drug paraphernalia behind. Clothes, backpacks, bike wheels, orange peels, egg shells are just a few of the items we find daily left on the property. As Neighborhood Watch organizer, I have seen a huge upswing of problems since FNB has returned to the area.

It's a huge blemish to the neighborhood. Clock Tower is the entrance to our city and downtown. No wonder store after store has shut down. I am disabled and frightened to walk by the Clock Tower between 11 AM and 4 PM daily. What a shame I can't enjoy an important reason I bought a block away.

Bottom line - find someplace else for McHenry and his minions to ruin and give us back our Clock Tower and neighborhood. I'm all for people being fed - but indoors, in a clean environment with bathroom facilities, with the ability to wash their hands and sit at a table instead of on the ground as they do now.

Respectfully,
Sherry Halperin

24.16 Letter to City Council 4/18/2022
Dear City Council Members,
Regarding Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 10.65 ordinance regulating Public Gathering and Expression Events passed at a Zoom City Council meeting on April 14, 2022, I urge you to stop any legislation that interferes with public protest and the right to provide meals for the hungry.

It is a season where we are reminded that the law of love is higher than any other codes that humans create. Freedom to gather and express ourselves is part of the First Amendment. Feeding those who are hungry is called for by the higher code of love and human decency. If basic kindness becomes outlawed, what kind of city/world are you creating? Certainly one I won't want to live in.

How fortunate we are that we have an organization called "Food not Bombs" that is caring for those in need and dependent on that service for basic needs to be met -- without it more health problems, unrest, potential theft, uglier downtown, etc. could become your problems.

How dare ordinances be made that jeopardize that public gathering and dependable services for those needing to eat! I'd prefer if you would cooperate and go out of your way to support such organizations that are not only doing the right thing but saving you and the town from bigger problems if their services were to be prohibited.

Sincerely,
Esther Frances

24.17 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Joy Binah <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 9:05 AM
To: City Council
Subject: ordinance 10.65
I support Food not Bombs serving the marginalized population of Santa Cruz at the town clock. The city should be assisting this effort, not thwarting it!
Joy Binah
"May all be fed, may all be healed, and may all be loved."

24.18 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Janet Fardette <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 4:57 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Matt Huffaker
Subject: FOOD NOT BOMBS
April 19, 2022
To THE POWERS THAT BE,
I have written so many emails over many, many months about how the “organization”
FOOD NOT BOMBS has effected our neighborhood community. I am exhausted and I
bet you are, too. That is, from getting and reading mine and my neighbor’s many, many
emails.

Please don’t let FNB continue to make our
once lovely neighborhood a sanctuary for
dysfunctional behaviors. Most of the clients served are homeless for many different
reasons. They are desperate and needy. Our neighborhood pays the price. Once an
upscale and lovely place to live, right at the entrance to downtown, it is fast becoming
a very difficult community to feel safe in.

Recently a heavy rock band played an amplified series
of angry songs from the back

24.19 2
parking lot of a business on Bulkhead. Never before
have we been assaulted by music
from there. It was a nightmare for two plus hours. The police were distracted with a horrific
accident to deal with. This behavior I am willing to bet, was attempted as they see how
an “organization" in our neighborhood gets away with never following rules. FNB has received
many cease and desist notifications to no avail. Anarchists do NOT follow rules. They break them.

The band was not adhering to the rules set up in their permit to entertain. Why should they?
FNB was the “seed” planted to operate this way and so it is now spreading in our neighborhood.

I want to encourage you to STOP enabling FNB and start supporting our community which
follows rules and pays taxes and chooses to support justice. Do NOT be blinded by the way
FNB uses homeless people to cover their real agenda: anarchy.

Use your POWER to keep us all safe. Have consequences for rule breaking and enforce
them. Enabling helps no one.

Sincerely,
Janet Fardette
2030 North Pacific Ave.

Santa Cruz, CA

24.20 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Helen M Shepherd <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:05 AM
To: City Council
Subject: FNB. February 26 2022 3:36 pm
Please do not allow the FNB to continue to use the Town Clock area not even for 1 day.. It’s not a good location
Helen Shepherd
2030 N. Pacific Avenue resident.

I have been documenting the mess that has to be cleaned up. Not very appealing for tourists, is it?

24.21 24.22
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Janet Fardette <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 7:36 AM
To: Terry Maushardt; City Council
Subject: Re: The Rush Inn
Yo Terry,
This email has got to be sent to the CITY COUNCIL, the City Manager and everyone in this complex,
for sure. I totally agree with EVERYTHING you’ve just said. So smart and well written, too. THANK
YOU! The Writers of the World will persevere….
[email protected]
[email protected]
PLEASE send it on to these two email addresses, at the very least.

The four consecutive days of FNB at the Clock Tower will be voted on again at the next City Council
Meeting. There’s still a chance we can get them to change it back to two. Although I don’t believe
we could be so lucky. I’ve become so cynical.

Glad you weren’t her to HEAR the BANDFROMHELL playing heavy metal rock and roll at a
way too high intensity. Shook up the entire complex for several hours. Couldn’t get the Police here
because there was an accident up on Mission involving a bicyclist. All were there. Well, about
2 plus hours later…it stopped. Not without some speaking to a rude and angry person at THE

24.23 2
RUSH INN. I will send you a video/audio I made to your cell, if you send me your number.

Anyway, I did speak with Officer Carter Jones yesterday afternoon. He said it was a classic “bait
and switch.” He’d given them permission but, they obviously didn’t comply to the rules. SO…
they will get no more permits for a year now. They need one for every performance. He gave me
his text number so I can keep an eye on the place and call him anytime they step out of bounds.

That is solved…hopefully.

If you want a “taste” of the noise…send me your cell number.

I mentioned FNB and we both laughed. A laugh of WHEN WILL THIS EVER END. He “gets it.” A wonderful officer. Helped keep them out of there before for several months. It’s all about the
codes and policies and the poorly written ones having
to slowly be changed. In the meantime, we
suffer. Please send on this great write to the POWERS
THAT BE as they will be voting on the
4 versus 2 consecutive days at the next City Council
Meeting again. To enforce whatever they
come up with four days after the vote is taken. We
need your powerful message.

I am working on my message later today. Off to the
dentist this morning. = (
Stay well….and dry.

OOXOXOXXO
Janet

24.24 3
On Apr 18, 2022, at 6:46 PM, TERRY ROBBINS MAUSHARDT <[email protected]> wrote:

This must have been a doozy. I went to dinner and then up to the university for an event so I missed it. Basically, North Pacific is becoming the old South Pacific (Metro area) below Cathcart. The town clock is the new version of the slum activity at Laurel & Front. The Rush Inn can become the new (nasty) Asti combined with some of the elements of the Blue Lagoon. The transients and shopping carts are increasing every day and becoming a regular feature of the neighborhood. They no longer just pass through. They park their shopping carts on the sidewalk, sit or lie down and hang out.

The south end of Pacific is being cleaned and rebuilt as part of a new upscale living, entertainment & tourist center. This, coupled with the complete debacle of our once beautiful downtown open space (San Lorenzo Park & River Walk) is a level of incompetence or corruption of epic proportions. Was there anything about what happened with Camp Ross to make anyone think bringing hordes of the most dysfunctional population into the city center was a good idea. It has been one terrible decision after another. The only reason the town clock is still not a filthy encampment is because we have been standing against it. It is exhausting and it is affecting my physical and mental health. I am over it and want to find a way to force city officials to recognize the damage resulting from their lack of focus regarding a commitment to a healthy, safe downtown neighborhood.

I have been watching this unfold for 4 yrs and accurately predicting what’s next.

Pardon the expression but we are screwed, Nowhere else in the city or county would this be remotely tolerated.

Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2022, at 12:26 PM, Janet Fardette <[email protected]> wrote:

April 18, 2022
To: Marvin and Dave,
I was just in your office talking with Marvin about the incredibly LOUD noise created by
your tenants at THE RUSH INN on Saturday early
evening. I went online to discover
where one gets entertainment permits and read
through their requirements. It is the
Police Department, b.t.w.. One of the last things
required on the application is the signature

24.25 4
of the OWNER of the property that the entertaining
will happen on. YOU must have
signed that, no? You being the owner of the property
and all??
If so then you do bare some responsibility to that
incident. Not asking you to end the
relationship with the bar. Am asking you to please ask
them to not do this again. I
was told that one of the things they told our neighbors was that we needed to brace
up because they planned to do more of this
entertainment in the future. That was the
reason we were more than upset. It was one thing to
have them do it once but, to
threaten to do it again is beyond the relationship any
GOOD NEIGHBOR should have
with their neighbors. Together we stand. I am, of
course, assuming you own the
property they performed on. If not,
who?
Spent time filing a complaint about the bar’s noise to
the police and just now sent that
in to the SCPD. Appreciate anything you can do to
help heal our relationship with the
bar. I would also appreciate it if you sent me the cell number for the owner of the bar.

I would like to request that they refrain from doing
that again. One neighbor had a dinner
party and the noise ruined it for them all. It was so
disarming hearing that angry music.

24.26 5
They may be angry and are expressing it but, their
anger is not with us. Maybe a concert
on Knight Street directed toward the feedings by FNB
next time? If only that was all it
takes.

Thanks for listening and helping us with our mutual
problem. As one part of our community
suffers and it spreads, we are all suffering.

Janet Fradette
831-427-0768
2030 North Pacific Ave.
#330
Santa Cruz, CA
95060

24.27 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 2:09 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Food Not Bombs
Dear City Council,
I support the right to protest and share meals with the hungry. I support the efforts Food Not Bombs is doing to feed the hungry, and so should you.

Thank you for your attention on this matter.

Laura Sutherland

24.28 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Julie Schaul <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 9:04 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Tristia Bauman; Robert Norse; Patricia Colby; Graham Pruss; Wes White; Francis Guzman; Lili Graham; Janie Frank; Alicia Kuhl; [email protected] Subject: I support the right to protest and share meals I support the right to protest and share meals

24.29 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 2:11 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 4.26.22 Agenda Item #24 Public Gathering reading #2

4.26.22 Agenda Item #24 Public Gathering reading
Dear Council,
For the record, although this is better than the last gathering ordinance, it is still flawed.

First ,I gather from reading it spontaneous gatherings of over 75 people are restricted to two places, the clock tower and city hall.

I would remind there are plenty of large spaces people may assemble without disturbing others to engage in free speech.

The people don't then need your permission or stinking permits to assemble or speak freely according to the Constitution.

Secondly, as far as the clock tower goes, if you grant Food Not Bombs a permit for public expression, aren't you then removing one of your prescribed places for spontaneous free speech?? I would say if you insist on this overly restrictive ordinance, leave it for occasional spontaneous expression and general occasional public expression use by the public (yes, New Years celebration qualifies for that in my mind).

In other words, no way grant Food Not Bombs a permit to operate there. It's not the feeding the homeless I object to. It is that they are defiant homeless activists who routinely choose the most publicly grandstand-able places to do their activism.

They have done immeasurable harm attracting homeless to this city in my opinion.

They are are not exactly a non-profit any more if they ever were, who knows where the money goes. They are part of the homeless industrial complex, but an unaccountable piece.

Garrett Philipp - Westside

24.30 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Carol Denney <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 9:32 AM
To: City Council
Subject: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!] SCMC Chapter 10.65 Attachments: Santa Cruz City Council restrictionsFNB.docx April 22, 2022

Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831‐420‐5020
[email protected]

Dear Santa Cruz City Council,

I am amazed that the council seems focused on making it harder, not easier, for people to share together and help each other whether the focus is food, poetry, music or emergency supplies. California has the worst poverty rate of all states, running at about 15% of the population.

The Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 10.65 ordinance regulating "Public Gathering and Expression Events" passed on April 14, 2022, is an embarrassment to sensible, public‐serving legislation. They appear to be clearly targeted at specific events or groups, which is a definition of bad law.

Please sit down with any groups you feel are honestly presenting an issue and work out your differences. I know that people of good faith are capable of this, and that our government and police resources are better focused on other things.

Sincerely,

24.31 2
Carol Denney
1970 San Pablo Avenue #4
Berkeley, CA 94702
510‐548‐1512

24.32 CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 22, 2022
AGENDA OF:

DEPARTMENT:

April 26, 2022
Planning & Community Development
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges, 2931 Mission Street (Application No. CP21-0059) Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 003-011-06 and 003-011-10 - Lot Line Adjustment, Planned Development Permit, Design Permit, and Coastal Permit to Transfer 4,054 Square Feet of Land from APN 003-011-10 to APN 003-011-06, Remove Four Heritage Trees, and Construct a 100 Percent Affordable, 20 Unit SRO (Single Room Occupancy) Project with a Variation to Allowed Uses to Allow an SRO Use and Variations to Development Standards for Building Height, Side Yard Setback, and Number of Required Parking Spaces on a Vacant Lot in the R-L/CZ-O/SP-O/P-F (Multiple Residence - Low-Density/Coastal Zone Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay/Public Facilities) Zone District (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Resolution acknowledging the environmental determination and approving the Lot Line Adjustment, Planned Development Permit, Design Permit, Coastal Permit and heritage tree removal to construct a 20-unit Single Room Occupancy (SRO) development based on the findings contained in the attached draft resolution and the Conditions of Approval.

BACKGROUND: The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz proposes to construct a three story, 10,519 square foot building with 20 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) residential units that will be 100 percent affordable to tenants at a very low income level on a property located within the R-L/CZ-O/SP-O/P-F (Multiple Residence - Low-Density/Coastal Zone Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay/Public Facilities) zone. If approved, the applicant anticipates obtaining a building permit in the fall of this year, completing construction in February 2024, and moving tenants into the building in March 2024.

The project requires approval of the following permits:
 Lot Line Adjustment to transfer 4,054 square feet from the adjacent parcel with APN 003- 011-10, currently a portion of a Toadal Fitness gym parking lot, to the subject property (Municipal Code Section 23.12.030.1.b);
 Planned Development Permit to allow variations to permitted zone district uses for the SRO use and to allow variations to development standards including building height, property line setback, and the number of required parking spaces (24.08.720);

25.1  Design Permit to construct a building with three or more dwelling units, and as required in conjunction with a Planned Development Permit (24.08.410.1 and 24.08.410.12);  Coastal Permit to construct a new residential building in the appealable area of the Coastal Zone (24.08.200 et seq.); and
 Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove four heritage trees (9.56.060).

Community Meeting
The project is a medium sized development project requiring community outreach under the Department of Planning & Community Development Community Outreach Policy for Planning Projects. The project applicant hosted a virtual community meeting on June 28, 2021 after preapplication review by City staff and prior to formal application submittal. The meeting was duly noticed via on-site posting as well as postcard mailings to properties within a 500-foot radius of the project parcel. In addition to applicant and City staff representatives, eight individuals from the community attended the meeting. Five attendees provided feedback, and they all expressed support for the project with regard to building design, reduced parking, affordable housing at this location, and the site’s location next to the future rail trail.

Planning Commission Review
On March 17, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject application. The Planning Commission staff report is attached and includes a thorough analysis of the project and its compliance with applicable codes. The Planning Commission received no written comments on the project, and with exception of the project representatives, no members of the public spoke at the public hearing. All commissioners expressed support for the project and raised no concerns. The Planning Commission voted unanimously 6-0-1 (one commissioner recused), to recommend approval of the project with a modified condition of approval regarding the placement of electrical transformer boxes as requested by the applicant and recommended by staff. The proposed conditions are attached.

DISCUSSION:

General Plan Consistency
The majority of the project area has a general plan land use designation of Low-Medium Density Residential, which accommodates a range of residential uses including single family dwellings, apartments, condominiums, and townhomes. The proposed SRO development is consistent with the range of uses contemplated in this land use designation. The small portion of the site being acquired from the adjacent Toadal Fitness gym parcel has a general plan land use designation of Community Facilities, which accommodates community uses such as government buildings, schools, community centers, and utilities. The site was designated for Community Facilities in 1994 in order to accommodate school district offices. The school district has since moved on to a different location, and the purpose for which the land use designation change was made therefore no longer exists. The site now has a Toadal Fitness gym, and the portion of the parcel to be transferred to the SRO project site currently serves as excess parking for the gym. This piece of land will continue to be used for parking, although the spaces will serve the SRO use and not the Toadal Fitness gym use. Given these circumstances and the additional analysis noted below, the entire project site can be considered consistent with the intent of the general plan land use designations.

The proposal is consistent with the general plan’s Neighborhood Integrity and Housing guiding principle, which calls for the City to pursue affordable housing while promoting livability and a high quality in building design. The project is also consistent with several general plan policies

25.2 that promote affordable housing, infill development, and collaboration with nonprofit organizations. These policies include:
 LU3.1.1 Encourage through incentives and expedited permit processing a variety of housing types, when appropriate.
 LU3.8 Allow [SRO] residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter: Cf.

LU1.3 and 3.7.1.
 Housing Element Policy 2.2 Facilitate the development of affordable housing through the provision of regulatory concessions, financial incentives and assistance, density bonuses, and other means.
 Housing Element Policy 2.3 Collaborate with nonprofit organizations, private developers, employers, special needs groups, state and federal agencies, and other interested parties to develop affordable housing.
 Housing Element Policy 2.7 Encourage more fully integrated neighborhoods through the development of mixed income and affordable infill housing and through the placement of other affordable housing projects in neighborhoods that do not already have high levels of low income housing.
 Housing Element Policy 4.8 Support the development of a variety of housing types, specifically smaller units and single-room occupancy units that address the needs of extremely low income households.
 Housing Element Policy 5.3 Ensure that the character and design of both infill development and remodel/rehabilitation projects promote the vitality of existing neighborhoods.  LU1.1 Relate residential, commercial, and industrial land use intensities to the capability and location of the land while ensuring optimum utilization of infill parcels.  CC2.1.3 Facilitate efforts of private and nonprofit public service and facility providers.

Planned Development Permit
The Planned Development Permit provides an approval pathway for a project that is not fully consistent with zone district use and development standards but that overall implements the goals and policies of the general plan to a greater extent than would be possible with a fully conforming project. This project is requesting a variation to permitted zone district uses to allow the SRO use in the RL zone district and associated parking in the PF zone district. The project is also requesting variations to development standards to allow six feet of additional building height for a 36-foot tall building, a reduction in the northern side yard setback from the required 12 feet to seven feet two inches, and a reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 20 spaces to 12. These variations will provide for more units and create units that are more spacious and livable than would be permitted under standard zoning requirements.

In exchange for these variations, the project is offering as a community benefit to restrict all units for rent at an affordable level to very low income households at 50 percent area median income (AMI). The City’s inclusionary housing regulations require 20 percent of the units in an SRO project, or four units in this case, to be restricted for rent to very low income households. The proposal exceeds this requirement, creating a benefit that more fully implements the numerous general plan policies listed above than would be possible with a project that simply met the minimum standard.

The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) set forth by the State of California and Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) requires the City to provide enough land zoned for residential uses to allow the potential of 180 very low income units to be developed

25.3 between 2015 and 2023. While the city has zoned enough land to accommodate these units, 57 very low income units have obtained building permits during the 2015-2023 cycle thus far. Several additional housing developments have the potential for obtaining building permits by the end of 2023 that would create at least 339 additional very low income units, making it likely the City will reach its RHNA goal for this income level. Approval of this 20-unit SRO project will contribute to the City’s efforts to meet the RHNA goal.

Regarding the Potential for ADU’s
Like all multi-family property in the state, this project is entitled to create ADUs in addition to the units proposed as a ministerial action. Up to 25% of the total number of units (for this project, a total of five) can potentially be created by converting non-livable space, and up to two New Construction ADUs also could potentially be built – either attached to or detached from the proposed structure.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): HiAP is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. HiAP is based on three pillars: equity, public health, and sustainability. The goal of HiAP is to ensure that all decision-makers are informed about the health, equity, and sustainability impacts of various policy options during the policy development process. The project supports the pillar of equity by providing rental units affordable to those with very low income levels. The development is on a site that is improved with sidewalks and street trees and that is in close proximity to public transportation, commercial goods and services, and recreational areas. The development of residences in this central location and adjacent to the potential future rail trail along the adjacent railway line encourages a sustainable and healthy lifestyle by promoting alternative forms of transportation. Therefore, the project is consistent with the three pillars of the HiAP and is an efficient use of the land.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 allows a lead agency to avoid repeating analyses that were already provided in a certified general plan EIR for a development project that is consistent with the general plan. Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and its parallel CEQA Guidelines provision, section 15183, provide for streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with the general plan for which an EIR was certified.

Subsection (d) further indicates that an effect of a project upon the environment shall not be considered “peculiar to the parcel or to the project…if uniformly applied development policies or standards” have been previously adopted by the city or county, with a finding based upon substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards would not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. Under these provisions of CEQA, the project is consistent with the general plan, its certified EIR, and uniformly applied standards in the Santa Cruz Municipal Code and is therefore exempt from further CEQA analyses.

FISCAL IMPACT: As a 100 percent affordable housing project, the development will likely be exempt from paying property taxes. As is the case for all residential projects, there will be a cost of providing services (library, police, fire, etc.). The project will also generate plan check and building permit fees to the City, as well as payment of traffic impact fees and the fair share payment of future off-site improvements. The applicant has submitted a fee waiver application, which, if approved, would result in the reduction of some of these fees. The fee waiver application will be heard at a subsequent City Council meeting once the two-week Coastal

25.4 Commission appeal period has passed, or after a Coastal Commission hearing in the event of an appeal.

Prepared by:

Clara Stanger
Senior Planner
Submitted by:

Lee Butler
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Approved by:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Draft Resolution with Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval Project Plans
Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022
Planning Commission Action Summary from March 17, 2022

25.5 RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

ACKNOWLEDGING THE CEQA DETERMINATION AND APPROVING A LOT LINE

ADJUSTMENT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, DESIGN PERMIT, AND COASTAL PERMIT TO TRANSFER 4,054 SQUARE FEET OF LAND FROM APN 003-011-10 TO APN 003-011-06, REMOVE FOUR HERITAGE TREES, AND CONSTRUCT A 100 PERCENT AFFORDABLE, 20 UNIT SRO (SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY) PROJECT WITH A

VARIATION TO ALLOWED USES TO ALLOW AN SRO USE AND VARIATIONS TO

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES ON A VACANT LOT IN THE R-L/CZ-O/SPO/P-F (MULTIPLE RESIDENCE - LOW-DENSITY/COASTAL ZONE

OVERLAY/SHORELINE PROTECTION OVERLAY/PUBLIC FACILITIES) ZONE DISTRICT (APPLICATION NO. CP21-0059)
WHEREAS, On July 20, 2021, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz submitted an application for the property at 415 Natural Bridges Drive for a Lot Line adjustment, Planned Development Permit, Design Permit, and Coastal Permit to transfer 4,054 square feet of land from APN 003-011-10 to APN 003-011-06, remove four heritage trees, and construct a 100 percent affordable, 20 unit SRO (Single Room Occupancy) project with a variation to allowed uses to allow an SRO use and associated parking and variations to development standards for building height, side yard setback, and number of required parking spaces on a vacant lot in the R-L/CZ-O/SP-O/PF (Multiple Residence - Low-Density/Coastal Zone Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay/Public Facilities) zone district; and WHEREAS, the project site and its development is governed by the standards and guidelines contained in Municipal Code Title 23, the Subdivision Ordinance; Municipal Code Title 24, the Zoning Ordinance; Municipal Code Chapter 9.56 pertaining to Preservation of Heritage Trees and Shrubs; and the City of Santa Cruz General Plan/LCP; and WHEREAS, the project requires no further review under CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code CEQA Section 21083.3 and the analysis conducted pursuant to that section; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 17, 2022 and, after hearing public testimony, voted 6-0-1 (one commissioner recusal) to acknowledge the environmental determination and recommend approval of the Lot Line Adjustment, Planned Development Permit, Design Permit, and Coastal Permit with the modification of one condition pertaining to the placement of electrical transformer boxes; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on April 26, 2022 to consider the application; and

25.6 RESOLUTION NO. NS2
WHEREAS, the City Council now makes the following findings:

With Respect to the Environmental Determination

1. Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 allows a lead agency to avoid repeating analyses that were already provided in a certified general plan EIR for a development project that is consistent with the general plan. Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and its parallel CEQA Guidelines provision, section 15183, provide for streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with the general plan for which an EIR was certified. Subsection (d) further indicates that an effect of a project upon the environment shall not be considered “peculiar to the parcel or to the project…if uniformly applied development policies or standards” have been previously adopted by the city or county, with a finding based upon substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards would not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. Under these provisions of CEQA, the project is consistent with the general plan, its certified EIR, and uniformly applied standards in the Santa Cruz Municipal Code and is therefore exempt from further CEQA analyses.

Lot Line Adjustment, Section 23.12.030.1b

2. The lot line adjustment does not create a greater number of parcels than originally existed.

The lot line adjustment results in two parcels, which is the same number of parcels originally existing before the lot line adjustment.

3. The parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment conform to Title 24 of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code and to the California Building Codes.

The parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment conform to the zoning ordinance in terms of lot size, lot width, street frontage, and building setbacks from the relocated property line.

The lot line adjustment has been reviewed by the Building division and confirmed to meet California Building Codes.

Coastal Permit, Section 24.08.250

4. The hearing body must find that the development is consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and the Local Coastal Implementation Program; The project is consistent with several general plan policies that call for affordable housing (LU3.1.1, LU3.8, Housing Element Policy 2.2, Housing Element Policy 2.3, Housing Element Policy 2.7, Housing Element Policy 4.8 promote partnering with nonprofits (Housing Element Policy 2.3, CC2.1.3) and promote infill development (Housing Element Policy 2.7, Housing Element Policy 5.3, LU1.1).

25.7 RESOLUTION NO. NS3
The majority of the project area has a general plan land use designation of Low-Medium Density Residential, which accommodates a range of residential uses including single family dwellings, apartments, condominiums, and townhomes. The proposed SRO development fits within this range of uses. The small portion of the site being acquired from the adjacent Toadal Fitness gym site has a general plan land use designation of Community Facilities, which accommodates community uses such as government buildings, schools, community centers, and utilities. The site was designated as such in 1994 in order to accommodate school district offices. The school district has since moved on to a different location, and the purpose for which the land use designation change was made therefore no longer exists. The site was subsequently utilized for offices by the Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County. The current use is a Toadal Fitness gym, which was approved as it is similar in nature to a community recreational facility while not strictly falling within that category. In addition, the portion of the site to be transferred to the project site is currently a portion of the parking lot, and this piece of land will continue to be used for parking although for the SRO use and not for the Toadal Fitness gym use.

Finally, the Toadal Fitness site will have a resulting size of 120,515 square feet, which could comfortably accommodate a new Community Facilities use in the future should one be desired at that location. Therefore, the project site is consistent with the intent of the general plan land use designations.

The property is located in an area mapped as potentially sensitive for archaeological resources under the general plan. General plan policy HA1.2.2 requires a project within this mapped area to undergo an archaeological investigation that includes archival research and site reconnaissance. An archaeological report completed by Patricia Paramoure Archaeological Consulting on May 6, 2021 found a very low probability of encountering archaeological resources on the site. However, a standard condition of approval will require the applicant to stop work should soil-disturbing activities result in the discovery of an archaeological resource.

The project is consistent with LCP policies to protect heritage trees (CD 6.1.1 and CD

6.1.2), protect archaeological resources (CR 1.2.2), protect nearby streams and wetlands from erosion (EQ 3.1) and to utilize the environmental review process to ensure protection of other environmental resources (LU 1.4 and CR 1.2.2).

5. Maintain views between the sea and the first public roadway parallel to the sea; The site is located on the inland side of Delaware Avenue, which is the first public road parallel to the sea, and therefore will not obstruct any views between the road and the sea.

6. Protect vegetation, natural habitats and natural resources consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan;
The proposed development involves removal of four of the five heritage trees on site. The project will retain a 25 inch cedar tree, which is in the best condition of the existing trees.

Coastal policy CD 6.1.1 requires the city to review plans with respect to Heritage trees and provide technical assistance to owners. Consistent with this policy, the City Urban Forester

25.8 RESOLUTION NO. NS4
has reviewed the plans and concurs with the arborist report submitted for the project recommending removal of the four trees. Since the trees are located in the Coastal Zone, replacement trees are required at a two-to-one ratio per coastal policy CD6.1.2. A condition of approval requires replacement trees at a ratio of two 24-inch box trees or six 15 gallon trees per tree removed, or payment of a comparable in-lieu fee, to meet replacement requirements under the Heritage Tree Ordinance as well as under the Local Coastal Program. The project is not located within an area mapped as sensitive for habitats or other natural resource under the Local Coastal Land Use Plan. However, a condition of approval will require a nesting bird survey to be completed prior to heritage tree removal. The site is located approximately 400 feet to the east of Moore Creek and approximately the same distance northeast of Antonelli Pond. Coastal policy EQ 3.1 requires site design and erosion control measures in areas adjacent to stream and wetland areas. To comply with this policy, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s storm water and construction best management practice standards.

7. Be consistent with any applicable design plans and/or area plans incorporated into the Local Coastal Land Use Plan;
The site is not located within the focus area of any design or area plan; therefore, this finding does not apply.

8. Maintain public access to the coast along any coastline as set forth in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan;
The site is located over half a mile from the coastline, is inland of Delaware Avenue, and does not presently include any public access pathways to the coast; therefore, the proposed project will not affect existing public access to the coast. Further, the site is within walking distance of commercial goods, services, recreation and public transportation and the development will include one bicycle parking space per unit, therefore, the development will not impact public street parking in the vicinity of project site.

9. Be consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan goal of providing visitor-serving needs as appropriate;
The site is designated for residential development and not for development for visitorserving needs, and visitor-serving uses are not proposed; therefore, this finding does not apply.

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

The project site is not located in an area designated for coastal dependent industries, and the project does not propose a coastal dependent use; therefore, this finding does not apply.

25.9 RESOLUTION NO. NS5
Shoreline Protection Overlay District Review Criteria, Section 24.10.2430

11. Protect trees and vegetation and sensitive wildlife habitat.

The proposed development involves removal of four of the five heritage trees on site. The project will retain a 25 inch cedar tree, which is in the best condition of the existing trees.

A condition of approval will require replacement trees at a ratio of two 24-inch box trees or six 15 gallon trees per tree removed, or payment of a comparable in-lieu fee, to meet replacement requirements under the Heritage Tree Ordinance as well as under the Local Coastal Program. The site will cause some shading on the adjacent building to the north but will not shade the majority of the site and does not shade any residential use.

The site is not mapped under the general plan or LCP for sensitive vegetation or wildlife habitat. A condition of approval will require protections for nesting birds that may be affected by the removal of heritage trees.

12. Be consistent with the following criteria for bluff or cliff development:
a. The development is sited and designed to assure stability and structural integrity of its expected economic life span and minimize alterations to natural land forms.

The project site does not include any coastal bluffs or cliffs; therefore, this finding does not apply.
b. The development will not create or contribute significantly to problems of erosion or geologic instability on the site or on surrounding geologically hazardous areas.

The site is not located on a cliff or bluff; therefore, this finding does not apply. c. The development minimizes alteration of cliffs, bluff tops, faces or bases, and will not interfere with sand movement.

The project site is not located on a cliff, bluff top, face, or base, and is not located on the beach; therefore, this finding does not apply.
d. The development which proposes use of retaining walls shall be allowed only to stabilize slopes. Sea walls at the toe of sea cliffs to check marine erosion shall be allowed only where there is no less environmentally damaging alternative.

The proposed project does not include any retaining walls or sea walls; therefore, this finding does not apply.

25.10 RESOLUTION NO. NS6
e. The development within one hundred feet of any cliff or bluff line shall follow the recommendations of an approved geologic report by a registered geologist. The area where such a report is required may be increased where the issue of slope stability requires a greater distance from any cliff or bluff line.

The proposed improvements are not within 100 feet of a cliff or bluff; therefore, this finding does not apply.

13. Provide maximum erosion protection, using accepted engineering practices and other methods and specifications set forth in this title.

During construction, the project proposes and will be required to follow Best Management Practices with regard to erosion and storm water control.

14. Maintain public view corridors between the sea and the first public roadway parallel to the sea and maintain natural views of the coastline; The site is located inland from Delaware Avenue, the first public road parallel to the sea, and therefore will not obstruct any public views of the coastline.

15. Protect paleontological resources as prescribed in the Land Use Plan; A condition of approval requires the applicant to stop work and contact the proper authorities should any earth-disturbing work result in the discovery of a paleontological resource.

16. Protect and enhance free public access to or along the beach, and sign such access when necessary;
The site does not provide access to the beach, and is located inland from Delaware Avenue, the first road parallel to the beach; therefore, this finding does not apply.

17. Include mitigation measures prescribed in any applicable environmental document; The project is utilizing Public Resources Code section 21083.3. The project is consistent with all standard measures to protect environmental resources required under the general plan and zoning ordinance.

18. Be compatible with the established physical scale of the area; The three story, 10,519 square foot building is compatible with the physical scale of the area, which includes large, mostly two story industrial and commercial buildings.

25.11 RESOLUTION NO. NS7

19. Be consistent with the design review guidelines of this title and the policies of any applicable area plan;
The site meets the findings for a Design Permit in that the site plan places ample landscaping at the front and parking, trash room, and utility meters at the rear of the site, creating a visually pleasing view from the street; the proposed building has well-articulated walls and roofline, especially on the elevations facing Natural Bridges Drive and the railroad right of way; the mix of stucco and vertical siding provides quality exterior materials that add further interest; details such as metal balcony railings, sheet metal coping, and slightly curved parapet roofline features complete a detailed design that blends in well with the surrounding area; the proposed building would not block any significant public views identified in the general plan; the building does not create any privacy issues for adjacent properties; and the building does not cast shade on any residential uses. The site is not within the focus area of any area plan.

20. Be consistent with the policies of the Local Coastal Program, the General Plan, and the California Coastal Act.

The project is consistent with LCP policies to protect heritage trees (CD 6.1.1 and CD

The project is consistent with several general plan policies that call for affordable housing (LU3.1.1, LU3.8, Housing Element Policy 2.2, Housing Element Policy 2.3, Housing Element Policy 2.7, Housing Element Policy 4.8 promote partnering with nonprofits (Housing Element Policy 2.3, CC2.1.3) and promote infill development (Housing Element Policy 2.7, Housing Element Policy 5.3, LU1.1).

The majority of the project area has a general plan land use designation of Low-Medium Density Residential, which accommodates a range of residential uses including single family dwellings, apartments, condominiums, and townhomes. The proposed SRO development fits within this range of uses. The small portion of the site being acquired from the adjacent Toadal Fitness gym site has a general plan land use designation of Community Facilities, which accommodates community uses such as government buildings, schools, community centers, and utilities. The site was designated as such in 1994 in order to accommodate school district offices. The school district has since moved on to a different location, and the purpose for which the land use designation change was made therefore no longer exists. The site was subsequently utilized for offices by the Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County. The current use is a Toadal Fitness gym, which was approved as it is similar in nature to a community recreational facility while not strictly falling within that category. In addition, the portion of the site to be transferred to the project site is currently a portion of the parking lot, and this piece of land will continue to be used for parking although for the SRO use and not for the Toadal Fitness gym use.

Finally, the Toadal Fitness site will have a resulting size of 120,515 square feet, which could comfortably accommodate a new Community Facilities use in the future should one

25.12 RESOLUTION NO. NS8
be desired at that location. Therefore, the project site is consistent with the intent of the general plan land use designations.

The project is consistent with the California Coastal Act.

Design Permit, Section 24.08.430

21. The site plan and building design are consistent with design and development policies of the General Plan, any element of the General Plan, and any area plan, specific plan, or other city policy for physical development. If located in the Coastal Zone, the site plan and building design are also consistent with policies of the Local Coastal Program.

Finally, the Toadal Fitness site will have a resulting size of 120,515 square feet, which could comfortably accommodate a new Community Facilities use in the future should one

25.13 RESOLUTION NO. NS9
be desired at that location. Therefore, the project site is consistent with the intent of the general plan land use designations.

The project site is not located within the focus area of any area or specific plan.

As conditioned, and except for variations to parking, building height, and side yard setback with a Planned Development permit, the project is consistent with the development standards of the R-L zone district, the SRO development standards, and parking standards under the zoning ordinance. A condition of approval requires the area north of the four westernmost parking spaces to be fully landscaped in order for the site to meet the 10 percent of parking area in landscaping requirement.

The project is consistent with LCP policies to protect heritage trees (CD 6.1.1 and CD

22. For non-residential projects, the project’s location, size, height, operations, and other significant features and characteristics are compatible with and do not adversely affect or further degrade adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood, or the public health, safety, and welfare. For residential projects, the project complies with the objective standards and requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, as well as any objective standards of any area plan or other regulatory document that applies to the area in which the project is located.

The proposal is a residential project. As conditioned, and except as modified by the requested variations to building height, setback, and number of parking spaces under the Planned Development Permit, the project complies with the applicable objective standards of the R-L zone district, the objective standards of the SRO regulations, and the objective standards of the parking regulations under the zoning ordinance. In order to meet the parking design standard requiring at least 10 percent of the parking area to be in landscaping, a condition of approval requires the area north of the four westernmost parking spaces to be fully landscaped. The project site is not located within an area plan.

23. For non-residential projects, the project provides for an arrangement of uses, buildings, structures, open spaces, and other improvements that are compatible with the scale and character of the adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhood.

25.14 RESOLUTION NO. NS10
The proposal is a residential use; therefore, this finding does not apply.

24. 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 property is located on the lower west side of Santa Cruz in an area that includes a mix of commercial and industrial uses and does not have an established architectural character worthy of preservation. The exterior design of the building has a scale, form, and material palate that is compatible with the surrounding area.

25. Design of the site plan respects design principles in terms of maintaining a balance of scale, form and proportion, using design components which are harmonious, and materials and colors which blend with elements of the site plan and surrounding areas. Location of structures takes into account maintenance of public views; rooftop mechanical equipment is incorporated into roof design or screened from public rights-of-way to the extent possible. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, traffic-control devices, transformer vaults and electrical meters are accessible and screened.

The 10,519 square foot, three story building has a compatible scale to the mostly two story, larger commercial and industrial buildings in the surrounding area. The site plan places ample landscaping at the front of the site and places parking, trash room, and utility meters at the rear of the site, creating a visually pleasing view from the street. The proposed building has well-articulated walls and roofline, especially on the elevations facing Natural Bridges Drive and the railroad right of way. The mix of stucco and vertical siding provides quality exterior materials that add further interest. Details such as metal balcony railings, sheet metal coping, and slightly curved parapet roofline features complete a detailed design that blends in well with the surrounding area. The proposed building would not block any significant public views identified in the general plan. To ensure rooftop screening is compatible with the building design, a condition of approval requires rooftop screening to have the same color as the proposed stucco siding. A condition of approval requires all utility installations and mechanical equipment to be accessible and screened.

26. Where a site plan abuts, or is in close proximity to, uses other than that proposed, the plan shall 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 site is surrounded by a gym, office building, and railroad right of way. The proposed residential use does not include any nuisance features that would affect the surrounding uses.

25.15 RESOLUTION NO. NS11

27. To the extent feasible, the orientation and location of buildings, structures, open spaces and other features of the site plan maintain natural resources including significant trees and shrubs, minimize impacts to solar access of adjacent properties, and minimize alteration of natural land forms; building profiles, location, and orientation must relate to natural land forms.

The proposed development involves removal of four of the five heritage trees on site. The project will retain a 25 inch cedar tree, which is in the best condition of the existing trees.

28. The site plan ensures that the scale, bulk, and setbacks of new development preserves important public views along the ocean and of designated scenic coastal areas. Where appropriate and feasible, the project shall restore and enhance visual quality of visually degraded areas.

There are no views of the ocean from or through the project site, and the site is not located in a scenic coastal area. As the site is currently vacant, development of the site with the proposed quality design will enhance the visual quality of the area.

29. 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.

Any noise or vibrations that may occur as a result of construction are temporary; once constructed, the proposed SRO development will not cause any noise, vibrations, or other factors beyond those normally associated with a multi-family development that would make the environment less desirable. The site is not adjacent to a residential use.

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

The new building includes windows on all four elevations to allow light and air to pass through the building. Ample landscaping in the front yard provide a natural cooling effect for the project site and new trees provide shading.

Planned Development, Section 24.08.770

31. Is consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Land Use Plan, and adopted area plans.

25.16 RESOLUTION NO. NS12
The project is consistent with several general plan policies that call for affordable housing (LU3.1.1, LU3.8, Housing Element Policy 2.2, Housing Element Policy 2.3, Housing Element Policy 2.7, Housing Element Policy 4.8 promote partnering with nonprofits (Housing Element Policy 2.3, CC2.1.3) and promote infill development (Housing Element Policy 2.7, Housing Element Policy 5.3, LU1.1).

The project is consistent with LCP policies to protect heritage trees (CD 6.1.1 and CD

The project is not within the focus area of any area plan.

32. Is consistent with the purpose of this chapter and other applicable sections of this title.

25.17 RESOLUTION NO. NS13
The purpose of the Planned Development Permit under Chapter 24.08, Part 8 is to provide an avenue for developments that serve public objectives more fully than a development permitted under conventional zoning regulations. The project is consistent with this purpose in that it provides a 100 percent affordable housing development that also includes a dignified level of livability through comfortable floor to ceiling heights, a visually pleasing architectural design, and substantial useable open space. Except as allowed with variations under this permit, the project as conditioned is consistent with the applicable development standards of the R-L zone district, the SRO development standards, and the parking regulations.

33. Includes planned variations to underlying district regulations which serve public purposes to an equivalent or higher degree than would underlying district regulations.

Planned variations to district regulations include use variations to the R-L and P-F zone districts to allow the SRO use. Since SROs may exceed the density range for the general plan land use designation, allowing the SRO use provides the opportunity to create substantially more affordable units than would be allowed were the project constructed as an apartment project consistent with the R-L zone district. Variations to reduce the northern side yard setback from 12 feet to just over seven feet and to reduce required on-site parking from 20 spaces to the proposed 12 allows the project to dedicate more space to construction of units and useable open space for the residents. The requested variation to building height enables the project to provide comfortable floor to ceiling heights within the units, enhancing the livability of those units, and allows for an articulated parapet roofline. The proposed affordability level of the units provides a community benefit that balances the variations requested. A condition of approval requires the applicant to enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City to memorialize the affordability level of the units. Overall, these variations create more affordable units with a better amenity level than would be possible under the standard development regulations.

34. Can be coordinated with existing and proposed development of surrounding areas.

The project site is a vacant lot surrounded by developed land. The proposed SRO development is compatible with the surrounding uses that include office, a gym, and industrial uses in the general area. The location for the SRO use is suitable adjacent to the railroad right of way, as residents will be directly adjacent to the future rail trail.

35. Overall, the amenity level of the development and the amount of open space shall be greater than what would have been permitted by the underlying district regulations.

The use variation to allow the SRO use in an R-L zone district allows the use where strict application of the allowed uses in this district would not have allowed it. Similarly, allowing the portion of the site zoned P-F to be utilized for parking for the SRO units allows a use that is not specifically listed in the zone district. Reducing the amount of parking below the required amount and reducing the northern side yard setback allows the

25.18 RESOLUTION NO. NS14
building to be set back further on the lot, maximizing the amount of open space useable to residents.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that it hereby acknowledges the CEQA determination and the Lot Line adjustment, Planned Development Permit, Design Permit, and Coastal Permit to transfer 4,054 square feet of land from APN 003-011-10 to APN 003-011-06, remove four heritage trees, and construct a 100 percent affordable, 20 unit SRO (Single Room Occupancy) project with a variation to allowed uses to allow an SRO use and associated parking and variations to development standards for building height, side yard setback, and number of required parking spaces on a vacant lot in the R-L/CZ-O/SP-O/PF (Multiple Residence - Low-Density/Coastal Zone Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay/Public Facilities) zone district subject to the Findings listed above and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

APPROVED: ______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator

25.19 RESOLUTION NO. NS-29,
EXHIBIT "A"

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT ON PROPERTY AT
415 Natural Bridges Dr. – CP21-0059
Lot Line Adjustment, Planned Development Permit, Design Permit, and Coastal Permit to transfer 4,054 square feet of land to/ from APN 003-011-10 and construct a 100% affordable, 20 unit SRO (Single Room Occupancy) project with a variation to allowed uses to allow an SRO use and variations to development standards for building height, side yard setback, and number of required parking spaces on a vacant lot in the R-L/CZ-O/SP-O (Multiple Residence - Low-Density/Coastal Zone Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay) zone district. This project involves the removal of four Heritage trees.

1. If one or more of the following conditions is not met with respect to all its terms, then this approval may be revoked.

2. All plans for future construction which are not covered by this review shall be submitted to the City Planning and Community Development Department for review and approval.

3. This permit shall be exercised within three (3) years of the date of final approval or it shall become null and void.

4. The applicant shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. Any errors or discrepancies found therein may result in the revocation of any approval or permits issued in connection therewith.

5. All final working drawings shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval in conjunction with building permit application. The plans submitted for building permits shall have the same level of articulation, detailing, and dimensionality as shown in the approved plans. All approved exterior finishes and materials shall be clearly notated on the building permit plans.

6. The applicant and contractor who obtains a building permit for the project shall be required to sign the following statement at the bottom of these conditions, which will become conditions of the building permit:
“I understand that the subject permit involves construction of a building (project) with an approved Design Permit. I intend to perform or supervise the performance of the work allowed by this permit in a manner that results in a finished building with the same level of detail, articulation, and dimensionality shown in the plans submitted for building permits. I hereby acknowledge that failure to construct the building as represented in the building permit plans, may result in delay of the inspections process and/or the mandatory reconstruction or alteration of any

25.20 16
portion of the building that is not in substantial conformance with the approved plans, prior to continuation of inspections or the building final.” Signature of Building Contractor Date

7. The development of the site shall be in substantial accordance with the approved plans submitted and on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development of the City of Santa Cruz. All aspects of construction must be completed prior to occupancy.

Major modifications to plans or exceptions to completion may be granted only by the City authority which approved the project.

8. All refuse and recycling activities during construction shall be done in accordance with Chapter 6.12 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code. Be aware that private companies offering refuse or debris box services are not allowed to operate within the City limits, except under certain limited circumstances detailed in Chapter 6.12.160.

9. All requirements of the Building, Fire, Public Works and Water Departments shall be completed prior to occupancy and continuously maintained thereafter.

10. Adequate provisions shall be made to supply water to each of the premises covered by this application. The design of water facilities shall be to standards of the Water Department, and plans therefore must be submitted to the Water Department Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.

11. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include electric vehicle charging stations as required per Section 24.12.241 of the Zoning Ordinance.

12. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall show all exterior site lighting locations and fixture details. All exterior building lighting shall be shielded and contained in a downward direction. No exterior lighting shall produce off-site glare.

13. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application and will be reviewed by both the Planning Department and Water Department.

The landscape and irrigation plans shall demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the City’s Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance in Chapter 16.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code prior to issuance of the building permit.

14. All landscaping shall be installed prior to final utility release or issuance of occupancy permits.

15. All trees shall be a minimum 15-gallon size.

25.21 17

16. Bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 24.12.250-252 of the City's Zoning Ordinance.

17. All utilities shall be placed underground in accordance with the provisions of Section

24.12.700 through 24.12.740 of the Zoning Ordinance. Transformer boxes shall be placed underground to the extent feasible. Any transformer boxes placed above ground shall be shown on final building permit plans with a location and visual screening approved by the Planning Department.

18. A drainage plan shall be submitted in conjunction with application for building permits.

19. The following text shall be included on the building permit plans and followed during any site work:

Any person exercising a development permit or building permit who, at any time in the preparation for or process of excavating or otherwise disturbing earth, discovers any human remains of any age or any artifact or any other object which reasonably appears to be evidence of an archaeological/cultural resource or paleontological resource, shall:
a. Immediately cease all further excavation, disturbance, and work on the project site; b. Cause staking to be placed completely around the area of discovery by visible stakes not more than ten feet apart forming a circle having a radius of not less than one hundred feet from the point of discovery; provided, that such staking need not take place on adjoining property unless the owner of the adjoining property authorizes such staking;
c. Notify the Santa Cruz County sheriff-coroner and the city of Santa Cruz planning director of the discovery unless no human remains have been discovered, in which case the property owner shall notify only the planning director; d. Grant permission to all duly authorized representatives of the sheriff-coroner and the planning director to enter onto the property and to take all actions consistent with this section.

20. The plan for erosion control approved as part of this application shall be submitted and all work installed by November 1.

21. Grading shall be done during periods of dry weather and protective measures shall be incorporated during grading to prevent siltation from any grading project halted due to rain.

22. Prior to site grading or any disturbance all trees and/or tree stands indicated for preservation or approved plans shall be protected through fencing or other approved barricade. Such fencing shall protect vegetation during construction and shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development.

23. All new mechanical equipment and appurtenances, including gas and water meters, electrical boxes, roof vents, air conditioners, antennas, etc. visible from the public way and from adjacent properties, shall be screened with material compatible with the materials of the building and shall be subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator.

25.22 18

24. Applicant shall comply with the inclusionary housing requirements set forth at SCMC Chapter 24.16 Part 1, and shall enter into and record an affordable housing development agreement prior to issuance of a building permit for any structure in the residential development. The affordable housing development agreement shall run with the land and bind all future owners and successors in interest.

25. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City to memorialize the affordability level of all units in the development at the very low income level in perpetuity.

26. The property owner and/or project applicant agree(s) as a condition and in consideration of the approval of this discretionary development permit that it will, pursuant to agreement and/or statutory provisions as applicable, including but not limited to Government code Section 66474.9, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Santa Cruz or its agents, officials, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officials, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval, which action is brought within the time period provided for under law, including but not limited to, Government Code Section 66499.37, as applicable. The property owner and/or project applicant will reimburse the City for any court costs and attorney’s fees, which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of such action; but such participation shall not relieve the property owner and/or project applicant of these obligations under this condition. An agreement to this effect shall be recorded upon demand of the City Attorney or concurrent with the issuance of building permits, use of the property, filing of the final map, whichever occurs first and as applicable. The City shall promptly notify the property owner and/or project applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. If the City fails to promptly notify the property owner and/or project applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense thereof, the property owner and/or project applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify or hold the City harmless.

27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the Park and Recreation Facility Tax pursuant to Chapter 5.72 of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code based on the final building permit plans.

28. Building permit plans shall show screening for all rooftop mechanical equipment with a color to match the exterior building stucco color.

29. Building permit plans shall show the area north of the four westernmost parking spaces to be fully landscaped with low-growing plants.

30. Applicant shall submit a finalized SRO management plan, which shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director prior to building permit issuance.

25.23 19

31. Applicant shall follow all recommendations from the arborist report prepared by Maureen Hamb dated June 2021 as well as any additional direction provided by the project arborist and approved by the City Arborist. Final building permit plans shall include a note stating that the project shall follow all recommendations from the arborist report prepared by Maureen Hamb dated June 2021 2021 as well as any additional direction provided by the project arborist and approved by the City Arborist.

32. Applicant shall submit evidence of a contract with a consulting arborist. The new project arborist shall be approved by the City Arborist.

33. The four trees approved for removal shall be replaced at a ratio of either two 24-inch box trees or six 15 gallon trees per tree removed, or by payment of a comparable in-lieu fee as approved by the City Arborist. The species, size, and location of all replacement trees shall be shown on final building permit plans and are subject to approval of the City Arborist.

34. If work is scheduled between March and late July, a pre-project nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist to determine if nesting raptors or other nesting species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are within the vicinity of the project site. If no nesting birds are observed, no further action is required during project work. If nesting birds are observed, the biologist shall establish a buffer zone around the nest where construction work shall be postponed until the biologist has confirmed that the nest is no longer in use. Said survey, including any follow-up work by the project biologist, shall be reviewed and approved by City Planning staff prior to commencement of tree removal.

35. Final building permit plans shall show the type of paving used for driveway and parking areas. Paving shall be consistent with the surfacing standard under Zoning Ordinance section 24.12.280.6.

25.24 A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S
TOTAL LOT AREA (55.57'x101.

FLOOR AREA BY USE:

MANAGER UNIT: 379 SF
UNIT 2: 379 SF
UNIT 3: 348 SF
UNIT 4: 339 SF
UNIT 5: 332 SF
UNIT 6: 332 SF
UNIT 7: 332 SF
UNIT 8: 380 SF
UNIT 9: 332 SF
UNIT 10: 332 SF
UNIT 11: 320 SF
UNIT 12: 251 SF
UNIT 13: 339 SF
UNIT 14: 332 SF
UNIT 15: 332 SF
UNIT 16: 332 SF
UNIT 17: 367 SF
UNIT 18: 332 SF
UNIT 19: 332 SF
UNIT 20: 369 SF
TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA ALL UNITS: 6,791 SF = 339.5 SF AVG. SIZE COMMON AREA:

LOBBY: 110 SF
LAUNDRY: 120 SF
COMMON AREA ROOM: 337 SF
3RD FLOOR DECK: 153 SF
TOTAL COMMON AREA: 720 SF = 36 SF/UNIT
PERSONAL STORAGE SPACE: 750 SF
TOTAL FIRST FLOOR GROSS: 3,757 SF
TOTAL SECOND FLOOR GROSS: 3,462 SF
TOTAL THIRD FLOOR GROSS: 3,300 SF
TOTAL GROSS BUILDING AREA: 10,519 SF
LOT COVERAGE: 23.2%
PARKING: 12 SPACES (.6 / UNIT)
BICYCLE PARKING: 20 SPACES @ STOR. LOCKERS
5 CLASS 2 SPACES
PAVED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 8,252 SF
LANDSCAPING AREA: 3,332 SF
15,332 SF
4 1 5 N A T U R A L B R I D G E S P R O J E C T D A T A V I C I N I T Y M A P PROPERTY OWNER: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
2160 41ST AVENUE
CAPITOLA, CA 95010
(831) 454-9455
ATTN: JENNY PANETTA, [email protected]
415 NATURAL BRIDGES DRIVE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
003-011-06 AND 003-011-10

RL, COASTAL ZONE
R-2
PROJECT ADDRESS:

PROJECT A.P.N.:

ZONING:

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH 003-011-10 AND

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, DESIGN PERMIT

AND COASTAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
100% AFFORDABLE 20 UNIT SRO PROJECT WITH

VARIATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR

BUILDING HEIGHT, SIDE YARD SETBACK AND

NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON A VACANT LOT IN

THE R-L/CZ-O/SP-O ZONE DISTRICT

P R O J E C T T E A M

THACHER & THOMPSON ARCHITECTS
215 OREGON STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
(831) 566-3079
[email protected]

IFLAND ENGINEERS
5300 SOQUEL AVE.

SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062
(831) 426-5313
[email protected]
ARCHITECT:

CIVIL ENGINEER:

MEGAN BISHOP
P.O. BOX 328
APTOS, CA 95001
(831) 818-9227
[email protected]
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:

PROPERTY OWNER: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
2160 41ST AVENUE
CAPITOLA, CA 95010
(831) 454-9455
ATTN: JENNY PANETTA, [email protected]
AMY GEAR, [email protected]

S H E E T I N D E X
A1: ILLUSTRATION AND DATA
A2: SITE PLAN
A3: FLOOR PLANS
A4: ELEVATIONS
A5: BUILDING DETAILS
A6: SHADOW DIAGRAMS
A7: CONTEXT DIAGRAMS
E1 SITE LIGHTING PLAN
C1.0: GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C2.0: UTILITY PLAN
C3.0: STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN
C3.1: STORM WATER CONTROL DETAILS
C4.0: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MAP
L1.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN

PROJECT SITE

WILLIAM HOLL
110 BAJA SOL COURT
SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066
(831) 438-3762
[email protected]
CASp REVIEWER:

ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING:

CALIF. BUILDING CODE
CALIF. MECHANICAL CODE
CALIF. PLUMBING CODE
CALIF. ELECTRICAL CODE

CAL GREEN
CALIF. ENERGY CODE
SCMC TITLE 18
CALIF. FIRE CODE
..\..\JPEGs\Bike Path Color revised.jpg
..\..\JPEGs\Across The Street Color white border .jpg
VIEW FROM ACROSS THE STREET 2 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
VIEW FROM BIKE PATH 1 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"

B U I L D I N G C O D E S U M M A R Y
A1
UNAUTHORIZED USE IS PROHIBITED. LIABILITY TO THE ARCHITECT. BE THE USER'S RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OF DATA SHALL CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. THE PROPER

REPRODUCED, OR USED WITHOUT THE
SERVICE AND MAY NOT BE ALTERED, ARCHITECTS. IT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE PROPERTY OF THACHER & THOMPSON

THE DATA CONTAINED ON THIS SHEET IS

THACHER &

THOMPSON
ARCHITECTS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF 415 NATURAL BRIDGES DRIVE, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C 12725

THOMAS THACHER
DECEMBER 31, 2021

EXPIRATION
215 OREGON STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
(831) 566-3079
www.tntarch.com
c 2020 THACHER & THOMPSON ARCHITECTS

DRAWING DATE

9.20,21

ISSUED TO FACILITATE
CONSTRUCTION:

DATE PENDING
PROJECT FILE NAME:

NAT.BRIDGES 20.SD

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

25.25 N O R T H
34" TREE
36" ACACIA
14" ACACIA

LOADING DOCK
S83°27'22"W 125.19' 87.51'
125.00' 94.39'
5 CLASS 2

BIKE RACKS

EXISTING BUILDING

TODAL FITNESS
NEW 8' WIDE CITY S.W.,

CURB & GUTTERN A T U R A L B R I D G E S D R I V E

SITE PLAN
1 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"

SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY

PROPOSED BUILDING
24'-0"
31'-0"

EXISTING

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING TODAL

FITNESS PARKING LOT

SOUTHERN PACIFIC

RIGHT OF WAY

SOUTHERN PACIFIC

RIGHT OF WAY

CONCRETE WALK

COVERED ENTRY
TRASH/
RECYCL

SIDE ENTRY

LANDSCAPING
EXISTING 24" DIA.TREE

TO REMAIN
38"
TREE
22"
OAK
STUMP 14'-0"
6' HIGH CONC. BLK AND

PAINTED STUCCO WALL

PAVED DRIVEWAY
PAVED DRIVEWAY 5'-0" 4'-0"

EXISTING CURB
NEW 6' HIGH
WALL OR FENCE 8'-2"
5' HIGH

PRIVACY
FENCE
7' x 8' CONC. PATIO
8' x 11' CONC.

PATIO 5'-0"
METERS
4'-0"
NEW 6' HIGH

WALL OR FENCE

EXISTING TODAL

FITNESS PARKING LOT

EXISTING CITY CURB,

GUTTER AND SIDEWALK
4' x 4' TREE WELL
NOTE:

PARKING LOT AREA = +/- 5,825 SF
AREA IN LANDSCAPING = +/- 757 SF = 12.9 % 5'

DRIVEWAY APRON

PER CITY STANDARDS
51'-8"
EXISTING ELECTRIC POWER POLE.

POWER TO THE PROPOSED
PROJECT WILL BE UNDERGROUND.

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
NEW 6' HIGH

WALL OR FENCE
3'-0" PLANTING
STRIP
19'-0" 7'-6" 14'-4"
5'-0"
3'-0"

SEE LANDSCAPE

DRAWINGS
A2
UNAUTHORIZED USE IS PROHIBITED. LIABILITY TO THE ARCHITECT. BE THE USER'S RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OF DATA SHALL CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. THE PROPER

REPRODUCED, OR USED WITHOUT THE
SERVICE AND MAY NOT BE ALTERED, ARCHITECTS. IT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE PROPERTY OF THACHER & THOMPSON

THE DATA CONTAINED ON THIS SHEET IS

THACHER &

THOMPSON
ARCHITECTS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF 415 NATURAL BRIDGES DRIVE, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C 12725

THOMAS THACHER
DECEMBER 31, 2021

EXPIRATION
215 OREGON STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
(831) 566-3079
www.tntarch.com
c 2020 THACHER & THOMPSON ARCHITECTS

DRAWING DATE

9.20,21

ISSUED TO FACILITATE
CONSTRUCTION:

DATE PENDING
PROJECT FILE NAME:

NAT.BRIDGES 20.SD

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

25.26 1ST FLOOR 1 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
ROOF = 31'-0"
DECK EL. 20'-0"

MEMBRANE ROOFING
SLOPED AT 1/4" / FT.

ROOF = 31'-0"

LOW ROOF
GUTTER
GUTTER
METERS
JAN. DDWW

COMMON AREA ROOM
OFFICE
20 PRIVATE STORAGE UNITS
UP

MANAGER

2. 3.

LOBBY
LNDRY
8'-6x13'-6

UTILITY

TRASH/RECY
10' x 15' 9' x 12' RR R

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 4.

12. JAN.

UP R RR

14. 15.

17. 18.

19. 20.

13. STOR.

16. 2ND FLOOR 2 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
3RD FLOOR 3 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
12'-6 x 9'-6
UP
DN
UP
DN
ROOF PLAN 4 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"

GUTTER CORRIDOR
DECK
STOR.

STOR. STOR.
22' x 13'-6
(ACCESSIBLE)
(ACCESSIBLE)
(ACCESSIBLE)

LOW ROOF

LOW ROOF T R T

R R R R TT T
STOR. 6'-6"
4'-2" 4'-0"
5'-1" 3'-7 1/2"
DN RR 3'-2" RR
67'-0" 66'-8" 56'-5 1/2" 14'-5 1/2" 27'-6 1/2" 14'-5 1/2" 11'-0 1/2" 23'-6" 28'-5 1/2"
63'-0" 17'-8" 35'-0" 14'-0" RR
HVAC
EQUIP.

SOLAR PANEL EQUIPMENT AND
LAYOUT TO BE DETERMINED.

CONTINUATION

OF PARAPET WALL
SCUPPER, TYP.
5' HIGH

PRIVACY

FENCE A A A A A A A A R
HIGH
WINDOW R RR RR R 14'-2 3/4" 14'-0" 14'-0" 14'-2 3/4"
25'-5 1/2" 15'-10" 25'-9" CORRIDOR CORRIDOR
8'x7' PATIO B B B B B B B B
A3
UNAUTHORIZED USE IS PROHIBITED. LIABILITY TO THE ARCHITECT. BE THE USER'S RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OF DATA SHALL CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. THE PROPER

REPRODUCED, OR USED WITHOUT THE
SERVICE AND MAY NOT BE ALTERED, ARCHITECTS. IT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE PROPERTY OF THACHER & THOMPSON

THE DATA CONTAINED ON THIS SHEET IS

THACHER &

THOMPSON
ARCHITECTS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF 415 NATURAL BRIDGES DRIVE, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C 12725

THOMAS THACHER
DECEMBER 31, 2021

EXPIRATION
215 OREGON STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
(831) 566-3079
www.tntarch.com
c 2020 THACHER & THOMPSON ARCHITECTS

DRAWING DATE

9.20,21

ISSUED TO FACILITATE
CONSTRUCTION:

DATE PENDING
PROJECT FILE NAME:

NAT.BRIDGES 20.SD LICENSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

25.27 3RD FL = 20'-0"
2ND FL = 10'-0"
1ST FL = 0'-0"
STRUCT. ROOF
3RD FL = 20'-0"
2ND FL = 10'-0"
1ST FL = 0'-0"
STRUCT. ROOF
EAST ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION 3 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION 4 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION 5 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
3RD FL = 20'-0"
2ND FL = 10'-0"
1ST FL = 0'-0"
STRUCT. ROOF
3RD FL = 20'-0"
2ND FL = 10'-0"
1ST FL = 0'-0"
STRUCT. ROOF

PAINTED 'BORAL'

CHANNEL GROOVE
1x6 VERTICAL SIDING
STUCCO

SHEET METAL COPING

AT PARAPET WALL

PAINTED FIBERGLAS
DBL. HUNG WINDOWS 36' TO HIGHEST PARAPET

SHALLOW BALCONY

WITH ALUMINUM

RAILING
METERS
APT. 6 APT. 10
APT. 15 APT. 19

PRIVATE STORAGE MGR'S APARTMENT
BUILDING SECTION 2 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"

METAL ROOL-UP

TRASH ROOM DOOR
P.L.

P.L.
6' HIGH PAINTED

STUCCO WALL

HIGH POINT

OF ROOF MEMBRANE
CONC.

COLUMN

ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT
IN CENTER OF ROOF.
6' HIGH FENCE
5' HIGH WOOD

PRIVACY FENCE
6' HIGH PROPERTY
LINE WALL 9'-0 3/4" 9'-0 3/4" 9'-0 3/4" MAX. HEIGHT 36'-0"

HIGHEST PARAPET

PAINTED ALUMINUM

RAILINGS

DIAGONAL LINE REPRESENTING
SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 1'
SETBACK FOR 3' HEIGHT

ACESS DRIVEAY
6' HIGH FENCE

DIAGONAL LINE REPRESENTING
SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 1'
SETBACK FOR 3' HEIGHT
P.L.

DIAGONAL LINE REPRESENTING
SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 1'
SETBACK FOR 3' HEIGHT
A4
UNAUTHORIZED USE IS PROHIBITED. LIABILITY TO THE ARCHITECT. BE THE USER'S RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OF DATA SHALL CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. THE PROPER

REPRODUCED, OR USED WITHOUT THE
SERVICE AND MAY NOT BE ALTERED, ARCHITECTS. IT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE PROPERTY OF THACHER & THOMPSON

THE DATA CONTAINED ON THIS SHEET IS

THACHER &

THOMPSON
ARCHITECTS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF 415 NATURAL BRIDGES DRIVE, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C 12725

THOMAS THACHER
DECEMBER 31, 2021

EXPIRATION
215 OREGON STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
(831) 566-3079
www.tntarch.com
c 2020 THACHER & THOMPSON ARCHITECTS

DRAWING DATE

9.20,21

ISSUED TO FACILITATE
CONSTRUCTION:

DATE PENDING
PROJECT FILE NAME:

NAT.BRIDGES 20.SD LICENSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

25.28 WALL SECTION 1 SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"

PAINTED SHEETMETAL

PARAPET CAP

STUCCO OR VERTICAL

BOARD SIDING
2x6 PARAPET WALL
T-111 SIDING AT

BACK OF PARAPET

WALL VARIES MEMBRANE ROOF
CANOPY @ 3RD FLOOR

EXTERIOR DOORS
2'-0"

SLIDING FRENCH DOOR

METAL RAILING ASSEMBLY
PAINTED EPS FOAM TRIM. TRIM
EXTENDED 2" BEYOND DATUM
TRIM AT BALCONY DOORS 9'-0 3/4"

METAL RAILING ASSEMBLY

SLOPING CONCRETE PATIO

FINISH FLOORING ON

GYPCRETE ON RIGID INULATION

OVER STRUCTURAL SLAB

SIDING RETURNS INTO
DOOR ASSEMBLY 9'-0 3/4" 9'-0 3/4"

WATERPROOFING AND
FLASHINGS NOT SHOWN 6 1/2" 7"

FINISH FLOORING

ON GYPCRETE
ON 3/4" SUBFLOOR
TYP. WINDOW JAMB (HEAD SIM) 2 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"

WINDOW ASSEMBLY
GYP. BD.
1 3/4"
GYP. BD. RETURN

INTO WINDOW
FRAME
2x4 BUCK
EXTERIOR WALL:

STUCCO BELOW DATUM TRIM

VERTICAL BOARD SIDING ABOVE

WATERPROOFING AND

FLASHING NOT SHOWN
TYP. WINDOW SILL @ STUCCO WALL 3 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"

EPS FOAM TRIM
2 1/4" 2"

WINDOW ASSEMBLY

SEALANT, TYP

STUCCO WALL

WOOD SILL
+/- 7°

WATERPROOFING AND

FLASHING NOT SHOWN
WINDOW SILL @ WOOD SIDING 4 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
2 1/4"

WINDOW ASSEMBLY

WOOD SILL
SILL FROM 2x6 BORAL

VERTICAL BOARD SIDING

WATERPROOFING AND

FLASHING NOT SHOWN
PRIVACY FENCE 6 SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
2x6 SHAPED CAP
4x4 CORNER POST
1x8 FENCE BOARDS WITH
1x3 BATTENS 5'-0"

FINISH GRADE
2x4 BOTTOM RAIL

BALCONY RAILING
5 SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"

SIDING RETURNS

INTO RECESSED WALL

SLIDING DOOR
2" SQ. ALUMINUM POST

ATTACHED TO WALL
3/4"x2 1/2" ALUM. TOP RAIL
42" ABOVE FLOOR
3/4" SQ. ALUMINUM
PICKETS 4" O.C.

TRIM PER WALL SECTION

MEMBRANE ROOF
1" x 3" POWDER COATED

ALUMINUM SLATS
+/- 4' AS REQUIRED TO CONCEAL EQUIPMENT
3' SQ. POWDER COATED

ALUMINUM POSTS

ATTACHMENT TO
ROOF PER SCREEN MFG.

ROOFTOP SCREEN
7 NTS
A5

25.29 ..\..\JPEGs\5.26.20-01_Sc Housing Authority_Shadows_4.jpg ..\..\JPEGs\5.26.20-01_Sc Housing Authority_Shadows_5.jpg ..\..\JPEGs\5.26.20-01_Sc Housing Authority_Shadows_6.jpg SHADOW DIAGRAMS 1 N.T.S.

A6
UNAUTHORIZED USE IS PROHIBITED. LIABILITY TO THE ARCHITECT. BE THE USER'S RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OF DATA SHALL CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. THE PROPER

REPRODUCED, OR USED WITHOUT THE
SERVICE AND MAY NOT BE ALTERED, ARCHITECTS. IT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE PROPERTY OF THACHER & THOMPSON

THE DATA CONTAINED ON THIS SHEET IS

THACHER &

THOMPSON
ARCHITECTS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF 415 NATURAL BRIDGES DRIVE, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C 12725

THOMAS THACHER
DECEMBER 31, 2021

EXPIRATION
215 OREGON STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
(831) 566-3079
www.tntarch.com
c 2020 THACHER & THOMPSON ARCHITECTS

DRAWING DATE

9.20,21

ISSUED TO FACILITATE
CONSTRUCTION:

DATE PENDING
PROJECT FILE NAME:

NAT.BRIDGES 20.SD LICENSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

25.30 NATURAL BRIDGES DRIVE ELEVATION
1 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
2901 MISSION STREET
4/12
8/12 +/- 31'-2"

SP RAILWAY
VACANT SP RIGHT OF WAY 36'-0" MAX.

APT. 6 APT. 10
APT. 15 APT. 19

PRIVATE STORAGE MGR'S APARTMENT
SECTION THROUGH NATURAL BRIDGES DR. 2 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 8' SIDEWALK NATURAL BRIDGES DRIVE

USGS PACIFIC COASTAL

AND MARINE SCIENCES
400 NATURAL BRIDGES DR

PROPERTY
LINE

BIOFILTRATION

LANDSCAPED

FRONT YARD
42' APPROX. 100'

PARKING DRIVEWAY WALK
6' WALL OR FENCE

PROPOSED PROJECT
6' HIGH STUCCO WALL

LOWEST PARAPET
AT FRONT OF BLDG.

MECHSANICAL EQUIPMENT

BELOW THIS LINE WILL BE

SCREENED FROM PUBLIC

VIEW HIGHEST PARAPET
AT FRONT OF BLDG.

SIDEWALK

ACESS DRIVEAY
A7
UNAUTHORIZED USE IS PROHIBITED. LIABILITY TO THE ARCHITECT. BE THE USER'S RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OF DATA SHALL CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. THE PROPER

REPRODUCED, OR USED WITHOUT THE
SERVICE AND MAY NOT BE ALTERED, ARCHITECTS. IT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE PROPERTY OF THACHER & THOMPSON

THE DATA CONTAINED ON THIS SHEET IS

THACHER &

THOMPSON
ARCHITECTS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF 415 NATURAL BRIDGES DRIVE, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C 12725

THOMAS THACHER
DECEMBER 31, 2021

EXPIRATION
215 OREGON STREET
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
(831) 566-3079
www.tntarch.com
c 2020 THACHER & THOMPSON ARCHITECTS

DRAWING DATE

9.20,21

ISSUED TO FACILITATE
CONSTRUCTION:

DATE PENDING
PROJECT FILE NAME:

NAT.BRIDGES 20.SD

LICENSED ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

LOADING DOCK N A T U R A L B R I D G E S D R I V E
NEW 6' HIGH

WALL OR FENCE

EXISTING TODAL

FITNESS PARKING LOT

SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING TREE

TO REMAIN

EXISTING CURB
NEW 6' HIGH

WALL OR FENCE

EXISTING CITY CURB,

GUTTER AND SIDEWALK

D D D D
D
MATURE

TREES BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME SIZE QTY HT/WIDTH WUCOLS Lagerstroemia indica x fauriei ‘Natchez’ / white crape myrtle 15 gal 3 20' x 20' l standard trunk
SHRUBS AND mature
PERRENIALS BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME SIZE QTY HT/WIDTh wucols AGAVE ATTENUATA / FOX TAIL AGAVE 1 GAL 5 4' X 6' L
AGAVE 'BLUE FLAME' / BLUE FLAME AGAVE 1 GAL 5 2.5' X 3' L LANTANA X. 'SPREADING YELLOW' 1 GAL 5 2' X 7' L
LAVANDULA X GINGINSII 'GOODWIN CREEK GRAY' / LAVENDER 1 GAL 7 3' X 3' L LAVANDULA X INTERMEDIA 'GROSSO' / FAT BUD LAVENDER 1 GAL 5 3' X 3' L LAVANDULA STOECHES ’DEDICATION’ / DEDICATION SPANISH LAVENDER 1 GAL 11 30" X 30" L LEUCADENDRON ‘SAFARI GOLDSTRIKE’ / YELLOW CONEBUSH 1 GAL 6 5' X 5' L LEUCADENDRON ‘RED GEM’ / RED GEM CONEBUSH 1 GAL 5 3' X 3' L LEUCADENDRON GALPINII 'SILVER CONE' / 1 GAL 7 7' X 5' L

SILVER CONE GALPIN'S CONEBUSH
LEUCOSPERMUM CORDIFOLIUM‘FLAME GIANT' / 5 GAL 3 6' X 6' L

GIANT ORANGE NODDING PINCUSHION
PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM 'SILVER SHEEN' / 5 GAL 2 15' X 6' M

SILVER SHEEN KOHUHU
SALVIA ULIGINOSA / BOG SAGE 1 GAL 4 4' X 4' L
MATURE
grassES BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME SIZE QTY HT/WIDTH wucols DIANELLA 'CLARITY BLUE' / CLARITY BLUE™ DIANELLA 1 GAL 5 24" X 18" m Dianella tasmanica 'TAS300' / WYEENA™ Flax Lily 1 gal 6 30" X 30" m Carex divulsa / berkeley sedge 1 gal 13 2' x 2' l
LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA ‘BREEZE’ / BREEZE DWARF MAT RUSH 1 GAL 79 3' X 3' L MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEERGRASS 1 GAL 6 4' X 4' l
D

PLANTING NOTES

1. TOTAL LANDSCAPED AREA = 2,400 SF

2. SOIL TO BE TESTED BY accredited soil testing laboratory. CONTRACTOR

SHALL THOROUGHLY INCORPORATE SOIL ADDITIVES AND FERTILIZERS IN ALL

PLANTING AND TURF AREAS AT RATES AND DEPTHS RECOMMENDED BY SOILS LAB. SOIL ADDITIVES SHALL BE THOROUGHLY MIXED INTO EXISTING SOILS IN PLANTING PITS ONLY. ALL SOIL SHALL BE CLEAR OF DEBRIS AND CONSTRUCTION SPOILS.

3. soil shall be tilled to a depth of 6" and amended with 6 cy of organic material per 1,000 sf to promote infiltration and water retention.

4. ALL PLANT MATERIAL IN BIOFILTRATION AREA PER Central California Coast, Technical Assistance Memo (TAM) LID Plant Guidance for Bioretention.

SOIL MIXTURE PER CIVIL PLANS. MULCH LAYER TO BE 1" THICK AND PRODUCT PER NOTE #5.

5. ALL other planting on site to receive a 3" THICK LAYER OF bark mulch equal to REDWOOD, FIR, CEDAR, OR A COMBINATION OF THESE. THE

COMPOSITION OF THE MULCH SHALL BE A MIX OF SHREDDED BARK, WOOD AND SAWDUST, 0-4". no gorilla hair shall be used.

LANDSCAPE PLAN
L1.0

HOUSING

AUTHORITY OF

SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
415 NATURAL BRIDGES DRIVE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
APN: 003-011-06
DATE
JOB
05/26/2021
2104
0 4 8 16
po box 328 aptos, ca 95001
(831) 818-9227
www.mb-landarch.com

SHEET NUMBER

PLAN REVISIONS

SHEET TITLE
mb
megan bishop
LA

L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E
NORTH
THIS SHEET TO BE PRINTED AT 24" X 36"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
9/17/2021 DESIGN REVISIONS

BIKE RACKS
all drains and utilities
per civil plans, typ.

UPON BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL, THE

PLANTING AND IRRIGATION PLANS SHALL COMPLY

WITH THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ WATER EFFICIENT

LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 16.16. AND SHALL INCLUDE HYDROZONE

DELINEATION, WATER USE CALCULATIONS, AND
WATERING SCHEDULE.

WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE

ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE

PLANTING SCHEDULE
all drains and utilities
per civil plans, typ.

KEEP 24" CLEAR

FROM SIDE OF

PARKING STALL PARKING LOT

PER CIVIL PLANS

DRIVEWAY PER

CIVIL PLANS

CONCRETE WALK PER
CIVIL PLANS, TYP.

CONCRETE
PATIOS
KEEP 24" CLEAR

FROM SIDE OF

PARKING STALL

UNIT PATIOS AND

FENCING PER

ARCHITECTURAL
PLANS, TYP.

BIOFILTRATION

PER CIVIL PLANS

BACKFLOWS PER
CIVIL PLANS, TYP.

CONCRETE PAVERS WITH
PEBBLE JOINTS, TYP.

1. IRONSMITH TREE GRATES AND UPLIGHTS PER WWW.IRONSMITH.CC

2. fx luminaire PATH LIGHTS AVAILABLE AT EWING IRRIGATION. CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT Jeff Calhoun, Sales Manager 619-719-2342 WITH ANY INSTALLATION QUESTIONS.

3. ALL LIGHTING FIXTURES ARE LOW VOLTAGE AND TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS.

LIGHTING AND FURNISHING NOTES

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY
TWO (2) UPLIGHTS IN THREE (3) TREE GRATES 6

TO BE 'TGL' INTEGRATED IN TREE GATES BELOW BY IRONSMITH PATH LIGHTS TO BE 'M-PJ - 3LED - BZ' BY FX LUMINAIRE 20 LIGHTING CONTROLLER TO BE 'ex-m' BY FX LUMINAIRE 1

MOUNTED NEXT TO IRRIGATION CONTROLLER IN UTILITY ROOM
TREE GRATES TO BE 'METRO' 48" SQ. BY IRONSMITH 3
RAW IRON AND INSTALLED WITH TWO (2) UPLIGHTS PER GRATE

LIGHTING AND FURNISHING GRAPHIC LEGEND

TREE GRATE AND UPLIGHTS
PER GRAPHIC LEGEND, TYP.

PATH LIGHTS PER
GRAPHIC LEGEND, TYP.

PERMEABLE PAVING
PER CIVIL PLANS, TYP.

LIGHTING

CONTROLLER PER

GRAPHIC LEGEND

PATH LIGHTS PER
GRAPHIC LEGEND, TYP.

25.37 +15' 1
1 +15' +15'
3 4 Date: 09/21/21 Scale: As Noted Revisions ELECTRICAL CONSULTING SINCE 1990

PRIME DESIGN GROUP
303 POTRERO ST. SUITE 42-304
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 430-3600
PDG PROJECT NO.: 21112.00
WWW.PRMDSGN.COM 01 - SHEET NOTES
1 SCALE: SITE LIGHTING PLAN 1/8" = 1' - 0" 1 N
234
2 SCALE: MOUNTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
415 NATURAL BRIDGES DRIVE
SANTA CRUZ , CA E1

SITE LIGHTING PLAN

25.38 \\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx

PLANNIG COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 11, 2022
AGENDA OF: March 17, 2022
ITEM NO: CP21-0059 415 Natural Bridges Drive
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Planned Development Permit, Design Permit, Coastal Permit, and Lot Line Adjustment to City Council based on the
environmental determination, findings listed below, and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A”.

PROJECT DATA
APN: 003-011-06, 003-011-10
Property Owner: Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County
Project Applicant: Tom Thacher
Application Type: Lot Line Adjustment, Planned Development Permit, Design Permit, and Coastal Permit to transfer 4,054 square feet of land to/ from APN 003-011-10 and construct a 100% affordable, 20 unit SRO (Single Room Occupancy) project with a variation to allowed uses to allow an SRO use and variations to development standards for building height, side yard setback, and number of required parking spaces on a vacant lot in the R-L/CZ-O/SP-O (Multiple Residence - LowDensity/Coastal Zone Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay) zone district. This project involves the removal of four Heritage trees.

Zoning: R-L (Multi-Family Residential, Low Density), CZ-O (Coastal Zone Overlay), SP-O (Shoreline Protection Overlay)
Project Consistency: Consistent with the above listed zone districts with approval of Planned Development Permit
General Plan: L-M (Low-Medium Density Residential)
Project Consistency: Consistent with the general plan designation Land Use - existing: Vacant lot
- proposed: 20 unit SRO project
- surrounding: Railroad right of way, Toadal Fitness gym site, office and industrial Lot Area: 12,153 square feet
Lot Dimensions: Approx. 90 feet x 125 feet
Coastal Review: Coastal Permit Required
Environmental Review: Exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA code section 21083.3 Planning Staff: Clara Stanger

25.39 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 2
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx

PROJECT DESCRIPTION & HISTORY
The project site is a vacant lot located on the west side of Natural Bridges Drive just north of the railroad tracks. The site was originally developed in 1939 when a house was moved to the site from a different location. In 2015, the house was determined to be a nuisance and was demolished. The site is now in an undeveloped state and has several Heritage sized trees. The surrounding area includes the railroad right of way to the south, the Toadal Fitness gym site to the west, and office and industrial uses to the north and east. The site is unique in that it is zoned for low-density multi-family residential uses but is surrounded by commercial and industrial uses.

The applicant proposes to develop the site with a residential building containing 20 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units, 100 percent of which will be rented at an affordable, very low income level. The lot will be expanded to the west via a Lot Line Adjustment with the adjacent parcel in order to incorporate additional parking onto the site. The applicant has requested approval of a Planned Development Permit in order to allow:
 the SRO use,
 the proposed building to vary from setback and height standards,  reduced parking, and
 a portion of the on-site parking to have a Public Facilities zoning designation.

Because the project is requesting a Planned Development Permit, the project must include a hearing by the Planning Commission, who will make a recommendation to City Council for the final decision. A project with a Planned Development Permit also requires approval of a Design Permit; the Design Permit is also required as the project involves construction of more than two units. The site is also located in the Coastal Zone and a Coastal Permit is required. Because the site is located in the Shoreline Protection Overlay Zone District, addition findings regarding any present coastal resources must be made.

ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency
The proposal is consistent with the general plan’s Neighborhood Integrity and Housing guiding principle, which calls for the City to actively pursue affordable housing while promoting livability and a high quality in building design. The project is also consistent with several general plan policies that promote affordable housing, infill development, and collaboration with nonprofit organizations. These policies include:
 LU3.1.1 Encourage through incentives and expedited permit processing a variety of housing types, when appropriate.
 LU3.8 Allow [SRO] residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter: Cf.

25.40 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 3
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx
 Housing Element Policy 2.3 Collaborate with nonprofit organizations, private developers, employers, special needs groups, state and federal agencies, and other interested parties to develop affordable housing.
 Housing Element Policy 2.7 Encourage more fully integrated neighborhoods through the development of mixed income and affordable infill housing and through the placement of other affordable housing projects in neighborhoods that do not already have high levels of low income housing
 Housing Element Policy 4.8 Support the development of a variety of housing types, specifically smaller units and single-room occupancy units that address the needs of extremely low income households.
 Housing Element Policy 5.3 Ensure that the character and design of both infill development and remodel/rehabilitation projects promote the vitality of existing neighborhoods.
 LU1.1 Relate residential, commercial, and industrial land use intensities to the capability and location of the land while ensuring optimum utilization of infill parcels.  CC2.1.3 Facilitate efforts of private and nonprofit public service and facility providers.

25.41 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 4
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx
Coastal resources
The project site is located in the Coastal Appeal area of the Coastal Zone Overlay zone district and the Shoreline Protection Overlay Zone District, which seek to ensure that development protects coastal resources and meets the policies of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCP) and Local Coastal Implementation Program. Coastal resources that will or could be affected by the project include the heritage trees on the site, potential archaeological resources, and Moore Creek and Antonelli Pond west and southwest of the site. As discussed in the heritage tree section, the project is consistent with LCP policies CD 6.1.1 and CD 6.1.2, which require review of projects with heritage trees and replacement plantings at a two-to-one ratio. Policy CR 1.2.2 requires projects to evaluate the extent of on-site archaeological and paleontological resources through archival research, site surveys and necessary supplemental testing as part of the initial environmental assessment on each potentially significant site. The project has done this with an archaeological investigation as discussed above, and a standard condition will require the applicant to stop work in the event archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered.

To protect the nearby biotic resources within Moore Creek and Antonelli Pond, the project is consistent with LCP policy EQ 3.1, which requires site design and erosion control measures in areas adjacent to stream and wetland areas. To comply with this policy, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s storm water and construction best management practice standards. The project is also consistent with LCP policies LU 1.4 and CR 1.2.2 which call on projects to utilize the environmental review process to ensure protection of natural resources, significant vegetation communities, wildlife habitats, archaeologically sensitive areas, scenic views and also mitigate and protect development from environmental hazards such as earthquakes.

Heritage Trees
The site has five Heritage trees, which are trees with a trunk diameter of at least 14 inches at 54 inches above grade. An arborist report completed by Maureen Hamb dated June 2021 inventoried the trees on the site and provided recommendations with regard to the project. The five Heritage trees include a 25 inch cedar, a 22 inch coast live oak, a 38 inch tulip, and two acacia trees at 14 and 15 inches. The Cedar is in good condition, and the report recommends retention and protection during construction. The other trees are in poor condition: the oak suffers from a beetle infestation and rot, and the tulip and acacia trees have thinning canopies and structural problems. In addition, these four trees are within the proposed building and driveway. For these reasons, the report recommends removal of these four trees. The City Arborist has reviewed the report and agrees with the recommendation. To meet Heritage tree removal standards as well as Coastal Policy CD6.1.2, replacement trees will be required at a ratio of either two 24-inch box trees or six 15 gallon trees for each tree to be removed. A condition of approval requires the replacement trees species and location to be approved by the City Arborist.

Planned Development
The Planned Development Permit allows a project to vary from uses and development standards when a comparable level of community benefit is proposed. The applicant is offering as a community benefit a 100 percent affordable housing project with rental units being offered at the very low income level, or 50 percent Area Median Income (AMI). A condition of approval requires the Housing Authority to enter into an affordable housing agreement to memorialize the affordability protections on the units in perpetuity.

25.42 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 5
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx
In exchange, this project is requesting the following variations to uses and development standards:
 A use variation to allow the SRO use in R-L zoning. The R-L zone district allows various types of multi-family housing such as apartments, townhomes, and condominiums, although at a lower density than would be offered by the SRO project. While SROs are generally excluded from the R-L zone district in order to preserve lower density housing, in this case the lot is spot-zoned R-L in an area zoned for industrial and public facility uses, and there is not an immediately surrounding residential neighborhood that would be impacted by the SRO development.
 A use variation to allow the rear portion of the site, zoned PF, to allow parking. This is the portion of the Toadal Fitness site that is being transferred to the SRO site. While neither parking nor SROs are listed as an allowable use in the PF zone district, this portion of the site is already being used as parking for the Toadal Fitness gym, and there is no change in the use.
 A reduction in the northern side yard setback from 12 feet to seven feet two inches.

Because the Fire Department is requiring a minimum 14 foot wide driveway on the south side for fire access, it is not possible to move the building further to the south. The adjacent property to the north is an office building, so the reduced setback will not pose any privacy concerns that may have arisen in a residential neighborhood.  An increase in the allowed height from 30 feet to 36 feet. The applicant has indicated that the increased building height will allow for a larger floor to ceiling heights within the units that will make the units more livable. In addition, the increased height will allow for articulation along the roofline to create an aesthetically pleasing architectural design.  A reduction in required parking from 20 spaces to 12. The Public Works department has reviewed this aspect of the design and does not have any concerns with potential effects on street parking in the area.

Design
The proposal meets Design Permit requirements for a balanced and harmonious design that is compatible with the surrounding area. The site plan places ample landscaping at the front and parking, trash room, and utility meters at the rear of the site, creating a visually pleasing view from the street. The proposed building has well-articulated walls and roofline, especially on the elevations facing Natural Bridges Drive and the railroad right of way. The mix of stucco and vertical siding provides quality exterior materials that add further interest. Details such as metal balcony railings, sheet metal coping, and slightly curved parapet roofline features complete a detailed design that blends in well with the surrounding area. The three story building, while exceeding the zone district height development standard, still has a similar scale to the larger, mostly two-story commercial buildings in the surrounding area.

Zoning ordinance site development standards
The project must meet several site development standards in the zoning ordinance, including those for the R-L zone district, parking standards, and specific standards for SRO developments.

The chart below shows the project’s consistency with the development standards:

25.43 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 6
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx
RL zone district standards, section 24.12.450
Standard Required Proposed
Height 30’ max 36’*
Lot area 5,500 sq. ft. min. 15,332 sq. ft.

Front yard setback 15’ or 10’ for 50% with 15’
average
31’
Rear yard setback 10’ min. 51’
Side yard setback (north) 5’ or 1’:3’ = 12’ 7’2” *
Side yard setback (south) 5’ or 1’:3’ = 12’ 15’10”
*Variation requested as part of Planned Development Permit Parking Standards, section 24.12.200 et seq.

Standard Required Proposed
Number of spaces 20 12*
Number of compact spaces Up to 50% of total provided (6 max.)
5 EV charging stations 12% of total provided, (1
space)
1 Bicycle parking: Class 1 1 space per unit (20 total) 20 Bicycle parking: Class 2 1 space per 4 units (5 total) 5 Parking area in landscaping 10% min. (535 square feet) 493** Driveway width 12’ min. 14’
*Variation requested as part of Planned Development Permit **A condition of approval to require low growing plantings along the top of the four western most parking spaces will add 64 square feet of landscaping and bring the project into conformance with this standard.

SRO development standards, section 24.12.1000 et seq.

Standard Required Proposed
Unit size 150-400 sq. ft. 251-380 sq. ft.

Ave unit size 345 sq. ft. max 339.5 sq. ft.

Full bath and kitchen Any units 220 sq. ft. or more Each has full bath and kitchen Closet 1 per unit min. Each has a closet
Common outdoor space 200 sq. ft., 8’ min width 2,450 sq. ft. common space in front yard plus 400 sq. ft. on
north side
Common indoor space 200 sq. ft., not counting
maintenance areas, laundry
facilities, storage (including
bicycle storage), and common
hallways
311 sq. ft. common area room
Laundry facility 2 washers, 2 dryers 2 washers, 2 dryers Common bathroom On floor if any unit does not
have full bath
n/a, all units have full bath
Common kitchen On floor if any unit does not n/a, all units have full kitchen

25.44 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 7
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx
have full kitchen
Storage space 1 per unit 20 (1 per unit) plus 6 more
Bicycle storage 1 per unit 20 in storage spaces
Manager’s unit 1 1
In addition, the SRO project must have a management plan that contains management policies, maintenance plans, rental procedures, tenant rules, and security procedures. The applicant has submitted a draft management plan that addresses these topics. A condition of approval requires a finalized management plan to be approved prior to building permit issuance.

Environmental Review
Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 allows a lead agency to avoid repeating analyses that were already provided in a certified general plan EIR for a development project that is consistent with the general plan. Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and its parallel CEQA Guidelines provision, section 15183, provide for streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with the general plan for which an EIR was certified. Subsection (d) further indicates that an effect of a project upon the environment shall not be considered “peculiar to the parcel or to the project…if uniformly applied development policies or standards” have been previously adopted by the city or county, with a finding based upon substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards would not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. Under these provisions of CEQA, the project has been found to be consistent with the general plan, its certified EIR, and uniformly applied standards in the Santa Cruz Municipal Code and is therefore exempt from further CEQA analyses.

Community outreach
The project is considered a medium sized development project requiring community outreach under the Department of Planning & Community Development Community Outreach Policy for Planning Projects. The project applicant hosted a virtual community meeting was held on June 28, 2021 after pre-application review and prior to formal application submittal. The meeting was duly noticed via on-site posting as well as postcard mailings to properties within a 500 foot radius of the project parcel. In addition to applicant and City staff representatives, eight individuals from the community attended the meeting. Five attendees provided feedback, and they all expressed support for the project. Comments included support for the building design and for reduced parking, support for affordable housing at this location, and support for the site’s location next to the future rail trail.

Regarding the Potential for ADU’s
Like all multi-family property in the state, this project is entitled to create ADUs in addition to the units proposed as a ministerial action. Up to 25% of the total number of units (for this project, a total of five) 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.

25.45 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 8
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx
Health in all Policies (HiAP)
HiAP is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. HiAP is based on 3 pillars:
equity, public health, and sustainability. The goal of HiAP is to ensure that all decision-makers are informed about the health, equity, and sustainability impacts of various policy options during the policy development process. The project supports the pillar of equity by providing rental units affordable to those with very low income levels that otherwise would not be able to afford market rate housing. The development is on a site that is improved with sidewalks and street trees and that is in close proximity to public transportation, commercial goods and services, and recreational areas.

The development of residences in this central location and adjacent to the potential future rail trail along the adjacent railway line encourages a sustainable and healthy lifestyle by promoting alternative forms of transportation. Therefore, the project is considered to be consistent with the three pillars of the HiAP and is recommended as an efficient use of the land.

SUMMARY
The project meets all the required site area standards, and the findings for approval of the Coastal Permit and Design Permit are attached. The proposed Planned Development provides affordable housing within a livable, aesthetically pleasing development that balances the requests for variations to the use and to site development standards. Staff recommends approval based on the Findings listed below and the Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit A.

FINDINGS
Lot Line Adjustment, Section 23.12.030.1p

1. The lot line adjustment does not create a greater number of parcels than originally existed.

The lot line adjustment results in two parcels, which is the same number of parcels originally existing before the lot line adjustment.

2. The parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment conform to Title 24 of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code and to the California Building Codes.

The parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment conform to the zoning ordinance in terms of lot size, lot width, street frontage, building setbacks. The lot line adjustment has been reviewed by the Building division and confirmed to meet California Building Codes.

Coastal Permit, Section 24.08.250

3. The hearing body must find that the development is consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and the Local Coastal Implementation Program; The project is consistent with several general plan policies that call for affordable housing (LU3.1.1, LU3.8, Housing Element Policy 2.2, Housing Element Policy 2.3, Housing

25.46 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 9
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx
Element Policy 2.7, Housing Element Policy 4.8 promote partnering with nonprofits (Housing Element Policy 2.3, CC2.1.3) and promote infill development (Housing Element Policy 2.7, Housing Element Policy 5.3, LU1.1).

The project is consistent with LCP policies to protect heritage trees (CD 6.1.1 and CD

4. Maintain views between the sea and the first public roadway parallel to the sea; The site is located on the inland side of Delaware Avenue, which is the first public road parallel to the sea, and therefore will not obstruct any views between the road and the sea.

25.47 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 10
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx

5. Protect vegetation, natural habitats and natural resources consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan;
The proposed development involves removal of four of the five heritage trees on site. The project will retain a 25 inch cedar tree, which is in the best condition of the existing trees.

Coastal policy CD 6.1.1 requires the city to review plans with respect to Heritage trees and provide technical assistance to owners. Consistent with this policy, the City Urban Forester has reviewed the plans and concurs with the arborist report submitted for the project recommending removal of the four trees. Since the trees are located in the Coastal Zone, replacement trees are required at a two-to-one ratio per coastal policy CD6.1.2. A condition of approval requires replacement trees at a ratio of two 24-inch box trees or six 15 gallon trees per tree removed, or payment of a comparable in-lieu fee, to meet replacement requirements under the Heritage Tree Ordinance as well as under the Local Coastal Program. The project is not located within an area mapped as sensitive for habitats or other natural resource under the Local Coastal Land Use Plan. However, a condition of approval will require a nesting bird survey to be completed prior to heritage tree removal. The site is located approximately 400 feet to the east of Moore Creek and approximately the same distance northeast of Antonelli Pond. Coastal policy EQ 3.1 requires site design and erosion control measures in areas adjacent to stream and wetland areas. To comply with this policy, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s storm water and construction best management practice standards.

6. Be consistent with any applicable design plans and/or area plans incorporated into the Local Coastal Land Use Plan;
The site is not located within the focus area of any design or area plan; therefore, this finding does not apply.

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

The site is located over half a mile from the coastline, is inland of Delaware Avenue, and does not presently include any public access pathways to the coast; therefore, the proposed project will not affect existing public access to the coast. Further, the site is within walking distance of commercial goods, services, recreation and public transportation and the development will include one bicycle parking space per unit, therefore, the development will not impact public street parking in the vicinity of project site.

8. Be consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan goal of providing visitor-serving needs as appropriate;
The site is designated for residential development and not for development for visitorserving needs, and visitor-serving uses are not proposed; therefore, this finding does not apply.

25.48 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 11
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx

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

The project site is not located in an area designated for coastal dependent industries, and the project does not propose a coastal dependent use; therefore, this finding does not apply.

Shoreline Protection Overlay District Review Criteria, Section 24.10.2430

10. Protect trees and vegetation and sensitive wildlife habitat.

The proposed development involves removal of four of the five heritage trees on site. The project will retain a 25 inch cedar tree, which is in the best condition of the existing trees.

11. Be consistent with the following criteria for bluff or cliff development:

a. The development is sited and designed to assure stability and structural integrity of its expected economic life span and minimize alterations to natural land forms.

The project site is not located on a cliff, bluff top, face, or base, and is not located on the beach; therefore, this finding does not apply.

d. The development which proposes use of retaining walls shall be allowed only to stabilize slopes. Sea walls at the toe of sea cliffs to check marine erosion

25.49 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 12
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx
shall be allowed only where there is no less environmentally damaging alternative.

The proposed project does not include any retaining walls or sea walls; therefore, this finding does not apply.

e. The development within one hundred feet of any cliff or bluff line shall follow the recommendations of an approved geologic report by a registered geologist. The area where such a report is required may be increased where the issue of slope stability requires a greater distance from any cliff or bluff line.

The proposed improvements are not within 100 feet of a cliff or bluff; therefore, this finding does not apply.

12. Provide maximum erosion protection, using accepted engineering practices and other methods and specifications set forth in this title.

During construction, the project proposes and will be required to follow Best Management Practices with regard to erosion and storm water control.

13. Maintain public view corridors between the sea and the first public roadway parallel to the sea and maintain natural views of the coastline; The site is located inland from Delaware Avenue, the first public road parallel to the sea, and therefore will not obstruct any public views of the coastline.

14. Protect paleontological resources as prescribed in the Land Use Plan;

A condition of approval requires the applicant to stop work and contact the proper authorities should any earth-disturbing work result in the discovery of a paleontological resource.

15. Protect and enhance free public access to or along the beach, and sign such access when necessary;
The site does not provide access to the beach, and is located inland from Delaware Avenue, the first road parallel to the beach; therefore, this finding does not apply.

16. Include mitigation measures prescribed in any applicable environmental document; The project is utilizing Public Resources Code section 21083.3. The project is consistent with all standard measures to protect environmental resources required under the general plan and zoning ordinance.

25.50 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 13
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx

17. Be compatible with the established physical scale of the area;

The three story, 10,519 square foot building is compatible with the physical scale of the area, which includes large, mostly two story industrial and commercial buildings.

18. Be consistent with the design review guidelines of this title and the policies of any applicable area plan;

The site meets the findings for a Design Permit in that the site plan places ample landscaping at the front and parking, trash room, and utility meters at the rear of the site, creating a visually pleasing view from the street; the proposed building has well-articulated walls and roofline, especially on the elevations facing Natural Bridges Drive and the railroad right of way; the mix of stucco and vertical siding provides quality exterior materials that add further interest; details such as metal balcony railings, sheet metal coping, and slightly curved parapet roofline features complete a detailed design that blends in well with the surrounding area; the proposed building would not block any significant public views identified in the general plan; the building does not create any privacy issues for adjacent properties; and the building does not cast shade on any residential uses. The site is not within the focus area of any area plan.

19. Be consistent with the policies of the Local Coastal Program, the General Plan, and the California Coastal Act.

The project is consistent with LCP policies to protect heritage trees (CD 6.1.1 and CD

25.51 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 14
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx
falling within that category. In addition, the portion of the site to be transferred to the project site is currently a portion of the parking lot, and this piece of land will continue to be used for parking although for the SRO use and not for the Toadal Fitness gym use.

The project is consistent with the California Coastal Act.

Design Permit, Section 24.08.430

20. The site plan and building design are consistent with design and development policies of the General Plan, any element of the General Plan, and any area plan, specific plan, or other city policy for physical development. If located in the Coastal Zone, the site plan and building design are also consistent with policies of the Local Coastal Program.

25.52 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 15
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx
project site is currently a portion of the parking lot, and this piece of land will continue to be used for parking although for the SRO use and not for the Toadal Fitness gym use.

The project site is not located within the focus area of any area or specific plan.

The project is consistent with LCP policies to protect heritage trees (CD 6.1.1 and CD

21. For non-residential projects, the project’s location, size, height, operations, and other significant features and characteristics are compatible with and do not adversely affect or further degrade adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood, or the public health, safety, and welfare. For residential projects, the project complies with the objective standards and requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, as well as any objective standards of any area plan or other regulatory document that applies to the area in which the project is located.

25.53 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 16
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx

22. For non-residential projects, the project provides for an arrangement of uses, buildings, structures, open spaces, and other improvements that are compatible with the scale and character of the adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhood.

The proposal is a residential use; therefore, this finding does not apply.

23. 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.

24. Design of the site plan respects design principles in terms of maintaining a balance of scale, form and proportion, using design components which are harmonious, and materials and colors which blend with elements of the site plan and surrounding areas. Location of structures takes into account maintenance of public views; rooftop mechanical equipment is incorporated into roof design or screened from public rights-of-way to the extent possible. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, traffic-control devices, transformer vaults and electrical meters are accessible and screened.

25. Where a site plan abuts, or is in close proximity to, uses other than that proposed, the plan shall 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 site is surrounded by a gym, office building, and railroad right of way. The proposed residential use does not include any nuisance features that would affect the surrounding uses.

25.54 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 17
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx

26. To the extent feasible, the orientation and location of buildings, structures, open spaces and other features of the site plan maintain natural resources including significant trees and shrubs, minimize impacts to solar access of adjacent properties, and minimize alteration of natural land forms; building profiles, location, and orientation must relate to natural land forms.

The proposed development involves removal of four of the five heritage trees on site. The project will retain a 25 inch cedar tree, which is in the best condition of the existing trees.

27. The site plan ensures that the scale, bulk, and setbacks of new development preserves important public views along the ocean and of designated scenic coastal areas. Where appropriate and feasible, the project shall restore and enhance visual quality of visually degraded areas.

28. 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.

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

25.55 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 18
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx
Planned Development, Section 24.08.770

30. Is consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Land Use Plan, and adopted area plans.

The project is consistent with LCP policies to protect heritage trees (CD 6.1.1 and CD

The project is not within the focus area of any area plan.

25.56 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 19
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx

31. Is consistent with the purpose of this chapter and other applicable sections of this title.

The purpose of the Planned Development Permit under Chapter 24.08, Part 8 is to provide an avenue for developments that serve public objectives more fully than a development permitted under conventional zoning regulations. The project is consistent with this purpose in that it provides a 100 percent affordable housing development that also includes a dignified level of livability through comfortable floor to ceiling heights, a visually pleasing architectural design, and substantial useable open space. Except as allowed with variations under this permit, the project as conditioned is consistent with the applicable development standards of the R-L zone district, the SRO development standards, and the parking regulations.

32. Includes planned variations to underlying district regulations which serve public purposes to an equivalent or higher degree than would underlying district regulations.

33. Can be coordinated with existing and proposed development of surrounding areas.

34. Overall, the amenity level of the development and the amount of open space shall be greater than what would have been permitted by the underlying district regulations.

25.57 AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2022
SUBJECT: 415 Natural Bridges Dr. – Project No. CP21-0059 PAGE 20
\\vfshare\pl\_Public\PACKETS\2022\CC\4-26-22\DRAFT 415 Natural Bridges\Uploaded to OnBase\Planning Commission Staff Report from March 17, 2022.docx
allows a use that is not specifically listed in the zone district. Reducing the amount of parking below the required amount and reducing the northern side yard setback allows the building to be set back further on the lot, maximizing the amount of open space useable to residents.

Submitted by:

Clara Stanger
Senior Planner
Approved by:

Samantha Haschert
Principal Planner

Attachments:

1. Exhibit “A” – Conditions of Approval

2. Project plans

3. Draft SRO management plan

4. Arborist report

5. Preliminary storm water control plan

6. CEQA exemption checklist

7. Public Notice Radius Map

25.58 Maureen Hamb-WCISA Certified Arborist WE2280
Professional Consulting Services
849 Almar Ave. Suite C #319 Telephone: 831-763-6919
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Mobile: 831-234-7735
Email: [email protected]
amb-WCISA Certified Arborist WE2280
l Consulting Services

FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
TEHAMA LOT 73

PROPERTIES OF ROBERT AND MARA PERKINS
APRIL 11, 2014

TREE RESOURCE EVALUATION

PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
415 NATURAL BRIDGES DRIVE
Prepared for
Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County
June 2021

25.59 Tree Resource Evaluation/Project Impact Analysis
Undeveloped Land/415 Natural Bridges Drive
June 2021

Page 1 ends

Santa Cruz City CouncilApril 26, 2022

Santa Cruz City Council
April 26, 2022