Poor: Trees in poor health and/or with poor structure that cannot be effectively abated with treatment
109 S. Rapetta Road, Santa Cruz
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Suitability for Preservation Ratings: Retention or Removal Code:
Good: Trees in good health and structural condition with potential for longevity on the site
RT: Retain Tree
RI: Remove Due to Construction Impacts
Fair: Trees in fair health and/or with structural defects that may be reduced with treatment procedures
I.M. Impacts Can Be Mitigated With Pre-Construction Treatments R.C. Remove Due to Condition
Protected Tree City of Santa Cruz: Any tree 14 inches or greater in diameter measured at 4.5 feet above grade. Street trees regardless of size.
27.153
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter @
54 inches
a.g.
Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
(Diameter)
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in
feet)
Construction
Impacts
(Rating &
Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T14 blue gum eucalyptus
(Eucalyptus globulus) 26",22" Yes 85'X15' Fair Fair Fair 7' High (Within grading limits) R.I.
Co-dominant trunks at 4' above grade.
Fifteen percent of canopy has limb dieback
up to 5" in diameter. Needs crown cleaning
and reduction.
T15 blue gum eucalyptus 55" Yes 110'X15' Fair-Poor Fair Poor 7' Moderate (Root loss) R.C.
8' from new home foundation. Co-dominant
trunks at 6' and 8' above grade. Three
trunks. One trunk in significant decline.
Twenty-five percent of canopy has limb
dieback, up to 4" in diameter.
T16 blue gum eucalyptus 26" Yes 75'X15' Fair Fair Fair 14' Moderate (Root loss) R.I. Within grading limits.
T17 blue gum eucalyptus 20", 14" Yes 65';X15' Fair Fair Fair N/A High (Within grading limits) R.I. Co-dominant trunks at 3' above grade.
T18
California bay laurel
(Umbellularia
californica )
6" No 20'X15' Good Good Good 8' High (Within
grading limits) R.I. Young tree.
109 S. Rapetta Road, Santa Cruz
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
27.154
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter @
4.5'
Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
(Diameter)
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in
feet)
Construction
Impacts (Rating
& Description)
Retention or
Removal
Code
Comments
T19 blue gum eucalyptus 34" Yes 100'X10' Poor Poor Poor 10' High (Within grading limits) R.C., R.I.
Minimal limb structure and canopy. 20"X10"
trunk cavity with active decay. Dieback of
limbs up to 4" in diameter. Tree is a high risk
due to poor condition, trunk cavity defect,
tree height and home on Misty Court and cars
on El Rancho Drive as possible targets.
T20 blue gum eucalyptus 17",12" Yes 100'x10' Fair-Poor Fair Fair 8' High (Within grading limits) R.I.
Co-dominant trunks at 4' above grade. Thirty
percent of canopy has limb dieback up to 3" in
diameter.
T21
Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa )
13" No 40'X25' Good Fair Fair 8' Low (Root loss,
excavation) R.T.
T22 Monterey cypress 16" Yes 40'X25' Fair Poor Fair 14' Low (Root loss, excavation) R.T. Topped at 35' above grade. Reduced branch structure on one half of tree.
T23 Monterey cypress 15" Yes 40'x20' Fair Fair Fair 10' Low (Root loss, excavation) R.T.
109 S. Rapetta Road, Santa Cruz
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
27.155
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter
@ 4.5'
Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
(Diameter)
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in
feet)
Construction
Impacts (Rating
& Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T24 coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens) 10" No 40'x10' Fair Fair Fair 10' Low (Root loss, excavation) R.T.
Minimal growth on one half of tree.
Suppressed by larger adjacent cypress,
T23.
T25 blue gum eucalyptus 32" Yes 100'X10' Fair Fair-Poor Poor 20' Low (Root loss, excavation) R.C. Minimal branch structure.
T26 blue gum eucalyptus 16",6",4" Yes 50'x10' Fair-Poor Poor Poor 15' Low (Root loss, excavation) R.C.
Trunk bows to east. Minimal branch
structure with weight bias to east. Two
6" & 4" diameter trunk sprouts.
T27 blue gum eucalyptus 5",4",3" No 25'X10' Fair-Poor Poor Poor 12' Low (Root loss, excavation) R.C. Stump sprout.
T28 coast live oak 4" No 15'x10' Good Good Good 12' High (Within grading limits) R.I. Young tree.
109 S. Rapetta Road, Santa Cruz
27.156
APPENDIX B – CRITERIA FOR TREE ASSESSMENT CHART
Following is an explanation of the data used in the tree evaluations. The data is incorporated in the Tree Assessment Chart, Appendix A.
Trunk Diameter and Number of Trunks:
Trunk diameter as measured at 4.5 feet above grade. The number of trunks refers to a single or multiple trunked tree. Multiple trunks are measured at 4.5 feet above grade.
Health Ratings:
Good: A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease Fair: Moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, crown may be thinning and leaf color may be poor
Poor: Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk, most of foliage from epicormics
Structure Ratings:
Good: No significant structural defects. Growth habit and form typical of the species Fair: Moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care Poor: Extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.
Suitability for Preservation Ratings:
Rating factors:
Tree Health: Healthy vigorous trees are more tolerant of construction impacts such as root loss, grading and soil compaction, then are less vigorous specimens.
Structural integrity: Preserved trees should be structurally sound and absent of defects or have defects that can be effectively reduced, especially near structures or high use areas.
Tree Age: Over mature trees have a reduced ability to tolerate construction impacts, generate new tissue and adjust to an altered environment. Young to maturing specimens are better able to respond to change.
27.157
Species response: There is a wide variation in the tolerance of individual tree species to construction impacts.
Rating Scale:
Good: Trees in good health and structural condition with potential for longevity on the site Fair: Trees in fair health and/or with structural defects that may be reduced with treatment procedures.
Poor: Trees in poor health and/or with poor structure that cannot be effectively abated with treatment. Trees can be expected to decline or fail regardless of construction impacts or management ͘ dŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĞƐŽƌŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůŵĂLJƉŽƐƐĞƐƐĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞ ŽƌƵŶĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞŝŶůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞƐĞƚƚŝŶŐƐŽƌƵŶƐƵŝƚĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘ Construction Impacts:
Rating Scale:
High: Development elements proposed that are located within the Tree WƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ ŽŶĞƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚƐĞǀĞƌĞůLJŝŵƉĂĐƚƚŚĞŚĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚͬŽƌƐƚĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞƚƌĞĞ͘dŚĞ ƚƌĞĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞŵŝƚŝŐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĚĞƐŝŐŶĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ͘dŚĞƚƌĞĞŵĂLJďĞ ůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚ͘
Moderate: Development elements proposed that are located within the Tree Protection Zone that will impact the health and/or stability of the tree and can be mitigated with tree protection treatments.
Low: evelopment elements proposed that are located within or near the Tree Protection Zone that will ŚĂǀĞĂŵŝŶŽƌimpactŽŶ the health of the tree and can be mitigated ǁŝƚŚƚƌĞĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƐ͘
None: Development elements will have no impact on the health and stability of the Tree.
Tree Protection Zone (TPZ):
Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, particularly during construction or development.
27.158
4DBMF
h
5SFF1SPUFDUJPO1MBO
4PVUI3BQFUUB3PBE
4BOUB$SV[
4IFFU5PGTIFFU
,'
"1/
5$0"45-*7&0",
%#) 5$)*/&4&1*45"$)&
%#)
5#-"$,800%"$"$*"
%#)
5#-6&(6.&6$"-:1564
%#)
5#-6&(6.&6$"-:1564
%#)
5#-6&(6.&6$"-:1564
%#)
5$0"45-*7&0",
%#)
5#-6&(6.&6$"-:1564
%#)
5#-6&(6.&6$"-:1564
%#)
5$"-*'#":-"63&-
%#)
5#-6&(6.&6$"-:1564
%#)
5#-6&(6.&6$"-:1564
%#)
5.0/5&3&:$:13&44
%#)
5$0"453&%800%
%#)
5#-6&(6.&6$"-:1564
5.0/5&3&:$:13&44
%#)
5#-6&(6.&6$"-:1564
%#)
5.0/5&3&:$:13&44
%#)
"OZHSBEJOHJOTJEFPGUSFFQSPUFDUJPO
GFODJOHGPSUSFF5
TIBMMPDDVSCZ
IBOENFUIPET
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
103$)&/53:
Y
Y Y
27.159
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Matheny, N. and Clark, J. Trees & Development – A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 1998 Costello, L.R., Watson, G., Smiley E.T. Root Management – Best Management Practices, Champaign, ILL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 2017 ANSI Board of Standards Review. A.N.S.I. (American National Standard) A300 (Part 8)- 2013 Root Management
Harris, R.W., Clark, J.R. and Matheny, N.P. Arboriculture: Integrated management of landscape tree, shrubs, and vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. c.2004 Matheny, N. and Clark, J. Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. Champaign, IL: Wadley Graphix Corp. c.1994
Smiley, E.T., Matheny, N., Lilly, S. Tree Risk Assessment – Best Management Practices, Champaign, ILL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 2011 Costello, L., Perry, E., & Matheny,N, Abiotic Disorders of Landscape Plants: A Diagnostic Guide Oakland, CA:UC/ANR Publications (Publication 3420) c.2003.
27.160
Glossary of Terms
Basal rot: decay of the lower trunk, trunk flare, or buttress roots.
Canker: Localized diseased area on stems, roots and branches. Often sunken and discolored.
Critical Root Zone (CRZ): Area of soil around a tree where a minimum number of roots considered critical to the structural stability or health of the tree are located. CRZ determination is sometimes based on the drip line or a multiple of the DBH, but because root growth can be asymmetric due to site conditions, on-site investigation may be required.
Codominant branches/stems: Forked branches (or trunks), nearly the same size in diameter, arising from a common junction and lacking a normal branch union, may have included bark.
Crown: Upper part of a tree, measured from the lowest branch, including all branches and foliage.
Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees defects are injuries, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree’s structural strength.
Diameter at breast height (DBH): Measurement of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above grade.
Frass: Fecal material and/or wood shavings produced by insects.
Included Bark Attachments (crotches): Bark that becomes imbedded in a crotch (union) between branch and trunk or between codominant stems. Lacks axillary wood and causes a weak attachment.
Live Crown Ratio (LCR): Ratio of the height of the crown containing live foliage to overall height of the tree.
Scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that form the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree.
Suppressed: Trees that have been overtopped and occupy an understory position within a group or grove of trees. Suppressed trees often have poor structure.
Tree Protection Zones (TPZ): Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited of restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during construction or development.
Trunk flare: Transition zone from trunk to roots where the trunk expands into the buttress or structural roots.
This Glossary of Terms was adapted from the Glossary of Arboricultural Terms (ISA, 2015)
27.161
Appendix &- TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES AND RESTRICTIONS Protecting Trees During Construction:
1) Before the start of site work, equipment or materials move in, clearing, excavation, construction, or other work on the site, every tree to be retained shall be securely fenced- off as delineated in approved plans. Such fences shall remain continuously in place for the duration of the work undertaken in connection with the development. 2) If the proposed development, including any site work, will encroach upon the tree protection zone, special measures shall be utilized, as approved by the project arborist, to allow the roots to obtain necessary oxygen, water, and nutrients. 3) Underground trenching shall avoid the major support and absorbing tree roots of protected trees. If avoidance is impractical, hand excavation undertaken under the supervision of the project arborist may be required. Trenches shall be consolidated to service as many units as possible. Boring/tunneling under roots should be considered as an alternative to trenching.
4) Concrete or asphalt paving shall not be placed over the root zones of protected trees, unless otherwise permitted by the project arborist.
5) Artificial irrigation shall not occur within the root zone of native oaks, unless deemed appropriate on a temporary basis by the project arborist to improve tree vigor or mitigate root loss.
6) Compaction of the soil within the tree protection zone shall be avoided. 7) Any excavation, cutting, or filling of the existing ground surface within the tree protection zone shall be minimized and subject to such conditions as the project arborist may impose. Retaining walls shall likewise be designed, sited, and constructed to minimize their impact on protected trees.
8) Burning or use of equipment with an open flame near or within the tree protection zone shall be avoided. All brush, earth, and other debris shall be removed in a manner that prevents injury to the tree.
9) Oil, gas, chemicals, paints, cement, stucco or other substances that may be harmful to trees shall not be stored or dumped within the tree protection zone of any protected tree, or at any other location on the site from which such substances might enter the tree protection zone of a protected tree.
10) Construction materials shall not be stored within the tree protection zone of a protected tree.
27.162
Project Arborist Duties and Inspection Schedule:
The project arborist is the person(s) responsible for carrying out technical tree inspections, assessment of tree health, structure and risk, arborist report preparation, consultation with designers and municipal planners, specifying tree protection measures, monitoring, progress reports and final inspection.
A qualified project arborist (or firm) should be designated and assigned to facilitate and insure tree preservation practices. He/she/they should perform the following inspections:
Inspection of site: Prior to equipment and materials move in, site work, demolition, landscape construction and tree removal: The project arborist will meet with the general contractor, architect / engineer, and owner or their representative to review tree preservation measures, designate tree removals, delineate the location of tree protection fencing, specify equipment access routes and materials storage areas, review the existing condition of trees and provide any necessary recommendations.
Inspection of site: During excavation or any activities that could affect trees: Inspect site during any activity within the Tree Protection Zones of preserved trees and any recommendations implemented. Assess any changes in the health of trees since last inspection.
Final Inspection of Site: Inspection of site following completion of construction. Inspect for tree health and make any necessary recommendations.
Kurt Fouts shall be the Project Arborist for this project. All scheduled inspections shall include a brief Tree Monitoring report, documenting activities and provided to the City Arborist.
Tree Protection Fencing
Tree Protection fencing shall be installed prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials. Fence shall be comprised of six -foot chain link fence mounted on eight - foot tall, 1 and 7/8-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced on a minimum of 10-foot centers. Once established, the fence must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection.
A final inspection by the City Arborist at the end of the project will be required prior to removing any tree protection fencing.
Tree Protection Signs
All sections of fencing should be clearly marked with signs stating that all areas within the fencing are Tree Protection Zones and that disturbance is prohibited.
27.163
Monitoring
Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be documented.
The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted.
Root Pruning
Root pruning shall be supervised by the project arborist. When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or torn. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour.
Tree Work Standards and Qualifications
All tree work, removal, pruning, planting, shall be performed using industry standards of workmanship as established in the Best Management Practices of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and the American National Standards Institute series, Safety Requirements in Arboriculture Operations ANSI Z133-2017, Contractor licensing and insurance coverage shall be verified.
During tree removal and clearance, sections of the Tree Protection Fencing may need to be temporarily dismantled to complete removal and pruning specifications. After each section is completed, the fencing is to be re-installed.
Trees to be removed shall be cut into smaller manageable pieces consistent with safe arboricultural practices, and carefully removed so as not to damage any surrounding trees or structures. The trees shall be cut down as close to grade as possible. Tree removal is to be performed by a qualified contractor with valid City Business/ State Licenses and General Liability and Workman’s Compensation insurance.
27.164
Development Site Tree Health Care Measures
RECOMMENDED TO PROVIDE OPTIMUM GROWING CONDITIONS, PHYSIOLOGICAL
INVIGORATION AND STAMINA, FOR PROTECTION AND RECOVERY FROM CONSTRUCTION IMPACT.
Establish and maintain TPZ fencing, trunk and scaffold limb barriers for protection from mechanical damage, and other tree protection requirements as specified in the arborist report.
Project arborist to specify site-specific soil surface coverings (wood chip mulch or other) for prevention of soil compaction and loss of root aeration capacity.
Soil, water and drainage management is to follow the ISA BMP for "Managing Trees During Construction" and the ANSI Standard A300(Part 2)- 2011 Soil Management (a. Modification, b. 'Fertilization, c. Drainage.)
Fertilizer / soil amendment product(s) amounts and method of application to be specified by certified arborist.
27.165
City of Santa Cruz
9.56.040 HERITAGE TREE AND HERITAGE SHRUB DESIGNATION.
Any tree, grove of trees, shrub or group of shrubs, growing on public or private property within the city limits of the city of Santa Cruz which meet(s) the following criteria shall have the “heritage” designation:
(a) Any tree which has a trunk with a circumference of forty-four inches (approximately fourteen inches in diameter or more), measured at fifty-four inches above existing grade; (b) Any tree, grove of trees, shrub or group of shrubs which have historical significance, including but not limited to those which were/are:
(1) Planted as a commemorative;
(2) Planted during a particularly significant historical era; or (3) Marking the spot of an historical event.
(c) Any tree, grove of trees, shrub or group of shrubs which have horticultural significance, including but not limited to those which are:
(1) Unusually beautiful or distinctive;
(2) Old (determined by comparing the age of the tree or shrub in question with other trees or shrubs of its species within the city);
(3) Distinctive specimen in size or structure for its species (determined by comparing the tree or shrub to average trees and shrubs of its species within the city); (4) A rare or unusual species for the Santa Cruz area (to be determined by the number of similar trees of the same species within the city);
(5) Providing a valuable habitat; or
(6) Identified by the city council as having significant arboricultural value to the citizens of the city.
27.166
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. Any legal description provided by the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as the quality of any title.
2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others.
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser/consultant’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported.
7. Sketches. Diagrams. Graphs. Photos. Etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.
8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture.
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
10. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection.
CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education. Knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees, Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
27.167
Biotic Resources Group
Biotic Assessments i Resource Management i Permitting
2551 S. Rodeo Gulch Road #12 i Soquel, California 95073 i (831) 476-4803 i [email protected] February 1, 2022
Mr. Steve Benedum
475 Thin Edge Road
Santa Cruz, CA 95065
RE: Rancho Carbonera Conservation Easement, Misty Court – Results of Invasive Plant Removal
Dear Mr. Benedum,
The Biotic Resources Group has conducted a review of invasive plant removal work that has occurred within the oak woodland conservation easement, located in the eastern portion of the subdivision. This review was to document completion of tasks that were outlined in my letter, dated December 15, 2021.
Review of Conservation Easement -Invasive Plant Removal The Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management Plan (RVMP) identified actions within the conservation easement (CE), which included: removal of invasive, non-native plant species (acacia, French broom, periwinkle, and ivy), erosion control, and revegetation. These actions were implemented in March and June 2002, as per review letters submitted to the City at that time.
During my review of the CE in November 2021, I found occurrences of the following invasive, nonnative plant species: French broom (Genista monspessulana), jubata (pampas) grass (Cortederia jubata), and acacia (Acacia spp.). My December 2021 review letter recommended removal of all occurrences of jubata grass and French broom from the CE. In addition, all acacia should be cut, with the stumps treated with an herbicide to reduce re-sprouting. All cut material should be removed from the site.
Removal Actions. The landowner contracted with Confluence Restoration and Orchard Tree Service to remove the invasive plant occurrences. This work was completed in January 2022. I conducted a site visit on February 1, 2022 to review the work areas. Invasive French broom plants had been handpulled and removed from the site and the jubata grass plants had been treated with herbicide. All acacia trees have been cut, with the cut stumps treated with herbicide. All material (pulled plants, cut tree materials) has been removed from the site. This work satisfies the requirements for invasive plant control as required in the RVMP.
Please call me if you have any questions on this review.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Lyons
Plant Ecologist
Cc: John Swift, Swift Consulting Services, Inc.
27.168
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
200 Washington Street
S u i te 2 0 7
Santa Cruz, California 95060
831 440 3899 OFFICE AND FAX
[email protected]
www.rinconconsultants.com
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
January 6, 2021
Project No: 20-10700
Steve Benedum
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: Noise Technical Memorandum
South Rapetta Road Project, Santa Cruz, California 95060 Dear Mr. Benedum:
This letter comprises a technical memorandum, which summarizes the results of the noise analysis for the South Rapetta Road Project (project). It provides the required noise analysis to determine project compliance with the City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan noise standards. Exterior and interior noise levels for the project, along with construction noise impacts, were analyzed and the following presents a detailed discussion of applicable standards and the analysis methodology and results.
Terminology
Noise levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB). The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds involves evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting system that adjusts for the fact that the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. Human hearing is less sensitive to low frequencies and extremely high frequencies. Therefore, an “A-weighting” was devised to approximate the frequency response of the average ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds. All sound levels discussed in this section are A-weighted (dB[A]).
Although the dB(A) may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of frequencies from distant sources, which create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. Noise levels over a period of minutes or hours are usually expressed as dB(A) Leq, or the equivalent noise level for that period of time. The CNEL is a 24-hour A-weighted average sound level [dB(A) Leq] from midnight to midnight obtained after the addition of 5 dB to sound levels occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and of 10 dB to the sound levels occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. A-weighting is a frequency correction that often correlates well with the subjective response of humans to noise. Adding 5 dB and 10 dB to the evening and nighttime hours, respectively, accounts for the added sensitivity of humans to noise during these time periods. Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL usually differ by about 1 dBA (Crocker 2007).
STC is a rating of how well a building component, such as a wall partition, ceiling, door, window, or exterior wall, attenuates airborne sound. STC ratings are a composite of transmission loss for one-third octave frequency-bands between 125 and 4,000 Hertz; the transmission loss for each of these 16 frequency-band is averaged and rounded to the nearest whole number. Interior transmission loss from
27.169
South Rapetta Road Noise Technical Memorandum
common noise sources, such as speech, television, music, dogs barking, on-road vehicle traffic, etc., can be estimated by subtracting the STC rating from the exterior noise level.
Project Description
The approximately 0.25-acre project site is located at the northeast intersection of South Rapetta Road and El Rancho Drive (Assessors Parcel Number 08-391-18) in Santa Cruz, California. The project site is surrounded by single-family residences to the north, south, and east and bordered by El Rancho Drive to the west and the State Route (Highway) 17 freeway further west. The project site would be developed with a two-story single-family residence that would measure approximately 2,300 to 2,500 square feet of occupiable space.
Existing Setting
The primary noise source in the project site vicinity is vehicular traffic on Highway 17 and El Rancho Drive. Ambient noise levels from traffic are generally highest during the daytime and rush hours unless congestion substantially slows speeds.
To characterize ambient sound levels at and near the project site, a long-term, 24-hour sound level measurement (LT-1) was conducted near the center of the project site between 8:28 a.m. on December 14 and the same time on December 15, 2020. In addition, two short-term, 15-minute measurements were taken on the morning of December 14, one next to El Rancho Drive (ST-1) and another on South Rapetta Road (ST-2). Extech Model 407780A, ANSI Type 2 integrating sound level meters were used.
Table 1 summarizes the results of the noise measurements and noise measurement locations are show in in Figure 1. Detailed sound level measurement data is included in Attachment 1. As shown in Table 1, noise levels during range from 63 dBA Leq in the southern portion of the project site by South Rapetta Road to 71 dBA Leq at the western boundary of the site nearest to El Rancho Drive/Highway 17. The weighted 24-hour noise level at the center of the project site is 69 dBA Ldn.
27.170
South Rapetta Road Noise Technical Memorandum
Table 1 Sound Level Monitoring Results
# Measurement Location
Sample Date
and Times
Approximate Distance to
Primary Noise Source
Leq
(dBA)
Ldn
(dBA)
ST-1 Project site boundary, El
Rancho Drive
12/14: 7:35 a.m.
– 7:50 a.m.
15 feet to centerline of El
Rancho Drive 71 N/A
ST-2 Project site boundary,
South Rapetta Road
12/14: 7:54 a.m.
– 8:09 a.m.
10 feet to centerline of El
Rancho Drive 63 N/A
LT-1 Center of project site
12/14 to 12/15:
8:28 a.m. – 8:28
a.m.
120 feet to centerline of
El Rancho Drive 651 69
See Attachment 1 for noise monitoring data. See Figure 1 for noise measurement locations. 1 65 dBA Leq is the 24-hour average hourly equivalent noise level during the 24-hour measurement period Applicable Standards
The City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 contains noise goals and policies in Chapter 8, Hazards, Safety, and Noise. Policy HZ3.1 requires projects to maintain or reduce existing noise levels and control excessive noise. Program HZ3.1.3 ensures that construction activities are managed to minimize overall noise impacts on surrounding land uses. Policy HZ3.2 requires new development to conform with the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines shown in Table 2. Program HZ3.2.3 requires that interior noise in all new residential projects does not exceed 45 dBA Ldn with the windows and doors closed.
27.171
South Rapetta Road Noise Technical Memorandum
Table 2 City of Santa Cruz Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Land Use Category
Noise Exposure Levels (dBA Ldn)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential - Low Density Single Family,
Duplex, Mobile Homes
<60 55-70 70-75 75<
Residential – Multi-family <65 60-70 70-75 75<
Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels <65 60-70 70-80 80<
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes
<70 60-70 70-80 80<
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters -- <70 -- 65< Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports -- <75 -- 70<
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks <75 -- 70-80 80<
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries
<75 70-80 75< --
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and
Professional
<70 68-74 75> --
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities,
Agriculture
<75 70-80 75< --
Source: City of Santa Cruz 2012
Analysis Methodology
Construction Noise
Construction noise was estimated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2006). RCNM predicts construction noise levels for a variety of construction operations based on empirical data and the application of acoustical propagation formulas. Using RCNM, construction noise levels were estimated at noise sensitive receivers adjacent to the project site. RCNM provides reference noise levels for standard construction equipment, with an attenuation of 6 dBA per doubling of distance for stationary equipment.
Variation in power imposes additional complexity in characterizing the noise source level from construction equipment. Power variation is accounted for by describing the noise at a reference distance from the equipment operating at full power and adjusting it based on the duty cycle of the activity to determine the Leq of the operation (FHWA 2018). Each phase of construction has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be accomplished during that phase. Each phase also has its own noise characteristics; some will have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have high-impact noise levels.
Construction activity would result in temporary noise in the project area, exposing surrounding sensitive receivers to increased noise levels. The project would involve site preparation, grading, and building
27.172
South Rapetta Road Noise Technical Memorandum
construction. Construction noise would typically be higher during the heavier periods of initial construction (i.e., grading) and would be lower during the latter construction phases. This analysis conservatively assumes heavy construction equipment during project grading could include a dozer and backhoe. It is assumed that diesel engines would power all construction equipment. Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location. In addition, construction equipment would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day.
Land Use Compatibility
As discussed in Existing Setting, to determine ambient noise levels at the project site, Rincon collected one 24-hour and two 15-minute noise measurements during the weekday. At each location, consideration was given to site-specific characteristics and the sound level meter was placed away from walls and topographic features. The noise measurements recorded the Leq at each location.
The results of the noise measurements were compared to the City’s noise compatibility standards to determine if the site provides a noise environment compatible with the proposed commercial uses. Per the City of Santa Cruz’s noise compatibility standards, shown in Table 2, the project site would be considered compatible if ambient noise levels are less than 60 dBA Ldn and conditionally acceptable when ambient noise levels are between 55 dBA and 70 dBA Ldn. Single family residential development is normally unacceptable when ambient noise levels are over 70 dBA Ldn. Similarly, the noise levels were compared to the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn for residential uses, applying noise reduction from standard construction techniques.
Analysis
Construction Noise
Project construction would not occur within the prohibited hours per Section 9.36.010(e) of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code of Ordinances (between the hours of 10:00 pm and 8:00 a.m.). Project construction would occur nearest to sensitive noise uses located adjacent to the northeastern portion of the project site. Over the course of a typical construction day, project construction may operate at an average distance of 25 feet from the single-family backyard located adjacent to the project site on South Rapetta Road. Although construction equipment may operate at closer distances, during the course of a construction day the equipment would be mobile across the site and the average distance listed above is used for analysis purposes.
Construction noise levels during the loudest phase of construction, grading, would be approximately 85 dBA Leq (see Attachment 2 for RCNM results). Although no quantitative standards are set for construction activities in the City, for purposes of this analysis, the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2018) criteria of 80 dBA Leq for residential uses is used. Noise levels at the residences to the northeast would exceed the FTA’s residential construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq (8 hour); therefore, construction noise impacts would be potentially significant the Mitigation Measure below is recommended for the project.
27.173
South Rapetta Road Noise Technical Memorandum
Mitigation Measure
NOI-1 Construction Noise Reductions
The project applicant shall reduce construction noise levels at the adjacent single-family uses to the northeast of the project site to a noise level not to exceed the FTA’s residential construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq (8 hour). This shall be accomplished through the following measures:
Construction shall be restricted to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The use of bells, whistles, alarms, and horns shall be restricted to safety warning purposes only. Noise-reducing enclosures shall be used around stationary noise-generating equipment (e.g., compressors and generators) or located as far from sensitive receivers, as feasible. The posting of a sign at the yard entrance, or other conspicuous location, shall be required that includes a 24-hour telephone number for project information, and a procedure where a field engineer/construction manager will respond to and investigate noise complaints and take corrective action if necessary in a timely manner. The sign will have a minimum dimension of 48 inches wide by 24 inches high. The sign will be placed 5 feet above ground level. If a noise complaint(s) is registered, the contractor will retain a City-approved noise consultant to conduct noise measurements at the use(s) that registered the complaint. The noise measurements will be conducted for a minimum of 1 hour and will include 1-minute intervals. The consultant will prepare a letter report for code enforcement summarizing the measurements, calculation data used in determining impacts, and potential measures to reduce noise levels to the maximum extent feasible.
Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of noise reducing enclosures as described Mitigation Measure NOI-1, per manufacturer’s specifications (see Attachment 3), construction noise levels would be reduced by at least 5 dBA. Therefore, construction noise levels would not exceed 80 dBA Leq (8 hour) with mitigation, and impacts would be less than significant.
Land Use Compatibility - Exterior Noise
The project would introduce new residential development on the project site that would be exposed to existing ambient noise levels. Ambient noise near the project site was measured at 69 dBA Ldn to the to the center of the project site (Table 1).1
Therefore, on site noise levels are approximately 69 dBA Ldn.
Noise receivers on the project site would be exposed to conditionally acceptable exterior noise levels per the City of Santa Cruz General Plan. Conditionally acceptable noise levels can be undertaken after a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed insulation features are included in the design. This Noise Technical Memorandum serves as a detailed noise analysis and insulation features for the project are discussed under Interior Noise. 1 Although 71 dBA Leq is the highest noise level measured in the project vicinity the City uses Ldn as the metric for land use compatibility because it measures noise over a 24 hour period. Therefore, 69 dBA Ldn is used for analysis.
27.174
South Rapetta Road Noise Technical Memorandum
Land Use Compatibility - Interior Noise
The project would be required to demonstrate during plan check that the project meets an interior noise level of 45 dBA Ldn or less in all residences land uses. Standard construction techniques for woodframe construction buildings required under the California Building Code typically achieve a minimum 25-dBA reduction from exterior sources at interior locations when the windows are in a closed position, as required in the 2030 General Plan (FHWA 2006). Therefore, where building façade noise levels are 70 dBA Ldn or less, interior noise levels for the project would comply with the state and City and State interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn for residences. Noise levels on the project site were measured at 69 dBA Ldn. Therefore, interior noise levels would meet the City and State standards.
Conclusion
Construction noise would generate noise levels of up to 85 dBA Leq (8-hour), which would exceed the FTA construction noise thresholds of 80 dBA Leq (8-hour) at adjacent residential uses. Construction noise levels would be mitigated to acceptable levels through the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI1, which includes the use of temporary noise-reducing enclosures on stationary equipment and reduced use of bells, whistles, horns, and alarms.
The project would be consistent with the City of Santa Cruz Land Use Compatibility Standards for exterior noise. Interior noise levels at the proposed residence would not be expected to exceed 45 dBA Ldn.
Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Kari Zajac, MESM Stephen Svete, AICP, LEED AP ND
Project Manager Executive Vice President
Attachments
Figure 1 Noise Measurement Locations
Attachment 1 Noise Measurement Data
Attachment 2 Roadway Construction Noise Model
Attachment 3 Construction Noise Enclosure Specifications
27.175
South Rapetta Road Noise Technical Memorandum
References
Crocker, Malcolm J. Crocker (Editor). 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN: 978-0- 471-39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. (FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02). Available at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/construction_noise/handbook. Accessed March 2020. ______. 2018. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance.
Santa Cruz, City of. 2012. City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan. Adopted June 2012. https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showdocument?id=33418
27.176
South Rapetta Road Noise Technical Memorandum
Figure 1 Noise Measurement Locations
27.177
South Rapetta Road Noise Technical Memorandum
Attachment 1 - Noise Measurement Data
27.178
!"
!#"
$
!"$
$ !
"$
%& #!"
'
%
(
(
)
* $$"
+
," '
% '
% -
*
.
(
(
) ) / !#"
$
"
(
(
) ) / !$"
#$
"#
(
(
)! )!/ !$"
#
$# "
(
(
)! )!/ ! "!
!
$#"
(
(
)! )!/ !#"
$!$!
!"#
!
(
(
)! )!/ ! "!
#$
"!
(
(
)! )!/ ! "$
!
"
#
(
(
)! )!/ !#"
$!$!
!"#
$
(
(
)! )!/ "! #!
$ "
$
(
(
)! )!/ !"
"
(
(
)! )!/ !#"
$
"
(
(
)! )!/ !"
!
#
(
(
)! )!/ "#
!#
#"$
(
(
)! )!/
"! !
#"!
(
(
)! )!/
"
$"
!
!
(
(
)! )!/ !#"#
"
(
(
)! )!/ !#"
$#
#
"
#
(
(
)! )!/ !!"#
#$
"
$
(
(
)! )!/
"
(
(
)! )!/
"
#! #!"
(
(
)! )!/ !#"#
"
(
(
)! )!/ ! "
# #
"
(
(
) ) / ! "
!!
$"!!
(
(
) ) / ! "!
!
$#"
(
(
) ) / !$"
!
#"
!
(
(
) ) /
"
"!
(
(
) ) /
"
!$
!"!
#
(
(
) ) /
"
"#!
Short Term
27.179
$
(
(
) ) / $"$
$
!!"
(
(
) ) /
"#
!#
"
(
(
) ) /
"# !
! $"
(
(
) ) /
"
!$# #$"
(
(
) ) / ! "
!
$ "#$
(
(
) ) / !"#
$!$#"
(
(
) ) / !"
#$
#
"$ !
!
(
(
) ) / !
"
"$
!
(
(
) ) / !
" !!
"!
#
(
(
) ) / !
"
"#!
$
(
(
) ) /
"
!###!"#
(
(
) ) / "! #!
$ "
$
(
(
) ) / ! "
!#!
!"
(
(
) ) / !"
# "#
(
(
)# )#/ !
"$ #$ " $$
(
(
)# )#/ !"! !#
!
"$ #
(
(
)# )#/ ! "$
!
"
!
(
(
)# )#/ !" !
##!"
!$
(
(
)# )#/ !
"
!
"!
#
(
(
)# )#/ $"$
$
"!!
$
(
(
)# )#/ !" #
!
!#!"
(
(
)# )#/ "
!#
$ "!
(
(
)# )#/ ! "
!!
$"!!
(
(
)# )#/ !"
! $"
$
(
(
)# )#/ #"
$
"$
(
(
)# )#/ #"
$
"$
(
(
)# )#/ #"
$!$!
"!#
!
(
(
)# )#/ $"
#
$#"
(
(
)# )#/ !"! !#
!
"$ #
#
(
(
)# )#/ ! "!
!
$#"
$
(
(
)# )#/ !#"
#
#$"
!
!
(
(
)# )#/ !#"
$
"
!
(
(
)# )#/ ! "
$
#
$"
#
!
(
(
)# )#/ !#"
#$
#
"
!
(
(
)$ )$/ !#"
# "
!
(
(
)$ )$/ !#"
$!$!
!"#
!
(
(
)$ )$/ !!"!
! "!$
!!
(
(
)$ )$/ ! "
$#!#
"$#
!
(
(
)$ )$/ !!"#
#$
"
!#
(
(
)$ )$/ !!"
#"
!$
(
(
)$ )$/ !" #
#" $
(
(
)$ )$/ !" #
#" $
(
(
)$ )$/ ! "#
!#
"#$
(
(
)$ )$/ !!"$
!$!" #
(
(
)$ )$/ !#"
$#
#
"
(
(
)$ )$/ !#"
# "
(
(
)$ )$/ !$"
$$ !
$"
27.180
!
(
(
)$ )$/ "
# #
"
(
(
)$ )$/
"
! !
"
#
(
(
)$ )$/ !!"
$ # " !
$
(
(
)$ )$/ ! "
!#!
!"
#
(
(
)$ )$/
"
# !"
#
(
(
)$ )$/ !$"
$
$
"
#
(
(
)$ )$/ !!"
"
#
(
(
)
)
/ !"! #!
$"
$
#
(
(
)
)
/ !!"
!
#
"
#
(
(
)
)
/ !"$
!$! "#
#!
(
(
)
)
/
"! !
$"
#
(
(
)
)
/
"$ !!$#"
##
(
(
)
)
/ !$"
#$
"#
#$
(
(
)
)
/ !$"
#$
"#
$
(
(
)
)
/ ! "
!
"
$
(
(
)
)
/ ! "$
#$ #
"
!
$
(
(
)
)
/ !#"
$
$"
$
(
(
)
)
/ !#"#
"
$
(
(
)
)
/
"
$ # !
"
$
(
(
)
)
/
"$ !$
#
!"
$!
(
(
)
)
/ !$"
#
$# "
$
(
(
)
)
/ !#"
$
$"
$#
(
(
)
)
/ !#"
$#
#
"
$$
(
(
)
)
/ #"$
#
(
(
)
)
/ " !
##!
"!$
(
(
)
)
/ !#"
$
"
(
(
)
)
/ ! "
!
"
(
(
)
)
/ ! "
!!
$"!!
(
(
)
)
/ ! "#
#
! # " #
(
(
)
)
/ ! "
!#!
!"
!
(
(
)
)
/ !#"
#
#$"
!
(
(
)
)
/ !$"
$$ !
$"
#
(
(
)
)
/ !#"#
"
$
(
(
)
)
/ ! "$
!
"
(
(
)
)
/ !!"
" !
(
(
)
)
/ ! "
$#!#
"$#
(
(
)
)
/ ! "
$#!#
"$#
(
(
)
)
/ ! "
!!
$"!!
(
(
)
)
/ !$"$
$
!"!
(
(
)
)
/ !#"
#$
#
"
!
(
(
)
)
/ !!"
" !
(
(
)
)
/ !!"
!
#
"
#
(
(
)
)
/ !$"
$
$
"
$
(
(
)
)
/ $"
$$ !
$
"
(
(
)
)
/ "
!
#"
(
(
)
)
/
"
(
(
)
)
/
" !!
"!
27.181
(
(
)
)
/
"
!$# #$"
(
(
)
)
/
"
!###!"#
(
(
)
)
/
"
#! #!"
!
(
(
)
)
/
"
!$# #$"
(
(
)
)
/
"
$"
!
#
(
(
)
)
/ !"
$
"
$
(
(
)
)
/ #"
!
! ###$"
(
(
)
)
/ !"
$
"
(
(
)
)
/
"# !
! $"
(
(
)
)
/
"
#$ "##
(
(
)
)
/
" !!
"!
(
(
)
)
/ !#"
$
"
(
(
)
)
/ !#"
#
#$"
!
!
(
(
)
)
/ "
!
! ###"$
(
(
)
)
/ "
! $
"$
#
(
(
)
)
/ !#"
# "
$
(
(
)
)
/ !$"
$
$
"
(
(
)
)
/ !$"
"
(
(
)
)
/ !$"
#
$# "
(
(
)
)
/ !#"
$!$!
!"#
(
(
) )/ ! "#
#
! # " #
(
(
) )/ !#"
$
$"
(
(
) )/ !#"
$
$"
!
(
(
) )/ ! "
"#
(
(
) )/ !"$ $
##!"
$#
#
(
(
) )/ ! "$
#$ #
"
!
$
(
(
) )/
"
#! #!"
(
(
) )/ "$
#$ #
"!
(
(
) )/ "
!
! ###"$
(
(
) )/
"
#$ "##
(
(
) )/ ! "!
!
$#"
(
(
) )/ !!"
$
"
(
(
) )/ ! "
!!
$"!!
!
(
(
) )/ !$"
!
#"
(
(
) )/ !$"
$$ !
$"
#
(
(
) )/ !$"#
#!$ " #
$
(
(
) )/
"
$"
!
!
(
(
) )/ $"
$$ !
$
"
!
(
(
) )/ "
! $
"$
!
(
(
) )/
"
!
(
(
) )/
"
!$
!"!
!
(
(
) )/
"
#$ "##
!
(
(
) )/ !$"
"
!!
(
(
) )/ ! "$
#$ #
"
!
!
(
(
) )/ !$"$
$
!"!
!#
(
(
) )/ !#"
# "
!$
(
(
) )/ !$"
#
$# "
27.182
(
(
) )/ !#"
#$
#
"
(
(
) )/ !"$
!$! "#
(
(
) )/
"
!###!"#
(
(
) )/ !$"
!
#"
(
(
) )/
"
$"
!
(
(
) )/ !$"
!
#$
"
!
(
(
) )/ !$"
!
#"
(
(
) )/ !$"
!
#"
#
(
(
) )/ ! "!
!
$#"
$
(
(
) )/ ! "!
#$
"!
#
(
(
) )/
"
#! #!"
#
(
(
) )/
"
# !"
#
(
(
) )/
"! !
#"!
#
(
(
) ) /
"
#!
"$
#
(
(
) ) /
"
!$# #$"
#
(
(
) ) / ! "!
!
$#"
#!
(
(
) ) / !#"#
"
#
(
(
) ) / !$"$
$
!"!
##
(
(
) ) / ! "
!!
$"!!
#$
(
(
) ) / ! "
!
"!#
$
(
(
) ) / !!"
"
$
(
(
) ) / !" ## !
"!#
$
(
(
) ) / !#"
#
#$"
!
$
(
(
) ) /
"
!
!"
$
(
(
) ) /
"
!
!"
$
(
(
) ) / " ! !
##"
$!
(
(
) ) /
"$ !!$#"
$
(
(
) ) / !"
"
$#
(
(
) ) / $"$
$
!!"
$$
(
(
) ) / " #
!
"
(
(
) ) /
"
!###!"#
(
(
) ) / ! "
!!
$"!!
(
(
) ) / !!"
$ # " !
(
(
)! )!/
"
!###!"#
(
(
)! )!/ #"
$
$
"
(
(
)! )!/
"
"$
!
(
(
)! )!/ !$"
#
$# "
(
(
)! )!/ !$"#
#!$ " #
#
(
(
)! )!/ ! "#
#
! # " #
$
(
(
)! )!/ ! "
!#!
!"
(
(
)! )!/ ! "
"#
(
(
)! )!/ !#"#
"
(
(
)! )!/ !$"
#
$# "
(
(
)! )!/ !$"
#
$# "
(
(
)! )!/
"
!$
!"!
(
(
)! )!/ $"
$$ !
$
"
!
(
(
)! )!/ "
!
!"#
27.183
(
(
)! )!/
"
! !
"
#
(
(
)! )!/
"
! !
"
$
(
(
)! )!/
"
#! #!"
(
(
)! )!/ #
"$ !$
#
!
"
(
(
)! )!/ "
$
#
$ "
#
(
(
)! )!/
"
! !
"
(
(
) ) /
"
!$# #$"
(
(
) ) / ! "!
!
$#"
(
(
) ) / ! "
!!
$"!!
!
(
(
) ) / !$"
$
$
"
(
(
) ) / ! "!
!
$#"
#
(
(
) ) / !#"
# "
$
(
(
) ) / !#"
$
"
(
(
) ) / ! "$
!
"
(
(
) ) / !#"
$
$"
(
(
) ) / "$
#$ #
"!
(
(
) ) /
"
$
$"
(
(
) ) / !#"
$#
#
"
(
(
) ) / !" #
!
"
!
(
(
) ) / !!"
"
(
(
) ) / !#"
$#
#
"
#
(
(
) ) / !!"!
! "!$
$
(
(
) ) / !"# $
$# "
!
(
(
) ) / ! "
!
"!#
(
(
) ) / ! "
# #
"
(
(
) ) / !!"#
#$
"
(
(
)# )#/ !$"#
#!$ " #
(
(
)# )#/ "
"
(
(
)# )#/
"
!$
!"!
!
(
(
)# )#/ !$"
#
$# "
(
(
)# )#/ !#"$
#
"
#
(
(
)# )#/ !#"
$
$"
$
(
(
)# )#/ !!"
$ "$
(
(
)# )#/ !"! !#
!
"$ #
(
(
)# )#/ !
"
$
"$
(
(
)# )#/ !"#
$!$#"
(
(
)# )#/ ! "#
#
! # " #
(
(
)# )#/
"
#$ "##
(
(
)# )#/ "
!!
$!"!
!
(
(
)# )#/ "$ !
! "
(
(
)# )#/ "# $
$#
"!
#
(
(
)# )#/ !$"
!
#$
"
$
(
(
)# )#/ !#"
$
$"
!
(
(
)# )#/ !#"
$!$!
!"#
!
(
(
)# )#/ !#"!
#"#
!
(
(
)# )#/
"
$"
!
!
(
(
)$ )$/
"
! !
"
27.184
!
(
(
)$ )$/
"
#$ "##
!
(
(
)$ )$/ !!"!
! "!$
!!
(
(
)$ )$/ ! "
"
!
(
(
)$ )$/ ! "#
#
! # " #
!#
(
(
)$ )$/ !$"
$$ !
$"
!$
(
(
)$ )$/
"
!$# #$"
(
(
)$ )$/ !$"
$$ !
$"
(
(
)$ )$/ !"
#"
(
(
)$ )$/ "
!
!"#
(
(
)$ )$/ "$ !
! "
(
(
)$ )$/ !$"
#$
"#
(
(
)$ )$/ !!"
!
#
"
!
(
(
)$ )$/ ! "
!!
$"!!
(
(
)$ )$/
"
"$
#
(
(
)$ )$/
"! !
#"!
$
(
(
)$ )$/ !$"
$$ !
$"
#
(
(
)$ )$/ ! "
!
$ "#$
#
(
(
)$ )$/ !#"
#
#$"
!
#
(
(
)$ )$/ ! "
$$$"!
#
(
(
)
)
/ !"$ !
!"
#
(
(
)
)
/ ! "
!#!
!"
#
(
(
)
)
/ !!"#
#$
"
#!
(
(
)
)
/ "
$#!#
$"#
#
(
(
)
)
/ "
!#!"!
##
(
(
)
)
/ !$"
!
#$
"
#$
(
(
)
)
/ !#"
$#
#
"
$
(
(
)
)
/ !#"#
"
$
(
(
)
)
/ !$"
#
$# "
$
(
(
)
)
/
"
$
(
(
)
)
/ !$"
!
#$
"
$
(
(
)
)
/ ! "
!
$ "#$
$
(
(
)
)
/ !$"
#
$# "
$!
(
(
)
)
/
"$ !$
#
!"
$
(
(
)
)
/ !$"#
#!$ " #
$#
(
(
)
)
/ !#"
#
#$"
!
$$
(
(
)
)
/ !#"$
#
"
(
(
)
)
/
"
#$ "##
27.185
"
!!
*
"
!$#
0 12
)
)
"
!$
27.186
!" # #$
%
&
" !
' !
()!*+
,
-
# # .
%''!
# #
.
''!"
% # #
.
"'!'
# #
.
% '%!$
. # #
.
%.' !$
' # #
.
%$'.!
# #
.
'!
$ # #
.
'%!"
" # #
.
'.!
# #
.
.'.!$
# #
.
.%'!%
# #
.
.'' !
% # #
.
."."!$
# #
..
.$!"
. # #
..
.'%!%
' # #
..
$'%!%
# #
..
'!'
$ # #
..
'%!%
" # #
..
' !
# #
..
' !
# #
..
%."!
# #
..
'.$!$
% # #
..
"'!%
# #
..
% '%!
. # #
..
%.'%!"
' # #
..
%$'%!.
# #
..
'!
$ # #
..
'!
" # #
..
'!
% # #
..
.'%!
% # #
..
.%' !$
% # #
..
.''!
%% # #
..
."'!%
% # #
.'
'%!%
%. # #
.'
.'%!
%' # #
.'
$'!
% # #
.'
'!
%$ # #
.'
'%!
%" # #
.'
' !
# #
.'
'!
# #
.'
%' !
# #
.'
''%!
% # #
.'
"'!
# #
.'
% '%!.
. # #
.'
%.' !
' # #
.'
%$'!'
# #
.'
'!"
$ # #
.'
' !
" # #
.'
' !
. # #
.'
.'!.
. # #
.'
.%'!
. # #
.'
.''!"
.% # #
.'
."'!
. # #
.
'!
.. # #
.
.' !%
.' # #
.
$'!
. # #
.
'!
.$ # #
.
'!$
." # #
.
'%!$
' # #
.
' !$
' # #
.
%' !"
' # #
.
''!
'% # #
.
"."!
' # #
.
% '!
'. # #
.
%.'!
'' # #
.
%$' !$
' # #
.
."!$
'$ # #
.
."!$
'" # #
.
' !
# #
.
.' !$
# #
.
.%'!"
# #
.
.''!.
% # #
.
."'!"
# #
.$
'!'
. # #
.$
..$!'
' # #
.$
$."!
# #
.$
'!
$ # #
.$
'%!
" # #
.$
' !'
$ # #
.$
'!.
$ # #
.$
%."!"
$ # #
.$
'."!"
$% # #
.$
"'!
$ # #
.$
% '!"
$. # #
.$
%.'!
$' # #
.$
%$'%!$
$ # #
.$
' !%
$$ # #
.$
' !
$" # #
.$
'%!
" # #
.$
.'%!%
Short Term Noise Measurement 2
27.187
" # #
.$
.%'%!%
" # #
.$
.''%!
"% # #
.$
."'!
" # #
."
'%!
". # #
."
.'$!
"' # #
."
$'!
" # #
."
' !$
"$ # #
."
' !$
"" # #
."
'!$
# #
."
'%!
# #
."
%'!
# #
."
''%!
% # #
."
"'!"
# #
."
% '%!
. # #
."
%.'!$
' # #
."
%$'!
# #
."
'!
$ # #
."
'!"
" # #
."
'!
# #
."
.'!
# #
."
.%'!%
# #
."
.'' !
% # #
."
."'!
# #$
' !
. # #$
.'!%
' # #$
$'!"
# #$
' !.
$ # #$
'!.
" # #$
' !
# #$
'%!
# #$
%'%!%
# #$
''!
% # #$
"'!
# #$
% '!%
. # #$
%.."!'
' # #$
%$.$!
# #$
'!'
$ # #$
'!$
" # #$
'!
% # #$
.'!%
% # #$
.%'!.
% # #$
.''!
%% # #$
."'.!
% # #$
'!
%. # #$
.' !.
%' # #$
$'!
% # #$
."!
%$ # #$
'!"
%" # #$
'!"
# #$
' !
# #$
%'%!
# #$
''%!
% # #$
"'%!%
# #$
% ."!"
. # #$
%.."!$
' # #$
%$'%!
# #$
'!$
$ # #$
."!"
" # #$
'!
. # #$
.'!
. # #$
.%'!'
. # #$
.''!
.% # #$
."'!
. # #$
'!.
.. # #$
.'!$
.' # #$
$' !$
. # #$
'%!
.$ # #$
'%!%
." # #$
'%!'
' # #$
' !$
' # #$
%'!"
' # #$
''!%
'% # #$
"'!
' # #$
% '!$
'. # #$
%.'!"
'' # #$
%$'%!.
' # #$
'%!
'$ # #$
' !
'" # #$
'%!%
# #$
.'%!'
# #$
.%'!.
# #$
.''!
% # #$
."'!
# #$
%
'!'
. # #$
%
.."!$
' # #$
%
$'!
# #$
%
'!$
$ # #$
%
' !
" # #$
%
!
$ # #$
%
'!'
$ # #$
%
%' !'
$ # #$
%
''%!
$% # #$
%
"'%!%
$ # #$
%
% '%!'
$. # #$
%
%.' !'
$' # #$
%
%$' !
$ # #$
%
'!.
$$ # #$
%
' !"
$" # #$
%
''!
" # #$
%
.'!"
" # #$
%
.%' !.
" # #$
%
.''%!
"% # #$
%
."'%!'
" # #$
'!.
27.188
". # #$
.'!%
"' # #$
$'!'
" # #$
' !
"$ # #$
'%!
"" # #$
'!.
# #$
'!
# #$
%' !"
# #$
'' !
% # #$
"'!.
# #$
% '!
. # #$
%.'!
' # #$
%$' !
# #$
'%!
$ # #$
'%!'
" # #$
'!
# #$
.'!'
# #$
.%'%!
# #$
.'' !
% # #$
."' !.
# #$
.
' !
. # #$
.
.'!.
' # #$
.
$'!
# #$
.
'!
$ # #$
.
'!
" # #$
.
'!'
# #$
.
' !'
# #$
.
%'%!
# #$
.
''%!
% # #$
.
"'%!
# #$
.
% ' !
. # #$
.
%.'!%
' # #$
.
%$' !"
# #$
.
'!
$ # #$
.
'!
" # #$
.
'%!"
% # #$
.
.'.!
% # #$
.
.%'!"
% # #$
.
.'' !
%% # #$
.
."'!'
% # #$
'
'!
%. # #$
'
.."!
%' # #$
'
$'!
% # #$
'
'!
%$ # #$
'
'!
%" # #$
'
'!$
# #$
'
'%!
# #$
'
%'!"
# #$
'
''!
% # #$
'
"' !
# #$
'
% ' !
. # #$
'
%.' !
' # #$
'
%$'!
# #$
'
'.!
$ # #$
'
'.!
" # #$
'
'%!%
. # #$
'
.'!$
. # #$
'
.%'!
. # #$
'
.'' !
.% # #$
'
."'!
. # #$
'!.
.. # #$
.'!$
.' # #$
$."!"
. # #$
'!
.$ # #$
' !
." # #$
'%!'
' # #$
'.!
' # #$
%'.!
' # #$
''!.
'% # #$
"'!'
' # #$
% ' !'
'. # #$
%.'!$
'' # #$
%$'!'
' # #$
'!"
'$ # #$
'!
'" # #$
'!.
# #$
.'!"
# #$
.%'%!
# #$
.''%!%
% # #$
."'!
# #$
$
'!
. # #$
$
.'%!
' # #$
$
$'%!.
# #$
$
'!
$ # #$
$
'!.
" # #$
$
'!
$ # #$
$
' !
$ # #$
$
%'!.
$ # #$
$
''%!"
$% # #$
$
"'%!$
$ # #$
$
% '%!
$. # #$
$
%.' !'
$' # #$
$
%$'!%
$ # #$
$
."!
$$ # #$
$
'!
$" # #$
$
'!"
" # #$
$
.'!
" # #$
$
.%'!"
" # #$
$
.'' !
"% # #$
$
."'%!"
" # #$
"
' !"
". # #$
"
.'!'
"' # #$
"
$'!
" # #$
"
'%!%
"$ # #$
"
'.!
27.189
"" # #$
"
'!'
% # #$
"
'%!.
27.190
!
"
#
#
$
%
%$$ &'&'()* &(
%
%$$ &'('()*
!
( %
%$$ &'( '()* &$
%
%$$ &'
$'()* +#
! %
%$$ &'
'()* +
%
%$$ &'
&'()* +(
+ %
%$$ &'!'()* +
& %
%$$ &'! '()* +&
# %
%$$ #'$$'()* &
$ %
%$$ #'$
'()* &#
%
%$$ #'$&'()* +$
%
%$$ #''()* &
( %
%$$ #' '()* (
%
%$$ #'$'()* +
! %
%$$ #'
'()* &&
%
%$$ #'&'()* $!
+ %
%$$ #'('()* &$
& %
%$$ #'( '()* &&
# %
%$$ #'
$'()* #
$ %
%$$ #'
'()* &
%
%$$ #'
&'()* !
%
%$$ #'!'()*
( %
%$$ #'! '()* #!
%
%$$ $'$$'()* (
! %
%$$ $'$
'()*
!
%
%$$ $'$&'()* +&
+ %
%$$ $''()* &!
& %
%$$ $' '()* &!
# %
%$$ $'$'()*
($ %
%$$ $'
'()* (
( %
%$$ $'&'()* !
!"#$ " #
%&
'
Long Term Noise Measurement
27.191
( %
%$$ $'('()* +
(( %
%$$ $'( '()* (&
(
%
%$$ $'
$'()*
(! %
%$$ $'
'()* +!
( %
%$$ $'
&'()* !(
(+ %
%$$ $'!'()* +
(& %
%$$ $'! '()* &
(# %
%$$ '$$'()* +
$ %
%$$ '$
'()* +#
%
%$$ '$&'()* +
%
%$$ ''()* #
( %
%$$ ' '()* +
%
%$$ '$'()*
(
! %
%$$ '
'()* !
%
%$$ '&'()* !+
+ %
%$$ '('()* &
& %
%$$ '( '()*
#
# %
%$$ '
$'()* (
!$ %
%$$ '
'()* &
! %
%$$ '
&'()* +
! %
%$$ '!'()* (
!( %
%$$ '! '()* !(
!
%
%$$ '$$'(,* !
!! %
%$$ '$
'(,* +
! %
%$$ '$&'(,* &
!+ %
%$$ ''(,* +
!& %
%$$ ' '(,*
!# %
%$$ '$'(,*
!
$ %
%$$ '
'(,* !&
%
%$$ '&'(,* +
%
%$$ '('(,* ++
( %
%$$ '( '(,* ++
%
%$$ '
$'(,* &(
! %
%$$ '
'(,* !!
%
%$$ '
&'(,* (
+ %
%$$ '!'(,*
& %
%$$ '! '(,* !+
# %
%$$ '$$'(,* +$$
+$ %
%$$ '$
'(,* !(
+ %
%$$ '$&'(,* +!
+ %
%$$ ''(,* +
+( %
%$$ ' '(,*
+
%
%$$ '$'(,* &
+! %
%$$ '
'(,* +$
+ %
%$$ '&'(,* !$
++ %
%$$ '('(,* ++
+& %
%$$ '( '(,* !
27.192
+# %
%$$ '
$'(,*
!
&$ %
%$$ '
'(,* #$
& %
%$$ '
&'(,*
!
& %
%$$ '!'(,*
&( %
%$$ '! '(,* &$
&
%
%$$ '$$'(,*
+
&! %
%$$ '$
'(,*
&
& %
%$$ '$&'(,* #
&+ %
%$$ ''(,*
&& %
%$$ ' '(,*
&# %
%$$ '$'(,* ++
#$ %
%$$ '
'(,* #
# %
%$$ '&'(,* $
# %
%$$ '('(,* !!
#( %
%$$ '( '(,* !
#
%
%$$ '
$'(,* +
#! %
%$$ '
'(,* +#
# %
%$$ '
&'(,* +#
#+ %
%$$ '!'(,* &
#& %
%$$ '! '(,*
## %
%$$ ('$$'(,* +
$$ %
%$$ ('$
'(,* !
$ %
%$$ ('$&'(,* +#
$ %
%$$ (''(,* +
$( %
%$$ (' '(,* &(
$
%
%$$ ('$'(,*
$! %
%$$ ('
'(,* !$
$ %
%$$ ('&'(,* ++
$+ %
%$$ ('('(,*
$& %
%$$ ('( '(,*
$# %
%$$ ('
$'(,* !
$ %
%$$ ('
'(,* &!
%
%$$ ('
&'(,* !
%
%$$ ('!'(,* &
( %
%$$ ('! '(,* +
%
%$$
'$$'(,* &#
! %
%$$
'$
'(,* +!
%
%$$
'$&'(,* #
+ %
%$$
''(,* +
& %
%$$
' '(,* +
# %
%$$
'$'(,* $
$ %
%$$
'
'(,*
+
%
%$$
'&'(,* +!
%
%$$
'('(,*
( %
%$$
'( '(,* #$
%
%$$
'
$'(,* &
! %
%$$
'
'(,* #&
27.193
%
%$$
'
&'(,* +$!
+ %
%$$
'!'(,*
& %
%$$
'! '(,*
# %
%$$ !'$$'(,* +&
($ %
%$$ !'$
'(,*
( %
%$$ !'$&'(,* +$&
( %
%$$ !''(,* !
(( %
%$$ !' '(,* +
(
%
%$$ !'$'(,* +
(! %
%$$ !'
'(,* +&
( %
%$$ !'&'(,*
(+ %
%$$ !'('(,* &
(& %
%$$ !'( '(,* +
(# %
%$$ !'
$'(,*
$ %
%$$ !'
'(,* +
%
%$$ !'
&'(,* &(
%
%$$ !'!'(,* +
( %
%$$ !'! '(,*
$
%
%$$ '$$'(,* +
! %
%$$ '$
'(,*
$
%
%$$ '$&'(,*
+ %
%$$ ''(,*
& %
%$$ ' '(,* +
# %
%$$ '$'(,* &
!$ %
%$$ '
'(,* +
! %
%$$ '&'(,* !&
! %
%$$ '('(,* +
!( %
%$$ '( '(,* !
!
%
%$$ '
$'(,* !+
!! %
%$$ '
'(,* !
! %
%$$ '
&'(,*
!
!+ %
%$$ '!'(,*
!& %
%$$ '! '(,* $!
!# %
%$$ +'$$'(,* !
$ %
%$$ +'$
'(,*
+
%
%$$ +'$&'(,* !+
%
%$$ +''(,* !!
( %
%$$ +' '(,*
!
%
%$$ +'$'(,* !
!
! %
%$$ +'
'(,* !&
%
%$$ +'&'(,* !
(
+ %
%$$ +'('(,* !&
& %
%$$ +'( '(,* +$
# %
%$$ +'
$'(,* !#&
+$ %
%$$ +'
'(,*
+ %
%$$ +'
&'(,*
+
+ %
%$$ +'!'(,* !$
27.194
+( %
%$$ +'! '(,* (!
+
%
%$$ &'$$'(,* (
+! %
%$$ &'$
'(,*
+ %
%$$ &'$&'(,* $
++ %
%$$ &''(,*
+& %
%$$ &' '(,* (
+# %
%$$ &'$'(,* $+
&$ %
%$$ &'
'(,* !&
& %
%$$ &'&'(,* (
& %
%$$ &'('(,* ($
&( %
%$$ &'( '(,* $
&
%
%$$ &'
$'(,* (&
&! %
%$$ &'
'(,* !!&
& %
%$$ &'
&'(,* !
&+ %
%$$ &'!'(,* !
&& %
%$$ &'! '(,* $$
&# %
%$$ #'$$'(,* !
+
#$ %
%$$ #'$
'(,* (!
# %
%$$ #'$&'(,* $
# %
%$$ #''(,*
#( %
%$$ #' '(,* !
#
#
%
%$$ #'$'(,* !
#! %
%$$ #'
'(,* !+!
# %
%$$ #'&'(,* $
#+ %
%$$ #'('(,* !+
#& %
%$$ #'( '(,* ! (
## %
%$$ #'
$'(,*
#
$$ %
%$$ #'
'(,* $
$ %
%$$ #'
&'(,* !&
$ %
%$$ #'!'(,* !
$( %
%$$ #'! '(,*
+&
$
%
%$$ $'$$'(,* $
$! %
%$$ $'$
'(,* !&#
$ %
%$$ $'$&'(,* ! +
$+ %
%$$ $''(,* !!
$& %
%$$ $' '(,* &
$# %
%$$ $'$'(,* !$#
$ %
%$$ $'
'(,* !
+
%
%$$ $'&'(,* !(
%
%$$ $'('(,* !
+
( %
%$$ $'( '(,*
#
%
%$$ $'
$'(,* !+
! %
%$$ $'
'(,*
&
%
%$$ $'
&'(,* !($
+ %
%$$ $'!'(,* !#
& %
%$$ $'! '(,* !(
# %
%$$ '$$'(,*
#
27.195
$ %
%$$ '$
'(,* !
%
%$$ '$&'(,* !$
%
%$$ ''(,*
&#
( %
%$$ ' '(,*
+
%
%$$ '$'(,* #
! %
%$$ '
'(,* !(
%
%$$ '&'(,* $
+ %
%$$ '('(,* !(#
& %
%$$ '( '(,* !!&
# %
%$$ '
$'(,*
#+
($ %
%$$ '
'(,*
( %
%$$ '
&'(,* $!
( %
%$$ '!'(,* !#(
(( %
%$$ '! '(,*
#
(
%!%$$ '$$'()* !!
(! %!%$$ '$
'()* $!
( %!%$$ '$&'()*
#(
(+ %!%$$ ''()*
&+
(& %!%$$ ' '()* !&
(# %!%$$ '$'()* !$
$ %!%$$ '
'()*
(
%!%$$ '&'()*
!!
%!%$$ '('()* !#!
( %!%$$ '( '()* (++
%!%$$ '
$'()* !!
! %!%$$ '
'()* (&
%!%$$ '
&'()*
$
+ %!%$$ '!'()* !#
& %!%$$ '! '()* !
+
# %!%$$ '$$'()* (#+
!$ %!%$$ '$
'()* (&
! %!%$$ '$&'()* ( !
! %!%$$ ''()* (#
!( %!%$$ ' '()* !&&
!
%!%$$ '$'()*
!! %!%$$ '
'()*
((
! %!%$$ '&'()*
!&
!+ %!%$$ '('()*
(
!& %!%$$ '( '()*
&
!# %!%$$ '
$'()*
(&
$ %!%$$ '
'()*
+
%!%$$ '
&'()* !$
%!%$$ '!'()*
(
( %!%$$ '! '()*
$(
%!%$$ '$$'()*
$
! %!%$$ '$
'()*
%!%$$ '$&'()*
(
27.196
+ %!%$$ ''()* !
& %!%$$ ' '()* !(
# %!%$$ '$'()*
&
+$ %!%$$ '
'()*
(
+ %!%$$ '&'()*
+
+ %!%$$ '('()* ( #
+( %!%$$ '( '()*
+
%!%$$ '
$'()* !+
+! %!%$$ '
'()*
(#
+ %!%$$ '
&'()*
++ %!%$$ '!'()*
#
+& %!%$$ '! '()* !
+# %!%$$ ('$$'()* !&
&$ %!%$$ ('$
'()* !($
& %!%$$ ('$&'()*
&
& %!%$$ (''()* !
#
&( %!%$$ (' '()*
+(
&
%!%$$ ('$'()*
(#
&! %!%$$ ('
'()*
&
& %!%$$ ('&'()* !$+
&+ %!%$$ ('('()*
++
&& %!%$$ ('( '()*
+
&# %!%$$ ('
$'()* !#(
#$ %!%$$ ('
'()*
+
# %!%$$ ('
&'()*
#
# %!%$$ ('!'()* !(
#( %!%$$ ('! '()* !&(
#
%!%$$
'$$'()* !+(
#! %!%$$
'$
'()* !#
# %!%$$
'$&'()* &
#+ %!%$$
''()* !
#& %!%$$
' '()* !+(
## %!%$$
'$'()* !+$
($$ %!%$$
'
'()* #
($ %!%$$
'&'()* ($
($ %!%$$
'('()*
($( %!%$$
'( '()* !
($
%!%$$
'
$'()*
#
($! %!%$$
'
'()* !
($ %!%$$
'
&'()* ! $
($+ %!%$$
'!'()* !&
($& %!%$$
'! '()* !&&
($# %!%$$ !'$$'()* ($
($ %!%$$ !'$
'()* +#
( %!%$$ !'$&'()* (
( %!%$$ !''()* !
(( %!%$$ !' '()* !
27.197
(
%!%$$ !'$'()*
(! %!%$$ !'
'()*
( %!%$$ !'&'()* !
(+ %!%$$ !'('()* +
(& %!%$$ !'( '()* +
(# %!%$$ !'
$'()* +
($ %!%$$ !'
'()* #
( %!%$$ !'
&'()* +$
( %!%$$ !'!'()* !!
(( %!%$$ !'! '()* &(
(
%!%$$ '$$'()*
(! %!%$$ '$
'()*
!
( %!%$$ '$&'()* !#
(+ %!%$$ ''()* !+
(& %!%$$ ' '()* #(
(# %!%$$ '$'()* +(
(($ %!%$$ '
'()* +
(( %!%$$ '&'()* #(
(( %!%$$ '('()* &+
((( %!%$$ '( '()*
!
((
%!%$$ '
$'()* !&
((! %!%$$ '
'()* +
(( %!%$$ '
&'()* &$
((+ %!%$$ '!'()* #
((& %!%$$ '! '()* +#
((# %!%$$ +'$$'()*
(
$ %!%$$ +'$
'()* +(
(
%!%$$ +'$&'()* +
(
%!%$$ +''()* &#
(
( %!%$$ +' '()* &
(
%!%$$ +'$'()* &
(
! %!%$$ +'
'()* +(
(
%!%$$ +'&'()* &!
(
+ %!%$$ +'('()* (+
(
& %!%$$ +'( '()* #$
(
# %!%$$ +'
$'()* !+
(!$ %!%$$ +'
'()* #+
(! %!%$$ +'
&'()* (&
(! %!%$$ +'!'()* +$!
(!( %!%$$ +'! '()* +#
(!
%!%$$ &'$$'()* &(
(!! %!%$$ &'$
'()* +
(! %!%$$ &'$&'()* +$
(!+ %!%$$ &''()* +
(!& %!%$$ &' '()* +
(!# %!%$$ &'$'()* #$
( $ %!%$$ &'
'()* (
27.198
South Rapetta Road Noise Technical Memorandum
Attachment 2 – Roadway Construction Noise Model
27.199
!
"
#
$$$$
%$$$$
&
&'
( )
* +, # #-
! #.*
/ 01 0
+2
*
! '
+
*
3*
(*4 (*4
!- #
, )
#5 &' &' 6
&'
7
8 9/
1 &:- 8 //0
1
&'
(*
&'
+, # #-
+2
*
;(*4 (2 (*4 (2 (*4 (2 (*4 (2 (*4
7
9// 9</
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
&:- 9<0 /
0
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
=
9// 91
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
27.200
South Rapetta Road Noise Technical Memorandum
Attachment 3 – Construction Noise Enclosure Specifications
27.201
27.202
1 Steve Benedum
From: Mike Wiechmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 7:27 AM
To: Steve Benedum
Cc: Michael Wu; Brian Sherin
Subject: APN-08-391-18 Support Letter
HI Steve,
Please see the below letter digitally sent per your request. **
To Whom It May Concern:
Mr. Benedum has submitted a preliminary plan for a proposal to create a single family residence on the property identified as APN-08-391-18 at the corner of El Rancho Drive and South Rapetta Road and shown on the attached APN map. In accordance with the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS, recorded 03/29/2013, between Steven J. Benedum and Peggy Benedum, Trustees of the Benedum Revocable Trust and the Rancho Carbonera Owners Association, the Association agrees to support the plan (Drawn: CB, Date: 02/07/21, Job No.: 2021-02) presented to the Rancho Carbonera Homeowners Association.
Best regards,
The Rancho Carbonera Homeowners Association Executive Committee Mike Wiechmann
Michael Wu
Brian Sherin
**
-digitally submitted via email, MW 5/3/2021
Mike
Mike Wiechmann
Cloud 1 Solutions, Inc.
[email protected]
www.Cloud1Solutions.com
Direct: 408.964.8182
mike-wiechmann (Skype)
Support:
[email protected]
831.331.4558
408.840.4268
27.203
27.204
SANTA CRUZ (SC), CA Document:DED 2002.72506 Page:1 of 3 Printed on:6/8/2022 1:55 PM
Branch :SFW User :JPAR
27.205
SANTA CRUZ (SC), CA Document:DED 2002.72506 Page:2 of 3 Printed on:6/8/2022 1:55 PM
Branch :SFW User :JPAR
27.206
SANTA CRUZ (SC), CA Document:DED 2002.72506 Page:3 of 3 Printed on:6/8/2022 1:55 PM
Branch :SFW User :JPAR
27.207
Cindy Hernandez
133 South Rapetta Rd
Santa Cruz, Ca 95060
408.402.1717
June 15, 2022
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Cindy Hernandez, and I am the current Tenant at: 133 South Rapetta Rd, Santa Cruz Ca. My two 8-year-old boys, 15-year-old daughter and I have been living at the residence since June, 2015.
My children and I have been very comfortable and incredibly grateful to have been given the opportunity to rent a home in such a beautiful community. The 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom home is about 1600 sq ft on a 3,285 sq ft lot, which “exceeds” our basic needs.
The “back patio” is the perfect size for my family and I to maintain and enjoy an outside space. It is big enough to enjoy the outside breeze, garden, barbeque and the children to play on; and small enough to keep maintained and expenses at a minimum. Working full-time as a single parent makes it challenging to maintain a home, and especially a yard; therefore, I am incredibly content with the lot size it is now.
The backyard extends to a few tall Eucalyptus trees and a large back yard; which I personally do not enjoy. The extended up-hill yard is NOT “child-friendly.” The large eucalyptus trees are beautiful, but a big nuisance to have behind the property due to its inconvenience. The broken scattered tree branches and dead leaves attract black windows, ticks and yellow jackets, which tend to hide and nest under the debris. My children have been bitten many times by these bugs, and attacked by yellow jackets when trying to play on the up-hill yard. They have now decided to stay away and keep safe on our backyard patio area.
During the winter and fall season, my children and I become incredibly anxious of the tall eucalyptus trees potentially falling, as they bend right to left, while large branches scatter around the property. We have trouble sleeping during harsh weather conditions, hoping that the trees won’t break into a window or down to the bedroom ceilings, which are only a few feet away from the trees.
27.208
I strongly believe the new home addition in the community will be a great asset to Lot 10 and Lot 11. I hope that by eliminating some of the trees, we will have less tree debris, less critters, and more sunshine throughout the day. The new home will certainly help enhance the curb appeal of these two lots, and hopefully help create a more child friendly backyard.
I truly can’t wait to see the end result, and look forward to the community's growth and new members.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Cindy Hernandez
27.209
From: Timothy Maier
To: Tess Fitzgerald
Subject: Please Add Attached Photos to Project Agenda per Cmr. Schiffrin"s Request Date: Thursday, June 02, 2022 3:01:19 PM
From: Andrew Schiffrin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Timothy Maier <[email protected]>; Samantha Haschert <[email protected]>; Lee Butler <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: 109 SOUTH RAPETTA PHOTOS
Hi Tim -
Please add the two photos below to the agenda material on the 109 South Rapetta item.
Thank you.
Andy Schiffrin
27.210
27.211
27.212
27.213
June 14, 2022
To Whom it may Concern,
My name is Marilu Radilla, my children and I have been a tenant of Steve and Peggy Benedum at 121 S. Rapetta Rd., Santa Cruz, CA. 95060 for the past eight years this month.
I recently had a chance to review the proposed plans and can state that without a doubt am in full support of the proposed action plans. Having a larger yard would allow my children and myself to utilize more of the property and allow my children to play and roam more freely.
My children nor myself have never made use of the area where the new house will be built.
The eucalyptus trees are especially concerning during the winter months which creates a big mess with its branches, bark and leaves in the neighborhood, more concerning is if a tree should blow over, that it blow over while we are home.
If there is any other information or support you may need to move forward please do not hesitate to contact me at the information below.
Marilu Radilla
(831) 316-8929
121 S. Rapetta Rd.
Santa Cruz, CA. 95060
27.214
From: Steve Benedum [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 10:17 AM
To: Timothy Maier <[email protected]>
Cc: Samantha Haschert <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: ROCA Common area
Tim & Samantha,
Please find the attached letter from Newman Marcus explaining that the discrepancy in the CC&R’s was a clerical error by his office. Attachment #2 is a copy of the Rancho Carbonera Public Report which clearly states on page 11 that lots 10, 11 and lot B are not part of the subdivision. Attachment #3 is a copy of the deed showing the transfer of common area lots A & C to the RCOA that was executed at the same time as the CC&R’s, this transfer did not include lot B.
The CC&R’s recorded 2/20 2002 contained conflicting descriptions of the common areas in the CC&R’s.
When this was discovered, the CC&R’s were changed to conform to the deeds and Public report. There was no material change to the subdivision, therefore no permit was necessary to correct a clerical error.
Best Regards
Steve Benedum
27.215
SANTA CRUZ (SC), CA Document:DED 2002.72506 Page:1 of 3 Printed on:6/8/2022 1:55 PM
Branch :SFW User :JPAR
27.216
SANTA CRUZ (SC), CA Document:DED 2002.72506 Page:2 of 3 Printed on:6/8/2022 1:55 PM
Branch :SFW User :JPAR
27.217
SANTA CRUZ (SC), CA Document:DED 2002.72506 Page:3 of 3 Printed on:6/8/2022 1:55 PM
Branch :SFW User :JPAR
27.218
27.219
27.220
27.221
27.222
27.223
27.224
27.225
27.226
27.227
27.228
27.229
27.230
27.231
Eucalyptus Trees Removal Clarification:
The proposed tree removals are all nonnative eucalyptus trees with the exception of a 6” diameter bay tree and a 4” diameter live oak; the oak tree we believe can be transplanted to a another location on the property. Eucalyptus trees can be majestic. However, they can make poor neighbors in an urban environment. They are notoriously shallow- rooted and can blow over in major wind events. They tend to grow tall with sparse foliage near the tops of the trees that provide little noise reduction; they will continuously shed their bark over the course of their lifetimes creating a great deal of debris on the forest floor. The Eucalyptus tree is considered one of California’s most flammable trees. The oil produced by the tree is very flammable which allows these trees to burn hot and fast and is considered one of the reasons for the severity of the Oakland Hills fire. Eucalyptus is an invasive species which will overwhelm and choke out native oak woodlands. A prime example of this is a short distance away at Delaveaga Park where eucalyptus trees are spreading throughout the area choking out native trees and creating a fire hazard.
Eight protected trees are being proposed for removal and three are in such poor condition that they are being recommended for removal regardless of construction impacts. The remaining trees are listed in fair condition. Two of the eleven trees have a pronounced lean towards El Rancho Dr. If these trees were to fall, they would take out the fence and power lines along El Rancho Dr.
The Arborist has outlined a tree protection plan for the cypress, redwood and oak trees that are being retained; this plan is to be implemented prior to construction.
We have previously submitted landscaping and replacement tree planting plans to the city planning staff. These plans show 13 replacement trees consisting of mostly native coastal live oaks trees.
It should be noted that the Rancho Carbonera Conservation Easement and Habitat Restoration Management Plan calls for the removal of all nonnative species including eucalyptus trees.
Thank You
Steven Benedum: Applicant
27.232
7LPRWK\0DLHU
)URP
&LW\3ODQ
6HQW
:HGQHVGD\-XQH
$0
7R
7LPRWK\0DLHU
6XEMHFW
):
UH
6RXWK5DSHWWD'ULYH3URMHFW&3
ĨLJŝ
&ƌŽŵ͗tĂůƚĞƌǀŽŶdĂŐĞŶ///ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗ǁĂůƚĞƌϯƌĚΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ ^ĞŶƚ͗dƵĞƐĚĂLJ͕:ƵŶĞϮϭ͕ϮϬϮϮϯ͗ϯϱWD
dŽ͗ŝƚLJWůĂŶфĐŝƚLJƉůĂŶΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶƚĂĐƌƵnj͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ƌ͘Ğ͘ϭϬϵ^ŽƵƚŚZĂƉĞƚƚĂƌŝǀĞ͕WƌŽũĞĐƚηWϮϭϬϬϬϲϬ 'HDU&RPPLVVLRQHUV&LW\3ODQQHUVDQGWRZKRPLWPD\FRQFHUQ ,QP\ODVWPLVVLYHWR\RX,REMHFWHGDQGVWLOOREMHFWWRDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWEHLQJJUDQWHGIRUWKLVSURMHFW ,VKDOOEHUHIHUULQJWRWKHODQGLQTXHVWLRQDV/RW%DVLWZDVGHVLJQDWHGLQZKHQLWZDVLQFOXGHGDV FRPPRQVSDFHIRUWKH+2$
,ZDQWWRLPSUHVVRQ\RXKRZWKHPRYLQJ/RW%IURPFRPPRQRSHQVSDFHWRDEXLOGDEOHORWZDV morally, ethically, and legally WRONG
5HOHYDQWEDFNJURXQG
The use of Lot B is called out in the original staff report for the project and was discussed during the July 25, 2000 City Council meeting and indicates that the intent of the large parcel was to provide common open space for the residents of the subdivision and to provide a vegetative buffer between the subdivision and Highway
17. In January 2012, the City became aware that the CC&Rs for the subdivision were altered without the benefit of permits to remove Lot B as common area. The City was not notified of this change prior to its execution, which is in conflict with condition #19 of Resolution 97-279, which states that the Homeowners Association (HOA) shall not remove conditions and restrictions from the CC&Rs that were specifically required by the City without first obtaining an amendment to the Planned Development and Design Permits. $V\RXPD\UHPHPEHUWKLVZDVGRQHZKHQWKH+2$KDGRQO\WZRGLUHFWRUV:KRZHUHPDUULHGWRHDFKDWWKH WLPH"
1RZDV\RXPD\RUPD\QRWEHDZDUH+2$GLUHFWRUVKDYHD),'8&,$5<5(63216,%,/,7<WRWKH DVVRFLDWLRQVWKH\UHSUHVHQW
(Fiduciary Duty: A duty to act for someone else's benefit while subordinating one's personal interest to that of the other person. It is the highest standard of duty implied by law (e.g., trustee, guardian). -Black's Law Dictionary) 7KLVILGXFLDU\UHODWLRQVKLSLVJRYHUQHGE\WKHVWDWXWRU\VWDQGDUGWKDWUHTXLUHVGLUHFWRUVWRH[HUFLVHGXH FDUHDQGXQGLYLGHGOR\DOW\IRUWKHLQWHUHVWVRIWKHFRUSRUDWLRQ
)UDQFLV7Y9LOODJH*UHHQ
$V+2$GLUHFWRUVWRPRYHDGHVLJQDWHGRSHQWREXLOGDEOHODQGZRXOG127EHLQWKHEHVWLQWHUHVWRIWKH FRPPXQLW\DQGZRXOGEUHDNWKHILGXFLDU\WUXVWSODFHGLQWKHP
27.233
)XUWKHUPRUH+2$'LUHFWRUVDUHWRFRQGXFWWKHPVHOYHVZLWKWKHVDPHUHVSRQVLELOLWLHVDVGRHVDFLW\ FRXQFLOSHUVRQ
SODQQLQJFRPPLVVLRQHURUQRQSURILWGLUHFWRUVKRXOGLQWHUPVRIFRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVW
$FRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVWGHVFULEHVDVLWXDWLRQZKHUHRQHVWDQGVLQDSRVLWLRQWRGHULYHDSHUVRQDOEHQHILW IURPDFWLRQVRUGHFLVLRQVWKH\PDNHLQWKHLURIILFLDOFDSDFLW\ $VERWKGLUHFWRUVZRXOGSRWHQWLDOO\SHUVRQDOO\EHQHILWIURPWKHFKDQJHRI/RW%IURPRSHQVSDFHWRD EXLOGDEOHORW%27+',5(&7256KDGDFRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVW )LQDOO\$UWLFOHVXEVHFWLRQRIWKH&DOLIRUQLD&LYLO&RGHDNDWKH'DYLV6WLUOLQJ$FWKDVWKH IROORZLQJWRVD\DERXW3URKLELWHG$FWLRQVIRUDQ+2$GLUHFWRU
RUHG
E
$GLUHFWRURUPHPEHURIDFRPPLWWHHVKDOOQRWYRWHRQDQ\RIWKHIROORZLQJPDWWHUV
$JUDQWRIH[FOXVLYHXVHFRPPRQDUHDWRWKHGLUHFWRURUFRPPLWWHHPHPEHU 1RZ,DPQRWDODZ\HUEXWWRPHWDNLQJ/27%GHVLJQDWHG2SHQ6SDFHDQGPDNLQJLWDEXLOGDEOH ORWWKDWWKHGLUHFWRUVFRXOGLQWKHIXWXUHXVHDQGSRVVLEO\SURILW(;&/86,9(/<VHHPVWRPHD GLUHFWYLRODWLRQRI
EVXEVHFWLRQ
,QEULHIVRPHWLPHEHWZHHQDQGWZRGLUHFWRUVRIWKH+2$EURNHWKHLU)LGXFLDU\ UHVSRQLELOLWLHVLJQRUHGFRQIOLFWVRILQWHUHVWDQGLJQRUHGWKH&DOLIRUQLD&LYLO&RGH :KHQWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQLQGLVFRYHUHGWKLVWKH\VKRXOGKDYHRUGHUHG/RW%WREHUH GHVLJQDWHGDV2SHQ6SDFH
$Q\DFWLRQVDIWHUWKDWVKRXOGEHUHQGHUHGQXOODQGYRLG ,QRWDVNWKHFRPPLVVLRQHUVWRGHQ\DQ\DQGDOOEXLOGLQJSHUPLWVDQGRUGHU/RW%WREHUHGHVLJQDWHG 2SHQVSDFH
$Q\WKLQJHOVHZRXOGEHDOORZLQJWKHDSSOLFDFDQWVWREHQHILWVIURPWKHIUXLWVRIDSRLVRQWUHHDQGZLWK DOOGXHUHVSHFWH[SRVHWKHFRPPLVVLRQWRFRPSOLFLW\
9HU\WUXHO\\RXUV
:DOWHUYRQ7DJHQ,,,
0LVW\&RXUW
6DQWD&UX]&DOLIRUQLD
27.234
27.235
27.236
27.237
27.238
27.239
27.240
27.241
27.242
27.243
27.244
27.245
27.246
27.247
27.248
From: Timothy Maier
To: "[email protected]"
Subject: Response to Comments re: Proposed Major Modification, Map Amendment - 109 S. Rapetta Dr. (CP21-0060) Date: Thursday, June 2, 2022 3:58:00 PM
Hello Mr. Von Tagen,
Thank you for your feedback regarding the propose Major Modification and Map Amendment related to 109 S. Rapetta Rd. (CP21-0060).
Following, please find responses to your questions and concerns in green. Please note that your correspondence has been entered into the public record for the project. r.e. 109 South Rapetta Drive, Project # CP2100060
To whom it may concern,
I am writing this in opposition of staff's recommendation of approval of this project.
I live on Misty Court, and the proposed project is where Misty Court begins. As noted in the background section of your agenda, please note that Lot B was originally described thusly:
the use of Lot B is called out in the original staff report for the project and was discussed during the July 25, 2000 City Council meeting and indicates that the intent of the large parcel was to provide common open space for the residents of the subdivision and to provide a vegetative buffer between the subdivision and Highway 17.
However, at one point the HOA found itself down to two people, who for reasons unknown, decided to change, without permission, the intended use of the parcel - again from the Background paragraph:
In January 2012, the City became aware that the CC&R’s for the subdivision were altered without the benefit of permits to remove Lot B as common area. The City was not notified of this change prior to its execution, which is in conflict with condition #19 of Resolution 97-279, which states that the Homeowners Association (HOA) shall not remove conditions and restrictions from the CC&R’s that were specifically required by the City without first obtaining an amendment to the Planned Development and Design Permits.
So, at minimum, you would be condoning a crime with your approval, no matter what came afterward.
Next, let us look at the lot size vs. proposed house size, and the effect of the trees here.
Lot B, as described in the Aboronist's report, contains the following:
Eighteen trees within or near the project limits were inventoried, including eleven “protected” trees.
Seven trees, including three “protected” trees are suitable for incorporation into the project. § Eleven trees are in poor condition or will be highly impacted and are not suitable for incorporation
27.249
into the project. §
Trees retained will require mitigation methods to reduce construction impacts including tree protection fencing and other treatments. § A total of eight “protected” trees are recommended for removal. § I
f removals are permitted, replacement trees will be required.
Let me ask you this - How can you say replacement trees will be required when said replacements cannot possibly replace trees towering high that have been there for decades, if not longer? Even the Arbonist points out -
In general, one 15-gallon replacement tree is required for each “protected” tree removed And
Applicants may elect to pay an in-lieu fee to the tree trust fund of $150 for off- site mitigation. (Contribution to the Tree Trust Fund are used to purchase street trees, trees for projects, etc.) As indicated in the tree projection plan submitted for the project (included as plan sheet 6 of 6), 9 of the 11 trees proposed to be removed are blue gum eucalyptus, a variety not native to Santa Cruz.
As with all proposed development projects in which existing trees would be adversely impacted by proposed development, a number of existing trees will necessarily be displaced to accommodate the project, and will thus require removal. A condition of approval for the project requires “a ratio of two (2) replacement trees for each one (1) tree removed, with minimally twenty (20) percent of the replacement trees being Coast Live Oaks.” Through the proposed project, native trees will be required to be planted to offset the loss of non-native trees removed, in a ratio of 2 trees planted for each 1 removed. The submitted landscape plan will need to be updated to accommodate this condition of approval.
So not only will this subdivision lose the majestic trees that help mitigate winds that blow down the mountain, and help soften the noise from Highway 17, the residents may end up with no trees here whatsoever.
The proposed project is required to include a vegetated buffer, consistent with a condition of approval of the original subdivision. This buffer will include new and denser plantings than currently occur, which will serve to buffer existing residences from wind and noise. Additionally, placement of a new single-family dwelling, as proposed, is likely to feature superior noise attenuation when compared with existing vegetation.
However, the Arborist also points out the following:
Root Disturbance Distance
No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty what distance from a tree, a soil disturbance such as excavation for construction should be, to ensure it will not significantly affect tree stability or health. Or to what degree, (low, moderate or high), a tree might be impacted. There are simply too many variables involved that we cannot see or anticipate.
So even any foliage that remains might be in danger because of the construction.
27.250
Such language is included in most arborist reports to clarify that recommended protections may not prove successful, as the outcome of human intervention in natural systems cannot be predicted with certainty.
The original intent of the HOA should be the guideline for the use of Lot B. Undeveloped common space.
I ask you to come out and see for yourself to come out and see these beautiful trees for yourself.
And I ask you to deny this project.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed project based on its merits and render a decision.
Thank you -
Walter von Tagen III
109 Misty Court,
Santa Cruz, Ca.
Best regards,
Tim
Timothy Maier, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz
(831)420-5129
cityofsantacruz.com
27.251
From: Timothy Maier
To: Tess Fitzgerald
Subject: Please Include as an Agenda Item - re: Request by A. Schiffrin Date: Thursday, June 02, 2022 9:17:54 AM
Attachments: 100M09 - Recorded Subdivision Map.pdf
Good morning Commissioner Schiffrin,
Attached is the recorded subdivision map for the Rancho Carbonera development.
At the time of approval of Project #97-279, the 15% inclusionary requirement in place resulted in the provision of 2 affordable units. The 2 townhouses are the affordable units per the original entitlement.
I’d be glad to answer any other questions.
Best regards,
Tim
Timothy Maier, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz
(831)420-5129
cityofsantacruz.com
From: Andrew Schiffrin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 8:59 AM
To: Lee Butler <[email protected]>; Timothy Maier <[email protected]>; Samantha Haschert <[email protected]>
Subject: 109 SOUTH RAPETTA PROJECT
Hi -
Thank you for adding the COA and MND/Initial Study for the original project to the agenda material. I hadn't understood that the project approved by the City Council was for 11 units and the Common Open Space parcel was to serve all 11 units.
While the information provided is useful, I would like to see the parcel map/site plan for the original project. Also, since it was for 11 units, what were the inclusionary requirements? I seem to have missed them in the COA.
I intend to visit the site later this morning so would appreciate receiving the original site plan as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Andy Schiffrin
27.252
27.253
27.254
27.255
27.256
P:\_Public\0staffmembers\Tim Maier\Projects\S Rapettta 109 -Modification to Recorded Subdiv Map\Memo_CEQA Documents, COAs of Project 97-279.doc
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: 5/31/22
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Timothy Maier, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CEQA Documents and Conditions of Approval of Project #97-279 (related to CP21-0060)
Staff received a request from Commissioner Schiffrin for review of the documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Conditions of Approval for Project #97-279, the entitlement which application CP21-0060 seeks to modify. CP21-0060 includes an application for a Final Map Amendment and Major Modification to Planned Development Permit #97-279 to amend the El Rancho Carbonera subdivision map and modify Lot B to allow for residential development on a parcel located in the R-1-7 zone district.
Project #97-279 was approved by the City Council on July 25, 2000, and included adoption of a Negative Declaration and Tentative Subdivision Map, as well as entitlement of a Planned Development Permit and Design Permit to create an 11-unit subdivision on 3.4 acres, including nine (9) single-family lots and two (2) townhomes. Please note that the Initial Study (IS), Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Conditions of Approval of Project #97-279 are posted to the Planning Commission hearing agenda, which is accessible via link https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/Search?dropid=4&mtids=117.
27.257
5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.258 15/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.259 16/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.260 17/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.261 18/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.262 19/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.263 20/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.264 21/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.265 22/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.266 23/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.267 24/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.268 25/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.269 91/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.270 92/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.271 93/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.272 94/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.273 95/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.274 96/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.275 97/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.276 98/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.277 99/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.278 100/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.279 101/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.280 102/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.281 103/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.282 104/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.283 105/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.284 106/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.285 107/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.286 108/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.287 109/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.288 110/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.289 111/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.290 112/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.291 113/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.292 114/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.293 115/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.294 116/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.295 117/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.296 118/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.297 119/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.298 120/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.299 10/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.300 11/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.301 12/342 5/31/22, 8:53 AM Print Document
https://vapponbase.cityofsantacruz.org/AppNet/PrintHandler.ashx 27.302 13/342
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
PLANNING COMMISSION
Special Meeting
Minutes
June 30, 2022
7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ZOOM WEBINAR Call to Order-The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call-Commissioners Conway, Kennedy, Maxwell, Mesiti-Miller, Schiffrin and Chairperson Dawson were present. Commissioner Greenberg was absent with notification.
Statements of Disqualification-None
Public Hearings
1. 109 South Rapetta Road CP21-0060 Final Map Amendment and Major Modification to Planned Development Permit #97-279 to amend the El Rancho Carbonera subdivision map and modify Lot B to allow for residential development on a parcel located in the R-1-7 zone district.
Senior Planner Timothy Maier presented the item to the Commission.
Applicant John Swift addressed the Commission.
The public hearing was opened.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: none.
The public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffrin, seconded by Commissioner Conway, to recommend that the City Council approve the Final Map Amendment and Major Modification, as designed in Alternative 2, based on the environmental determination, and the Findings and Conditions of Approval in the attached Draft Resolution.
27.303
ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Conway, Kennedy, Maxwell, Mesiti-Miller, Schiffrin, Dawson NOES: None
ABSENT: Greenberg
2. Objective Development Standards for Multifamily and Mixed-Use Housing Ordinance Amendments
Senior Planner Sarah Neuse presented the item to the Commission.
The public hearing was opened.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Candace Brown; Unidentified speaker; Jim Burns; Ryan Meckle.
The public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Mesiti-Miller, seconded by Commissioner Conway to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code as presented, including a proposed amendment to the zoning map to create new mixed-use zone districts, including a finding that the public necessity and the general community welfare, and good zoning practice, are served and furthered, and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies, and land use designations set forth in the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and any adopted area plans as recommended by planning staff and find that the proposed ordinance and zoning map amendments are consistent with the EIR previously adopted for the 2030 General Plan and require no further consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with section 15183 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
MOTION TO AMEND MAIN MOTION: Motion to amend the motion on the floor made by Commissioner Schiffrin, seconded by Commissioner Maxwell, that under Section 24 12 185 the language be changed to read: ‘There should be no design permit public hearing for projects proposing no variation from the objective standards, only for projects of 25 units or less and a Zoning Administrator hearing for projects from 26-50 units and no more than five variations and a Planning Commission hearing if over 50 units or more than five variations.’
ACTION ON THE MOTION TO AMEND: The motion to amend the main motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Maxwell, Schiffrin, Dawson
NOES: Conway, Kennedy, Mesiti-Miller
ABSENT: Greenberg
27.304
MOTION TO AMEND MAIN MOTION: Motion to amend the main motion on the floor made by Commissioner Schiffrin, seconded by Commissioner Maxwell, that for all districts proposed for amendments where there would be approval by-right for housing and mixed-use projects that right would be allowed for developments with from 3-25 units and a special use permit shall be required for all developments over 25.
ACTION ON THE MOTION TO AMEND: The motion to amend the main motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Maxwell, Schiffrin, Dawson
NOES: Conway, Kennedy, Mesiti-Miller
ABSENT: Greenberg
MOTION TO AMEND MAIN MOTION: Motion to amend the motion on the floor made by Commissioner Schiffrin, seconded by Commissioner Maxwell, for Section 24 16 020 the following be added at the end of the paragraph:
‘Projects with a 30 percent density bonus shall have a 25 percent inclusionary requirement; projects with a 50 percent density bonus shall have a 30 percent inclusionary requirement.’
ACTION ON THE MOTION TO AMEND: The motion to amend the main motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: Maxwell, Schiffrin, Dawson
NOES: Conway, Kennedy, Mesiti-Miller
ABSENT: Greenberg
ACTION ON THE MAIN MOTION: The matter is continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission, due to the following tie vote (per the Planning Commission Bylaws, Article XI, Section 6):
AYES: Conway, Kennedy, Mesiti-Miller
NOES: Maxwell, Schiffrin, Dawson
ABSENT: Greenberg
MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Maxwell, to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of July 21, 2022.
ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Kennedy, Maxwell, Mesiti-Miller, Schiffrin, Dawson NOES: Conway
ABSENT: Greenberg
Adjournment-The meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
27.305
Cindy Hernandez
133 South Rapetta Rd
Santa Cruz, Ca 95060
408.402.1717
June 15, 2022
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Cindy Hernandez, and I am the current Tenant at: 133 South Rapetta Rd, Santa Cruz Ca. My two 8-year-old boys, 15-year-old daughter and I have been living at the residence since June, 2015.
My children and I have been very comfortable and incredibly grateful to have been given the opportunity to rent a home in such a beautiful community. The 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom home is about 1600 sq ft on a 3,285 sq ft lot, which “exceeds” our basic needs.
The “back patio” is the perfect size for my family and I to maintain and enjoy an outside space. It is big enough to enjoy the outside breeze, garden, barbeque and the children to play on; and small enough to keep maintained and expenses at a minimum. Working full-time as a single parent makes it challenging to maintain a home, and especially a yard; therefore, I am incredibly content with the lot size it is now.
The backyard extends to a few tall Eucalyptus trees and a large back yard; which I personally do not enjoy. The extended up-hill yard is NOT “child-friendly.” The large eucalyptus trees are beautiful, but a big nuisance to have behind the property due to its inconvenience. The broken scattered tree branches and dead leaves attract black windows, ticks and yellow jackets, which tend to hide and nest under the debris. My children have been bitten many times by these bugs, and attacked by yellow jackets when trying to play on the up-hill yard. They have now decided to stay away and keep safe on our backyard patio area.
During the winter and fall season, my children and I become incredibly anxious of the tall eucalyptus trees potentially falling, as they bend right to left, while large branches scatter around the property. We have trouble sleeping during harsh weather conditions, hoping that the trees won’t break into a window or down to the bedroom ceilings, which are only a few feet away from the trees.
27.306
I strongly believe the new home addition in the community will be a great asset to Lot 10 and Lot 11. I hope that by eliminating some of the trees, we will have less tree debris, less critters, and more sunshine throughout the day. The new home will certainly help enhance the curb appeal of these two lots, and hopefully help create a more child friendly backyard.
I truly can’t wait to see the end result, and look forward to the community's growth and new members.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Cindy Hernandez
27.307
From: Timothy Maier
To: Tess Fitzgerald
Subject: Please Add Attached Photos to Project Agenda per Cmr. Schiffrin"s Request Date: Thursday, June 02, 2022 3:01:19 PM
From: Andrew Schiffrin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Timothy Maier <[email protected]>; Samantha Haschert <[email protected]>; Lee Butler <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: 109 SOUTH RAPETTA PHOTOS
Hi Tim -
Please add the two photos below to the agenda material on the 109 South Rapetta item.
Thank you.
Andy Schiffrin
27.308
27.309
27.310
27.311
June 14, 2022
To Whom it may Concern,
My name is Marilu Radilla, my children and I have been a tenant of Steve and Peggy Benedum at 121 S. Rapetta Rd., Santa Cruz, CA. 95060 for the past eight years this month.
I recently had a chance to review the proposed plans and can state that without a doubt am in full support of the proposed action plans. Having a larger yard would allow my children and myself to utilize more of the property and allow my children to play and roam more freely.
My children nor myself have never made use of the area where the new house will be built.
The eucalyptus trees are especially concerning during the winter months which creates a big mess with its branches, bark and leaves in the neighborhood, more concerning is if a tree should blow over, that it blow over while we are home.
If there is any other information or support you may need to move forward please do not hesitate to contact me at the information below.
Marilu Radilla
(831) 316-8929
121 S. Rapetta Rd.
Santa Cruz, CA. 95060
27.312
Eucalyptus Trees Removal Clarification:
The proposed tree removals are all nonnative eucalyptus trees with the exception of a 6” diameter bay tree and a 4” diameter live oak; the oak tree we believe can be transplanted to a another location on the property. Eucalyptus trees can be majestic. However, they can make poor neighbors in an urban environment. They are notoriously shallow- rooted and can blow over in major wind events. They tend to grow tall with sparse foliage near the tops of the trees that provide little noise reduction; they will continuously shed their bark over the course of their lifetimes creating a great deal of debris on the forest floor. The Eucalyptus tree is considered one of California’s most flammable trees. The oil produced by the tree is very flammable which allows these trees to burn hot and fast and is considered one of the reasons for the severity of the Oakland Hills fire. Eucalyptus is an invasive species which will overwhelm and choke out native oak woodlands. A prime example of this is a short distance away at Delaveaga Park where eucalyptus trees are spreading throughout the area choking out native trees and creating a fire hazard.
Eight protected trees are being proposed for removal and three are in such poor condition that they are being recommended for removal regardless of construction impacts. The remaining trees are listed in fair condition. Two of the eleven trees have a pronounced lean towards El Rancho Dr. If these trees were to fall, they would take out the fence and power lines along El Rancho Dr.
The Arborist has outlined a tree protection plan for the cypress, redwood and oak trees that are being retained; this plan is to be implemented prior to construction.
We have previously submitted landscaping and replacement tree planting plans to the city planning staff. These plans show 13 replacement trees consisting of mostly native coastal live oaks trees.
It should be noted that the Rancho Carbonera Conservation Easement and Habitat Restoration Management Plan calls for the removal of all nonnative species including eucalyptus trees.
Thank You
Steven Benedum: Applicant
27.313
27.314
From: Timothy Maier
To: "[email protected]"
Subject: Response to Comments re: Proposed Major Modification, Map Amendment - 109 S. Rapetta Dr. (CP21-0060) Date: Thursday, June 2, 2022 3:58:00 PM
Hello Mr. Von Tagen,
Thank you for your feedback regarding the propose Major Modification and Map Amendment related to 109 S. Rapetta Rd. (CP21-0060).
Following, please find responses to your questions and concerns in green. Please note that your correspondence has been entered into the public record for the project. r.e. 109 South Rapetta Drive, Project # CP2100060
To whom it may concern,
I am writing this in opposition of staff's recommendation of approval of this project.
I live on Misty Court, and the proposed project is where Misty Court begins. As noted in the background section of your agenda, please note that Lot B was originally described thusly:
the use of Lot B is called out in the original staff report for the project and was discussed during the July 25, 2000 City Council meeting and indicates that the intent of the large parcel was to provide common open space for the residents of the subdivision and to provide a vegetative buffer between the subdivision and Highway 17.
However, at one point the HOA found itself down to two people, who for reasons unknown, decided to change, without permission, the intended use of the parcel - again from the Background paragraph:
In January 2012, the City became aware that the CC&R’s for the subdivision were altered without the benefit of permits to remove Lot B as common area. The City was not notified of this change prior to its execution, which is in conflict with condition #19 of Resolution 97-279, which states that the Homeowners Association (HOA) shall not remove conditions and restrictions from the CC&R’s that were specifically required by the City without first obtaining an amendment to the Planned Development and Design Permits.
So, at minimum, you would be condoning a crime with your approval, no matter what came afterward.
Next, let us look at the lot size vs. proposed house size, and the effect of the trees here.
Lot B, as described in the Aboronist's report, contains the following:
Eighteen trees within or near the project limits were inventoried, including eleven “protected” trees.
Seven trees, including three “protected” trees are suitable for incorporation into the project. § Eleven trees are in poor condition or will be highly impacted and are not suitable for incorporation
27.315
into the project. §
Trees retained will require mitigation methods to reduce construction impacts including tree protection fencing and other treatments. § A total of eight “protected” trees are recommended for removal. § I
f removals are permitted, replacement trees will be required.
Let me ask you this - How can you say replacement trees will be required when said replacements cannot possibly replace trees towering high that have been there for decades, if not longer? Even the Arbonist points out -
In general, one 15-gallon replacement tree is required for each “protected” tree removed And
Applicants may elect to pay an in-lieu fee to the tree trust fund of $150 for off- site mitigation. (Contribution to the Tree Trust Fund are used to purchase street trees, trees for projects, etc.) As indicated in the tree projection plan submitted for the project (included as plan sheet 6 of 6), 9 of the 11 trees proposed to be removed are blue gum eucalyptus, a variety not native to Santa Cruz.
As with all proposed development projects in which existing trees would be adversely impacted by proposed development, a number of existing trees will necessarily be displaced to accommodate the project, and will thus require removal. A condition of approval for the project requires “a ratio of two (2) replacement trees for each one (1) tree removed, with minimally twenty (20) percent of the replacement trees being Coast Live Oaks.” Through the proposed project, native trees will be required to be planted to offset the loss of non-native trees removed, in a ratio of 2 trees planted for each 1 removed. The submitted landscape plan will need to be updated to accommodate this condition of approval.
So not only will this subdivision lose the majestic trees that help mitigate winds that blow down the mountain, and help soften the noise from Highway 17, the residents may end up with no trees here whatsoever.
The proposed project is required to include a vegetated buffer, consistent with a condition of approval of the original subdivision. This buffer will include new and denser plantings than currently occur, which will serve to buffer existing residences from wind and noise. Additionally, placement of a new single-family dwelling, as proposed, is likely to feature superior noise attenuation when compared with existing vegetation.
However, the Arborist also points out the following:
Root Disturbance Distance
No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty what distance from a tree, a soil disturbance such as excavation for construction should be, to ensure it will not significantly affect tree stability or health. Or to what degree, (low, moderate or high), a tree might be impacted. There are simply too many variables involved that we cannot see or anticipate.
So even any foliage that remains might be in danger because of the construction.
27.316
Such language is included in most arborist reports to clarify that recommended protections may not prove successful, as the outcome of human intervention in natural systems cannot be predicted with certainty.
The original intent of the HOA should be the guideline for the use of Lot B. Undeveloped common space.
I ask you to come out and see for yourself to come out and see these beautiful trees for yourself.
And I ask you to deny this project.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed project based on its merits and render a decision.
Thank you -
Walter von Tagen III
109 Misty Court,
Santa Cruz, Ca.
Best regards,
Tim
Timothy Maier, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Santa Cruz
(831)420-5129
cityofsantacruz.com
27.317
7LPRWK\0DLHU
)URP
&LW\3ODQ
6HQW
:HGQHVGD\-XQH
$0
7R
7LPRWK\0DLHU
6XEMHFW
):
UH
6RXWK5DSHWWD'ULYH3URMHFW&3
ĨLJŝ
&ƌŽŵ͗tĂůƚĞƌǀŽŶdĂŐĞŶ///ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗ǁĂůƚĞƌϯƌĚΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ ^ĞŶƚ͗dƵĞƐĚĂLJ͕:ƵŶĞϮϭ͕ϮϬϮϮϯ͗ϯϱWD
dŽ͗ŝƚLJWůĂŶфĐŝƚLJƉůĂŶΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐĂŶƚĂĐƌƵnj͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ƌ͘Ğ͘ϭϬϵ^ŽƵƚŚZĂƉĞƚƚĂƌŝǀĞ͕WƌŽũĞĐƚηWϮϭϬϬϬϲϬ 'HDU&RPPLVVLRQHUV&LW\3ODQQHUVDQGWRZKRPLWPD\FRQFHUQ ,QP\ODVWPLVVLYHWR\RX,REMHFWHGDQGVWLOOREMHFWWRDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWEHLQJJUDQWHGIRUWKLVSURMHFW ,VKDOOEHUHIHUULQJWRWKHODQGLQTXHVWLRQDV/RW%DVLWZDVGHVLJQDWHGLQZKHQLWZDVLQFOXGHGDV FRPPRQVSDFHIRUWKH+2$
,ZDQWWRLPSUHVVRQ\RXKRZWKHPRYLQJ/RW%IURPFRPPRQRSHQVSDFHWRDEXLOGDEOHORWZDV morally, ethically, and legally WRONG
5HOHYDQWEDFNJURXQG
The use of Lot B is called out in the original staff report for the project and was discussed during the July 25, 2000 City Council meeting and indicates that the intent of the large parcel was to provide common open space for the residents of the subdivision and to provide a vegetative buffer between the subdivision and Highway
17. In January 2012, the City became aware that the CC&Rs for the subdivision were altered without the benefit of permits to remove Lot B as common area. The City was not notified of this change prior to its execution, which is in conflict with condition #19 of Resolution 97-279, which states that the Homeowners Association (HOA) shall not remove conditions and restrictions from the CC&Rs that were specifically required by the City without first obtaining an amendment to the Planned Development and Design Permits. $V\RXPD\UHPHPEHUWKLVZDVGRQHZKHQWKH+2$KDGRQO\WZRGLUHFWRUV:KRZHUHPDUULHGWRHDFKDWWKH WLPH"
1RZDV\RXPD\RUPD\QRWEHDZDUH+2$GLUHFWRUVKDYHD),'8&,$5<5(63216,%,/,7<WRWKH DVVRFLDWLRQVWKH\UHSUHVHQW
(Fiduciary Duty: A duty to act for someone else's benefit while subordinating one's personal interest to that of the other person. It is the highest standard of duty implied by law (e.g., trustee, guardian). -Black's Law Dictionary) 7KLVILGXFLDU\UHODWLRQVKLSLVJRYHUQHGE\WKHVWDWXWRU\VWDQGDUGWKDWUHTXLUHVGLUHFWRUVWRH[HUFLVHGXH FDUHDQGXQGLYLGHGOR\DOW\IRUWKHLQWHUHVWVRIWKHFRUSRUDWLRQ
)UDQFLV7Y9LOODJH*UHHQ
$V+2$GLUHFWRUVWRPRYHDGHVLJQDWHGRSHQWREXLOGDEOHODQGZRXOG127EHLQWKHEHVWLQWHUHVWRIWKH FRPPXQLW\DQGZRXOGEUHDNWKHILGXFLDU\WUXVWSODFHGLQWKHP
27.318
)XUWKHUPRUH+2$'LUHFWRUVDUHWRFRQGXFWWKHPVHOYHVZLWKWKHVDPHUHVSRQVLELOLWLHVDVGRHVDFLW\ FRXQFLOSHUVRQ
SODQQLQJFRPPLVVLRQHURUQRQSURILWGLUHFWRUVKRXOGLQWHUPVRIFRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVW
$FRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVWGHVFULEHVDVLWXDWLRQZKHUHRQHVWDQGVLQDSRVLWLRQWRGHULYHDSHUVRQDOEHQHILW IURPDFWLRQVRUGHFLVLRQVWKH\PDNHLQWKHLURIILFLDOFDSDFLW\ $VERWKGLUHFWRUVZRXOGSRWHQWLDOO\SHUVRQDOO\EHQHILWIURPWKHFKDQJHRI/RW%IURPRSHQVSDFHWRD EXLOGDEOHORW%27+',5(&7256KDGDFRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVW )LQDOO\$UWLFOHVXEVHFWLRQRIWKH&DOLIRUQLD&LYLO&RGHDNDWKH'DYLV6WLUOLQJ$FWKDVWKH IROORZLQJWRVD\DERXW3URKLELWHG$FWLRQVIRUDQ+2$GLUHFWRU
RUHG
E
$GLUHFWRURUPHPEHURIDFRPPLWWHHVKDOOQRWYRWHRQDQ\RIWKHIROORZLQJPDWWHUV
$JUDQWRIH[FOXVLYHXVHFRPPRQDUHDWRWKHGLUHFWRURUFRPPLWWHHPHPEHU 1RZ,DPQRWDODZ\HUEXWWRPHWDNLQJ/27%GHVLJQDWHG2SHQ6SDFHDQGPDNLQJLWDEXLOGDEOH ORWWKDWWKHGLUHFWRUVFRXOGLQWKHIXWXUHXVHDQGSRVVLEO\SURILW(;&/86,9(/<VHHPVWRPHD GLUHFWYLRODWLRQRI
EVXEVHFWLRQ
,QEULHIVRPHWLPHEHWZHHQDQGWZRGLUHFWRUVRIWKH+2$EURNHWKHLU)LGXFLDU\ UHVSRQLELOLWLHVLJQRUHGFRQIOLFWVRILQWHUHVWDQGLJQRUHGWKH&DOLIRUQLD&LYLO&RGH :KHQWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQLQGLVFRYHUHGWKLVWKH\VKRXOGKDYHRUGHUHG/RW%WREHUH GHVLJQDWHGDV2SHQ6SDFH
$Q\DFWLRQVDIWHUWKDWVKRXOGEHUHQGHUHGQXOODQGYRLG ,QRWDVNWKHFRPPLVVLRQHUVWRGHQ\DQ\DQGDOOEXLOGLQJSHUPLWVDQGRUGHU/RW%WREHUHGHVLJQDWHG 2SHQVSDFH
$Q\WKLQJHOVHZRXOGEHDOORZLQJWKHDSSOLFDFDQWVWREHQHILWVIURPWKHIUXLWVRIDSRLVRQWUHHDQGZLWK DOOGXHUHVSHFWH[SRVHWKHFRPPLVVLRQWRFRPSOLFLW\
9HU\WUXHO\\RXUV
:DOWHUYRQ7DJHQ,,,
0LVW\&RXUW
6DQWD&UX]&DOLIRUQLD
27.319
1 Steve Benedum
From: Mike Wiechmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 7:27 AM
To: Steve Benedum
Cc: Michael Wu; Brian Sherin
Subject: APN-08-391-18 Support Letter
HI Steve,
Please see the below letter digitally sent per your request. **
To Whom It May Concern:
Mr. Benedum has submitted a preliminary plan for a proposal to create a single family residence on the property identified as APN-08-391-18 at the corner of El Rancho Drive and South Rapetta Road and shown on the attached APN map. In accordance with the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS, recorded 03/29/2013, between Steven J. Benedum and Peggy Benedum, Trustees of the Benedum Revocable Trust and the Rancho Carbonera Owners Association, the Association agrees to support the plan (Drawn: CB, Date: 02/07/21, Job No.: 2021-02) presented to the Rancho Carbonera Homeowners Association.
Best regards,
The Rancho Carbonera Homeowners Association Executive Committee Mike Wiechmann
Michael Wu
Brian Sherin
**
-digitally submitted via email, MW 5/3/2021
Mike
Mike Wiechmann
Cloud 1 Solutions, Inc.
[email protected]
www.Cloud1Solutions.com
Direct: 408.964.8182
mike-wiechmann (Skype)
Support:
[email protected]
831.331.4558
408.840.4268
27.320
City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 07/06/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/09/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Transportation and Public Works Commission Appointment (CC) RECOMMENDATION: Appoint one member to the Transportation and Public Works Commission, with a term ending January 31, 2024.
BACKGROUND: Due to a resignation, the Transportation and Public Works Commission has a vacancy.
DISCUSSION: The following people are seeking appointment:
Sabrina Lopez
Ryan Meckel
Chad Mitcham
Alex Ponik
Joy Schendledecker
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Prepared By:
Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
Submitted By:
Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. APPLICATIONS.PDF
28.1 28.2
28.3 Sabrina Lopez
, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
EDUCATION
2015 – 2019 B.S., Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology University of California, Santa Cruz 2019 UC Center Sacramento Program University of California, Davis 2018 UCD School of Earth Sciences exchange program University College of Dublin, Ireland
EXPERIENCE
June 2020 – Current. Health Program Specialist, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY • Case manages patients and families who experience childhood lead poisoning • Leads outreach and education activities for community members • Maintains inter and intra-agency connections and collaborations • Communicates with medical personnel, public health officials, families/patients, and other collaborators • Educates community on pedestrian and cyclist safety
• Collaborates with Residential Care Facilities for COVID-19 prevention education October 2017 – August 2019. University and Student Life Guide, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ • Led groups of 30+ people on 90 minute campus tours 2-3 times a day • Gained extensive public speaking skills, acting as a campus representative • Developed expansive knowledge base of UCSC academics, student life, and history January 2019 – March 2019. Undergraduate Intern, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/UC CENTER
SACRAMENTO
• Conducted personal project regarding asbestos testing at a low-income public school • Assisted CalRecycle with recycling facility compliance in West Oakland • Worked with stakeholders and Non-Profit Organizations on the Stockton Air Quality and Water Quality improvement efforts • Aided in document editing and analysis for various projects • Educated in policy courses
• Carried out individual research about methane gas and climate change policy implementation June 2018 – August 2018. Big Lift Inspiring Summers (BLIS) Learning Facilitator Intern, SAN MATEO COUNTY LIBRARIES • Facilitated a summer learning camp of rising kindergarteners focused on STEM for cognitive development • Led low-income children through hands-on educational activities • Collaborated with county faculty, educators, parents, and students for a focus on educational enrichment to prevent summer learning loss
March – June 2018. Undergraduate Research Assistant, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ • Assisted in Diatom research in an Earth and Marine lab at UC Santa Cruz, utilizing micro and molecular biology techniques under the supervision of principal investigator Marilou Sison-Mangus Summer 2016 – 2018. Lead Outreach Intern, SAN MATEO COUNTY LIBRARIES • Managed and supervised high school summer interns across the county library system • Helped lead trainings for new employees (ex. 3-D printing training) • Organized and facilitated community events for children, teens, and adults SKILLS
• Strong analytical and critical thinking skills
• Excellent interpersonal and communication skills
• Proactive and enthusiastic approach to work
• High attention to detail
• Works well both independently and as part of a
team
• Adaptable and flexible
• Strong time management skills
28.4 28.5
28.6 28.7
28.8 28.9
28.10 28.11
28.12 28.13
28.14 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 07/19/2022
AGENDA OF: 08/09/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Resolution Requesting the Placement of a Transient Occupancy Tax Increase on the Ballot of the November 8, 2022 California Statewide General Election (CN)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Accept an update on the recent work of the City Council Ad Hoc Budget and Revenue Committee; and
2) Adopt a resolution requesting that the consolidated November 8, 2022 California Statewide General Election include a general purpose tax measure proposing that the City of Santa Cruz’ current Transient Occupancy Tax rate of eleven percent (11%) be increased to twelve percent (12%) for hotels, motels, inns, and other commercial lodging facilities; and from eleven percent (11%) to fourteen percent (14%) for short-term residential vacation rental properties; and 3) Support the measure for the purposes of: authorizing arguments; providing direction regarding the authors; directing the City Attorney to prepare the impartial analysis; and providing direction to the City Manager regarding the preparation of the fiscal analysis, as appropriate.
BACKGROUND: Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is imposed on persons renting overnight accommodations for a period of thirty days or less at hotels, motels, residential vacation rentals, and other lodging facilities. Since 2013, the City of Santa Cruz has levied an 11% Transient Occupancy Tax on such guests staying in the City limits. The current 11% TOT rate was approved by voters in November 2012 as a general tax with a portion dedicated to economic development activities.
On June 7, 2022, voters in the County of Santa Cruz approved a ballot measure, Measure B, to increase the TOT imposed in the unincorporated areas of the County. Measure B differentiated between traditional commercial lodging facilities and residential properties providing overnight accommodations by increasing the commercial TOT rate from 11% to 12% and the residential TOT rate from 11% to 14%. Measure B passed with 69.23% of voters in favor of the tax increase. These new tax rates will go into effect on January 1, 2023.
Reports to the County Board of Supervisors cited the following reasons for distinguishing between traditional commercial lodging properties and residential vacation rental properties in the application of TOT rates: (1) the greater regulatory oversight vacation rental properties
29.1 require; (2) the greater impacts vacation rental properties have on residential neighborhoods and areas not typically subject to the impacts of commercial endeavors; and (3) the development impact fees and permit costs typically imposed upon commercial lodging properties but not vacation rental properties, which were typically developed as residential properties.
Furthermore, in November 2018, voters in the Cities of both Capitola and Watsonville approved TOT rate increases up to 12%.
In light of the success of Measure B in the County and the City’s ongoing financial challenges exacerbated by the pandemic and inflationary pressures, the Council Ad Hoc Budget and Revenue Committee (Committee), consisting of Mayor Brunner, Vice Mayor Watkins, and Councilmember Brown, is recommending a ballot measure in the City of Santa Cruz to raise the TOT rates in the City’s jurisdiction to align with the TOT rates across the County and specifically the recently passed ones for the unincorporated County that will go into effect on January 1, 2023.
DISCUSSION: The City of Santa Cruz has matched Santa Cruz County’s TOT for the past decade. Considering the potential revenue increase, which is mostly borne by visitors to the area and not residents of the City, the Committee is recommending that the Council place the TOT measure on the November 2022 ballot to allow voters to decide whether the City should continue to keep pace with the County’s TOT rates.
The proposed TOT measure would be submitted to the voters as a general tax with revenues legally available for general governmental purposes. Under these circumstances the ballot measure could be adopted by a majority vote of City electors.
Critical to the Committee’s recommendation is that the City needs resources to maintain the quality of life that residents, businesses, visitors, and employees expect and deserve. The proposed TOT measure would provide needed funding to protect services that enable quality of life, public safety, and access and use of resources.
In order to proceed, the Council must take these actions:
1. The City Council is to adopt a resolution ordering an election and requesting consolidation of such election to include a Transient Occupancy Tax increase ballot measure. Included in this action is the proposed ballot measure language and ordinance.
2. The other action is to take a position supporting the measure, to authorize the Mayor or provide additional direction regarding the authors of a written argument in support of the measure, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure and the City Manager to prepare the fiscal analysis.
Arguments for or against measures are due August 19, 2022.
29.2 Proposed Ballot Measure Question
“To fund essential City services, including wildfire prevention; public safety; emergency response; creeks/streams protection; clean parks and public restrooms; street and sidewalk maintenance; affordable housing for working families and the homeless; creating local jobs, shall City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code be amended to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax, paid by tourists and others staying overnight at lodging facilities, from 11% to 12% for hotels/motels/inns, and from 11% to 14% for short-term residential vacation rentals, providing approximately $1,380,000 annually?”
Health in All Policies (HiAP) – This potential ballot measure supports the City’s ability to positively impact Santa Cruz’s integral values of equity, public health, and sustainability (from the City’s Health in All Policies program). Critically important existing services can offer equity, health, and sustainability value to community members. Examples include: housing for low and very low income levels, as well as workforce housing; homelessness services for care and sheltering; preventative maintenance of natural resources; environmental clean-up and remediation; integrated outreach and assistance across the City and within Downtown specifically; wildfire prevention education and implementation.
FISCAL IMPACT: If approved by voters, this proposal would increase the City’s TOT rate for commercial lodging facilities from 11% to 12%, generating additional revenue of approximately $998,000 in the first twelve months. For vacation rental properties, this proposal would increase the TOT rate from 11% to 14%, generating additional revenue in the first twelve months of approximately $382,000. The cost of the election is estimated to be in the range of $91,402.50 to $146,244.00 based on figures from the County Elections Department. This amount may fluctuate, based on the number of registered voters at the time of the election and the number of items the City places on the ballot.
Prepared by Elizabeth Cabell, Finance Director
Submitted By:
Sonja Brunner
Mayor
Submitted By:
Martine Watkins
Vice Mayor
Submitted By:
Sandy Brown
Councilmember
ATTACHMENTS:
1. RESOLUTION.DOCX
29.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ REQUESTING THAT THE CONSOLIDATED NOVEMBER 8, 2022 GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION INCLUDE A BALLOT MEASURE FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ PROPOSING THAT THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ’S CURRENT ELEVEN PERCENT (11%) TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX RATE BE INCREASED TO TWELVE PERCENT (12%) FOR HOTELS, MOTELS, AND OTHER COMMERCIAL LODGING FACILITIES AND INCREASED TO FOURTEEN PERCENT (14%) FOR SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL
VACATION RENTAL PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code section 10002, the governing body of any city may by resolution request the Board of Supervisors of the county to permit the county elections official to render specified services to the city relating to the conduct of an election; and WHEREAS, the resolution of the governing body of the city shall specify the services requested; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the city shall reimburse the county in full for the services performed upon presentation of a bill to the city; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, whenever two or more elections, including bond elections, of any legislative or congressional district, public district, city, county or other political subdivision are called to be held on the same day, in the same territory, or in territory that is in part the same, they may be consolidated upon the order of the governing body or bodies or officer or officers calling the elections; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, such election for cities and special district may be either completely or partially consolidated; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403, whenever an election called by a district, city or other political subdivision for the submission of any question, proposition, or office to be filled is to be consolidated with a statewide election, and the question, proposition, or office to be filled is to appear upon the same ballot as that provided for that statewide election, the district, city or other political subdivision shall, at least 88 days prior to the date of the election, file with the board of supervisors, and a copy with the elections official, a resolution of its governing board requesting the consolidation, and setting forth the exact form of any question, proposition, or office to be voted upon at the election, as it is to appear on the ballot acknowledging that the consolidation election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 10418. Upon such request, the Board of Supervisors may order the consolidation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10418, if consolidated, the consolidated election shall be held and conducted, election boards appointed, voting precincts designated, candidates nominated, ballots printed, polls opened and closed, voter challenges determined, ballots counted and returned, returns canvassed, results declared, certificates of election issued, recounts conducted, election contests presented, and all other proceedings incidental to and
29.4 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,
2 connected with the election shall be regulated and done in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the statewide or special election, or the election held pursuant to Section 1302 or 1303, as applicable; and
WHEREAS, the resolution requesting the consolidation shall be adopted and filed at the same time as the adoption of the ordinance, resolution, or order calling the election; and WHEREAS, various district, county, state and other political subdivision elections may be or have been called to be held on November 8, 2022.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that an election be called and consolidated with any and all elections also called to be held on November 8, 2022, insofar as said elections are to be held in the same territory that is in part the same as the territory of the City of Santa Cruz, and hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz to order such consolidation under Elections Code Section 10401, 10403, 10406 and 10418.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz hereby requests the Board of Supervisors to permit the Santa Cruz County Elections Department to provide any and all services necessary for conducting the election and agrees to pay for said services, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Santa Cruz County Elections Department shall conduct the election for the following measure to be voted on at the November 8, 2022 election:
Measure to be voted on:
Ballot Title:
City of Santa Cruz Overnight Lodging (Transient Occupancy) Tax Ballot Question:
Measure ___ - City of Santa Cruz Transient Occupancy Tax Measure Yes
To fund essential City services, including wildfire prevention; public safety; emergency response; creeks/streams protection; clean parks and public restrooms; street and sidewalk
maintenance; affordable housing for working families and the homeless; creating local jobs, shall City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code be amended to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax, paid by tourists and others staying overnight at lodging facilities, from 11% to 12% for hotels/motels/inns, and from 11% to 14% for short-term residential vacation rentals, providing approximately $1,380,000 annually?
No
29.5 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,
3 The City Council of the City of Santa Cruz submits to the qualified electors said Ballot Measure Question as set forth above and designates and refers to said measure as the measure to be set forth on the ballots for use in said election. The full text of the measure is as set forth in Exhibit A.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 9280 of the California Elections Code, the City Attorney is hereby directed to prepare an impartial analysis of this measure.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 9212 of the California Elections Code, the Finance Director is hereby directed to prepare a fiscal impact statement of this measure.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that Santa Cruz County Elections Department is requested to print the attached measure text exactly as filed or indicated on the filed document in the Voter's Information Guide for the November 8, 2022 election. Cost of printing and distribution of the measure text will be paid for by the city.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Clerk Administrator of the City of Santa Cruz is hereby ordered and directed to cause said proposed ordinance (Exhibit A) and notice of election to be published in accordance with the provisions of the California State Election Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of August, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED: ______________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
29.6 RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,
EXHIBIT A
“ORDINANCE NO. 2022-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING SECTION 3.28.030 OF
THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE TRANSIENT
OCCUPANCY TAX RATE
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Effective January 1, 2023, Section 3.28.030 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“3.28.030 Tax Imposed
For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in an amount of eleven percent of the rent charged by the operator. fourteen percent of the rent charged to a transient for a residential short-term rental for which a permit is required pursuant to Section
24.12.1715, and twelve percent of the rent charged to a transient in all other types of hotels. The tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the city which is extinguished only by payment by the operator to the city. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient’s ceasing to occupy space in the hotel. If for any reason the tax is not paid to the operator of the hotel, the director of finance may require that such tax shall be paid directly to the director of finance.” Section 2. Execution. The Mayor is hereby authorized to attest to the adoption of this Ordinance by the voters of the City by signing where indicated below.” PASSED AND ADOPTED by a majority vote of the electorate of the City of Santa Cruz on at the November 8, 2022 statewide general election.
____________________________________
BONNIE BUSH
CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATOR
29.7 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Ron Pomerantz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2022 2:42 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Justin Cummings; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Renee Golder; Martine Watkins; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Donna Meyers
Subject: 8-9-22 Council Agenda Item #29: Resolution Requesting the Placement of a Transient Occupancy Tax Increase on the Ballot of the Nov. 8, 2022 California Statewide General Election
Re. 8-9-22 Council Agenda Item #29: Resolution Requesting the Placement of a Transient Occupancy Tax Increase on the Ballot of the Nov. 8, 2022 California Statewide General Election
Motion to:
1) Accept an update on the recent work of the City Council Ad Hoc Budget and Revenue Committee; and 2) Adopt a resolution requesting that the consolidated November 8, 2022California Statewide General Election include a general purpose tax measure proposing that the City of Santa Cruz’ current Transient Occupancy Tax rate of eleven percent (11%) be increased to twelve percent (12%) for hotels, motels, inns, and other commercial lodging facilities; and from eleven percent (11%) to fourteen percent (14%) for short-term residential vacation rental properties; and 3) Support the measure for the purposes of: authorizing arguments; providing direction regarding the authors; directing the City Attorney to prepare the impartial analysis; and providing direction to the City Manager regarding the preparation of the fiscal analysis, as appropriate.
Good day Councilmembers and Mayor.
I find it imprudent going through the monetary expense and staff time to raise the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) merely 1%. It’s been 9 years since the last TOT increase. The proposed 1% TOT increase translates to roughly a 10% increase which doesn’t even cover half what’s been lost to inflation over this time period. A tourist economy like Santa Cruz should have visitors paying more for services and infrastructure they receive and not have the burden fall on residents. A minimum increase to the TOT should be 2%, or 13% TOT, just to try not to fall further behind inflation. I’d strongly recommend a 3% increase, or 14% TOT, to match Marina, CA and generate needed revenues. A 14% TOT for commercial lodging, along with 14% for vacation rentals, would bring in some $4.5M annually and make up for the .5% failed sales tax increase. Also it’s a progressive tax as the more expensive the room the more TOT the visitor pays.
The 2013 increase was not 1%. In effect it was about 2% because of the smoke-filled room deal worked out with the Santa Cruz County Conference & Visitors Council (CVC) to give the other roughly 1% for their operations under the umbrella of a “Tourism Marketing District” (TMD). The Staff report told a half truth that this public money was “dedicated to economic development activities" when in fact this money pays for only “Lodging Businesses". There is no charter requirement to assist restaurants or other tourist rated businesses.
When the CVC tells Santa Cruz that you can’t increase increase the TOT more than 1% because the hotels will lose business to other jurisdictions remind for each 1% increase in the TOT adds about $1 to $3 to the cost of the room per night. There’s no way that small amount will deter visitors from staying in the Mecca of Santa Cruz. Also remind the CVC that they’re getting $2 to $4 per night/room rental fee, a 10% increase from last year for their Tourism Marketing District.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Ron Pomerantz
29.8 November 8, 2022
Transfer Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Revenue Measure
City Council Presentation | August 9, 2022
29.9 Proposal
Mirror the recently passed County
Measure B:
• Increase the rate for commercial
lodging from 11% to 12%
• Increase the rate for vacation
rental properties from 11% to
14%
29.10 Anticipated Revenue to help
fund City services
Approximately $1,380,000 annually
• Commercial: $998,000
• Residential: $382,000
29.11 Benefits
• Creates parity with the County and a fair
and level playing field across the region
• Helps to ensure that visitors and tourists
pay their fair share for City services
• Focuses on the services that are most
important to the community
• Provides flexible funding that allows the
City to adapt to changing community
needs over time
29.12 Recommended Actions
1) Accept an update on the recent work of the City Council Ad Hoc Budget and Revenue Committee; and
2) Adopt a resolution requesting that the consolidated November 8, 2022 California Statewide General Election include a general purpose tax measure proposing that the City of Santa Cruz’ current Transient Occupancy Tax rate of eleven percent (11%) be increased to twelve percent (12%) for hotels, motels, inns, and other commercial lodging facilities; and from eleven percent (11%) to fourteen percent (14%) for short-term residential vacation rental properties; and 3) Support the measure for the purposes of: authorizing arguments; providing direction regarding the authors; directing the City Attorney to prepare the impartial analysis; and providing direction to the City Manager regarding the preparation of the fiscal analysis, as appropriate.
29.13 30.1
30.2 30.3
30.4 30.5
30.6 30.7