Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, August 23, 2022 (part 4 of 8)

24.12 (720);
hi. Primary metals and material subject to performance standards (145); ij. Rubber, plastic, miscellaneous materials and products subject to performance standards (135);
jk. Single-room occupancy (SRO) housing (860) under the following conditions:
(1) The site is located within one-quarter mile (one thousand three hundred twenty feet) of a grocery store.
(2) The lot size is less than six thousand square feet. (3) The SRO is part of a mixed use project, sharing the site and/or building with a use that is allowed under Section 24.10.1505, Principal Permitted Uses, is in conformance with Section 24.10.1540(2), and complies with the following requirements:
(a) The SRO development and the mixed use business are under one ownership. (b) The amount of building space occupied by the nonresidential use is either at a minimum equal to the SRO or residential use or the nonresidential use occupies the entire ground floor of the development.
(4) Ambient interior noise levels can be mitigated below forty-five decibels. (5) Air quality on and around the site, including odors resulting from adjacent land uses, is not considered a potential health hazard and/or objectionable to residential use; kl. Smoking lounges as defined in Section 24.22.748.2 and subject to the siting criteria and performance standards in Chapter 5.54;
lm. Emergency shelters subject to regulations in Part 17 of Chapter 24.12.

24.10.1520 ACCESSORY USES.

21.417

Page 92 ends

Uses and buildings customarily appurtenant or incidental to uses listed in Section 24.10.1510 subject to the provisions of Section 24.12.140, including service facilities such as bank ATMs, cafeterias, employee recreation centers, daycare and other similar installations; intended solely for use by the occupants of a principal permitted use or uses.

24.10.1525 PROHIBITED USES.

1. Any manufacturing use involving the primary production of products from new materials found to be incompatible with the neighborhood or the city as a whole based on noise, odor, air quality or other adverse environmental impact shall be prohibited.

2. No use which either produces or utilizes asbestos in any manufacturing process shall be permitted.

3. Refinery of petroleum products or other industrial activities in support of off-shore oil drilling shall not be permitted.

24.10.1530 USE DETERMINATION.

Any other use or service establishment determined by the zoning administrator to be of the same general character as the foregoing uses, and which will not impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties, may be permitted. If the zoning administrator determines that the proposed use is more in character with the conditional uses for this zone, then aA use permit shall be required and processed pursuant to Part 1, Chapter 24.08, Use Permits, of this title. The decision as to whether the use determination requires an administrative use permit or a special use permit shall be based on the use category that is most similar to the proposed use as determined by the zoning administrator.

24.10.1540 DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

1. General.

Provisions Requirement
a. Height of buildings –
Maximum
• Principal (feet) 50
• Accessory (feet) 25
b. Minimum lot area (net)
(sq. ft.) 20,000
c. Front yard (feet) 20
d. Rear yard (feet) 10**
e. Side yard
• Interior (feet) 0
*
• Exterior (feet) 10
f. Distance between
buildings on same lot (feet) 10

21.418

Page 93 ends

Provisions Requirement
g. Lot coverage –
Maximum (percent) 80**
* Except where abutting the boundary of any
other zoning district, then not less than the
minimum yard required for the adjacent yard in
said abutting zoning district.
** Up to an additional five percent of surfaced
area may be installed if that area serves as a
usable outdoor employee amenity such as
recreation or eating facilities, children’s play area
or similar features.

2. Additional Setback Requirement. In any I-G District directly across a street or thoroughfare, not including a freeway, from any R- District, parking and loading facilities shall be at least ten feet distant from the property line, and buildings and structures at least twenty feet from the street; said setback space shall be permanently landscaped.

3. Other Requirements.
a. All uses shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, except for service stations and parking facilities, or other outdoor uses when appropriately screened and as approved by the zoning administrator.
b. Other regulations which may be applicable to site design in this zone are set forth in General Site Design Standards, Part 2, Chapter 24.12.

Section 29. Part 16B: IG/PER-2: General Industrial District/Performance District of Chapter

24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby added under Part 16B of Chapter 24.10 as follows:

24.10.1600 PURPOSE.

The purpose of this General Industrial Performance District is to modify the normal general industrial land use classifications to provide for and encourage appropriate uses for economic development of the Westside industrial lands.

24.10.1605 PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USES.

1. The following uses are allowed outright, subject to other requirements of the municipal code (numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s land use codes. Further refinement of uses within these categories can be found in the land use codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):
a. Acting/art/music/dance schools and studios (610);
b. Adult school/work force training (510F);
c. Building materials/garden supply stores (220) with less than forty thousand square feet including indoor floor area and outdoor storage, display, or sales area. For building materials/garden supply stores of which fifty percent or more of the square footage will occupy an existing building, this threshold will be seventy-five thousand square feet including indoor floor area and outdoor storage, display, or sales areas so long as vacant, available space in existing buildings in the IG Zone exceeds four hundred thousand square

21.419

Page 94 ends

feet. When the vacant, available square footage is less than four hundred thousand square feet, the forty-thousand-square-foot threshold will apply. d. Communication and information services (550);
e. Financial, insurance, real estate offices (420);
f. Fabricated metal products (150);
g. Food and beverage preparation and production (100);
h. Furniture and fixtures (120);
i. Medical/health offices/laboratories, including cannabis testing (410); j. Millwork textile products (105);
k. Other manufacturing and processing industries (except bulk petroleum, scrap and waste materials) (155);
l. Primary metals and material subject to performance standards (145); m. Rubber, plastic, miscellaneous materials and products subject to performance standards (135);
n. Printing and publishing or lithographic shops and plants; o. Professional offices (400);
p. Professional/personal service (except mortuaries) (310); q. Rental service (360);
r. Repair, alterations, maintenance (including boat repairs) (340); s. Small and large family daycare homes in residential unitsfacility in a single-family home or duplex;
t. Start-up fabrication assembly or packaging from light metals, prepared materials, or prefabricated parts, including electrical devices;
u. Stone, clay, glass design and production (140);
v. Storage warehousing (330);
w. Technology related research and development facilities and products; x. Wholesale trade durable goods (210);
y. Wholesale trade nondurable goods (200).

24.10.1610 USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.

1. The following uses require an administrative use permit and are subject to other applicable requirements of the municipal code (numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s land use codes. Subcategories of uses within these use categories can be found in the land use codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):
a. Agriculture (000);
b. Auto services and repairs, including trucks, heavy equipment and auto towing, subject to performance standards in Section 24.12.900 (350);
c. Cannabis cultivation, subject to the commercial cannabis regulations, Part 14 of Chapter 24.12;
d. Cannabis distribution and warehousing, subject to the commercial cannabis regulations, Part 14 of Chapter 24.12;
e. Cannabis manufacturing, subject to the commercial cannabis regulations, Part 14 of Chapter 24.12;
f. Cannabis retail, subject to the commercial cannabis regulations, Part 14 of Chapter 24.12;

21.420

Page 95 ends

g. Eating and drinking establishments, subject to live entertainment and alcohol regulations of Chapter 24.12 (280);
h. Forestry services (010);
i. Leather tanning (110);
j. Off-site public/private parking facilities, five or more spaces (930); k. Temporary structures;
l. Utilities and resources (540);
m. Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 15.

2. The following uses require a special use permit and are subject to other applicable requirements of the municipal code. All industrial classifications from 125 to 145 shall comply with all performance standards listed in Part 2 of the Environmental Resource Management provisions (numerical references at the end of these categories reflect the general use classifications listed in the city’s land use codes. Subcategories of uses within these use categories can be found in the land use codes, but they are not intended to be an exhaustive list of potential uses):
a. Building material/garden supply stores (220) with forty thousand square feet or more including indoor floor area and outdoor storage, display, or sales areas. For building materials/garden supply stores of which fifty percent or more of the square footage will occupy an existing building, this threshold will be seventy-five thousand square feet including indoor floor area and outdoor storage, display, or sales areas so long as vacant, available space in existing buildings in the IG Zone exceeds four hundred thousand square feet. When the vacant, available square footage is less than four hundred thousand square feet, the forty-thousand-square-foot threshold will apply; b. Chemicals and allied products, subject to performance standards (130); c. Large family daycare homes;
cd. Food and beverage stores (except liquor and convenience stores) (240); de. Government and public agencies (530);
ef. Group quarters (850);
fg. Multiple dwellings or condominiums subject to R-M District regulations (830, 840); gh. Paper and allied products subject to performance standards (125); hi. Parks and recreation facilities, subject to alcohol regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 12 (720);
ij. Single-room occupancy (SRO) housing (860) under the following conditions:
(1) The site is located within one-quarter mile (one thousand three hundred twenty feet) of a grocery store.
(2) The lot size is less than six thousand square feet. (3) The SRO is part of a mixed use project, sharing the site and/or building with a use that is allowed under Section 24.10.1505, Principal Permitted Uses, is in conformance with Section 24.10.1540(2), and complies with the following requirements:
(a) The SRO development and the mixed use business are under one ownership.
(b) The amount of building space occupied by the nonresidential use is either at a minimum equal to the SRO or residential use or the nonresidential use occupies the entire ground floor of the development.

21.421

Page 96 ends

(4) Ambient interior noise levels can be mitigated below forty-five decibels. (5) Air quality on and around the site, including odors resulting from adjacent land uses, is not considered a potential health hazard and/or objectionable to residential use; jk. Transportation facilities (560).

24.10.1615 ACCESSORY USES.

1. Uses and buildings customarily appurtenant or incidental to uses listed in Section 24.10.1510 subject to the provisions of Section 24.12.140, including service facilities such as bank ATMs, cafeterias, employee recreation centers, daycare and other similar installations; intended solely for use by the occupants of a principal permitted use or uses.

2. Incidental retail sales unrelated to cannabis are a permitted use if:
a. The incidental retail sales are directly related to and supportive of a permitted or conditionally permitted use operating on the site; and
b. The incidental retail sales area occupies no more than twenty percent of the gross building floor area used or one thousand square feet, whichever is less, and occupied by the permitted or conditionally permitted use; and
c. The incidental retail sales have hours of operation similar to or less than the related permitted or conditionally permitted use except that the hours should not exceed 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

24.10.1620 PROHIBITED USES.

2. No use which either produces or utilizes asbestos in any manufacturing process shall be permitted.

3. Refinery of petroleum products or other industrial activities in support of off-shore oil drilling shall not be permitted.

24.10.1630 USE DETERMINATION.

Any other use or service establishment determined by the zoning administrator to be of the same general character as the foregoing uses, and which will not impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties, may be permitted. If the zoning administrator determines that the proposed use is more in character with the conditional uses for this zone, then a use permit shall be required and processed pursuant to Part 1, Chapter 24.08, Use Permits, of this title. The decision as to whether the use determination requires an administrative use permit or a special use permit shall be based on the use category that is most similar to the proposed use as determined by the zoning administrator.

Section 30. Section 24.10.1780 – Use Determination of Part 18B: P-F Public Facilities District of Chapter 24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

21.422

Page 97 ends

24.10.1780 USE DETERMINATION.

Section 31. Part 19: E-A: Exclusive Agriculture of Chapter 24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

Part 19: E-A EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT

24.10.1800 PURPOSE.

To preserve in agricultural use land presently best suited to that use, and intended for eventual development in other uses pending proper timing for the economical provision of utilities, major streets, and other facilities, so that orderly development will occur. This section of the Zoning Ordinance is also part of the Local Coastal Implementation Plan.

24.10.1810 PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USES.

1. Agriculture, as defined herein;

2. Animal farm;

3. Crop and tree farming;

4. Ranch and farm dwellings incidental to a principal agricultural use;

5. Stables, barns, silos, and windmills.

24.10.1820 ACCESSORY USES.

1. Customary incidental home occupations, as provided in Section 24.10.160 herein;

2. Guest houses and guest rooms;

3. Living quarters for persons regularly employed on the premises, but not including labor supply camps;

4. Offices incidental and necessary to the conduct of a permitted use;

5. Roadside stands, not exceeding four hundred square feet in floor area, for the sale of agricultural products grown on the premises;

6. The providing of board and room for not more than five paying guests;

7. Other uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, subject to the provisions of Section 24.12.140, Accessory buildings, and Section 24.10.1830.

24.10.1830 USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.

1. The following uses are subject to approval of an administrative use permit and may also require a design permit per section 24.08.410:
a. Daycare (other than family daycare homes) and foster homes for children;

21.423

Page 98 ends

b. Eating and drinking establishments;
c. Foster family homes;
d. Guest ranches;
e. Off-street parking facilities accessory and incidental to an adjacent commercial use; f. Temporary structures;
g. Veterinary hospitals and clinics;
h. Accessory buildings containing plumbing fixtures subject to the provisions of Section 24.12.140.
i. Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part

15. 2. The following uses are subject to approval of a special use permit and a design permit:
a. Agricultural processing plant;
b. Group care homes;
c. Helipads;
d. Institutions for children or the aged;
e. Kennels and riding stables;
f. Off-street parking facilities serving commercial districts within three hundred feet of the site;
g. Outdoor theaters, golf driving ranges, and other similar open-air commercial recreation facilities;
h. Public and private noncommercial recreation areas, buildings and facilities such as parks, country clubs, golf courses, and riding, swimming and tennis clubs; i. Public and quasi-public buildings and uses including administrative, recreational, educational, religious, cultural, public utility or public service uses; but not including corporation yards, storage or repair yards, and warehouses; j. Quarters, accommodation, or areas for transient labor, such as labor cabins or labor supply camps.

24.10.1840 USE DETERMINATION.

24.10.1850 DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

1. General.

Provisions Requirement
a. Height of buildings –
Maximum
• Principal (stories and feet) 3 & 50

21.424

Page 99 ends

Provisions Requirement
• Accessory (stories and feet) 2 & 25
b. Minimum lot area (net)
(acres) 20
c. Lot width (feet) 500
d. Front yard (feet) 50
e. Rear yard (feet) 50
f. One side yard (feet) 20
g. Both side yards – total (feet) 50
h. Distance between buildings
on same lot (feet) 20

2. Other Requirements. Other regulations which may be applicable to site design in this zone are set forth in General Site Design Standards, Part 2, Chapter 24.12.

Section 32. Section 24.10.1920 – Use Permit Requirement of Part 20: OF-R Ocean Front (Recreational) District of Chapter 24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.10.1920 USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.

1. The following uses are subject to approval of an administrative use permit and may also require a design permit per section 24.08.410:
a. Beach, surfing and fishing equipment;
b. Fish market;
c. Identification signs, appurtenant to uses permitted on the premises; d. Navigation aids and devices not involving the erection of a structure; e. Walls or fences, not to exceed three and one-half feet in height. f. Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 15.

2. The following uses are subject to approval of a special use permit:
a. Navigation aids and devices involving the erection of a structure; b. Public restroom facilities;
c. Temporary structures.

Section 33. Section 24.10.1930 – Use Determination of Part 20: OF-R Ocean Front (Recreational) District of Chapter 24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

21.425

Page 100 ends

24.10.1930 USE DETERMINATION.

Section 34. Section 24.10.2030 – Use Permit Requirement of Part 21: F-P Floodplain District of Chapter 24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.10.2030 USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.

1. The following uses are subject to approval of an administrative use permit and may also require a design permit per section 24.08.410:
a. Ranch and farm dwellings incidental to a principal agricultural use. b. Wireless telecommunications facilities, subject to the regulations in Chapter 24.12, Part 15.

2. The following uses are subject to approval of a special use permit and a design permit:
a. Recreational facilities, bridges, roads, utility transmission lines; b. Riding stables for the keeping of horses on sites at least five acres in size.

Section 35. Section 24.10.2040 – Use Determination of Part 21: F-P Floodplain District of Chapter 24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.10.2040 USE DETERMINATION.

Section 36. Section 24.10.2375 – Use Determination of Part 24(A): CBD Subdistrict E – Lower Pacific Avenue of Chapter 24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

21.426

Page 101 ends

24.10.2375 USE DETERMINATION.

Any other use or service establishment determined by the zoning administrator to be of the same general character as the foregoing established uses, and which will not impair the present or potential use of adjacent properties, may be permitted. An administrative use permit will be required.If the zoning administrator determines that the proposed use is more in character with the conditional uses for this zone, then a use permit shall be required and processed pursuant to Part 1, Chapter 24.08, Use Permits, of this title. The decision as to whether the use determination requires an administrative use permit or a special use permit shall be based on the use category that is most similar to the proposed use as determined by the zoning administrator.

Section 37. Section 24.10.2385 – Lower Pacific Avenue Design Guidelines of Part 24(A): CBD Subdistrict E – Lower Pacific Avenue of Chapter 24.10 – Land Use Districts of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.10.2385 LOWER PACIFIC AVENUE DESIGN GUIDELINES.

1. Store Front Treatment. The ground-level treatment of buildings and parking structures within the Lower Pacific Avenue subarea should generally comply with the guidelines for the Pacific Avenue retail subarea listed on pages 41-45 of the Downtown Recovery Plan, in terms of:
storefront access, transparency, and variation; and the use of landscaping, awnings, and canopies.

However, it is recognized that the Lower Pacific Avenue subarea has a more informal character than Pacific Avenues, and as such, more variation of ground-level treatment is envisioned and encouraged. The use of porches and terraced gardens as an intermediate space between the ground floor use and the sidewalk is permitted, as long as the finished floor elevation of the ground floor use is nor more than 4 feet above or below the sidewalk level and accessibility requirements are met.

Section 38. Section 24.12.110 – Setback Requirements Modifications of Part 2: General Site Design Standards of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.110 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS MODIFICATIONS.

1. Front Yards.
a. Where twenty-five percent or more of the lots fronting on any block in the same zone (exclusive of the frontage along the side of a corner lot) have been improved with buildings permitted in said zone and the depth of the front yards on such lots varies not more than ten feet, then the front yard depth required on any lot in said block shall be not less than the median depth of the front yards on the lots on which are located such existing buildings; or b. In any district where the two adjacent lots on either side of a parcel, neither of which is a corner lot and each of which is in the same zone as the center lot, are already improved with uses permitted in the zone, and the average of the front yards of such adjoining lots is less than that required for the zone, then the required front yard depth for the center lot shall not be less than half the sum of the front yard setbacks of the two adjoining lots; or

21.427

Page 102 ends

c. Where Section 24.12.185.13 applies, required front yard depth shall not be less than twelve feet measured from back of curb.

2. Corner Lot Yards.
a. Where, on a corner lot, an exterior side yard abuts a front yard of an adjoining lot in an R- District, the corner lot exterior side yard shall have a width of not less than one-half of the required depth of such adjacent front yard.
b. Each corner lot should have one front yard, two side yards, and one rear yard of the depth required by this title. Normally the front yard shall be across the narrow dimension of the lot and the rear yard opposite this; in unusual cases, however, the location and the relationship of such yards to abutting streets and to each other may be determined by the zoning administrator.
c. In any zoning district in which a minimum front yard is established, no obstruction to view between three and one-half feet, and eight feet above grade shall be placed within the clear corner triangle as defined in this title.

3. Double-Frontage Yards. The width of required interior side yard or required rear yard may be reduced or waived when such interior side yard or rear yard abuts an alley or a street (e.g., double-frontage lot), freeway, stream, public utility right-of-way, coastline or other similar feature which precludes or inhibits construction on or development of the property.

4. Lots of Record – Required Yards. In any district for which a minimum lot area is established, a lot of record, as defined in this title, having less than the required area and/or width and/or depth may be used for a use permitted in the district, except as provided in Section 24.10.351.
a. In any district or for any use where side yards are required, the minimum side yard width shall be four feet or ten percent of the lot width, whichever is greater, for the first story only. Beyond the first story, the standard side yard setback established in the specific district regulations shall apply.
b. In any district or for any use where a rear yard is required, the depth of the rear yard of any such lot shall be ten feet or twenty percent of the depth of the lot, whichever is greater. c. A single-family dwelling may be constructed on any lot of record, subject to Section 24.10.351. For residential districts other than single-family, the district requirements for minimum lot and land area per dwelling unit shall apply, except as modified by the density bonus provisions of this title.

Section 39. Section 24.12.120 – Projections Into Required Yard Areas, Setbacks, and Easements of Part 2: General Site Design Standards of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.120 PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED YARD AREAS, SETBACKS AND EASEMENTS.

1. Projections Into Required Yard Areas. The following are permitted projections into required yard areas. Projections shall not be permitted in yards that are less than the minimum established by district regulations except as provided for in subsection (2), or as allowed in certain areas under Section 24.12.185.13.
a. Architectural features such as cornices, canopies, eaves and sills shall be permitted to project into front, rear and side yards two and one-half feet;

21.428

Page 103 ends

b. Steps serving the first floor, and bay windows, chimneys, decks, and porches serving the first floor and above may extend into front, rear and exterior side yards one-half of the required yard or six feet, whichever results in a greater setback. For interior side yards, maximum projection is one foot, eight inches unless the projection meets the requirements of subsection (1)(c). Bay window, deck, porch and step projections are permissible in interior side yards on the first floor only. In all cases, no projection or aggregate of projections listed in this subsection shall be more than one-third of the building wall along which it is located;
c. Unroofed decks, porches, patios and steps of pervious materials twenty inches or less above finished grade may extend into conforming interior side yards without restriction; d. Guardrails on decks and porches and handrails on stairs projecting into required yards on the first floor shall be considered fences and shall be governed by Section 24.12.160, with the exception of guardrails and/or handrails required for access to the first floor for the physically challenged;
e. Rain retention systems attached to the main residence may extend into side and rear yards one-half the required yard or six feet, whichever results in the greater setback. For interior side yards, the minimum setback shall be three feet. Such encroachment shall be no higher than six feet from finished grade.

2. Any structure necessary to provide access to the first floor for the physically challenged.

3. Projections into Special Street Setbacks. The following uses are permitted within the special street setbacks established in Section 24.12.115 herein. a. Streetlights, traffic signs and signals and appurtenances necessary to the conduct or operation of a public utility, facility, or purpose;
b. Fences, walks, hedges, landscaping, outdoor merchandise display, platforms, landings, steps and signs, when constructed or installed so as to have a maximum height of two and one-half feet above curb grade, except as provided for in Section 24.12.120, subsection (3)(d);
c. Unenclosed porches, cornices, canopies, eaves, and similar architectural features and signs when constructed so that the clearance from curb grade to the lowest portion thereof, except supporting members, is at least eight feet; and further provided that no supporting member shall have a cross-section of greater than eight inches, nor be located closer than six feet to another supporting member within the setback area; d. Any structure necessary to provide access to the first floor for the physically challenged.

4. Projections into Easements. No structure or projection thereof may extend into a public utility easement.

Section 40. Section 24.12.125 – Landscaping Requirement of Part 2: General Site Design Standards of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.125 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT.

In all districts where yards are required, all portions of each front and exterior side yard, except where improved for pedestrian or vehicular access, or a porch or a patio, shall be landscaped and

21.429

Page 104 ends

permanently maintained. Additional landscaping requirements are contained in Section

24.12.185 Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Housing.

Section 41. Section 24.12.127 – Bird Safe Building Design Requirement of Part 2: General Site Design Standards of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:

24.12.127 BIRD SAFE BUILDING DESIGN REQUIREMENT.

In all districts where new construction or exterior changes to the façade of buildings or structures requiring a Planning Permit are located within 300 feet of any of the following: parcels with a General Plan Land Use Designation of CR, PR, NA, or AG; an open waterway mapped in the City-wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan; or any area within 300 feet of undeveloped property likely to provide significant bird habitat, as determined by the Zoning Administrator, proposed buildings or structures shall be designed in a manner consistent with the published Bird Safe Building Design Standards as maintained by the City Planning and Community Development Department and as updated from time to time.

Section 42. Section 24.12.140 – Accessory Buildings of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.140 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES.

In addition to primary structures, it is often useful and convenient to have accessory buildings and structures to provide storage, allow additional usable indoor or sheltered space, or to perform some other function beyond what is included in the primary structure. These spaces can be provided in a building, defined for the purposes of this section as having a roof and walls, or by another accessory structure such as a pergola or a gazebo. Some spaces, such as children’s play equipment, can be classified as either a building (i.e. enclosed playhouse) or a structure (i.e. swing set). The defining characteristic of these buildings and structures is that they are accessory and subordinate to the primary structure and do not detract from the form and function of the primary structure and are complimentary to its use.

1. Accessory Buildings. Accessory buildings are subject to the regulations and permit requirements of the zoning district in which they are located. Accessory buildings are separate and distinct from accessory dwelling units, which are subject to the regulations in Part 2 of Chapter 24.16.
1a. No setback shall be required for an accessory building except as otherwise provided. 2b. No accessory building shall be located in a front or exterior side yard with the exception of buildings used as children’s play equipment that do not create traffic safety hazards, that are less than fifty square feet in plan area at grade, less than fourteen feet in height, and with minimum setbacks of three feet. Such buildings are exempt from the restrictions in Section 24.12.140. Children’s play structures are defined as structures that are designed, made for, and used by children. The vehicle entry side of a garage or other covered parking may not be located closer than twenty feet from front or exterior side yard lot lines;

21.430

Page 105 ends

except that the vehicle entry side of a garage or other covered parking may be built to the front and exterior side yard lot lines where the slope of the front half of the lot is greater than one foot rise or fall in a distance of seven feet from the established street elevation at the property line, or where the elevation of the lot at the street line is five feet or more above or below the established street elevation.
3c. Accessory buildings that are less than one hundred twenty square feet in floor area are not required to conform to the distance-between-buildings requirement set forth in the district regulations, Chapter 24.10; however, such structures are subject to all other standards, regulations, and requirements of this title and other state and local requirements including Title 18 and the California Building Standards Code.
4d. Accessory buildings that are less than one hundred twenty square feet in floor area and less than fifteen feet in height are not subject to design permit approval when constructed on substandard lots or when constructed on lots within a residential zone district that requires design permit approval for new structures; however, such structures are subject to all other standards, regulations, and requirements of this title and other state and local requirements including Title 18 and the California Building Standards Code. 5e. Habitable accessory buildings shall not be located within the front yard nor closer than six feet to the nearest point of the principal building; and shall conform to principal building rear and side yard requirements of the district in which they are located. No habitable accessory building shall be used as a separate dwelling unit except accessory dwelling units as described in Part 2 of Chapter 24.16. Guesthouses for nonpaying guests are allowed only if permitted in the zoning district in which they are located. 6f. Accessory buildings may not cover an area in excess of thirty percent of any required yard setback area for the primary structure. In the coastal zone, standards applicable to accessory dwelling units can be found in Section 24.12.140(10). The footprint of accessory dwelling units shall count toward the maximum allowable lot coverage by other accessory structures in yard setback areas; however, the maximum allowable lot coverage does not apply to the accessory dwelling unit itself.
7g. An accessory building attached to a main building by a breezeway is not part of the main building.
8h. An accessory building may have one sink installed in it if a building permit is obtained.

A property with multiple accessory buildings may have a sink in only one accessory building without approval of an administrative use permit. Any additional plumbing fixtures would require an administrative use permit subject to following findings listed in subsection (9i) and a building permit for the approved improvements.
9i. Except for accessory dwelling units, accessory buildings may contain a full bathroom only when an administrative use permit is approved in accordance with district regulations and all of the following findings are made:
ai. The structure and use are subordinate to the principal use; and bii. The purpose of the use is incidental to the principal use; and ciii. The use is customarily or reasonably appurtenant to the permitted use; and div. The structure will not be used as a dwelling unit except as set forth in Chapter

24.16, Part 2, Accessory Dwelling Units; and
ev. A deed restriction will be recorded limiting the use of the structure to that approved under the permit unless otherwise authorized by the city.

21.431

Page 106 ends

j10. In the coastal zone, and in addition to meeting all other applicable requirements (e.g., standards specified in Section 24.16.100 et seq.), ADUs shall meet the following additional standards:
ia. ADUs are allowed in any zone that allows residential uses on lots of any size, in conjunction with a proposed or existing residential use, provided they are sited and designed to avoid adverse impacts to coastal resources, including by conforming with all applicable LCP policies and standards, including those that govern wetlands, streams, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, public views, and coastal bluffs. iib. Off-street parking shall be required in compliance with Section 24.12.240(1).

2. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures are subject to the regulations and permit requirements of the zoning district in which they are located. a. Accessory structures above eight feet in height shall not be located in a front or exterior side yard with the exception of entry features as described in Section

24.12.150(a)(3). No accessory structure in the front or exterior side yard may be located within the clear corner triangle as defined in section 24.22.202. Any accessory structures located in the front or exterior side yard must be open in nature and must provide and maintain a minimum of ninety percent visual permeability above the first foot in height.
b. Accessory structures located in the rear or interior sideyard that are less than one hundred twenty square feet in floor area and less than fifteen feet in height are not subject to design permit approval when constructed on substandard lots or when constructed on lots within a residential zone district that requires design permit approval for new structures; however, such structures are subject to all other standards, regulations, and requirements of this title and other state and local requirements including Title 18 and the California Building Standards Code. This includes fences within the West Cliff Drive Overlay District that conform to Section 24.12.160. c. Children’s play structures that do not create traffic safety hazards, that are less than fifty square feet in plan area, less than fourteen feet in height, and with minimum front setbacks of three feet are exempt from the restrictions in Section 24.12.140. Children’s play structures are defined as structures that are designed for, made for, and used by children.

Section 43. Section 24.12.150 – Height Limits Modifications of Part 2: General Site Design Standards of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.150 HEIGHT LIMITS MODIFICATIONS.

1. The height limitations specified in this title shall not apply to the following uses:
a. Church spires, minarets, belfries, domes;
b. Water, fire observation, and lifeguard towers, chimneys, aids to navigation; c. Buildings and structures intended for agricultural purposes; d. Fire walls, not extending more than four feet above the height of the building; e. Cupolas, scenery lofts, or other unoccupied roof structures for the housing of elevators, stairways, or tanks, tanks no more than twenty feet in height. Such structures must be set

21.432

Page 107 ends

back from the edge of the building at a ratio of 1.2 feet horizontal for every 1 foot in height.
f. vVentilating fans, air conditioning, or similar equipment used solely to operate and maintain a building, which are screened from the view of a building of equivalent height by a parapet or other architectural screen.
g. Railings, up to forty-eight (48) inches in height, or the height required by building code, whichever is greater, consistent with the requirements in Section 24.12.185 relating to rooftop decks as applicable.

2. The height limitations specified in this title may be exceeded for the following uses, subject to a special use permit:
a. Smokestacks, monuments, flagpoles;
b. Mechanical contrivances for amusement purposes, such as Ferris wheels, and roller coasters;
c. Antennas for radio broadcast and receiving, electric power transmission and distribution lines, poles and towers;
d. Wireless telecommunications facilities;
e. Places of public assembly such as places of worshipchurches, schools, and other permitted public and semipublic buildings, the principal activities of which are conducted on the ground floor of such buildings; provided, that for each foot by which the height of such buildings exceed the maximum height permitted, the depth or width of the required side and rear yards shall be increased by one foot.

Section 44. Section 24.12.160 – Fencing and Screening of Part 2: General Site Design Standards of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.160 FENCING AND SCREENING.

1. Fencing. Regulations governing the installation, construction and placement of fences and structures in the nature of fences, including hedges, which exceed height limitations contained herein are set forth in Chapter 24.08, Part 7, Conditional Fence Permit. a. Height Limitations. No person shall erect upon any private property in the city any fence, or structure in the nature of a fence, exceeding the following height limitations:
(1) Within the required front and exterior side yard setback areas established by this title, Chapter 18.04, or other ordinances of the city, fences shall not exceed a height of three feet, six inches from finished grade, except as provided in Chapter 24.08, Part 7;.
(2) Within the exterior side yard setback established by this title, Chapter 18.04, or other ordinances of the city, fences outside of the front yard setback or in line with the main building frontage, whichever distance is greater, that are set back a minimum of three feet from the exterior side property line shall not exceed a height of six feet from finished grade, except as provided in Chapter 24.08, Part 7. Fences within the exterior side yard setback that are less than three feet from the side property line or within the front setback area shall not exceed a height of three feet, six inches from finished grade. Any yard area between a fence and the sidewalk or property line shall be

21.433

Page 108 ends

landscaped and permanently maintained. This landscaping shall not include hedges that are higher than three-and-one-half feet.
(32) On any portion of the property outside of the required front and exterior side yard setbacks, fences shall not exceed a height of six eight feet from finished grade except as provided in Chapter 24.08, Part 7, with any portion of the fence above six feet having an open architectural, decorative, or ornamental feature such as lattice or other similar design or material. “Open” means that no more than 50% of the design shall be opaque. This maximum fence height does not apply to fences along an alley or the rail trail associated with an Accessory Dwelling Unit, where fences are limited to three feet, six inches along the alley or rail trail unless a conditional fence permit is approved for greater height.
(43) Any fence along a property line adjacent to a street, or in the adjacent required setback, except in the clear corner triangle, may include a gate, trellis or other entry feature exceeding the height limit stated in subsections (1)(a)(1) and (2). Such gate, trellis or entry feature shall be limited to ten feet in width and ten feet in height. Only one such gate, trellis or entry feature shall be permitted per street frontage except as provided in Chapter 24.08, Part 7.
b. Fire Hazard. The erection of any fence which constitutes a fire hazard either of itself or in connection with the existing structures in the vicinity, or which will interfere with access in case of fire, by the fire department to buildings in the vicinity or which will constitute a hazard to street traffic or to pedestrians shall not be permitted. c. Temporary Fences – Exceptions. Nothing contained in this title shall be deemed to interfere with the erection of temporary fences around construction works, erected or maintained pursuant to Chapter 18.04 and other ordinances of the city. d. Barbed-Wire Fencing. No barbed-wire fences may be constructed, electrified or otherwise, without a conditional fence permit.
e. Hedges. Hedges or dense planting in the nature of a hedge in excess of three feet, six inches in height shall not be grown or maintained within the required front or exterior side yard setbacks of the zoning district in which the property is located. f. Clear Corner Triangles and Clear Vision Areas. Fences or hedges shall not be greater than, nor allowed to exceed, three feet, six inches in height in the clear corner triangle and the clear vision area as defined in Section 24.22.202.
g. Fences within Watercourse Setback Areas. Fencing within a designated riparian corridor or development setback area of a watercourse shall be consistent with requirements of the watercourse development permit, Section 24.08.2150.

2. Screening.
a. In any nonresidential district adjacent to any R- District, screening between districts shall be provided.
b. All areas of outdoor storage in any commercial or industrial district shall be permanently screened from view from any adjacent street, public way or adjacent private property.

Section 45. Section 24.12.180 – Community Housing Project Requirements of Part 2: General Site Design Standards of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

21.434

Page 109 ends

24.12.180 COMMUNITY HOUSING PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.

1. Separate Utilities. A community housing project shall provide for independent services of water, sewer, gas and electricity to each dwelling unit. Separate meters are not required.

2. Off-Street Parking. A community housing project shall provide off-street parking as required by Part 3 of this chapter.

In addition, a community housing project shall provide one additional parking space for each four dwelling units within the project.

3. Private Useable Open Space. A community housing project shall provide a minimum of one hundred square feet of private open space for each dwelling unit located in such a manner as to be immediately accessible to each dwelling unit usable open space in compliance with the requirements of Section 24.12.185 and the underlying zoning district.

4. Storage Area. A community housing project shall provide a minimum of two hundred cubic feet of enclosed storage space within the project capable of being secured by lock or other means for each unit, in addition to kitchen cupboards, clothes and linen closets.

Section 46. Section 24.12.185 – Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Development of Part 2: General Site Design Standards of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:

24.12.185 OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

1. General
a. The purpose of this section is to provide a set of clear, objective, and measurable standards for multi-family and mixed-use residential development that is consistent with the character of Santa Cruz while also ensuring that new housing development is economically feasible.
b. The objective standards in this section relate to building design and site design for new development and redevelopment projects (including all multi-family proposals that meet the definition of demolition in the municipal code).
c. The regulations in this section shall apply to new development or redevelopment of residential and mixed-use buildings containing two or more dwellings (excluding any ADUs or Jr. ADUs), proposed in the city of Santa Cruz in any zone district other than the Central Business District (CBD) or Central Business District, Subdistrict –E (CBD-E). In some cases, standards apply to some zoning districts and not others; where no specific district is indicated, standards apply to all zoning districts other than the CBD and CBDE.

2. Definitions
For the purposes of interpreting Municipal Code Section 24.12.185 the following definitions shall apply:

Active Uses. Uses that qualify as Uses for Active Frontage are defined in each zone district where standards for site design requires active frontage.

21.435

Page 110 ends

Buffer Landscaping. Landscaping that can be expected to be at least 50 percent opaque from ground level up to a given height within three years of planting. Such planting includes vines, bushes, shrubs, green walls, or evergreen trees with a first branch height of 2 feet or less.

Corridors. Roadways that support a high level of connectivity and intra-city mobility. For the purposes of this document, these roadways are limited to Ocean Street, Mission Street, Water Street, and Soquel Avenue.

Live-Work. Live-work is a type of Residential use that also incorporates commercial uses.

The commercial uses allowed in a Live-Work unit are dictated by the uses allowed in the underlying zoning district.

Living Wall. A Living Wall is an exterior building face covered with plants growing in containers or on special material integrated into and attached to the building exterior. The plants root in a structural support which is fastened to the wall itself, rather than in the ground. The plants receive water and nutrients from within the vertical support or container.

Predominant Building Face. Measured in plan view, the predominant building face is the average plane of the face of the building at any given level. This average includes any legal, enclosed building projections (such as bay windows or dormers), and unenclosed insets (such as inset doorways, balconies, or building notches). See Figure 1.

Figure 1: Predominant Building Face
Public Frontage. A frontage that faces a street, public right of way, publicly accessible pedestrian path, or public open space, such as a river levee.

Shielded Luminaire. A luminaire is considered to be fully shielded if it is constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted by the luminaire, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the luminaire, is projected below the horizontal plane through the luminaire's lowest lightemitting part.

21.436

Page 111 ends

Stacked Flats. A multi-family building type that consists of units stacked vertically with shared circulation and no parking within the building envelope. See Figure 2.

Figure 2: Stacked Flats
Townhomes. A townhome is a multi-family building type that consists of side-by-side units, each standing on a discreet area of land, which may or may not be a separate legal lot, with parking on the ground floor within the building envelope. See Figure 3.This definition shall not apply beyond this section of the Municipal Code, and does not supersede the Definition of Dwelling, Townhouse in Section 24.22.318.

Figure 3: Townhomes

3. Maximum Building Length
Goals: To incentivize multi-family buildings that are more affordable by design, and more ‘house-sized' in residential zone districts.
a. In all R-districts and in the R-T (A), R-T(B), R-T(D) and R-T(E) districts: The maximum building length shall be as dictated by required setbacks and parcel dimensions. Where the building façade along the public frontage is no greater than 75 feet in length and

21.437

Page 112 ends

where the proposal meets the definition of a stacked flat building type (as opposed to a townhome building type), the parking requirement shall be reduced by half. i. On lots with multiple public frontages, such as corner lots or double-frontage lots, this requirement applies only to the public frontage requiring the widest sidewalk.

Where required sidewalks are of equal width, this requirement shall apply to all frontages. Required sidewalk widths are determined by considering any relevant Area Plan requirements and the requirements of Chapters 24.12 and Chapter 15.20. In all cases, where any inconsistency is present, the required sidewalk width shall be the widest standard applicable.
b. In C-C, R-T(C), C-T, C-N, C-B, PA and all MU districts: The maximum building length shall be as dictated by required setbacks and parcel dimensions.

4. Walkability
Goal: To promote pedestrian permeability and walkability through districts as redevelopment occurs over time, particularly for larger sites.
a. Existing public connections:
i. In all areas of the city, where a project site includes an existing public street, alley, path, paseo, trail, or other public pedestrian connection, this public connection will be maintained or relocated within the project site.
ii. Existing frontage improvements including any bike lanes or sidewalks will be maintained, repaired, or upgraded as dictated by any applicable Area Plan, or, in the case where no Area Plan applies, the requirements of Section II.E Ground Floor Design, or the requirements for sidewalk widths as defined in Chapter 15.20 of the Municipal Code. Where any inconsistency between regulatory documents is present, the widest applicable sidewalk requirement shall apply.

1. Decorative sidewalks may be required based on Area Plan standards. Installation of all sidewalks will be based on the standard details provided by the Department of Public Works.
iii. The total number of connections through the site for cyclists and pedestrians shall not be reduced.

5. New public connections:
a. Where a new public street, alley, path, paseo, trail, or other public pedestrian connection is required by an Area Plan, this connection shall be incorporated into any development or redevelopment proposal for the sites identified by the Area Plan. b. Where the street frontage length of a site exceeds 400 feet along a single roadway, and there is not already a public connection required by an Area Plan, the project proposal shall include a minimum of one publicly accessible street, alley, path, paseo, trail, or other public pedestrian connection within the middle 50 percent of the site. See Figure 4. i. Where the new street, alley, path, paseo, or trail cannot connect to an existing public way, the owner of the property may reserve the right to restrict access to the public way until such time as further development allows such a connection to be made.

When a connection to another public way is made, clear public access shall be provided, signage indicating that it is a public passage shall be posted, any gates or physical access restrictions shall be removed, and access shall be guaranteed through the granting of a public easement.

21.438

Page 113 ends

Figure 4: New Public Connections
c. Regardless of the street frontage length of a project, properties abutting a public street, alley, path, paseo, trail, or other public connection on a side or rear property line shall incorporate a connection between the parcel street frontage and that existing public connection with any new development or redevelopment proposal. These connections shall allow clear passage during daylight or business hours as applicable, whichever is longer. This standard shall not apply to corner lots.
d. All new pedestrian or bicycle connections not including required street-side improvements such as sidewalks and on-street bike lanes shall be at least 10 feet wide and a minimum of 80 percent open to the sky. Standards for public or private streets shall be met as required by Department of Public Works design guidelines. e. Development or redevelopment proposals on properties with street frontage shall be required to install new or improve existing sidewalks in accordance with the requirements of any Area Plan, the requirements of Section II.E Ground Floor Design, and the requirements for sidewalk widths as defined in chapter 15.20, as applicable. Where any inconsistency between standards exists, the wider sidewalk standard shall apply.

6. Public Frontages
Goal: To ensure that new development is pedestrian-oriented and provides ground floor uses that activate the public realm.
a. Where a common Residential lobby is provided, the lobby shall be accessed from a public frontage.
b. In all MU zones, the ground floor along any public frontage shall consist of 100 percent Uses for Active Frontage as allowed in the underlying zone district, with the exception of lobby space subject to the limitations of 24.12.185.6.e. c. In the C-C, R-T(C), C-T, C-N, C-B, PA zones, the ground floor along the public frontage shall consist of no less than 50 percent Uses for Active Frontage as allowed in the underlying zone district.
i. On lots with multiple public frontages, such as corner lots or double-frontage lots, this requirement applies only to the public frontage requiring the widest sidewalk.

Where required sidewalks are of equal width, this requirement shall apply to all frontages. Required sidewalk widths are determined by considering any relevant Area

21.439

Page 114 ends

Plan requirements and the requirements of Chapters 24.12 and Chapter 15.20. In all cases, where any inconsistency is present, the required sidewalk width shall be the widest standard applicable.
d. Uses for Active Frontage shall be subject to the following standards:
i. Uses for Active Frontage shall be built to a minimum depth of at least 25 feet as measured perpendicular to the predominant building face, with the exception of areas for building ingress/egress and access to parking or loading areas. If more than one ground floor Active Frontage space is provided, the 25-foot minimum depth shall be applied as an average depth of the total depth of all the Active Frontage spaces along the predominant building face.
ii. Mechanical rooms shall not be placed along the public frontage. Mechanical rooms shall be located adjacent to a driveway or parking area. iii. On lots with multiple public frontages, such as corner lots or double-frontage lots, mechanical rooms may be located on a public frontage. For these lots, mechanical rooms are prohibited along the public frontage requiring the widest sidewalk of all frontages on the property. Where required sidewalks are of equal width, mechanical rooms are prohibited along all frontages. Sidewalk widths are determined by considering any relevant Area Plan requirements and the requirements of Chapters

24.12 and Chapter 15.20. In all cases, where any inconsistency is present, the required sidewalk width shall be the widest standard applicable. iv. Amenities provided to building residents do not qualify as Uses for Active Frontage unless they are also open and available to the general public. e. In the C-C, R-T(C), C-T, C-N, C-B, PA, and all MU zones, the ground floor facing a public frontage shall be subject to the following standards:
i. On corner lots, the ground floor shall have 100 percent commercial uses at the corner, extending for at least 30 feet on either side of the corner, or the distance of the frontage of the corner parcel, whichever is less.
ii. Entries to ground floor uses shall be placed at an average of every 50 linear feet or less of building frontage. The following uses are exempt from this requirement:

1. Food and Beverage Stores, Medical/Health Offices

2. Lodging in areas designated MXVC in the 2030 General Plan iii. Residential or Commercial lobbies are limited to a maximum of 30 feet of frontage, unless they are combined with an Active Use, in which case they are limited to 50 feet of frontage.
f. In all R-districts and in the R-T (A), R-T(B), R-T(D) and R-T(E) districts, with the exception of flag-lots, a parcel’s public frontage shall be comprised of ground-floor residential uses that are oriented toward the public frontage. g. Ground floor residential units that face a public frontage shall provide an entry facing toward the public frontage that provides access into an entry area, living area, kitchen, or hallway (not a bathroom or bedroom, with the exception of studios). h. Entries facing a public frontage shall include a minimum of 48 square feet of flat, unenclosed, covered area, which may be a projection, or inset, or a combination of the two. (See Planning Code Section 24.12.120 for allowed projections into setback areas.)

7. Parking Location and Screening
Goal: To minimize the visual impact of parked cars from sidewalks and streets.

21.440

Page 115 ends

a. Off street parking and loading facilities, including bike parking requirements, shall be provided as required in Section 24.12.200 et seq.
b. For projects including five or more dwelling units, parking shall not be located in the area between the front lot line and a line extended horizontally from the plane of the predominant building face to the edges of the lot. See Figure 5.

Figure 5: Parking Location
c. Residential parking for projects including five or more dwelling units shall be screened from view in the following ways:
i. Podium parking facing a public frontage shall be wrapped with Uses for Active Frontage as allowed in the applicable zone district or residential uses on all levels facing a public frontage to a depth of at least 18 feet average, measured on each level perpendicular from the predominant building face. (Also see Sections 24.12.185.13 Corridor Frontage and .14 Ground Floor Design.)
ii. Tuck-under parking shall be entirely contained within the building and screened by garage doors. Where it faces a public frontage and is setback less than 15 feet from the public right of way, tuck-under parking shall be wrapped with active or residential uses to a depth of at least 18 feet average, measured perpendicular from the predominant building face. See Figure 6. (Also see Sections 24.12.185.13 Corridor Frontage and .14 Ground Floor Design.)
Figure 6: Tuck-Under Parking Screening

21.441

Page 116 ends

d. The entire perimeter of a surface parking area that fronts onto a side or rear yard, except the width of the access, shall be screened by buildings, evergreen buffer landscaping to a minimum depth of 3 feet, or fences that are at least 75 percent opaque. Fences or hedges shall not be greater than, nor allowed to exceed 8 feet in height on an interior side yard or rear yard, or 3.5 feet in height in a front or exterior side yard. (Also see Section

24.12.280.)
e. In any multi-level parking structure, the exterior shall be fully screened, and automobile headlamps shall be shielded so as to not be visible from adjacent parcels, streets, public parks, publicly accessible outdoor space, or designated open space area. f. Driveways and approaches shall comply with the standards set forth in Municipal Code Sections 15.20 and 24.12.280 and the driveway approach standard detail included with the public works standards in effect at the time of design review and shall be designed in accordance with AASHTO Green Book sight distance standards. Ingress/egress to driveway approaches may be limited based on the results of a Transportation Study.

8. Landscape and Buffering
Goals: To enhance the urban forest, provide shade for buildings and sidewalks, incorporate landscape, and provide visual buffering into new development in a way that is visually appealing and consistent with the character of Santa Cruz.

In R-districts and in the R-T (A), R-T(B), R-T(D) and R-T(E) districts, the goal of landscape is also to soften the massing of buildings as they front the street. In commercial and mixed-use districts, the goal is also to create a landscaped edge to sidewalks and encourage the incorporation of terraces and balconies for usable outdoor space (livability), architectural interest (modulation), and access to outdoor space for public health and passive cooling (resilience). a. In all R-districts and in the R-T (A), R-T(B), R-T(D) and R-T(E) districts:
i. All open spaces in the front setback (excluding areas for driveways and sidewalks), shall be at least 75 percent landscape (planted materials) that are selected to comply with WELO standards as found in Chapter 16.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code that are current at the time of design review. The selected planted materials shall be WELO compliant even when the formal requirements of the WELO do not apply to the project.
ii. Selected plant species for the site shall incorporate a mix of trees, shrubs, and ground cover.
iii. Turf areas shall include no more than 25 percent of the total irrigated area on the site. b. In the C-C, R-T(C), C-T, C-N, C-B, PA and all MU zones :
i. All public frontages shall incorporate 12 square feet of planted area for each 30 linear feet of building frontage counted by rounding up to the next increment of planted area. For example, a building with a 31-foot building frontage would incorporate a minimum of 24 square feet of landscaped area (two increments of 12 square feet). ii. This may be provided in small, individual pockets of planting, or in larger planted areas, and must occur within the property line. This standard applies regardless of ground floor use.
iii. A landscaped buffer of at least 5 feet in depth and the length of the property line shall be provided at the rear property line on sites that are 100 feet or greater in depth and abut a residentially zoned parcel at the rear property line .

21.442

Page 117 ends

iv. Plants shall be selected to comply with WELO standards found in Chapter 16.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code that are current at the time of design review. v. Street Trees shall be planted in the public right of way, or within 5 feet of the public right of way, at a rate of 1 tree per each 30 feet of site frontage. Spacing of trees shall be sufficient to accommodate the mature canopy of each specimen, and installation shall be in compliance with the planting requirements of the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments, including the Street Tree Master Plan, and the requirements of Municipal Code Sections 13.30,15.20, and 24.12.186 as applicable at the time of design review.
vi. Any plantings or landscaping materials within surface parking areas are required to comply with the City’s Low-Impact Development (LID) standards, Storm Water Best Management Practices, and Storm Water Management Program. c. Refuse/Recycling Storage Facility: Enclosures for refuse bins or dumpsters are required of all new multi-family and mixed-use residential projects with three or more housing units or any commercial development as set forth in the City of Santa Cruz Department of Public Works Refuse Container Storage Facility Standard Design Policy.

9. Usable Open Space
Goal: To enhance the livability of new residential buildings with well-designed, functional open spaces with landscaping and amenities for residents to enjoy. a. In the C-C, R-T(C), C-T, C-N, C-B, PA and all MU districts:
i. At least 40 square feet of private open space and at least 20 square feet of common open space shall be provided per dwelling unit.
ii. Common open space may be substituted for private open space at a ratio of 2:1 (i.e., 80 square feet of common open space may be substituted for 40 square feet of private open space).
b. In all R-districts and in the R-T (A), R-T(B), R-T(D) and R-T(E) districts: the amount of required open space shall be determined by the underlying zone district standard. c. In all districts where residential uses are an allowed use:
i. Private usable open space must be at least 4 feet in any horizontal dimension and common usable open space must be at least 15 feet in any horizontal dimension. ii. There shall be no limit to the percent of the required open space that may be assigned to private balcony or patio areas.
iii. No less than 25 percent of the total common open space area shall be permanently landscaped with live plant material incorporating trees, shrubs, and groundcover. iv. A minimum of three of the following features shall be incorporated into common open spaces and maintained on the site:

1. Fixed or movable seating

2. Picnic-style tables

3. Shade trees (see allowances under 24.22.586, Open Space, Useable) or shaded canopy

4. Community garden

5. Flowering plants

6. Native habitat

7. Play area for pets

21.443

Page 118 ends

8. Educational or interpretive information about geographic, historic, or ecological features, such as plaques about relevant tribal history or indigenous plant information

9. Outdoor kitchen equipment or fire pit

10. Children’s play equipment

11. Sports courts

12. Public art or interactive art, such as a life-size chess game, sculpture, or murals

13. Spa, pool, or hot tub
d. Common open space may be provided on building rooftops as roof decks. Such usable open space is not counted as an additional story if rooftop structures comply with Municipal Code Section 24.12.150 Height Limits Modifications. e. Up to 30 percent of required common open space may be provided as publicly accessible open space that supports a retail or restaurant use, such as a courtyard, outdoor dining area, or other active use (i.e. not auto or bike parking), which is open to the sky, and is not less than 15 feet in any horizontal dimension, so long as the space is freely accessible to building residents without requirements to patronize the business use. Areas that are reserved exclusively for customers will not count toward required open space.

10. Neighborhood Transition
Goal: To create a transition between new development and existing neighborhoods, provide privacy for current and future residents, and minimize potential shading on neighboring residents.
a. In the C-C, R-T(C), C-T, C-N, C-B, PA, and all MU districts: along property lines that abut an R-district:
i. Buildings shall not intercept a 45-degree neighborhood transition plane inclined inward from the underlying setback, starting at a height of 35 feet above grade. See Figure 7.

Figure 7: Neighborhood Transition Plane
ii. Private or shared balconies and decks shall not extend into an underlying setback.

21.444

Page 119 ends

iii. The occupiable area of roof decks, including any deck on roof area falling under the neighborhood transition plane, shall be set back at least 3 feet from the building edge and any railings, shade structures, or accessory structures shall not intersect the required neighborhood transition plane. Rooftop lighting shall also comply with Lighting requirements of Section 24.12.185.17.

11. Roof Form
Goal: To ensure that the tops of buildings are designed with architectural interest, and to reduce the bulk of buildings as they meet the sky.
a. Buildings shall be designed with variation in roof form. The number of required roof forms shall be calculated at a ratio of at least one roof form for every 30 feet of frontage and shall be located within 15 feet of the predominant building face on all building frontages. On Corner lots or double-frontage lots, standards for variation in roof form will apply to all frontages. See Figure 8.
i. Roof form is defined as a geometric plane or set of planes which form the top enclosure of a volumetric area below it/them. Common types of roof forms are gabled, hipped, sloped, flat, and flat with a decorative parapet. Examples of roof forms are illustrated in Figure 9.
ii. A change in roof form must be combined with a change in height of at least 3 feet, a horizontal change in plane of at least 4 feet, or a change in roof pitch. See Figure 7 for examples. Changes in roof form shall not exceed allowed building heights, as defined by the underlying zone district.
iii. Smaller roof forms that cover enclosed space (such as dormers and bay windows) count as individual roof forms if they are at least 36 square feet in horizontal surface area. Bay windows located on a wall below another roof form will not count as individual roof forms regardless of size.
iv. Unenclosed space (such balconies, terraces, porticos, and belfries) count as individual roof forms if they are at least 48 square feet in horizontal area. Balconies should also conform to the standards for Useable Open Space in Section 24.12.185.8. v. For the purposes of calculating the number of required roof forms on a building, each increment of 30 feet of building frontage requires an additional roof form, counted by rounding up to the next whole number. For example, a frontage of 31 feet would be required to provide two roof forms. However, there is no maximum dimension for any one roof form, nor are roofs required to be designed in 30-foot increments.

Figure 8: Applying Roofline Standards

21.445

Page 120 ends

Figure 9: Roof Forms
b. Combining Roof Forms
i. The required number of roof forms may intersect to create more complex roof forms or may be organized in a hierarchy. Examples of combined roof forms are illustrated in Figure 10.
ii. Roof forms may be repeated, as with a flat roof that steps up or down, or a sawtooth. iii. Where two or more forms intersect or combine to create more complex forms, each is counted as an individual roof form. For example, two hipped forms may intersect to create a hip and valley form, which would count as two roof forms. iv. Where two or more roof forms are organized in a hierarchy, each is counted as an individual roof form. For example, the dominant roof form may be a hipped roof, which has two dormers with open gable roofs, which would count as three roof forms.

Another example is a flat roof on a building that has two bay windows with flat roofs, each at least 36 square feet in area. See Figure 6 for examples. v. For flat roofs and flat roofs with decorative parapets, changes in roofline must be accompanied by a minimum 2-foot change in height relative to the adjacent roof form. For buildings that are three stories or taller, the minimum change in height shall be 3 feet. This change in height shall be measured to the top of the parapet, where

21.446

Page 121 ends

present. Changes in roof form shall not exceed allowed building heights, as defined by the underlying zone district.

Figure 10: Combining and Counting Roof Forms

12. Building Modulation
Goal: To break up large building faces and create visual interest for pedestrians, neighbors, and visitors.
a. Where no other modulation controls apply (e.g. an Area Plan), building faces that are longer than 30 feet wide shall be articulated in one of the following three ways. i. Provide a horizontal change in plane for every 30 feet building face, rounded up to the next whole number (e.g., a frontage of 31 feet would be required to provide two changes in plane). As shown in Figure 11, the change in plane must be at least 4 feet deep and 6 feet wide, and must be open to the sky; or
Figure 11: Building Modulation – Option One

21.447

Page 122 ends

ii. Provide a horizontal change in plane for every 30 feet of building face, rounded up to the nearest whole number (e.g., a building face of 31 feet would be required to provide two changes in plane). As shown in Figure 12, the change in plane must be at least 2 feet deep and 6 feet wide, and be combined with a change in material; or Figure 12: Building Modulation – Option Two
iii. Provide a horizontal change in plane at an interval of 50 feet or less. As shown in Figure 13, the change in plane must be at least 6 feet deep and 12 feet wide, and be combined with a change in material. When implemented as building notches, such notches may contain balconies, as long as the railing is at least 70 percent see-through or transparent.

21.448

Page 123 ends

Figure 13: Building Modulation – Option Three
b. Building faces that are less than 30 feet wide are not required to have a change in plane incorporated into their design.
c. Projections from the building face including balconies, awnings, signs, and decorative elements are not considered to be changes in plane.

13. Corridor Frontage
Goal: To ensure that buildings in denser, mixed-use districts are designed with functional, human-scaled ground floors that promote walkability and provide space for local businesses. a. Unless otherwise dictated by an Area Plan, the ground floor frontage facing a Corridor shall be set back at least 12 feet from the face of the curb. See Figure 14. i. This may be achieved by setting back only the ground floor, but in no case shall any portion of the proposed building extend into or over the public right-of-way, except that awnings and balconies at the second story or above may extend into the right of way no more than 3 feet. No projection shall be closer than 8 feet to the centerline of an alley, driveway, or path of automobile circulation except with the approval of the City Engineer based on considerations of public safety and welfare (e.g., utility considerations, emergency access, etc.).

1. This setback area shall not be counted toward the requirement to incorporate Uses for Active Frontage, and the area shall be used as a 12-foot-wide sidewalk over at least 80 percent of the frontage.

2. In no case shall the passable sidewalk width be less than 8 feet without approval of an Administrative Use Permit and revocable license as allowed under Municipal Code Section 24.12.192 for Outdoor Extension Areas, in which case the passable sidewalk width shall not be less than 6 feet.

Figure 14: Corridor Frontage

21.449

Page 124 ends

14. Ground Floor Design
Goal: To ensure that buildings in commercial districts are designed with ground floors that support walkability with functional commercial or live-work frontages. Also, where residential units are allowed, to ensure well-designed frontages that strike a balance between privacy for the resident and activation of the sidewalk.
a. In the C-C, R-T(C), C-T, C-N, C-B, PA and all MU districts, commercial ground-floors shall be designed as follows:
i. Minimum ground floor frontage transparency of 70 percent between a height of 2 feet and 12 feet measured parallel above sidewalk grade.
ii. Minimum ground floor height of 15 feet, measured from the top of the floor to the top of the floor of the next level, or 10 feet if a mezzanine is included.

3. In a commercial space, any mezzanine shall be set back at least 30 feet from the building frontage and shall occupy no more than one-third of the area of the ground floor.
iii. Entries shall be inset from the building face at least 2 feet. b. In the C-C, R-T(C), C-T, C-N, C-B, PA, and C-B zones where residential development is allowed, ground floor residential units shall not occupy more than 50 percent of a public frontage. Residential units on the ground floor may be designed as Live-Work units or may be exclusively residential units.
c. Any Live-Work units shall be designed as follows:
i. Live-Work units are only permitted on the ground floor. ii. Minimum ground floor height of 15 feet, measured from the top of the floor to the top of the floor of the next level, or 10 feet if a mezzanine is included.

4. In a Live-Work unit any mezzanine shall be set back at least 18 feet from the building frontage and shall occupy no more than one-half of the area of the ground floor.
iii. Minimum ground floor depth of 18 feet.
iv. Minimum unit/storefront width of 12 feet.
v. Minimum ground floor frontage transparency of 50 percent between a height of 2 feet and 12 feet measured parallel above sidewalk grade.
vi. Entries shall be inset from the building face at least 2 feet. d. In in the C-C, R-T(C), C-T, C-N, C-B and PA zones where residential units other than Live-Work units are located at the ground floor, the following standards shall apply:

21.450

Page 125 ends

i. Where units are individually accessed, the entry must be set back at least 6 feet from the property line; this setback may be reduced to 4 feet if the unit is elevated at least 2 feet from the sidewalk (as with a stoop). See Figure 15.

1. This may be a setback of the ground floor only, or a setback of the entire building face.

2. This setback area may include an architectural feature indicating private space including but not limited to a railing, gate, entry landing, or doorstep.

3. This area may include landscaping or private open space for an individual unit. In order to qualify as private open space, the area must be separated from the sidewalk by one of the following mechanisms intended to indicate the privacy of the space:
 An increase in elevation of at least 2 feet;
 A railing or gate;
 Clustered landscaping, as in a hedge or other dense planting, not exceeding 42 inches in height.

Figure 15: Ground Floor Residential Entry Setback
e. Where a unit does not have individual access to the sidewalk, active living areas (including living rooms, dining rooms and kitchens, but excluding bedrooms, bathrooms, and hallways) are required at the building frontage, and must be set back at least 4 feet from the sidewalk; this setback may be reduced to 2 feet if the unit is elevated at least 2 feet above the sidewalk. See Figure 16.
i. This may be a setback of the ground floor only, or of the entire building face. ii. This setback area shall incorporate landscaping or planters.

Figure 16: Ground Floor Residential – Without Individual Access

21.451

Page 126 ends

15. Architectural Detail
Goal: To highlight the prominence of corner buildings along Corridors, ensure that buildings have an appropriate level of detailing, and ensure that building facades convey the qualities of substantiality and depth.
a. Buildings that are mixed-use and/or three stories in height or greater shall visually differentiate the ground floor from the floors above by one or more of the following:
i. a change in material; and/or
ii. a change in plane; and/or
iii. a cornice line, belly band, or similar horizontal element. b. Buildings at the intersection of a Corridor and another street (including another Corridor) shall implement at least one of the following corner features:
i. Increased height of the corner roofline of at least 3 feet above the adjacent roofline; and/or
ii. A chamfered corner with a diagonal cut at least 6 feet on either side of the corner. See Figure 17. This may be at the ground floor only, or for the entire height of the building; and/or
Figure 17: Chamfered Corner

21.452

Page 127 ends

c. A public open space of at least 30 square feet in area, and not less than 4 feet in any dimension, which may be designed to look like an extension of the sidewalk. Where the depth of this space is less than 6 feet, it may be open only at the ground floor. Where the depth of this space is greater than 6 feet it must be open to the sky. See Figure 18.

Figure 18: Public Open Space at Corner
d. Buildings in the C-C, R-T(C), C-T, C-N, C-B, PA and MU zones shall apply at least two categories of the following architectural features to each building face and to each level above ground floor. Buildings may incorporate different features on each face and level or may use the same two features on each face and level, so long as each face and level includes features from at least two categories.
i. Category 1 - Terrace, balcony, or Juliette balcony with a minimum projection of 10 inches and a minimum width of 3 feet (at least one per level; see also Section

24.12.185.10 Neighborhood Transition).

21.453

Page 128 ends

ii. Category 2 - Windows detailed with a lintel, sill, or arch iii. Category 3 - Awnings, louvers, or shutters
iv. Category 4 - Decorative cornice or decorative lighting sconces (see also Section

24.12.185.17 Lighting)
e. Windows shall be inset such that there is at least 2 inches between the plane of the glass and the plane of the building face for all windows above the ground floor; this depth shall be increased to 3 inches for buildings that include 4 or more stories, for all windows above the ground floor.
f. Walls or portions of walls that are unfenestrated (without windows, balconies, or glass doors) that extend from grade up to the roofline are limited to a maximum horizontal width of 15 feet.

16. Building Materials
Goal: To ensure that building materials are high-quality, durable, convey a sense of permanence, and reflect the existing character of buildings in the urban environment. a. Building materials shall be selected according to the following criteria:
i. The following materials are acceptable for use on building faces: tile, brick, glass, metal (except as prohibited below) painted or sealed wood, concrete, stucco, plaster, adobe, and stone (engineered or natural), and living walls (as defined). ii. Unarticulated or flat panelized materials (such as metal, cement board, or GFRC panels) are prohibited on public frontages but may be incorporated on other building faces. Panels for modular and pre-fabricated construction are allowed (including sandwich panels).
iii. Any materials that are not explicitly listed here require an administrative design review permit to ensure that approved materials conform to the goal of this section. b. Buildings shall incorporate two or more of the accepted materials listed above or as approved in the design of each building face. No single material may make up more than 85 percent of any building face. This can include materials for building decoration (e.g., awnings, louvers, balconies, cornice lines, or windowsills), but does not include fenestration (glass, frames, or other elements of windows and doors). c. Vinyl windows are prohibited in the following circumstances:
i. Any mixed-use or residential buildings more than three stories in height. ii. On a building face oriented toward a public street other than an alley of a mixed use or residential building three stories in height or less. d. At building corners, except for living walls, all materials shall wrap around the corner to a depth of at least 4 inches. This includes corners of insets, reveals, or changes in plane that are 4 inches or greater in depth, as with a balcony, ground floor entry, or change in plane. See examples shown in Figure 19.
e. Living walls shall meet the following standards:
i. The living wall shall be permanently integrated into the exterior design of the building face upon which they are planted.
ii. The living wall shall not be located on a north, or north-east-facing building face. iii. The living wall shall include an integrated irrigation system. iv. The living wall shall be created using materials specifically designed for the purpose of installing and maintaining plants within the intended context (considering sun,

21.454

Page 129 ends

shade, fog, rain exposure, and any other relevant environmental factors) on an exterior building face.
v. Components of a living wall shall be considered with other landscape elements, and are subject to the requirements of the City’s WELO.
vi. Nothing in this section shall regulate or require the installation of living walls on the interior of any building.

Figure 19: Material Application

17. Lighting
Goal: To ensure that public areas of buildings are lit for wayfinding and safety, while minimizing impacts of glare, light trespass, and light pollution in order to help make new development Dark Sky friendly.
a. Individual exterior luminaires shall be shielded to direct light downward and shall not exceed 1,260 lumens. Exterior light fixtures shall utilize light sources with a color temperature that does not exceed 3000 Kelvin.
i. A luminaire is considered to be fully shielded if it is constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted by the luminaire, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the luminaire, is projected below the horizontal plane through the luminaire's lowest light-emitting part.
b. Outdoor lights shall not blink, flash, flicker, or change intensity (excluding motiondetecting lights). c. Lighting shall be provided at parking lots, pedestrian paths, outdoor gathering spaces, building entries, and any other pedestrian-accessible areas.

21.455

Page 130 ends

d. Lighting of outdoor service, loading, and storage areas shall not be visible from the street or adjacent properties.
e. Rooftop lighting shall be set back at least 12 feet from the edge of any building face that is oriented towards any R-district.
f. The height of luminaires shall not exceed 15 feet above grade for all luminaires other than those in parking areas or decorative sconces as allowed under F. 3. Architectural Detail.
g. Building faces shall be illuminated such that surfaces located at least 10 horizontal feet away from building entries shall have at least 66 percent less luminance than surfaces within 10 horizontal feet of building entries. Compliance shall be demonstrated with a lighting plan.

Section 47. Section 24.12.186 – Requirements for Street Trees of Part 2: General Site Design Standards of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:

24.12.186 REQUIREMENTS FOR STREET TREES.

1. When new development or redevelopment is proposed that triggers the requirement for a sidewalk greater than or equal to seven feet in width based on requirements of Section

24.12.185.12, Section 15.20.060, or any applicable Area Plan, street trees shall be provided by the owner or developer either within the public right-of-way along any site frontage or within five feet any site frontage immediately adjacent to the required public sidewalk. The street trees shall be permanently maintained in the approved location by the owner or successor in interest of the property whose project triggered the tree planting requirement. a. The street trees shall conform to the Public Works Department Tree Planting Details and Tree Sidewalk Program Policy. Except when otherwise provided in those guidelines, the street trees provided shall be a minimum of one tree for each 30 feet of frontage of the property along each street frontage, with any remaining fraction of 10 feet or more of frontage requiring an additional tree. For example, a lot that is no more than 30 feet in width is required to provide a minimum of one street tree, and a lot of 50 feet in width is required to provide a minimum of two street trees.
i. If closer spacing is recommended by an applicable area plan the spacing in the area plan shall govern.
ii. The rates above govern the number of trees to be provided but do not establish a minimum spacing. Trees may be grouped at the recommendation of the Landscape Architect or Project Certified Arborist.
b. The street trees shall conform to all city of Santa Cruz policies including but not limited to the Street Tree Planting Details and the Tree Sidewalk Program Policy, and all the standards of Chapter 13.30.
i. Planting wells may incorporate alternative technologies to enhance root development and promote tree growth. Where existing soils beyond the tree well are not conducive to tree growth, as determined by the City of Santa Cruz Urban Forester, techniques including but not limited to structural soils and suspended pavement may be conditioned.

21.456

Page 131 ends

c. Street trees newly planted in the public right-of-way or within five feet of the public right-of-way shall not be planted:
i. Within a Clear Vision Area required by the city
ii. Within 3 feet of a parking sign unless the Department of Public Works agrees to relocate the sign at the expense of the project.
iii. Within 5 feet of a gas or water meter, or underground electrical conduit. iv. Within 5 feet of a fire hydrant.
v. Within 10 feet of a sewer lateral.
vi. Within 10 feet of an electrical utility pole.
vii. Within 10 feet of a driveway.
viii. Within 15 feet of a crosswalk.
ix. Within 20 feet of a traffic signal.
x. Within 15 feet of existing trees unless the location is recommended by a landscape architect or Project Certified Arborist, as approved by the City of Santa Cruz Urban Forester, who will base their determination on site and tree species, to prevent mature tree canopies from conflicting.
d. Utility infrastructure shall be consolidated if necessary in order to accommodate the siting of street trees.
e. Where location criteria eliminate all options for locating the required number of street trees within the public right-of-way or within five feet of the public right-of-way, and utilities cannot be further consolidated to allow for installation of street trees as demonstrated in a landscaping plan, the requirement to provide street trees shall be met in the following alternative method:
i. Incorporation of trees on the development site at a rate of 1.5 trees per 1 street tree that is not provided, with fractional requirements rounded up to the next whole number.

1. These trees may be located anywhere on the site, including but not limited to; a buffer at the rear of the property, in a permanent rooftop garden (not in a standalone planter), or as a shade tree within a parking area.

2. Trees placed within 5 feet of any paved area shall be installed consistent with the Public Works Department Tree Planting Details.

Section 48. Section 24.12.192 – Outdoor Extension Areas of Part 2: General Site Design Standards of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.192 OUTDOOR EXTENSION AREAS.

The purpose of outdoor extension areas is to enhance streetscape on the city’s corridors by introducing uses attractive to pedestrians into the pedestrian environment, configured and arranged in ways which activate and enliven the public street. These uses include outdoor eating areas, retail areas and landscaping. In this section the term “adjacent business” shall apply to the business using the extension area. If the sidewalk width allows it, the adjacent business may be separated from the extension area by the public walkway. This section is applicable citywide, except for areas within the Downtown Recovery Plan which are subject to Section 24.10.2340.

21.457

Page 132 ends

Section 49. Section 24.12.240 – Number of Parking Spaces Required of Part 3: Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.240 NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED.

1. Where the computation of required parking spaces produces a fractional result, fractions of one-half or greater shall require one full parking space.

Use Spaces Required
a. Automobile or machinery sales and service garages 1 for each 400 square feet of floor area
b. Banks without automatic teller machines 1 for each 400 square feet of floor area
c. Banks with automatic teller machines 1 for each 400 square feet of floor area; plus 1.5 for each
machine
d. Business and professional offices, excluding medical and dental offices
1 for each 300 square feet of
floor area
e. Billiard parlors 1.5 for each table
f. Community care residential facilities, including, but not limited to: assisted living facilities, children’s homes, congregate care homes, nursing homes, residential
treatment facilities
1 for every 5 guests, plus 1 for
each employee on the shift with
the maximum number of
personnel
g. Houses of worship 1 for each 3.5 seats in the
sanctuary
h. Dancehalls and assembly halls without fixed seats,
exhibition halls, except church assembly rooms in
conjunction with auditoriums
1 for each 3 persons of design
occupancy load
i. Family daycare and foster family homes 1 for every 5 guests, plus 1 for the resident owner or manager
j. Funeral homes, mortuaries 1 for each 5 seats of the
aggregate number of seats
provided in all assembly rooms
k. Furniture and appliance stores, household equipment 1 for each 800 square feet of sales floor area
l. Hospitals 1 for each bed, plus 1 for each
employee on the shift with the
maximum number of personnel
m. Hotels, motels 1 for each unit intended for

21.458

Page 133 ends

Use Spaces Required
separate occupancy, plus 1 for
the resident owner or manager
n. Manufacturing plants, bottling plants, processing plants, packaging plants, furniture repair
1 for each 500 square feet of
floor area
o. Medical and dental clinics and offices 1 for each 200 square feet of floor area
p. Medical (or convalescent) hospitals 1 for each 5 beds, plus 1 for each employee on the shift with the
maximum number of personnel
q. Physical fitness facilities
Physical fitness facilities with more than 15,000 square feet of floor area shall provide an additional 10 percent of the total number of required parking spaces.
1 space for each 250 square feet
of floor area
r. Physical therapy 1 space per 200 square feet of
floor area. In addition, 1 space
per 50 square feet of pool (water)
area
s. Residential Uses
Number of Bedrooms
Type Efficiency 1 2+
Single-family (including townhouses),
houseboat, duplex, triplex, multiple
mobilehomes, community housing
projects, other multifamily dwelling
units

1.0 1.0 2.0
Community housing projects,
townhouses, and multifamily projects
of 5 units or more
In addition to meeting above residential
parking requirements, guest parking
spaces shall be provided at a rate 10% of
the above standards. Fractional spaces
will be rounded up to the next whole
number.

Lodging, rooming houses and bed-andbreakfast inns2 spaces, plus 1 for each bedroom that is rented
Residence halls, dormitories 0.75 space for each guest or occupant Senior housing development 1 for each 3 dwelling units or rooms intended for separate occupancy, plus an
area of land equal to the required offstreet parking for multifamily units, not

21.459

Page 134 ends

including required open space, which
could be converted to parking should the
retirement center change to a
multifamily residential use
Small ownership unit (SOU) 1 space for each dwelling unit Single-room occupancy dwelling unit,
less than 300 square feet

0.75 for each dwelling unit
Single-room occupancy dwelling unit,
300 square feet or more
1 for each dwelling unit
Accessory dwelling unit The parking standards for accessory dwelling units are as follows (these
standards do not affect the amount of
required parking for the primary
residence):

Outside the coastal zone, no off-street
parking shall be required for an ADU
and spaces removed to accommodate an
ADU will not require replacement.

On parcels located inside the coastal
zone and within the designated areas
shown in the LCP Figure “ADU Parking
Required” (which follows this table), at
least one off-street parking space shall
be required for each ADU, and all offstreet parking requirements associated with all other residential uses at the site
shall be met on site, including
replacement parking spaces if any are
removed to accommodate an ADU.

On parcels located inside the coastal
zone but not within the designated areas
shown in LCP Figure “ADU Parking
Required” (which follows this table),
zero parking spaces shall be required for
each ADU. When a garage, carport, or
covered parking structure is demolished
in conjunction with the construction of
an accessory dwelling unit or converted
to an accessory dwelling unit, those offstreet parking spaces are not required to be replaced. If other parking areas on a
site (e.g., a driveway or other
nonstructural parking area) are removed
to provide for an ADU, off-street

21.460

Page 135 ends

replacement parking spaces shall be
required for the primary (non-ADU)
residential use.

Use Spaces Required
t. Restaurants and other
establishments selling food and
beverages on the premises
(including bars and nightclubs
without live entertainment)
1 for each 120 square feet of floor area
u. Restaurants with counter and/or
take-out service or drive-in
facilities
1 for each 120 square feet of floor area, plus 1 for each 50 square feet of floor area devoted to counter/take-out service
v. Research and development
facilities
1 for each 325 square feet of floor area, or 1 for every 2 employees (maximum shift), whichever is greater
w. Retail stores, shops, service
establishments, including
shopping centers other than
furniture and appliance stores
1 for each 250 square feet of floor area
x. Schools:
• Elementary and junior high 1 for each employee
• High schools 1 for each employee, plus 1 for each 10 students y. Colleges (business, beauty, etc.)
and universities
1 for each employee, plus 1 for each 3 students
z. Self-service laundry and dry
cleaning establishments
1 for each 200 square feet of floor area
aa. Service stations 3 for each lubrication or service bay, plus 1 for each employee on the day shift
ab. Sports arenas, auditoriums,
assembly halls, and meeting
rooms
1 for each 3.5 seats of maximum seating capacity
ac. Theaters 1 for each 3.5 seats for the first 350 seats; plus 1 for each 5 additional seats
ad. Tutoring facilities 1 for each 250 square feet of floor area ae. Wholesale establishments,
warehouses, service and
maintenance center,
communications equipment
buildings
1 for each 1,000 square feet of floor area
af. Recycling collection facilities

21.461

Page 136 ends

Use Spaces Required
• Independent 2 spaces
• In conjunction with other uses
that provide required parking
0 spaces
ag. Unspecified uses of buildings,
structures, or premises
Where the parking requirement for a particular use is not specifically established in this section, the parking
requirements for each use shall be determined by the
zoning administrator, and such determination shall be
based upon the requirements for similar uses. Public uses not specifically established in this section shall meet the parking requirement as established by the planning
commission. The planning commission shall take into
account the proposed use and parking availability in the vicinity of the use.
ah. Uses in Parking District No. 1
(Downtown)
Parking shall be provided in conformance with the
resolution of the city council for this district in effect at the time of submittal of a complete application.

21.462

Page 137 ends

2. Covered Parking. All residential development has the option of including covered or enclosed parking, consistent with other zoning standards. No covered or enclosed parking is required for any residential or mixed use housing unit.

3. Unbundled Parking. All residential development of has the option to rent or sell off-street parking spaces separately from the rental or purchase of dwelling units for the life of the dwelling units, such that potential renters or buyers shall have the option of renting or buying a dwelling unit at a price lower than would be the case if there were a single price for both the dwelling unit and the parking space(s). Unbundled parking will qualify for a reduced parking requirement when executed in conformance with the requirements of Section 24.12.290.3(e).

4. 3. The following exceptions may be granted for specific types of residential projects:
a. Exceptions to parking requirements may be granted to publicly subsidized housing units, affordable housing projects, and projects for special needs or senior tenants where such requirements are in conflict with state or federal regulations or funding policies. b. SRO parking requirements may be reduced by one-quarter space for each dwelling unit if the project is either located:
(1) Within one-quarter mile or one thousand three hundred twenty feet of an alternative parking facility and spaces are available and can be committed to residents; or
(2) Within one-quarter mile or one thousand three hundred twenty feet of access to public transportation such as a bus stop.
c. Parking requirements for mixed use developments in the I-G District, as permitted under Section 24.10.1510(2)(k)(3), may be reduced by a maximum of four-tenths space for each dwelling unit as a part of an on-site shared parking plan. d. In addition to the allowances afforded through accessory dwelling unit regulations in Part 2 of Chapter 24.16, existing covered parking may be converted into additional units if all the requirements for the underlying zoning district can be met and replacement parking can be provided that meets the other parking requirements herein.

5. 4. No more than forty percent of the front setback of a residential property developed with up to four dwelling units (excluding any ADUs or Jr. ADUs) shall be utilized or developed for parking. No portion of the front setback of a residential property developed with more than four dwelling units (excluding any ADUS or Jr. ADUs) shall be utilized or developed for parking (See also Section 24.12.185.7). No more than fifty percent of the front setback of a residential property may be paved or covered with any impervious surface.

Section 50. Section 24.12.280 – Design Requirements of Part 3: Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.280 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.

1. Driveway Design Standards.
a. Parking facilities hereafter established and which are located adjacent to a required front yard in an adjoining A-District or R-District shall be provided with a clear vision area and parking facilities which are located adjacent to two intersecting streets shall include a clear corner triangle as defined in this title. These areas shall be maintained in conformance with Section 13.30.110.

21.463

Page 138 ends

b. The total clear space to accommodate a vehicle in driveways and private parking areas used as private parking facilities for single-family residential uses shall not be smaller than the dimensions of required on-site parking spaces.
c. Driveways shall be designed to conform with existing contours to the maximum extent feasible.
d. Driveways shall enter public/private streets in such a manner as to maintain adequate line of sight in clear vision areas and clear corner triangles based on AASHTO Green Book sight distances.
e. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of twenty-five percent as illustrated in the following diagram:
* Back edge of standard city driveway.
** All percentages are measured from the edge of standard city driveway. f. Driveways and approaches shall comply with the applicable standards set forth in Chapter 15.20.

2. Parking Facility Layout. The diagrams entitled “Sample Parking Designs and Standards,” included at the end of this chapter, shall be used for dimensions in the development and arrangement of parking spaces and parking areas. Layout and traffic flow is illustrative only and these standards may be varied with supportive documentation of acceptable circulation by a California-licensed civil engineer.
a. Each standard-size parking space shall be not less than nineteen feet in length by eight and one-half feet in width. Each compact parking space shall be not less than sixteen feet in length by seven and one-half feet in width.

3. Access to Spaces or Facilities.
a. Access to parking facilities shall not be less than twenty feet in width; except as follows:
(1) Access to parking facilities containing five or fewer parking spaces shall be not less than ten feet in width, except as provided in subsection (1), Driveway Design Standards, for private facilities for single-family homes. (2) Access to parking facilities containing between six and twenty parking spaces shall be not less than twelve feet in width.
(3) Where separate one-way drive aisles are proposed, each shall be not less than ten feet in width.
(4) The zoning administrator shall determine the width of driveways serving parking facilities in the GB-O District based on the following findings:
i. That the width is necessary to preserve the open-space character of the area; ii. That the width contributes to the compatible use of open-space lands.

21.464

Page 139 ends

(5) The public works department, planning and community development department, and/or the fire department may approve designs that vary from the above standards based on the individual circumstances of a parcel or use. b. Backing Out.
(1) General. Driveways and aisles in a parking facility shall be designed so that vehicles do not back out into a street other than a residential alley. (2) Exceptions. Parking facilities for single-family dwellings and duplexes not located on a highway or major or minor arterial, as shown on the General Plan Land Use Map, may provide for backing into the street. Parking facilities for three-family dwelling or triplex or four-family dwelling or fourplex may be designed to back out onto a street only if the street is not an arterial or collector street. (3) Dimensions. Public and private parking facilities shall provide at least twentyfour feet of clear area behind parking spaces for backing-out and turning movements when ninety-degree parking spaces are used, at least fifteen feet when forty-fivedegree parking is used, and at least eighteen feet when sixty degree parking is used. In unique situations, a California-licensed civil engineer may demonstrate with a turning diagram that this dimension can be reduced and still provide adequate on-site circulation for standard sized vehicles. Reductions in back-out area are subject to review and approval by the planning director or designee in consultation with the director of public works or designee.

4. Tandem Spaces.
a. Required parking spaces for residential uses may be provided in a tandem arrangement no more than three parking spaces deep. No parking space may be in tandem with a parking space for a separate dwelling unit except as allowed for accessory dwelling units.

5. Border Barricades. Every parking facility containing angled or ninety-degree parking spaces adjacent to a street right-of-way shall, except at entrance and exit drives, be developed with a solid curb or barrier along such street right-of-way line; or shall be provided with a suitable concrete barrier at least six inches in height and located not less than two feet from such street right-of-way line. Such wall, fence, curb, or barrier shall be securely installed and maintained.

6. Surfacing. All off-street parking facilities shall be surfaced with a minimum of five inches of concrete, or one and one-half inches of asphalt overlying four inches of base rock; except:
a. Temporary off-street parking facilities, which may be surfaced by placement of a single bituminous surface treatment upon an aggregate base, which bituminous treatment and base shall be subject to the approval of the director of public works; b. Driveways and parking pads for single-family residences may be surfaced with four inches of concrete or other approved material;
c. Parking facilities approved by the zoning administrator or planning commission for a different parking surface;
d. All off-street parking facilities shall be so graded and drained as to dispose of all surface water from within the area; in no case shall such drainage be allowed to cross sidewalks.

7. Marking. Parking spaces within a facility shall be clearly marked and delineated. For nonresidential uses, wheel stops or curbing may be required.

8. Lighting. Lighting shall be directed onto the subject property only and shielded so that the light source is not visible from adjacent properties or streets. The requirements of Section

24.12.185.17 shall also apply to development proposals including any multi-family housing.

21.465

Page 140 ends

9. Landscaping and Screening.
a. General Requirements. Landscaping shall be provided in conjunction with the development or modification of any parking space or facility. Landscaping is employed to diminish the visibility and impact of parked cars by screening and visually separating them from surrounding uses and the street; to provide shade and relief from paved areas; to channel the flow of traffic and generally contribute to good site design. (1) Every commercial parking facility abutting property either located in R-Districts or in residential uses shall be separated from such property or use by a permanently maintained evergreen hedge, view-obscuring wall or fence, raised planter, planted berm or the like. Such screening devices shall be of sufficient height to diminish the visibility and impact of parked cars and visually separate them from the adjacent residential zone or use. Screening devices may not exceed the standards set forth in Section 13.30.110.
(2) Except for parking facilities for single-family lot development, landscaped areas shall be separated from paved parking areas by a six-inch continuous concrete curbing, or other permanent landscape feature including fencing, gravel, or rigid landscape edging. Parking facilities that incorporate landscaped storm water treatment or retention areas in conformance with adopted city best management practices for low impact development shall be exempt from this requirement adjacent to those areas used for treatment or retention.
b. Standards for Multifamily, Over Five Units, Commercial and Industrial Developments.

Every parking facility shall include a minimum of ten percent of area devoted to parking in permanent landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed in areas used to channel the flow of traffic within parking rows, at the entry to aisles, and at other locations specified by the approving body. Required landscaping shall include appropriate vegetation including trees which shall be provided in sufficient size and quality to adequately screen and soften the effect of the parking area, within the first year. Additional standards for screening found in Section 24.12.185 shall also apply where required.

Section 51. Section 24.12.295 – Off-Street Loading Facilities of Part 3: Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.295 OFF-STREET LOADING FACILITIES.

1. Purpose. To reduce street congestion and traffic hazards and to add to the safety and convenience of the community, adequate, attractively designed, and functional facilities for offstreet loading shall be incorporated as necessary in conjunction with new uses of land.

2. General Provisions. For every building hereafter erected, which is to be occupied by manufacturing, storage, warehouse, commercial, residential, retail and/or wholesale store, market, hotel, hospital, mortuary, motel, laundry, dry cleaning, exercise facility or other similar uses or mixed-use combinations requiring the receipt or distribution by vehicles of material and merchandise, off-street loading areas shall be provided in accordance with the requirements herein.

In the case of mixed uses in the same structure, on the same lot or in the same development, or more than one type of activity involved in the same use, the total requirements for off-street

21.466

Page 141 ends

loading spaces shall be the sum of the requirements for the various uses or activities computed separately, including fractional values.

3. Requirements.
a. Required Off-Street Loading Spaces
Gross Floor Area Required Loading Spaces
10,000 to 24,999 square feet 1
25,000 to 49,000 square feet 2
For each additional 50,000
square feet or fraction thereof
1 Use Size of Use Required OffStreet Loading Spaces
10,000 to 24,999 square feet of
gross floor area 1 Type B
25,000 to 49,000 square feet of
gross floor area 2 Type B
Manufacturing, storage,
warehouse, retail and/or
wholesale store, market, hotel,
hospital, mortuary, motel,
laundry, dry cleaning, exercise
facility, or other similar uses
For each additional 50,000
square feet of gross floor area or
fraction thereof
1 Type B
0-24,999 square feet of gross
floor area 0
25,000-99,999 square feet of
gross floor area 1 Type A Office
over 100,000 square feet of
gross floor area 2 Type A
0-50 Units 0
Residential 51-200 Units 1 Type A
over 200 Units 2 Type A
b. Minimum Dimensions for Loading Spaces

MINIMUM DIMENSIONS FOR LOADING SPACES
Type of Loading Space Required
(See Table 22.112.130-A)
Minimum
Length (feet)
Minimum
Width (feet)
Required Vertical
Clearance (feet)
Type A 24 8 None
Type B 30 10 14
b. Each loading space shall be not less than ten feet in width, thirty feet in length, and with an overhead clearance of fourteen feet.
c. Such space shall not occupy all or any part of any required front or exterior yard area or court space, and shall not be located closer than twenty fifty feet to any lot in an RDistrict, unless inside a structure or separated from such district by a wall not less than eight feet in height, provided a conditional fence permit is approved.

21.467

Page 142 ends

d. Sufficient room for maneuvering vehicles shall be provided on site. e. Each loading berth shall be accessible from a street or alley. f. Entrances and exits shall be provided at locations approved by the public works director. The location of entrances and exits will be determined based on the results of a transportation study (if required based on Section 15.15.010) and approved by the City’s public works director. Alternatively, the applicant may allow the public works director to specify entrance and exit locations.
g. The loading area, aisles and access drives shall be paved with a durable, dustless surface, and shall be so graded and drained so as to disperse surface water. h. Wheel stops and bumper rails shall be provided where needed for safety and or to protect property.
i. If the loading area is illuminated, lighting shall be directed away from any abutting residential sites and adjacent streets to reduce light and glare impacts, and shall conform to the standards of Sections 24.12.185.17 and 24.12.280.8 as applicable. j. No repair work or servicing of vehicles shall be conducted in a loading area. k. Trucks with trailers or detached trailers shall not be stored on-site. l. Loading areas shall be maintained in good condition and kept free of trash, debris, and display or advertising uses. No changes shall be made in the number of loading spaces designated on the parking plan without approval of review by the zoning administrator. m. Required off-street loading facilities shall be located on the same site as the use for which the off-street loading spaces berths are required.

Section 52. Section 24.12.430 – Protection of Archaeological Resources of Part 5: Historic Preservation of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.430 PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

1. Policy and Purpose. Existing in Santa Cruz are certain deposits and sites of cultural significance believed to have been left by Native Americans and other early inhabitants. These deposits and sites are unique and irreplaceable phenomena of significance in the history of the city and the understanding of the cultural heritage of our land and of all humankind. Such sites have a deep, spiritual significance to Native Americans, especially the native peoples of the state of California, and constitute a precious archaeological and historical heritage which is fast disappearing as a result of public and private land development. Uncontrolled excavation or modification of these resources would destroy their cultural integrity. This loss would affect future generations and must be prevented in the public interest. Such cultural resources should be preserved in an undisturbed state wherever possible for future generations who should be more skilled and have access to better methods of study. In order to promote the public welfare, it is necessary to provide regulations for the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of such sites.

This section, therefore, is intended to provide a procedure for preserving the valuable cultural resources in the city of Santa Cruz. It should be noted that California Public Resources Code Section 5097.9 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 protect archaeological and paleontological resources and supersede any local regulations.

2. Archaeological reconnaissance is required on sites proposed for development within areas identified as “highly sensitive” or “sensitive” on the general plan maps labeled “areas of

21.468

Page 143 ends

archaeological sensitivity” and “historical archaeology sensitivity” prior to the issue of building or development permits. For development on sites that have “known resources” see subsection (12).

3. An archaeological reconnaissance shall include archival research, site surveys and necessary supplemental testing as may be required and shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. The significance of identified resources shall be ascertained in accordance with CEQA definitions. If significant impacts are identified, impacts and mitigation measures outlined could include but are not limited to avoidance, project redesign, deposit capping, resource recovery options and/or onsite monitoring by an archaeologist during excavation activities. A written report describing the archaeological findings of the research or survey shall be provided to the city and development applications shall demonstrate compliance with any recommended mitigations identified in the required report.

4. Exemptions for minor development are allowed within “sensitive” areas only. “Minor development” is defined for this purpose as development that involves spot excavation to a depth of twelve inches or less below existing grade or uses that have virtually no potential of resulting in significant impacts to archaeological deposits. Exempt projects may include: building additions, outdoor decks, or excavation in soil that can be documented as previously disturbed.

5. Developer’s Action on Discovery of Artifacts or Remains During Excavation or Development. Any person exercising a development permit or building permit who, at any time in the preparation for or process of excavating or otherwise disturbing earth, discovers any human remains of any age or any artifact or any other object which reasonably appears to be evidence of an archaeological/cultural resource, shall:
a. Immediately cease all further excavation, disturbance, and work on the project site; b. Cause staking to be placed completely around the area of discovery by visible stakes not more than ten feet apart forming a circle having a radius of not less than one hundred feet from the point of discovery; provided, that such staking need not take place on adjoining property unless the owner of the adjoining property authorizes such staking; c. Notify the Santa Cruz County sheriff-coroner and the city of Santa Cruz planning director of the discovery unless no human remains have been discovered, in which case the property owner shall notify only the planning director; d. Grant permission to all duly authorized representatives of the sheriff-coroner and the planning director to enter onto the property and to take all actions consistent with this section.

6. Coroner’s Action on Discovery of Remains. If human remains are discovered, the sheriffcoroner or his/her representative shall promptly inspect the remains to determine the age and ethnic character of the remains and shall promptly, after making such determinations, notify the planning director. If the remains are found to be Native American in origin, the sheriff-coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify the Native American most likely descendant who will provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated artifacts per California State Resources Code Section 5079.9.

7. Planning Director’s Action on Discovery of Artifacts. If any artifacts are discovered, the planning director shall cause an on-site inspection of the property to be made. The purpose of the inspection shall be to determine whether the discovery is of an archaeological resource or cultural resource. In making a determination, the planning director may also consult with Native American groups, qualified archaeologists, or others with the necessary expertise.

21.469

Page 144 ends

8. Discovery Not an Archaeological/Cultural Resource. Upon determining that the discovery is not of an archaeological/cultural resource, the planning director shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work.

9. Discovery an Archaeological/Cultural Resource. Upon determining that the discovery is of an archaeological/cultural resource, the planning director shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other measures have been approved by the director for the protection of the site.

10. Mitigation Plan. The property owner or his/her agent shall prepare any required mitigation plan. The mitigation plan shall include conditions necessary or appropriate for the protection of the resource including, but not limited to, conditions on the resumption of work, redesign of the project, or other conditions deemed appropriate by the planning director. The director shall review the mitigation plan and may consult with Native Americans, archaeologists, or other interested persons to ensure proper protection of the resource. When the director is satisfied that the mitigation plan is adequate and that the development plan has been altered sufficiently to the demonstrate compliance with all recommended mitigations of the mitigation plan, the director shall authorize the resumption of work in conformance with the mitigation plan.

11. Referral to Historic Preservation Commission. The planning director may refer to the historic preservation commission the decision whether the discovery is of an archaeological/cultural resource and the decision whether the mitigation plan is adequate to protect the resource. If the director refers the matter to the historic preservation commission, a public hearing shall be held in conformity with the requirements of this title relating to public hearings.

12. Development on Known Archaeological Sites. No building permit for any earth-disturbing activity shall be issued on parcels identified by resolution of the city council as containing known cultural or archaeological resources without the owner first obtaining an administrative use permit. The administrative use permit shall be conditioned with appropriate archaeological survey and mitigation procedures such as those prescribed in the Historic Preservation Element and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

Section 53. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after final adoption for areas of the City outside the Coastal Zone and shall take effect and be in full force upon certification by the California Coastal Commission for areas of the City located within the Coastal Zone.

21.470
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING CHAPTER 24.20 – ZONING MAP OF THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS the City of Santa Cruz adopted the 2030 General Plan in June 2012 in order to ensure that the City could achieve its vision of becoming a compact and vibrant city that preserves the diversity and quality of its natural and built environments, creates a satisfying quality of life for its diverse population and workers, and attracts visitors from around the world; and
WHEREAS the 2030 General Plan calls for the creation of new Mixed Use areas to support Santa Cruz residents to live and work within close proximity, and to support transportation options; and
WHEREAS the existing zoning map does not include appropriate zone districts to achieve the vision of the 2030 General Plan; and
WHEREAS the parcels proposed for rezoning are those same parcels that have been identified and available for mixed-use development since the adoption of the General Plan in June 2012; and
WHEREAS the City Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on June 30th, 2022 and continued final action to their regular meeting on July 21, 2022, and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map as proposed; and
WHEREAS at the public hearing on July 21, 2022, the Planning Commission found that the proposed amendments to the zoning map serve and further the public necessity, the general community welfare, and good zoning practice; 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 or specific plan.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED THAT the proposed zoning map amendments, as shown in Exhibit A – Rezoning Parcel List and Exhibit B – Amended Zoning Map, are approved.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 23rd day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

21.471
APPROVED: __________________________
Sonja Brunner, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
PASSED FOR FINAL ADOPTION this __ day of _____, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

21.472
APN Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Site Address
002‐235‐20 CC MU‐M 1604 MISSION ST
002‐223‐35 CC MU‐M 2120 MISSION ST
002‐223‐36 CC MU‐M 2114 MISSION ST
002‐223‐34 CC MU‐M 2006 MISSION ST
002‐223‐31 CC MU‐M 2012 MISSION ST
002‐223‐33 CC MU‐M 2002 MISSION ST
002‐622‐20 CC MU‐M 115 OLIVE ST
002‐235‐22 CC MU‐M 1640 MISSION ST
002‐235‐18 CC MU‐M 1618 MISSION ST
002‐235‐10 CC MU‐M 1616 MISSION ST
002‐235‐09 CC MU‐M 1612 MISSION ST
002‐235‐21 CC MU‐M 1610 MISSION ST
003‐051‐35 IGP2/CC MU‐M 841 ALMAR AVE
006‐203‐25 CC MU‐M 1130 MISSION ST
004‐432‐01 CC MU‐M 350 YOUNGLOVE AVE
004‐431‐02 CC MU‐M 343 YOUNGLOVE AVE
004‐432‐28 CC MU‐M 2015 MISSION ST
004‐432‐03 CC MU‐M 2003 MISSION ST
004‐441‐25 CC MU‐M 1725 MISSION ST
004‐441‐22 CC MU‐M 1709 MISSION ST
004‐441‐23 CC MU‐M 1701 MISSION ST
004‐043‐26 CC MU‐M 1244 BAY ST
004‐043‐28 CC MU‐M 1521 MISSION ST
004‐043‐29 CC MU‐M 1515 MISSION ST
004‐043‐23 CC MU‐M 1509 MISSION ST A
004‐043‐24 CC MU‐M 1507 MISSION ST B
004‐043‐25 CC MU‐M 1501 MISSION ST
004‐012‐45 CC MU‐M 1301 MISSION ST
004‐011‐36 CC/R‐1‐5 MU‐M 1221 MISSION ST
004‐011‐39 CC MU‐M 1215 MISSION ST 1
004‐011‐37 CC MU‐M 1211 MISSION ST
006‐193‐56 CC MU‐M 1306 MISSION ST
006‐181‐75 CC MU‐M 1508 MISSION ST
006‐181‐89 CC MU‐M 1500 MISSION ST
006‐181‐33 CC MU‐M 309 TRESCONY ST
006‐193‐20 CC MU‐M 1310 MISSION ST
006‐192‐25 CC MU‐M 1230 MISSION ST
006‐192‐12 CC MU‐M 1228 MISSION ST
006‐192‐24 CC MU‐M 1220 MISSION ST
006‐192‐14 CC MU‐M 1232 MISSION ST A
006‐192‐26 CC MU‐M 1212 MISSION ST
006‐192‐27 CC MU‐M 1204 MISSION ST
006‐203‐24 CC MU‐M 1132 MISSION ST
006‐493‐27 CC MU‐M 1129 MISSION ST
002‐223‐37 CC MU‐M 2106 MISSION ST
002‐223‐32 CC MU‐M 2018 MISSION ST

EXHIBIT A

21.473
APN Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Site Address
002‐622‐19 CC MU‐M 1700 MISSION ST
003‐052‐09 RL MU‐M
003‐052‐10 RL MU‐M 840 ALMAR AVE METER
003‐052‐08 RL MU‐M 850 ALMAR AVE
003‐051‐33 IGP2/CC MU‐M 2111 MISSION ST
003‐051‐34 CC MU‐M 2113 MISSION ST
004‐431‐01 CC MU‐M 930 ALMAR AVE
006‐181‐90 CC MU‐M 1520 MISSION ST
004‐011‐38 CC MU‐M 1203 MISSION ST
004‐043‐30 R15 MU‐M 1242 BAY ST
011‐261‐13 CC MU‐H 1261 SOQUEL AVE
011‐012‐25 CC MU‐H 1250 SOQUEL AVE
011‐025‐09 CC MU‐H 728 DARWIN ST
011‐025‐01 CC MU‐H 147 S MORRISSEY AVE
009‐234‐61 CC MU‐H 908 N BRANCIFORTE AVE
009‐234‐26 CC MU‐H 911 WATER ST
009‐234‐27 CC MU‐H 905 WATER ST
009‐253‐10 CC MU‐H 1305 WATER ST
009‐253‐09 CC MU‐H 1315 WATER ST
010‐062‐16 CC MU‐H 730 SOQUEL AVE
010‐022‐25 CC MU‐H 715 SOQUEL AVE
010‐022‐37 CC MU‐H 728 N BRANCIFORTE AVE A
010‐022‐23 CC MU‐H 725 SOQUEL AVE
010‐561‐30 CC MU‐H 550 OCEAN VIEW AVE
010‐561‐04 CC MU‐H
010‐561‐01 CC MU‐H 566 OCEAN VIEW AVE
010‐561‐02 CC MU‐H 610 SOQUEL AVE
010‐561‐03 CC MU‐H 622 SOQUEL AVE
010‐062‐18 CC MU‐H 614 S BRANCIFORTE AVE
010‐062‐17 CC MU‐H 710 SOQUEL AVE
010‐062‐10 CC MU‐H 712 SOQUEL AVE
010‐062‐15 CC MU‐H 519 CALEDONIA ST
010‐062‐11 CC MU‐H 716 SOQUEL AVE
010‐062‐12 CC MU‐H 718 SOQUEL AVE
010‐012‐06 CC MU‐H 707 N BRANCIFORTE AVE
010‐072‐01 CC MU‐H 1002 SOQUEL AVE
010‐072‐75 CC MU‐H 1006 SOQUEL AVE
010‐072‐03 CC MU‐H 1016 SOQUEL AVE
010‐022‐15 CC MU‐H 927 SOQUEL AVE
010‐022‐14 CC MU‐H 1007 SOQUEL AVE
010‐022‐13 CC MU‐H 1001 SOQUEL AVE
010‐081‐10 CC MU‐H 1609 SEABRIGHT AVE
010‐081‐01 CC MU‐H 1100 SOQUEL AVE
010‐022‐12 CC MU‐H 117 DOYLE ST
010‐081‐02 CC MU‐H 1114 1/2 SOQUEL AVE
010‐022‐11 CC MU‐H 119 DOYLE ST

21.474
APN Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Site Address
010‐081‐03 CC MU‐H 1116 SOQUEL AVE
010‐081‐04 CC MU‐H 1120 SOQUEL AVE
010‐081‐30 CC MU‐H 1126 SOQUEL AVE
010‐041‐08 CC MU‐H 101 BENITO AVE
010‐081‐31 CC MU‐H 1130 SOQUEL AVE
010‐081‐07 CC MU‐H 1134 SOQUEL AVE
010‐041‐09 CC MU‐H 100 DOYLE ST
010‐081‐08 CC MU‐H 1142 SOQUEL AVE
010‐041‐10 CC MU‐H 118 DOYLE ST
010‐042‐18 CC MU‐H 1115 SOQUEL AVE
010‐081‐09 CC MU‐H 1148 SOQUEL AVE
010‐042‐19 CC MU‐H 1111 SOQUEL AVE
010‐042‐35 CC MU‐H 1127 1/2 A SOQUEL AVE
010‐042‐21 CC MU‐H 122 BENITO AVE
010‐042‐34 CC MU‐H
010‐042‐38 CC MU‐H 196 1/2 BENITO AVE
010‐042‐37 CC MU‐H 1119 SOQUEL AVE
010‐042‐36 CC MU‐H 1123 SOQUEL AVE
010‐042‐15 CC MU‐H 1129 SOQUEL AVE
010‐042‐14 CC MU‐H 1141 SOQUEL AVE
010‐042‐13 CC MU‐H 1709 SEABRIGHT AVE
010‐042‐12 CC MU‐H 1713 SEABRIGHT AVE A
010‐042‐11 CC MU‐H 1717 SEABRIGHT AVE 1
011‐291‐11 CC MU‐H 1226 SOQUEL AVE A
011‐012‐30 CC MU‐H 1236 SOQUEL AVE
011‐261‐15 CC MU‐H 1219 SOQUEL AVE
011‐261‐11 CC MU‐H 1126 WATER ST
011‐261‐08 CC MU‐H 1207 SOQUEL AVE
011‐261‐07 CC MU‐H 1716 SEABRIGHT AVE
011‐261‐12 CC MU‐H 1237 SOQUEL AVE
011‐025‐14 CC MU‐H 1302 SOQUEL AVE
009‐212‐31 CC MU‐H 825 WATER ST
009‐234‐60 CC MU‐H 919 WATER ST
009‐212‐30 CC MU‐H 833 WATER ST
009‐234‐62 CC MU‐H 914 N BRANCIFORTE AVE
009‐253‐25 CC MU‐H 117 MORRISSEY BLVD
010‐561‐06 RL MU‐H 603 S BRANCIFORTE AVE
010‐561‐05 RL MU‐H 607 S BRANCIFORTE AVE
010‐062‐05 RL MU‐H 604 S BRANCIFORTE AVE
010‐062‐06 RL MU‐H 608 S BRANCIFORTE AVE
010‐012‐20 CC MU‐H 607 SOQUEL AVE
010‐072‐76 CC MU‐H 1041 CAYUGA ST
010‐072‐77 CC MU‐H 1039 CAYUGA ST
011‐012‐36 CC MU‐H 1240 SOQUEL AVE
011‐012‐38 RM/CC MU‐H 1266 SOQUEL AVE
011‐024‐30 CC MU‐H 1404 SOQUEL AVE

21.475
APN Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Site Address
009‐234‐59 CC MU‐H 109 STANFORD AVE
009‐234‐25 CC MU‐H 915 WATER ST
010‐062‐07 CC MU‐H 612 S BRANCIFORTE AVE
010‐012‐09 CC MU‐H 603 SOQUEL AVE
010‐012‐07 CC MU‐H 613 SOQUEL AVE
010‐031‐70 CC MU‐H 841 N BRANCIFORTE AVE
010‐072‐78 CC MU‐H 1024 SOQUEL AVE
009‐212‐38 CC MU‐H 823 WATER ST
011‐012‐15 CC MU‐H 1616 SEABRIGHT AVE
005‐251‐09 CC MU‐OM 107 LEONARD ST
010‐165‐18 CN MU‐OM 236 OCEAN ST
010‐551‐24 CN MU‐OM 304 OCEAN ST
010‐551‐25 CN MU‐OM 308 OCEAN ST
010‐551‐23 RL MU‐OM 509 BARSON ST
007‐431‐01 CN MU‐OM 434 BARSON ST
007‐403‐21 CN MU‐OM 307 OCEAN ST
007‐403‐23 CN MU‐OM 427 BARSON ST
007‐403‐22 CN MU‐OM 425 BARSON ST
007‐403‐19 CN MU‐OM 311 OCEAN ST 10
005‐251‐10 CC MU‐OM 712 OCEAN ST
005‐271‐16 CC MU‐OM 630 OCEAN ST
005‐271‐17 CC MU‐OM 636 OCEAN ST
005‐271‐18 CC MU‐OM 640 OCEAN ST
005‐271‐19 CC MU‐OM 644 OCEAN ST
008‐331‐15 CC MU‐OM 419 MAY AVE
008‐331‐14 CC MU‐OM 421 MAY AVE
008‐331‐13 CC MU‐OM 423 MAY AVE
008‐331‐12 CC MU‐OM 429 MAY AVE
008‐331‐35 CC MU‐OM 431 MAY AVE
008‐331‐08 CC MU‐OM 433 1/2 MAY AVE
008‐331‐07 CC MU‐OM 449 MAY AVE
008‐331‐06 CC MU‐OM 451 MAY AVE A
008‐331‐05 CC MU‐OM 457 MAY AVE
008‐331‐37 CC MU‐OM 116 HUBBARD ST CMN‐36
008‐331‐02 CC MU‐OM 122 HUBBARD ST
008‐331‐03 CC MU‐OM 126 HUBBARD ST
008‐331‐04 CC MU‐OM 130 HUBBARD ST
008‐253‐18 CC MU‐OM 1104 OCEAN ST A
008‐253‐17 CC MU‐OM 1108 OCEAN ST
008‐253‐19 CC MU‐OM 1112 OCEAN ST
008‐253‐20 CC MU‐OM 1118 OCEAN ST
008‐253‐01 CC MU‐OM 114 WASHBURN AVE
008‐541‐04 CC MU‐OM 112 KENNAN ST
008‐541‐02 CC MU‐OM 1203 OCEAN ST
008‐541‐01 CC MU‐OM 1213 OCEAN ST 1
008‐251‐21 CC MU‐OM 1210 OCEAN ST

21.476
APN Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Site Address
008‐541‐03 CC MU‐OM 115 HUNOLT ST
005‐271‐22 CC MU‐OM 612 OCEAN ST
005‐271‐21 CC MU‐OM 624 OCEAN ST
005‐271‐15 CC MU‐OM 628 OCEAN ST
008‐691‐02 CC MU‐OM 1111 OCEAN ST 101
008‐302‐19 CC MU‐OM 1107 OCEAN ST
007‐403‐20 CN MU‐OM 305 OCEAN ST
008‐691‐01 CC MU‐OM 1111 OCEAN ST PKLOT
008‐701‐01 CC MU‐OM 1111 OCEAN ST 201
008‐701‐03 CC MU‐OM 1111 OCEAN ST 203
008‐701‐04 CC MU‐OM 1111 OCEAN ST 204
008‐701‐05 CC MU‐OM 1111 OCEAN ST 205
008‐711‐01 CC MU‐OM 1111 OCEAN ST 301
008‐711‐02 CC MU‐OM 1111 OCEAN ST 302
008‐711‐03 CC MU‐OM 1111 OCEAN ST 303
008‐711‐04 CC MU‐OM 1111 OCEAN ST 304
008‐701‐02 CC MU‐OM 1111 OCEAN ST 202
010‐051‐49 RL/CC MU‐OH 414 OCEAN ST
007‐403‐05 CC MU‐OH 367 OCEAN ST
007‐403‐07 RM MU‐OH 359 OCEAN ST
007‐403‐06 RM MU‐OH 363 OCEAN ST A
007‐403‐04 CC MU‐OH 418 BROADWAY
005‐941‐07 CC MU‐OH 405 OCEAN ST
005‐941‐01 CC MU‐OH 411 BROADWAY COMMON
005‐941‐06 CC MU‐OH 417 BROADWAY
005‐941‐08 CC MU‐OH 409 OCEAN ST
005‐941‐09 CC MU‐OH 415 OCEAN ST
005‐941‐10 CC MU‐OH 421 OCEAN ST
005‐941‐11 CC MU‐OH
008‐322‐17 CC MU‐OH 100 COLOMA ST
008‐322‐39 CC MU‐OH 909 OCEAN ST
008‐331‐45 CC MU‐OH 902 OCEAN ST
008‐322‐40 CC MU‐OH
008‐331‐25 CC MU‐OH 908 OCEAN ST
008‐331‐26 CC MU‐OH 908 OCEAN ST FRNT
008‐331‐27 CC MU‐OH 916 OCEAN ST
008‐331‐28 CC MU‐OH 920 OCEAN ST
008‐331‐29 CC MU‐OH 928 OCEAN ST
008‐331‐30 CC MU‐OH 1004 OCEAN ST
008‐331‐31 CC MU‐OH 1008 1/2 OCEAN ST
008‐331‐32 CC MU‐OH 1010 OCEAN ST
008‐331‐41 CC MU‐OH 1014 OCEAN ST
008‐331‐40 CC MU‐OH 110 HUBBARD ST
010‐051‐53 RL MU‐OH 523 BROADWAY A
010‐051‐54 RL MU‐OH 527 BROADWAY
010‐391‐10 RL MU‐OH 533 BROADWAY CMN

21.477
APN Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Site Address
010‐551‐10 RM/RL MU‐OH 330 OCEAN ST
010‐551‐08 RM MU‐OH 344 OCEAN ST
010‐551‐07 RM MU‐OH 342 OCEAN ST
010‐551‐05 RM MU‐OH 356 OCEAN ST A
010‐551‐06 RM MU‐OH 350 OCEAN ST
010‐551‐04 RM MU‐OH 358 OCEAN ST
010‐551‐01 CC MU‐OH 370 OCEAN ST
010‐551‐02 RL MU‐OH 514 BROADWAY
010‐551‐03 RL MU‐OH 518 BROADWAY Cmn
010‐051‐31 CC MU‐OH 404 OCEAN ST A
010‐102‐01 RL MU‐OH 526 BROADWAY
010‐051‐32 CC MU‐OH 410 OCEAN ST
010‐051‐37 CC MU‐OH 509 BROADWAY
010‐051‐38 CC MU‐OH 515 BROADWAY
010‐051‐43 RL MU‐OH 519 1/2 BROADWAY
008‐303‐16 CC MU‐OH 1001 OCEAN ST
008‐303‐01 RM/CC MU‐OH 1015 OCEAN ST
008‐322‐43 CC MU‐OH 919 OCEAN ST
008‐302‐20 RM MU‐OH 1101 OCEAN ST
010‐391‐09 RL MU‐OH 533 BROADWAY 9
010‐391‐08 RL MU‐OH 533 BROADWAY 8
010‐391‐07 RL MU‐OH 533 BROADWAY 7
010‐391‐06 RL MU‐OH 533 BROADWAY 6
010‐391‐05 RL MU‐OH 533 BROADWAY 5
010‐391‐04 RL MU‐OH 533 BROADWAY 4
010‐391‐03 RL MU‐OH 533 BROADWAY 3
010‐391‐02 RL MU‐OH 533 BROADWAY 2
010‐391‐01 RL MU‐OH 533 BROADWAY 1
005‐941‐04 CC MU‐OH 411 BROADWAY C
005‐941‐05 CC MU‐OH 411 BROADWAY D
005‐941‐03 CC MU‐OH 411 BROADWAY B
005‐941‐02 CC MU‐OH 411 BROADWAY A
005‐251‐08 RL MU‐VH 111 LEONARD ST
005‐251‐07 RL MU‐VH 113 LEONARD ST
005‐251‐06 RL MU‐VH 119 LEONARD ST
005‐251‐11 CC MU‐VH 716 OCEAN ST
005‐251‐18 CC MU‐VH
005‐251‐04 CC MU‐VH 323 MAY AVE
005‐251‐16 CC MU‐VH 420 WATER ST
005‐302‐27 CC MU‐VH 330 SOQUEL AVE
005‐302‐28 CC MU‐VH 340 SOQUEL AVE
005‐941‐16 CC MU‐VH 354 SOQUEL AVE CMN
008‐323‐12 CC MU‐VH 303 WATER ST
010‐051‐46 CC MU‐VH 434 OCEAN ST
010‐051‐02 CC MU‐VH 414 1/2 SOQUEL AVE
010‐051‐03 CC MU‐VH 416 SOQUEL AVE CMN‐02

21.478
APN Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Site Address
010‐051‐04 CC MU‐VH 422 SOQUEL AVE A
010‐051‐05 RL/CC MU‐VH 500 SOQUEL AVE
010‐051‐06 RL/CC MU‐VH 506 SOQUEL AVE
010‐051‐07 RL/CC MU‐VH 510 SOQUEL AVE
010‐012‐13 CC MU‐VH 501 SOQUEL AVE
010‐012‐29 CC MU‐VH 513 SOQUEL AVE
005‐251‐19 CC MU‐VH 730 OCEAN ST
005‐283‐10 CC MU‐VH 107 DAKOTA AVE 2
005‐941‐12 CC MU‐VH 433 OCEAN ST
010‐011‐33 CC MU‐VH 500 OCEAN ST
005‐541‐05 CC MU‐VH 111 DAKOTA AVE CMN
008‐323‐27 CC MU‐VH 815 OCEAN ST
008‐331‐48 CC MU‐VH 806 OCEAN ST
005‐541‐04 CC MU‐VH 111 DAKOTA AVE 4
005‐541‐03 CC MU‐VH 111 DAKOTA AVE 3
005‐541‐02 CC MU‐VH 111 DAKOTA AVE 2
005‐541‐01 CC MU‐VH 111 DAKOTA AVE 1
005‐941‐13 CC MU‐VH 348 SOQUEL AVE
005‐941‐14 CC MU‐VH 350 SOQUEL AVE
005‐941‐15 CC MU‐VH 352 SOQUEL AVE
005‐891‐03 CC MU‐VA 615 OCEAN ST
005‐261‐34 CC MU‐VA
005‐261‐32 CC MU‐VA 745 OCEAN ST
005‐281‐32 RM MU‐VA 134 DAKOTA AVE
005‐891‐02 CC MU‐VA 611 OCEAN ST
005‐261‐33 CC MU‐VA 318 WATER ST
005‐781‐66 RM MU‐VA
005‐781‐23 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 18
005‐781‐22 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 17
005‐781‐21 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 16
005‐781‐20 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 15
005‐781‐19 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 14
005‐781‐18 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 13
005‐781‐17 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 12
005‐781‐16 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 11
005‐781‐01 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE A
005‐781‐02 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE B
005‐781‐03 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE C
005‐781‐04 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE D
005‐781‐05 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE E
005‐781‐06 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE F
005‐781‐07 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE G
005‐781‐08 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE H
005‐781‐09 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE J
005‐781‐10 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE K
005‐781‐11 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE L

21.479
APN Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Site Address
005‐781‐12 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE M
005‐781‐13 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE P
005‐781‐14 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE R
005‐781‐15 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE
005‐791‐05 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 28
005‐791‐04 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 27
005‐791‐06 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 26
005‐791‐03 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 25
005‐791‐07 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 24
005‐791‐02 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 23
005‐791‐08 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 22
005‐791‐01 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 21
005‐801‐05 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 38
005‐801‐04 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 37
005‐801‐06 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 36
005‐801‐03 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 35
005‐801‐07 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 34
005‐801‐02 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 33
005‐801‐08 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 32
005‐801‐01 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 31
005‐811‐04 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 47
005‐811‐02 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 43
005‐811‐05 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 48
005‐811‐06 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 46
005‐811‐07 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 44
005‐811‐08 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 42
005‐811‐01 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 41
005‐811‐03 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 45
005‐821‐02 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 53
005‐821‐03 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 55
005‐821‐04 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 57
005‐821‐05 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 58
005‐821‐06 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 56
005‐821‐07 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 54
005‐821‐08 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 52
005‐821‐01 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 51
005‐831‐02 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 63
005‐831‐03 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 65
005‐831‐04 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 67
005‐831‐05 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 68
005‐831‐06 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 66
005‐831‐07 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 64
005‐831‐08 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 62
005‐831‐01 RM MU‐VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 61

21.480
KING
LAUREL

ESCALONA
FAIR
ALMAR

MIRAMAR
SWIFT
OLIVE

CALIFORNIA

LAURENT

DU FOUR
MYRTLE

GHARKEY
PALM
WALK

DELAWARE

SEASIDE

VAN NESS
BAY

TRESCONY
RANKIN
DUFOUR

ALTA VISTA

COLUMBIA

ANTHONY

NATIONAL
JETER

BALDWIN
SETON

BELLEVUE
FELIX

YOUNGLOVE

LIBERTY
ANITA
ALLEY
BAYONA

SANTA CRUZ

KENNETH

CHESTNUT
OTIS
RIGG

SURFSIDE

BERKSHIRE

INGALLS
MASON

MISSION
WILKES

CONTINENTAL
LADERA
HIGH
NOBEL
NAGLEE
LENNOX
WEEKS
ACADIA

BLACKBURN
HEBARD
WALTI
WEST

PALMETTA

MIRA VISTA
LAGUNA
MAPLE
JENNE

AVERITT
TOLEDO
SCENIC
STATE

MCPHERSON
STATE HWY 1

ANDERSON
TAYLOR

GRANDVIEW
NEARY

REDWOOD

WOODROW
SADI
MESA
LOW RD
GLOVER

CRESTVIEW

PANETTA
SERRA
ERRETT
GRAHAM
CRESPI
HOPE

PENDEGAST

UNNAMED

MONTEREY

COLORADO

DRIVEWAY

EVERSON

LOS ALTOS

TREE FROG

LAURENT

DRIVEWAY

UNNAMED

CALIFORNIA

DRIVEWAY
ALLEY

DRIVEWAY
OLIVE

VAN NESS

DRIVEWAY

MONTEREY
ALLEY
ALLEY
PALM

DRIVEWAY

SEASIDE
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY

INGALLS
RIGG
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY

UNNAMED

DRIVEWAY
ALLEY
ALLEY
WALK

INGALLS

DRIVEWAY
ALLEY
ALLEY

MISSION

DRIVEWAY
ALLEY
Parcels designated for Mixed Use Medium Density (MU-M)
MU-M City of Santa Cruz June 2022

EXHIBIT B

21.481
WATER
SOQUEL
OCEAN

BRANCIFORTE

MORRISSEY
SOQUEL
Branciforte Creek
SOQUEL
WATER

BROADWAY
MAY
PINE

WINDSOR

MELROSE

BRANCIFORTE

HANOVER
GAULT

FREDERICK
CAYUGA
OCEAN
EFFEY
POPLAR
SUMNER

MORRISSEY

PACHECO
DAKOTA

SAN JUAN
REED
DOYLE

HAMMOND

STANFORD

BERKELEY
ALLEY
MARKET

PENNSYLVANIA
BENITO

CALEDONIA
DAKE

HARRISON

OCEAN VIEW
DARWIN
CURTIS

CATALPA

LEONARD

BELVEDERE

UNNAMED

DRIVEWAY
HUGUS
LINDEN

MAGNOLIA

SEABRIGHT
MINNIE

WASHBURN
JOSEFA
DAHLIA

SUNNYSIDE

GLENWOOD

HUBBARD

RATHBURN

EMELINE

MONTESAND
MAY

SEABRIGHT

DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY
SUMNER

UNNAMED
ALLEY

DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY
MARKET

DRIVEWAY
ALLEY
ALLEY

DRIVEWAY
EFFEY

CALEDONIA

DRIVEWAY
DARWIN

HANOVER

DRIVEWAY
Parcels designated for Mixed Use High Density (MU-H)
MU-H City of Santa Cruz June 2022

21.482
WATER
OCEAN
SOQUEL
OCEAN

BRANCIFORTE

MORRISSEY
SOQUEL
Branciforte Creek
SOQUEL
WATER
OCEAN
3RD
PINE
MAY

PACIFIC
FRONT
CAYUGA
RIVER
CENTER

BROADWAY
CEDAR
CLIFF

WINDSOR

WINDHAM FREDERICK
MURRAY

BRANCIFORTE
DARWIN

MELROSE

CHESTNUT

HANOVER
ELM
GAULT
DAKOTA
SUMNER
BARSON

CLINTON
EFFEY

OCEAN VIEW
LOGAN

LINCOLN
WALNUT
HALL

WASHINGTON
LOCUST
CHURCH
MYRTLE
CLAY
MAPLE

DRIVEWAY
PEARL
HARBOR
OWEN
LAUREL

BUENA VISTA

MISSION
POPLAR
BIXBY
ALLEY
BLAINE
MORA
SPRUCE
REED
DOYLE
UNION

SEA VIEW
PARK

BERKELEY
WOODS
HIGH
4TH

MARNELL

PACHECO

WASHBURN
MOON

SAN JUAN

HUBBARD
JENNE
JAMES
PLUM
WAVE
MARKET

PENNSYLVANIA
BENITO

CALEDONIA
DAKE

STANFORD
IDAHO
AMAT
NEW
JESSIE

LEIBRANDT

RIVERSIDE
PECK

UNNAMED
HUNOLT
2ND

CATHCART

LEONARD

CANFIELD
KAYE
MOTT
GREEN
KENNAN
BIRCH

MOUNTAIN VIEW
1ST

RIVER STREET SOUTH

HERITAGE

CATALPA

MARINE PARADE

TRINITY

CAMPBELL

BELVEDERE
PLAZA
EMET
DOANE
HUGUS

RAYMOND

JOSEPHINE

GLENVIEW
COLOMA

SEABRIGHT
MINNIE

SAN LORENZO
ANNIE

HARRISON
JOSEFA

BULKHEAD
WATSON

FAIRVIEW

ROOSEVELT

SYCAMORE

EVERSON

COMMERCE
KNIGHT

MCCORNICK

PLEASANT

MADRONE
JACOBS
ADOBE

FAIRBANKS

FRAZIER LEWIS

SOUTHAMPTON

MONTESAND
LAUREL

DRIVEWAY
ALLEY

DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY
EFFEY

DRIVEWAY
MARKET

PENNSYLVANIA

DRIVEWAY
ALLEY

DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY
ALLEY

RIVERSIDE
ALLEY
ALLEY

DRIVEWAY

CALEDONIA
ALLEY

DARWIN ALLEY

CHESTNUT
ALLEY

DRIVEWAY
JESSIE
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY

DRIVEWAY
OCEAN

DRIVEWAY
ALLEY

DRIVEWAY
3RD
MAY

DRIVEWAY
ALLEY

DRIVEWAY
Parcels designated for Mixed Use in the Ocean Street Corridor San Lorenzo River
Mixed Use Ocean Medium Density (MU-OM)
Mixed Use Ocean High Density (MU-OH)
Mixed Use Visitor High Density (MU-VH)
Mixed Use Visitor Additional Height (MU-VA)
City of Santa Cruz June 2022

21.483
RESOLUTION NO. NSA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ADOPTING A

FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE STREET TREE REPLACEMENT IN-LIEU FEE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 13.30.100 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13.30.100 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, a tree permit shall be obtained from the Director of Parks and Recreation by any person proposing to root prune, transplant, or remove any tree within the public right-of-way (hereinafter referred to as a “street tree”); and
WHEREAS, the Director of Parks and Recreation may condition any permit for removal of a street tree, granted pursuant to Section 13.30.100 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, so as to require the permittee to replace the street tree; and
WHEREAS, establishment of an in-lieu fee provides an additional mitigation alternative for circumstances where replacement of a removed street tree pursuant to Section 13.30.100 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is not feasible; and
WHEREAS, in the adoption of certain amendments to Chapter 13.30 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, the City Council plans to add an in-lieu fee for replacement of a removed street tree pursuant to Section 13.30.100 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed Fee Schedule, attached as Exhibit A hereto, has been prepared by City staff after approximating the objectively reasonable costs associated with the replacement of a removed street tree, including the purchasing, installing, watering for two years, and initial structural pruning of a replacement tree; and WHEREAS, the creation of a funding mechanism is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, as required by California Government Code Section 66018, notice of the public hearing on the proposed fee was published in the manner set forth in California Government Code Section 6062a; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz on ___________, 2022 at a regularly scheduled meeting, providing an opportunity for interested members of the public to make oral and/ or written presentations to the City Council regarding the proposed Fee Schedule; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the foregoing recitations are true and correct, and are included herein by reference as findings.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds and declares that:

21.484
(1) The proposed street tree replacement in-lieu fees in the Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit A, are designed to fund mitigation of impacts from the removal of any street trees in order to preserve the City’s existing tree canopy. (2) The street tree replacement in-lieu fees are intended to cover the full costs for the City to replace a removed street tree, which shall include the purchase, installation, watering for two years and initial structural pruning of a replacement tree. (3) The street tree replacement in-lieu fees are structured such that larger trees that are removed, as measured by diameter inches at standard height, incur a larger in-lieu fee.

The City Council finds that larger trees provide a greater benefit to the City compared to smaller trees.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the in-lieu fees for replacement of removed street trees as provided in Exhibit A, attached hereto.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, these fees may be incorporated and added to the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Director of Parks and Recreation is hereby authorized to administer and take all action relating to the collection and processing of the fees on behalf of the City regarding this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the adoption of this Resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act because it is the creation of a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of August, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

21.485
RESOLUTION NO. NS-30,

EXHIBIT A

FEE SCHEDULE

PARKS AND RECREATION STREET TREE REPLACEMENT IN-LIEU FEES PURSUANT TO SECTION 13.30.100 OF THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE
a. In-lieu fee for replacement of a street tree less than or equal to 7 inches in diameter:
$1,510 per tree
b. In-lieu fee for replacement of a street tree greater than 7 inches in diameter: $1,705 per tree
c. Annual Increases. The in-lieu fee may be upwardly increased to the next whole dollar on January 1 of each year in accordance with the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Area (All Items) Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

21.486
Memorandum
DATE November 23, 2020
TO
Sarah Neuse
831-420-5092
[email protected]
FROM
Meredith Rupp, Project Manager
Lynette Dias, Principal
Lisa Abboud, InterEthnica
RE: City of Santa Cruz Objective Development Standards – Community Outreach Strategy
This memorandum presents a community engagement strategy for the Objective Development Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Housing (Objective Standards). The engagement strategy was collaboratively prepared by Urban Planning Partners and InterEthnica and both firms will implement the strategy in partnership with the City of Santa Cruz.

This memorandum starts with a discussion of our community engagement approach and goals, followed by a discussion on how the project team will track community participation across key demographics in line with our equity goals. The memorandum includes a matrix of outreach activities and ends with a recommended schedule.

ENGAGEMENT APPROACH
In its Request for Proposals, the City stated that the engagement process for this project should prioritize equity. We share this value and have designed an engagement strategy that seeks to hear from voices who do not traditionally engage in planning projects and builds relationships with underrepresented populations. Through discussions with City staff and an examination of demographic data (see Attachment A for Santa Cruz demographics), we have identified the following groups for tailored engagement efforts during this project:
▪ Latinos who live and/or work in Santa Cruz
▪ Low- and moderate-income households
▪ University students
Consistent with the City’s desire to prioritize equity and inclusion, we propose activities that will meet people where they are (e.g., gathering places, food banks, their own homes). We will partner with community organizations to build trust and relationships with Santa Cruz’s Latinx community and lower-income households who face greater barriers to entry. We will use stipends to show

21.487
Sarah Neuse
November 23, 2020

Page 2 ends

participants that we value their time and respect their input. Finally, we will not just translate or interpret events that are designed for English speakers; we will design and conduct culturally appropriate events specifically in Spanish. Our proposed activities are discussed further at the end of this memo and found in Attachment B.

We are not planning large community meetings as this meeting format is typically not appealing to much of a community’s population. It can be challenging to engage in a productive and safe dialogue with a representative cross section of the community and difficult to hear from those with divergent viewpoints. Large community meetings also are intimidating to some and often only provide a platform for those with the loudest voices that tend to overpower a meeting. Similarly, we have not enlisted an advisory committee that inherently amplifies a few key voices (and those who serve on the committees are often people who have the time and resources for such a task).

An advisory committee does not reach a lot of voices and official meetings under the Brown Act can make things feel formal and not organic. We have had more success with tailored efforts.

ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES
Research on housing inequities, as well as the events of 2020, have reemphasized the urgent need to center racial and economic justice in our work as urban planners. In addition, past planning processes relative to housing in Santa Cruz, including the Corridors Plan, indicate how necessary it is to (1) engage with members of the community who have not typically been involved in planning processes in the past and (2) ensure the community feels ownership over the Objective Standards.

If the engagement process is successful, we will achieve the following outcomes:

1. The discussion on housing in Santa Cruz is reframed to connect State housing legislation and the project to the racial justice movement and to non-aesthetic elements of what makes Santa Cruz Santa Cruz.

How to measure success: participants who attend the housing and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion event participate in other project outreach events and bring systemic racism; Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; and non-aesthetic elements of housing into the discussion.

2. Community engagement activities reached and included the voices of underrepresented populations, including:
▪ People who have not previously participated in planning processes ▪ People who are likely to occupy multi-family residential housing ▪ The Latinx community
▪ College/university students
▪ Low- and moderate-income households
How to measure success: demographic tracking to see who is participating compared to the population as a whole and who has participated in past efforts.

21.488
Sarah Neuse
November 23, 2020

Page 3 ends

3. The community understands what an objective standard is and why they are important How to measure success: creating a quiz or asking participants to complete a sentence (e.g., objective development standards are important for Santa Cruz to adopt because _______) in conjunction with one of our outreach activities. This would be most compatible with the survey in Phase II.

4. The community sees their input in the final Objective Standards How to measure success: a proxy for this will be seeing community support for the objective standards, not just at the adoption hearing but at other outreach events.

ENGAGEMENT PHASES
As outlined in our scope of work, we envision community engagement occurring in three phases.

PHASE I - INFORM, LISTEN, AND UNDERSTAND
Messaging for the educational component will focus on what objective standards are, including what they can and cannot include and examples of objective standards from other communities; why objective standards are needed; what density looks like; the project goals; the intent and implications of State law; and what to anticipate throughout the planning process. The education component will build off the Santa Cruz Voices on Housing and HBS outreach.

PHASE II- DEFINE AND MEASURE COMMUNITY CHARACTER
Input from the community will be used to identify key elements that contribute to Santa Cruz’s neighborhood character, removing the subjective meaning of the phrase and building community ownership over the objective standards. The community will also gain the vocabulary they need to provide impactful feedback in the next phase of the project.

PHASE III - SHAPE AND REFINE OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS We will solicit input on design preferences and implementation questions through interactive tools and facilitated discussions. The community will be able to see how their feedback has been incorporated in the product(s).

ONGOING
In addition to the three phases, a dedicated project website hosted by the City will be used throughout the project’s entirety. The website will be updated with summaries of outreach activity results on a rolling basis, as well as the demographic trackers showing the makeup of Santa Cruz and the makeup of our outreach participants in terms of age, race, ethnicity, household size, and household income. The website will also include information on the project schedule and upcoming outreach opportunities.

21.489
Sarah Neuse
November 23, 2020

Page 4 ends

EQUITY AND PARTICIPATION TRACKING
When planning an engagement process, it is crucial to understand the target audience and identify any potential barriers and motivators to ensure wide participation from diverse stakeholders. It is important to ask challenging questions including:
• Why will this target audience want to engage with us? • What are their interests, motivations, and needs?
• How can we create interactive, engaging ways to work with this target audience? • What are the barriers to participation?
Taking into consideration these factors, we tailor each engagement activity to have maximum reach and impact on the identified target audience. The most effective outreach and engagement is implemented by people and organizations that are trusted by a target community. InterEthnica leverages our deep relationships with community-based organizations (CBOs) and their communities to identify opportunities for partnerships and recruit a diverse range of participants.

For each engagement activity, we specifically target and meticulously track engagement. When developing and leveraging our partnerships with CBOs, faith-based organizations (FBOs), schools, and community leaders, we map out the communities they serve to identify our projected reach and determine any potential gaps. At each opportunity for input, we provide a variety of methods for collecting key demographic data, including pre- or post-engagement surveys/comment cards and registration forms, particularly for virtual public information sessions. Demographic questions for this project will include race/ethnicity, household income and household size, and age range.

For more targeted engagement activities such as stakeholder meetings and small group discussions with a specified target audience, we engage in a thorough recruitment process that includes an online questionnaire and/or phone or in-person interviews of potential participants. We build time into our timeline to discuss in detail participant choices based on the what we learn during our recruitment and placement interviews to create a group of people who meet the predetermined requisites of the target audience, are good communicators, have good synergy with one another, and we feel will provide us with honest feedback.

We utilize all data collected to track engagement and determine if participation goals have been met.

ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES MATRIX
The matrix in Attachment A outlines our recommended engagement options for each phase of the project. Items shaded in grey are activities that the consultant team recommends and that fall within our budget, but we have presented additional options for consideration. Should City staff

21.490
Sarah Neuse
November 23, 2020

Page 5 ends

and/or the Planning Commission prefer activities be traded out, so rescoping may be necessary to remain within the budget.

The total consultant labor budget for this task is $40,130.

RECOMMENDED SCHEDULE
Engagement activities would occur throughout the project at to inform and shape project milestones. Assuming we take on the recommended activities in Attachment B, the bullets below highlight our anticipated schedule.
▪ December 2020. Planning Commission session to receive feedback on this outreach strategy. ▪ January 2021. Website is up with English and Spanish versions of the Housing 101 Guide.

Completed matrix of community partners we will engage with throughout the project and how their members prefer to be engaged.
▪ February/March 2021. Housing information sessions for general public and target groups take place. Events could be promoted as part of Black History Month. ▪ April 2021. Facilitated discussions on community character and exploring community preferences.
▪ Spring 2021. Community input and technical analyses are evaluated. Objective standards begin to be drafted.
▪ Summer 2021. Feedback on draft visualizations is collected from the public, target groups, and development professionals.
▪ August 2021. Draft visualizations are presented to Planning Commission for feedback. ▪ Fall 2021. Objective development standards are finalized and codified. Standards are considered for adoption at Planning Commission and City Council hearings.

Attachments
▪ Attachment A: Santa Cruz Demographics
▪ Attachment B: Outreach Activities Matrix

21.491
A T T A C H M E N T A : S A N T A C R U Z D E M O G R A P H I C S 1-person
household
32%
2-person
household
34%
3-person
household
15%
4-or-moreperson
household
19%
Household Size in Santa Cruz (ACS 5-year, 2018)
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Less than
$10,000
$10,000
to
$14,999
$15,000
to
$24,999
$25,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
to
$99,999
$100,000
to
$149,999
$150,000
to
$199,999
$200,000
or more
Household Income in Santa Cruz (ACS 5-year, 2018)

21.492
A T T A C H M E N T A : S A N T A C R U Z D E M O G R A P H I C S 0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Under
5 years
5 to 9
years
10 to
14 years
15 to
19 years
20 to
24 years
25 to
34 years
35 to
44 years
45 to
54 years
55 to
59 years
60 to
64 years
65 to
74 years
75 to
84 years
85 years
and
over
Age in Santa Cruz (ACS 5-year, 2018)
Non-Hispanic
White
62%
Hispanic or
Latino
21%
Non-Hispanic
Black or African
American
2%
Non-Hispanic
Asian
10%
Other
5%
Race and Ethnicity in Santa Cruz (ACS 5-year, 2018)

21.493
A T T A C H M E N T B : O U T R E A C H A C T I V I T I E S M A T R I X TABLE 1 ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Phase Activity Description Audience Objective(s) Categorya Notes Est. Consultant
Budget
Ongoing 1
Project website and
data analysis
Webpage hosted on City’s
website with project updates,
schedule, and outreach
materials, including meeting
summaries and data analysis.

General public
• Inform community on project status
• Provide repository for documents and
data
• Fulfill obligations relative to City’s
Outreach Policy
Asynchronous/Digital
Ongoing throughout
project.

Translation would not be
provided except for the
Housing 101 Guide due to
budget constraints.
$3,540
b
Inform, Listen and
Understand
1 Housing 101 guide
Handout defining key terms
and acronyms (e.g. STR,
affordable housing). Can be
used throughout process but
should be completed during
first phase.

General public
• Supply community with the
knowledge and vocabulary needed to
provide meaningful input
• Reduce barriers to participation
Asynchronous/Digital Will be translated into
Spanish.
$2,275
(+ Direct costs for
translated
materials)
c
2 Support services and
community group
interviews
Interview service providers
and community
organizations (e.g.,
Community Bridges,
Salvation Army Santa Cruz,
Santa Cruz Catholic
Charities) to inform outreach
efforts.

Latinx
community, lowincome
households
• Understand gathering places (digital/
physical) and best practices for
engaging local Latinx community and
low-income residents
• Build relationship with key
gatekeepers and community leaders
• Lay foundation to achieve equity
goals
Live/ Digital
Ongoing throughout this
phase. Information will be
used to inform future
activities.
$500
(assume 3
interviews)
3 Housing and
Diversity, Equity and
Inclusion general
information session
Facilitated and interactive
seminar utilizing Mural,
Zoom, or Remo. The session
will provide an overview of
the history of housing
discrimination and current
legislation and will utilize
breakout groups to discuss
how the project relates to the
past and the present.

General public,
esp. people who
don’t typically
engage with
planning
processes, people
who work in Santa
Cruz but don’t
live there, and/or
those who oppose
multi-family
housing
• Inform community on why the project
is needed relative to State legislation
(e.g., RHNA, SB330)
• Link the project goals to history of
housing discrimination and to the
larger national narrative of how to
dismantle systemic racism
• Reframe the discussion on housing
and activate and challenge members
of the community in new ways
Live/ Digital (with
recording)
Will partner with Santa
Cruz NAACP, UC Santa
Cruz Sociology
Department, Santa Cruz
Latino Affairs
Commission, Senderos,
Star of the Sea Church,
and/or other
organizations to plan and
deliver the social justice
content.
$7,940
4 Focused information
session – Latinx
community
Facilitated and interactive
seminar utilizing Mural,
Zoom, or Remo. The session
will provide an overview of
the history of housing
discrimination and current
legislation and will utilize
breakout groups to discuss
how the project relates to the
past and the present.

Latinx community
• Attract new voices in the discussion
on housing by created a safe space
for Latinx community
• Build relationships with Latinx
community
• Inform community on why the project
is needed relative to State legislation
(e.g., RHNA, SB330)
• Ensure Latinx community knows why
their input is important for this
project so that they continue to
participate in the project and other
housing projects
• Reframe the discussion on housing
Achieve equity goals
Live/Digital (with
recording)
Attendees would receive a
$75 stipend.

Event would be backinterpreted into English
for the client.
$8,860
(+ Direct costs for
translated
materials)
c
5 PC hearing
Planning Commission study
session on deliverables to
date (2 test fits, economic
feasibility analysis,
community outreach
strategy)
Planning
Commission and
general public
• Present test fit findings
• Inform approach to zoning/GP
inconsistency
• Gather feedback on development
feasibility findings and outreach
strategy
Live/Digital Scheduled for Dec. 3 Covered in Task 1
budget

21.494
A T T A C H M E N T B : O U T R E A C H A C T I V I T I E S M A T R I X TABLE 1 ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Phase Activity Description Audience Objective(s) Categorya Notes Est. Consultant
Budget
Define Community
Character
1 Online survey with
learning components
embedded
Online survey with basic
questions asking about
tradeoffs (e.g., convenient
parking everywhere versus
greater affordability of
housing, private open space
to serve future residents or
retail to serve the
community). Questions will
be high level and include
visuals wherever possible.

Visuals throughout the
survey and prompts before
questions will be used to
give the participant
information on terminology
and tradeoffs for them to
make more information
decisions. At the end of the
survey, there will be optional
questions for those
interested in a deeper dive
into more detailed design
preferences.

General public,
community
organizations,
target
demographic
groups including
Latinx community
• Gather high-level feedback on which
development standards or tradeoffs
are deal breakers versus which have
greater community support
• Gather detailed feedback on what
specific characteristics of buildings
people are interested in
• Reframe the housing discussion to
include non-aesthetic aspects to
consider, including building cost (and
therefore rents) and the project’s
social and political context
Asynchronous/
Digital with paper
copies also available
if requested
Survey length will target 8
minutes or less. Will be
translated into Spanish
and distributed with list of
Latinx contacts formed
through previous
outreach.

Participants will be
entered into a raffle to win
a $100 gift card to a local
business of their choice.
$7,770
(+Direct costs for
translation)
c
2 Interviews and/or
facilitated meetings
Assessment of demographic
tracker will be used to see
what voices are missing and
will recruit participants for
interviews and/or small
groups discussions
accordingly. Participants will
be shown visualizations of
different standards to react
to.

Target groups:
low- and
moderate-income
households,
university
students
• Engage in deep conversations with
harder to reach groups
• Gather feedback on what specific
characteristics of buildings people
are interested in
• Gather feedback on how the
standards should be implemented
(e.g., dependent upon different
corridor types or neighborhoods)
• Achieve equity goals
Live/Digital
Will utilize a forum as
identified by interviews in
first phase to target key
groups who do not
typically engage in the
planning process.

Recruitment would
leverage help from
community organizations.

With permission, video
testimonials or quotes
could be presented on the
website and in future
deliverables.
$1,380
(assumes three
group meetings or
interviews, Englishonly due to budget
constraints)

21.495
A T T A C H M E N T B : O U T R E A C H A C T I V I T I E S M A T R I X TABLE 1 ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Phase Activity Description Audience Objective(s) Categorya Notes Est. Consultant
Budget
Shape and Refine
Objective
Standards
1 Interactive website
voting with launch
event
Post draft visualizations of
development standards on
an interactive website.

Participants will be able to
vote on preferences and
comment on aspects of the
visualizations.

Live, remote event would be
held to walk the community
through the draft
visualizations and answer the
community’s questions.

General public
and target groups
• Gain feedback to refine development
standards
• Generate excitement around the draft
visualizations and objective
standards
• Ensure community feels ownership
over final product
Live/ Digital (with
recording) for launch
event
Asynchronous/Digital
for website
Would call upon
community organizations
to help us spread the word
and we will perform
focused marketing (e.g.,
phone calls, attendance at
group events) to publicize
the website to target
groups.

Website would be very
visual and would
translated into Spanish.

Participants who complete
the website voting would
be entered into a raffle to
win a $100 gift card to a
local business of their
choice.
$6,345
(+Direct costs for
translation)
c
2 Development
professionals focus
group
Preview draft objective
standards to the end users.

MF and MU
building architects
and developers
who are active in
Santa Cruz
• Get input on potential
implementation challenges or where
clarification is needed
Live/Digital $1,030
3 PC meeting
Study session presenting
draft visualizations of the
draft objective standards.

Planning
Commission
• Present draft visualizations of
objective standards and receive
feedback from commissioners
Live/Digital $1,690
d
Community Engagement Budget $48,100
Recommended Activities Total $41,330
e
a Category is used to identify whether activities are remote or in-person, digital or not, and ongoing (i.e., asynchronous) or one-time events. b Consultant website budget assumes City staff will set up and update website. The consultant team will analyze data/prepare meeting summaries and project schedule updates for the City to post. c Translated materials are charged per word instead of per labor hours and will be accommodated in the direct costs budget instead of the labor budget. dAssumes a digital hearing (i.e., no travel time required). d Remaining $6,770 for this task is for the outreach strategy.

21.496

21.497

21.498
9 1
Ocean
St
7th
Ave
DelawareAve
Wesern
t Dr
GrahamHill
Rd
HighSt
SoquelAve
GlenCanyon
R
d
B
rancifo
r
e
t
Dr
WaterSt
Sw
ift
S
t
LaurelSt
BaySt
RiverSt
Mission
St
CabrilloHwy
CoastRd
CabrilloHwy
MooreCreek
UplandOpen
Space
DeLaveaga
PogonipOpen Park
Space
Universityof
California-Santa
Cruz
TwinLakes
Seabright
Pasatiempo
SantaCruz
California
CoastalNational
Monument
17th
Ave
PortolaDr
CapitolaRd
LiveOak
0 2,500 5,000 1,250 Feet
µ
Parcels on Corridors:

Mission, Ocean, Soquel, and Water
City Limit
Assessors Parcels
San Lorenzo River Corridor
Ocean, Mission, Soquel, Water
Corridor Frontage

21.499
1 PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 11/24/20
AGENDA OF:

DEPARTMENT:

December 3, 2020
Advance Planning Division, Planning and Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Objective Development Standards Test Fits and General Plan/Zoning Reconciliation
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that no General Plan Amendment be initiated at this time, and that the work on the objective zoning standards be completed before revisiting the possibility of a General Plan Amendment to reallocate development capacity for housing within the City.

BACKGROUND: City Planning Staff has been working on an effort to bring the City’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan into alignment with one another in various ways since the current 2030 General Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2012. The initial effort to correct the mismatch between the General Plan and Zoning was known as the Corridors Plan and was focused on developing a plan and implementing zoning for the four major transportation corridors through the City: Mission St, Ocean St, Water St, and Soquel Ave. This work was paused in 2017 following community concern over the potential for change included in the General Plan and officially halted by the City Council in August of 2019. Under California law, when the General Plan and Zoning are out of alignment, the development standards included in the General Plan govern development on a property.

Council Direction
When work on the Corridors Plan was officially halted by the City Council, the Council directed staff to begin a new project focused on reconciling the differences between the adopted 2030 General Plan and the current zoning code, by amending either one to coordinate with the other, or possibly by amending both documents. The Council direction included express instruction to “preserve and protect residential neighborhood areas and existing City businesses, as the City’s highest-level policy priority; and [e]ncourage appropriate new residential and mixed-use development, specifically including enhanced affordable housing opportunities, at appropriate locations along the City’s main transportation corridors.” The first steps in this process involved conversations with community groups and individuals who had been involved in the prior work on the Corridors Plan. These discussions includedidentifying common understandings of the terminology used in the Council direction, especially as it related to neighborhood protection. The results of these focus group discussions

21.500
2 were quite diverse. There did not seem to be a consistent definition of the boundaries of a neighborhood, the features in need of protection and preservation, which businesses qualified as City businesses, which locations were appropriate for new development, or what it meant to enhance affordable housing. After two focus group discussions, participants had put forth a wide variety of priorities for the effort initiated by the City Council and City staff noted that additional outreach would be necessary before points of agreement could be adequately identified.

Summaries of these two discussions can be found in the attached October 2019 and November 2019 agenda reports (Attachments 1 and 2).

Council direction to pursue SB 2 Grant
Following review of this initial public outreach, the City Council directed Planning staff to pursue a formal outreach effort on this topic and take advantage of State of California SB 2 grant funding to develop new zoning standards for multi-family and mixed-use housing. Drafting zoning standards that match the development pattern established by the 2030 General Plan is one way of addressing the differences between the General Plan and the Zoning Code and also addresses a recently added condition of California State Law. Drafting residential zoning standards that are objective (rather than subjective) was one of the categories of projects that was automatically approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The State has prompted cities to adopt objective standards through recent legislation (SB 330, explained in more detail in the following paragraph). The City’s grant was approved in February of 2020, and the proposal from Urban Planning Partners (UPP) was selected as the consultant during a procurement process that took place over the spring and summer of the same year. The proposed community engagement approach for drafting these new zoning standards is the topic of another item on the Commission’s December 3, 2020 agenda Housing Crisis Act of 2019: Why objective standards are required The California Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) was established on January 1, 2020, and is focused on ensuring that the existing planned number of housing units is maximized. Cities and counties are not permitted to reduce the total number of currently planned housing units within their boundaries. The Housing Crisis Act also requires that all land zoned or designated for housing development be permitted to develop to the full extent established by either the zoning code or general plan and that jurisdictions regulate new housing construction using development standards that are measurable and objective. This means that subjective standards, such as “minimizing shading,” or “maintaining privacy,” may not be applied to housing applications in any manner that reduces the number of dwelling units that can be developed on a parcel or that unduly increases development costs.

Through the Housing Crisis Act, the state legislature is taking steps to ensure that the housing that is currently planned for in every jurisdiction in the state can actually be built. If the 2030 General Plan has designated a parcel with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) that cannot be accommodated by the height standard or setbacks of the zoning district on the parcel, the City is not permitted to enforce those zoning standards and must accommodate the maximum planned development capacity by waiving the height or setback standards.

What are objective standards?
Objective development standards are clearly defined and measurable requirements, such as this example from the Pacific Avenue Retail District Development Standards in the Downtown Plan:

21.501
3 Floor-to-Floor Height. The first floor uses must have a minimum floor-to-floor height of 18 feet for properties north of Cathcart Street and 15 feet minimum south of Cathcart Street. Any mezzanine shall be set back at least 30 feet from the building line on the street and shall occupy no more than one-third of the area of the first floor.

When development standards are precisely articulated, as in the above example, all parties understand what is expected of new development proposals. The review process for residential development applications is more transparent and can better proceed in straightforward and predictable fashion.

Existing development standards
The Municipal Code and the 2030 General Plan were both written assuming that most major development applications would undergo a Design Permit process and that administrative and discretionary review processes (those involving either staff review or review by a public hearing body) to determine the final building design and total number of approved dwelling units on a housing site. The City currently has only a few development standards that meet the definition of an objective standard. For example, a property with a General Plan Land Use Designation of Mixed-Use High Density (MXHD) with a Community Commercial (CC) zoning is currently subject only to the following standards:

1. Floor Area Ratio: 2.75

2. Dwelling Units/Acre: 551

3. Maximum Stories: 3

4. Maximum Height: 40 feet2

5. Required Setbacks: 0 feet3

6. Distance between Buildings on same lot: 10 feet

7. Required open space/rental housing unit: 150 square feet

8. Required Parking: Varies based on permitted uses
There are no standards for building articulation, shading, step-backs, building materials, fenestration, massing, access to the site, or other features of the development that have previously been determined via the Design Permit process. The change in state law has reduced the relevance of that review process, and the City is in need of standards that can facilitate both high-quality building design and a streamlined and effective entitlement process for new housing. There are a few City neighborhoods such as Downtown, Ocean St, and Mission St that have some additional objective standards due to area plans or existing overlay zoning that will be applied under Housing Crisis Act.

Project scope and expected outcomes
The development of Objective Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Housing (“project”) will involve the project team working with the community to develop and refine objective zoning ordinance standards. The new objective standards would eventually be adopted by City Council into the City’s municipal code to both supplement and quantify existing standards for multi-

1 Note that small units do not count toward this density cap, per General Plan Policy LU 3.8, also the zoning code applies no density limit to mixed-use development in the CC zone. 2 Height can be increased by a Development Agreement showing public benefit up to an additional 20% or 48’ 3 Setbacks adjacent to residential uses must mirror residential setbacks.

21.502
4 family zone districts and create new zone districts or standards that can be applied to sites identified for mixed-use in the adopted 2030 General Plan. The final product will be a complete set of zoning standards that allow development proposals to achieve the development capacities identified in the General Plan, as is required by the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. The approved development standards must accommodate the full range of development capacities allowed by the existing regulations, or by virtue of the Housing Crisis Act, they will not be applicable to new development. It is important for the City to have established objective standards in order to maintain some level of control over development outcomes. This requirement to accommodate the full range of development densities is also a key difference between this project and prior planning efforts that only needed to address development that landed anywhere within the range of established density standards for a property.

The process of developing the right standards for multi-family and mixed-use housing for Santa Cruz will happen through a community planning process that includes technical analyses of existing standards, constraints, and economic factors, as well as community sentiment and preferences for aesthetics and interaction between new development and existing streets and neighborhoods. Based on the findings of the initial focus groups reflecting on the Corridors Plan work, staff and consultants are prepared to engage with a wide variety of community voices to ensure that all relevant perspectives are included early in the process and reflected in the final recommended standards.

Due to the deadline associated with the grant funding source, the consultant team and City staff will be working diligently to ensure that the project is completed in an efficient and effective manner, reaching public hearings to consider formal adoption of new zoning ordinance language no later than December 2021.Another item on the Commission’s agenda discusses the community engagement and feedback process in detail, including the anticipated schedule of each phase of the project.

Test Fits
The current item under consideration by the Planning Commission is the first round of “test fits” of the existing development standards for the MXHD Land Use Designation, which was applied to sites located along Water Street, Soquel Avenue, and Branciforte Drive with the 2030 General Plan. The test fit process helps determine how the City’s existing standards would regulate development of a given site based on hypothetical development proposal, and then considers how the proposal could change with different standards in place. Currently, all sites with this General Plan Land Use Designation are zoned in the CC district. The MXHD Land Use Designation has been identified as the primary cause of community concern surrounding the Corridors Plan, and the decision about whether or not to amend the land use designations described in the 2030 General Plan at this point in time will be informed by the results of this test fit. The Planning Commission will use the information in this report and meeting presentation to make a recommendation to the City Council about the best next steps for reconciling the differences between the existing zoning code and the adopted General Plan.

DISCUSSION: In order to fully understand the limits of the current development controls, the consultant team has selected two sample sites and test out various development scenarios on each site. Testing the existing development standards hypothetical development can illustrate where standards are effective and where they breakdown. A test fit is an estimate of a development proposal where an urban designer lays out the building envelope on a real site to see how the various existing standards relate to one another. The test fits here also include an economic

21.503
5 analysis of expected development costs vs. potential revenues from a building. A building envelope is a three-dimensional outline of where a building might sit on a site, and it is not an architectural rendering or a representation of what a real building might look like. Performing a test fit analysis is an opportunity to consider the effect of City development requirements on housing outside of considering a specific development application. The tests are an unbiased look at the way the existing regulations work to shape the built environment and evaluate how the regulations work on different types of sites.

Test Fit Components
Both the physical and economic components of the test fit are equally important for evaluating the impact of various zoning standards. The physical land development component evaluates how the standards for parking, FAR, height, setbacks, etc. relate to one another and identifies the standards that might be more restrictive relative to the others. The financial component considers the total square footage of a building that could be developed and determines the cost of developing such a project under current and foreseeable economic conditions. Both components are necessary in order to understand the factors influencing housing production and evaluating the most influential site standards that, when adjusted, can support new housing development.

Together, the components provide insight into the likelihood that development will occur under the tested conditions.

As mentioned in the previous section, significant community concern has centered on the MXHD designation in the 2030 General Plan. This land use designation is intended to accommodate up to fifty-five dwelling units per acre and a FAR of 2.75 and is intended to require a mix of commercial and residential uses on the parcel. City staff worked with the consultant team to perform two test fits in this land use designation first, before evaluating other multi-family designations and zone districts, so that the Planning Commission and the City Council can consider the potential costs and benefits of initiating a General Plan Amendment process to make changes to the current adopted land use pattern.

Test Fit Sites and Assumptions
Two sites were tested with the full set of MXHD General Plan Designation and CC zoning district development standards outlined in the Background section of this report, and also with meeting only some of the standards and allowing others to be waived. For example, on the large site, meeting the full height of 45’ for the whole building envelope leads to a total FAR of 3.48 (current limit is 2.75). Attachment 3 shows the various development scenarios that were tested and the physical and financial outcomes of each.

The team selected one large site and one more typical smaller-sized site to evaluate the different effect the existing standards might have on sites with different conditions. The large site that was selected for this analysis is 1261 Soquel Ave (currently occupied by 24 Hour Fitness), and the smaller site is 716 Soquel Ave (currently occupied by Sports Design, two doors east of the Buttery Bakery). The team wanted to select a site that was likely to be very easy to redevelop (large site, single tenant, single-story structure), and one that was more representative of a typical site with the MXHD designation (around 50’ wide, less than 150’ deep, adjacent to a residential use).

The development standards that were used in this analysis are those that would apply to any new rental housing proposal, and take advantage of the recently approved changes in required residential parking, including the allowable 35% reduction based on implementing transportation

21.504
6 demand management strategies. The consultant team also used assumptions about construction types to inform the maximum building size and construction costs. The test fits consider a variety of scenarios and begin to show how the City might move forward in drafting new zoning standards to accommodate the allowable number of dwelling units on these sites by making changes to the existing standards. The tests consider both mixed-use development and residential-only development on the two sites.

The tests evaluate only non-density bonus development, due to the range of variables involved with the state density bonus law. State density bonus law entitles eligible projects to waive a certain number of local development standards, and the levels of increased affordability and total number of market rate units also vary. The State Density Bonus law applies to all jurisdictions in California and, like the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, limits the authority of the City to condition or deny applications for housing projects that comply with the law. As the community engages with this project moving forward, the project team will educate and remind them that density bonus projects may vary from local standards in exchange for more units or deeper levels of affordability.

Test Fit Results
The sites tested showed that the existing standards fit somewhat onto the site. The 2.75 FAR can be accommodated within 48’ of height and four stories (allowable under current regulations with a Planned Development Permit) on the larger site. A 4-story residential-only project can reach

2.5 FAR on the smaller site. The large site is impacted by the parking requirements for the commercial component of the mixed-use development, and the number of dwelling units on the property is limited by a combination of the parking standards and the FAR (allows only a partial 4 th floor within the 48’ of height). The small site is more challenged and cannot reach the maximum FAR or allowed dwelling units per acre in a mixed-use scenario. Limiting either site to 35’ and 3 stories in height would prevent them from accommodating the allowed number of dwelling units, and, therefore, the City would not be able to apply those limits under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

The smaller site, which is more representative of most of the properties with the MXHD designation, is more constrained, and the three scenarios tested on the smaller site resulted in more challenges than on the larger site. The tests illustrate the challenges and costs associated with mixed-use development: the residential-only projects were more cost-effective on both the large and smaller site. The only exception to this is when development was maxed out on the small site with a height increase to 55’, allowing a total of 19 apartments to be included with the project). The tests show the typical 5,000 square foot sites that make up the majority of the 91 sites in the MXHD designation will be unlikely to redevelop under the current regulatory framework, and that the City will need to consider some changes to the existing standards in order to be able to meet its obligation under state law.

The financial analysis indicates potential challenges with the smaller sites with mixed-use requirements for commercial space as well as parking for commercial uses in any mixed-use development. Under current economic conditions the residential units tend to subsidize the commercial uses such as with mixed-use on the small site mixed-use at 35’ height showing negative value. With the current FAR and height standards, both sites are close to the limit of what might be feasible to redevelop. As several of the scenarios show, exceeding the 2.75 FAR or the current residential density limit is necessary in order to bring the development cost per unit

21.505
7 to a level that would allow a development project to proceed under current market conditions (See Scenarios 4, 5, 7, and 8).

General Plan Amendment
Based on these findings, a General Plan Amendment to reduce the development capacity of these MXHD properties is likely to result in even lower levels of housing production than the existing condition. It also appears possible to create zoning standards that will accommodate the planned development capacity, especially if some adjustments to the existing standards are made.

Planning staff recommends that the City continue to work on developing appropriate objective zoning standards that address the priorities of the community while still meeting the requirements of state law for housing production. At this time, evidence suggests that lowering the FAR could make development even more challenging and drive the cost per unit even higher, and any reduced residential capacity would need to be simultaneously accommodated elsewhere in the City.

This project to create objective zoning standards will substantially inform consideration of a future General Plan Amendment or the future General Plan update. The degree of changes that will be necessary either to accommodate, or perhaps even to encourage, new development will be at the heart of creating zoning standards that meet state law requirements. The type of changes the community is interested in seeing will also be very useful in determining future planning actions to refine or change the development pattern envisioned in the City’s planning documents.

The community feedback that will be used to develop objective zoning standards will be important background information for the next anticipated General Plan Update process, currently anticipated to begin around 2025. Understanding the types of changes needed and preferred is critical to the City choosing the most effective manner to select targeted receiving sites for increased development capacity, as increased residential capacity will eventually be needed to meet future Regional Housing Needs Allocations.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH: The consultant team met with a group of experienced multifamily and mixed-use residential developers to check their assumptions, collect insight into local development costs and trends, and to hear their perspectives about the challenges of housing production locally. The results of that focus group have been incorporated into the economic analysis of the test scenarios and will continue to inform the process as it moves forward into the next stage. This analysis was technical in nature so it did not involve community outreach beyond developers and architects. However, these scenarios will be part of the education component of the community engagement for this project.

NEXT STEPS: After reviewing the attached test fit materials and receiving the presentation from the consultant team during the public meeting, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether a General Plan Amendment process should be initiated at this time. Staff recommends that the work on the objective zoning standards continue, and be completed, prior to considering any amendments to the land use designations included in the adopted 2030 General Plan.

Another item on the Planning Commission’s agenda addresses the community engagement strategy for this project and the commissioners are invited and encouraged to participate in the activities that will be part of this process.

21.506
8 The next formal check-in with the Planning Commission will take place next summer, at the stage of visualizing the new draft zoning standards. At that point the Planning Commission will provide input and feedback about further refinements and adjustments that might be appropriate before finalizing the standards and implementing ordinances.

FISCAL IMPACT: This report is part of the grant-funded project to develop Objective Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Development, and all staff time and consultant services will be billed to the grant funds.

Prepared by:

Sarah Neuse
Senior Planner
Matt VanHua
Principal Planner
Submitted by:

Lee Butler
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Approved by:

Martin Bernal
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. SB 330 Summary from BBK

2. PC Agenda Report of 12/3/2020

3. PC Minutes of 1/7/2021

21.507

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 11, 2019
AGENDA OF: October 22, 2019
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Development
SUBJECT: Monthly Report on General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Reconciliation Effort (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the monthly report on the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Reconciliation Effort and consider options for bringing the two documents into alignment.

BACKGROUND: At the August 27, 2019 City Council meeting, during the discussion of the Planning Department’s 6-month workplan, the a motion carried to:

1. Direct staff to terminate the "Corridors Plan" and to do no further work on this project.

2. Direct Planning staff to initiate a project to resolve the existing inconsistencies between the corridor-related General Plan policies and the Zoning Ordinance by making General Plan and Zoning Ordinance changes as necessary to meet the following objectives: a) preserve and protect residential neighborhood areas and existing City businesses, as the City’s highest-level policy priority; and b) Encourage appropriate new residential and mixed-use development, specifically including enhanced affordable housing opportunities, at appropriate locations along the City’s main transportation corridors.

3. Direct the Planning Director, as a first step in carrying out the Council’s direction on this matter, to meet promptly with representatives of Save Santa Cruz and other community groups that have previously commented on the now‑term inated C orridors Plan to seek agreement on possible changes to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance that can achieve broad community support and that will allow the Council to achieve its objectives.

4. Direct the City Manager and Planning Director to report at the Council’s October 22, 2019 meeting with the results of the community meetings, proposed policy changes consistent with the Council's objectives, and a schedule for accomplishing the planning project specified in these directions.

5. Direct the City Manager to provide the Council with a monthly progress report on this matter, placed on the Council’s regular meeting agenda. Each Council report shall request any further action or direction by the Council that the City Manager deems necessary to allow the Council to achieve the objective of adopting zoning code and General Plan changes, as outlined in this set of recommended actions, no later than November of 2020.

The Corridors Plan was the City’s previous effort to implement the General Plan (GP) by adding Mixed-Use zoning designations to the City’s zoning code. The effort was known as the “Corridors Plan”due to the fact that the primary areas of mis-match between the GP and zoning code are concentrated along the City’s four largest roadways, known collectively as “the

21.508
Corridors:” Mission Street, Ocean Street, Water Street, and Soquel Avenue. The 2030 GP includes a vision for focusing residential and economic growth along these primary roadways. (Definitions of the Mixed-Use land use designations, as well as the Land Use Map, are included as Attachments 1 and 2.) Staff has begun working with community groups and representatives to define the terms used in the Council’s direction and identify options for moving forward in an effective manner.

DISCUSSION:

Focus Group
As direction in the August 27th motion, on October 2, 2019, staff convened a focus group to discuss the previous effort to reconcile the zoning code and GP and to gather points of view on the direction provided by City Council. Attendees of this meeting are identified in Attachment 3; the agenda of the meeting is provided as Attachment 4.

Part 1: Listening
Staff started the meeting by asking the group the following questions:

1. What should current staff know about previous process?

2. What are the elements of the previous effort that worked? What are non-starters? In response, participants mentioned that in many ways the previous effort felt predetermined, as if the staff and consultants had made many decisions in advance of discussing the topic with the public. The group discussed the roles of the GP as a visioning document, and the Zoning Ordinance as the implementing tool, and ways in which these documents might be amended to facilitate a wider variety of housing options, including low-rise multifamily development such as duplexes, tri- and fourplexes. Some members of the focus group felt these densities would be appropriate for existing residential areas that are currently zoned only for single-family homes; others felt these densities should be focused on collector roads already served or traversed by a bus route, including Bay Ave, Delaware Ave, Swift St, High St and Seabright Ave.

Part 2: Discussion
The balance of the meeting focused on a discussion with the group on how best to resolve inconsistencies between the GP and the Zoning Ordinance. Disucssion questions and feedback is outlined below:

1. What does it mean to various attendees to “preserve and protect residential neighborhood areas and existing City businesses?”
The group had a variety of interpretations of “preserve and protect residential neighborhoods.” For some members, this meant that the existing features of residential neighborhoods, incuding light, shade, parking and noise, would not change in a significant way. For others, it meant keeping the socioeconomic diversity of the area over time, allowing for change to accommodate a range of incomes and family structures. One participant pointed out that there are very few children playing in their neighborhood, and that new families with young kids are not moving in.

Another participant pointed out that the history of neighborhood preservation was segregation, and in Santa Cruz it has typically meant a desire to exclude student rentals, vacation rentals, and second-home ownership. There were those who seemed to define a neighborhood’s character based on the current configuration of streets and homes, and those that identified the character more based on the current and historic residents of that area.

21.509

2. How do attendees define “appropriate new residential and mixed-use development”? As for describing what might be “appropriate mixed-use development,” some participants were adamant that limiting height to three stories was the most important issue to address to ensure that development adjacent to a single family neighborhood is compatable. Others cited building design, elevations and and relationship to the public realm as a key component. Participants also brought up issues about traffic and the preservation of neighborhood access for existing residents while limiting options for the traffic associated with new development and ensuring that lighting and other design features are reviewed so as to ensure that new development will be a good neighbor to existing residents.

3. What does the group consider to be “enhanced affordable housing opportunities”? What are the options? Is there more than one way that affordable housing is “enhanced”? Addressing the commute pressures on local workers was a primary concern. Providing a mix of housing types for a range of workers and families was a point of view shared by many. Several members indicated that the City should focus on increasing the number of affordable units built in the City, units that can be occupied by local service workers, and take measures to limit the number of units that are occupied by workers who commute daily to Silicon Valley or the Bay Area. Developers and builders addressed the challenges that affect their ability to complete housing projects and the feasibility of increasing the required number of inclusionary affordable units constructed with market rate housing. Affordable housing developers pointed out that their projects are more likely to house families, and that size limitations apply that encourage building multi-bedroom units rather than single-room occupancy (SRO) or studio units with affordable housing funding sources.

Representatives of the Save Santa Cruz (SSC) group declined to attend the October 2nd meeting, preferring to meet with staff after the outcome of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) was determined. Staff will be meeting with SSC as part of a second focus group scheduled for October 28 and will report back on that meeting as a part of the next monthly report to Council.

The Housing Accountability Act and SB 330
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
The HAA expressly prohibits jurisdictions from requiring a rezoning when there is an inconsistency between the objective density standards allowed on the site under the GP land use designation and those allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. In short, for sites which permit housing development, if a proposed project is consistent with the objective density standards in the GP, but the zoning has not yet been updated to match, the jurisdiction must allow the applicant to utilize the GP’s objective density standards. Once the GP density standards are permitted, the jurisdiction can then require the applicant to meet the remaining objective standards found in the Zoning Ordinance. The HAA requires that, if a housing development conforms to specific objective general plan and zoning standards and a city seeks to deny the project or condition it in a manner that reduces the number of proposed dwelling units, that a decision making body must make specific findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record, that the project would have a specific, adverse effect on public health or safety.

As an example, a subjective design standard provides general, qualitative guidance such as this:
“Provide articulation to reduce the apparent mass and scale of the building and to be sensitive to the neighborhood.”

21.510
An objective design standard provides clearer, quantitative guidance, such as this:
“For every 100 feet of building length, there shall be a plane-break along the façade comprised of an offset of at least five feet in depth by 25 feet in length. The offset shall extend from grade to the highest story.”
Our current Zoning Ordinance has objective standards for basic site elements such as setbacks, height, and parking. Some area plans and Zoning Ordinance overlay districts also have additional objective building design standards. However, many of the City’s districts do not contain any objective design standards related to architecture, materials, massing, bulk, or other aesthetic features of a proposed project. This includes areas zoned R-M Multiple Residence District--Medium Density and R-L Multiple Residence District—Low Density (much of Midtown and Seabright south of Soquel Avenue) and areas zoned C-C Community Commercial District (Ocean Street, Water Street, and Soquel Avenue). The exception is Mission Street, which is zoned C-C Community Commercial District but has a zoning overlay which includes some objective design standards.

SB330
SB 330 amends the HAA, limiting the options available to the City for changing the City’s land use policy documents, as follows:

1. No Net Loss or Reduction in Land Use Intenity: The legislation requires local governments to ensure that there is no net loss of residential capacity within a jurisdiction, relative to the residential capacity that was allowed under the GP and Zoning Ordinance as of January 1, 2018. Under this new legislation, the City cannot lower the overall residential capacity accommodated by the 2030 GP, and cannot reduce the residential density of a specific site unless another site is simultaneously redesignated to increase residential density by an equal amount. The bill broadly defines what is considered a reduction in residential intensity, noting that it “includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, or new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of housing.”

2. Objective Standards: While the current HAA text limits use of subjective standards to deny or reduce the number of dwelling units in a project, SB 330 goes farther. The legislation precludes local governments, on properties where housing is an allowable use, from imposing or enforcing subjective design standards on or after January 1, 2020.

SB 330 was signed by Governor Newsom on October 9th, 2019, and it remains in effect for five years, from January 1, 2020 through January 1, 2025.

Options for Reconciliation Effort
Based on the limitations placed on the City by the HAA and SB 330, staff have developed the following two options for Council consideration:

Option 1: Establishment of Mixed-Use Districts with Objective Standards The “No Net Loss” provision of SB 330 precludes jurisdictions from deintensifying residential capacity that was allowed under the GP and Zoning Ordinance as of January 1, 2018, unless that capacity can be satisfied concurrently elsewhere in the jusrisdiction. Given the Council’s

21.511
aggressive reconciliation timeline of November 2020 (13 months), staff does not recommend the the City undertake a density transfer exercise at this time. Details regarding that potnetial option and related drawbacks are outlined in greater detail in Option 2.

Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to move forward with the establisment of mixed use zoning districts concurrent with the development of objective design standards for housing projects. This approach would provide the multiple benefits of 1) achieving Council’s objective of reconciling the General Plan and Zoning OrdinanceZoning Ordinance, 2) ensuring adherence to State Law, and 3) providing certainty to the community on the the aesthetics and built form in their neighborhoods.

Staff advises Council that it is unrealistic to expect such changes by November 2020 with current staffing resources. If Council is committed to moving forward with such a project, it will be imperative that the City secure supplemental resources, likely funded in part by a State-level SB 2 grant, which is separately under consideration by the Council on this same agenda.

Significant policy issues, such as the creation of new zone districts, require a high level of community engagement and outreach. The Council’s public outreach policy requires that this project include meaningful input from the community early and consistently through the planning process.

Option 2: Major General Plan Amendment to Enable Density Transfer Based on the feedback gathered at the initial focus group, one fundamental challenge to this process is a lack of consensus about where new housing should be added to the City and at what density this housing should be accommodated. While SB330 removes the ability for a jurisdiction to wholesale remove or reduce residential capacity from their GP and Zoning Ordinance, it does allow the transfer of density from one area of the jurisdiction to another.

To undertake such an effort effectively amounts to a comprehensive GP update project. GP and related Zoning Ordinance updates are intensive efforts which occur on 10-15 year cycles (or longer) and involve substantial community conversation. As an example, development of GP 2030 took approximately seven years and included over 100 public meetings. The related and subsequent Zoning Ordinance update (referred to as the “Corridors Plan”) took over two years of dedicated work and has not been completed, resulting in the current inconsistency between the two documents.

This option is not recommended by staff. The process would require extensive community input; technical analysis and studies; policy development, including new policies and significant revisions to many existing GP policies; and then a major update to the General Plan EIR. Based on similar efforts and past experience, staff estimates a process of this type would require a minimum of two to three years to complete and could easily take longer depending on the depth and breadth of the project. For this reason, as well as the significantly higher costs associated with such an approach, staff does not recommend this option.

CEQA ANALYSIS: This report is not a “project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, therefore, is exempt from CEQA review.

FISCAL IMPACT: The preparation of this report does not have a fiscal impact on the City.

Based on staff’s experience with projects similar in scale and scope, preliminary estimated costs related to each option are as follows:

21.512
Option 1 (Establishment of Mixed-Use Districts with Objective Standards) : $300,000-$450,000 Option 2 (Major General Plan Amendment to Enable Density Transfer): $750,000-$1,200,000 Both estimates assume outsourcing work to a qualified consultant, with contract management and oversight undertaken by the City’s Advance Planning Division staff. Final costs will be dependent on the depth and breadth of the selected effort, including CEQA analysis.

Prepared by:

Sarah Neuse
Senior Planner
Sarah A. Fleming, AICP
Principal Planner
Submitted by:

Lee Butler, AICP
Director of Planning &
Community Development
Approved by:

Martín Bernal
City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

General Plan Excerpt: Mixed-Use Land Use Designations
General Plan Land Use Map
List of Focus Group Invitees
Focus Group Meeting Agenda

21.513

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: November 14, 2019
AGENDA OF: November 26, 2019
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Development
SUBJECT: Monthly Report on General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Reconciliation Effort (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the monthly report on the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Reconciliation Effort.

BACKGROUND: At the October 22, 2019 meeting of the City Council, a motion carried to:
…accept the monthly report on the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Reconciliation Effort, and direct staff to move forward with establishing mixeduse zoning districts concurrently with the development of objective design standards for housing projects and fully engage with the focus groups currently established and embark on a very broad public outreach process.

Additionally, on a related item, a motion carried to:
…direct staff to submit an application to HCD (Department of Housing and Community Development) for an SB 2 planning grant in support of the development of objective standards for multi-family residential projects, and to adopt Resolution No. NS-29,586 directing staff to submit an application to the State of California SB2 Planning Grant Program.

This report will summarize the work conducted by staff toward this direction over the past few weeks.

DISCUSSION:

Focus Group
As discussed in the prior update on October 22, a second group of representatives of community groups involved in the prior project to implement the 2030 General Plan met to discuss the Council’s August 27 direction and consider policy options for moving forward toward reconciling the differences between the General Plan and the City’s zoning code. The meeting was held on Monday, October 28, and included representatives of the group Save Santa Cruz, the former Corridor Advisory Committee, affordable housing developers and others. A list of the attendees and their associations is included as Attachment 1 to this item, and the Agenda for that meeting is included as Attachment 2. Save Santa Cruz also provided written correspondence that is included as Attachment 3.

21.514
Part 1: Listening
Staff started the meeting by asking the group the following questions:

1. What should current staff know about previous process?

2. What are the elements of the previous effort that worked? What are non-starters? In response, participants described community reactions to the proposed land use patterns contained in the General Plan in dramatic terms: “tissue rejection,” “demolition of Soquel” and other more graphic terms were used. It became clear that the prior process’ level of education and study sessions that were provided to the Planning Commission and Corridor Advisory Committee were not as large a part of the public outreach as some community members in attendance would have liked. Comments also addressed issues with several of the products that were produced, or not produced, as part of the project. Community members criticized the proposed street cross sections that were part of the previous process and the lack of compelling examples of how the corridor areas would look if the rezoning project were successful. In general, it was clear that historic feelings of disparity between neighborhoods (i.e., treatment of Westside vs. Eastside areas) were heightened through this process and not adequately addressed.

Additionally, architects and builders questioned the feasibility of the specific floor area ratio (FAR) and height standards proposed in the General Plan and the previous zoning proposals, given the prices of construction compared with local rents.

Part 2: Discussion
The balance of the meeting focused on a discussion with the group on how best to resolve inconsistencies between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Disucssion questions and feedback are outlined below:

1. What does it mean to various attendees to “preserve and protect residential neighborhood areas and existing City businesses?”
The group had a variety of interpretations of “preserve and protect residential neighborhoods.” One specific comment was that the previous proposal included too many “nodes” where development was anticipated to be more intense. While not all in the group agreed, the general consensus within this group of individuals was that increased intensity and height up to five stories at some nodes would be appropriate, but those notes should be more limited number and developed with an awareness for managing neighborhood impacts such as existing and future transportation needs and effects. The discussion also addressed the type of housing units that are allowed under the zoning code, and some members had questions as to the intention of the limits currently placed on the smallest units permitted in the code, including single-room occupancy and small ownership units, stating that they may only be developed as part of an exclusively small-unit project and cannot be integrated with larger dwelling units. Members doubted the value of creating “monocultures” of these smaller units. Participants expressed a desire for policies that would allow new development projects to be part of the broader neighborhood, rather than stand-alone, isolated communities.

Relative to preserving existing City businesses, participants identified that some areas were definitely ripe to be redeveloped and that sensitive projects in certain locations could be a welcome addition to a neighborhood. Staff noted that concerns over wholesale redevelopment of existing historic buildings was a primary concern, along with the understanding that as new commercial space is developed, the rents in those locations also come up to the current market level, rather than the less expensive commercial rents enjoyed by businesses in older buildings.

21.515

2. How do attendees define “appropriate new residential and mixed-use development”? The primary concern for the focus group was around the traffic generated by new development of any type. In defining the features of “appropriate” development, participants discussed the existing levels of service at major intersections, and the neighborhood effects of cut-through traffic. A participant mentioned that recent ballot initiatives in other California cities moved municipal investments toward pedestrian and bike transportation and away from auto-centric policies.

3. What does the group consider to be “enhanced affordable housing opportunities”? What are the options? Is there more than one way that affordable housing is “enhanced”? More so than with the first focus group, this group was most interested in the total number of units that could be created for income-qualified low- and very-low income renters and homebuyers. Increasing the local inclusionary requirement was one option raised by the group, as was the concept of a local density bonus that would increase density for more or deeper affordability. Participants stated they would be willing to accept some amount of greater intensity in exchange for more deed-restricted housing units.

4. SB 330 Summary
Because this second focus group took place following the passage of SB 330, The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, this group was able to have a more concrete discussion regarding the limitations placed on jurisdictions when changing residential densities and when reviewing applications for new housing projects. (To recap: SB 330 prohibits cities and counties from reducing the development capacity of a parcel through changes in zoning or general plan allowances or through imposition of limiting development standards such as height, setbacks, parking, etc. below the number that was permitted to be built on the parcel as of January 1, 2018, unless the reduction in residential development capacity is simultaneously approved with an equivalent increase in residential capacity on other properties. The law expands the Housing Accountability Act by adding various timing and fee specifications to a Government Code section that had already been updated effective January 1, 2019 to place additional limitations on jurisdictions’ ability to deny residential projects or reduce residential project densities below what is allowed by the General Plan. Further, beginning January 1, 2020, the legislation requires that no new subjective design criteria be added to the standards of review for housing project application.) The focus group discussed the repurcussions this legislation has for the effort at reconciliation and options for both the long-range planning process potentially involving amendments to the 2030 General Plan and the project review process for applications that are made over the next year to two years. Participants supported the effort to begin creating legally enforceable objective design standards, so long as this process did not preclude moving into a process to amend the General Plan and potentially reallocate some development intensity to other areas of the City should it become clear that no objective standards will adequately address community concerns about new development. Staff assured participants that one project would not preclude the other, and that a determination to begin a second project focused on amending the General Plan maps could begin at any time. That said, it was noted that reallocation of development capacity to other areas of the City would trigger additional environmental review. The extent and locations of any proposed changes would dictate the necessary type of environmental review, and the environmental review procedures, coupled with what would undoubtedly be extensive community outreach, would dictate an expanded timeline versus just providing objective design standards for the existing General Plan densities.

21.516
Finally, some participants asked if it would be possible to put interim standards in place that could be passed quickly and apply to project applications submitted during the year to two years it could take to fully develop objective development standards under the project for the SB 2 grant. This approach would essentially require a second (or third), short term project. While that is a possibility, that approach could worsen the existing community sentiment among some regarding a perceived lack of neighborhood representation in decision making and lack of trust between the City and community around this topic. Further, the only basis for creating such interim standards would lie in the work conducted on the terminated Corridor Plan effort, which City Council has clearly halted. Staff is not recommending this approach for these reasons. As discussed below, the City will begin work on developing objective design standards as soon as possible, and a broad and inclusive outreach program will be a primary focus of that effort.

SB 2 Grant Submittal
As directed by motion on October 22, City staff has prepared and submitted an application to the state for funding to support an effort to develop objective development standards for multifamily and mixed-use development proposals. The state offices have received our proposal, have been in contact with staff regarding questions, and are reviewing it for approval as we draft this report. As explained in October, the proposal for objective development standards is a project type that is guaranteed approval under the guidelines for the SB 2 funds. Staff will provide an update on the status of the grant during the presentation to the City Council on 11/26.

Staff has already begun drafting the Request For Proposals (RFP) that will be used to select a consulting firm that will facilitate the public process for these development standards. City Council has directed and staff intends to provide a broad and inclusive community outreach effort around the creation of these standards, one that reaches historically underrepresented communities and groups. Staff will release the RFP as soon as possible after the grant funding has been approved/received.

CEQA ANALYSIS: This report is not a “project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, therefore, is exempt from CEQA review.

FISCAL IMPACT: The preparation of this report does not have a fiscal impact on the City.

Prepared by:

Sarah Neuse
Senior Planner
Submitted by:

Lee Butler, AICP
Director of Planning &
Community Development
Approved by:

Martín Bernal
City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

1. List of Focus Group Attendees

2. October 28, 2019 Focus Group Agenda

3. Correspondence from Save Santa Cruz

21.517
1 Development Test Fits

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Planning Commission
Dec 3, 2020
Overview
 Context
 Methodology and Assumptions
 Site #1 – test fit and economic feasibility
 Site #2 – test fit and economic feasibility
 Insights
2 21.518
2 Tonight’s Outcomes
 Planning Commission understands factors
impeding development under the current
development standards
 Consultant and City staff have a framework on
how to move forward relative to Objective
Standards work
 Planning Commission makes recommendation to
City Council regarding next steps for General
Plan-Zoning inconsistency
3 Housing Accountability Act and SB 330
 Cannot limit the density allowed by zoning or
General Plan without simultaneously replacing
that residential capacity elsewhere
 Cannot deny residential projects or reduce total
allowable number of units if project meets
objective standards
4 The City needs objective standards that accommodate 2.75 FAR (max intensity allowed under General Plan) to be compliant with State law.

21.519
3 Purpose of Test Fits
 Each site is subject to development standards
 Maximum Height
 Maximum FAR
 Sometimes these standards don’t match up
5  Maximum DU/acre
 Minimum Parking
15’ 25’
MAXIMUM 35’ HEIGHT
15’ 25’
35’
6 Parking Parking
Parking as a
Land Use
Parking
 Parking standards require
a minimum number of
parking spaces be built 540’ +50% more
area for circulation
= 810 ft2
60’
9’

21.520
4 7
Dwelling Units/Acre: Looks can be deceiving
Image Credit: A Citizens' Guide to Density
44 du/acre 55 du/acre 61 du/acre
What are we Testing?
 Rental housing in the MXHD (Mixed-Use High
Density) General Plan designation (C-C Zone)
 Do the different standards line up?
 Does density (FAR and du/acre) match Height and
Parking requirements?
 Do the standards enable developments that are
financially feasible?
 If the tests don’t work, what are the levers that
the City can adjust?
8 21.521
5 Development Assumptions
 Type V construction:
 Concrete podium for ground floor (15’)
 Each level of residential above is 10’
 Building code allows up to 4 levels of ‘stick frame’
housing above (55’)
 Zoning code allows 4 levels of housing (45’)
 For podium parking, assume:
 400 sqft per parking space for one level of parking
 450 sqft per parking space for 2 levels (ramps make
parking less efficient)
9 Residential Assumptions
 860sf/unit Gross*
 Weighted unit size
 Assume 75% efficiency
 Unit Mix (Rental)*
 Studios - 33%
 1-Bed - 49%
 2-Bed - 16%
 3-Bed - 2%
*Based on Strategic Economics’ study of recently built projects in Santa Cruz 10 21.522
6 11
MXDH General Plan Designation
MXHD (Mixed
use High Density)
Large site
Small site
Test Fits Methodology
 Test “typical” building sites – quite small in SC
 Also test the most “buildable” building sites
 Large site (1 acre or larger)
 Single tenant
 No adjacent low-scale residential
 Comparing a mixed-use project with a
residential-only project
 Assume maximum allowable height*
12 *Requires provision of community benefits

21.523
7 Development Standards
 Maximum height = 48’ (40’ + 20% with PD)
 3 stories base, 4 stories with PD
 15’ ground floor, 10’ each floor above
 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) = 2.75 (per GP)
 Covered, above-grade parking is included in FAR
 Dwelling units per acre (du/ac) = 40 for residential-only developments (per zoning)
 Note: studios and 1-bedroom units are not counted for density (per GP policy LU 3.8)
 Mixed use in C-C has no residential density standard (per 24.10.730)  Open space (sf/du) =100 sf private, 150 sf common (per zoning)
13 Parking Requirements
 Using the City’s recently adopted parking
minimums:
 1 space per unit for Studios and 1-bedroom units
 2 spaces per unit for 2-bedroom units or larger
 +10% for visitor parking
 1 space per 250 square feet of retail/fitness use
 1 space per 120 square feet of restaurant use
 Up to 35% reduction if a project meets certain
criteria
14 21.524
8 15
Large Site
MXHD (Mixed
use High Density)
Large site
Large Site
 1.3 acres
 Single
tenant
 No
adjacent
low-scale
residential
16 21.525
9 Something to Consider: Ground Floor
Retail
 Parking exactly meet
current requirement for
retail
17 Max
FAR
Max Height No. Units
(du/acre)
Min Parking
Residential
Min Parking
Retail
Standards 2.75 48’ N/A 0 86
Test Fit 1.0 15’ 0 0 86
Prototype 1 (Max FAR)
Mixed-Use Large Site
 Assume no retail parking
required, and all parking
goes to residential units
 Retail parking as a
potential lever to adjust
 FAR limits building to
partial fourth floor
18 Max
FAR
Max Height No. Units
(du/acre)
Min Parking
Residential
Min Parking
Retail
Standards 2.75 48’ N/A 80 Assume 0
Test Fit 2.75 45’ (not fully) 114 (89) 86 0

21.526
10 Prototype 2 (Max Height & Required Parking)
Mixed-Use Large Site
 Two full levels of parking
 Meeting height and
parking requirements,
but the building falls
above current FAR
standard
19 Max
FAR
Max Height No. Units
(du/acre)
Min Parking
Residential
Min Parking
Retail
Standards 2.75 48’ N/A 99 56
Test Fit 3.48 45’ 119 (93) 101 56
Prototype 3 (Max Building Type)
Mixed-Use Large Site
 One additional floor (10’
of height) yields 48 more
units of housing
 All residential parking
requirements are met
 Meets 1/3rd of retail
parking requirements
20 Max
FAR
Max Height No. Units
(du/acre)
Min Parking
Residential
Min Parking
Retail
Standards 2.75 48’ N/A 139 56
Test Fit 3.83 55’ 167 (130) 139 18

21.527
11 Something to Consider: Ground Floor
Residential
 One level of parking does
not meet current standard
 Could be accommodated
with stackers
 FAR limits building to
a partial fourth floor
21 Max
FAR
Max Height No. Units
(du/acre)
Min Parking
Residential
Min Parking
Retail
Standards 2.75 48’ 51 (40) 114 0
Test Fit 2.75 45’ (not fully) 137 (106) 90 0
Prototype 4 (Max Height & Required Parking)
Residential-Only Large Site
 Two full levels of parking
 Meets max height,
exceeds parking
requirements, and
exceeds FAR
22 Max
FAR
Max Height No. Units
(du/acre)
Min Parking
Residential
Min Parking
Retail
Standards 2.75 48’ 51 (40) 117 0
Test Fit 3.45 45’ 141 (110) 161 0

21.528
12 Prototype 5 (Max Building Type)
Residential-Only Large Site
 One additional floor (10’
of height) yields 48 more
units of housing
 Parking requirements are
met
 Exceeds FAR, height,
and density
23 Max
FAR
Max Height No. Units
(du/acre)
Min Parking
Residential
Min Parking
Retail
Standards 2.75 48’ 51 (40) 157 0
Test Fit 4.19 55’ 188 (147) 161 0
Development Cost per Unit
24 Land $42,000 Land $40,000 Land $29,000 Land $34,000 Land $25,000 Parking $30,000 Parking $53,000
Parking $38,000 Parking $46,000
Parking $34,000
Building Costs
$288,000
Building Costs
$287,000 Building Costs
$272,000 Building Costs
$236,000 Building Costs
$237,000
Soft Costs
$111,000
Soft Costs
$116,000 Soft Costs
$108,000 Soft Costs
$102,000 Soft Costs
$99,000
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
Prototype 1
(Max FAR)
Prototype 2
(Max Height and Required
Parking)
Prototype 3
(Max Building Type)
Prototype 4
(Max Height and Required
Parking)
Prototype 5
(Max Building Type)
$471,000
$496,000
$447,000
$418,000 $395,000
Mixed-Use Large Site Residential-Only Large Site
Source: Strategic Economics, 2020.

21.529
13 Financial Feasibility
 Prototypes 4 and 5 are the most financially
feasible and likely to be built because they:
 Maximize the number of units
 Minimize the number of parking spaces
 Mixed-use is more challenging than residential-only
 Cost of building the retail space and associated parking  Difficulties leasing ground-floor retail spaces
 Most lenders assume that the retail space will not
generate revenues
25 Development Cost/Unit – Underground Parking
 Underground parking increases total development cost
per unit by 7 to 12 percent depending on the amount of
parking provided
26 $0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
Prototype 1
(Max FAR)
Prototype 2
(Max Height and
Required Parking)
Prototype 3
(Max Building
Type)
Prototype 4
(Max Height and
Required Parking)
Prototype 5
(Max Building
Type)
Underground Parking Above Ground Podium Parking
Source: Strategic Economics, 2020.

21.530
14 27
Small Site
MXHD (Mixed
use High Density)
Small site
Small Site
28  0.16 acres
 Common size
and shape

21.531
15 Prototype 6 (Height 35 Feet)
Mixed-Use Small Site
 Falls below current
parking requirement
– though parking could
be achieved with stackers
 Well below allowed FAR
and height
29 Max
FAR
Max Height No. Units
(du/acre)
Min Parking
Residential
Min Parking
Retail
Standards 2.75 48’ N/A 9 2
Test Fit 1.99 35’ 9 (58) 9 1
Prototype 7 (Height 55 Feet)
Mixed-Use Small Site
 Most efficient building
design
 Does not meet
current parking
standards – though
parking could be
achieved with stackers
30 Max
FAR
Max Height No. Units
(du/acre)
Min Parking
Residential
Min Parking
Retail
Standards 2.75 48’ N/A 14 2
Test Fit 3.14 55’ 19 (116) 10 0

21.532
16 Prototype 8 (Height 45 Feet)
Residential-Only Small Site
 Maximum FAR matches
height
 Exceeds du/acre
 Below current
parking standards by 3
spaces
31 Max
FAR
Max Height No. Units
(du/acre)
Min Parking
Residential
Min Parking
Retail
Standards 2.75 48’ 9 (40) 13 0
Test Fit 2.56 45’ 15 (93) 10 0
32 Source: Strategic Economics, 2020.
32 Land $66,000
Land $31,000 Land $40,000
Parking $46,000
Parking $22,000 Parking $27,000
Building Costs
$301,000
Building Costs
$259,000
Building Costs
$254,000
Soft Costs
$118,000
Soft Costs
$101,000
Soft Costs
$102,000
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
Prototype 6
(Height 35 feet)
Prototype 7
(Height 55 feet)
Prototype 8
(Height 45 feet)
$531,000
$413,000 $423,000
Mixed-Use Small Site Residential-Only Small
Site
Development Cost per Unit

21.533
17 Financial Feasibility
 The small site test fits are challenging because of
the relative challenges of smaller projects.
 Prototype 6 (35-foot height limit) has a negative
project value (development costs exceed revenues).
 Prototype 7 and Prototype 8 have a higher
likelihood of development because they provide a
greater number of residential units and have the
same fixed costs (parking and land acquisition).
33 Development Standards Summary
 Can 2.75 FAR be reached? Yes, but the project
may not meet other standards, with residential
only, and not economically feasible.
 Du/acre is much more restrictive than FAR
 For small, residential-only projects: parking, height, and FAR align (but not du/acre)
 For all other projects: FAR and parking maximums
prevent development from reaching 48’ in height
34 21.534
18 Parking Standards Summary
 Parking requirements for retail are very high
 Mixed-use developments need an extra level of
parking;
 But parking pushes the development over the FAR
limits
 Retail parking is difficult on small sites
 If mixed-use continues to be a priority, could:

1. Reduce parking requirements for retail

2. Exclude parking from FAR calculation

3. Eliminate a parking requirement for small retail
35 Developer Focus Group
 Spoke with six local developers/architects on
barriers and existing conditions for mixed-use
and multifamily projects in Santa Cruz
 Insights:
 Height limits
 Ground-floor retail and parking requirements
 Bicycle parking requirements
 High water tables and stormwater drainage
36 21.535
19 Any Questions or Comments?
37 Additional Information
38 21.536
20 Form-based Code
 Removes density limits in favor of bulk controls
 For example: height limits and upper-level setback
requirements
 Allows developments to provide as much
parking as necessary, tucked inside the building
(invisible from the street)
 Would allow for more flexibility for retail or
restaurant uses on commercial corridors
39 Inconsistent Density Maximums
 MXHD Designation General Plan Standards
 FAR = 2.75
 Du/acre = up to 55
 C-C Zoning Standards
 For mixed-use projects, use 2.75 FAR
 For residential-only projects, use 40 du/acre
40 21.537
21 Test Fits Check In
Appendix: Test Fits Check In
Presentation, October 7

21.538
22 Limited number of sites that meet all
the following criteria:
• Large site ( )
• Single-user/ tenant
• Doesn’t back onto existing
residential uses

21.539
23 Landowner Perspective • At least 12 businesses currently operating
• Ace Hardware – good credit
tenant (?)
• Likely owned by an individual (not
a developer)
• Would need to sell land to
developer…
• BUT is it worth it to sell for a lump
sum when they are making
ongoing rent on the existing
uses?
• Usually requires a life/family
event to sell

21.540
24 21.541
1 PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: May 27, 2022
AGENDA OF:

DEPARTMENT:

June 2, 2022
Planning and Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Objective Development Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Housing Ordinance Amendments (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code as presented.

BACKGROUND: Staff has been working on an effort to bring the City’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan into alignment with one another in various ways since the current 2030 General Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2012. The initial alignment effort was known as the Corridors Plan and was focused on developing a plan and implementing zoning for the four major transportation corridors through the City: Mission St., Ocean St., Water St., and Soquel Ave. This work was officially halted by the City Council in August of 2019.

Under California law, when the General Plan and Zoning are out of alignment, the development standards included in the General Plan govern development on a property. Under the Housing Accountability Act, this also means that any development capacity allowed based on the land use designation in the General Plan must be allowed on a property regardless of any limitations based on zoning. Further, any action to reduce the amount of housing that can be built on a parcel of land be accompanied by a simultaneous action to increase the amount of housing that may be built elsewhere within the jurisdiction’s boundaries.

The Housing Crisis Act further limits the discretion of local agencies by prohibiting the denial or conditioning of a development proposal in a manner that reduces the amount of housing on the site based on any subjective design or development standards. Subjective standards may only be applied to development proposals in a manner that “facilitate[s] and accommodate[s] development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development” (CA Gov Code 65589.5(f)(1)).

The City has many existing objective standards in the Zoning Ordinance. For instance, standards regulating height, setbacks, parking requirements, dwelling unit density, open space, lot coverage and others have been in use for many decades. These objective standards currently exist alongside subjective standards that staff uses in a discretionary manner to review development proposals. State legislation has narrowed this discretion and placed more emphasis on objective

21.542
2 development standards, creating a need for standards that can regulate the site design and building design in a more objective manner.

The development of Objective Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Housing (“project”) involved a team of City staff and planning, urban design, and economic consultants working with the community to develop and refine new objective design standards that will function to quantify and standardize the requirements to approve a design permit for projects that include two or more housing units. The content of this report focuses on the design standards that have been drafted by the project team as well as amendments to some existing standards to make them objective rather than subjective. A future agenda item targeted for the June 16, 2022 Planning Commission agenda will include proposed new zone districts to align with the 2030 General Plan and amendments to the City’s development review process that are warranted given the focus on objective development review.

As stipulated by the Housing Crisis Act, development standards must accommodate the full range of development capacities allowed by the existing regulations or they will not be applicable to new development. For this reason, the process to develop both the objective design standards and the forthcoming site standards for the new mixed-use zone districts utilized a process of testing the existing zoning and General Plan standards and capacities for both physical and financial feasibility. This “test fit” process identified a few existing development challenges including areas where height limits and required parking ratios in the Zoning Ordinance were significant constraints to achieving development capacity allowed in the General Plan.

The test fits helped inform some of the content relating to building massing and parking standards that was part of the community survey to define community character of Santa Cruz that will be codified by these proposed amendments. Over 700 people participated in the community survey via online and in-person responses. Following this input, staff sought additional community feedback through six different focus groups: university students, young adults, renters, low-income households, Eastside residents, and the Latinx/Chicanx community.

These groups reflected similar themes as noted in the survey in that Santa Cruz residents generally prefer: a mix of architectural features and styles; space for trees and landscaping; more variety of housing and value affordable housing; additional height in new buildings on major corridors; walkable, active neighborhoods with neighborhood-serving uses and local businesses; and more historically referential architecture with more articulation. These preferences are reflected in the proposed objective design standards.

Following the release of the Public Review Draft of the objective design standards in November 2021, the Santa Cruz community was able to provide both structured and unstructured feedback on the proposed Mixed Use zone districts and development standards through the City’s website.

The project team designed a visual survey that addressed most of the standards and asked participants to: evaluate how successfully the various standards achieved the stated goals, to rank priorities for different uses, and to respond to the standards as a whole. City staff and consultants held an event on November 10, 2021 to present the package of standards to the community and walk through the process for voting on the website. Further, two additional times for “office hours” were identified where project team members were available for questions and clarification. Comments were accepted through the visual survey tool for four weeks, and the public submitted written comments as well. In addition to the website, the public was able to review the entire package of standards and provide written comments to City staff any time in the past five months.

21.543
3 The intention with this engagement was to provide ample opportunities for members of the community to ask questions and seek a deeper understanding of how the proposed standards were drafted and how they will work together to regulate new development. Overall, approximately 90 community members participated in the live events, website voting, submitted written comments, or suggested standards.

DISCUSSION:

Objective Design Standards for Multi-family and Mixed-Use Housing Based on the feedback provided by the community combined with the required development intensities in the 2030 General Plan, the project team drafted a set of development standards for both site design and building design of new multi-family and mixed-use housing development.

The standards are attached in two different formats containing identical requirements: A standalone guidance document for project applicants and a set of ordinance amendments integrating the proposed standards as a new section within Chapter 24.12 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code relating to Community Design. Both attachments contain the same language, with some minor changes to the way cross-references are made in each document.

The standards address all areas of the City except for the Downtown Plan area, which has its own objective design standards. The standards will apply to all new housing that is built except for new single-family homes and new accessory dwelling units. All other housing from a duplex to a multi-story, mixed-use housing development incorporating ground floor commercial uses will be required to meet these standards to qualify for a streamlined project review process. Since the public review draft was released last November, several refinements have been made to reflect community input, further staff work, and comments from local designers and developers. The attached strikeout version of the standalone document shows the changes that were made since November of last year. Most of the changes shown are additions to add clarity and specificity to the standards as drafted, and some address specific situations that were not called out explicitly in the Public Review draft, such as how standards for public frontage apply on lots with multiple frontages, as with corner lots. A few of the standards did change significantly: the draft standard for Upper-level Taper was replaced with a standard for a Neighborhood Transition plane, and the draft standard requiring Live-Work units on the ground floor of residential buildings in commercial zones was re-worked to create an allowance for these units rather than a requirement, coupled with additional standards for commercial uses in those buildings.

The objective design standards reflect Santa Cruz community values: creating more opportunities for mid-density housing (or missing middle housing); more walkable neighborhoods; ensuring public frontages incorporate commercial activity in commercial and mixed-use zones; requiring modulation of building faces and roof forms to minimize large, unarticulated building faces; requiring the use of high-quality building materials for street frontages, while allowing more cost-effective materials on side and rear building faces; ensuring that building residents have access to high-quality open space amenities on site; and address many other features of site and building design. When reviewing the proposed standards, please note that each subsection includes a title and a goal indicating intent of the standard, and note that some standards will apply to all development proposals while others apply only to certain zone districts or only along major transportation corridors. The maps included with the attachments show the parcels where the various standards will apply based on zoning and location.

21.544
4 Public Review Comments
The Public Review Draft of the Objective Standards for Multi-Family Housing generated comments and feedback from the public on many topics. The structured feedback collected through the online engagement platform led to a change in the proposed standards for tapering at roof tops of building over three stories in height, and that standard has been replaced by a standard requiring a transition to neighboring residential areas by incorporating stepbacks and landscaped buffer strips. (See standards I. D(3), I. E(2) for buffering, and II. A. for neighborhood transitions.)
Several community members submitted suggestions for additional standards. Examples of standards that were added to the proposed draft objective design standards include requirements for dark sky best practices for lighting, landscape buffers in most areas with neighborhood transitions, full shielding of headlights from parking structures, options for open space amenities for project residents, and setting standards to buffer rooftop activity and lighting from adjacent residential uses. A full list of the community comments staff received is included as the Community Suggested Standards attachment and is organized by comment author’s name. The document also includes a staff response to each suggestion indicating whether a community comment is incorporated or addressed in the proposed standards, is already sufficiently addressed through other existing state or local regulations, is prohibited by existing regulations, or is not recommended due to staff concerns regarding policy choices or implementation.

Application of Standards to Density Bonus Projects
The project team heard concerns from many residents relating to State Density Bonus Law overriding any local development standards. These objective design standards were still drafted to apply to those projects to the greatest extent possible. Projects with a Density Bonus can request waivers for any site standard if they can demonstrate a standard physically precludes the development of the total number of dwelling units they are entitled to under the state law. Most commonly, the standards that are waived include those that limit the size of the building: height, required parking, floor area ratio, and required open space. Requirements for building articulation, roof forms, parking screening, and sidewalks, as are required by the objective design standards, are less likely to physically preclude a development and are therefore likely to continue to apply. Under the State Density Bonus projects can also apply for a limited number of concessions based on financial feasibility of the development project, so some of the design standards could be removed by the decision making body at a public hearing. However, no project is entitled to more than four concessions, so the vast majority of the proposed design standards will continue to apply to Density Bonus projects.

Additional Ordinance Amendments
The process of drafting the proposed objective design standards led to discussions with decisionmakers and the community about other areas of the municipal code that could be addressed as part of this work. During this work, Santa Cruz processed its first development application under SB 35, legislation that requires the use of objective standards exclusively, and that also led to several other policy-level discussions. Combined, several areas of the code are being addressed as part of this objective design standards package:
• The addition of Bird-Safe Design standards for new construction;

21.545
5 • An amendment requiring that project applications incorporate the recommended mitigations identified by any archaeological reconnaissance conducted for the development proposal;
• Amendments to requirements for driveway sight distances, vehicle loading spaces, and requirements for information technology infrastructure (fiber optic cable); • Requirements about the placement of street trees with development proposals on transit corridors and other significant arterial roadways;
• A change to the trigger for requiring a conditional fence permit; • Appropriate cross references to the proposed objective design standards; and • Additions to the Height Modifications section to create appropriate allowances for roof top open space.

A few of these additional changes are discussed in more detail below.

Bird-Safe Design
Building strikes, when birds fly into glass or other reflective building materials, are the second largest human cause of bird deaths in the United States, following predation by house cats, with an estimated 365 to 988 million fatalities annually. Santa Cruz is home to many native and exotic bird species and lies within a major migratory flyway, so building strikes affect both local and migratory bird populations.

In 2017, the Ventana chapter of the Sierra Club approached Planning staff about this issue and expressed a desire to create development standards that could reduce the number of bird strikes happening within the City. Planning staff collaborated with Sierra Club representatives as well as bird-safe design experts and other stakeholder groups to develop the Planning Department’s Bird Safe Building Design Standards. In 2021, the standards were reviewed by a consulting biologist and updated to incorporate minor changes to more precisely define when the standards would apply, as well as to delineate a process for allowing exceptions to the standards in limited circumstances. Further minor updates were made in early 2022, and a reference to the document is proposed to be added to Chapter 24.12. The standards themselves are published in a separate, administratively managed document available on the Planning and Community Development Department’s website. See reference added in Municipal Code Section 24.12.127.

Archaeological Review Requirement
In reviewing the development application for the City’s first SB 35 project, staff noticed that the existing requirement for preparation of an archaeological report on sites identified as potentially having archaeological resources did not include any requirement for compliance with the findings or recommendations of the required report. Language requiring that development proposals demonstrate compliance with a required report is proposed to be added to Municipal Code Section 24.12.430.

Loading and Utility Standards
The Public Works Department thoroughly reviewed the standards in Chapter 15.20 and proposed changes to create greater objectivity in their project review processes. Public Works submitted these proposed amendments to the Transportation and Public Works Commission (TPWC) in May for a formal recommendation to the City Council. The proposed amendments, which relate primarily to improvements required for the public realm when new development projects take

21.546
6 place, are included as an informational attachment for context but are outside the purview of the Planning Commission. These amendments, based upon the recommendation of the TPWC, will be integrated with the ordinance amendments included with this report and with the forthcoming zone district amendments when the objective design standards project proceeds to the City Council for final review.

In addition to right of way and frontage improvements, Public Works is also responsible for reviewing utility infrastructure and automobile circulation for new development proposals and is recommending amendments to sections of Chapter 24.12 relating to off-street loading facilities and underground utilities. See the attachment with the amendments to the Municipal Code Sections 24.12.280, 24.12.295 and 24.12.700 et seq. The proposed amendments:
• Add an objective reference for determining sight distances when designing driveway approaches,
• Create thresholds for determining the required number and type of off-street loading facilities, and
• Set objective standards for installing cable or conduit for information technology (typically fiber optic cable or dark conduit where connection to fiber optic is not yet available). Certain exceptions to these requirements are also added.

Street Trees
The proposed objective design standards contain a new standard for sites located on the designated Corridors (Mission, Ocean, Water, Soquel) that requires street trees to be installed for every 30 feet of site frontage. Currently, street tree installation is governed by area plans to varying degrees or by property owner choice. Given the level of interest and the number of comments from the public relating to street trees, Planning staff worked with Parks and Recreation staff, including the City’s Urban Forester, to draft standards for street trees that ensure that placement is safe and more likely to be successful.

In working with Public Works on establishing requirements for sidewalk widths that would apply for development proposals of three or more units, staff determined that the requirements for incorporating street trees could be extended to other areas of the City where sidewalk widths would accommodate them. Based on the minimum street tree planting well requiring a width of three feet and the minimum ADA sidewalk width of four feet, a standard was drafted to require installation of street trees for any development proposal that triggers the requirement for a sidewalk width of seven feet or more.

Additional standards governing the method of planting and permits required for maintenance are contained in Municipal Code Section 13.30. The Parks and Recreation Department is working on amendments to that code section adding further objectivity to the existing standards and clarifying existing procedures. The proposed amendments to this section are included as an informational item for the Planning Commission. The City’s Parks and Recreation Commission will formally review the proposed draft at their June meeting and their recommendation will be transmitted to the City Council along with the rest of the objective design standards package.

Local Coastal Program
The City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) is the tool used by the City and the Coastal Commission to effectively regulate development activities within the Coastal Zone.

21.547
7 Because the objective design standards will apply to all new multi-family and mixed-use housing developed in the City, the standards constitute amendments to the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan. City staff consulted with Coastal Commission Staff this past winter to review the draft standards for potential concerns.

The Coastal Commission identified the previously proposed reduction to required open space in residential zone districts as a potential concern for coastal resources, and as a result, staff has removed this reduction and is proposing to maintain existing requirements for total square footage of open space per dwelling unit for residential zone districts. As the proposed standards are facilitating allowed existing development capacities rather than increasing those capacities, which are already permitted by the LCP, staff concludes that the remainder of the proposed ordinance will have no physical effect on the size or type of development permitted within the Coastal Zone.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES
In 2019, the City adopted a Health in All Policies strategy in order to eliminate inequities in health and well-being and attain equity for all residents. The proposed amendment package furthers the City’s Health in All Policies strategy, as the intent of the proposal is to support creation of a wider variety of housing options, promoting more equitable access to housing. The proposal would serve to support development of dense housing in areas of the City with a mix of employment, housing, retail, and entertainment uses, promoting a sustainable development pattern and making efficient use of urbanized land. This land use pattern also encourages active transportation, which promotes personal health. By incentivizing a variety of new housing opportunities that meet residents’ needs, this proposal supports the social, economic, and environmental health of the community.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed amendments fall within the analyzed development potential in the City’s existing 2030 General Plan EIR, as they are intended to fully implement the adopted General Plan Land Use maps and policies. The proposed amendment would not result in increased densities or intensification of uses, rather these proposed amendments will regulate the design and development character of projects achieving those planned densities.

NEXT STEPS: As mentioned in the Background section, this item constitutes the first half of the full objective design standards item. The second half of the item includes: proposed new zone districts for mixed-use development, rezonings for the parcels where those zones will apply, amendments to the development review process, and a few other municipal code amendments.

Following the Planning Commission’s action on both parts of the objective design standards package, Planning staff will coordinate with Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and Water staff to incorporate the proposed objective design standards amendments to all the various sections of the Municipal Code into a single ordinance amendment for City Council review. The City Council is likely to hear the item at a regularly scheduled meeting in August 2022.

Following action by the City Council, portions of the amendment package, including the amendments to Chapter 24.12, will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for review prior to taking effect within the coastal zone. In all areas outside the Coastal Zone, the amendments to the Municipal Code will take effect 30 days following final action by the City Council.

21.548
8 Prepared by:

Sarah Neuse
Senior Planner
Approved by:

Matt VanHua
Principal Planner
Approved by:

Lee Butler
Director of Planning and
Community Development
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Objective Standards for Multifamily and Mixed Use Housing – Standalone document clean

2. Objective Standards for Multifamily and Mixed Use Housing – Standalone document strikeout/underline

3. Proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 24.12, strikeout/underline

4. Maps: parcels where objective design standards will apply

5. Informational Item: Proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapters 12.60 and 15.20

6. Informational Item: Proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 13.30

7. Communuity Suggested Standards and Staff Responses

21.549

Page 1 ends

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Objective Development Standards
[Public Review Draft – 10/19/2021]
DRAFT FOR ADOPTION, 5/10/2022
Table of Contents
Document Guide
Differentiation by District
Site Design
Building Design
Definitions
Definitions
Document Guide
Purpose of the Document
The purpose of this document is to provide a set of clear, objective, and measurable standards for multi-family and mixed-use residential development that is consistent with the character of Santa Cruz while also ensuring that new housing development is economically feasible.

To address the housing shortage, recent State legislation, including Senate Bill (SB) 35,SB 330, and SB 3309, requires multi-family projects to be reviewed only against objective design and development standards. According to the Government Code (Sections 65913.4 and 66300[a][7]), objective development standards “involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable” by development applicants and public officials before submittal of a project application. In other words, objective standards allow applicants to know the requirements that will apply to a proposed project so that they can design a project that meets those standards. These objective development standards can therefore make development more predictable and easier to interpret for all stakeholders, including decision makers, City staff, applicants, and members of the public.

The standards in this document will dictate the form and style of new development on some prominent parcels throughout the city at key intersections and in many residential neighborhoods. Creating standards that are easy to understand and effective at creating highquality buildings will make creating new affordable and market rate housing easier and more transparent for existing and future residents of Santa Cruz.

21.550

Page 2 ends

Relationship to Other Planning Documents
While the City has many design guidelines that promote best practices, many are subjective or optional, and therefore cannot currently be enforced under State law. The objective development standards in this document work as a baseline, creating citywide standards that apply to all new multi-family and mixed-use residential projects. The standards in this document work in tandem with other City standards already in place. ● General Plan. The General Plan contains objective standards related to floor-area-ratio (FAR) and/or development density for all land uses in the City. The objective development standards in this document are consistent with the General Plan and dictate the bulk, mass, and design of buildings in a more fine-grained way than the General Plan.
● Area Plans. The Area Plans will continue to set a vision and best practices for specific geographic areas/neighborhoods in Santa Cruz. Where applicable, the objective development standards have drawn on standards and guidelines that exist in the Area Plans. Objective standards that exist in Area Plans will continue to apply. Objective standards can be identified in Area Plans by reviewing guidelines and standards for words like “must,” “shall,” “will” or “will not.”
● Zoning. The Zoning District Standards contain objective standards that define the building envelope such as setbacks, heights, parking, and open space requirements.

These district-by-district standards will continue to dictate basic development standards, and the objective development standards will apply in addition to these requirements, providing refinement in terms of site and building design. Note that in order to maximize opportunities for housing, zoning standards relating to required open space are proposed to be amended with the objective standards.
● Other Municipal Code Sections. The City also maintains and enforces standards related to stormwater drainage, roadway and traffic requirements, and standards for working within the public right of way to install sidewalks, street trees, and lighting. These standards will continue to apply, and City departments are evaluating the need to make some of the existing standards more objective in order to ensure they continue to apply in the necessary manner.
● Building Standards Codes. All construction in the State of California is subject to the California Building Standards Codes which dictate health, safety, and energy and water efficiency standards for new and remodeled structures. In Santa Cruz, the City’s Green Building Program also requires additional green building features of every new housing unit and requiring responsible disposal of construction waste products.

Implementation
The objective standards in this document relate to building design and site design for new development and redevelopment projects. (including all multi-family proposals that meet the

21.551

Page 3 ends

definition of demolition in the municipal code). The standards here will carrybe incorporated into the same weight as zoning standardscode as part of chapter 24.12, meaning they will be required of all new development and could be waived through a State Density Bonus application for projects providing income-restricted affordable housing units or, like any zoning standard, could be subject to an application for a variance in situations where exceptional circumstances prevent a particular site from being able to meet one or more of the standards. or varied through an application for a Planned Development where public benefit is proposed. Like other zoning standards review for compliance will happen
during the development review process, and
ongoing maintenance of required conditions will
be a matter of code enforcement.

Community Input
In the preparation of this document, the City
performed significant outreach to understand
the desires of the Santa Cruz community. These
standards were shaped in response to the preferences gathered through this outreach process.

Excerpts from the outreach efforts are included as call-out boxes throughout the document -- these are not intended to be regulatory and are simply provided to give background and context.

Assumptions
The regulations in this document shall apply to newnewly constructed residential and mixed-use buildings proposed in the city of Santa Cruz in any district other than the Central Business District (CBD). In some cases, standards apply to some zoning districts and not others; where no specific district is indicated, standards apply to all zoning districts other than the CBD and CBD-E, which are governed by the Downtown Plan. Due to potential changes in allowable development densities as a result of State-level legislation, these standards are written to apply to multi-family development -- from duplexes to mid-rise buildings, and everything in between -- in any zoning district including the R-1 zone, even though the R-1 zone is currently limited to development of single-family homes and duplexes. These standards are intended to ensure high-quality design of any new or redeveloped multi-family housing, regardless of zoning district, General Plan designation, or property ownership.

Throughout the document there are some standards which may apply specific considerations to different zoning districts because of their specific types of uses or densities. Generally, differences are split between those districts that are primarily commercial, mixed-use, or residential in nature. Where standards differentiate between districts, the specific districts they apply to are listed. If no specific district is listed, then the standard applies to all districts.

All building controlsstandards in this document are written to be objective and quantifiable.

Where a measurement in feet is given, it is assumed to be a linear dimension in the horizontal or vertical direction, unless otherwise stated. Where a measurement in square feet is given, it is Word on the Street
Look for this box for snippets of what
we’ve heard from our community
engagement exercises, including public
meetings, focus groups, interviews, and
online surveys.

21.552

Page 4 ends

assumed to be gross square feet, unless otherwise stated. Where a specific term is not defined, the definitions contained in Chapter 24.22 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code shall apply.

Differentiation by District
Surveys and focus group discussions with the
Santa Cruz community revealed that, while
neighborhoods do have unique characteristics
in terms of street width, building spacing,
streetscape improvements, and existing uses,
there is no single architectural or building style
that best represents any given district or
neighborhood. In fact, there was a strong
feeling that an eclectic mix of architectural
styles is what best represents the city’s
architectural identity. Similarly, survey
respondents preferred giving architects
creative freedom over certain design features
instead of dictating strict standards.

However, the results also indicated that
community members desire a difference
between how buildings are designed in
residential neighborhoods versus along the
city’s major corridors (like Soquel Avenue,
Ocean Street, Mission Street, and Water
Street). The findings are summarized below:
● It was commonly expressed that buildings along major corridors can be taller and larger and should be designed to contribute to the walkability and livability of the community, with active ground floor uses and more space for pedestrians. ● By contrast, the lower-intensity, more residential neighborhoods were described as having a diversity of single-family homes alongside smaller apartment buildings, with abundant opportunities for landscaping.
● For all areas, the community expressed a desire for high-quality building materials, architectural features, and/or detailing, and for sustainability measures that reflect the environmental values of Santa Cruz.
● In addition to environmental sustainability, the community voiced a strong desire to prioritize housing affordability and creation of a more livable, newer housing stock. ● As noted above, elements that contribute to the unique feeling of each neighborhood include the width of the streets, the sizes of the lots, the heights of the buildings, the distance that buildings are set back from the street and one another, and the mix of Word on the Street
Survey Results
• On commercial corridors, 67 percent
of respondents preferred an eclectic
building look over a uniform one.
• In both commercial and residential
areas, respondents generally
preferred giving architects freedom
or a menu of options.

Focus Group Feedback
• “Santa Cruz is about uniqueness and
being different, like there’s nothing
that’s exactly the same in Santa Cruz
and that comes from the culture of
not only the buildings but mostly the
community and the people and the
types of people that live in Santa
Cruz. It’s about being different and
embracing your own uniqueness and
everyone is ok with that. Everyone is
ok with being different, which I think
is really magical and something
that’s really important to the culture
of Santa Cruz.”
• “[An eclectic mix] is the only [option] I
wrote yes to It is the change in

21.553

Page 5 ends

residential densities and non-residential uses. These are patterns that have been set -- and continue to be governed -- by requirements of the different zoning districts and street plan lines.

In response to these findings, the Objective Standards do not require any specific architectural style for specific neighborhoods and enable a wide variety of building styles throughout the City.

Instead, these new standards require specific design approaches related to the scale and type of development in each zoning district. In a few cases, they create flexibility for building forms to achieve specific, performance-based outcomes. For all residential development, the Objective Standards emphasize human scale design;, depth and articulation of building faces;, high quality building materials;, and sustainable design.

I. Site Design
Consistent with the City of Santa Cruz General Plan Goals and Policies and feedback from community members, the following site design requirements maintainguide a development pattern that promotes walkability, minimizes the visual and physical impact of vehicles, and supports opportunities for greenery and landscape.

A. Maximum Building Length
Goals: To ensure thatincentivize multi-family buildings that are incentivized to reduce bulkmore affordable by design, and more ‘house-sized' in residential zone districts.

1. In primarily residential districts: Where buildings are designed at a 75-footall R-districts:

The maximum building length (shall be as withdictated by required setbacks and parcel dimensions. Where the building façade along the public frontage is no greater than 75 feet in length and where the proposal meets the definition of a stacked flat building type, (as opposed to a townhome building type), the parking requirement shall be reduced by half. Otherwise, the maximum building length shall be as dictated by setbacks and parcel dimensions.

1. In commercial and mixed-use districts: No maximum building length. i. On lots with multiple public frontages, such as corner lots or double-frontage lots, this requirement applies only to the public frontage requiring the widest sidewalk.

Required sidewalk widths are determined by considering any relevant Area Plan requirements and the requirements of Chapters 24.12 and Chapter 15.20. In all cases, where any inconsistency is present, the required sidewalk width shall be the widest standard applicable.

2. In C-C, R-T, C-T, C-N, C-B, and all MU districts with mixed use development: The maximum building length shall be as dictated by required setbacks and parcel dimensions.

21.554

Page 6 ends

Santa Cruz City CouncilAugust 23, 2022

Santa Cruz City Council
August 23, 2022