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

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Effective Date 07/01/2022

HARVEY WEST PARK

FACILITY CAPACITY STANDARD RATE ORGANIZATIONAL RATE DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT NON-PROFIT COMMERCIAL All Areas
🏠🏠 ⚡ 💰💰 🍷🍷 👮👮 3000 $2,076 daily $2,700 daily $1,765 daily $3,115 daily $1000 facility deposit for all area access.

LOWER PARK
Evergreen1
🏠🏠 ⚡ 💰💰 🍷🍷
275
12♿ $312 daily $405 daily $265 daily $468 daily

PICNIC RESERVATIONS
💰💰 $150 deposit for alcohol
⚡ $31 Access to Power
🍷🍷 $61 Alcohol Permit
🏠🏠 $42 Bounce House Permit (w/Reservation
– limit one in park per day)
$52 Bounce House Permit (w/o Reservation –
limit one in park per day)
1 Includes adjacent concrete pad
Redwood
⚡ 💰💰 🍷🍷
70 2♿ $156 daily $203 daily $133 daily $265 daily
Buckeye
🏠🏠 ⚡ 💰💰 🍷🍷 50 $146 daily $189 daily $124 daily $218 daily Millennium Circle
🏠🏠 ⚡ 💰💰 🍷🍷 50 $146 daily $189 daily $124 daily $218 daily Wagner Grove
Ceremony Site 100 $125 daily $162 daily $106 daily $187 daily Clubhouse & Scouthouse
⚡ 💰💰 🍷🍷 👮👮 152 $727 dailyA $945 dailyA $618 dailyA $1,091 dailyA 💰💰 $700 facility use deposit (weekends); $150 facility use deposit for individual rooms
(weekdays)
⚡ $31 Access to Power (fee for deck area
only; interior include in reservation)
👮👮 Private Security fee: $35/hr during public
hours
A$52 for each add’l hour over day rate (8hrs)
B$42 for each add’l hour over day rate (8hrs)
Scouthouse
Hourly rates M-Th
2 hour minimum
⚡ 💰💰 🍷🍷
62 $52 hourly
$364 dailyB
$68 hourly
$473 dailyB
$45 hourly
$310 dailyB
$78 hourly
$545 dailyB
Clubhouse
Hourly rates M-Th
2 hour minimum
⚡ 💰💰 🍷🍷
90 $63 hourly
$436 dailyB
$81 hourly
$567 dailyB
$54 hourly
$371 dailyB
$95 hourly
$654 dailyB
Non-resident fees applicable to those who reside outside City of Santa Cruz limits.

21.1195
P:\PKAD\Advisory Bodies\Parks And Rec Commission\2022\Packets\08082022\Tree In-Lieu Fee\Parks & Recreation Department Schedule Of Fees.Docx

Page 2 of 13 ends

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Effective Date 07/01/2022

HARVEY WEST PARK

FACILITY CAPACITY STANDARD RATE ORGANIZATIONAL RATE DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT NON-PROFIT COMMERCIAL

UPPER PARK
Friendship
🏠🏠 ⚡ 💰💰 🍷🍷
66 23♿ $156 daily* $203 daily* $133 daily* $234 daily*

PICNIC RESERVATIONS
💰💰 $150 deposit for alcohol
⚡ $31 Access to Power
🍷🍷 $61 Alcohol Permit
🏠🏠 $42 Bounce House Permit (w/Reservation
– limit one in park per day)
$52 Bounce House Permit (w/o Reservation
– limit one in park per day)
Upper Glen
💰💰 🍷🍷 90 $187 daily $243 daily $159 daily $281 daily
Herb Garden
💰💰 🍷🍷
20 4♿
$83 daily $108 daily $71 daily $125 daily Bay
💰💰 🍷🍷
20 6♿
Overlook
💰💰 🍷🍷
20 6♿
Friendship Garden Lawn
Available with picnic reservation 100 $104 daily $135 daily $89 daily $156 daily Pump Track N/A $26 hourly 2 hour min - 4 hour max

SAN LORENZO PARK AND SANTA CRUZ RIVERWALK

FACILITY CAPACITY STANDARD RATE ORGANIZATIONAL RATE DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES

RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT NON-PROFIT COMMERCIAL
Duck Island Stage -
San Lorenzo Park
⚡ 💰💰
500 $27 hourly
$208 daily
$35 hourly
$271 daily
$23 hourly
$176 daily
$41 hourly
$312 daily
💰💰 $150 deposit
⚡ $31 Access to Power
2 hour min
Benchlands -
San Lorenzo Park
⚡ 💰💰 🍷🍷 👮👮
3000 $60 hourly
$405 daily
$78 hourly
$527 daily
$51 hourly
$345 daily
$90 hourly
$608 daily
💰💰 $150 deposit
⚡ $31 Access to Power
🍷🍷 $61 Alcohol Permit
👮👮 Private Security fee
Santa Cruz Riverwalk
⚡ 👮👮 $32 hourly $42 hourly $28 hourly $48 hourly
⚡ $31 Access to Power
👮👮 Private Security fee
2 hour min; 4 hour max
Non-resident fees applicable to those who reside outside City of Santa Cruz limits.

21.1196
P:\PKAD\Advisory Bodies\Parks And Rec Commission\2022\Packets\08082022\Tree In-Lieu Fee\Parks & Recreation Department Schedule Of Fees.Docx

Page 3 of 13 ends

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Effective Date 07/01/2022

DELAVEAGA PARK

FACILITY CAPACITY STANDARD RATE ORGANIZATIONAL RATE DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT NON-PROFIT COMMERCIAL All Areas
🏠🏠 ⚡ 💰💰🍷🍷 1500 $1,038 daily* $1,350 daily* $883 daily* $1,557 daily* $1000 facility deposit for all area access.

UPPER AREA
Creek Corner
🏠🏠 💰💰🍷🍷 25 $83 daily* $108 daily* $71 daily* $125 daily*

PICNIC RESERVATIONS
💰💰 $150 deposit for alcohol
⚡ $31 Access to Power
🍷🍷 $61 Alcohol Permit
🏠🏠 $42 Bounce House Permit
(w/Reservation – limit two in park per day)
$52 Bounce House Permit (w/o
Reservation – limit two in park per day)
Lone Tree
🏠🏠 ⚡ 💰💰🍷🍷 180 $208 daily* $271 daily* $177 daily* $312 daily* Cathedral Grove
⚡💰💰🍷🍷 225
$260 daily $338 daily $221 daily $390 daily Twisted Tree ⚡💰💰🍷🍷 225
Maple Grove
⚡💰💰🍷🍷 250
Forty Thieves
⚡ 💰💰🍷🍷 100 $187 daily $243 daily $159 daily $281 daily

LOWER AREA
Half-Meadow
(A/B) 100 $26 hourly
$156 daily
$34 hourly
$203 daily
$22 hourly
$133 daily
$39 hourly
$234 daily Additional fees may apply depending on
Full Meadow event application. No dogs allowed.
(A&B) 200 $52 hourly
$312 daily
$68 hourly
$406 daily
$44 hourly
$265 daily
$78 hourly
$468 daily
Non-resident fees applicable to those who reside outside City of Santa Cruz limits.

21.1197
P:\PKAD\Advisory Bodies\Parks And Rec Commission\2022\Packets\08082022\Tree In-Lieu Fee\Parks & Recreation Department Schedule Of Fees.Docx

Page 4 of 13 ends

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Effective Date 07/01/2022

BEACH FACILITIES

FACILITY CAPACITY STANDARD RATE ORGANIZATIONAL RATE DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT NON-PROFIT COMMERCIAL

COWELL BEACH
Cowell @ Surfline 200
$358 daily $466 daily $305 daily $537 daily
Additional fees may apply
depending on event application
Cowell @ Collin’s 200
Cowell @ Sandy Point 200
Cowell @ Hotel 500
$478 daily $622 daily $407 daily $717 daily Cowell @ Wharf 500

MAIN BEACH
Main @ Wharf 500
$478 daily $622 daily $407 daily $717 daily
Additional fees may apply
depending on event application
Main @ Main St. 500
Main @ Tower 2 500
Main @ Aloha Deck 500
Main @ Cocoanut Grove 1000 $717 daily $932 daily $610 daily $1,076 daily Main @ Bandstand 1250 $955 daily $1,242 daily $812 daily $1,433 daily Main @ Giant Dipper 5000 $2,388 daily $3,105 daily $2,030 daily $3,582 daily Non-resident fees applicable to those who reside outside City of Santa Cruz limits.

21.1198
P:\PKAD\Advisory Bodies\Parks And Rec Commission\2022\Packets\08082022\Tree In-Lieu Fee\Parks & Recreation Department Schedule Of Fees.Docx

Page 5 of 13 ends

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Effective Date 07/01/2022

SPORTS FACILITIES

FACILITY STANDARD RATE ORGANIZATIONAL RATE DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT NON-PROFIT COMMERCIAL Single Softball Fields
Harvey West Park: #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
DeLaveaga: #1, 2
$32 hourly
$187 daily
$42 hourly
$243 daily
$27 hourly
$159 daily
$48 hourly
$281 daily
Bases not included
Lights $21/hr (2 hour minimum)
Fees are per field
Tournament Rentals
DeLaveaga Park Ball Fields
Must reserve at least 1 month prior
💰💰 N/A $159 daily $281 daily
💰💰 Deposit required
Bases not included
Lights $20/hr (2 hour minimum)
10% of event registrations
Insurance required
$50 concession fee daily
Fees are per field
Football/Soccer Fields
Harvey West Park: #2-3; #5-6
$63 hourly
$374 daily
$82 hourly
$487 daily
$54 hourly
$318 daily
$95 hourly
$561 daily
Lights $21/hr (2 hour minimum)
Fees are per field
Tennis Courts
Neary Lagoon
Sgt. Derby Park
University Terrace
$5 hourly $4 hourly N/A 10% of event registrations
2 hour maximum
Beach Volleyball Court
Tournaments must be booked sixty (60)
days in advance with Sports & Beaches
Supervisor
$10 hourly
$38 half-day*
$72 daily*
$8 hourly
$32 half-day*
$62 daily*
$15 hourly
$57 half-day*
$108 daily*
Fees are per court.
* Tournament Rate: Day 4+ hrs; ½ day <4 hrs
💵💵 Commercial Use Fee: 10% Reg/5% NP
Insurance required
Bocce Courts
DeLaveaga Park (Lower)
Grant Park
Harvey West Park
🍷🍷
$5 hourly 🍷🍷 $61 Alcohol Permit
Disc Golf Tournament Fee $78
Non-resident fees applicable to those who reside outside City of Santa Cruz limits.

21.1199
P:\PKAD\Advisory Bodies\Parks And Rec Commission\2022\Packets\08082022\Tree In-Lieu Fee\Parks & Recreation Department Schedule Of Fees.Docx

Page 6 of 13 ends

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Effective Date 07/01/2022

DEPOT PARK

FACILITY CAPACITY

STANDARD RATE ORGANIZATIONAL RATE

DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES

RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT NON-PROFIT COMMERCIAL
Depot Plaza
💰💰 2500 $57 hourly
$416 daily
$74 hourly
$541 daily
$49 hourly
$354 daily
$86 hourly
$624 daily
💰💰 $150 deposit
Public Events Only (2 hour min; 4 hour
max)
Depot Freight Building
💰💰
100 $47 hourly
$234 daily
$61 hourly
$305 daily
$40 hourly
$199 daily
$71 hourly
$351 daily
💰💰 $150 deposit; teaching (no deposit)
2 hour minimum
No Sunday reservations
9:00 am – 9:00 pm

SCOTT KENNEDY FIELDS

FIELD AREA

STANDARD RATE NON-PROFIT RATE

DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES

RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT RESIDENT YOUTH RESIDENT ADULT

JUNE, JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER
💰💰 Field reservations subject to $100.00
deposit
Full $80 hourly $97 hourly $50 hourly $65 hourly
North or South $49 hourly $59 hourly $30 hourly $39 hourly

MARCH, APRIL, MAY, NOVEMBER
Full $88 hourly $107 hourly $55 hourly $72 hourly
North or South $54 hourly 65 hourly $33 hourly $43 hourly

JANUARY, FEBRUARY, DECEMBER
Full $96 hourly $117 hourly $60 hourly $78 hourly
North or South $59 hourly $71 hourly $36 hourly $47 hourly Non-resident fees applicable to those who reside outside City of Santa Cruz limits; non-listed commercial rates available upon request.

21.1200
P:\PKAD\Advisory Bodies\Parks And Rec Commission\2022\Packets\08082022\Tree In-Lieu Fee\Parks & Recreation Department Schedule Of Fees.Docx

Page 7 of 13 ends

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Effective Date 07/01/2022

LONDON NELSON COMMUNITY CENTER

FACILITY CAPACITY

STANDARD RATE ORGANIZATIONAL RATE

DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES

RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT NON-PROFIT COMMERCIAL
Classrooms
1, 4, 5, 7
💰💰 🍷🍷 49
$32 hourly $42 hourly $27 hourly Please
Inquire.
💰💰 $200 deposit for alcohol
🍷🍷 Alcohol Permit
Accessible Space
Special Off-Peak Rate: $13 hourly (exclusions apply)
Off-Peak Classroom Availability:

Monday – Thursday 1pm-5pm;
Fridays after 1pm
Conference Room
💰💰 🍷🍷
15 $15 hourly $20 hourly $12 hourly Please
Inquire.
💰💰 $200 deposit for alcohol
🍷🍷 Alcohol Permit
Accessible Space
Special Off-Peak Rate: $10 hourly (exclusions apply)
Off-Peak Classroom Availability:

Monday – Thursday 1pm-5pm;
Fridays after 1pm
Kitchen
💰💰 🍷🍷 10 $13 hourly Please
Inquire.
💰💰 $200 deposit for alcohol
🍷🍷 Alcohol Permit
Accessible Space
2 hr min
Multipurpose Room
(Room 3)
💰💰 🍷🍷 127
seated
$63 hourly
$316 daily
$82 hourly
$411 daily
$54 hourly
$269 daily
Please
Inquire.
💰💰 $100 deposit for events; $200 deposit
for alcohol
🍷🍷 Alcohol Permit
Accessible Space
2 hr min
Multipurpose Room
AND Kitchen
💰💰 🍷🍷 127
seated
$80 hourly
$400 daily
$104 hourly
$520 daily
$68 hourly
$340 daily
Please
Inquire.
💰💰 $100 deposit for events; $200 deposit
for alcohol
🍷🍷 Alcohol Permit
Accessible Space
2 hr min
Parking permits are required for activities held at the London Nelson Community Center that are longer than two hours. Look for street parking with signs designated “LNCC Permit Valid” or use the offstreet Public Parking Lot #26 (adjacent to SCPD at 155 Center Street) in the free 3-Hour Parking section only. These permits are available at no cost at the front desk for community center patrons.

Alcohol Permits: Alcohol is allowed at the London Nelson Community Center; however all events serving alcohol must first obtain a permit in advance and pay a refundable $200 deposit. Permits are approved by the Center’s supervisor. In cases where alcohol is sold, an additional permit from the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Agency will be required as well notification/approval from the Police Department (SCPD). Alcohol is not allowed in Laurel Park.

21.1201
P:\PKAD\Advisory Bodies\Parks And Rec Commission\2022\Packets\08082022\Tree In-Lieu Fee\Parks & Recreation Department Schedule Of Fees.Docx

Page 8 of 13 ends

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Effective Date 07/01/2022

LONDON NELSON COMMUNITY CENTER

FACILITY CAPACITY

STANDARD RATE ORGANIZATIONAL RATE

DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES

RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT NON-PROFIT COMMERCIAL
Auditorium
Class/Rehearsal
💰💰 🍷🍷 174-325
$55 hourly
$275 daily
$72 hourly
$358 daily
$47 hourly
$234 daily
Please
Inquire.
💰💰 $100 deposit for events; $200 deposit
for alcohol
🍷🍷 Alcohol Permit
Accessible Space
2 hr min
Auditorium
Presentation/Performance
💰💰 🍷🍷
$100 hourly
$500 daily
$130 hourly
$650 daily
$85 hourly
$425 daily
Please
Inquire.

EQUIPMENT STANDARD RATE DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES
Sound System
Lecture
Full Sound
$25 daily
$50 daily/$100 weekly
💰💰 $150 deposit
Lighting System
Lecture
Full Sound
$25 daily
$50 daily/$100 weekly
💰💰 $50 deposit
Riser Seating System $30 weekly Mon-Thurs use subject to approval by Auditorium Coordinator; Additional fees may apply.

Stage Extensions (thrusts) $10 each/show
Monitor/Apple TV $10 daily
Amp/Microphone $10 daily
LCD Projector $10 daily
Marquee: 3 Lines $10 weekly
Hot Water Pot $5 weekly
Parking permits are required for activities held at the London Nelson Community Center that are longer than two hours. Look for street parking with signs designated “LNCC Permit Valid” or use the offstreet Public Parking Lot #26 (adjacent to SCPD at 155 Center Street) in the free 3-Hour Parking section only. These permits are available at no cost at the front desk for community center patrons.

21.1202
P:\PKAD\Advisory Bodies\Parks And Rec Commission\2022\Packets\08082022\Tree In-Lieu Fee\Parks & Recreation Department Schedule Of Fees.Docx

Page 9 of 13 ends

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Effective Date 07/01/2022

CIVIC AUDITORIUM

FACILITY CAPACITY

ORGANIZATIONAL RATE

CITY DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES

NON-PROFIT

OUTSIDE CITY

NON-PROFIT COMMERCIAL
Main Hall
Holding Deposit
💰💰 🍷🍷 2,105
SEATED
$300 daily $350 daily $400 daily Applied towards rent (Non-Refundable).

Additional advance deposits may be required.

Main Hall
Usage Fee $575 daily
(AND 2.5% of
gross ticket sales)
$625 daily
(AND 5% of gross
ticket sales)
$675 daily
(AND 7.5% of gross ticket
sales)
Insurance Certificate is required for all events. May be obtained through the Civic Auditorium, call the Auditorium Manager for price quote.

BOX OFFICE PER TICKET SERVICE CHARGE STANDARD RATE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Ticket Price: $0-$9.99 $3.50/ticket The Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium must be responsible for the administration and accounting of all tickets sold for events which take place at the Auditorium.

Services include ticketing in advance at the Civic Auditorium Box Office and SantaCruzTickets.com. The Auditorium will staff the Box Office during the event and the Auditorium management will provide a ticket audit upon the conclusion of the event. Santa Cruz Tickets Fees and Services.

Ticket Price: $10-$19.99 $4.50/ticket
Ticket Price: $20-$49.99 $5.50/ticket
Ticket Price: $50-$99.99 $6.50/ticket
Ticket Price: $100-$199.99* $7.50/ticket
* Service charge increases by $2.00/$100 increment thereafter.

STANDARD SERVICES STANDARD RATE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Fire Control $50 daily
Attendants $18 hourly Number determined by the Auditorium Manage In-House Production Coordinator $30 hourly
Union Stage Hands $45 hourly IATSE stage hands for sound, lighting, rigging will vary dependent on production Private Security $30 hourly Number determined by the Auditorium Manager Front-of-House Manager $25 hourly
Maintenance Workers: $18 hourly Set-up, staffing event and clean-up Event Maintenance Lead $25 hourly
Reserved Parking $3/space Up to 42 spaces available
Audio/Visual Recording $500 daily
Equipment Package rates vary. Call 420-5243 or send tech requirements to [email protected] Merchandise Sales 20% of sales, after taxes
City Admissions Tax 5% of gross ticket sales

21.1203
P:\PKAD\Advisory Bodies\Parks And Rec Commission\2022\Packets\08082022\Tree In-Lieu Fee\Parks & Recreation Department Schedule Of Fees.Docx

Page 10 of 13 ends

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Effective Date 07/01/2022

CIVIC AUDITORIUM

FACILITY DIMENSIONS

ORGANIZATIONAL RATE

CITY DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES

NON-PROFIT

OUTSIDE CITY

NON-PROFIT COMMERCIAL
Dressing Rooms (each) 13’x11’ $15 hourly $20 hourly $25 hourly Rates for side room rentals are flat rate if associated with larger Auditorium event, or hourly if not associated with Auditorium rental.

After 4:00 pm and weekends, tenants will be charged an
additional $18.00 per hour.

Employees Lounge 17’x17’ $30 hourly $35 hourly $40 hourly Timberlake Room 14’x8’ $30 hourly $35 hourly $40 hourly Room ABC (Tony Hill) 17’x45’ $45 hourly $55 hourly $65 hourly Room G & H 10’x31’ $20 hourly $25 hourly $30 hourly
Kitchen 19’x17’ $50 hourly $55 hourly $60 hourly

21.1204
P:\PKAD\Advisory Bodies\Parks And Rec Commission\2022\Packets\08082022\Tree In-Lieu Fee\Parks & Recreation Department Schedule Of Fees.Docx

Page 11 of 13 ends

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Effective Date 07/01/2022

OTHER CITY FACILITIES

FACILITY CAPACITY STANDARD RATE ORGANIZATIONAL RATE DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT NON-PROFIT COMMERCIAL City Hall Courtyard
⚡ 👮👮
$37 hourly
$260 daily
$48 hourly
$338 daily
$32 hourly
$221 daily
$56 hourly
$390 daily
Public Events Only ( 2hour min; 4 hour
max)
👮👮 Facility attendant: $35 hourly
⚡ $31 Access to Power
Grant Park Picnic Area 50 $152 daily $198 daily $130 daily $228 daily Public Events Only (2 hour min; 4 hour max) Garfield Park Picnic Area 20 $87 daily $113 daily $74 daily $131 daily Ideal Deck at the Wharf $20 daily 9:00 am – 9:00 pm
Lighthouse Point 200
$312 Slot #1
$519 Slot #2
$779 daily
$406 Slot #1
$675 Slot #2
$1,013 daily
$266 Slot #1
$442 Slot #2
$662 daily
$468 Slot #1
$779 Slot #2
$1,169 daily
Slot #1 8:30 am - 12:30 pm
Slot #2 1:30 pm - 6:30 pm
Limit of 50 chairs
Mission Plaza
⚡ 💰💰 3000 $375 daily $300 daily $488 daily 💰💰 $500 deposit for electrical EDCL box $5/hr use fee per electrical box - min. 4hrs
Trails $78 Slot #1
$78 Slot #2
Public Events Only
Slot #1 8:00 am - 1:00 pm
Slot #2 1:00 pm - 6:00 pm
Price per trail.

West Cliff Drive N/A $66 hourly
$478 daily
$86 hourly
$622 daily
$56 hourly
$407 daily
$99 hourly
$717 daily
Public Events Only (2 hour min; 4 hour
Steamers Lane max)
Wharf Commons (Stage)
⚡💰💰 50 $216 daily $281 daily $184 daily $324 daily
💰💰 $150 deposit
⚡ $31 Access to Power
Non-resident fees applicable to those who reside outside City of Santa Cruz limits.

21.1205
P:\PKAD\Advisory Bodies\Parks And Rec Commission\2022\Packets\08082022\Tree In-Lieu Fee\Parks & Recreation Department Schedule Of Fees.Docx

Page 12 of 13 ends

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Effective Date 07/01/2022

EVENT PERMIT FEES

PERMIT TYPE

STANDARD RATE

DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES

SIMPLE COMPLEX
Film, Video & Photography
$250
$623
💰💰Deposit may be required for facility access cards or keys 🍷🍷 $61 Alcohol Permit
⚡ $31 Access to Power
💵💵 Commercial Use Fee (10% Standard, 5% Nonprofits)
🎟🎟 Admissions Tax (5% Standard)
Parking Lot fees may be prorated by Permit Officer. Listed fee is a maximum.

Major Public Event $500
Minor Public Event
N/A
Public Gathering & Expression No Charge
Street Performance No Charge
Neighborhood Block Party $122
Parks & Recreation Parking Lot Use $10/space/day
Street Closure $235/day

OTHER DEPARTMENT PERMIT FEES

PERMIT TYPE STANDARD RATE DEPOSITS/MISC FEES
Encroachment-construction/research No Charge
Emergency Tree Removal Request No Charge There is no fee for emergency tree removal applications or dead tree verification. If an emergency tree removal is warranted and verified, staff will authorize removal immediately.

Standard Tree Removal Request $50 $20 for each additional tree listed on application.

Tree Mitigation Fees
Tree Bond
In-Lieu Fee
$250
$150
For Replanting, permittee must contact the City Urban Forester, 831-420-5246 after 3 months of establishment to have the $250.00 bond returned. In-Lieu fees support City Tree Trust Fund for off-site mitigation.

Tree Appeal $100 Filed with City Clerk.

Sidewalk Vending in Parks $50/season Annual season starts in May.

Mobile Vending in Parks $20/reservation Reservations are made in four hour blocks.

Fees above are per approved application and do not include other fees for additional required permits, facility fees, services or staff time.

21.1206
P:\PKAD\Advisory Bodies\Parks And Rec Commission\2022\Packets\08082022\Tree In-Lieu Fee\Parks & Recreation Department Schedule Of Fees.Docx

Page 13 of 13 ends

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Effective Date 07/01/2022

DISPLAY BANNERS
FACILITY STANDARD RATE ADDITIONAL WEEKS* DEPOSITS/ MISC FEES NONPROFIT COMMERCIAL Street Banner Poles (Downtown)
💰💰 $42/banner $63/banner $10/week/banner
💰💰 $50 deposit
4 week minimum; 8 week maximum
*Past 5 weeks

21.1207

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Parks & Recreation Department
323 Church Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Summary
August 8, 2022
4:00 PM GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, COUNCIL CHAMBERS – ZOOM: HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/93143409514
Parks & Recreation Commission
Call to Order – 4:07 PM
Roll Call - Commissioners: Bradley Angell, Gillian Greensite, Hollie Locatelli, Jane Mio, Jacob Pollock; Vice Chair Kristina Glavis and Chair JM Brown.

Staff: Tony Elliot, Travis Beck, Lindsay Bass, Iseth Rae, Leslie Keedy and Tremain Hedden-Jones.

Presentations

1. DeLaveaga Disc Golf Club.

DeLaveaga Disc Golf Club presented to the commission.

Statements of Disqualification – None.

Oral Communications
No member public spoke.

21.1208
Announcements

2. Commission and Department Updates.

Commissioners and staff made announcements.

Approval of Minutes

3. Approval of Minutes for the April 11, 2022, regular meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission.

Motion carried to approve minutes as submitted.

4. Approval of Minutes for the June 13, 2022, regular meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission.

Approve the meeting minutes from the regular meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission on April 11, 2022, as submitted.

Motion carried to approve minutes as submitted.

Consent Agenda - None.

Public Hearings – None.

General Business

5. Tree In-Lieu Fee Update.

Motion carried to 1) approve the street tree portion of the proposed resolution to establish an in-lieu fee mitigating the removal of street trees; and 2) table for discussion and recommendation, a resolution mitigating the removal of heritage trees or heritage shrubs until the next available meeting.

Friendly amendment accepted to 1) include the heritage street tree language in the street tree in-lieu fee resolution; and 2) to bring back for discussion, proposed language for the mitigation of non-street tree (private property) heritage trees and heritage shrubs to a future meeting.

Information Items – None.

Subcommittee Oral Reports – None.

Adjournment – 6:12 PM

21.1209

MU-M MU-H MU-OM MU-OH MU-VH MU-VA
Height Max,
Commercial
-Only
3 & 40 4 & 50 3 & 45 4 & 55 4 & 55 6 & 75
Height Max,
Mixed Use 4 & 45 5 & 55 3 & 40 4 & 50 4 & 50 6 & 70
Height
Minimum
(Stories and
Feet)
No Minimum No Minimum 1 & 16 2 & 24 2 & 24 3 &40
FAR max.
(from GP) 1.75 2.75 1.75 1.75 2.75 2.75
Setbacks*
Front 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rear 15* 20* 10* 10* 15* 20*
Side 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0*
Max.

Residential
Zoning
Density
No density No density No density No density No density No density Max.

Residential
GP Density
30 du/ac 55 du/ac 30 du/ac 30 du/ac 55 du/ac 55 du/ac
Commercial
Uses based
on
C-C C-C C-C +OSAP C-C +OSAP C-C +OSAP C-C +OSAP
* Where a Mixed-Use District abuts a residential district, the setbacks for the first 3 stories shall be as listed, or as required for the adjacent residential district, whichever is greater. Above 3 stories or 35 feet (whichever is less), a neighborhood transition plane at 45 degrees shall apply per 24.12.185.

21.1210
From: Brooke Matteson
To: City Plan
Subject: SCPC Item #2 - Objective Standards
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 12:50:35 PM
Thank you for your on-going efforts.

I support the city's desire to FINALLY put comprehensive Objective Standards in place. The continued absence of Objective Standards leaves the door open for all sorts out-of-scale developments to be proposed.

I am in favor (and fully supportive of) more affordable housing... but housing that at least attempts to blend gently with existing neighborhoods as far as height, density, traffic, noise, safety and parking.

I strongly believe that Commissioners should direct staff to reduce the impacts of tall developments placed immediately adjacent to existing residences. Specifically, I think it is wildly inappropriate to locate MU-H zoning immediately adjacent to existing R-1 zoning.

The proposed zoning maps, particularly along Water Street and Soquel Avenue, show MUH zoning concentrated immediately adjacent to existing residential properties, UNLIKE the proposed zoning on Mission Street.

I truly hope that the current process can result in standards that allow Santa Cruz to accommodate reasonable growth, which I support.

Why can't development be done in a manner that is respectful of the interests and rights of ALL of our citizens?
I’m asking Commissioners to direct staff to re-zone proposed MU-H parcels to MU-M where these parcels adjoin existing R-1 zoning.

Thank you,
B. Matteson

21.1211
From: Candace Brown
To: City Plan
Cc: Candace Brown
Subject: Candace Brown - SCPC Meeting Item #4: Objective Design Standards, 2 June 2022 Date: Wednesday, June 01, 2022 12:00:56 PM
June 1 2022
To: Planning Commission – June 2, 2022
From: Candace Brown
RE: Objective Standards Agenda Item
Thank you for all the effort so far and note that these standards are really only a first draft.

Please ensure that the standards allow for further changes as was clearly needed during the TPWC discussion and seen as a first draft. Any changes that effect density must be deferred until the final draft is determined including by the TPWC. As a member, we were not afforded information at the State Mandate impacts on the draft review and also Planning Staff were not present.

The Objective Standards are presented to address recent State Law Mandates.

FAMILIES AND CHILDREN AMENITIES:

I would hope that families would be considered in the Objective Standards and was surprised to see that was not the case.

ACTION: If a third of the town are families, then why is there no accommodation for 2- bedroom and above facilities with language to accommodate children such as below from Santa Rosa Objective Standards:

Multifamily developments (except Senior restricted multifamily developments) outside the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan boundary exceeding 22-bedroom units shall have two outdoor areas, one for adults and one for a child play area. For the purpose of this standard, adult open space does not include play equipment, but does include tables with seating.

Multifamily developments (except Senior restricted multifamily developments) outside the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan boundary exceeding 100 units shall have three open space areas, one for adults, one for teenagers, and one for younger children. For the purpose of

21.1212
this standard, adult open space does not include play equipment, but does include tables with seating, and teenage outdoor areas include sports fields, age-appropriate park equipment, or other recreational equipment.

Play equipment for children under the age of five shall be included in child play areas.

The play area must be visible to as many units as possible to provide casual surveillance and be separated from traffic. Benches or picnic tables for adults that are accompanying younger children shall be provided.

SHADING / SUNLIGHT ACCESS – EQUITY ISSUE
They also must address the controversial conflicts that arise between mid-rise (up to 8 stories with EXISTING ZONING) and FURTHER HIGH-RISE buildings if there are ANY height changes allowed) next to single family homes WITHOUT ANY transition of arterial streets, neighborhood streets, service alleys, paseos, courtyards, or missing middle housing.

To ignore shading of adjoining properties for miles primarily on the Eastside of Santa Cruz is to ignore just ONE of the elephants in the room when it comes to the Corridor Plan controversy.

While the 45-degree angle above 35 feet has some effect, it is not played out at the maximum height shadow impact even with a basic square building under the existing zoning with inclusionary housing or with the State Density bonus. It is noted that “test fits” to find whether the mass of the building and parking can exist and so modelling in the case of sunlight impacts is also possible.

ACTION: There should be NO HEIGHT INCREASES until these studies are done.

With existing Zoning and High-Density Bonus at 831 Water, Novin Development said they could build an 8-story building.

Further to say that the Staff could not finding any lighting or shading impact studies was also surprising. I was able to pull up studies within half an hour such as:

National Geographic – July 29, 2020 – How “nature deprived” neighborhoods impact the health of people of color
It is noteworthy that much of the Corridors is along City designated “Opportunity Zones” which are areas of Seniors and Latinx and lower income in general. How is this equitable? Psychological-Impact of Light and Color by TCPI.com 2017 ACTION: It is a discussion of Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) and Circadian Rhythm impacts. Surely Health-in-All policies should be considered in any change of City policy that impact a majority of Santa Cruz residents.

On Shade and Shadow – A Case Study on the Impacts of Overshading by Tall Buildings on Toronto’s greenspaces.

21.1213
There are a number of reference citations in this article alone.

ROOF FORM – ROOF HEIGHT and ROOF ACTIVITY NOISE MITIGATION? ACTION: There is no clear objective standard that allows one to determine the maximum height at the top of the roof line. There should be a stated maximum height rather than an average of the mid-point based on the number of roof peaks including dormers. This has been an issue at previously Planning Commissions for many years.

ACTION: Roof top activities – There is a need to flesh out the impacts of noise as was the case at 831 Water and therefore the plans were changed.

UNBUNDED PARKING:

ACTION: Change language to not allow off-street parking spaces to be sold off for purchased dwelling units. What would stop someone from buying blocks of units and selling the parking lot? Allowing it would restrict use later if it was transformed to Commercial space.

PARKING SPACE:

24.12.240 Number of parking spaces required – SRO PARKING – Do not reduce it by one-quarter space.

These developments on the “Corridors” do not already have established Parking Districts as seen in the Downtown District. To rob someone of a parking space is an equity issue. At 708 Water, there are 41 very low-income affordable housing units (and 20% are for developmentally disabled). I and others did evening studies of the available parking and found the area was completely parked out at night. We convinced the developer, Jim Rendler of Future Housing Now, with the clear data to stay with 1 parking space per unit. The Property Manager notes that there is less than a handful of parking spaces available in the lot.

If they had followed the allowing parking of half space per unit and one-third space for the 20%, they could not have safely served their tenants.

To assume that having a nearby bus stop is adequate transit replacement for someone to get to their destination is simply ignoring the facts. That is not ‘TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT”. The only Corridor that is a “Transit-Rich” Arterial Street is Bay Street.

The analysis was done here for Santa Cruz if you wish to review. https://transitrichhousing.org/
As you may know, I have always found that the Corridor Plan was very problematic because it was founded on unequitable decision-making by those that wished to ensure that high-density development is away from the University and the Westside primarily. It is also not a “TransitRich” Corridor as is the case Downtown and along Bay Street up to the University. And

21.1214
finally, the Corridor Plan proposes to use primarily existing Neighborhood Commercial areas servicing primarily the Eastside – 91 parcels and at the maximum projection creates development space for 2,600-2,700 units (per the Staff own assessment). It means that those businesses no longer service the surrounding Community and that will increase the need for families to go out of the town or across town for their basic needs.

The least that can be done is to ensure that any mitigation is afforded those that are being so heavily impacted.

21.1215
From: Caroline Groux
To: City Plan
Subject: Re-zoning request/opposition
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 1:01:22 PM
To City of Santa Cruz Commissioner
I am requesting you to re-zone proposed MU-H parcels to MU-M where these parcels adjoin existing R-1 zoning.

Thank you
--
Caroline Groux
421 Stanford Ave
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
Tel: 831-471-5809

21.1216
From: Doug Engfer
To: City Plan
Cc: Doug Engfer
Subject: SCPC Meeting Item #4: Objective Design Standards, 2 June 2022 Date: Wednesday, June 01, 2022 10:50:01 AM
Attachments: TPWC Agenda Item 5 (May 16 2022) Objective Development Standards.eml.msg TPWC 5-16-22 Packet Public Works Proposed Objective Standards.pdf I would like to thank staff for their ongoing and diligent efforts to craft a body of enforceable objective design and development standards for our town. As we’ve seen in the recent past, the lack of such standards has left open the door for insensitive, out-of-scale developments to be proposed and, under State law, subject to ministerial review. I hope that the current process can result in enforceable (and enforced!) standards that allow us to accommodate reasonable growth in a manner that is respectful of the interests and rights of all of our citizens.

To that end, given the public process under which these standards are being developed, it’s up to the City’s advisory bodies and, ultimately, the City Council, to ensure that the standards are well-crafted and represent our community well. I appreciate the work that Staff has done to attend to the many and varied comments made by members of the public; I will admit that I wish that Staff had been more responsive to some of them, however. I appreciate the improved language around archaeological survey results enforcement, for example. On the other hand, I think that Staff needs to look deeper into ways to ameliorate the shading impacts of tall developments placed immediately adjacent to existing residences. Specifically, common-sense evaluation of the unavoidable health and personal impacts of living shaded for months out of the year can and should be characterized. Further, given the State’s mandate for rooftop solar on new residential development, ensuring that new developments do NOT impact existing or potential rooftop solar installation should be addressed. The proposed standards fall short on these concerns. I ask the Commission to either remedy these issues, or direct Staff to do so.

As regards the draft Transportation and Public Works (TPW) standards, I submitted a body of comments and markup to the TPW Commission (TPWC) prior to their meeting on the subject.

I was unable to attend that meeting due to a scheduling conflict, but learned that TPW staff largely deferred to Planning regarding draft standards language. Now I see Planning staff deferring to TPW staff on these standards. My comments and questions largely went to issues of drafting - many of the proposed draft standards were clearly not objective in nature, or relied solely on TPW staff judgement. Unenforceable standards invite challenges and litigation. Without re-hashing these comments (they are in the TPWC public record and are attached), I would expect that someone would take responsibility for fixing this language before the draft standards are finalized. I would ask that the Planning Commission ensure that there is clear responsibility for getting this language right the first time.

Members of the Commission know that I have supported densification along our transit corridors, and improved public transit service and access, as the smart way to accommodate growth in our community (as opposed to creeping densification of much of the entire city).

Enforceable (and enforced!) standards are the only way to ensure that that densification happens in a way that respects the rights and interests of our current citizens, while creating opportunity for new folks to join our community. It’s critical that development standards reflect our evolving vision of our city, not just the self-interests of ambitious developers. In the main, these design standards work in the right direction, and I again commend Staff for their diligent work and their efforts to engage with the community. It’s up to the Commission now to ensure that these standards are the best that they can be, and that they do not leave us

21.1217
unreasonably subject to the whims of Sacramento and litigious activists.

Regrettably, I am unable to participate in this week’s Commission meeting, due to a previously-planned family obligation. Thank you in advance for your efforts here.

I stand with Ukraine.

Doug Engfer
Santa Cruz

21.1218
From: Doug Engfer
To: TPWC
Bcc: Candace Brown
Subject: TPWC Agenda Item 5 (May 16, 2022): Objective Development Standards I write today with respect to Item 5 on the Commission’s agenda for May 16, 2022: Objective Development Standards.

Upon reviewing this item's materials from the meeting packet, I’m struck by a few things:

I appreciate the thoroughness of the work that Staff has done; they are looking deeply and broadly at the issue, and trying to “firm up” our standards in an objective and defensible way. This is important and timely work that deserves and demands both broad perspective and diligent attention. Thank you!
That said, I note that there is a lot of “non-objective” language still in the document, along with vague references to judgement calls by developers or staff: “adequate, attractively designed, and functional”, “durable”, “where needed”, and “The City Engineer may…grant exceptions...”, for example. In the SB35 discussions relating to 831 Water (the City’s first and still only SB35 application), it was clear that such vague language, or items open to staff discretion, were deemed, a priori, not objective, and therefore non-operative in assessing the compliance of that proposed development with our community’s standards and expectations. Those standards were simply waived in any such discussions. It would be a shame for Staff’s good work here to be mooted should a developer or litigant challenge the standards language on these grounds.

I have marked up the attached document, identifying language that caught my eye as troubling in this respect. I may not have caught all of it, though. I think that a thorough review of the language, perhaps informed by an opinion from the City Attorney and/or the Planning Department, is warranted.

The solution would seem to be to either (1) eliminate the non-objective language altogether, or (2) clearly define the objective standards that apply to something like “attractively designed” or “durable” or “where needed”. I would prefer (2) wherever feasible, since this non-objective language does still point toward agreed-upon community standards or expectations. The City Attorney’s perspective would seem helpful here.

As regards some more-specific considerations:
[Page 5.4]
Why change the 50-foot setback from R- District parcels to 20 feet? Similarly, why relax the fence requirement from 8 feet to 6 feet? There should be a provision that service vehicles must be able to enter and exit a property while driving forward, rather than either backing into or out of the property, for public safety and noise-abatement ("beep beep beep") reasons. This would help refine the currently-vague “sufficient room for maneuvering” clause (though that clause would seem to need more work than that).

I will not be able to attend Monday’s meeting, even electronically. I hope that the Commission and Staff will give these suggestions due consideration.

Once again, I thank the Commission and Staff for their service to our community.

21.1219
Doug Engfer
Santa Cruz CA
[The attachment TPWC 5-16-22 Packet Public Works Proposed Objective Standards.pdf has been manually removed]

21.1220

!"#!"#$!$$
%&

'( !"#)*#$!$$
+
,
-&

./012

34 54
4544
6

7 6

8 9

4 45
:
; ,2'--&

<'&

9
=
=4

=
=4
>

54
45

=4
6

8 9

4 =
4?
4

@
:A9
; 0
2B%,'/&

4
=4
=
?
=?4C
44
64
4? C

?
644
D
:6D;
E"

6D
EE!C
4F
4

7G >
34

4
45 4H4

>
?
34 54

4 ?

4544

@
34 54

H

H
=4
4F
44
=
H
>

4

34

=
=4>

4 ?

34
=
44
=4

@

?

=4
544

4 :64
*"I)E@J

**E!!KLKML;C
34 54

4544

N 554

4

34 54
3 ?4
>

GG

G>
54 G 4
>
4G444

4O4

G
4=

4
5 4

H4P
>

4544

GG
4G4

G

34
@

<.2/..<'&

=4
>Q

?
44
=
4

45

=4
9

4
4
34 54

4
$J

=
44
H ?
H =
=4

R
44

45 4

4
G
=4
9

4
4
34 54

G
45 4H
G

7G >

O4
7 4
4
4

4544
34@
45

=4
6

8 9

4 =
4?
4

4F
44
4
4

A9
@
=4

4
G
=44
45

5
4
4
G
4C
34 54C

4
4

H

G

7G >

O4
7 4
4
4

4544

4
H =
=4
6

8 44

@
= 4
=4
>
=
>

4 ?
?

4 4

4
=
4
4
4C
>
4

34 54

C

=44G4

4>
4
4G4

4
64
H@
=4
4

9

4 45

A9

44
34 54

G

H
444
=
>

4H

7G >

O4
7 4
4
4
34@
=44
4

45
H

4
H =
=4
9

4 45
4

>
=4

>
4544
44@

4

45
H
?4=4

44
34 54

4
H =
=4
>Q
44

C
4

S ?

4@ (<.2
T
<-+
2 =44

G
@21.1221 UVW

!"##
$
%&'

(

)*+(
,
% -./
-00-123450

6'778$
79*&:*:;&<=;=:
;7:$>
==*?:@7=7?;AB6CBDEF9 &?=
':G

21.1222 HIJ

! "##$%&'((& )"*+,-. #*/,),&,(%
0123456
&4 267186 592669 84:;659<4: =:7 92=>><8 ?=@=275 =:7 94 =77 94 9?6 5=>69A =:7 84:B6:<6:86 4> 9?6 84CC1:<9AD =76E1=96D =992=89<B6FA 765<;:67D =:7 >1:89<4:=F >=8<F<9<65 >42 4>>$ 592669 F4=7<:; 5?=FF G6 <:842342=967 =5 :68655=2A <: 84:H1:89<4: I<9? :6I 1565 4> F=:7

.6:62=F 024B<5<4:5
#42 6B62A G1<F7<:; ?626=>962 6268967D I?<8? <5 94 G6 48813<67 GA C=:1>=8912<:;D 5942=;6D I=26?4156D 84CC628<=FD 265<76:9<=FD 269=<F =:7J42 I?4F65=F6 59426D C=2K69D ?496FD ?453<9=FD C4291=2AD C496FD F=1:72AD 72A 8F6=:<:;D 6L628<56 >=8<F<9A 42 49?62 5<C<F=2 1565 42 C<L67 156 84CG<:=9<4:5 26E1<2<:; 9?6 2686<39 42 7<592<G19<4: GA B6?<8F65 4> C=962<=F =:7 C628?=:7<56D 4>>$592669 F4=7<:; =26=5 5?=FF G6 324B<767 <: =88427=:86 I<9? 9?6 26E1<26C6:95 ?626<:
,: 9?6 8=56 4> C<L67 1565 <: 9?6 5=C6 592189126D 4: 9?6 5=C6 F49 42 <: 9?6 5=C6 76B6F43C6:9D 42 C426 9?=: 4:6 9A36 4> =89<B<9A <:B4FB67 <: 9?6 5=C6 156D 9?6 949=F 26E1<26C6:95 >42 4>>$592669 F4=7<:; 53=865 5?=FF G6 9?6 51C 4> 9?6 26E1<26C6:95 >42 9?6 B=2<415 1565 42 =89<B<9<65 84C31967 563=2=96FAD <:8F17<:; >2=89<4:=F B=F165 M
'6E1<26C6:95
=
N

P
Q
R
SDSSS 94

D 5E1=26 >669

!DSSS 94
DSSS 5E1=26 >669

#42 6=8? =77<9<4:=F !SDSSS 5E1=26 >669 42 >2=89<4: 9?6264> T
U T P
VUUW
Q
R
SDSSS 94

D 5E1=26 >669 4> ;2455 >F442 =26= &A36 X
Y=:1>=8912<:;D 5942=;6D I=26?4156D 269=<F =:7J42 I?4F65=F6 59426D C=2K69D ?496FD ?453<9=FD C4291=2AD C496FD F=1:72AD 72A 8F6=:<:;D 6L628<56 >=8<F<9AD 42 49?62 5<C<F=2 1565 !DSSS 94
DSSS 5E1=26 >669 4> ;2455 >F442 =26=
&A36 X 21.1223 Z[\

!
"

#

"
#

%& '()('#'*('+),(!),!$-! *().,/ 0+, -

, $

1,%

&
&2
3 '

44 -

1
3 '

44 5

1
3 $

6

0
1
3

7 )
2
&,

8

%

9

$
*

%9

8

"
&
&,

44
"

"
%"

& &+

%
%
%4

& &+

"
%
%
9:

& 21.1224 ;<=

$

%&'()*+,-./0/1+,-+234323.5 67869::;<
<#=! =

86A::8:B

D" ?E
FG :GH8?
B8IFGB 678698:J#EK
@
E
@ 8=
>

$

21.1225 LML

"

#

'

(
)*+,,),-

&

&

'
-

/

"

/

"
0

&

/

"

/

"
0
%

1
%

(
* )*1),

* )*1*,
'1- 2

.
21.1226 345

!"#$#!%$!&
'#!%

$((%!()!*
!( $+$ ,'(+$#" ()&!!(#' %&# (-.!, $!%)$#-#(-+%#'#( /+#- %#%$(( +% $+ "#$#!%!&%! $#$&'#!%!& '#) %0#% !( $! ( '!(# $+$ ,'(+$#" ()&!$ (#0#%0 1" 2# $' ! , #!$+&' !&.+#(#%0.)- %$!&.'3 ! ! &#,+ % , % &!-!% (!'#!%!% .+#(#%0!%! (!'#!%!% $- .+#(#%0!!%4' %.+#(#%0!% $- (!!' (2#!+'!$$#%0%) $ 5#!% %%$ #$$!'# /+#- %%$+!#%0$+'+ $+$ .)+#(#) &!&+%#$#%0'!--+%#'#!%$ "#' $ /+#- %+ %%!+% 0!+%&'#(## $$+'$$+&' -!+% %$&!- $ $(
-!+% %$&!- $ $(
-!+% -#%(.!, $%- '.#% $%'!%' ( +'$%! &'#(## $2#' -#% .) #) %0#% $#%& $#.( &!+% 0!+%#%0
6 #)%0#% -).)&#%#%0!& ,' #!%($#0% ,' #!%$! -!#&#'#!%$! /+# - %$!&#$ '#!%!%'$ .)'$ .$#$!-) /+# #%
(# +)- %$'!%$#$ %2#%)!+%'#(! $!(+#!%#-( - %#%0 '#!%
1
#)%0#% -) , -'#)( !4 '$&!- /+# - %!#%$((3 '!%+#'!%% '#!%$

789:;<;=7897>?@?>A9?B>;?C>BD E#!F$
! *G$!#0#%(()! #$' 2$ $#0% $
2$ %+-. !.
6
# '#!%!& '#)'( 3 #- !& +.(#'#!%
'#!%$* HIJKLJLHL9MNOPOQORPSJ HIJKLJLILCRTPUOVWXYZMSO[PXQMTPZM\[\RTPZTQOVOQYZOSQ\OUQS]Y\MSRVTQORPJ HIJKLJL^L=_M\`MXZaO\MSb7PVXaNTVQRWXOPQXOPcRVMSJ 21.1227 def

!

"

$
!
! %

()

*

&

0 !

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`6H69>MT@NNJ7:=>;:@7<T@NN:<<:@7<J=5><=>YM6K=6MMJM>9K;6M6?5@76K9>H:@KI:Y69a@?;:=K @9:7;6976;C QB[RST@J7=:MUN6>7<;56=:;L=@J7=:M@I;56=:;LC QbRSc>9]T@7HJ:;UN6>7<J7J<6H@96N?;L=@7HJ:;>7H>7L><<@=:>;6H:7I9><;9J=;J96K <J=5><YJ;7@;6^=MJ<:86MLK_J7=;:@7Y@^6<K;69N:7:K>7H>==6<<?>76M<KI@9;56:7<;>MM>;:@7 @96^?>7<:@7@I6M6=;9:=>M@9=@NNJ7:=>;:@7<<698:=6<>7HM:76<YL@;569<@9>;>IJ;J96 H>;6K>MM><<?6=:I:6HYLXJYM:=4@9]<C QdBRSZ7H69O9@J7HJ;:M:;LH:<;9:=;U@9SH:<;9:=;UN6>7<>7>96>:7;56=:;LG:;5:7G5:=5 ?@M6<>7H@86956>HG:96<>7H><<@=:>;6H@86956>H<;9J=;J96<>96?9@5:Y:;6HYL>96<@MJ;:@7 >H@?;6H?J9<J>7;;@;56?9@8:<:@7<@IV6=;:@7DACdFCFAFC QEbRSX69<@7UN6>7<>7H:7=MJH6<:7H:8:HJ>M<KI:9N<K=@9?@9>;:@7<K=@?>9;769<5:?<K>7H ;56:9>O67;<>7H6N?M@L66<C 21.1228 efg

! "#$

! %!&'()*"+,
-#"*(! ./01202324567869:;<76=>6?@6AB<4CDE=A6@<9FA67G<==<4C0 H

! H
I
J

! %!&'()*"+,
-#"*)!*! 10./02N2=B479O64P76@6AB9@F6= I

Q
!R

K
! R

! 21.1229 STU

%

&

(

)

*+*+
(,-.

/0.1
/
23 !4

1,.5
$!01
.6
03
1 7/
, /

/
/35

0. (
48/5
5

'
2

(

9 *+*+:*:
5

*+*+:*+
5

*+*+:;:
-

!

*+*+:;+

*+*+:&:
5

*+*+:&+

*+*+:*:
5 03 (4
505
43 5,6

/<,

/1/35
$

(
%

5

(1

5
5

21.1230 =>?@

!" !" #!"
$

(

)

)

*

+
,

-

.-$/,

0 !" !" #1#23
%

$
$
4-

'

-

)--5/ 0
23

.-$/,
2

0(

* !" !" #1"
3
% 678

9 '

)

&
8

))
)

)

)

&
,

-
)

!" 1# #:#

-

'

$
)0
)

6.

9

-

,

-
)

!" 1# #:#

-

'

$
)0
)

!" !" #;#

3
%

&

"

)

<

!#)###

8

+7/

=
= (

>

21.1231 ?@AA

"

"
#$$
%
"

&%
%
'( %
'

"

"
(& )*
'

+*,'-./

0"0

*,'-.
1
1
$#(

2
+"

"4 5
0
#

&%(

+/
5 0
#

&%(

+/
5 %"

0

&%(

+/
5 6

&%(& )

+,

0(

/

0"0

78

"

5 &"
9:,

%
'
%

%! "

,

+'%1/

0

&%

1
;$
$<$(6=,
>
>3*?,- +/,

"0

"
%0"%0"%

%

%

%

"

+/,
%
"! %

7

0"%
" %"
%%

%
)

%

"

21.1232 @ABC

" #

( )*++,-*+.
/
(0
1!2

0
(3

/
(0

0
(45

/
6

0

$0
7$

0
(48

0
(:

0

#

$

0

&

1

0
(48

0
($

1

0

:

0

" (3

0
(

0
;

<

$

=

9

2
(4>

0
(=

;

<

$

2

$

(4>

0
(9
0

;

<

$

2

(4>

0
6/
0

2

(3

0
6
%

/
0
(4>

0
(?
0

@0
(48

0
(@0

/
0
(3

0
6/
0

2

(3

0
62

0
(4>

ABCD+E+BD+,FG.FH-)*GGDIB*+. 2

62

0
(3

2

60

0
(3

2

6

0
(3

2

0

?

(3

2

(0
1!2

/
J(3

2

(/
J
?%0
(3

0

(9

1
0
(3

0

(1
0

K

0
(3

0

(K

0
(3

?
0
($

1

0
(3

?
0
(1

0

0
(4>

1

0
(@0

:

(4>

1
0
(:

0
(3

:
0
(1

0

:
0
(4>

2 0
(

0
(3

21.1233 LMNO

!"#$%&'()*(+, -
.
/

2

3
4

/
/

.
6

7 89:;8:8<=>?@ABCD?EFAD?G?CH@: ;:>IJKLMNO>LPJQR@SNRTNITP: N:UNIVJRQWNXJYJSJLPZLILNWSLILPSN[YJPZLTNRTMZJXZNILY\XNSLTNT]NXLRSS\NIL^_JILTWI\RS ONITJRNRNT]\JRJRQ`a>JPSIJXS\IDa>JPSIJXSPZNYY[LbI\KJTLTMJSZNXYLNIKJPJ\RNILNNRT bNIVJRQWNXJYJSJLPMZJXZNILY\XNSLTNT]NXLRSS\SM\JRSLIPLXSJRQPSILLSPPZNYYJRXY_TLNXYLNI X\IRLISIJNRQYLNPTLWJRLTJRSZJPSJSYL:HZLPLNILNPPZNYY[LcNJRSNJRLTJRX\RW\IcNRXLMJSZ @LXSJ\R;d:d=:;;=:
[:HZLS\SNYXYLNIPbNXLS\NXX\cc\TNSLNKLZJXYLJRTIJKLMNOPNRTbIJKNSLbNIVJRQNILNP _PLTNPbIJKNSLbNIVJRQWNXJYJSJLPW\IPJRQYLaWNcJYOILPJTLRSJNY_PLPPZNYYR\S[LPcNYYLISZNRSZL TJcLRPJ\RP\WIL^_JILT\RaPJSLbNIVJRQPbNXLP: X:>IJKLMNOPPZNYY[LTLPJQRLTS\X\RW\IcMJSZLeJPSJRQX\RS\_IPS\SZLcNeJc_cLeSLRS WLNPJ[YL: T:>IJKLMNOPPZNYYLRSLIb_[YJXfbIJKNSLPSILLSPJRP_XZNcNRRLINPS\cNJRSNJRNTL^_NSLYJRL \WPJQZSJRXYLNIKJPJ\RNILNPNRTXYLNIX\IRLISIJNRQYLP[NPLT\R``@gHhBILLRi\\VPJQZS TJPSNRXLP: L:>IJKLMNOPPZNYYZNKLNcNeJc_cQINTL\WSMLRSOaWJKLbLIXLRSNPJYY_PSINSLTJRSZL W\YY\MJRQTJNQINcj

21.1234 klmn

!"#

21.1235 $%&$
From: Gabrielle Diane Laney-Andrews
To: City Plan
Subject: Re: 831 Water Street
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 2:04:38 PM
Please re-zone proposed MU-H parcels to MU-M where these parcels adjoin existing R-1 zoning. I can go on an on about this, but for now, this is my request. thank you,
Gabrielle D. Laney-Andrews
316 Grant St
SC 95060
[email protected]

21.1236
From: Gary Patton
To: Sarah Neuse
Cc: City Council; City Plan
Subject: Follow Up On Community Survey on Objective Standards Date: Wednesday, November 03, 2021 4:15:57 PM
Attachments: Follow Up Letter To Save Santa Cruz Letter On Building Heights Survey.pdf Sarah,
Here’s a letter on the Objective Standards Community Survey, following up on our earlier exchange of correspondence.

We would appreciate it if you would make certain that the Members of the Planning Commission do get a chance to see the letter and our comments.

Best wishes,
Gary A. Patton, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1038
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Telephone: 831-332-8546
Email: [email protected]
Website / Blog: www.gapatton.net
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/gapatton

21.1237
Save Santa Cruz
Stop Overbuilding Santa Cruz
Post Office Box 4086, Santa Cruz, CA 95063
Email: [email protected]
November 3, 2021
Sarah Neuse, Senior Planner <Sent by Email: [email protected]> Santa Cruz City Planning Department
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Dear Sarah:

As I am sure you will remember, I wrote you a letter on September 22, 2021, pointing out that a statement in your initial report on “Defining Community Character Survey Results,” undertaken as part of the City’s review of its Objective Standards, gave a misleading impression of what the survey actually showed, in that it overstated community support for tall structures. You, essentially, agreed that your initial phrasing could be improved, and suggested the following language in an email response to my September 22nd letter:

When asked about height preferences the largest portion of respondents, 27%, selected four stories as the preferred height limit. Respondents selected either six stories or “No maximum height” in nearly equal numbers: 22% and 21% respectively, and an additional 17% preferred a five-story limit along Water, Ocean, and Soquel. While height remains a sensitive topic for the community, these responses show a preference among a significant portion of survey respondents to allow heights between four and six stories along the City’s primary thoroughfares.” That proposed change does help make clear that four stories is the preferred height limit of the greatest number of survey respondents.

When I ran your proposed revised statement past other Save Santa Cruz members, they suggested that the accuracy of your report would be increased if you also included the following language in your final revision:

Spanish-speaking residents chose four stories as their first preference (47%) at almost twice the rate of English-speaking residents in the survey.

That the city specifically reached out to Spanish-speaking residents is excellent, but it would be a mistake, in the view of Save Santa Cruz, not to include their voices in the final narrative. Somewhere else in the narrative the claim is made that there was little difference across demographics. The fact that Spanish-speaking residents chose four stories as their first preference at almost

21.1238
2 twice the rate of English-speaking residents is clearly at odds with that statement, which should also be amended to reflect the sentence above.

Since the report that has gone to the Planning Commission doesn’t fully reflect these important observations, I’ll copy this letter to the Commission, so they can consider the points we are making as they take their first look at the draft Objective Standards report.

Very truly yours,
Gary A. Patton, Co-Chair
Save Santa Cruz
cc: Save Santa Cruz Steering Committee
Members, Santa Cruz City Planning Commission
Members, Santa Cruz City Council
Other Interested Persons
Save Santa Cruz is a community-based group with over 1,700 supporters, committed to city policies that will protect and preserve the historic and unique character of the community and its unique and vital neighborhoods.

21.1239
From: Jack Bowers
To: City Plan
Subject: Objective Standards for Development
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 6:39:07 PM
Members of the the Commission
We write urging you to create standards that will preserve some qualities of the near East Side neighborhood where we live. We accept the need for development but object to squeezing maximum units into lots adjacent to single family homes. Sunlight, parking, privacy and neighborly relationships will suffer.

Thanks
Jack Bowers & Jane Usher
422 Windsor Street
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS

21.1240
From: [email protected]
To: City Plan; Sara DeLeon; Tess Fitzgerald; Allison Webster Subject: Planning Commission Comments
Date: Tuesday, November 02, 2021 10:43:12 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: Planning Commission Comments
Date & Time: 11/02/2021 10:32 AM
Response #: 14
Submitter ID: 85135
IP address: 63.249.70.39
Time to complete: 1 min. , 10 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

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

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

1. Please select the agenda item you would like to discuss. (○) Item 3-Objective Development Standards Study Session

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

3. Comment/Question:

I have general concerns about the way in which the City seems quite focused on Midtown and the way in which the multi-family zoning was established many years ago. So much of Seabright’s single family dwellings are zoned multi-family, even though there is variation in setbacks and street width. However, the newer areas of Santa Cruz on the Westside, with fairly standard setbacks and street widths, plus newer utility infrastructure seem to be mostly single family. To me, this seems a legacy of politicians living on the Westside, combined with weekend homes and blue collar workers not actively participating in City government.

I am quite concern about my little dead end lane, Hugus Avenue, which is about 1/3 the width of Cayuga with no sidewalks or alleyway. Yet, both streets have the same zoning. To me, objective standards would consider whether the multi family overlay with increased density makes sense based on public safety

21.1241
criteria such as sidewalks, egresses, and street width.

And, I’d like to see some of the Victorian and bungalow architecture remain in Seabright and in my Midtown neighborhood, but I realize that’s unlikely.

I do think the residential island bounded by Water, North Branciforte, Soquel and Ocean is unique within the City. There are many dead end streets within this area, and public safety must be considered in defining increased density. For example, the 100 year flood setback for Branciforte Creek should appear on zoning maps and guide future building to allow some green space in this unique urban residential island.

Thank you for your efforts!

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

First Name: Jill
Last Name: Wynn
Phone Number: 2039124313
Email: Not answered
Thank you,
City of Santa Cruz
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.

21.1242
From: Jim Burns
To: City Plan
Subject: Prior-to-meeting comment for the Planning Commission meeting on January 7, 2021 Date: Wednesday, January 06, 2021 12:45:47 PM
January 6, 2021
Santa Cruz City Planning Commission
Dear Commissioners,
As you endeavor to reconcile the City’s zoning code with its General Plan, pursuant to a "redo" of the shelved Corridors Plan, please do not lose sight of the important principal articulated in the City Council's direction to you concerning this work: that the city's "highestlevel policy priority" should continue to be to "preserve and protect residential neighborhood areas and existing City businesses."
That does not, as some might hope, suggest that this reconciliation work should lead to a prohibition of development that would advance our City's very important need to provide additional housing for area residents. That was certainly not the Council's intent, nor is it our desire as two long-time city residents.

But as you discuss, debate, and consider the way forward with respect to this reconciliation, please consider how important it is that you support the creation of development that doesn't turn a blind eye toward this priority directive from the City Council.

Unfortunately, as you discuss this tonight, there is just such a proposed development — in its early stages — that would have you do just that: the pre-application for development of two completely oversized towers at 831 Water St.

We won't — in this communication — begin to express the many, many ways in which this particular pre-application is flawed. Suffice it to say the long list of issues that this proposal describes would be completely at odds with the Council directive to "preserve and protect residential neighborhood areas."
In fact, as the City undertakes an effort to find a balanced approach that promotes the creation of badly needed housing with an approach that is responsive to the concerns of existing neighborhoods, this particular pre-application represents the kind of project that will only polarize the city — creating only for- and against-groups that see no middle ground. That would be very regretful.

We doubt that this kind of completely out-of-scale project is what this Commission, this Council, or this City is intent on supporting. At least, for the sake of the many people in our city who stand ready to strongly advocate for housing developments that are reasonable, responsible, and respectful, we sincerely hope not.

Thank you for your (tireless) service to our beloved City.

Respectfully,

21.1243
Jim and Nancy Burns
Santa Cruz

21.1244
From: Jim Burns
To: City Plan
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Item #2 - Objective Development Standards Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 11:46:11 AM
June 29, 2022
Dear Members of the Santa Cruz Planning Commission,
We have only recently become aware that the Santa Cruz Planning Commission this Thursday (June 30, 2022) will review the city planning staff's latest efforts to establish Objective Standards by which development proposals can be assessed. As you may all painfully recall, the absence of these standards made assessing Novin Development's fast-track application for 831 Water Street very challenging — and their continued absence also leaves the door open for other out-of-scale developments to be proposed.

While we support the city's desire to belatedly put comprehensive Objective Standards in place, it appears to us that the staff's proposal this Thursday would — at least in certain areas of the city — once again imperil adjoining single-family neighborhoods in an effort to squeeze every last floor and unit into adjoining developments.

We hope that the current process can result in standards that allow us to accommodate reasonable growth, something we continue to strongly support. But we also hope that it can be done in a manner that is respectful of the interests and rights of all of our citizens.

In closing, we ask that you, as our Planning Commissioners, direct staff to reduce the impacts of tall developments placed immediately adjacent to existing residences. Specifically, we believe it is inappropriate to locate MU-H zoning immediately adjacent to existing R-1 zoning. The proposed zoning maps, particularly along Water Street and Soquel Avenue, show MU-H zoning concentrated immediately adjacent to existing residential properties, unlike the proposed zoning on Mission St.

In short, we are asking you to direct staff to re-zone proposed MU-H parcels to MU-M where these parcels adjoin existing R-1 zoning.

As always, THANK YOU for your service!
Sincerely,
Nancy and Jim Burns
Santa Cruz

21.1245
From: Norene Huber
To: City Plan
Subject: Review of Objective Standards
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 12:48:02 PM
Please direct staff to re-zone proposed MU-H parcels to MU-M where these parcels adjoin existing R-1 zoning to reduce the impacts of tall developments placed immediately adjacent to existing residences. Specifically, I believe it is inappropriate to locate MU-H zoning immediately adjacent to existing R-1 zoning.

I understand the urgent need for additional housing in Santa Cruz, but I would hope that it can be done in a manner that is also respectful of the interests and rights of ALL of our citizens.

Thank you for your consideration.

JN Huber

21.1246
From: Lira Filippini
To: City Plan
Subject: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!] Agenda Item 4; 6/2/22; Objective Standards Date: Wednesday, June 01, 2022 11:54:15 AM
Attachments: Objective Standards; Santa Cruz Tomorrow.docx Dear Planning Commissioners,
Agenda item 4 is most likely the most important item coming before this commission in decades, and possibly for decades to come. It sets not only the aesthetic standards for our future development, but critically - the size and potential density of market rate housing developments.

First, I'd like to point out that not all of the community-submitted objective standard ideas are included in the attachment for that, provided by staff. On June 4, 2021, the attached document was emailed to Sarah Neuse from Santa Cruz Tomorrow and was worked on by a number of community members. I've been made aware of others that were left out as well.

It is concerning that the setting of objective design standard development is not merely being used to remove subjective criteria, and to make our development standards conform to the state's criteria for what objective standards are - but instead is being used to massively increase potential size and density of market rate developments.

Due to provisions in SB 330, SB 35 and many other new state laws, affordable housing projects may already receive waivers and concessions for many of the objective standards.

However, for market rate developments, these standards are critical for establishing criteria that not only regulate aesthetic, but also size, density, massing, and the livability of these future homes and the community at large.

Many of the current standards proposed by staff fundamentally increase the size of developments that market rate developers can build, without any criteria for affordable allocation. There are many reasons this is problematic.

One such reason is that the community survey conducted by staff included survey questions that directly assumed that the options being selected were a tradeoff for affordability. This is a massive assumption based on a theory of "affordable by design" and the trickle-down housing model - that simply building more will decrease the cost for housing. For example, where the staff says that "It was commonly expressed that buildings along major corridors can be taller and larger...", what they are leaving out is that this survey question proposed that the following selection options were presented as a tradeoff for affordability.

So yes, for "affordable" housing projects, many survey takers selected increased height as something that made sense. What is being left out of this equation for the common citizen, is that an affordable housing development can technically already double in height beyond a current zoned height limit, due to a state density bonus. So what is being created by staff's omission to both the community and to public officials, is that they are increasing the height and massing possibility for market rate housing, while affordable housing will always be able to waive such standards.

A second reason, is that by using this "setting of objective design standards" to increase size/massing, by way of things like decreasing setback, we are further limiting our space for

21.1247
needed infrastructure improvements as our population density skyrockets over our future increase of RHNA (which may be an indefinite pattern of increase). We need much more space for the development of "safe" active transportation along our dangerous streets. The TPW commission standards - which include a massive reduction in setbacks - were rushed through the commission, with staff saying they needed to get it through and things could be changed later. However, once any standards are set that increase possible housing density, they can not be changed back. SB 330 does not legally allow any reduction in housing capacity by way of objective standard changes. This was not made clear to the TPW commissioners, who were instead told they could make changes at another time in the future.

A third reason, is that with the standards that increase potential market rate density, we are incentivising that - instead of allowing the state's few new laws that aim to increase density by way of including more affordable housing in their proposals. Creating objective design standards that basically already maximize the area part of the FAR, we are taking away that potential axis of growth as incentivization for affordable housing developments. We would be challenging our ability to fulfill the lower income allocations of our RHNA, while once again ensuring we overproduce the market rate building, leading to further gentrification and not fulfilling our actual need - "affordability".

Overall, we have a massive transparency issue. Many community-submitted standard ideas have been left out of that document provided by staff (not just SC Tomorrow's). The community survey was leading in a way that manipulated the responses, while the standards that came out of that did not match the responses (taller buildings are not being directly tied to higher allotment of affordability in the resulting standards on height). And a massive change in high-income population density, massing, height, and reduction of setbacks are being slipped through a process that is being presented as merely solidifying aesthetic and subjective criteria into something that conforms with the state's "objective" standards.

I know that many of you Planning Commissioners are actively involved in researching the affordability crisis in housing, and have made many suggestions on how to resolve it here in Santa Cruz. I see Commissioner Schiffrin's submission for a standard for increasing the inclusionary allocation for developments of 100 or more and I remember a sub-committee also presenting the desire to increase it for density bonus projects. My hope is that this commission will not rubber-stamp the standards presented to you that fundamentally increase market rate size and density, of which there are many. And that you instead, move to allow your sub-committee to take the time needed to do damage control. The standards that dictate articulation, fenestration, step-backs, etc.. are well formed and do not create this issue.

However, many of the other standards in this document do. Please take the adequate time to fix them so that they are not presented to our City Council with an "approval" by the Planning Commission.

Thank you for your consideration on this agenda item of utmost importance, that will set how our development proceeds in SC for a very long time.
-Lira Filippini

21.1248

BUILDING EFFICIENCY & GREEN BUILDING
New developments shall incorporate Title 24 energy code standards, apply latest Calif. building laws such as: “Solar panels are required in all new construction homes and certain remodeled homes beginning January 1, 2020… Minimum number of shade trees needed to provide shade to surface parking areas as well as landscape and hardscape areas." -Separate water meter for each unit in a residential development to help our City conserve water. -Rainwater catch system for any residential development with 10 units or more. Catch system to be used to subsidize landscaping water needs.
-All residential developments shall include faraday metal shielding between all smart meter arrays and adjacent residential units.
-High filtration air system is required for any residential development with 10 units or more, as well as for any development housing exercise, yoga, or workout rooms.

Shading/Shadow/Sun
-Any structure built after 2021 shall not cast a shadow on an existing structure for more than 3 hours of the day, measured using average winter hours/angle. -Any structure shall not impede sunlight on to adjacent structures with solar panels more than 3 hours per day, measured using average winter hours/angle.

Landscaping, Parks & Green Space
All new development shall incorporate the 2030 General Plan Chapter 9 ( Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces) Goals, Policies, and action PR1.1.3-4, PR1.3.1-4 to preserve the City's highly valued identity and its Natural Resources(Chapter 4 Land Use).

To mitigate the harmful effects of the City’s current technical deficiency in this policy, the following landscaping standards will work to offset the harmful effects and to achieve the City’s stated green space goals.

Landscaping standards shall promote the creation of green space within commercial, industrial and medium- to high-density residential districts in order to maintain quality of life of those districts, buffer off street parking areas, reduce drainage off site, filter noise and light, encourage the planting of trees throughout the community, and support the City’s health and climate change policies.

Street Trees: All commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential developments within the City shall provide boulevard trees in addition to and separate from other plant requirements. -Trees, shrubs, fences, walls and other landscape features depicted on plans approved by the City will be considered as elements of the project in the same manner as parking, building materials and other plan details. The landowner, or successor in interest, or agent, if any, will be jointly responsible for regularly maintaining all landscaping so that

21.1249
it presents a healthy, neat, and orderly appearance, including the removal of weed species as well as the repair or replacement of damaged or destroyed landscaping.

Heritage Trees: Any heritage tree (s) that is in the footprint of a proposed large development shall be relocated rather than cut down.
-Depending on size and species, mature heritage trees store on average 1-2 metric tons of carbon. The usual method of removal after cutting is chipping, which means the vast amount of carbon is released to the atmosphere within 5 years. Replacement saplings take many decades of growth to become equivalent carbon sinks. Removal of heritage trees works against the goals of the city's Climate Action Plan. Relocation of heritage trees has a high success rate and is consistent with the CAP goals.

Vertical Landscaping/Planting: All new housing developments of 3 stories or taller, will include vertical planting that covers no less than 70% of their vertical exterior wall space, excluding doors, windows and balconies. Native plant species and xeriscaping should be prioritized to support pollinators and sustainability throughout drought years. The objective standard of vertical planting will achieve:

1. Reduction in air pollution and carbon footprint that is associated with population density increase, thereby mitigating this recorded negative impact proactively

2. Reduction in noise/sound pollution by buffering the hard exterior space and reverberation

3. Reduction in light pollution via texture of plants buffering various and varying reflective building materials and paints

4. Create aesthetic element that is universally pleasing and improve the appearance of less expensive building materials sometimes needed to make an affordable housing development financially feasible.

5. Preservation of Santa Cruz as a destination symbolized by the natural environment, thereby maintaining its draw to both tourists and residents. Planted exterior buildings shows environmental responsibility and adds nature to the skyline instead of concrete, paint, etc... Santa Cruz bumper stickers are traditionally whales, butterflies and trees, not mid-high rise buildings. Living walls will draw butterflies and symbolize that our City values nature and environmental responsibility.

6. Leading other cities by example when challenged with the need to build affordable housing but do so in a way that aims to mitigate its associated impact on global warming.

7. Improvement of both mental health and physical health parameters that are negatively impacted by increased population density - by built-in green space as the surface building exteriors.

Lighting
All proposed developments shall be reviewed under Model Lighting Ordinance & International Dark Sky Association Design guidelines according to General Plan Goal HZ5-5.1 through HZ5.1.3
-To minimize light trespass and the harmful effects of light pollution, outdoor lighting shall be no more than 3000 Kelvin, no more than 2700 lumens (commercial), no more

21.1250
than 1200 lumens (residential), only be on when necessary for public safety and be fully shielded and pointing downward.

RACIAL/CLASS EQUITY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING:

Materials: Affordable units and market-rate units in the same development shall be constructed of the same or similar exterior materials and details such that the units are not distinguishable.

Segregation:
-Affordable units qualifying a housing development for SB 35 streamlining or a density bonus shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the housing development and compatible with the design of market rate units in terms of appearance, materials, and finished quality. (From Santa Cruz’s Density Bonus Law, edited to include SB 35 [Adopted October 24, 2017]) -There shall be distribution of low-income and very low-income housing built throughout the City for racial equity.
-50% of affordable units should be 2 bedroom or larger units.

The City of Santa Cruz enforces the objective standard that any development applying for SB 35 streamlining must include a minimum of 50% of their housing units at the affordable level or income category in which the City is currently deemed deficient (the one which needs fulfillment to satisfy regional requirements). Percentage calculated for the total number of units to be developed, including those awarded for the Density Bonus. -Whereas a deficiency in a specific income level in the most recent year’s regional housing reporting, is what qualifies a City to be subject to accepting SB 35 ministerial streamlining and the City’s goal is to fulfill the requirements and not perpetuate the deficiency.
-Whereas allowing larger percentage of market rate units to be constructed, proportional to the lowest income levels of Affordable Housing, drives up the AMI, thereby increasing what is deemed “affordable” to higher than the lower income brackets can reasonably afford.

BUILDING DESIGN, DENSITY & PARKING
Height/Roof
-The pitch of roofs to match in design to adjacent structures. -Any structures with rooftop activity will require 2” acoustical sound walls

-Any structures with rooftop activity will limit rooftop pedestrian access and activity to hours of City’s sound/noise ordinance (i.e. rooftop closed at night). Rooftop safety lighting shall turn off accordingly to limit light pollution and light trespass.

21.1251
-HVAC systems shall not be visible from residential neighborhoods Neighborhood Compatibility
-The height of any building within 100 ft of a single-family home shall be no taller than 4 stories high including Density Bonus. To achieve maximum density, stepbacks may be used so that the =>30% of the building along the single family zoning conforms to this standard. -Density increase shall be limited to 10% over current zoning (General Plan LU4.1.2), including Density Bonus
-Residential projects located across the street from single-family neighborhoods shall orient the buildings to the street with individual entries, patio areas and landscaping facing the singlefamily homes. Parking lot areas and carports shall not be located along single-family neighborhood street frontages.
-Duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes abutting single-family neighborhoods shall include individual front doors and interior stairs (when stairs are needed).

Building Design Elements
-The first story shall be distinguished from all other stories by using no less than 2 architectural forms, fenestration, or similar details on the front elevation (e.g., arches, awnings, balconies, columns, cornices, lintels, moldings, trellises) that are not also used in the same manner on the other stories.
-Blank walls (facades without doors, windows, landscaping treatments) shall be less than 30 feet in length along sidewalks, pedestrian walks, or publicly accessible outdoor space areas. -Trim surrounds shall be provided at all exterior window and door openings. In lieu of exterior window trim, windows can be recessed from wall plane by a minimum of three inches. -Buildings shall have minor massing breaks at least every 50 feet along the street frontage, through the use of varying setbacks, building entries and recesses, or structural bays. Minor breaks shall be a minimum of 12 inches deep and four feet wide and extend the full height of the building.
-Rooflines shall be vertically articulated at least every 50 feet along the street frontage through the use of architectural elements such as parapets, varying cornices, reveals, clerestory windows, and varying roof height and/or form.
-Buildings shall have minor massing breaks at least every 50 feet along the street frontage, through the use of varying setbacks, building entries and recesses, or structural bays. Minor breaks shall be a minimum of 18 inches deep and four feet wide and extend the full height of the building.

21.1252
-Primary building entrances and associated paths of travel shall be visible from the adjacent street.
-Mirrored glass is prohibited on the exterior of building in order to minimize off-site glare and maximize transparency.
-At least two materials shall be used on any building frontage, in addition to glazing and railings.

Any one material must comprise at least 20% of the building frontage, excluding windows and railings. A change in material must be offset by a minimum of six inches in depth. -The tallest part of the building shall not take up a full floor.

Parking
-Unbundled parking only allowed in Downtown zoning.
-Structured parking shall be designed such that interior shall be fully shielded and automobile headlamps shall not be visible from adjacent buildings, parcels, streets, public parks, publicly accessible outdoor space or designated open space area. -In addition to the required number of parking spaces shall be made available for use by guests, as follows: · 0.10 spaces per dwelling unit for affordable projects (defined as projects reserving at least 50% or more of the units for income-restricted households, as defined under California Law). · 0.15 spaces per dwelling unit for all other projects These guest parking spaces shall be located outside of any security gates or other access limitation devices unless provisions are made to allow a resident to remotely communicate with and provide access to the visiting guest (such as through an intercom and remote control gate, or other similar devices).

21.1253
From: Lira Filippini
To: City Plan
Subject: Objective Development Standards
Date: Wednesday, November 03, 2021 12:19:54 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The setting of our City's official Objective (development) Standards is of great importance, as it will be the concrete regulations by which many large developments will adhere to in the unprecedented wave of "ministerial" significant development projects at our doorstep due to SB 330 and SB 35. The current draft standards have many great elements, but also need many additions and amendments.

The Good - The process of setting these standards is clearly a lot of work and Sarah Neuse and fellow Planning Staff have already put a lot of time and energy into this. In certain areas, they have done a stupendous job. This includes the draft standards dictating passable walkways on corridor streets, requiring variety in building materials, ground floor aesthetic and transparency regulations, landscaping and open space requirements, architectural detail, and the updated street tree requirement.

G.1.i. - I am especially grateful that "green wall" is included in the list of acceptable building materials because it is not only aesthetically pleasing, but inclusion of green walls contributes to needed air scrubbing (reducing CO2/pollutants, and increasing O2). They also reduce noise pollution by providing less reverberation of sound, and reduction of light pollution by being less reflective. Inclusion of plants in a living environment has been shown to increase wellbeing in "enriched environment" studies.

Needed Amendments (to areas currently covered) - Much of the current draft standards for Building Modulation and Roof Forms are great. However, it is important to note that the community outreach needs to be seen as such - as the feedback and preferences of a community who will not only be walking and driving past these new significant developments, but also living within them, behind them, and beside them. The great standards proposed for Building Modulation and Roof Forms are only currently requirements for the "public frontage" for new developments. Application of these aesthetics standards including Building Modulation and Roof Forms should be requirements for all sides of each significant development projects.

Additionally the H. "Lighting" is greatly appreciated in their consideration of the Dark Sky's guidelines. Circadian rhythm of plants, insects, fish, birds, and mammals, including humans are scientifically shown to be disrupted by light pollution, with devastating effects. Many of our mental illnesses and physical disease states have been shown to be in direct relation to circadian rhythm disruption. These stands should also include regulations for developments in which the rooftop is used as open space. No light shall be placed so that it causes light pollution or light trespass. To achieve this, standards should be added that include placement and angle of shielded lights on rooftops so that the lights are shielded and do not cast beyond the footprint of the building and should not be visible to neighboring residents.

Needed Additions - There are many needed development standards that have not been included categorically in these draft standards that go beyond the aesthetic principles and have to do with public health and safety. If you read the focus group notes, some of these were

21.1254
expressly brought up by a number of participants. For instance - earthquake safety and shade.

Earthquake Safety. Right now, SB 35 regulations set forth by HCD have very tight parameters. They only allow discretionary regulations beyond development standards if the site is in a earthquake hazard zone on the State Geologist's map. However, the State Geologist's map that is pointed to shows that the State has not done an assessment of Santa Cruz. Considering we have a history of earthquake damage here and these new significant developments pose much greater risk due to their significant size - to not only their inhabitants, but also the fall radius - we need detailed earthquake safety objective standards.

Shade - There is a large body of scientific evidence discussing the dangers of shade in mold production as well as mental health and mental illness. SAD (seasonal affective disorder) is a well documented mental health issue. We need objective standards for the height and setback of all new significant developments so that they do not create total shade on a neighboring residence for more than a certain portion of any day in the calendar year. Our society is struggling with mental health, and how we build absolutely affects this. Health in All Policies should dictate that how we set these development standards should be taking shade on existing residents as a serious parameter to include.

I greatly appreciate the work that is being done by the Planning Staff, specifically Sarah Neuse; however, we need a more varying and specific set of standards than currently drafted that includes public health and public safety so that we may more smoothly assess new development applications in the future. I have only listed a few of the amendments and additions that should be included in the final standards. I look forward to the Planning Commission and Planning Staff working together to set a more complete and robust set of standards that will dictate much of the future of our City.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Lira Filippini
130 Belvedere Terrace
Santa Cruz, CA 95062

21.1255

21.1256
From: melissa
To: City Plan
Subject: high density housing
Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 6:03:43 AM
while it may be a state requirement, it is
MISGUIDED since there is NOT ENOUGH WATER
FOR WHO IS ALREADY HERE. NO high density
housing.

21.1257
From: Scott Family
To: City Plan
Subject: June 30, 2022 Agenda Item 2. Objective Development Standards Multifamily & Mixed Use Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 7:47:55 PM
June 29, 2022
To: Santa Cruz Planning Commission
Re: June 30, 2022 Special Meeting Agenda Item 2. Objective Development Standards for Multifamily and Mixed-Use Housing Ordinance Amendments We ask the Planning Commission to recommend the following:

1. Apply the City’s Objective standards for development to accommodate reasonable growth in a manner that is also respectful of the interests and rights of all residents.

2. Direct staff to reduce the impacts of tall developments placed immediately adjacent to existing residences in corridors throughout the City. The proposed zoning maps, particularly along Water Street and Soquel Avenue, show MU-H zoning concentrated immediately adjacent to existing residential properties, unlike the proposed zoning on Mission Street.

3. Direct staff to re-zone proposed MU-H parcels to MU-M where these parcels adjoin existing residential properties in order to fairly apply objective standards citywide.

Thank you for your time in reviewing these proposed standards on behalf of all Santa Cruz residents.

Michael A. Scott and Isabelle Scott
Santa Cruz Residents

21.1258
From: Nancy Drinkard
To: City Plan
Subject: zoning proposals
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 12:33:49 PM
Please direct staff to change the proposed MU-H zoning where such zoning is immediately adjacent to R-1 zoning.

The scale (especially height) of development allowed under MU-H dwarfs single story residences on R-1 parcels.

Why is Mission Street being proposed as MU-M, while Branciforte, Water and Soquel are not?? Thanks,
Nancy Drinkard
128 Linden Street
Santa Cruz

21.1259
From: [email protected]
To: City Plan
Subject: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!] Planning Commission meeting of Nov 4 Item 3 Objective Standards Date: Tuesday, November 02, 2021 9:23:00 AM
Attachments: suggested text for some objective standards.docx Dear Commissioners:

As you provide feedback on the draft Objective Standards – Attachment 8, please direct that the following topics be further addressed:

Architectural styles: Clarification is needed as to architectural styles as objective standards. On page 2 the document states, “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.”” Some Area Plans, like the Beach Area Plan and the Seabright Area Plan do mention preferred architectural styles. But then on page 4 of the document is the seemingly contradictory statement, “the Objective Standards do not require any specific architectural style for specific neighborhoods and enable a wide variety of building styles throughout the City.” In order to preserve and maintain the work that went into the area plans and citizen input expressed over time, the Planning Commission should review or have your consultants review any architectural standards or preferences in the area plans and change those that are still relevant into standards language where need be and also be clear as to whether and when there would be exceptions to those standards. It is possible to write objective standards that allow for design flexibility in architectural styles and still be objective, as opposed to just saying anything goes as the document can currently be interpreted to read.

Bicycle transportation: Standards with regard to bicycles are needed. On page 5, item I.B. of the document walkability is promoted, but nothing about bicycling. The default should be that any connections also be bicycle-friendly, unless there is some site-specific reason not to do so. The recent project approval for Riverfront actually removed bikeable pathways in favor of pedestrianonly one which was most unfortunate. In contrast, the pathway at 727 Hanover Street is being widened as part of that project so bikes and pedestrians could better co-exist – that should be the standard.

And, why limit access to daylight hours as the document proposes on page 6? People walk and bike at night – especially in the winter commuters may leave for and/or return home in the dark.

Adequate lighting should be required as indicated on page 20.

Also, there has been a trend in new multi-family developments to locate the required bicycle parking in an aggregate location such as a bike room. Thus, a further objective standard should be to provide the most accessible pathway from the nearest street(s) to the bike room(s) in the development -- preferably separated from motor vehicle traffic. Also, the bike rooms need to be designed and sized to accommodate a range of bicycle sizes and sited to be conveniently accessible to residents.

Finally, any parking requirement reductions should not apply to bicycle parking. One of the reasons to have less car parking is that residents can get around by bike, so using that mode should be made

21.1260
as easy as possible.

Parking: Clarification is needed as to how the proposed parking reduction serves city objectives for affordable housing, alternative transportation, and neighborhood preservation. The document on page 5 allows for a 50% parking reduction for an aesthetic purpose (stacked flat building type, as opposed to a townhome building type) – I may add for some unstated reason since townhouse type architecture seems preferable. As you know, there is a movement to reduce or eliminate parking requirements. This is based on urban observations of seas of underutilized asphalt. However, Santa Cruz lacks a program to allow residents to park overnight in someone else’s private parking lot. Also, Santa Cruz lacks a robust alternative transportation system. The result of this proposed standard will be new residents’ cars clogging nearby streets. Thus, at a minimum no parking reductions should occur unless and until any arterial and collector streets that the new project faces on are made complete – with adequate bike, pedestrian and transit accommodations – and any other streets faced by the project are traffic calmed to prevent excess speeding and cut-throughs.

Furthermore, the city and State already offers parking reduction incentives in return for providing more affordable housing. If developers can reduce parking simply by the architectural design they choose, then they lose this incentive to provide affordable housing. And, there is no guarantee that the lower construction costs that result from providing less parking spaces will be passed on to future tenants or buyers.

Neighborhood compatibility: Standards with regard to neighborhood compatibility are needed.

There is nothing in the document that specifically addresses neighborhood compatibility. The bulk of the document addresses how new buildings will look from the streets on which they front, which will generally be arterial and collector streets, with just a little bit about modulating building designs as also seen from their sides and rear. Regarding parking lots that could be adjacent to residences, the proposed objective standard on page 7 only requires landscaping or fencing at the edge of a side or rear yard. Where a residence is adjacent, this is inadequate – both should be required because they serve different functions. Trees can provide aesthetic relief, shading, cooling, and maybe take up some pollutants; while fences or walls provide more noise and blowing litter protection. And a landscape strip needs to be wider than 3 feet to provide adequate buffering space and room for the landscaping to grow and be maintained. Attached are my suggestions that I sent to your staff for including objective standards for helping ensure neighborhood compatibility.

The document on page 3 does purport to address any multi-family development in any relevant zoning district. It mentions that duplexes are allowed in single-family zones in some cases and hints that future state law may allow more such “smaller” multi-family projects in single family zones. Yet, none of the proposed standards appear very applicable to duplexes and the like in predominately single-family neighborhoods. For example, I live in a single family neighborhood with 20 foot front yard setbacks. If the house on the corner next to me were to turn into a duplex would it have to include an entry of 48 square feet of flat, unenclosed, covered area, which may be a projection, or inset, or a combination of the two (as required on page 6) and would residents be prohibited from parking in their driveway (as illustrated on page 7)? .Additional objective standards need to be written to direct such larger residential projects to blend in with the surrounding development in residential zoning districts or these objective standards should explicitly not apply in R-1 districts.

21.1261
Instead, current standards in the R-1 zoning district should be reviewed and maintained or updated.

Regarding Attachment 7, -MU DISTRICTS DRAFT STANDARDS PUBLIC REVIEW.PDF – why are there no residential zoning densities shown? There are General Plan zoning densities listed and zoning should be consistent with the General Plan. If there are no zoning densities, then there can be no density bonus incentives to provide for affordable housing.

Thanks for your consideration,
Rick Hyman

21.1262
Suggested Text for Some Objective Standards
Rick Hyman
The following standards shall apply to a non-residential or multi-story residential development (hereafter referred to as the “development”) on a parcel or aggregation of parcels that is adjacent to property in a single family or multi-family low rise residential district or with a low or medium density residential use (hereafter referred to as the “neighborhood”):

1. Buffering – where there is no intervening alleyway
Where such development will be on property abutting the neighborhood, the following standards shall apply:
a. an at least 10 foot wide heavily landscaped buffer strip shall be established and maintained on the subject property.
b. existing shrubs and trees that help soften the visual impacts of the development from the neighborhood must be retained, integrated into the landscape plan, and promptly replaced if any die. c. the majority of plants included in the landscaping whose purpose is to soften the visual impacts of new development from the neighborhood shall be of an initial large size (generally minimum of 15 gallon), fast growing, and evergreen.
d. a deed restriction, easement or dedication shall be applied to this buffer strip limiting uses to landscape maintenance and emergency access.
e. a solid 6 foot wall or fence shall be erected and maintained between the buffer strip and the remainder of the subject property where the development is to occur. f. Exceptions:
(1) a different fence design, or other barrier or no barrier besides landscaping is permissible if the adjoining neighborhood property owners prefer such an alternative treatment; (2) if a solid building back is constructed at the buffer edge with no openings for the first 6 feet up from ground level, no separate fence or wall is required;
(3) if occupied residential space constitutes the entire back of a building constructed at the buffer edge, no solid barrier is necessary; landscaped yards, pathways, stairways, decks and patios covering no more than one-third of the buffer area are permissible; and residents may be allowed within the landscaped buffer area;
(4) if another provision in the Code allows for exceptions to this landscaped buffer requirement, then the applicant for any development must install a solid fence or wall at the property line or an alternative fence design requested by the adjoining neighborhood property owners.

2. Buffering – where there is an intervening alleyway
a. Where a public alleyway at least 10 feet wide separates property on which development will occur from the neighborhood, all of the above standards and exceptions apply [in 1 above] except that minimum width for the heavily landscaped buffer adjacent to the alleyway shall be at least 5 feet. b. Where a public alleyway separates property on which development will occur from the neighborhood, no motor vehicle access shall be provided from the alleyway to a parking garage or lot on the subject property; except that access is permissible to individual residential garages or driveways if occupied residential space constitutes the entire back of a building constructed at the buffer edge.

3. Outdoor parking and accessways
If an open parking lot or paved motor vehicle access is installed between the required physical buffer (pursuant to 1 or 2 above) and the back of a new building, then the following measures must be taken:

21.1263
a. any refuse and related containers must be within an enclosure located at least 50 feet from edge of the adjacent neighborhood (otherwise these must be accessible from inside the building or in front of the building).
b. any loading area shall be located at least 50 feet from the edge of the adjacent neighborhood (otherwise loading/unloading must occur inside the building or in front of the building). c. any deliveries by truck shall be prohibited between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. d. a management program must be established to ensure frequent little pick-up. e. where there is also enclosed parking within in a mixed-use development, then any additional uncovered parking lot spaces behind the building shall be allocated first to building residents or employees. [this is to avoid frequent turnover in the parking lot caused by commercial patrons that has more noise and related impacts on the adjacent neighborhood] f. “Quiet Zone” or similar signs requesting consideration of the adjacent neighborhood, “No Loitering” or similar sign, hours and time limits for parking, and “Tow Away” signs for parked vehicles not incompliance with the rules shall all be posted in outdoor parking lots. g. security measures are permissible and encouraged, provided they do not result in adverse impacts on the adjacent neighborhood (e.g., loud audible alarm voices; bright shining lights).

4. Driveways and garage accessways
If a motor vehicle entrance/exit is provided off of a non-arterial or non-collector street that runs from an arterial or collector street into a neighborhood, then:
a. the entrance shall be located as close to the corridor street as possible; b. a semi-traffic diverter or similar traffic calming device and a “residential traffic only” or similar sign shall be installed just beyond the entrance on the street to slow and caution traffic entering the residential neighborhood;
c. turns from the entrance/exit toward the residential neighborhood shall be prohibited.

5. Mechanical equipment and venting
a. All new mechanical equipment and appurtenances, including gas and water meters, electrical boxes, roof vents, air conditioners, antennas, etc. that could otherwise be visible from the residential neighborhood shall be permanently screened with material compatible with the materials of the building, except to the extent that such screening would interfere with the operation of solar panels. b. Any necessary mechanical venting of laundry or rest rooms shall be internal to the building if possible; in no case shall vents to the outside face a residential neighborhood.

6. Exterior lights
Except on the ground floor where residential uses constitute the entire back of a building facing a neighborhood, no exterior lights shall be allowed which shine beyond the property line.

7. Heritage trees
Existing heritage trees shall be preserved and afforded adequate space to survive. No heritage tree removal shall be allowed solely to allow a proposed building design; rather the building shall be redesigned and resited to allow the heritage tree to remain.

8. Adjacent uses
a. Non-residential uses allowed within 50 feet of a neighborhood shall be limited to those principally permitted uses that generate no more than eight vehicular round trips per day from other than employees and do not use any outdoor space on the neighborhood side.

21.1264
b. No non-residential use shall be allowed within 125 feet of an adjacent neighborhood that is open any time between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.; includes outdoor uses with amplified music; uses alarms or sirens or similar loud noises that can be heard by the adjacent neighborhood; prepares food in a manner that smoke or odor is allowed to vent from the building or occurs outdoors; includes an outdoor swimming pool; or is a conditional use that the Zoning Administrator determines will have adverse noise, litter, odor, lighting, pollution or traffic impacts on the adjacent neighborhood.

9. Design features
a. All façade features designed and required to make the front of the building attractive (such as varying roof lines, other articulations, breaking up massing to appear or to be separate buildings, architect style compatible with the neighbor) must also be incorporated into all sides of the building that face residential neighborhoods, except where they are unnecessary (e.g., because the height of the building facing the residential neighborhood is only one or two stories), would adversely impact the residential neighborhood (such as glass that would cast a glare), or are in conflict with the other provisions of this section.
b. Windows and glass doors above the first floor that face onto a neighborhood shall not be permitted in non-residentially occupied spaces (e.g., storage rooms, staircases), unless mandated for safety. Any such windows and doors shall have a screen or drape that is closed when any lights are on. c. Windows or glass doors above the first floor that serve residentially or employee occupied spaces and face onto the neighborhood shall be limited to no more than one standard sized (24” x 36”) one per room or employee cubicle and shall be located in a manner that minimizes intrusion into the neighborhood residents’ privacy.
c. Vines and similar plants that can grow on building sides that face onto a neighborhood shall be incorporated into building design, using, for example: trellises, window boxes or hanging plants from rooftops gardens.
d. Painting and other treatments of and on exteriors that face neighborhoods shall be permanently maintained in good condition.
e. Signs for non-residential uses facing the neighborhood shall not be visible to neighborhood residents above the required landscaped buffer; except, if building design (e.g., placement of windows or doors), would thus preclude a sign, one per business shall be allowed that is located no more than one foot above the door, window or other impediment, no more than one foot high, and illuminated only during the time the business is open.
e. A deed restriction or other binding legal document shall prohibit building changes in the future that do not comply with the provisions of this section.

10. Comprehensive management responsibility
a. A comprehensive management plan shall be prepared to ensure compliance with all on-going requirements of these standards or any other Municipal Code requirements that apply anywhere on the property over time.
b. One management entity shall assume ultimate responsibility for implementing the comprehensive management plan; except for mixed use developments: two management entities may be established -- one for the residential and one for the non-residential uses, provided they execute a legally binding agreement to ensure that (1) there is joint management of common areas used by both residents and non-residents and (2) that all on-going requirements are the responsibility of either one or the other or both.
c. While this entity may designate individual businesses to comply with certain responsibilities pertaining to their businesses, the overall management entity is ultimately responsible for the entire property.

21.1265
d. Any subsequent use permits issued to individual businesses shall be conditioned to comply with the comprehensive management plan.
e. Any subsequent use permits for individual businesses whose operation could result in adverse neighborhood impacts not previously addressed by the original comprehensive management plan can only be approved if (1) conditioned for a supplemental management plan to address these impacts integrated into to comprehensive plan; (2) the overall management entity assumes responsibility for these supplemental measures if the individual business fails to comply. f. A representative of the neighborhood, if one is delegated, shall be given updated contact information for a responsible designee of the management authority.

11. Construction activity
a. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday; except limited interior construction activity from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays may occur with the approval of the Chief Building Official.
b. A representative of the neighborhood, if one is designated, shall be provided with contact information for individuals responsible for the construction operations. c. As part of a required construction management plan, all construction materials, equipment, and vehicles shall be stored on site or at an approved location at least 100 feet away from any neighborhood. A construction vehicle access plan shall prohibit construction and related vehicles from using any non-arterial and non-collector residential streets beyond the subject site limits, unless no other access route is available. Designated parking for construction workers shall be established off of any non-arterial and non-collector residential streets beyond the subject site limits. d. Enforceable measures shall be incorporated into a required construction management plan to prevent adverse noise, dust, utility disruption, nuisance, odor, lighting, vibration impacts on the neighborhood.

12. Construction delays and abandonment
a. Security must continue to be provided on a site where construction is delayed or abandoned. b. Once site preparation or construction commences, if it subsequently stops for a period of six continuous months, then a solid fence or wall must then immediately be installed on all sides of the subject property visible from the neighborhood; any equipment or materials stored on site that are visible from the neighborhood above the fence or wall must be removed from the site; and any equipment or materials stored on site that continue to generate noise, odor, light, dust, litter or pollution must be removed from the site.
c. If site preparation or construction stops for one year, then the required buffering and landscaping must be immediately installed. [#1 or 2 above]
d. Temporary uses that enhance the attractiveness and security of a halted or abandoned construction site may be permitted, provided they comply with all of these provisions.

13. Process
a. Community outreach meetings shall be held for any such developments, except where there is no change of or expansion of use.
b. Where State law allows exceptions to these Objective Standards, no further exceptions may be granted pursuant to a Planned Development permit, height limit modification, or other exception provision of the zoning ordinance.
c. A representative of a neighborhood affected by such development may be designated to receive notice of when any follow-up landscape, management, transportation, or other plans required to

21.1266
comply with these Objective Standards to help protect the neighborhood are submitted for approval and shall be allowed to review such plans.
d. Public notice and an opportunity to comment shall be provided prior to approval of any changes to approved building design or permit conditions that may affect the neighborhood that otherwise do not require public hearings.

21.1267
From: [email protected]
To: City Plan
Subject: FW: Planning Commission meeting of June 2, 2022 #4 Objective Standards Date: Wednesday, June 01, 2022 12:04:43 PM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 3:02 PM
To: 'Sarah Neuse' <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission meeting of June 2, 2022 #4 Objective Standards Dear Commissioners:

The proposed Objective Standards have many welcome provisions. I have previously offered some suggestions and I appreciate that staff has incorporated some into the current draft.

Based in part on my involvement over the years in various alternative transportation projects and development projects abutting my neighborhood, I recommend the following revisions and additions to the draft Standards. Where not self-evident I have included reasons for these in italics.

1. Please revise I.A.1 Maximum Building Length as follows:

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 motor vehicle parking requirement shall be reduced by half.

If the City is going to let half of the new multi-family residences not have any motor vehicle parking, then at least require the full amount of bicycle parking.

2. Please revise I.B.1.ii Walkability as follows:
ii. Existing frontage improvements including any bike lanes or sidewalks will be maintained, repaired, or upgraded as dictated by the City’s Active Transportation Plan, 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.

Since the City’s Active Transportation Plan indicates which streets have or need bike lanes, then that adopted document needs to be reference in this section.

3. Please add to I.B.2 Walkability the following:
v. Where the required connection is between two facilities that bicycles can use (e.g., between two streets or between a street and an alley or bicycle path) then the connection shall be designed for bicycle access (e.g., curb cuts) and bicyclists shall be allowed to ride on it.

4. 21.1268
Please relabel I D.3.iii Parking Location and Screening to be I.D.4 and revise as follows:
iii. 4. The entire perimeter of a surface parking area that fronts onto a side or rear yard, except the width of the access, except along property lines that abut an R-district, shall be screened by buildings, evergreen buffer landscaping to a minimum depth of 3 feet, or fences that are at least 75 percent opaque. Where abutting an R-district both a 10 foot deep landscaped buffer and a fence or wall shall also be constructed. “Quiet Zone” or similar signs requesting consideration of the adjacent neighborhood, “No Loitering” or similar sign, hours and time limits for parking, and “Tow Away” signs for parked vehicles not in compliance with the rules shall all be posted.

This provision should apply to all parking facilities, not just residential. Fences and landscaping serve different functions -- fences, for example, can prevent litter from blowing away and attenuate sound; while landscaping provides some habitat benefit and visual relief – thus, they both should be required.

5. Please revise I.D.5 Parking Location and Screening as follows:

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 that addresses limiting neighborhood traffic. Access to a common parking facility shall not be from a public alleyway adjacent to an R-district unless that is the only access to the parcel being developed. (Access to individual townhouses is permissible along an alleyway). If a motor vehicle entrance/exit is provided off of a non-arterial or non-collector street that runs from an arterial or collector street into a neighborhood, then:
a. the entrance shall be located as close to the corridor street as possible; b. a semi-traffic diverter or similar traffic calming device and a “residential traffic only” or similar sign shall be installed just beyond the entrance on the street to slow and caution traffic entering the residential neighborhood;
c. turns from the entrance/exit toward the residential neighborhood shall be prohibited, except to the extent found necessary in the Transportation Study.

One of, if not, the most often raised concern about large new development proposed in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods is increase in traffic. The suggested measures have been implemented in conjunction with projects along the corridor. Arterial and collector streets are designated and designed to carry through traffic; the use of neighborhood streets as cut-throughs has adverse safety, noise, and quality of life impacts. Tying these measures into a Transportation Study ensures that they can be tailored on a case-by-case basis as staff prefers.

6. Please revise I.E.2.iii Landscape and Buffering as follows:
iii. A landscaped buffer of at least 5 10 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.

21.1269
This provision should always apply no matter the depth of the parcel. Not only will landscaping provide some buffering to the residence, it provides habitat, shade, air filtering and other benefits that the City needs as it develops more intensively.

7. Please revise E.3 Landscape and Buffering as follows:

3. 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. Any such enclosure shall be located at least 50 feet from edge of an R-district.

While it is most welcome that the City is requiring these enclosures, they still have noise and litter impacts that can be mitigated by siting them away from adjacent homes.

8. Please add a provision addressing the impacts from Deliveries, as follows:
a. any loading area shall be located at least 50 feet from the edge of an R-district (otherwise loading/unloading must occur inside the building or in front of the building). b. any deliveries by truck not confined to just being on the main arterial to a building or business abutting an R-district shall be prohibited between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

9. Please add a provision to address odor impacts from Mechanical Equipment and Venting in large, new developments, such as:

Any necessary mechanical venting of laundry or rest rooms shall be internal to the building if possible; in no case shall vents to the outside face an R-1 district.

Large new developments are more likely to have laundry and other such cleaning facilities that emit permeating odors. These should be vented in a way that minimizes impacts on nearby residents.

10. Please add a provision to protect Heritage Trees in large new developments, such as:

No heritage tree removal shall be allowed solely to allow a proposed building design; rather the building shall be redesigned and re-sited to allow the heritage tree to remain.

While heritage tree removals are evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the City arborist, tree removal to allow for a new development should not be a factor in her decision. There are creative design measures available to incorporate healthy heritage trees into a site plan.

11. Please add a provision to limit excessively noisy, odorous, late-night, and similar impacting uses right adjacent to residences, as follows:
a. Non-residential uses allowed within 50 feet of a neighborhood shall be limited to those principally permitted uses that generate no more than eight vehicular round trips per day from other than

21.1270
employees and do not use any outdoor space on the neighborhood side. b. No non-residential use shall be allowed within 125 feet of an adjacent neighborhood that is open any time between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.; includes outdoor uses with amplified music; uses alarms or sirens or similar loud noises that can be heard by the adjacent neighborhood; prepares food in a manner that smoke or odor is allowed to vent from the building or occurs outdoors; includes an outdoor swimming pool; or is a conditional use that the Zoning Administrator determines will have adverse noise, litter, odor, lighting, pollution or traffic impacts on the adjacent neighborhood.

This suggested provision or one like it can help ensure neighborhood compatibility by directing those more impacting uses further away from homes. There is a large amount of parcels designated for commercial uses; the list of permitted uses is extensive; and there is a wide range of depth of parcels along the corridors Thus, there are ample opportunities to site noisy and similar uses in a manner that limits adverse impacts on the adjacent residents.

12. Please add a provision to address Management responsibility over time for new large multiuse or multiple-owner developments along the corridors, as follows:
a. A comprehensive management plan shall be prepared to ensure compliance with all on-going requirements of these standards or any other Municipal Code requirements that apply anywhere on the property over time.
b. One management entity shall assume ultimate responsibility for implementing the comprehensive management plan; except for mixed use developments: two management entities may be established -- one for the residential and one for the non-residential uses, provided they execute a legally binding agreement to ensure that (1) there is joint management of common areas used by both residents and non-residents and (2) that all on-going requirements are the responsibility of either one or the other or both.
c. While this entity may designate individual businesses to comply with certain responsibilities pertaining to their businesses, the overall management entity is ultimately responsible for the entire property.
d. Any subsequent use permits issued to individual businesses shall be conditioned to comply with the comprehensive management plan.
e. Any subsequent use permits for individual businesses whose operation could result in adverse neighborhood impacts not previously addressed by the original comprehensive management plan can only be approved if (1) conditioned for a supplemental management plan to address these impacts integrated into to comprehensive plan; (2) the overall management entity assumes responsibility for these supplemental measures if the individual business fails to comply. f. A representative of the neighborhood, if one is delegated, shall be given updated contact information for a responsible designee of the management authority.

The city is seeing and encouraging new large mixed-use developments which means that there are multiple business and residential owners involved. In order to ensure that all of these entities, current and future, know about and have responsibility to carry out permit requirements over time a provision like this one is needed. It can be further supplemented by specific conditions to address specific conditions on a case-by-case basis, but a general standard like this should be in the Code.

21.1271

13. Please add a provision to address impacts of Construction Activity, as follows:
a. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday; except limited interior construction activity from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays may occur with the approval of the Chief Building Official.
b. A representative of the neighborhood, if one is designated, shall be provided with contact information for individuals responsible for the construction operations. c. As part of a required construction management plan, all construction materials, equipment, and vehicles shall be stored on site or at an approved location at least 100 feet away from any neighborhood. A construction vehicle access plan shall prohibit construction and related vehicles from using any non-arterial and non-collector residential streets beyond the subject site limits, unless no other access route is available. Designated parking for construction workers shall be established off of any non-arterial and non-collector residential streets beyond the subject site limits.
d. Enforceable measures shall be incorporated into a required construction management plan to prevent adverse noise, dust, utility disruption, nuisance, odor, lighting, vibration impacts on the neighborhood.

14. Please add a provision to address Construction delays and abandonment along the corridors, as follows:
a. Security must continue to be provided on a site where construction is delayed or abandoned. b. Once site preparation or construction commences, if it subsequently stops for a period of six continuous months, then a solid fence or wall must then immediately be installed on all sides of the subject property visible from the neighborhood; any equipment or materials stored on site that are visible from the neighborhood above the fence or wall must be removed from the site; and any equipment or materials stored on site that continue to generate noise, odor, light, dust, litter or pollution must be removed from the site.
c. If site preparation or construction stops for one year, then the required buffering and landscaping must be immediately installed.
d. Temporary uses that enhance the attractiveness and security of a halted or abandoned construction site may be permitted, provided they comply with all of these provisions.

As the City sees more large new developments that may take multiple years to complete the possibility of delays and even outright abandonment increases along with attendant safety, aesthetic, and environmental issues, and hence should be addressed in the Code. Such a general provision in the Code can be further supplemented by specific conditions to address specific conditions on a case-bycase basis.

15. Please add a provision to prevent “double dipping,” i.e., to take advantage of both a State exemption and a City one, as follows:

Where State law allows exceptions to these Objective Standards, no further exceptions may be granted pursuant to a Planned Development permit, height limit modification, or other exception provision of the zoning ordinance.

21.1272
The report notes, “The standards here will be incorporated into the zoning code 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.” The City has adopted many exceptions over time to facilitate development. Since the State has now done the same, these similar city exemption provisions are no longer necessary to also be granted.

16. Please add a provision that helps ensure citizen participation in on-going development review, as follows:
a. A representative of a neighborhood affected by large-scale corridor development may be designated to receive notice of when any follow-up landscape, management, transportation, or other plans required to comply with these Objective Standards to help protect the neighborhood are submitted for approval
and shall be allowed to review such plans.
b. Public notice and an opportunity to comment shall be provided prior to approval of any changes to approved building design or permit conditions that may affect the neighborhood that otherwise do not require public hearings.

Thanks for addressing these concerns,
Rick Hyman
Coulson Avenue

21.1273
From: [email protected]
To: City Plan
Cc: Sarah Neuse
Subject: Commission meeting of Dec 3, 2020; #5,6 Standards for multi-family housing Date: Monday, November 30, 2020 12:16:20 PM
Dear Commissioners:

Please ensure that the Community Engagement Strategy is a good faith effort in that it accounts for the various incentives and exceptions already available to housing developers.

The implicit purpose of this exercise is to combat NIMBYism (not in my backyard) by eliminating obstructionist zoning provisions. True, that zoning should not promote discriminatory reasons for thwarting housing. But zoning must also implement other General Plan policies to preserve the environment and neighborhoods. If applying standards are an obstacle to building housing there are ways that they can be adjusted. Under state density bonus law, developers have the right to not comply with some zoning requirements depending on how much affordable housing they are providing. Because the City already requires 20% affordability, one can assume that strict application of all the standards need not happen. Similarly, the maximum density currently stated in the zoning districts that allow multi-family housing will never be the ultimate maximum density – under State and City law the maximum density will be at least 15% more than what is stated in the zoning district regulations. Plus, the Code includes additional City provisions to bypass various limits, including planned developments, SROs, height exceptions and the like.

The City promotes and developers have proposed several mixed use projects. The effects of the commercial components can range from benign to substantial, depending on such characteristics as amount and turnover of patrons, hours of operation, noise generation, use of or serviced by large or frequent trucks, etc. The strategy should result in zoning standards that limit those types of uses and operations that adversely impact residential uses. Not only will this benefit adjacent residential neighborhoods, but also those who will live above the establishments in these multi-use projects.

Concurrently, the strategy can identify locations where more intensive, noisy commercial uses can be located without adversely affecting residents – there are ample locations available in the City. The accelerated trend toward on-line shopping, staff findings that residential units tend to subsidize the commercial uses, the challenges of fitting mixed uses on many, especially smaller parcels, the housing shortage, and the desire to have a vibrant Downtown taken all together suggest that it is unnecessary to encourage mixed-use development along the entire major city corridors, but rather to target strategic locations where it can more easily be accommodated and less impactful.

Also, large, tall buildings, irrespective of who or what use they house, can adversely impact adjacent residences. This engagement strategy should develop more precise zoning standards to mitigate their impacts on solar access, privacy, open views, air quality and the like. Again, the strategy should more precisely identify areas suitable for taller buildings, such as the front portions of deep lots and those parcels that abut other ones behind them that have tall buildings or commercial zoning.

The end of my street illustrates the subjectiveness and hence unequal application of current provisions to buffer homes from adjacent uses, in this case those on Ocean Street. The back wall of

21.1274
the Holiday Inn, located 17 feet from the property line of the northern street end parcel, shields parking. In between, existing trees were retained, additional landscaping was installed, and this buffer area is off limits to other than maintenance activities. The hotel developer also installed a solid fence at the property line. Contrast those requirements with the lesser five foot setback of The Habit complex’s parking lot from the adjacent home’s property line, partially planted with trees that will take years to serve as adequate screening and where patrons can congregate. In this example, my neighbor on the southern street end erected his own solid fence as the developer was not required to.

Thus, as part of the upcoming engagement strategy, it would be helpful to map the interface between corridor parcels that allow large-scale housing and mixed-use projects and adjacent lowrise residential neighborhoods. The strategy could then establish uniform buffer provisions - perhaps, one set for where rows of low rise homes directly abut properties that are currently zoned for tall buildings; and another set that applies to the interface where existing or proposed accessways (roads, alleys, pathways) border or lead to properties with low-rise homes.

The proposed work plan includes soliciting community input, which is commendable. But, additionally, previous input should be taken into account. I recall a session about a decade ago at the Branciforte schools campus where the City’s consultants asked residents to vote on and rank various residential and other designs that they showed photos of. One of the intended purposes was to overcome viseral negative reactions to the term “high density housing,” by showing several examples that the pubic reacted positively to. I would hope that the results of those community meetings still exist and can be used in this new process.

And, that should be the desired outcome of the engagement strategy -- to develop zoning provisions that allow for more intensive housing in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, retaining the character and feel of Santa Cruz, and also resulting in a satisfactory living environment for the future occupants of this new housing.

Sincerely,
Rick Hyman
Coulson Ave.

21.1275
From: Robert Tidmore
To: City Plan
Subject: General Plan Update & Corridors Plan
Date: Wednesday, January 06, 2021 11:58:36 AM
Dear Planning Commission,
I recently read about the planned effort by the City Council to replace the density called for in the Corridor Plan with greater density in the far Westside as part of a new General Plan update. This is very disappointing given the extensive work and community input that went into creating the Corridor Plan. Most importantly, the Corridor Plan utilized a proven approach, known as Transit Oriented Development (TOD), to reduce dependence on personal vehicles for commuting, errands, etc. Placing higher density on the City's transit corridors makes sense. Those streets are close to jobs, restaurants, shopping, and the larger metropolitan Santa Cruz area. Placing that same density on the far westside would concentrate development at the very fringe of our urban area, making it more difficult for new residents to walk, bike and take transit. It would increase traffic which is the greatest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in our County. If the City is serious about climate change, then they need to pursue the Corridor Plan.

Furthermore, this approach smacks of NIMBYism. Residents on the eastside of Santa Cruz were opposed to some of the density in the Corridor Plan, so now you're going to move that density to the far westside? So now the westside residents will raise objections to this plan, and then what? Do the right thing and put density where it is proven to be effective - along transit corridors and in the core of the urban area.

Sincerely,
Robert Tidmore
1619 Delaware Ave
--
Rob Tidmore
http://goodluckwiththetraffic.com
[email protected]

21.1276
From: Doug Engfer
To: City Plan
Cc: Robin Engfer
Subject: Public Comment re: test-fit scenarios (7 Jan 2021) Date: Wednesday, January 06, 2021 11:18:39 AM
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Winston Churchill
Tonight, the Planning Commission undertakes work consistent with Council’s August 2019 direction to reconcile the City’s zoning code with the General Plan; specifically, reviewing “test fit” scenarios highlighting the characteristics and implications of the contentious MXHD land-use designation. Having reviewed the materials that Staff and their consultants have prepared and shared, we look forward to learning more during tonight’s meeting. We expect that the Commission will develop many insights that will inform its ultimate recommendations to Council regarding that reconciliation; these recommendations are targeted for delivery by December 2021.

We note that Council’s original charge was for this reconciliation to be complete by November 2020 (Staff was clear at the time that that timeline would be at best difficult, even with SB2 grant funding and help from consultants). In the meantime, the City’s land-use decisions are governed by the General Plan (and State law), irrespective of non-objective zoning considerations, with the consequence that projects may “sneak through” that are inconsistent with the City’s ultimate planning goals and objectives.

Regrettably, as we sit here tonight, such a project is in the offing, poised for development during this land-use and zoning policy “gap”, providing a third test-fit scenario for the MXHD land-use designation. I refer to the pre-proposal project at 831 Water St (https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-communitydevelopment/planning-division/active-planning-applications-and-status/831-water-street).

This project, as described conceptually by the developer, tests the validity of the notion that the current test-fit scenarios adequately bound the problem space. Specifically, we note that the conceptual design consists of:

0.9 acres of land (combining several existing smaller parcels) 151 units (102 studios, 46 one-bedroom, 3 two-bedroom (nominally for property managers))
Buildings 5 stories high (59’ roof level + mechanical, elevator exit, and roof-top terrace bar)
Siting immediately adjacent to and within 20’ of existing single-family residential homes
While there are many more concerns about this specific project and design, and while we applaud its goal of delivering affordable housing, each of these salient characteristics is at variance with key parameters Staff has used to characterize its test-fit parcels. As such, this project concept deserves consideration as a further test case for the potential implications of

21.1277
MXHD land use as currently constituted.

We would argue that this project, at this scale, in this location, is fundamentally inconsistent with the City’s planning vision and with the Council’s direction regarding the reconciliation process. As such, this third test-fit scenario highlights the urgency of developing both objective standards and General Plan amendments, thereby allowing for density transfers so that reasonable, respectful, responsible development of affordable housing can take place adjacent to and within our neighborhoods, consistent with Council’s direction of August 2019.

We doubt that this project concept accurately reflects the legacy that this Commission, or this Council, or this City, desires. Failing to take immediate action to develop tools and levers to curtail projects of this scale at locations like this one doom us all to live with the results for generations to come.

As always, we thank you for your commitment and service to our City.

Respectfully,
Robin and Doug Engfer
Santa Cruz

21.1278
From: Sarah Sturdy
To: City Plan; Sarah Sturdy
Subject: SCPC Meeting Item #2 - Objective Development Standards Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 4:35:18 PM
Thank you for including community input on the city's objective design and development standards. The standards need to lessen the impact of very tall (over 4 stories) buildings immediately next to single family homes There are many empty lots in Santa Cruz, many on transit corridors, that could accommodate midsize multifamily housing (3-4 stories max).

I would echo, like many of my
community members, that the Commission should direct staff to re-zone proposed MU-H parcels to MU-M where these parcels adjoin existing R-1 zoning (generally consistent with the proposed Mission St pattern).

Thank you,
Sarah Sturdy

21.1279
From: sue terence
To: City Plan
Subject: [email protected]
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 4:18:03 PM
Dear members of the Santa Cruz Planning Commission,
Is it that unreasonable to ask that your lifelong investment, your home, as well as your well being, not have the rug pulled out from under them?
Is it unreasonable to ask that our local government represent ALL of their constituents, allowing development but not allowing developments at such a scale that it tramples the adjacent neighbors, who are left with little sun for months, subsequent high risk of mold, unsafe traffic conditions, and the incessant noise of trucks backing up because the developer isn’t willing to reduce the number of units (or his profits) in order to allow trucks to exit in a forward manner?
Reasonable development based on mutual respect makes sense. Reasonable development that turns a profit makes sense. But why allow a developer to make a killing at the expense of his neighbors? I am personally fed up with monied interests, on both the local and National levels, that sacrifice people’s needs for their greed.

Aren’t you?
Development that is commensurate with the adjacent homes is the only way to balance the objective standards fairly. It is inappropriate to locate MU-H zoning immediately adjacent to existing R-1 zoning. The proposed zoning maps, particularly along Water Street and Soquel Avenue, show MU-H zoning concentrated immediately adjacent to existing R-1 residential properties.

At the very least, re-zone proposed MU-H parcels to MU-M, as is proposed for Mission St.

I appreciate that many of you entered public service to address the common good.

I have written this letter in the spirit of doing just that.

Thank you,
Sue Terence

21.1280
1 Viviane Nguyen
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 6:23 AM
To: City Plan
Subject: PC meeting of 7/21/21 #4 Objective Standards
Dear Commissioners:

Please address the following:

1. In the C‐C district, do not increase the height limit by 5 feet for mixed use developments, especially where adjacent to R‐1 neighborhoods ‐‐ there is no need to do this. Currently, there is a 3 story and 40 foot height limit. 40 feet is more than adequate for three stories. If the ground floor is commercial and has up to a 15 foot height, that leaves 25 feet or 12 ½ feet per floor for the two residential floors above, which is more than adequate. Retaining the 40 height limit would be consistent with the proposed MU‐OM height limit along upper Ocean Street. Given that State law and the zoning code already grant height limit exceptions for affordable housing projects, there is no need to automatically start with a higher base height. Plus, if the City wants to encourage bringing down the costs of development, then it should embrace more compact building.

2. This appears to be the time to rezone 121 and 125 Coulson Ave. and the street end from CC to R‐1‐5. The General Plan designates these parcels as low density residential and they are not within the scope of the Ocean Street Area Plan. The City should not lose these residentially developed parcels to commercial development in the future, nor are they really suitable for commercial development.

Thank you,
Rick Hyman

21.1281
1 Viviane Nguyen
From: International Dark-Sky Association - Santa Cruz <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 3:54 PM
To: City Plan; Bonnie Bush
Cc: IDA Santacruz
Subject: Re: Draft Objective Standards
International Dark-Sky Association - Santa Cruz
Chapter
http://santacruzdarksky.org
Dear City of Santa Cruz Planning Commissioners,
We here at the Santa Cruz Chapter of the International Dark‐Sky Association, would like to sincerely thank Planning staff, especially Sarah Neuse, for keeping Santa Cruz's nighttime environment in mind with the most recent draft of our City's Objective Development Standards. We appreciate that many of our suggestions were incorporated.

We think it would be great if a few other important issues were included in "Section H. Lighting".

1. The use of building facades as giant screens for projector events, as is done in New York’s Times Square, is clearly inappropriate for our small city, especially when close to nature preserves.

2. We appreciate the requirement in Section H.1 that exterior light fixtures use a color temperature that does not exceed 3000 Kelvin. Many good options exist today at even lower Kelvin ratings, which the American Medical Association says is beneficial for human health.

3. Finally, string lights can also be a source of light pollution that could be addressed in the draft standards. Note that some communities have disallowed their use.

We urge committee members to vote positively on this version of the standard, with the inclusion of the additional suggestions above.

Thank you!
Mark Buxbaum
Chapter Leader
International Dark‐Sky Association ‐ Santa Cruz Chapter

21.1282
1 Viviane Nguyen
From: A Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 4:54 PM
To: City Plan; Bonnie Bush
Subject: 7/21.22 - Agenda Zoning Ordinance Updates A22-0002 and A22-0003 Dear Planning Commissioners,
The Zoning Ordinance Update Summary Table states:
"24.06.020 Initiation: Include Planning Director as allowed to initiate zoning map and text amendments"
I had asked during the public zoom meeting: under what scenarios would the Planning Director initiate such changes, and the answer was: none.

Yet, it is still in this Table. So, the question remains - can anyone answer this? Please ADD these two topics into these Zoning and Objective Ordinance Amendments as explained below:

1. Problem: Light Pollution and Glare
There is a glaring omission in permit standards with regard to Building and/or Parking Lot lighting CHANGES, whether on private or public property, when near a residential use. Where I live, we are presently struggling with two hotel/motel parking lots that replaced their fully hooded, incandescent type warm yellow lighting that, when originally installed, complied with City standards to contain lighting onto the lot where needed without glare intrusion into neighboring uses.

In this case, no permit was sought, and I assume not required, to subsequently replace lightheads. Unfortunately, the replacement lightheads are extremely bright white blue‐ spectrum LED lighting (brighter than City street lights), none of the 12 lightheads were shielded. This created an instant huge impact with bright glare trespass and intrusion into many neighboring homes ‐ especially bedroom windows.

The lack of any City approval process on such long‐term changes has caused a tremendous burden on neighbors to get the property owner to reduce glare intrusions into homes, causing a bright "spot light" effect into windows and yards.

This in turn is causing disruption to lifestyles, sleep and wellbeing, and forcing financial burden onto those impacted to block these new harsh impacts they are suddenly being subjected to. This is hardly equitable, especially for our largely low income community.

Lack of willingness of property owners to understand such impacts, and work cooperatively to reduce them and install proper shielding on ALL offending lightheads, then forces neighbors to seek City assistance via a complaint process. This could be completely avoided with a proper system in place for COMMUNICATING and requiring compliance with stated City strategies to reduce such major lighting impacts, including when making future lighting changes or upgrades.

City Code Compliance seems to need clearer guidelines on what Light Pollution, and Light Glare/Trespass is, to make it a simpler process, without the burden of neighbors having to pursue this channel or further legal battles over impacts that could easily be avoided in the first place ‐ especially when such standards are originally required. When such long‐term changes are made, a permit should be required to insure all standards continue to be complied with.

Solution to Light Pollution and Glare:

Please add a section that requires a property owner, when upgrading or improving existing building and/or parking lot lighting, or adding to building and/or parking lot lighting, to obtain a

21.1283
2 simple permit that emphasizes compliance with the City's Green Building standards as follows:

Green Building standards, Non‐Residential, including Improvements:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/35643/635418232770030000 Light Pollution Reduction
Comply with lighting power requirements in Energy Code and design interior / exterior lighting so that zero direct-beam illumination leaves the building site, using the following strategies:
 Shield all exterior luminaires or use cutoff luminaires.  Contain interior lighting within each source.
 Allow no more than .01 horizontal foot candle 15 ft. beyond site.  Contain all exterior lighting within property boundaries

2. Problem: Fencing on shared bounderies to residential uses:
"24.12.160 FENCING AND SCREENING.
(3) On any portion of the property outside of the required front and exterior side yard setbacks, fences shall not exceed a height of eight feet from finished grade, with any portion of the fence above six feet consisting of lattice or other similar material that is at least 50% open except as provided in Chapter 24.08, Part 7.

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."
Where existing fencing is 6‐feet as has been City standard, even adding a 2‐ft addition (including lattice) can pose an undue or unintended impact to a shared border fence with a residential use whereby solar access becomes blocked. For example, my home that I own sits 3‐feet from a shared 6‐ft fenceline with a business use on the east, and 3‐ft from residential neighbors on the south and north. Within this small 3‐ft setback, it has take me nearly 10 years to dial in exactly what food items I can grow where, and at what time of the year based on the arc of the sun, based on sun exposure needed. My garden reduces my grocery bill these past 20 years ‐ important for fixed low income, especially this past year of inflation, and I share fresh veggies with my fixed low income neighbors. I also have a butterfly and bird habitat ‐ more important than ever with the chipping away of our natural habitats due to development. Our pollinators are important to growing human food and environmental health.

Also the solar access into my home is important to not have to rely on electricity use for that in the daytime or evening, and I can grow indoor plants that improve indoor environment, and also enjoy existing views from windows. As we crowd residences tighter, there has to be a balance of not TAKING away important neighboring uses that contribute to health and wellbeing just for a fence.

My understanding from participating in the zoom meeting when this change was discussed, the City's goal is to reduce public hearings for increasing fence heights.

NOTE: The Zoning Ordinance Update Summary Table included in this Agenda is not the same as that used in the public zoom meeting discussing these changes ‐ with regard to Fence heights. The Amended/updated ordinance reads 8 feet, the Table reads 6 feet and doesn't mention the new 8 foot height.

This fence height in Zoning Ordinance is also part of Objective Standards.

Solution: to avoiding unintended impacts by increasing fence heights to 8-ft without a public hearing option:

Increasing this 6‐ft standard to an 8‐ft height, regardless of the 50% lattice idea which can still block solar access and exposure in a permanent way, create a form of which neighbors to all borders where a 6‐8 foot fence is to be erected, or height added to an existing 6‐ft fence with lattice can sign off on, including a section to where impact concern can be stated if any, with their name and address and contact info. Also that this change does NOT override a property's existing Building Permit Conditions that dictate a 6 ft or less fence height, inclusive of trellis, gates, etc. If there is a concern, such as my example, that there is a process of which this can be reviewed with the goal of avoiding permanent impacts. This would satisfy the City staff's desire to reduce their time involvement by placing that effort on the property owner making the change.

21.1284
3 Thank you in advance for incorporating these important additions! Sincerely,
Anita Webb
Santa Cruz

21.1285
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Gary Patton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 4:14 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Save Santa Cruz Letter on Objective Standards - August 23, 2022 Council Agenda Attachments: Save Santa Cruz Letter To City Council On Objective Standards.pdf Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Members:

Here is a letter to be included in your agenda materials for your August 23, 2022, meeting. Please take seriously our very strongly-felt comments on the so-called “Objective Standards” materials that are scheduled to come before you on that date.

Gary A. Patton, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1038
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Telephone: 831‐332‐8546
Email: [email protected]
Website / Blog: www.gapatton.net
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/gapatton

21.1286
Save Santa Cruz
Stop Overbuilding Santa Cruz
Post Office Box 4086, Santa Cruz, CA 95063
Email: [email protected]
August 16, 2022
Mayor and Members, Santa Cruz City Council
Santa Cruz City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Sent By Email To: [email protected]
RE: Proposed Objective Standards /August 23, 2022 Agenda Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Members:

We are writing on behalf of Save Santa Cruz, a community-based group with over 1,700 supporters. As Council Members will undoubtedly remember, Save Santa Cruz campaigned actively against the so-called “Corridors Plan,” and our members were delighted when the Council officially terminated work on that proposed plan.

The proposed “Corridors Plan” then being considered would have permitted high-density, mixed-use development along all of the City’s main transportation corridors, without adequate provisions to respond to community concerns about water and traffic, and without effective mechanisms to eliminate or reduce both business and neighborhood impacts.

The proposed “Corridors Plan” was wildly unpopular with the residents of the City because Santa Cruz residents want to preserve and protect the character and quality of our local neighborhoods, and they also want to protect our unique local businesses. Providing affordable housing opportunities and supporting appropriate new development opportunities doesn’t have to undermine what makes our community such a great place to live, and to raise a family.

21.1287
2 If the City wants to make sure that new developments respect community concerns – and this should be obvious - the interests of local residents and small business owners must have a higher priority than what might be most convenient for developers. City residents need to have the ability to comment on proposed projects – and to have a real impact on what happens when projects are proposed.

In fact, the City Council has officially recognized this. As it initiated the Objective Standards project, the Council specifically directed the City’s Planning Department to do the following:

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 (emphasis added).

Save Santa Cruz members participated in the public meetings that have ultimately resulted in the so-called Objective Standards proposal you are currently scheduled to consider at your meeting on August 23rd. Save Santa Cruz does not believe that the proposed ordinance amendments and the Objective Standards that the staff is recommending are designed to preserve and protect residential neighborhood areas and existing city businesses, as the City’s highest-level policy priority. In fact, in many cases, the opposite seems to be the case.

Two problems with the proposal before you are key. First, what you have before you is not understandable. We believe that neither Council Members nor members of the public really understand what adoption of the proposed Objective Standards will mean for

21.1288
3 neighborhood residents and local businesses. What you will be considering is a series of fragmented changes to the City Municipal Code, but the overall outcome, the overall impact, is simply not clear.

To say it again, what you will have before you for adoption is not understandable!
Second, and even more important, the proposal before you, if approved, will eliminate public hearings on many large and significant projects, stripping city residents of their right to comment and influence the development decisions that will have a profound impact on their lives, and their neighborhoods, and, for many small businesses, their livelihoods.

As you know, state laws have made it much more difficult than it used to be for the City to turn down or modify proposed developments. Given that, it is imperative that the Council make sure that the Objective Standards that it ultimately enacts give the City the greatest possible opportunity to achieve the Council-approved objectives that we cite above. It is also critical that the City Council maximize opportunities for public comment and public participation when land use and development proposals are considered. In fact, the proposed Objective Standards being recommended do exactly the opposite, and truncate public participation opportunities.

We recommend that the Council take no action on the so-called Objective Standards proposal on August 23, 2022, and that the Council do the following, instead:

1. Direct the Planning Department to return with a modified proposal that will maintain public hearing opportunities for the public on proposed development projects, at least as extensive as is provided by current Municipal Code provisions.

2. Direct the Planning Department to prepare a thorough presentation, explaining the actual impact of each proposed change in the Municipal Code, so that neighborhood and
community groups, small businesses, and those in the
development community – and the Council itself – can fully understand the real impact of these proposals, which are likely to have an incredibly important impact on the future of our City.

21.1289
4 Further, the Council meeting at which action is ultimately taken should be structured to provide the maximum amount of time for interested members of the public to provide detailed, substantive suggestions.

Thank you for including this letter in your agenda packet for your August 23, 2022, meeting, and for taking our suggestions seriously.

Very truly yours,
Gary A. Patton, Co-Chair Jerry Christensen, Co-Chair
Save Santa Cruz Save Santa Cruz
cc: Save Santa Cruz Steering Committee
Members, Santa Cruz City Planning Commission
Members, Santa Cruz City Council
Other Interested Persons
Save Santa Cruz is a community-based group with over 1,700 supporters, committed to city policies that will protect and preserve the historic and unique character of the community and its unique and vital neighborhoods.

21.1290
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: ROE SHAPIRO <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 5:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards
As a long time resident and voter my view is to
preserve and protect residential neighborhood areas
and existing City businesses. And for the citizens of Santa Cruz City have an opportunity to review any proposals before the city council votes on it/
Sincerely,
Roe Shapiro

21.1291
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jean Elliott <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 11:19 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective standards
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for all your hard work on behalf of the residents of Santa Cruz.

I have received and carefully read the letter or August 16, 2022 from Save Santa Cruz and would like you to know that I agree with it in every detail. It is completely reasonable that members of the community, including our public servants, should be able to understand and express opinions and suggestions regarding further development in our town. We will surely find ways to provide more housing, especially more affordable housing, while solving the problems of increased traffic, parking and water use if we listen to one another and remember that we all want Santa Cruz to keep its livable character and unique businesses while realizing that we do need more housing and some of it will have to be in our back yards.

Sincerely,
Jeanie Elliott
728 Darwin St, Santa Cruz
Jelliott
Jelliott

21.1292
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: melanie mayer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 11:44 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Aug. 23, 2022 meeting, "Objective Standards"
I agree with SAVE SANTA CRUZ’S recommendations to you in their letter dated August 16, 2022, concerning “Objective Standards.”
Specifically:

We recommend that the Council take no action on the so-called Objective Standards proposal on August 23, 2022, and that the Council do the following, instead:

Further, the Council meeting at which action is ultimately taken should be structured to provide the maximum amount of time for interested members of the public to provide detailed, substantive suggestions.

Melanie J Mayer

21.1293
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Michael Urban <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 2:48 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards
Dear Council Members,
We urge you to reject this revised version of the Corridors Plan, something that the citizens of our city overwhelmingly rejected prior to the pandemic. Objective Standards is actually a worse variant of this overall approach inasmuch as it removes a number of issues from citizen input. Please do the right thing, the democratic thing, for our city.

Michael and Veronica Urban
119 Magnolia St.

21.1294
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Gary Silberstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 4:26 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards Proposal
I urge you to reject this zombie Corridor Plan.

GB Silberstein
101 English Drive
Santa Cruz

21.1295
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Della Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 10:07 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Aug. 23 Council - Objective Standards Proposal Dear City Council Members.

I am asking the Council to vote down or take no action on the Objective Standards proposal on August 23, 2022.

Instead, it is advisable if you direct the Planning Department to change that
proposal to one that will that will keep public hearing opportunities for the
public on all proposed development projects, at least as is provided by current Code..

Secondly, clear, understandable presentations about changes in the Municipal Code must be given to any affected parties, and the surrounding areas, and businesses . Please instruct the Planning commission to communicate clearly, about proposals which may impact our City.

Thank you,
Della Davis

21.1296
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Sarah Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 10:26 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Important Matter for Santa Cruz
Dear City Council,
We live in a democratic society. It is vitally important we honor the democratic principle of liberty, equality, justice, and power to the people. To take away the right for people to speak in a public hearing on a proposed building is a serious matter. This is especially important given the new rules from the state of California.

In your meeting on August 23rd please modify the purposed objective standards to allow public meetings for proposed buildings of over 50 units. Please have the staff make some understandable mock-ups of what the objective standards will allow buildings to look like. This would include a mockup of what a half-mile-long amount of buildings could look like with the purposed objective standards.

This is important. Care about your community and keep us informed. Do not pass objective standards which keep the public in the dark. Allow the public to give their valuable input through public hearings on buildings purposed for our town. We live here. We pay your salaries. We elected you to represent us.

Sincerely,
Sarah Olson

21.1297
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 5:17 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 8.23.22 Agenda Item #21 Objective Standards

8.23.22 Agenda Item #21 Objective Standards
Dear Council,
To most of us this is WAY too much to absorb and comment. Maybe you had outreach, but as usual it's the final draft that needs the most careful consideration. After YEARS at this, maybe you should hear the public input and give it a few more weeks to consider again.

As to the tree ordinance, it seems literally a VERY CLEAR message anyone besides the city needs to think twice about planting a tree or any size or type in the parkway areas. You have jacked the fees to an astronomic $1500 - $1700 or so for a now new legal method or removing trees, and jacked the infraction from $100 to some unknown "maximum permitted by law" for an unpermitted removal.

Once a tree is planted, apparently it stays planted, or else even if it would never come to be by the adjacent property owner in the first place. Nutz.

ANY SIZE tree is included. Nutz. It could be a small lemon tree. It could be a small apple tree. If a law is worth writing, it is worth enforcing, and WOW would this be punitive and basically a huge money grab to enforce this on any size tree.

U guess I'll be cutting my 3' lemon "tree", my 3' lime "tree", and 7' (2" trunk) apple tree down to the ground before this takes effect. I'll risk the $100 apiece fine.

In my mind, if the city didn't plant it, the tree itself belongs to the planter.

I think you should exempt small trees, especially ones that produce food whether or not they are on the approved list. I have a 35 yr old pear in the back yard that is still only 8' tall, and would fit in a parkway easy. Two shopping bags of pears a year. Plant something like that in a parkway.?. nope.

Garrett Philipp - Westside

21.1298
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: tutti hacking <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 7:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: re: Public's right to weigh in on large developments Dear City Council,
Don't take away our rights to speak at a public hearing for proposed building projects in Santa Cruz. Please modify the objective standard to reflect this. This is an important matter. I am SUPER concerned about the proposed height of some projects, especially the one at 831 Water Street. It is TOO TALL! Thank you,
Tutti Hacking
Property Owner in the City of Santa Cruz

21.1299
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: nancy maynard <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 8:23 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Public comment needs to be part of projects in the city The public deserves to weigh in on projects being proposed in the City of Santa Cruz. We live in a democratic society that includes having the right to voice our opinions on the buildings built in Santa Cruz! Nancy Maynard

21.1300
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: S & B Barisof <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 9:07 PM
To: City Council
Subject: It's just the “Corridors Plan” in another form! Attachments: sbarisof.vcf
Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Members:

Here we go again. The proposal before you, if approved, will eliminate public hearings on many large and significant projects, stripping city residents of their right to comment and influence the development decisions that will have a profound impact on their lives, and their neighborhoods, and, for many small businesses, their livelihoods.

I've yet to hear or read how these "developments" do much, if anything, for anyone except the developers.  While they may make the properties more valuable, and push up the property taxes, will the additional tax money go toward funding (what in my view are excessive) present and future retirement pensions?
What will these "stack & pack" units do to address our homeless? Will they magically come with a way to generate the increased needs for water, space at the dump, parking, road widening, money for electric cars/charging stations so all the new residents won't be filling the air with the exhaust of thousands more cars?  Sure, we can just put in a desal plant, but who'll pay for that, as well as it's running and maintenance, the developers?  Will they pay for the land we'll need for park space for all the new tenants of these proposed units?
"Oh," they tell us "but we need more housing for our teachers, fire fighters, police, etc. and their families"!  For example, the proposed units at 831 Water might be suitable for student housing, but families? Really???  Then there is the parking issue.  Because they won't be putting in enough parking spaces, and will charge extra for the ones they do create, it will be a San Francisco like nightmare to find a parking space unless your house has loads of off‐street parking.  The same parking situation will arise if multi‐story buildings go up on Ocean, Soquel, and Water...  Who are these people in the Planning Dept, and what are they promoting?  Who are they working for, the people who live here now or developers? I rest my case,
Steven Barisof
‐‐
Take care of yourself, and if you can, someone else too

21.1301
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Timmi Pereira <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 9:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards
Item 21 August 23.

I realize that state laws have made it more difficult to modify or deny proposed projects. However, I do not want Santa Cruz to become another San Jose.Don't take away our rights to speak at a public hearing for proposed building projects in Santa Cruz. Please modify the objective standard to reflect this. This is an important issue and one which will affect the long‐term quality of life in Santa Cruz.

Timmi Pereira
Cell: 831‐239‐6564
Home: 831‐426‐1150

21.1302
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 10:27 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda item 21 - Proposed Objective Standards
Hello Mayor Brunner and SC City Council Members:

I ask that you take no action on Agenda Item 21, Amendments to Municipal Code Titles 6, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 24, and return this proposal to the Planning Commission for modification and editing as detailed below.

The presentation is overwhelming complex and lacks basic transparency of the effects of the proposed amendments, plus, more importantly, the proposed elimination of public hearings on some major development projects is undemocratic and violates established norms of government process and public participation.

1. Based on this presentation, members of the public cannot fully understand how the proposed Objective Standards will negatively impact neighborhood residents and local businesses. The proposed amendments constitute a series of fragmented changes to the City Municipal Code, but the overall outcome is not clear.

2. Even more important, the proposal before you, if approved, will eliminate public hearings on many large and significant projects, denying the public rights for free and open participation in local government guaranteed by city, county and state legislation.

I ask that you take no action on this proposal at your August 23 meeting, and return it to the Planning Department for the following instructions:

1. Return to the Board with a modified proposal that will maintain public hearing opportunities on proposed development projects, as provided by current Municipal Code.

2. Return to the Board with a presentation that clearly explains the impact of each proposed change in Municipal Code, so that the public, and City Council members, can fully understand the impacts of these amendments.

3. The modified Planning Department proposal should be presented, also in a Public Hearing that has been thoroughly publicized and legally noticed, allowing ample opportunity for public comment and participation in the decision-making process.

Michael Lewis

21.1303
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Lee Taiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 10:57 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Opposed to "Objective Standards"
Forget about “Objective Standards” The public wants a voice.

Lee Taiz
328 Oxford Way
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

21.1304
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Debora Bone <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 1:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Design Standards
Hello City Council Representatives.

I have read the complex recommendations for Objective Design Standards proposed for the new zones in Santa Cruz. I am uncomfortable about the size and density of the projects, though I also understand the pressures to create more housing and especially more affordable housing. I also commend the city for including considerations for aesthetic and energy efficient buildings.

I strongly object to any new regulations or standards the limit or eliminate the necessity for public comment opportunities to be part of the process for new developments of any size. This transparency and opportunity for residents to provide input is important as many of these projects could significantly change the livability of our town.

Residents need to be able to point out issues that developers may not see as important and the city needs to balance the perspective of current residents with the needs of future residents. These conversations need to happen in an open, public manner. Even if it brings some contentions as inevitable differences of perspective are negotiated. PLEASE create a context for listening, dialog and compromise to take place.

Thank you for your consideration,
Debora Bone

21.1305
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jim Montoya <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 2:40 PM
To: City Council
Subject: RE: "Objective Standards" item on the August 23rd City Council Agenda Dear City Council,
Creating a culture of silence by not listening to the citizens most stop. We must all have a voice in the matters that affect us all.

Don't take away our rights to speak at public hearings for proposed building projects in Santa Cruz. Please modify the objective standard to reflect this. As a voter I demand a say in the future of Santa Cruz, it is my right.

Sincerely,
Jim Montoya
Life long Santa Cruz City Resident

21.1306
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: RS Lerios <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 5:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
Hello, I am a third generation Santa Cruzan with two local daughters as fifth generation citizens. My 92 year old mother doesn't even want to go on drives in her "home town" anymore because it is becoming so ugly with all the large overgrowth of buildings! And so few have any character other than "block".

We have the right to fight and have our voices heard at these hearings.

Thank you for taking my objections seriously!
Robin Lerios
Owner of 42 year old local business: York Framing Gallery

21.1307
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Robert Corrigan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 5:56 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards
Dear City Council Members,
We request that you take no action on the proposed Objective Standards on Tuesday. First, the way the standards are written, incorporating them within various elements of current regulations is very difficult to understand. The Planning Department needs to present this information in a way that is clearer to the public. Second, public hearings should be required for all significant development; certainly not eliminated. Finally, Objective Standards should encourage necessary large-scale development in the city-core area, and prohibit large-scale development adjacent to R1 and R1-4 zoned properties.

Thank you,
Robert and Toni Corrigan
Santa Cruz

21.1308
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Judi Grunstra <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 6:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Aug 23 2022 Meeting_Agenda Item #21
Dear Mayor and Council Members:

I have attempted to review the packet materials for the Objective Standards and zoning changes. I participated in two of the Zoom meetings facilitated by planner Sarah Neuse. But I have great misgivings about the impacts to our community that will result if you move forward with this very complex ordinance this evening.

If the City wants to make sure that new developments respect community concerns, the interests of local residents and small business owners must have a higher priority than what might be most convenient for developers. City residents need to have the ability to comment on proposed projects – and to have a real impact on what happens when projects are proposed.

State laws are further removing local control over the built environment. I agree with the group Save Santa Cruz. that the proposed ordinance amendments and the Objective Standards that the staff is recommending are so complex so as to confuse and mislead the majority of residents. Do Council Members really understand what adoption of the proposed Objective Standards will mean for neighborhood residents and local businesses? What you will be considering is a series of fragmented changes to the City Municipal Code, but the overall impact is simply not clear.

As evidenced by the recent defeat of Measure F, many city residents mistrust city staff reports and their "vision" of our city's future. To regain some trust, please take no action on the so‐called Objective Standards proposal on August 23, 2022, and instead do the following:

2. Direct the Planning Department to prepare a thorough presentation, explaining the actual impact of each proposed change in the Municipal Code, so that neighborhood and community groups, small businesses, and those in the development community – and the Council itself – can fully understand the real impact of these proposals, which are likely to have an incredibly important impact on the future of our City.

People care about this community, and are not merely trying to oppose any and all change. Please show that you take your responsibility seriously, to speak on behalf of us "little people" and that you are not unduly pressured by moneyed interests.

Thank you.

Judi Grunstra

21.1309
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jeanie Elliott <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 6:11 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously.

Sincerely,
Jean Elliott
Sent from my iPhone

21.1310
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: ANNE MITCHELL <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 6:13 PM
To: City Council
Subject: : Proposed Objective Standards /August 23, 2022 Agenda Attachments: Save Santa Cruz Letter To City Council On Objective Standards.pdf I support the letter opposing adoption of proposed Objective Standards.

It is essential to have a public hearing on this topic. Full transparency, please Anne Mitchell

21.1311
Save Santa Cruz
Stop Overbuilding Santa Cruz
Post Office Box 4086, Santa Cruz, CA 95063
Email: [email protected]
August 16, 2022
Mayor and Members, Santa Cruz City Council
Santa Cruz City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Sent By Email To: [email protected]
RE: Proposed Objective Standards /August 23, 2022 Agenda Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Members:

21.1312
2 If the City wants to make sure that new developments respect community concerns – and this should be obvious - the interests of local residents and small business owners must have a higher priority than what might be most convenient for developers. City residents need to have the ability to comment on proposed projects – and to have a real impact on what happens when projects are proposed.

In fact, the City Council has officially recognized this. As it initiated the Objective Standards project, the Council specifically directed the City’s Planning Department to do the following:

21.1313
3 neighborhood residents and local businesses. What you will be considering is a series of fragmented changes to the City Municipal Code, but the overall outcome, the overall impact, is simply not clear.

We recommend that the Council take no action on the so-called Objective Standards proposal on August 23, 2022, and that the Council do the following, instead:

21.1314
4 Further, the Council meeting at which action is ultimately taken should be structured to provide the maximum amount of time for interested members of the public to provide detailed, substantive suggestions.

Thank you for including this letter in your agenda packet for your August 23, 2022, meeting, and for taking our suggestions seriously.

21.1315
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: John Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 6:19 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective standards question
Dear Council members,
It seems clear that the so-called objective standards proposal is byzantine. I do not get any sense that it helps preserve Santa Cruz neighborhoods, as was its supposed highest priority.

Adopting this measure without a further detailed analysis of its features and their impacts would be a step backward for our community.

I urge you to vote against this set of changes at this time. We can do better at building strong neighborhoods while providing objective standards for projects.

Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely,
John R. Hall
. . . . . . . .

John R. Hall
Research Professor of Sociology
University of California - Santa Cruz and Davis
“Climate change, apocalypse, and the future of salvation,” 2021 https://sociology.ucsc.edu/about/directory-emeriti.php?uid=jhall5 https://ucdavis.academia.edu/JohnHall

21.1316
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Russell Weisz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 6:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Russell Weisz
319 Laguna St, Santa Cruz, CA 95060

21.1317
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: fred geiger <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 6:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
What excuse can u come up with for deleting public hearings on large development possibilities‐ except for the fact that you aren’t willing to do your job of listening to and representing the interests of your constituents ?
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Fred j. Geiger

21.1318
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Carol Roland <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 6:53 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! I also wonder where you are getting the water for these residents.

Carol Roland

21.1319
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: El Solway <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 6:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
City Council members,
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. In particular, Iobject to eliminating many public hearing opportunities.

Sincerely, Ellen Solway

21.1320
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ken Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 7:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously!

21.1321
From: Curt Coleman
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
Date: Sunday, August 21, 2022 8:03:15 PM
Dear Council Members,
Please don't pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form.

I especially object to eliminating public hearing opportunities.

Thanks,
Curt Coleman
SC Resident

21.1322
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Lily Ana W. Sturgis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 8:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
Hello,
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Sincerely,
Lily Sturgis

21.1323
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Scott Family <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 8:30 PM
To: City Council
Subject: August 23, 2022 Agenda Item 21 . Objective Development Standards Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal Agenda Item 21 8/23/22 August 20, 2022
Dear Mayor Brunner and Members of the City Council:

Please do not approve the objective development standards as currently proposed.

Please modify them to preserve the public right to comment on proposed major developments. Please also require that the standards reflect the following, which you required when you initiated this effort:
(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.

These proposed objective standards would remove public comment, leading to serious negative impacts on the community. State laws have made it much more difficult than it used to be for the City to modify proposed developments. It is imperative that the City enact objective standards that will help it achieve important objectives while also reflecting community desires.

We strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. The public deserves to weigh in on projects being proposed in the City of Santa Cruz for we will live with the results.

Existing residential neighborhoods must be preserved and protected.

Thank you for your time to serve on behalf of our community, Michael A. Scott and Isabelle B. Scott
Santa Cruz

21.1324
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Andrea Rosenfeld <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 8:37 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Members:

I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. With State mandates now overriding many local regulations and safeguards, now, more than ever, it is imperative that citizens be given an opportunity to weigh in on matters such as this, that affect our neighborhoods and our community as a whole.

Thank you for taking my objections seriously!
Regards,
Andrea Rosenfeld
[email protected]
415.370.2154

21.1325
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Maria <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 8:40 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Development Standards: Comment for August 23, 2022 Meeting, Item #21 Dear Santa Cruz City Councilmembers,
I have four major points I would like you to consider:
1)
I urge you to follow the Planning Commission's recommendations on increasing the affordable housing inclusionary rate on density bonus units. The staff report states incorrectly that, "there is no evidence in the record to support this recommendation," however, I'm sure you all remember when Jessie Bristow of Barry Swenson Builder "negotiated" with the Planning Commission to add four extra affordable units to their development proposal for 130 Center Street. That offer demonstrated that developers do indeed have a very high profit margin, considering four additional affordable units can be dangled like that so casually.

According to the staff report, the City Attorney's office has now determined an upgrade of this sort to the inclusionary rate is legally feasible. Please follow the Planning Commission's recommendation that, "an inclusionary rate of 25% be applied to the base units of a project seeking a 35% Density Bonus and that an inclusionary rate of 30% be applied to the base units of a project seeking a 50% Density Bonus. Increasing the inclusionary rate in this manner would have the effect of yielding an overall affordability rate of 18.5% and 20% respectively for the described scenarios."
2)
I urge you to develop a plan to provide assistance to small businesses that face displacement when the property where their business is located is redeveloped due to high-density zoning. Please go out and take a close look at the businesses on Soquel avenue. Many of the businesses are very small and will never be able to find a new location if their property is redeveloped. Some of these businesses are Latino owned and serve a very diverse population in Santa Cruz. These small businesses reflect the unique character of our community. To displace them without assistance could further exacerbate the gentrification that occurs during redevelopment. 3)
I urge you not to limit, restrict, or further reduce the public's ability to comment on proposed development projects. Please do not eliminate public hearings on significant development projects. Public hearings help assure that new development in the city reflect the values of the whole community. Council members should recall that public hearings held regarding the projects proposed at 831 Water Street and 130 Center Street resulted in improvements to the projects.
4)
I agree with the letter sent to you by Save Santa Cruz on August 16, 2022, which states:

We recommend that the Council take no action on the so-called Objective Standards proposal on August 23, 2022, and that the Council do the following, instead:

21.1326
2 2. Direct the Planning Department to prepare a thorough presentation, explaining the actual impact of each proposed change in the Municipal Code, so that neighborhood and community groups, small businesses, and those in the development community – and the Council itself – can fully understand the real impact of these proposals, which are likely to have an incredibly important impact on the future of our City. 3Further, the Council meeting at which action is ultimately taken should be structured to provide the maximum amount of time for interested members of the public to provide detailed, substantive suggestions.

Thank you for reading this email and for your service to the City of Santa Cruz.

Sincerely, Maria

21.1327
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Kathy Haber <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 8:41 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
City Councilmembers,
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Too many high density projects are being proposed for my neighborhood (south of Laurel). The impacts on traffic and parking have not been considered. The Council needs to enact some sort of moratorium on this increase in density, until streets can be widened and on‐site parking required. The summer beach traffic, which passes through this neighborhood, is already a nightmare. And the idea that a large, high end hotel can be built, without any parking at all, is ludicrous.

Thank you for taking my comments seriously!
Kathy Haber, Shelter Lagoon

21.1328
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jeanne Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 9:06 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Proposed Objective Standards
To City Council of Santa Cruz...

As a resident of Santa Cruz for over 43 years now, I thoroughly agree with the Save Santa Cruz advocates.

Our unique and popular town must not be over developed, or even unwisely developed. The quality of our neighborhoods and small businesses is crucial to the future of a successful city that holds not only business but people as its highest priority.

All residents must be heard before large scale development is considered. The neighborhood I live in is under siege by massive development as I speak. What a shame it would be to see our lovely town go down in history as one of those cities that succumbed to development for the greed of a few, not the pride and resources for many. Please think hard and long about what you are doing to this town with such a great history of the arts, culture and unique people of great talents and skills. We are Santa Cruz!! Stop Overbuiliding Santa Cruz
Jeanne Thompson
Santa Cruz CA 95060

21.1329
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Lira Filippini <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 9:57 PM
To: City Council; Sonja Brunner; Donna Meyers; Justin Cummings; Martine Watkins; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Sandy Brown; Renee Golder
Subject: Agenda Item 21; 8/23/22; Objective Design Standards Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Elect,
I'm very concerned about the objective standards proposed by staff. The development of such standards was supposed to bring the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance into alignment, as well as convert all possible subjective development standards to objective standards in a way that conforms to the community's feedback on aesthetics.

Instead, what is proposed is a massive increase in height, density, and massing for many areas of the City. Though this may help build more of the housing we need -- which is only affordable housing -- the process for these types of changes has not been direct, transparent or honest.

Our community has not been forewarned of the magnitude of changes proposed. It is incredibly important that we have a more transparent and public process for this that lets people know how this will affect our infrastructure and carrying capacity.

Additionally, the changes are quite piecemeal and not orderly or comprehensively presented in a single place so that the community may review all of them in a way that is understandable.

But perhaps the most concerning part is that the Planning Staff is also recommending that developments be ministerialy streamlined instead of going through the proper process of public hearings so that your constituents may voice their support or concerns over proposed developments that will affect them -- directly to those whom they elected to represent their best interests and the survivability of our city.

Please direct the Planning Staff to come back to Council and the community with a more comprehensive and understandable draft of the changes proposed (all in one place). And please reject the proposal to remove public hearings for these developments.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Lira Filippini

21.1330
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Katie Hansen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 10:23 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Public hearings for building projects
Dear City Council,
Do not take away our rights to speak at public hearings for proposed building projects in Santa Cruz. Please modify the objective standard to reflect this.

Sincerely,
Kathleen Hansen

21.1331
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Paul Benjamin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 10:44 PM
To: City Council
Subject: STOP! Do NOT Hold...

Planning mtgs and PROPOSED Bldg PROJECTS without PUBLIC INPUT/DEBATE. YES, there's great debate and controversy that the city council, city manager and mayor don't listen to the city residents, rather they are rubber stamping all the high-rise and over densification plans without allowing for city voices, and alternative long-term PLANNING by the community!! YES, the city treasury/budget is bleeding red, or factually triage is in place!! That does NOT mean rushing in to the over-the-top densified bldg of hotels, a new library, condo complexes that over run out neighborhoods with traffic issues exacerbating the existing speed, safety and chaos; the change of zoning for single residential housing w/ 4 or more story apt houses, the infrastructure of water in drought yrs w/ a SCMUD that sends a huge volume of Cubic feet of water to Soquel and does little to nothing to operate on water catchment--> what happened to the Bay& High Street water catchment facility? It was bulldozed-out of date, further has NOT been replaced!! The list goes on of knee-jerk reactions that do NOT seek the TRUTH through research and studied planning beyond highly paid studies by consultants who are given a false narrative- THE CITY of SC needs lowincome housing NOW and that state and gov't pressure is the only voice in the room to build, increase densification= all without the long and short term results!! Those result in low QUALITY OF LIFE for SC residents. AVOID the future harm of potential and permanent over building in SC city and CO. Visitors, tourists and all residents are affected by shutting off discourse and GREEN-LIGHTING the planning and building of our city and Co.

Thank you, Paul Benjamin
http://stepupcarpentry.webs.com/

21.1332
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:43 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Zoning changes for Aug 23, 2022 meeting
Dear Councilmembers:

Please postpone action on the many revised zoning provisions until:
‐there are better provisions for buffering residential neighborhoods from non‐residential development and non‐ residential components of development – e.g., both fencing and landscaping; ‐there are provisions to direct commercially generated traffic away from the residential neighborhoods; ‐there are provisions to ensure ample, unobstructed bike lanes on the corridors (e.g., eliminate on‐street parking) and convenient bike access into and in new corridor development; ‐existing height limits are retained, including currently allowed additional heights for affordable housing projects; ‐non‐residential noise‐ and heavy traffic‐generating uses and building components are prohibited from locating adjacent to residential neighborhoods – e.g., they are directed to the fronts of deep corridor parcels or to those parcels not directly adjacent to homes;
‐public hearing opportunities are retained and ample public noticing and participation opportunities are made available where State law prohibits public hearings.

Please see my previous correspondence in the packet for specific suggested language to consider.

Two major corridor projects were constructed at the end of my neighborhood residential street – the Holiday Inn and The Habit/Ikes complex. In both cases my neighbors succeeded in securing several project changes through the public hearing and appeals process to better mitigate adverse impacts on the neighborhood. These included many of items listed above, including better buffering, traffic management and facility operations. Although these were commercial‐ only projects, the approval process and resulting conditions are instructive as models for mixed use development standards and permitting. And, in both cases the developers still were allowed to build basically what they proposed – the modifications did not materially affect their original concepts but resulted in better projects. The proposed zoning revisions before you fall way short and need to be revised before adoption.

Thank you,
Rick Hyman
138 Coulson Ave.

21.1333
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Rossana Bruni <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 11:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards
Hello,
I support the position of SAVE SANTA CRUZ; the objective standards should not be rushed as currently scheduled; more time needs to be given to exploring options and community involvement.

Rossana
206 Alta Vista Dr.

Rossana Bruni
[email protected]
831-227-5846 cell

21.1334
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Marianne Franks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 6:45 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! This is too important to rush through. We are counting on you! Marianne Franks
[email protected]

21.1335
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Julia Pinsky <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 6:53 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! What more, Santa Cruz can do better. I want more affordable homes for my neighborhood. But I’d rather have them be spread out and lower. Simple. Please try to find a solution. Thanks you!!!

21.1336
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Karen Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 7:35 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Tues. Aug 23, 2022: City of Santa Cruz Planning Policy Dear Mayor and Santa Cruz City Council:

RE: Agenda Item #21
City of Santa Cruz Planning Policy & Development Mandates Tuesday, August 23, 2022, 6 PM: Meeting at Santa Cruz City Hall 809 Center Street, Santa Cruz, CA 96060
https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=1945&doctype=1 New requirements imposed by state laws to build higher densities, while reducing public participation in local development decisions, are unfair.

Without opportunities for community review, the future vision of Santa Cruz will be designed by investors and developers, for their profit, without input by local residents and neighbors who may be negatively impacted.

Santa Cruz City Council hears recommendations for land use and planning changes and will approve major increases in development densities, pressured by state mandates.

Proposed changes are complex. The public needs time to review final documents.

Staff proposes to eliminate public review and input, even for the highest density projects.

Without public review, a consequence may be an increase in public protests, causing further delays and expense.

A majority of Planning Commissioners do not recommend supporting the staff proposal because it does not guarantee that new units will be affordable for people earning less than $87K per year or for people who are trying to survive, below the poverty line.

If there is more building in Santa Cruz, the purpose should be to solve the homeless crisis and should be 100% truly affordable or government subsidized for the people who truly need it; for people who are from our community and have ties to our community. Development should accommodate seniors and disabled, so they may remain living in our community near their children, grandchildren and friends. Apartments should be walking distance to grocery stores, public transportation and should include laundry facilities, an outdoor garden, indoor and outdoor recreation space and a community room. No one wants to live in a boring box.

Designing for happiness in one's home should be a priority.

Santa Cruz does not need to build more luxury high‐rise apartments and condominiums, to increase population.

Santa Cruz is already too overcrowded and is quickly losing its quaint, small‐town charm.

There is not enough water, parking space and public transportation to support building projects.

21.1337
2 Highways 1 and 17 are already overcrowded. The flow of traffic is impeded by increased development, without supporting infrastructure.
"If you build it, they will come" but what water will they drink, if there is a drought? Where will they drive, if the highways are jammed?
Where will they park?
After development decisions are made, it is difficult or nearly impossible for the public to amend.

Keep Santa Cruz the "small town" that I love!
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Karen Kaplan
Resident of Santa Cruz County Since 1974

21.1338
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Tina Oberlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 7:43 AM
To: City Council
Subject: RE: 831 Water Street -Building Ordinance on August 23rd agenda Dear City Council Members,
I have been advised that you will once again discuss large scale structures in single family home neighborhoods.

I know there are projects in process throughout Santa Cruz to add more housing and when they are carefully considered and discussed then this must be a positive for the community and the council. I just want to emphasize again that the neighbors did not object to housing in their community but to the 5-7 story apartments being built.

I can’t help but think that these building measures don’t take into account the actual size of this community. I mentioned before when this project came up that no one seems to care about the congestion that already exists in this area with people getting off on the Morrissey off ramp and turning right on Water to get to Ocean or to go downtown. Are we San Jose or San Francisco ? No.

Where is there generous space in Santa Cruz ? How about All those BIG empty lots and vacant buildings off of Delaware ? Yet we keep wanting to develop large buildings on Water Street. I know this whole area is bound to be developed but can we make some sensible standards so that we are not stuck in traffic even if you think that everyone is going to ride their bike.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Tina Oberlin
A concerned citizen

21.1339
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 7:44 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
Dear City Council Members,
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Sincerely,
Carol Libby
Sent from my iPhone

21.1340
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Eloise Naman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 7:56 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz and 831 Responsible Development. Please don't pass the so‐ called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Thank you,
Eloise Naman

21.1341
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ellen Aldridge <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 7:59 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Ellen Aldridge
2126 Ocean St
Santa Cruz CA 95060
Sent from my iPad

21.1342
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jamshid Faryar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 8:17 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Please don't destroy the pocket lowdensity neighborhood around Central Park.

21.1343
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: charles stover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 8:20 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 831 Water St
Dear City Council,
Please do all you can to stop the development at 831 Water St. It is too big and everyone knows it. There will be traffic problems for years and the increase in water can not be sustained. Our problem is not that we do not have enough housing. It is we have too many people who want to live here.

Thank You,
Charles Stover

21.1344
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Scott Family <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 8:24 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Isabelle Scott
Santa Cruz

21.1345
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: flo queen-stover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 8:40 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 831 development
dear city council,
please do not allow this oversized building to be built on water street. it will create a traffic jam that can not be fixed additionally there is not enough water in santa cruz to support it. thank you
flo queen‐stover
113 lance court

21.1346
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Wendy Martyna <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 8:43 AM
To: City Council
Subject: My concerns about Aug. 23rd mtg. on "Objective Standards" Proposal To the City Council and Mayor of Santa Cruz:

As a 9-year resident at 231 May Avenue, a 44-year resident of Santa Cruz, and a retired UCSC professor, I strongly endorse the work of Save Santa Cruz -- a group which is not opposed to development, but is in favor of rational, measured development which addresses such concerns as traffic, water, and preservation of one of the oldest neighborhoods in Santa Cruz. My house was built in the 1920's, as were many houses in the Dakota/Leonard/May Avenue ("Central Park") area.

For years, we have been dealing with the continual trash, noise, and illegal activities spilling into our neighborhood from the Ocean St. Jack in the Box and the adjoining alley, as well as the consequences of the Benchlands encampments (involving drugrelated, mental health, and theft and violence issues). We also cope with our neighborhood being used by large trucks and cars as a drive-through to avoid traffic on Water and Ocean.

I urge you not to pass the "Objective Standards" proposal as it now stands, which would have consequences for this neighborhood (with its history of more than 100 years) that are even greater than those already described. These are not simple issues, and they demand solutions far more attentive to vital issues affecting all of us, not just those in our neighborhood.

Thank you,
Wendy Martyna

21.1347
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Knitsnpaints <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:00 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 21, Objective Development Standards 8/22/22: comments Re: Item 21 - Objective Development Standards
Dear City Council Members and Mayor,
I am alarmed at this proposed ordinance that will fundamentally affect our City’s building goals and codes without proper citizen input. It is an affront to our constitutional rights as community members to have the First and Last say in Where and How our City grows.

In shutting down or limiting Citizen Review, we, the general public, will be subject to the developer-lead staff’s plans with no recourse for our neighborhood- oriented amendments.

We will lose untold numbers of heritage trees, many small businesses, and it will potentially change or homogenize the many small unique neighborhoods that make up our City. And where is the consideration of the Planning Commission’s majority report concerning guaranteed inclusion of low income units.

The public has not been properly informed of these drastic changes, regardless of the Staff’s assurances of public meetings. Very few, if any of my neighbors are aware of this proposal.

I ask that you set aside this proposal until there has been adequate and thorough review by the general public.

That should include notices in the local papers, neutral informative mailers sent out to all addresses, etc.

Respectfully,
Susan Martinez
Santa Cruz Voter

21.1348
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Zane Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:31 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Zane Brown
Sent from my iPhone

21.1349
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: edward bailey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:42 AM
To: City Council
Subject: BUILDING STANDARDS
Attachments: Save Santa Cruz Letter To City Council On Objective Standards.pdf Dear Council, I agree absolutely with the letter included below. You are allowing building that is too much and out of character with our town.5,6 & 8 stories is ridiculous. Build on the outskirts of town, not the middle! Much more affordable housing. C’mon!
You have already ruined this city by allowing the bums/druggies to take over our town and turn it into skid row!
I will campaign extensively against anyone who allows these outrageous construction proposals to pass. THINK OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS‐NOBODY ELSE MATTERS!

21.1350
Save Santa Cruz
Stop Overbuilding Santa Cruz
Post Office Box 4086, Santa Cruz, CA 95063
Email: [email protected]
August 16, 2022
Mayor and Members, Santa Cruz City Council
Santa Cruz City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Sent By Email To: [email protected]
RE: Proposed Objective Standards /August 23, 2022 Agenda Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Members:

21.1351
2 If the City wants to make sure that new developments respect community concerns – and this should be obvious - the interests of local residents and small business owners must have a higher priority than what might be most convenient for developers. City residents need to have the ability to comment on proposed projects – and to have a real impact on what happens when projects are proposed.

In fact, the City Council has officially recognized this. As it initiated the Objective Standards project, the Council specifically directed the City’s Planning Department to do the following:

21.1352
3 neighborhood residents and local businesses. What you will be considering is a series of fragmented changes to the City Municipal Code, but the overall outcome, the overall impact, is simply not clear.

We recommend that the Council take no action on the so-called Objective Standards proposal on August 23, 2022, and that the Council do the following, instead:

21.1353
4 Further, the Council meeting at which action is ultimately taken should be structured to provide the maximum amount of time for interested members of the public to provide detailed, substantive suggestions.

Thank you for including this letter in your agenda packet for your August 23, 2022, meeting, and for taking our suggestions seriously.

21.1354
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Richard Marlais <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:44 AM
To: City Council
Subject: OBJECTIVE STANDARDS ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

It is most important to a Democracy that the elected govern with the consent of the people. I feel that the proposed item on the agenda concerning "Objective Standards" will remove public input on many projects important to the citizens of this beautiful city. I would ask you to not approve this Item as submitted by our city staff. thank you,
Rick Marlais
141 San Jose Ave.

Santa Cruz, Ca.

Sent from Mail for Windows

21.1355
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Brooke Matteson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 10:10 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Troubling ‘Objective Standards’ proposals
Dear Members of the City Council and Staff
Objective Design Standards are finally coming before you for a vote, but unfortunately, some highly concerning changes to our municipal code are being proposed.

Here are just two examples that would affect our community in very damaging ways. 1) The the new "mixed-use high density" designation being proposed for Water St (as well as many other streets) would bring the "base" height allowance up to 60ft instead of 40ft. I think we all know, the height can go up much higher than that "base" height when a developer uses the new state density bonus law, so when you raise the base height, you are paving the way for insanely high buildings adjacent to existing R-1 neighborhoods. Completely unacceptable.

I notice the 5-story / 60’ limit (MU-H) zoning is being applied pretty much exclusively in the Eastside (Soquel, Water, Branciforte) area, while the Westside (Mission St.) gets MU-M (3 stories, 40’). It makes no sense to zone MU-H on narrow lots immediately adjacent to R-1 parcels. In the interests of equity and transparency I invite you to SHOW YOUR WORK justifying the concentration of highest-density development on Soquel, Water, and Branciforte but not on Mission.
2) I find it VERY concerning that the City Planning Staff is also trying to get the City Council to include ministerial streamlining into our own City municipal code (not just SB 35 projects). This means the staff would be able to rubber stamp projects that “THEY" deem align with all their new objective design standards-- without any public hearings before City Council. It’s absurd that changes of this magnitude, including codifying a reduction in public engagement, be fast-tracked through the Council.

Lastly, it seems that Staff is proposing a General Plan Amendment as part of the implementation process... I thought you said that it would be “too much work” and “would require a General Plan Amendment” to move density to parcels on the west side to offset any implied density reductions associated with moderated zoning on the east side??? But now, Staff is more than happy to propose pursuing a GPA when it suits you. What gives? Please mark me down as a member of a large group of very outraged and concerned citizens.

______________
Brooke Matteson

21.1356
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Colette Harmon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 10:26 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. I know the council is looking at the financial windfall of this proposal, but have you considered the long term NEGATIVE effect on this proposal, increased traffic, losing the small town feel and values and the enormous strain on our natural resources especially our precious water supply. Where is all the added strain on our water supply coming from??? I STRONGLY oppose the thinking of “ Build now and not think about the impacts latter”.

Thank you for taking my objections seriously!
Colette Harmon

21.1357
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: LuLane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 10:45 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Sent from my iPad

21.1358
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: James Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:00 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 831 Water Street Project
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to register my objection to the planned development at the corner of Water St. and North Branciforte Ave on the grounds that it will be a monstrosity not in keeping with the surrounding environment, Aside from ruining the Belvedere Ter. neighborhood, it will make that intersection more dangerous than it is now. I am aware of State requirements for increased low income housing, but lets keep such development closer to the scope of
what is being developed in the 500 block of Soquel Ave and May St. Why build horrible places to live? I will be watching how you vote and would like to feel represented by my councilmembers.

Thank you,
Jame B. Griffin

21.1359
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Larry McFall <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:36 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards proposal August 23, 2022
Dear Council members,
There is no understanding this “Objective Standards” proposal. I am not convinced that any of you really understand it either. This is gobbledygook.

This proposal seems more an attempt to freeze out real public participation and make it easy for the developers who could care less about the public.

Neighborhoods, community groups, small businesses deserve to be presented with a clear proposal and a greater say when confronted with such impactful decisions. Don’t take any action on the Objective Standards proposal on August 23rd,2022. Make a better more clear, understandable proposal more geared to serve the public and not developers.

Sincerely,
Larry McFall

21.1360
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Doug Engfer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:43 AM
To: Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Donna Meyers; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Justin Cummings; Sandy Brown; Renee Golder
Cc: City Council
Subject: Item 21, Agenda 23 Aug 2022 - Objective Development Standards Mayor Brunner and Members of Council
I write today regarding Item 21 on the agenda for your meeting on Tuesday, 23 August 2022, relating to code changes implementing Objective Development Standards (“Objective Standards”).

While I recognize that growth and attendant changes have and will continue to come to our town, that we have a compelling need to develop housing (in particular deed-restricted affordable housing) for so many reasons, and that increased density created responsibly on transit-rich corridors is a critical component of any such development, I must express my concerns about the proposed standards and the process we are following to review them.

Council is today confronted with 1274 pages of material relating to this one item, in the context of a meeting agenda that also contains other critical and potentially contentious topics. These materials were published last Thursday. I’m deeply grateful to members of Council for the time that they will have spent trying to absorb all of this content, especially during the waning days of summer, while many kids are just starting school. Frankly, I could not get through all of it, and I suspect that other members of our community are in the same boat.

Looking at the proposed changes broadly (all I could make time for), I note the following:
 The re-zoning of 387 parcels in town serves to create, in essence, a “second downtown” in the Soquel, Water, Branciforte “triangle”. This is a significant change to those neighborhoods and our town, and deserves a thoughtful public discussion.
 While I note that Staff has worked to engage the public in the process along the way, as Staff has acknowledged in their report, “standards did change significantly” along the way. Unless folks have been able to participate throughout the process, it’s likely that the proposed standards differ from what folks will have seen previously.
 And the changes are so widespread it’s very challenging to perceive the cumulative impacts (a forest / trees issue, so to speak).
 In addition, while the standards have been improved somewhat regarding “transition planes” between 5- story / 60-foot buildings and immediately adjacent single-family residences, there are still a handful of parcels proposed to be up-zoned to MU-H that are immediately adjacent to residences and too narrow to support responsible development of buildings of that scale (e.g., "831 Water St" parcels). What would be the harm of those few parcels being zoned MU-M, a la Mission St?  Finally, I note that Staff is now proposing a General Plan Amendment as part of the implementation process - previously, when the public has asked for consideration of density transfers from one part of town to another, we have been told that such an Amendment would be too hard and take too much time.

21.1361
2 Staff is asking Council to take a first reading and vote on these proposed code changes, with a second reading coming at Council’s “next available agenda". I would respectfully suggest that this process timeline is needlessly quick, and that it effectively precludes thoughtful consideration by Council and engagement by the public. Taking a page from the Water Department’s playbook, I would suggest instead the following process:
 A Council study session held on an “off week” (that is, not as part of a regular, bi-weekly Council meeting), focused solely on the proposed Objective Standards. o The agenda would be a thorough discussion of the goals, objectives, and key themes driving the proposed changes, with examples of how those “guiding principles” are reflected in the proposed standards, and how those principles are equitably applied throughout the town in the proposed zoning changes.
o The outcome of this session would be review, discussion, modification, and acceptance of those guiding principles by Council, and understanding of them by the public.  A Council first reading of the proposed changes
o A critical element of the materials for the meeting would be a “roadmap”, connecting each proposed code change to one (or more) of those goals, objectives, and/or themes. o In addition, Staff should prepare a comprehensive view of the potential for these changes, along with the proposed changes to the Downtown Plan, to enable housing development - what is the potential growth supported by these changes, and how does that growth map onto our General Plan and the upcoming Round 6 RHNA goals for the City?
o These materials need to be available to Council and the public at least 2 weeks before the meeting, to allow ample time for thorough and thoughtful review.  A Council second reading of the proposed changes
o To be held at least one month after the first reading, allowing Staff ample time to respond to Council’s direction from the first reading, and to publish the updated standards well in advance of the meeting, again allowing Council and the public to absorb the materials.

While I recognize that this means more time spent on this project, I hope that Council can and will decide to “take a beat” and allow a fulsome review and discussion of these important and impactful changes. As I’ve heard said before: “there seems never to be enough time to do things right, but always time to do them twice.” I sincerely hope we can take the time to do this right the first time! Thank you for your time, attention, and service to our town.

Doug Engfer
Santa Cruz

21.1362
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Meghan Arnold <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:43 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Re: YES on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards I am writing on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards - and urge adoption. They are the product of a community that came together to discuss and give feedback to the city’s planning project. I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects. These standards will help us build the housing we desperately need.

I further support the recommendation from the city’s Transportation and Public Works Committee (and supported by Santa Cruz YIMBY) that staff adjust implementation of site public improvements and fees based upon building square footage in accordance with AB 602.

I am writing on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards - and urge adoption. They are the product of a community that came together to discuss and give feedback to the city’s planning project. I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects. These standards will help us build the housing we desperately need.

Thank you,
Meghan Arnold
200 California St., Santa Cruz 95060

21.1363
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Maggie Trinh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:43 AM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards - and urge adoption. They are the product of a community that came together to discuss and give feedback to the city’s planning project. I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects. These standards will help us build the housing we desperately need to address rising homelessness and housing costs in Santa Cruz.

Thank you.

Maggie Trinh

21.1364
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ryan Meckel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:48 AM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards - and urge adoption. They are the product of a community that came together to discuss and give feedback to the city’s planning project. I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects. These standards will help us build the housing we desperately need.

Best,
Ryan Meckel

21.1365
From: Vivian Rogers
To: City Council
Subject: Please support the Objective Standards in Agenda Item #21 Date: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:53:00 AM
Dear Council members,
I urge you to approve Agenda Item #21, Objective Standards! The standards are the product of lots of community discussion and feedback to the city’s planning project.

They align zoning code with the general plan.

These standards will help us build the housing we need.

They facilitate the development of more multi-family and mixed-use housing which is already allowed in the city.

Vivian Rogers

21.1366
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: John Aird <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:57 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Re. Item #21 on August 23, 2022 Agenda - Proposed Objective Standards To Mayor Brunner and Council Members -

I am writing to request you oppose the "Proposed Objective Standards" as recommended for your approval at Tuesday evening's council session. My request is based on the absolutely inadequacy of the public review process used to date in their "development", one now made even worse by staff's push for the council's quick approval.

This is not what this community has a right to expect in terms of adequate community involvement and a proper basis for council decision-making.

These proposed changes are the most significant ones Santa Cruz has considered for many, many years. They will impact what Santa Cruz's future will be, its size, scale and character. As such, they absolutely require the most exhaustive public review through multiple public forums that include built-out representations such that the full impacts of them - both positive and negative - can be fully understood. To date this has not happened and therefore, you should take no action.

Instead, I would recommend and request that you direct staff (1) to further modify the proposal as needed to be consistent with the priority given in the 2030 General Plan for "maintain(ing) the identity and vitality of our neighborhoods" and (2) to then conduct a series of focused community meetings in which there is a thorough presentation of these recommendations including in particular, clear and complete

21.1367
2 representations of their impacts if implemented. Only by visualizing the future can the feedback received be assured as being credible and meaningful relative to such a significant matter.

This is the minimum that should be expected. When completed and reported back out to you, the council members themselves could decide as deemed appropriate to host individual follow-up community "listening sessions on the proposed chances" to deepen their own understanding of their consequences. Then as leaders representing their community, they would be in a position to make considered judgments and ultimately a final decision about them.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these stated concerns and recommendations.

Sincerely,

John C. Aird
303 Highland Ave.

Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060

21.1368
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Anne M. Murphy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:02 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities.

Thank you for listening to Save Santa Cruz, we are your constituents and we want to work together with you to build more housing It needs to include neighborhood input for the welfare of existing residents and newcomers alike.

Thank you for considering this input,
Anne Murphy
Sent from Mail for Windows
Virus-free.www.avg.com

21.1369
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: bob scowcroft <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:06 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Postpone Objective Standards review and Approval Dear City Council Members,
I respectfully request that you postpone review and approval of the draft Objective Standards language to be brought to tomorrow's city council meeting. I understand that there are layers of complexity associated with approving such a proposal but trying to bring it forth and approve it with little if not any deliberate public comment is contrary to how Santa Cruz citizens participate in our governmental process. At first glance it seems like city staff have pulled together different objectives, propose to change the city charter, and have not taken into account several primary challenges we all face, that being traffic congestion and water allocations. For example, two high density projects proposed for Water St and Branciforte Ave have allocated at best 50% of on-site parking or the hundreds of units proposed. Given that the neighborhoods surrounding the developments are largely full with on-street parking, where will over 100 (or more) extra cars "go"? These are but two of the proposed developments I am most familiar with. Bike lane disruption, significant traffic delays and the extra congestion that Branciforte Middle School students bring to nearby street crossings would seem to call for more planning as if safety mattered not just building 4, 6 even higher story buildings on very small properties.

Simply put, the city has a general plan. Any amendments to it must be "system" oriented to account for any secondary impacts new developments will have on the small business, residents and low income renters that we WANT to stay in Santa Cruz. YES, to more housing (especially for more low income residents). NO to massive buildings impacting the surrounding neighborhoods way more than they can handle.

Sincerely,
Bob Scowcroft
142 Hammond Ave

21.1370
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Isabel Kain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:15 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards - and urge adoption. They are the product of a community that came together to discuss and give feedback to the city’s planning project. I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects. These standards will help us build the housing we desperately need.

21.1371
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jim and Pam <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please adopt agenda item #21 on objective standards Dear City Council,
I’m a resident of SC and have been for over 30 years.

I’m in favor of adopting Objective Standards for ongoing and future construction of housing in the city.

Please give your thoughtful consideration to adoption of agenda item 21.

Thank you.

Jim Carter
1802 Bay Street
Sent from my iPhone

21.1372
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Mary Chapman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
Dear City Council,
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! - Mary Chapman
211 Leonard Street
Sent from my iPhone

21.1373
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ron Pomerantz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:35 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal on the 8-23-22 Agenda Good day Councilmembers and Mayor Brunner.

I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. Besides extremely difficult to understand there’s no way to understand the implications. The Council should be providing neighborhood businesses and residents protection from excessive State development mandates, not piling on top of them. Along with many Community members I believe the Council majority has given a long list of reasons to distrust land use ordinances. The last major one was providing for 17‐story projects under the guise of the Downtown Plan Extension. The “Objective Standards” before you should be renamed “Objective Standards to Maximize Excessive Development Interests”.

I feel very strongly about this. I particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. I implore you to incorporate all of Rick Hyman’s thoughtful and necessary additions.

Your mandate is to serve all residents and not just local and out of town real estate and development interests.

Thank you for your time and taking my comments seriously! Ron Pomerantz
Sent from my Magic phone

21.1374
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Dusten Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:35 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Adopt Agenda Item #21- Objective Standards
Dear City Council,
I urge you to adopt agenda item #21. This will align our building code with our general plan and allow the building of homes along a compact corridor that will enable us to reduce our carbon footprint.

Thank You,
Dusten Dennis
920 Cayuga St.

Santa Cruz CA 95062

21.1375
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Michele Newman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:37 PM
To: Karen Kaplan
Cc: City Council
Subject: Re: Tues. Aug 23, 2022: City of Santa Cruz Planning Policy I support everything that Karen Kaplan has written to you below. I've lived in Santa Cruz since 1976 and believe that public comments are imperative for all new high-density living projects. It's incumbent upon us that we maintain public comments if we're to keep a local democratic process functioning.

Thank you, Michele Newman
---- On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 07:34:47 -0700 Karen Kaplan <[email protected]> wrote --- Dear Mayor and Santa Cruz City Council:

Santa Cruz City Council hears recommendations for land use and planning changes and will approve major increases in development densities, pressured by state mandates.

Proposed changes are complex. The public needs time to review final documents.

Staff proposes to eliminate public review and input, even for the highest density projects.

Without public review, a consequence may be an increase in public protests, causing further delays and expense.

21.1376
2 garden, indoor and outdoor recreation space and a community room. No one wants to live in a boring box.

Designing for happiness in one's home should be a priority.

Santa Cruz does not need to build more luxury high‐rise apartments and condominiums, to increase population.

Santa Cruz is already too overcrowded and is quickly losing its quaint, small‐town charm.

There is not enough water, parking space and public transportation to support building projects.

Highways 1 and 17 are already overcrowded. The flow of traffic is impeded by increased development, without supporting infrastructure.
"If you build it, they will come" but what water will they drink, if there is a drought? Where will they drive, if the highways are jammed?
Where will they park?
After development decisions are made, it is difficult or nearly impossible for the public to amend.

Keep Santa Cruz the "small town" that I love!
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Karen Kaplan
Resident of Santa Cruz County Since 1974

21.1377
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Gerda Endemann <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:44 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities.

Thank you for taking my objections seriously!
Sincerely,
Gerda Endemann
Gerda Endemann, PhD
139 Magnolia Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062

21.1378
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards Proposal
Dear City Council,
As a homeowner within one block of Water/Branciforte, I support the position of Save Santa Cruz on the Objective Standards proposal scheduled for a Council vote on Aug. 23. I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out exactly what this proposal would do, and I'm still confused.

The proposal should articulated much more clearly to facilitate informed public comment on the changes, which (it appears) will have a major impact on future large (and tall) housing developments. Save Santa Cruz has specifically raised concerns that the Objective Standards proposal will reduce public input opportunities for such large projects, and this should be addressed as the Objective Standards proposal is clarified.

In short, please don't pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form.

Sincerely,
Victoria Bolam
114 Dake Ave, Santa Cruz 95062

21.1379
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Myra Ritchey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:52 PM
To: City Council
Subject: No - Objective Standards Proposal
Dear Council Members,
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Sincerely,
Myra Ritchey

21.1380
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: cathy puccinelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 1:03 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standard
Dear Councilmember
I am outraged of our planning staff recommendations on Objective Standards. You only have to read the many public letters coming on behalf of hundreds of concerned citizens as to why. I feel as our words and our messages do not matter, the public process has been minimal at best and our community violated. Have you read the 1400+ report?
Say No to recommendations.

Cathy Puccinelli
Sent from my iPhone

21.1381
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Andrew Trapani <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 1:13 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 21 ‐ Objective Standards ‐ and urge adoption. They are the product of a community that came together to discuss and give feedback to the city’s planning project. I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multi‐family and mixed‐use housing projects. These standards will help us build the housing we desperately need.

21.1382
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ajay Shenoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 1:21 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards
Dear Members of the City Council:

I am writing on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards - and urge adoption.

Objective standards are the only fair way to mediate between the concerns of the local community and our desperate need for more affordable housing.

The standards are the product of long consultation. They achieve this balance. They will stimulate and speed the development of new projects while ensuring the final product is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. They will prevent strident and unrepresentative voices from inventing excuses to derail or delay the housing we need.

Thank you,
Ajay Shenoy
Resident, Upper Westside

21.1383
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Benjamin Breen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 1:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards
Dear City Council members,
My name is Ben Breen. I live in the employee housing at UCSC and teach in the history department.

I am writing in regards to Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards - and urge adoption. I support the staff's recommendation, which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multifamily and mixed-use housing projects. These standards will help us build the housing we desperately need.

I also support the recommendation from the city’s Transportation and Public Works Committee that staff adjust implementation of site public improvements and fees based upon building square footage in accordance with AB 602.

Thank you for your hard work on this and other issues!
Ben
________________________
Benjamin Breen
Associate Professor of History
University of California, Santa Cruz
Email: [email protected]
Web: https://history.ucsc.edu/faculty/profiles/index.php?uid=bebreen Book: The Age of Intoxication: Origins of the Global Drug Trade

21.1384
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Michael Funari <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 1:49 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Constituent Representation
Santa Cruz voters, in hopes of creating greater more equitable representation passed measure E last June. It appears the city council is poised to represent the interests of investors and developers whose primary concern is maximizing profits. Who on the council will represent the thousands of residents that moved to Santa Cruz to live in a serene seaside community not an overcrowded city filled with nondescript high density, high rise apartments with woefully inadequate infrastructure? Santa Cruz should not be sold off the highest bidder.

21.1385
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Robynne Blume <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 1:53 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards - and urge adoption. They are the product of a community that came together to discuss and give feedback to the city’s planning project. I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects. These standards will help us build the housing we desperately need.

Thank you for your time,
Robynne Blume

21.1386
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ann Simonton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:08 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 21 on current Agenda
Dear Mayor Brunner, And council members:

I am writing in regard to Item 21 on your Agenda. The changes being proposed can’t be solely blamed on new state regulations. The changes are sweeping, complex and require that the public have time to review the final documents.

Voting to eliminate public review and input on these projects will reflect very badly during upcoming elections and beyond. Remember the council is the voice of the people not City Staff. Council is in charge of City Staff not the other way around. The Staff is even going against what the majority of Planning Commissioners support.

Many in our fair city want more affordable units for households earning less than 87K a year.

Once your decisions are made the legacy of your vote will become known to the current electorate.

Remember that climate change causes more floods and earthquakes. Citizen who lived through that were told after the Loma Prieta quake not to build downtown due to liquification factors and being in flood zone. Lives could be lost due to rampant unthought out building policies.

Thank you for allowing public input, time and consideration for these HUGE changes in building policies.

Thank you for your service and consideration.

Sincerely,
Ann Simonton

21.1387
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jane Mio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:13 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item # 21 ~ 8/23/22City Council Meeting Item # 21 Amendments to Municipal Code Titles 6, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 24 Related to Objective Development Standards for Multi-Family Housing, New Mixed Use Zoning Districts, Dear City Council Members,
To-morrow you are asked to address item # 21, which will have monumental impact on a place Santa Cruz City residents call home.

The much heralded narrative throughout the Santa Cruz Community is that residents love living in this City, because it offers a unique ‘Quality of Life’ due to its neighborhoods, small/unique town features, strong, engaged community connections & beautiful natural resources.

Missing from that narrative is loving out-of character high buildings, traffic congestions, overcrowded neighborhoods, reduced tree canopy, compromised/stressed natural resources.

Item # 21 puts this common, uniting thread into grave jeopardy, because these amendments will alter the City of Santa Cruz famous ‘Quality of Life’ title for decades to come.

In consideration of the item # 21 consequences great care is necessary to assure a.) City Council’s directives to the Planning Dept. were effectively addressed with the amendments related to Objective Standards, b.) Community access to a clear understanding how the submitted # 21 material will change the character of neighborhoods, c.) the impacted residents have adequate opportunity to voice their input/feedback.

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of our ‘Quality of Life’ fame.

Kind regards,
jane mio

21.1388
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: paul gratz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:26 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Comment Re. Proposed Objective Standards /August 23, 2022 Agenda Paul Gratz
501 Prospect Hts.

Santa Cruz, CA 95065
August 22, 2022
The confusing proposal before you, if approved, will eliminate public hearings on significant building projects, eliminating the right of residents and businesses to comment and influence on
the development decisions that will affect their lives, their neighborhoods, and livelihoods.

Thank you,
Paul Gratz

21.1389
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Chloe Bradburn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:36 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards - and urge adoption. These standards are the product of lots of community discussion and feedback to the city’s planning project. I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects. This enables housing that is already allowed in our city and is desperately needed.

I further support the recommendation from the city’s Transportation and Public Works Commission (and supported by Santa Cruz YIMBY) that staff adjust implementation of site public improvements and fees based upon building square footage in accordance with AB 602.

Thank you.

Best,
Chloe
--
Chloe Bradburn (she/they)
Service Navigation Coordinator
(831) 266-2504
housingmatterssc.org
[email protected]

21.1390
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Rafa Sonnenfeld <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:49 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards - and urge adoption. These standards are the product of lots of community discussion and feedback to the city’s planning project. We’ve spent months having public meetings and taking community surveys. These standards actually provide the city with more control over development that is already allowed here by our general plan.

I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects. I further support the recommendation from the city’s Transportation and Public Works Commission (and supported by Santa Cruz YIMBY) that staff adjust implementation of site public improvements and fees based upon building square footage in accordance with AB 602.

21.1391
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Mark Mesiti-Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:03 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards
Greetings Mayor Brunner and Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote to adopt all proposed amendments to the municipal code as recommended by City Staff.

These amendments are the product of a community that came together to discuss and give feedback to the city’s planning project. I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects. Adopting these amendments to our current standards will help us build the housing we desperately need, especially deed-restricted, permanently affordable housing.

I further support the recommendation from the city’s Transportation and Public Works Committee (as supported by Santa Cruz YIMBY) that staff adjust implementation of site public improvements and fees based upon building square footage in accordance with AB 602.

Thank you,
Mark
Mark Mesiti-Miller
Professional Civil Engineer and 39 year resident of Santa Cruz City

21.1392
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jim Burns <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:04 PM
To: Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Donna Meyers; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Justin Cummings; Sandy Brown; Renee Golder
Cc: City Council
Subject: Comment on Item 21 of your August 23 agenda
August 22, 2022
Dear Mayor Brunner and Other Members of the Santa Cruz City Council, We are writing to express our significant opposition to the proposal Staff has put forth in Item 21 of the agenda for your meeting on Tuesday, August 23, 2022. It's the item relating to Objective Development Standards.

At the risk of sounding disrespectful to Staff who worked on this project (that is certainly not our intention with this letter), we are quite simply horrified by the direction this project has taken.

Two aspects of the work are especially troubling:
 The "sky's the limit" extent to which Staff seems comfortable supporting outlandishly high housing projects for the Eastside (so what else is new?).
 The fact that Staff seems to be suggesting that they want to seriously curtail public input on such impactful buildings. Wow!
Sky's the Limit: To be clear, other than carefully studied and appropriate locations in our downtown, we think buildings the size that Staff envisions will ruin the character of Santa Cruz (forever) and overwhelm the municipal infrastructure. And they will seriously impact adjoining neighbors who will be forced to live in their shadow (not just a metaphor).

We both recall the planner in charge of the Objective Standards work saying something like this at one of the early Planning Commission meetings on these standards: "Well, we've got to put tall buildings somewhere" with respect to her targeting the Eastside with such behemoths. Is that good (and fair) planning? If they have to go "somewhere" other than downtown, why not put them in the vicinity of Mission Street (which oddly seems spared by this latest proposal). The small unit size that is typical of such overly large buildings might work for UCSC students (the size of units in these types of buildings certainly does not make them family friendly), so why not have them located closer to campus? Is locating the tallest buildings further away (and two separate bus rides) from campus make even a smidge of sense? Of course not.

But we are all in this together, which made us really wonder why staff didn't seem to consider ways to reduce the impacts of tall developments that are immediately adjacent to any existing R-1 residences. Why concentrate MU-H zoning along Water Street and Soquel Avenue, immediately adjacent to existing residential properties, but propose MU-M zoning for Mission Street. Makes no sense.

Why not re-zone proposed MU-H parcels to MU-M wherever these parcels adjoin existing R-1 zoning? Curtailing public input: We seem to recall that there was much made of having public meetings re. the 831 Water Street proposal — and the City said it was struggling with the fact that the state was limiting such input.

21.1393
2 Not anymore, it seems, as now the Staff seems to be proposing that same kind of public firewall. And over the most controversial projects! What gives with that?
We could also mention the fact that this whole effort should have warranted a General Plan Amendment in the first place. But the argument — until now, it seems — was that that was just too much work. Really? Too much work to do the job correctly from the outset?
As we bring this correspondence to an end, I suppose we should anticipate that the YIMBY folks will want you to believe that our (and many others') opposition to this Objective Standards work (both in terms of product and process) means we are anti-housing. PLEASE ... in the name of honesty, push back against that tired refrain.

Let's see: Because we are in favor of good planning, in favor of balanced, reasonably sized projects, and in favor of a solid planning process, we are anti-housing? Nothing could be further from the truth.

We both absolutely recognize that Santa Cruz needs more housing. We just want it to be done in a way that provides balance, maintains the charm that defines our town, and doesn't overwhelm an already taxed infrastructure.

And we are far from alone in our thinking about this, as evidenced by the nearly 600 people who found and signed the petition launched last year on the web site of the "831 Responsible Development" citizens group.

These are your constituents; please consider their views.

Thank you very much for considering our concerns — and thank you very much for your tireless service! Nancy and Jim Burns
Santa Cruz

21.1394
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: geri lieby <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards
Hello,
The Objective Standards address the needs of now and the future. The city must not be locked into a nostalgic memory of Santa Cruz. I’m old. I remember the old Santa Cruz. It was great. But now is the time to embrace change.

Please vote in support of the Objective Standards.

Geri Lieby

21.1395
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bernadette Ramer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:15 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! We need to have community input especially when it affects the quality of life in our neighborhoods and our town.

Respectfully,
Bernadette Ramer
Santa Cruz City Resident in affected area

21.1396
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Santa Cruz YIMBY <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:19 PM
To: City Council
Subject: In Support of Multi-Family Objective Standards Attachments: Santa Cruz YIMBY - Objective Standards Letter - Support.pdf Good Afternoon,
Please find our organization's support letter attached.

Thank you,
Santa Cruz YIMBY Leads

21.1397
Dear City Council,
Thank you so much for considering the adoption of objective standards. We're pleased that the community came together to push for objective standards over the past year. This will help us build the housing and infrastructure that we need in a manner that matches the look and feel that we want buildings to have.

Our members and many other members of the community participated in reviewing draft standards as well as the ones before you now. Input was gathered and questions were raised over the course of many months of public meetings, including both wider community engagement processes and commission meetings. In some of the previous meetings we even expressed concerns about setbacks limiting the amount of housing. We’d like to see this go forward because we can always refine it more later.

We support the staff's recommendation and would also like to make one addition, the same one made during the May 16th Transportation and Public Works Commission Meeting:

The Transportation and Public Works Commission recommends that the City Council approve revisions to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code that regulate Public Works, with recommendation that staff adjust implementation of site public improvements based upon building square footage in accordance with AB 602.

As the currently written objective standards state, there are specific site-based improvements that are applied only if a project is 3 or more units. This incentivizes larger, more expensive projects because the impact is assessed by unit rather than size — even though larger single-family homes have higher impacts than small apartments.

The California legislature also saw this as an
issue. In 2021 the Legislature along with
Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB
602 which requires that fees be proportional to

21.1398
the size of the building rather than the number of doors. AB 602 also requires local governments to improve the transparency of their housing impact fees, by identifying all of the fees and explaining their intended use.

In a spirit of fairness and adherence to the spirit of the law via AB 602, we recommend that staff adjust the implementation of site public improvements based on building square footage.

We are committed to seeing the objective standards improve over time. Even if our proposed amendment does not make it in, we support staff’s direction to move forward with these objective standards that codify what was previously already allowed by the city. Opponents to this seem to be missing that having these standards actually give us more local control than the status quo of not having them. It’s time to update our beliefs with what is codified in legislation and the scale of the problems before us! There are tools in the state code to allow us to vary from the objective standards. If we finish writing these, we have a process to support the use of those tools to alter projects. There will still be community meetings and the community still maintains the right of appeal.

Please support the staff’s recommendation and direct staff to study the implementation of site public improvements based upon building square footage in accordance with AB 602.

Thank you,
Ryan Meckel
Janine Roeth
Rafa Sonnenfeld
Santa Cruz YIMBY Leads

21.1399
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Don Lane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I hope you will move forward this week and adopt objective development standards for multifamily housing. I know your staff and many community members have been working for many months on this issue and it is now ripe for action.

I share the desire of many in the community to have these standards deliver much-needed multi-story apartments - especially apartments to house working families and lower income households in our community. However, I also urge caution in adopting unrealistic inclusionary requirements. The City needs to find the sweet spot with inclusionary requirements so that those requirements do not turn out to prevent the development of housing for people who need it. Rather than arbitrarily select a percentage that might make most housing projects infeasible, please adopt inclusionary percentages based on real expertise on housing development and finance. We need real affordable units built-- policies and numbers that appear good on the surface but stop housing development will not be meaningful in addressing our actual housing needs.

Best wishes for success in your ongoing efforts to alleviate the housing affordability and availability crisis in Santa Cruz. Many struggling families and individuals are counting on you.

Thank you for your service.

Don Lane

21.1400
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: jfbergs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:31 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards - and urge adoption. These standards are the product of lots of community discussion and feedback to the city’s planning project. I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects. This enables housing that is already allowed in our city and is desperately needed.

Sincerely,
Joel Steinberg
95060
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone

21.1401
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Guy Lasnier <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:58 PM
To: Sonja Brunner; Sandy Brown; Donna Meyers; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder; Martine Watkins; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Cc: City Council
Subject: RE: Item 21 August 23 agenda -- Please use this in place of my earlier letter [The following is submitted to replace an earlier draft-in-progress mistakenly sent at 3:36 pm today. I apologize for the mix-up.]
Aug. 22, 2022
Dear Mayor Brunner and City Council Members,
I urge you to take no action Tuesday, Aug. 23 on the so-called Objective Standards proposal (Item 21 that appears to be rushed through with little opportunity for public review or comment. Instead I urge the Council to:
 Direct the Planning Department to return with a modified proposal that will maintain public hearing opportunities for the public on proposed development projects, at least as extensive as is provided by current Municipal Code provisions.
 Direct the Planning Department to prepare a thorough presentation, explaining the actual impact of each proposed change in the Municipal Code, so that neighborhood and community groups, small businesses, and those in the development community – and the Council itself – can fully understand the real impact of these proposals, which are likely to have an incredibly important impact on the future of our City.  Further, the Council meeting at which action is ultimately taken should be structured to provide the maximum amount of time for interested members of the public to provide detailed, substantive suggestions.

Nearly 400 parcels are being re-zoned (generally “up”), along Ocean, Water, Soquel, B40, and Mission streets.

The new "mixed-use high density" designation that staff is proposing for Water Street, Branciforte Avenue and Soquel Avenue (as well as many other streets) would bring the "base" height allowance up to 60 feet and as we've seen the height can go up much higher than that "base" height when a developer uses the new state density bonus law.

A second issue is that City Planning Staff is also trying to persuade you to include ministerial streamlining into the City's municipal code (not just SB 35 projects). Again, the result being minimal opportunity for public review and comment.

The consequences of these issues--intended or otherwise--are too significant to push through without adequate review and discussion, by yourselves and the public.

Thank you for your consistent attention and service to our community.

Sincerely,
Guy Lasnier

21.1402
2 21.1403
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Dustin Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:35 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Vote "No" on Objective Standards Proposal
Dear Mayor Brunner and City Council Members:

We are extremely provoked at the proposed ordinance amendments and the objective standards that the City staff is recommending at the next City Council meeting.

We feel that it is short sighted, reckless and goes contrary to what the City Council has directed the Planning Commission to do concerning development proposals and land use in the City of Santa Cruz in the recent past, after the ill-fated "Corridors Plan".

The current proposal will result in increased high density development, which is completely out of character for our City. Not only that, there will be fewer
opportunities for City residents and small business owners to provide meaningful input concerning development, as is their right.

Please delay passage of the proposal until the Planning Commission includes opportunities for public hearings on proposed development projects, and encourage
the Planning Commission to prepare a presentation which would more fully explain the proposal to all stakeholders in the City.

Thank you for your good work for our fair city!
David Lavorando
Rosa Montoya
Santa Cruz

21.1404
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:39 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Bob Ramer
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz for your not passing the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal. Although I recognize the need for more affordable housing and I support the building of 3-story high structures, the impact of 5-story buildings around residential neighborhoods would have a serious impact on those communities. I also object to the plan of eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Even with new state requirements in place, it’s still the role of responsible leadership to gather input from local residents on proposals that will affect their quality of life.

Please take the time to fully evaluate the consequences of the actions you are considering and don’t rush to any decisions that will adversely impact neighborhoods throughout the Santa Cruz area.

Respectfully yours,
Bob Ramer

21.1405
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Kevin Stierhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:41 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards Objection
Dear City Council Members,
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please do not pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. The community needs to have an opportunity to weigh in on this drastic change to city zoning and policies. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Sincerely,
Kevin Stierhoff
203 Leonard St

21.1406
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Susan Stuart <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:46 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 21 ‐ Objective Standards ‐ and urge adoption. These standards are the product of lots of community discussion and feedback to the city’s planning project. I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multi‐family and mixed‐use housing projects. This enables housing that is already allowed in our city and is desperately needed.

Susan M Stuart
204 Dickens Way
Santa Cruz, CA 95064

21.1407
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Donna Murphy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for Objective Standards!
Councilmembers:

Please accept the staff recommended amendments to the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinances to align them with the existing General Plan, which is much over due.

The process and the staff recommendations should be commended for their thoroughness, diligence and content. The amendments are needed to fully implement land use patterns and designations in the 2030 General Plan, essential to supporting development of housing to meet the needs of the community. I strongly support the staff recommendation, including retaining the existing inclusionary zoning requirement. Let’s not create additional complications and barriers; it is time to move these amendments forward.

Donna Murphy
Resident, city of Santa Cruz

21.1408
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Gail Jack <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. The project is way oversized for the location and will further clog up access to the downtown from the East Side of the City. This proposal does not have the backing of the community who live, drive, and work here. In particular, eliminating many public hearing opportunities is taking away the rights of the community.. Thank you for taking my objections seriously.

Gail Jack
Eastside resident

21.1409
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ann Hubble <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I Object To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities.

Thank you for taking my objections seriously!
Sincerely,
Ann Hubble
118 Melrose Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95062

21.1410
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Deborah Marks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:53 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards for meeting on 8/23/22
8/22/2022
Dear Mayo Brunner and City Council Members,
I am writing about the Objective Standards proposal that is on the City Council Agenda for 8/23/22.

The impact that these policies and rezoning Ocean St rezoning will have on my neighborhood will be devastating. I live in the Central Park neighborhood (Leonard, May Dakota) which is a block from Ocean and a block from Water St. Our quiet neighborhood consists of single family homes and small apartment complexes. The majority of our residents, renters and owners have lived here long term. There is a high proportion of families with young children in this neighborhood.

Residents in my neighborhood fought hard to gain protections from the high. density development changes planned for Ocean St. during the development of Ocean St Area Plan (OSAP). The City Planner sought our input and we were PROMISED that we would be notified and included in the zoning process for Ocean St.

However, it appears that there was no process for public input on the rezoning of Ocean St. The zoning map in your Objective Standards is in fact wrong. The property at the corner of May and Leonard (119 Leonard) was deliberately excluded from Ocean St zoning, because this single family home is part of the Central Park neighborhood. The revised zoning map which extends the Ocean St density to the corner of Leonard and May is incorrect. There are also many other inconsistencies with the neighborhood protection aspects of the OSAP.

The General Plan, OSAP and Corridor Plan all had public input and participation, and community input was solicited from the City. In contrast there has been no effort, no notifications, no hearings to actively involve the community for the Objective Standards and rezoning process.

Like many others who live in the City of Santa Cruz I am in favor of responsible development projects that provide affordable housing for people who now live in this area and need housing. It is very reasonable and very feasible to develop projects that look attractive, provide affordable housing and also preserve the quality of life and character of existing residential neighborhoods. It is a fact that neighborhoods adjacent to the areas zoned for increased density are most at risk for adverse impacts from high density development. Cutting city residents out of this process is unconscionable.

I have personally seen how public hearings with reasonable developers can result in better projects with better design qualities and compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods. A good example of this is the low income apartment complex at 708 Water St. This building was initially proposed as a prison like design but with community input ended up with an attractive design with some architectural interest that is pleasant for residents and community members, it has character and is compatible with nearby structures. Without community input this would not have happened.

The Municipal Code amendments and Objective Standards proposal is overwhelmingly complex. There has been no significant outreach to the community to educate or engage participation in public meetings to identify how these changes will impact residential neighborhoods, local businesses and the overall community.

21.1411
2 I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please do not pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. The community needs to have an opportunity to weigh in on this drastic change to city zoning and policies. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Sincerely,
Deborah Marks
207 Leonard St , Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831 247-4510

21.1412
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ryan Bailey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:54 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards and City Council Agenda 8/22 Dear Mayor Brunner and City Council Members,
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please do not pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. The community needs to have an opportunity to weigh in on this drastic change to city zoning and policies. Thank you for taking my objections seriously.

I do support building more and affordable housing. I am directly next door to the 515 Soquel Project and it will impact my property and neighborhood. We have been working closing with the City Planner and Developers and so far it has been a great conversation. We just hope to continue to have the opportunity to participate and weigh in on these projects that will change the neighborhoods, so that they are executed to the advantage of current and future residents.

Regards,
Ryan
Ryan Bailey
126 May Ave
Santa Cruz, CA

21.1413
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Gabrielle Diane Laney-Andrews <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:06 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
To the City Council,
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Gabrielle Laney‐Andrews
[email protected]

21.1414
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Storey La Montagne <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:07 PM
To: City Council
Subject: I Object To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. I understand the need for affordable housing but it needs to be balanced with the impact to our existing neighborhoods.

Thank you for taking my objections seriously!
Sincerely,
Storey La Montagne
118 Melrose Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95062

21.1415
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ellen Murtha <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:07 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Proposed Objective Standards 8.23.2022 Agenda
Mayor Brunner and City Council Members,
Thank you for working to improve our City standards for housing development decisions; please ensure the Objective Standards ensure our City Council objectives of preserving and protecting residential neighborhoods and existing businesses. I am concerned that this version of the Objective Standards could limit public comment/hearings on large developments and empower staff rather than you ‐ our elected representatives. The State has already limited our City input on housing developments; our Objective Standards should balance that with care for the people’s concerns. I agree with the letter written by Gary Patton and Jerry Christiansen of Save Santa Cruz. We have a treasure in Santa Cruz City, please preserve it. As elected governance, the Council is responsible for upholding the vision of the people.

Thank you,
Ellen Fitzgerald Murtha

21.1416
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jacquelyn Griffith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:11 PM
To: City Council
Subject: SC Planning Policy Changes …COMPLEX/ PUBLIC NEEDS TIME TO REVIEW FINAL DOCUMENT & My Comments
We NEED time to review all of this…..the state law changes and the SC Planning Policy changes! This is Far too important to push through and doing so would create a lot of community outrage. The Staff proposal to eliminate public review and input even into the highest density projects is extremely destructive to City residents. It is authoritarian! It cuts out citizens’ feeling part of the community, shaping it and caring for it and noticing what is working and what needs attention.

With global warming, we have quite a lot of construction planned already, given our WATER supply.

Traffic is already a problem and we need to plan growth carefully so people can get where they need to go and not waste time and fossil fuels in the process.

A majority of our Planning Commissioners have recommended that a fair share of any new units will be affordable to people earning less than $87K a year and the staff report does not even recommend that. We are a community with people who have lived and worked here for many years and have close family and friends here and we need affordable housing! People who have spent their lives working here should be able to stay, but Very few seniors Ever earned $87K a year and so many younger people are plagued by college debt or work in jobs the public needs but which pay considerably less. We need to determine what share of affordable units is fair and what income level should determine “affordable”.

The Staff report’s rules certainly look good to developers. But the City Staff and the City Council answer to the public, not just to who will bring in the most tax money. We need care and consideration in meeting the public’s needs in this time of great changes. Once these rules are set there is little chance to fix unintended consequences.

Please allow adequate time and public input so as to maintain community spirit, democratic values and our democratic, participatory way of life!🙏
Jacquelyn Griffith
42 year resident, homeowner, retired public educator with 12 years voluntary service on City and County Boards and Commissions.
.

Jacquy

21.1417
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Nancy Niles <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. The "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form is a bad ida. I object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for your consideration of my objection.

Nancy Niles

21.1418
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Adrian Pearson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:21 PM
To: Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Sandy Brown; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Donna Meyers; City Council
Subject: August 23, 2022, 6 pm Agenda Item, Code Changes TO:

Mayor, Council Members, and All Concerned
On behalf of Save Santa Cruz Westside, this is in support of the letter to Santa Cruz City Council, dated August 16, 2022, authored by Gary Patton and Jerry Christensen for Save Santa Cruz.

We agree with the points made in the above-referenced letter. We request and urge that Council take no action on changes to the City's Municipal Code at this time.

Municipal Code changes have far-reaching impacts and must always be approached with the most careful consideration. Code changes can cause unintended consequences and therefore require diligence in thoughtful evaluation. The proposed amendments to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, set for agenda on August 23, are numerous and sweeping. A comprehensive evaluation of the impacts and consequences of these proposed amendments has not been set forth, and this is necessary for good decision-making.

Therefore, we respectfully ask that you demonstrate caution and wisdom in your leadership, and foster the trust the public has placed in you, by postponing action on this agenda item.

Cordially,
Adrian Pearson
for Save Santa Cruz Westside

21.1419
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Judy Weaver <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards Proposal/August 23, 2022 Agenda Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Members:

I am very concerned about the impact of the Objective Standards Proposal on the rights of city residents to participate in public hearings on proposed city development projects.

I strongly support the recommendations of Save Santa Cruz:

2. Direct the Planning Department to prepare a thorough presentation, explaining the actual impact of each proposed change in the Municipal Code, so that neighborhood and community groups, small businesses, and those in the development community ‐ and the Council itself ‐ can fully understand the real impact of these proposals, which are likely to have an incredibly important impact on the future of our City.

I also strongly recommend that concerned members of the public are allowed sufficient time to make detailed, comprehensive comments at any City Council meeting in which action on this proposal is scheduled.

Thank you.

Respectfully,
Judith Weaver
Santa Cruz CA 95060

21.1420
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Philip Boutelle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:23 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #21, Objective Standards
Mayor Brunner, Councilmembers:

I am writing to highlight the recommendation from the TPWC regarding objective standards for public works.

The council agenda report for this item provides the following summary:

These proposed amendments were reviewed by the Transportation and Public Works Commission on May 16, 2022 and received a recommendation for approval by the City Council.

This statement is accurate, but it omits the specific unanimous recommendation from the TPWC. This recommendation can be found on page 19 of your agenda packet for item 21, in the document titled 'TPWC STAFF REPORT AND MINUTES, OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, MAY 16, 2022.PDF' (emphasis added):

MOTION: Commissioner Ulyate-Crow moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, that the Transportation and Public Works Commission recommend that the City Council approve revisions to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code that regulate Public Works, with recommendation that staff adjust implementation of site public improvements based upon building square footage in accordance with AB 602. In addition, a formal request that this language be brought back to Transportation and Public Works Commission for revision including curb management, 15.15.020, 15.20.060, and egress.

AB 602 became law on 1/1/2022, and requires that impact fees are proportional to the size of a new home, so that smaller individual homes pay smaller impact fees (as opposed to per-unit impact fees, which can incentivize larger, more expensive projects). The law also requires local governments to improve the transparency of housing impact fees, by identifying all of the fees and explaining their intended use.

Thank you,
-Phil Boutelle
Chair, Transportation and Public Works Commission.

21.1421
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Kate Achilles <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:31 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
Hi,
I live in the Central Park neighborhood and have serious concerns about the future of my community if our input is not fully considered or valued for future development projects in Santa Cruz. Therefore, I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Sincerely,
Kate Achilles
203 Leonard St.

21.1422
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jim Rumble <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:37 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Members,
I have reviewed Item 21 on tomorrow's agenda relating to the proposed "Objectivetive Standards" and have serious concerns about the proposed standards. I believe the community is not being given adequate information to understand the full impact of these standards on residential neighborhoods and local businesses. Furthermore, the community is not being sufficient time to review and comment on the proposed standards and their impact. I urge you to not pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal at tomorrow's meeting. Thank you for taking my concerns seriously!
Jim Rumble

21.1423
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: kirby harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:41 PM
To: City Council
Subject: WATER STREET MONSTROSITY
My daughters and their neighbors live on Belvedere Terrace DIRECTLY behind where this hideous housing complex is to be built. It is unconsionable that YOU the City Council, City Manager and Santa Cruz City government entertains even the slightest agreement that this is a suitable place to build such a thing. It is located on a BUSY part of Soquel on a DOWNHILL slope with lots of walking/bike traffic with the garage on this building spewing out cars onto on coming vehicls, bike riders and walkers who a trying to navigate the traffic.

The building is MUCH too high for this area. If they insist on putting this building thee it needs to be a MAXIMUM of 3 stories - NOT 5 to 7.t
It may have a garage but who living there is going to pay the ridiculous monthly fee to park when they can park on all the neighborhood streets surrounding this place.

This type of building IS NOT SUITABLE FOR EAST SANTA CRUZ. There is an abundance of vacant lots/ properties closer to downtown and the west side that would serve these people better.

NO NO NO NO on this horrible project.

21.1424
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: kirby harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: WATER STREET/ MONSTROSITY
I just sent you an email. I realize that I describe WATER Street as SOQUEL in my email by mistake.

This is regards the project at Water & Branciforte that the council will be discussing this evening at 5 pm

21.1425
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Nancy K. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:43 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards and City Council Agenda 8/22 Dear Mayor Brunner and City Council Members,
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please do not pass the so-called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. This appears to be a very troubling proposal and process. In particular I object to eliminating public hearing opportunities as projects are under consideration. The community needs continued opportunity to be informed and weigh in on this drastic change to city zoning and policies. Thank you for taking my objections seriously.

I recognize that Santa Cruz needs additional housing and this fact means buildings/projects will be developed. I am on May Ave, nearly across the street to the proposed entrance of 515 Soquel Project. It will impact my property and neighborhood. Collectively, neighbors and I worked closely with the City Planner and Developers. We hope to continue to have the opportunity to participate and weigh in on these projects that will change the neighborhoods. We need to insure that community process is upheld, in order to increase the possibility that they are executed to the advantage of current and future residents.

Please include my correspondence in your agenda packet for tomorrow’s meeting.

Thank you,
Nancy Kiehl
Nancy Kiehl, CPCC, PCC, CPWC, NBHWC
Certified Coach
Santa Cruz, CA
303-518-3952
nancykiehl.com

21.1426
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Andree LeBourveau <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:46 PM
To: City Council
Subject: NO to "Objective Standards" proposal
Dear Santa Cruz City Council members,
I am strongly against the "Objective Standards" proposal.

Democracy means the public has an input in our government.

Please do not limit public hearing opportunities.

Thank you,
Andree LeBourveau
131 Magnolia St
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
--
Andrée LeBourveau
Visual Resource Curator
Visual, Applied, & Performing Arts
Cabrillo College
VAPA 1005
(831) 479-6343
M-Th: 8-12pm, F: 7:30-11:30am
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Library Resource Specialist
Robert E. Swenson Library
Cabrillo College
1020
(831) 479-5028
M-Th: 1-5pm, F: 12-4pm

21.1427
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jonathan Francisco <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Opposition to the Proposed 'Objective Standards' - August 23rd. 2022 Please do not approve the 'Objective Standards' as presented at your Aug 23rd 2022 meeting. Creating a process that does allow for public comment when approving or rejecting large scale development projects will be a net harm to the community. Such a process will only benefit developers and special interest groups. I remind all of you elected officials that your job is to represent the interest of the community and not developers. Not allowing the citizens to comment on the development of Santa Cruz seems counterproductive to what you all were elected to do.

So please take 'No Action' on agenda item 21 and do the following... 1) Direct the Planning Department to return with a modified proposal that will maintain public hearing opportunities for the public on proposed development projects, at least as extensive as is provided by current Municipal Code provisions.
2) Direct the Planning Department to prepare a thorough presentation, explaining the actual impact of each proposed change in the Municipal Code, so that neighborhood and community groups, small businesses, and those in the development community, and the Council itself, can fully understand the real impact of these proposals, which are likely to have an incredibly important impact on the future of our City.

With regards,
Jonathan Francisco
162 Molly Way
Santa Cruz CA 95065

21.1428
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Alison Russell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Public comment on Item 21 for City Council Agenda of August 23, 2022 (Objective Standards)
Dear Mayor Brunner and City Council members:

I would like to ask you to continue Item 21 for the following reasons:

1. At a time when our country's democratic processes are under attack, staff are proposing to eliminate public review and comment on objective standards for development, which could bring major changes to our General Plan and zoning. This follows on the heels of the state taking a similar position on S.B. 35 and other legislation affecting housing and development statewide.

Blocking public input into the development of our city and neighborhoods is profoundly undemocratic and cannot be justified by an administrative need to "streamline" potentially impactful projects.

2. Despite the public outreach and engagement the planning department completed on objective standards, most city residents are not familiar with these proposals or the major changes they could bring about. The City should do a more in-depth job of helping people understand what's involved, why objective standards are important, and what the City's goals and objectives are. It feels as if residents are being asked just to trust the planning department's expertise and accept whatever development scheme is proposed. Homeowners, renters and all Santa Cruzans should be able to ask key questions and raise important issues, as the proposed objective standards could create sweeping changes in our city that will impact all of us.

3. I took part in a City workshop on the proposed standards, and, while I appreciated the opportunity, felt that it glossed over the magnitude of potential changes that could result. In addition, in comparing some of the text with that of other communities in California, I found the City's proposed standards quite complex and hard to understand without a planning background.

The language in the proposed objective standards should be clear and understandable by all Council members and by average residents.

4. It is not clear how the proposed objective standards will help with housing affordability, or how they may or may not support the City's climate goals and need for shared green spaces and a healthy urban canopy.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Alison M. Russell
548 Sumner Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062

21.1429
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Tim Ledwith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! It’s been my experience that full impact of new developments on neighborhoods, infrastructure, and environment are not fully understood or assessed unless the people impacted are allowed to talk. Please retain this fundamental bit of democracy.

Tim Ledwith

21.1430
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Abbey Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:53 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Opposition to the Proposed 'Objective Standards' - August 23rd 2022 Please do not approve the 'Objective Standards' as presented at your Aug 23rd 2022 meeting. Creating a process that does allow for public comment when approving or rejecting large scale development projects will be a net harm to the community. Such a process will only benefit developers and special interest groups. I remind all of you elected officials that your job is to represent the interest of the community and not developers. Not allowing the citizens to comment on the development of Santa Cruz seems counterproductive to what you all were elected to do.

With regards,
Abbey Wilson
162 Molly Way
Santa Cruz CA 95065

21.1431
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Rachel McKay <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:54 PM
To: City Council; Sonja Brunner; Donna Meyers; Justin Cummings; Martine Watkins; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Sandy Brown; Renee Golder
Cc: Doug Engfer; Lira Filippini
Subject: Item 21, Agenda 23 Aug 2022 - Objective Development Standards Dear Mayor Brunner and the members of the Santa Cruz City Council, Yesterday I happened to read an online local paper and learned about agenda item 21 concerning the newly developed objective standards and the proposed changes to city zoning. When I read that the corner nearest to me is being upgraded to the highest density possible, I became deeply concerned.

Fortunately my neighbors and I are able to respond rapidly through the 831 Responsible Development group.

My first concern remains with the uncertain geology of the corner of Water Street and N. Branciforte Avenue, in particular the 3 lots that were proposed for development recently. The Council voted against that development and only reversed that vote under the threat of being sued. I live on the bluff on Belvedere Terrace and have been spending the last few years working on erosion mitigation. We have a very high water table here and the geology shows that this area is the confluence of three different strata types. So putting a five story building on the 831 site seems very risky to me. I can see the subsidence happening. Another issue is an unlivable home just west of the proposed area to be zoned. This area is now proposed to become one the highest densities allowed in the city. Do you, as council members, want to be responsible for the possible collapse of a large building onto the Water Street corridor where most of our emergency vehicles travel? I hear their sirens daily.

My second concern is the haste asked for by the planning department. Here I cite the excellent letter that my neighbor Doug Engfer wrote. Clearly this is a change to policy and zoning that needs careful consideration and time to digest it. I concur with Doug's request for more time for the council to properly consider these extensive changes addressed in 1274 pages of material. I understand that the planning department is asking that you review this between tomorrow's meeting and the next regularly scheduled council meeting. Please follow Doung's suggestions for the timeline on this matter, not the rush job that Planning requests.

Doug's letter also addresses the requirement for buffers between high density corridor buildings and lower density neighborhoods; and it correctly points out that, in particular, the 831 site is too narrow to accommodate such buffers.

Third, as is pointed out by my neighbor, Lira Filipinni, is the proposed elimination of ministerial review. It seems clear that the Planning Department would rather make decisions without the input of the people who live here. Is that the sort of city that you want to live in? Democracy takes work and time and that is part of why it works.

In closing I remind you of the aphorism, haste makes waste. I ask that you Mayor Brunner and the excellent members of the City council actually take the time to review the document in agenda item

21. And I also ask you to also remember that serving the people means listening and allowing us the opportunity to speak.

21.1432
2 Thank you,
Rachel McKay
Santa Cruz
PS I am joined in writing this letter by my mother, Joan Gilbert Martin. She adds that these zoning proposals are insanely ridiculous and make no sense. We both are in favor of adding more of the lowest of low income housing in Santa Cruz as that is what is most needed here; especially housing for families with children and not just SROs. A hummingbird just flew up, no doubt she joined us in being appalled by this new planning proposal.

21.1433
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Anastasia Baboulevitch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:54 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 21 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 21 ‐ Objective Standards ‐ and urge adoption. These standards are the product of lots of community discussion and feedback to the city’s planning project. I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multi‐family and mixed‐use housing projects. This enables housing that is already allowed in our city and is desperately needed.

Sent from my iPhone

21.1434
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Kyle Kelley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:55 PM
To: City Council; Sonja Brunner; Donna Meyers; Justin Cummings; Martine Watkins; Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Subject: YES to Objective Standards AND Fair Housing
Dear Mayor Brunner and City Council,
As someone who has participated in the objective standards process (through surveys, community meetings, and the transportation commission), I'm glad to see our objective standards moving forward. This is a good and necessary step as we seek to build abundant housing that can serve everyone well while still getting public improvement benefits.

There is one additional area that needs further study. On the transportation and public works commission, we unanimously voted to recommend that staff adjust the implementation of site public improvements based upon building square footage in accordance with Assembly Bill 602, which was signed into law by Governor Newsom last year (9/2021). AB 602 requires impact fees to be proportional to the size of a new home so that smaller individual homes pay smaller fees.

As an example, in 2020 Housing Matters received planning approval from the City of Santa Cruz for a project to rehabilitate a long-vacant historic house, most recently used as a dentist's office over 20 years ago, into 7 units of permanent supportive housing. Those units averaged 490 square feet. Each unit was required to pay roughly the same as a 2500 square foot 4-bedroom townhouse.

We are literally requiring that the housing types that we need (multifamily, permanent supportive housing) pay much more than the type of housing that has 0% affordability (detached single-family home).

Let's make it fair and make it about the size of the building. If people don't like tall buildings, at least they'll know the big ones are paying their fair share.

Please support the staff’s recommendation and direct staff to study the implementation of site public improvements based upon building square footage in accordance with AB 602.

Regards,
Kyle Kelley
Transportation and Public Works Commissioner

21.1435
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ellen Murtha <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:56 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Proposed Objective Standards 8.23.2022 Agenda
Mayor Brunner and City Council Members,
Thank you for working to improve our City standards for housing development decisions; please ensure the Objective Standards ensure our City Council objectives of preserving and protecting residential neighborhoods and existing businesses. I am concerned that this version of the Objective Standards could limit public comment/hearings on large developments and empower staff rather than you ‐ our elected representatives. The State has already limited our City input on housing developments; our Objective Standards should balance that with care for the people’s concerns. I agree with the letter written by Gary Patton and Jerry Christiansen of Save Santa Cruz. We have a treasure in Santa Cruz City, please preserve it. As elected governance, the Council is responsible for upholding the vision of the people.

Thank you,
Ellen Fitzgerald Murtha
111 Anderson St.

Santa Cruz, CA. 95060

21.1436
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: lisa ekström <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:55 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Sonja Brunner; Sandy Brown; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Donna Meyers; Martine Watkins Subject: Agenda Item #21, August 23 meeting
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
The proposal you are considering for Agenda Item 21 is not understandable, not transparent, and most alarmingly, seeks to eliminate public hearings on significant, large projects which would have enormous impacts on the whole community for generations to come.

To propose removing public hearings is especially alarming at a time when much of the community feels concern and even mistrust about the city government.

I ask that for Agenda Item 21, you take no action, but return the Planning Department’s proposal to them, directing them to:

A) Return with a proposal modified to maintain public hearing opportunities for the public on proposed development projects, at least as extensive as is provided by current Municipal Code provisions.
and
B) Direct the Planning Department to prepare a thorough presentation, explaining the actual impact of each proposed change in the Municipal Code, so that neighborhood and community groups, small businesses, and those in the development community and even the City Council can fully understand the real impact of these proposals, which are likely to have an incredibly important impact on the future of our City.

The modified Planning Department proposal should be presented in a City Council meeting structured to provide the maximum amount of time for public participation and for the members of the public to provide detailed and substantive suggestions.

We need more of the public voice, not less.

Thank you,
Lisa Ekström
Santa Cruz, CA

21.1437
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Gillian Greensite <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:59 PM
To: Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Sandy Brown; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Donna Meyers; City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 21
Dear Mayor Brunner and City Council members,
I am writing on behalf of Save Our Big Trees to protest the omission of any reference to preserving heritage trees under the Objective Standards and Code changes presented in the staff report, which you will be considering at your meeting tomorrow evening.

At the beginning of the Objective Standards process, Save Our Big Trees presented language to Ms. Neuse that would protect as many heritage trees as possible as more and more large developments are approved under restrictions imposed by state law. We see no inclusion of any such language in the staff reports under consideration. The only reference is to the planting of street trees and In Lieu fees should such trees be removed or be unable to be planted.

As is well known, the majority of our heritage trees are not street trees but are trees on private property. As developments proceed, such trees are at high risk for being removed, especially as larger development footprints are approved. Replanting with saplings is no substitute for mature trees under climate change conditions.

On this basis alone, we ask that you table the item until due consideration is given to including Objective Standards to preserve heritage trees.

Overall, the item is confusing, is a huge document that reads more like a Code Revision rather than what was expected, which was a clear set of Objective Standards to allow the community to have some input into future developments.We have had only since last Thursday to review this final, complex document. The recommendation of removal of public hearings for most developments is truly alarming.

Along with other community groups and individuals, we ask you to vote to table this item for further review and public awareness. And specifically to incorporate language to protect our fast disappearing heritage trees.

Respectfully submitted,
Gillian
Gillian Greensite
Save Our Big Trees
.

21.1438

21.1439

21.1440

21.1441

21.1442

21.1443

21.1444
1 • AASHTO – American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials
• AB – Assembly Bill
• ac – Acre
• ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit
• ATP – Active Transportation Plan
• br – Bedroom
• C-B – Beach Commercial Zone District
• CC – City Council
• C-C – Community Commercial Zone District
• CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act
• C-N – Neighborhood Commercial Zone
District
• C-T – Thoroughfare Commercial Zone District
• Dev. – Development
• du – Dwelling Unit
• EIR – Environmental Impact Report
• FAR – Floor Area Ratio
• LCP – Local Coastal Program
• MF – Multifamily
• MU – Mixed-Use
• MU-H - Mixed-Use High Density Zone District
• MU-M - Mixed-Use Medium Density Zone District
• MU-OH - Mixed-Use Ocean High Density Zone District
• MU-OM - Mixed-Use Ocean Medium Density Zone District
• MUTCD – Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
• MU-VA - Mixed-Use Visitor Serving, Additional Heigh Zone District
• MU-VH - Mixed-Use Visitor Serving High Density Zone District • MXHD – Mixed-Use High Density General Plan Land Use
Designation
• MXMD – Mixed-Use Medium Density General Plan Land Use Designation
• MXVC – Mixed-Use Visitor Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation
• NACTO – National Association of City Transportation Officials List of Abbreviations

21.1445
2 • OSAP – Ocean Street Area Plan
• PA – Professional Administrative Office Zone District • PC – Planning Commission
• R-1-5 – Single Family Residential, 5,000sf minimum
lot area Zone District
• R-district – all Residential Zone Districts
• R-H – Residential – Multifamily High Density
• RHNA – Regional Housing Need Allocation
• R-L – Residential – Multifamily Low Density Zone
District
• R-M – Residential – Multifamily Medium Density
Zone District
• R-T(A) – Residential-Tourist, Subdistrict A Zone
District
• R-T(C) – Residential-Tourist, Subdistrict C Zone
District
• SB – Senate Bill
• SF – Single Family OR Square Foot
• SOI – Sphere of Influence
• Urban Planning Partners, Consulting Firm
• WELO – Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance
• ZA – Zoning Administrator
List of Abbreviations

21.1446
City Council Public Hearing, August 23, 2022
Objective
Development
Standards and Zoning
Updates

21.1447
2 1. Background

2. Design and Development Standards for Multifamily Housing

3. Development Review Process Amendments

4. Proposed Mixed-Use Zoning and other Zone District
Amendments

5. Planning Commission Recommendation

6. Public Works Standards for Public Realm

7. Street Tree Standards

8. Zoning Ordinance Updates

9. Environmental Review

10. Next Steps and Recommendation
Agenda

21.1448
Background
State Law Context, General Plan/Zoning discrepancy, Council Direction, Community Engagement timeline
3 21.1449
4 • Project initiated to:
• Comply with State Law for housing development review
• Reconcile existing mismatch between General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
 Do not alter land use pattern in 2030 General Plan
• Objective review to address subjective Design Permit Findings Background

21.1450
5 • October 22, 2019:
• move forward with establishing mixed-use zoning districts [and] objective design standards for housing … and embark on a very broad public outreach process.
• August 25, 2020:
• contract with UPP to create Objective Development Standards for Mixed-Use and Multifamily Housing
• invite the Planning Commission to outreach events and incorporate updates to the Planning Commission
Background - Council Direction

21.1451
6 • Housing Crisis Act and Housing Accountability Act (SB 330 and AB 3194)
• Must allow development of housing
• Standards must allow for planned residential capacity of a property (as allowed on 1/1/2018)
• Capacity of zoning or General Plan – whichever is greater • Subjective standards cannot be used to limit amount of housing • "...shall not...reduc[e] the intensity of land use..." • Reductions to height, density, Floor Area Ratio, lot coverage; OR • Increases to setbacks, open space or minimum parcel size Background - State Law Context

21.1452
• Meet State requirements for
objective standards (SB 35, 330, and
9)
• Support housing development
required by State law and General
Plan land uses
• Community prioritizes sustainability,
affordability, eclectic character, and
high-quality materials and details
• Focus on physical form and style of
development
Purpose
“Involve no personal or subjective
judgement by a public official and
are uniformly verifiable by
reference to an external and
uniform benchmark or criterion
available and knowable by both the
development applicant and public
official prior to submittal.”
Govt Code Section 65913.4(5)
Provide a set of clear, objective, and measurable standards for multifamily and mixed-use residential development that is consistent with the character of Santa Cruz while also ensuring that new housing development is economically feasible.

21.1453
Project Timeline
PC #1:

Test Fits
PC #2:

Test Fits CC #1 & PC #3:

Public Draft
PC #4, 5, 6:

Adoption Draft
CC #2

21.1454
Community Engagement Summary
Webinar:

Designing Santa Cruz
for All
Survey:

Defining Community
Character (800+ responses)
Focus Groups:

Students, Young Adults,
Low-Income Households,
Latinx/Chicanx
Community, Renters, East
Side residents Focus Group:

Housing
Developers
Web Survey:

Feedback on Standards
Staff
“Office
Hours”
Launch Event:

Public Review Draft
Project
Website,
101 Guide
Webinar:

Recording Posted
(Eng/Esp)
PC #1:

Engagement
Strategy
PC #2:

Test Fits
PC #3/CC #1:

Draft Standards
PC #4
Public Hearing
PC #5, #6:

Public Hearing

21.1455
Phase 1 - Designing a Santa Cruz for All
• English/Spanish options provided, with recording available • Identified need for project – state law context and California housing shortage
• Provided historic and current context for housing policies • Zoning and racial/economic segregation
• Rise of suburbs and single-family homes
• Link between housing and long-term health outcomes
• Recent bills to increase housing production and affordable units Background – Community Engagement

21.1456
• Multi-Family Housing planned
for Santa Cruz
• MXHD along Water and Soquel,
MXVC along Ocean, MXMD along
Ocean and Mission
• R-M and R-L zones throughout the
City
• State Law reduces discretion
• Equity and Social Justice
• Zoning seems neutral
• History shows disparate impact
Background – Local Context

21.1457

21.1458

21.1459
Background -
Eviction
Moratorium,
Mobile Home
protections, Fair
Housing Law,
Housing Vouchers
Affordability
Restrictions,
Inclusionary Policies,
Unit replacement, Unit
Legalization
Zoning, Permit
streamlining,
Density Bonus,
RHNA
• Availability and affordability of
housing
• Santa Cruz residents have all
income levels, all need housing
• California ranks 49th in housing
units per capita
• Housing production is one piece of
the answer
• Estimated 1.8 million units needed
by 2025
• Objective zoning will smooth
production of multi-family housing

21.1460
Phase 2 – Define and Measure Community Character
• Collect input to inform draft standards
• March 2021 – Community Character Survey
• July 2021 – Focus Groups (Students, Young Adults, Low-Income Households, Latinx/Chicanx Community, Renters, East Side residents)
• Key findings:
• Desire for corridors to have active ground floors
• Prefer architectural freedom and variety over uniform style • Priorities for apartments: security, sunlight, private open space • Support for affordability, livable housing stock, access to nature Background – Community Engagement

21.1461
For the larger buildings allowed on Water, Ocean, and Soquel, four (4) stories is the minimum height necessary for the City’s zoning code and General Plan to be consistent as required by State Law (according to test fits conducted by an urban design professional). For apartment buildings with a mix of market-rate and affordable units, what is the maximum height that you support on major commercial streets? Choose one. 27%
17%
22%
21%
13%
4 stories 5 stories 6 stories No maximum height Something else 16 21.1462
Most important for a new building on these streets to
include, even if they increase housing costs (choose 2) 146
232
211
250
184
183
145
None of these: the City shouldn’t ask for anything that makes housing more expensive
Ground floor shops or restaurants
More parking spaces
Architectural details (e.g., varied roof forms, bay windows) Community gathering spaces
High quality building materials (e.g., stone, wood, brick) Something else
17 21.1463
For the larger buildings allowed on Water, Ocean, and Soquel, four (4) stories is the minimum height necessary for the City’s zoning code and General Plan to be consistent as required by State Law (according to test fits conducted by an urban design professional). For apartment buildings with a mix of market-rate and affordable units, what is the maximum height that you support on major commercial streets? Choose one. 27%
17%
22%
21%
13%
4 stories 5 stories 6 stories No maximum height Something else 18 21.1464
Phase 3 – Shape and Refine Standards
• Collect feedback in response to the Public Review Draft • November 2021 – Developer Focus Group
• November 2021 – Virtual kickoff – Public Review Draft • November to December – Design Santa Cruz web platform, staff “office hours”
• Key findings:
• Mixed feedback on active uses vs. residential-only buildings in commercial districts
• Concern about development impacts on neighborhoods (e.g., massing/height, shadow, privacy)
• Community support for 'dark sky' lighting standards; neighborhood buffers; additional open space amenities
• Developer feedback supports more flexible active use standards, clearer massing standards, concern about private open space ratio Background – Community Engagement

21.1465
20 Design Standards for
Multifamily Housing
Test-fit Analysis, Overview of Proposed Standards, Response to Comments on Draft Standards

21.1466
Test Fits

21.1467
Methodology
• Tested “typical” site and one large site
in MXHD land use designation
• Based on market assumptions (unit
size and mix) and existing zoning
requirements
• Economic consultant analyzed
feasibility of development scenarios

21.1468
23 Findings
• Small sites are challenging
• Scenarios with greater height/FAR are more likely to develop because they can provide more units and have the same fixed costs (parking/land) • For larger sites, projects must be at least 4 stories to accommodate the allowed 2.75 FAR
• Mixed-use is more challenging than residential-only
• Retail requires much higher levels of parking than other uses • Retail doesn't generate much revenue compared to other uses • Project scenarios with higher density are most financially feasible (more developer interest in sites with 2.75 FAR, density bonus)

21.1469
Objective Design and
Development Standards

21.1470
Differentiation by District
• Neighborhoods are distinguished by
relationships of buildings to street, not
by specific architecture (e.g., street
width, lot size, and front and side
setbacks)
• Major corridors: more intense
development, height, active uses
• Residential neighborhoods: lower
intensity, smaller apartments,
landscaping
• Survey: Santa Cruz's style is eclectic
Word on the Street:
• On commercial corridors,
67 percent of respondents
preferred an eclectic
building look over a
uniform one.
•“Santa Cruz is about
uniqueness and being
different, like there’s
nothing that’s exactly the
same in Santa Cruz…”

21.1471
Document Organization
• Section 24.12.185(1) – General
• Section 24.12.185(2) – Definitions
• Sections 24.12.185(3) to (17) – Goals and Standards
Topic Area
Goal (the intent behind
the standard; basis for
findings, if required)
Standard

21.1472
Goals and Standards
3) Maximum Building Length
4) Walkability
5) New Public Connections
6) Public Frontages
7) Parking Location and Screening
8) Landscape and Buffering
9) Usable Open Space
10) Neighborhood Transition
11) Roof Form
12) Building Modulation
13) Corridor Frontage
14) Ground Floor Design
15) Architectural Detail
16) Building Materials
17) Lighting

21.1473
Parking Location and
Screening
• Goal: To minimize the visual impact of
parking
• Require that parking be wrapped by
habitable spaces facing sidewalks
• Surface parking must be buffered
by landscape

21.1474
Landscape and Buffering
• Goal: To enhance the urban forest, provide
shade, and soften the building massing
• In R-districts, require landscaping in the front
setback
• In commercial/mixed-use districts, require
projects to provide street trees and planted areas
along public frontages
• Require compliance with WELO standards
Word on the Street:
• Support for landscaping in front setbacks
• Community feedback that trees, landscaping
contribute to Santa Cruz’ character

21.1475
Neighborhood Transition
• Goal: To create a transition between new
development and existing
neighborhoods
• When adjacent to an R-district, require
upper stories to step back according a
45-degree “transition plane”
Word on the Street:
• Community members interested in exploring
daylight/transition plane
• Dev. professionals feel transition plane is easier
to interpret than previously proposed standard

21.1476
Roof Form
• Goal: To provide architectural
interest at the tops of buildings.

Require at least one change in roof
form for every 30 feet of building
frontage
Building Modulation
• Goal: To break up large building
faces.
• Provided three options for
designers to break up building faces
at varying intervals/depths
Roof Form & Building Modulation

21.1477
Ground Floor Design
• Goal: To design buildings to support walkability
and local businesses, while providing privacy
for residents.
• Greater transparency along commercial uses
• Require non-residential uses at the ground
floor in commercial districts
• Residential uses at the ground floor must be set
back or elevated from the sidewalk
Word on the Street:
• Focus groups prioritize neighborhood-serving
uses; commercial can be used to support local
businesses

21.1478
Building Materials
• Goal: To ensure that building materials are high-quality, durable, and reflect existing character. • Provided list of appropriate materials (unlisted
materials require design review permit)
• Prohibit vinyl windows on shorter buildings and public streets
• Standards for how “living walls*” and other materials should be applied (*incorporated in WELO updates)
Word on the Street:
• High-quality materials frequently mentioned in
survey free responses
• Planning Commission supports additional
standards on window material

21.1479
Lighting
• Goal: To ensure that public
areas are lit while minimizing
impacts of glare, light trespass,
and light pollution.
• Require lighting in pedestrianaccessible areas
• Incorporated Dark Sky standards
for light shielding
• Require lights to be set back,
hidden from nearby properties,
or below maximum height
• Emphasize lighting at building
entries vs. other building faces
Word on the Street:
• Several community members provided
suggestions to clarify and refine lighting
standards.
• “Good civic design should require that the
building entrance(s) should be the main
visual event”

21.1480
35 • Bird-Safe Building Design
• Apply to buildings near natural
areas
• Archaeology Report
Requirement
• Requires compliance with
report recommendations
• ADUs and Inclusionary
Housing
• ADUs cannot be inclusionary
units for primary res use (SF or
MF)
• MF property has an ADU
inclusionary standard with 5+
ADUs
• Definitions
• “Open Space, Useable” to
encourage retention of trees
• Added Volumetric Factory-built
housing
Other Development Standards

21.1481
Development Review Process
Integrating Objective Standards, Defining Uses
36 21.1482
37 • No change to:
• Community Outreach Policy (Notification, Community Meetings) • Public hearing requirements for:
 Commercial Development
 Density Bonus
• Changes to reflect state law limitations for housing
development
• Cannot deny or condition a project to reduce housing intensity • Must rely on objective standards for review
• No net loss of development capacity
Amendments to Development Review

21.1483
38 Current
• Community Outreach notice and
meetings
• Public Hearings for:
• Commercial Development
• Density Bonus
• Planned Development Permit
• Variance
• Coastal Permit
• Subdivisions
• Proximity to Slope
• Residential in Commercial zones
• Right of Appeal
• CEQA Review
Proposed
• Community Outreach notice and
meetings
• Public Hearings for:
• Commercial Development
• Density Bonus
• Planned Development Permit
• Variance
• Coastal Permit
• Subdivisions
• Proximity to Slope
• Alternative designs for Residential
• Right of Appeal
• CEQA Review
Public Input Maintained

21.1484
39 Current
• Administrative Review
• Fully Conforming rental
projects in the Multifamily
zones
• Design Permit Findings
Required
• Right to Appeal
• Subject to CEQA
Proposed
• Administrative Review
• Fully Conforming
rental Multifamily in all
zones
• Conformance Findings
Required
• Right to Appeal
• Subject to CEQA
Administrative Process expanded

21.1485
40 Proposed Process, Fully
Compliant proposals
• Design Permit required
• Administrative
• No Public Hearing
• Right of appeal
• Subject to CEQA
Proposed Process, Alternative
Design proposals
• Design Permit required
• Public Hearing Required
• Alternative Designs for

24.12.185 only
• Alternatives for 5 or fewer
standards: ZA hearing
• Alternatives for 6 or more
standards: PC hearing
• Right of appeal
• Subject to CEQA
Amendments to Development Review

21.1486
New Mixed-Use Zones
Implementing General Plan and Ocean Street Area Plan
42 21.1487
43 • Goal LU1: Sustainable Land Uses
• “..optimum utilization of infill parcels.”
• Goal LU2: A compact community with boundaries defined by the city’s greenbelt and Monterey Bay
• “Do not expand the city’s SOI or annex lands…”
• Goal LU3: A complementary balance of diverse land uses • “…land use patterns that…promote social diversity.”
• Goal LU4: Land use patterns that facilitate alternative transportation and/or minimize transportation demand
• “…transition to higher densities along the city’s…commercial corridors.” 2030 General Plan Land Use Pattern

21.1488
44 2030 General Plan Land Use Pattern

21.1489
45 • Require Uses for Active Frontage
• Support Mixed Use
• Allow 100% commercial development
• All Commercial uses based on existing C-C uses
• Most parcels currently zoned C-C
• Ocean Street zones encourage more commercial, visitorserving uses • Site Standards based on Adopted General Plan and Ocean Street Area Plan
• Heights determined by FAR in General Plan, stories in OSAP Mixed-Use Zone Districts

21.1490
46 • Located in clusters on Mission St.
• General Plan of MXMD
• Max FAR: 1.75
• Density for 2+br: 10-30 du/ac
• Height Max, Commercial
• 3 stories, 40 feet
• Height Max, Mixed Use
• 4 stories, 45 feet
Mixed Use Medium Density (MU-M)

21.1491
47 • Located in clusters on
Soquel/Branciforte/Water/
Morrissey
• General Plan of MXHD
• Max FAR: 2.75
• Density for 2+br: 10-55 du/ac
• Height Max, Commercial
• 4 stories, 50 feet
• Height Max, Mixed Use
• 5 stories, 55 feet
Mixed Use High Density (MU-H)

21.1492
48 • Located on Ocean St, May St, and Barson
St
• General Plan of MXMD
• Max FAR: 1.75
• Density for 2+br: 10-30 du/ac
• Height Max, Commercial
• 3 stories, 45 feet
• Height Max, Mixed Use
• 3 stories, 40 feet
• Height Min, All uses
• 1 story, 16 feet
Mixed Use Ocean Street Medium Density
(MU-OM)

21.1493
49 • Located on Ocean St and Broadway
• General Plan of MXMD
• Max FAR: 1.75
• Density for 2+br: 10-30 du/ac
• Height Max, Commercial
• 4 stories, 55 feet
• Height Max, Mixed Use
• 4 stories, 50 feet
• Height Min, All uses
• 2 story, 24 feet
Mixed Use Ocean Street High Density
(MU-OH)

21.1494
50 • Located on Ocean St, Water St, Soquel
Ave, and Riverside Ave
• General Plan of MXVC
• Max FAR: 2.75
• Density for 2+br: 0-55 du/ac
• Height Max, Commercial
• 4 stories, 55 feet
• Height Max, Mixed Use
• 4 stories, 50 feet
• Height Min, All uses
• 2 story, 24 feet
Mixed Use Visitor-Serving High Density
(MU-VH)

21.1495
51 • Located on Ocean St, Water St, Dakota
Ave, and Soquel Ave
• General Plan of MXVC
• Max FAR: 2.75
• Density for 2+br: 0-55 du/ac
• Height Max, Commercial
• 6 stories, 75 feet
• Height Max, Mixed Use
• 6 stories, 70 feet
• Height Min, All uses
• 3 story, 40 feet
Mixed Use Visitor-Serving Additional
Height (MU-VA)

21.1496
52 Mixed-Use Zone Districts

MU-M MU-H MU-OM MU-OH MU-VH MU-VA
Height Max, Commercial 3 & 40 4 & 50 3 & 45 4 & 55 4 & 55 6 & 75 Height Max, Mixed Use 4 & 45 5 & 55 3 & 40 4 & 50 4 & 50 6 & 70 Height Minimum (stories
& feet) N/A N/A 1 & 16 2 & 24 2 & 24 3 & 40
FAR from General Plan 1.75 2.75 1.75 1.75 2.75 2.75
Setbacks
Front 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rear 15 20 10 10 15 20
Side 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max Density (2+ Br
Units)* 30 du/ac 55 du/ac 30 du/ac 30 du/ac 55 du/ac 55 du/ac *Density from General Plan, reflected in proposed zoning ordinance

21.1497
53 Mixed Use Zone Districts: Rezonings
Findings
• The public necessity , and the
general community welfare,
and good zoning practice shall
be served and furthered; and
• The proposed amendment is
in general conformance with
the principles, policies, and
land use designations set forth
in the General Plan, LCP, and
any area or specific plan

21.1498
54 Residential Zone Amendments
Residential Zones
• Change to calculation of
side-yard setbacks
• Allows for articulation and
more floor area on lower
floors
• In R-H zone
• Deleting standards that
conflict with the proposed
standards
• Wireless Update
Beach Residential Zones
• Residential uses made
Principally Permitted in all
cases
• No distinction based on
project size
• Site Standards/densities
unchanged
• Commercial uses
unchanged
• Wireless Update

21.1499
55 C-T, C-N, C-B, P-A
• Active Uses required
• Mixed-Use Principally
Permitted
• Stand-alone Res limited
• Density for res units either
R-M or R-L (current
condition)
• Wireless Update

C-C, R-T(C)
• Active Uses encouraged
• SROs allowed as stand-alone
projects (current condition)
• FDUs: MU in R-T(C), stand alone
in C-C
• Typical units allowed either
• Mixed Use: no density in C-C/RT(A) density in R-T(C) (current condition); OR
• Stand-alone Res: Live-Work
ground floor at R-M/R-T(A)
density (current density)
• Wireless Update
Commercial Zone Amendments

21.1500
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Support Staff Recommendation, Recommend further Inclusionary standards
56 21.1501
57 Design Standards
• Approve Staff
Recommendation
• Prohibit Vinyl Windows on
street-facing building faces
• Require Bus Passes for
projects of 50+ units
• Increase Inclusionary for
projects of 50+ and 100+
units
New Mixed-Use Zones and Process
• Approve Staff
Recommendation
• Increase inclusionary
requirements for Density
Bonus Projects
Planning Commission Recommendation

21.1502
58 • Vinyl Windows
• Vinyl windows are not permitted on building faces oriented toward streets, other than alleys, for buildings up to three stories in height. • Vinyl windows are not permitted on any building face of buildings over three stories in height.
• Bus Passes
• Recommend considering with Climate Action Plan in September • Inclusionary increases
• Unstudied and untested
• Could chill development of all housing,
 Fewer affordable and market-rate units
• Failure to meet RHNA obligation means more SB 35 development • Concerns over certifying 6th Cycle Housing Element
Planning Commission Recommendation

21.1503
Public Works Standards for
Public Realm
Loading Spaces, Underground Utilities, Sidewalks and Public Realm 59 21.1504
60 a.Loading
a. Use: Warehouse or
similar/Office/Residential
with SF thresholds
b. Type A (8’x24’) and
Type B (10’x30’)
c. Refuse Enclosures (3+ units)
b.Underground Utilities
a. “Dark Conduit” for future use
Public Works Standards (Titles 6, 12, 15)
c. Public Realm/Sidewalks*
a. Transportation Study (TS)
b. Traffic Control Devices
Install per TS, City ATP, Area Plans,
MUTCD, NACTO, and AASHTO
c. ADA Bus
Stop 5+ units
and >10,000 SF of
commercial/office
d. Streetlights
3+ units or commercial
e. Corridors/Sidewalks Widths
Area Plans and 8-foot minimum
*Additional Objective Standards around off-street parking and multi-modal facilities to be developed as part of a future Curb Management Policy

21.1505
Street Tree Standards
Requirements for planting, updates to maintenance standards, 61 21.1506
Sidebar: Street Tree Master Plan
• Approved by Council in April
2021
• Goals and Actions:
• Emphasize incorporating trees
in development and
redevelopment projects
• Explore revising the Municipal
Code to promote the protection
of community trees
• Evaluate larger in-lieu fees for
mitigation

21.1507
• Section 24.12.186
• Whenever development or redevelopment triggers 7’ or greater sidewalk, street trees are required and must be permanently maintained
• 1 tree for each 30’ of street frontage
• Existing trees count and are subject to protections of Chapters

13.30 and 9.56
• Criteria to avoid utility infrastructure, existing trees, and traffic safety issues
• Where trees cannot be planted as street trees, may be located elsewhere on property at ratio of 1.5:1
Zoning code amendments
to require street trees in development projects

21.1508
• Chapter 13.30
• Add objective standards for the planting of street trees • Require that planting and care of street trees follow industry standards
• Clarifying changes to title, purpose, definitions, duties, procedures
• Recommended for adoption by Parks & Recreation
Commission on June 13, 2022
Tree Ordinance updates
to improve street tree planting and maintenance

21.1509
• In circumstances where a street tree is permitted for removal and replacement is not feasible
• Proposed fees based on costs to purchase, install, water for two years, and perform initial structural pruning on a replacement tree  $1,510 for trees <= 7” diameter
 $1,705 for trees > 7” diameter
• Other California municipalities surveyed charge tree in-lieu fees ranging from $267 to over $3,500
• In-lieu fee payments would fund tree planting and maintenance throughout the City
• Recommended for adoption by the Parks & Recreation
Commission on August 8, 2022
Resolution for in-lieu fee for street tree replacement

21.1510
Zoning Updates
State Law changes, Fences, Accessory structures
66 21.1511
67 • Provide internal consistency
• Improve development processes
• Make consistent with State law
• Update standards and regulations
• Minor revisions for clarification, ease of use
• Improve the ordinance to better meet the needs of the City’s residents
Why update?

21.1512
68 • Removal of Conditional Driveway Permit remnants
• Use Determination – consistent across zone districts
• Update list of Use Permits that don’t require public
hearings
• Update Decision-Making Body table
Consistency Amendments

21.1513
69 • No public hearing for “Low Risk Alcohol Permit”
• Clarify no 1-per-5-years limit for minor modifications that don’t increase intensity
• Revise fence standards so fewer projects require
Conditional Fence Permits
Process Amendments

21.1514
70 • Large family daycare homes allowed by right in residential units
• Replacement, demolition, and relocation assistance –
maintain City standards where more strict, reference State standards for other requirements
State Law Conformance Amendments

21.1515
71 Fence height:
• Change from 6 feet to 8 feet for
interior side and rear fences;
• Over 6 feet must be 50% open
• Setback for 6-foot tall exterior side
yard fence:
• 3-foot setback for exterior side
• District standard/align with building for
front (20’ for R-1-5)
Updates to Standards: Fences

21.1516
72 Accessory Buildings and Structures:
• Add back Accessory Structures
• Allowed structures <8 feet tall in front and exterior side yards, outside of clear corner triangle and 90%
visually permeable
• Children’s play equipment < 50 square feet in area and < 14 feet tall exempt
 3-foot front setback and visual safety requirements
Updates to Standards: Accessory Buildings

21.1517
73 • Remove references to Redevelopment Agency
• Revise “Downtown Recovery Plan” to “Downtown Plan”
• Allow projections into “required setbacks” rather than “conforming interior side yards”
• Include Planning Director as initiator of Zoning Map and Municipal Code text amendments
• Add definitions to Flexible Density Units
• Clarify method of determining building height
• Update definition of Family Daycare Homes
Other Revisions

21.1518
Environmental Review
CEQA for all components
74 21.1519
75 • Objective Design and Development Standards, Rezonings, Public Works standards and Street Trees:
• Implement the General Plan, studied in the EIR for the General Plan • Under Section 15183 of CEQA Guidelines, no further environmental review is required.
• Zoning Ordinance Updates
• Exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3)
Environmental Review

21.1520
Conclusion
Next Steps and Staff Recommendation
76 21.1521
77 • Objective Standards project and the former Corridors Plan • Changes in State law since Corridors Plan
• Zoning amendments reflect the General Plan to provide more transparency and certainty for all, and ensure better design and materials
• Community Design
• City has limited ability to improve the design of projects, few objective standards currently address design
• The objective standards offer the City the opportunity to retain control over design elements • Development Review Process
• Community Outreach Policy intact
• Coastal Permits, Tentative Maps, Planned Development Permits, Use Permits, Variances, Density Bonus requests, or any other proposed variations from the objective standards would all require a public hearing
• CEQA and appeal process intact
Key Points

21.1522
78 • First Reading
• Second Reading at next available meeting
• LCP Ordinance takes effect outside Coastal Zone 30 days later • Non-LCP ordinance takes effect Citywide 30 days later • Submit Coastal Commission for review
• Begin implementation in October
• Create implementation tools for staff and applicants
• OSAP amendment and rezoning of additional property
• General Plan Text Amendment
• Check in with any changes needed (1-2 years)
Next Steps

21.1523
79 RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Introduce for publication an ordinance making the amendments to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, as presented in the attached documents, for code sections not included in the Local Coastal Program or Implementation Plan; and
2) Introduce for publication an ordinance making the amendments to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, as presented in the attached documents, for code sections that are included in the Local Coastal Program or Implementation Plan; and
3) Introduce for publication an ordinance making the proposed amendments to the zoning map, as stated in the ordinance and as shown in the associated map exhibit; and 4) Adopt the resolution establishing a new in lieu fee requirement for street tree removals.

Staff Recommendation

21.1524
80 Questions

21.1525

Santa Cruz City CouncilAugust 23, 2022

Santa Cruz City Council
August 23, 2022