Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, November 15, 2022 (part 5 of 5)

d. All new pedestrian or bicycle connections not including required street-side improvements such as sidewalks and on-street bike lanes shall be at least 10 feet wide and a minimum of 80 percent open to the sky. Standards for public or private streets shall be met as required by Department of Public Works design guidelines. e. Development or redevelopment proposals on properties with street frontage shall be required to install new or improve existing sidewalks in accordance with the requirements of any Area Plan, the requirements of Section 24.12.185.14 Ground Floor Design, and the requirements for sidewalk widths as defined in chapter 15.20, as applicable. Where any inconsistency between standards exists, the wider sidewalk standard shall apply.

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

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

24.12 and Chapter 15.20. In all cases, where any inconsistency is present, the required sidewalk width shall be the widest standard applicable.

40.462

Page 115 ends

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

1. Food and Beverage Stores, Medical/Health Offices

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

7. Parking Location and Screening
Goal: To minimize the visual impact of parked cars from sidewalks and streets. a. Off street parking and loading facilities, including bike parking requirements, shall be provided as required in Section 24.12.200 et seq.
b. For projects including five or more dwelling units, parking shall not be located in the area between the front lot line and a line extended horizontally from the plane of the predominant building face to the edges of the lot. See Figure 5.

Figure 5: Parking Location

40.463

Page 116 ends

c. Residential parking for projects including five or more dwelling units shall be screened from view in the following ways:
i. Podium parking facing a public frontage shall be wrapped with Uses for Active Frontage as allowed in the applicable zone district or residential uses on all levels facing a public frontage to a depth of at least 18 feet average, measured on each level perpendicular from the predominant building face. (Also see Sections 24.12.185.13 Corridor Frontage and .14 Ground Floor Design.)
ii. Tuck-under parking shall be entirely contained within the building and screened by garage doors. Where it faces a public frontage and is setback less than 15 feet from the public right of way, tuck-under parking shall be wrapped with active or residential uses to a depth of at least 18 feet average, measured perpendicular from the predominant building face. See Figure 6. (Also see Sections 24.12.185.13 Corridor Frontage and .14 Ground Floor Design.)
Figure 6: Tuck-Under Parking Screening
d. The entire perimeter of a surface parking area that fronts onto a side or rear yard, except the width of the access, shall be screened by buildings, evergreen buffer landscaping to a minimum depth of 3 feet, or fences that are at least 75 percent opaque. Fences or hedges shall not be greater than, nor allowed to exceed 8 feet in height on an interior side yard or rear yard, or 3.5 feet in height in a front or exterior side yard. (Also see Section

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

8. Landscape and Buffering

40.464

Page 117 ends

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

In R-districts and in the R-T (A), R-T(B), R-T(D) and R-T(E) districts, the goal of landscape is also to soften the massing of buildings as they front the street. In commercial and mixed-use districts, the goal is also to create a landscaped edge to sidewalks and encourage the incorporation of terraces and balconies for usable outdoor space (livability), architectural interest (modulation), and access to outdoor space for public health and passive cooling (resilience). a. In all R-districts and in the R-T (A), R-T(B), R-T(D) and R-T(E) districts:
i. All open spaces in the front setback (excluding areas for driveways and sidewalks), shall be at least 75 percent landscape (planted materials) that are selected to comply with WELO standards as found in Chapter 16.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code that are current at the time of design review. The selected planted materials shall be WELO compliant even when the formal requirements of the WELO do not apply to the project.
ii. Selected plant species for the site shall incorporate a mix of trees, shrubs, and ground cover.
iii. Turf areas shall include no more than 25 percent of the total irrigated area on the site. b. In the C-C, R-T(C), C-T, C-N, C-B, PA and all MU zones :
i. All public frontages shall incorporate 12 square feet of planted area for each 30 linear feet of building frontage counted by rounding up to the next increment of planted area. For example, a building with a 31-foot building frontage would incorporate a minimum of 24 square feet of landscaped area (two increments of 12 square feet). ii. This may be provided in small, individual pockets of planting, or in larger planted areas, and must occur within the property line. This standard applies regardless of ground floor use.
iii. A landscaped buffer of at least 5 feet in depth and the length of the property line shall be provided at the rear property line on sites that are 100 feet or greater in depth and abut a residentially zoned parcel at the rear property line . iv. Plants shall be selected to comply with WELO standards found in Chapter 16.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code that are current at the time of design review. v. Street Trees shall be planted in the public right of way, or within 5 feet of the public right of way, at a rate of 1 tree per each 30 feet of site frontage. Spacing of trees shall be sufficient to accommodate the mature canopy of each specimen, and installation shall be in compliance with the planting requirements of the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments, including the Street Tree Master Plan, and the requirements of Municipal Code Sections 13.30,15.20, and 24.12.186 as applicable at the time of design review.
vi. Any plantings or landscaping materials within surface parking areas are required to comply with the City’s Low-Impact Development (LID) standards, Storm Water Best Management Practices, and Storm Water Management Program. c. Refuse/Recycling Storage Facility: Enclosures for refuse bins or dumpsters are required of all new multi-family and mixed-use residential projects with three or more housing units or any commercial development as set forth in the City of Santa Cruz Department of Public Works Refuse Container Storage Facility Standard Design Policy.

40.465

Page 118 ends

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

1. Fixed or movable seating

2. Picnic-style tables

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

4. Community garden

5. Flowering plants

6. Native habitat

7. Play area for pets

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

9. Outdoor kitchen equipment or fire pit

10. Children’s play equipment

11. Sports courts

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

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

40.466

Page 119 ends

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

Figure 7: Neighborhood Transition Plane
ii. Private or shared balconies and decks shall not extend into an underlying setback. iii. The occupiable area of roof decks, including any deck on roof area falling under the neighborhood transition plane, shall be set back at least 3 feet from the building edge and any railings, shade structures, or accessory structures shall not intersect the required neighborhood transition plane. Rooftop lighting shall also comply with Lighting requirements of Section 24.12.185.17.

11. Roof Form
Goal: To ensure that the tops of buildings are designed with architectural interest, and to reduce the bulk of buildings as they meet the sky.
a. Buildings shall be designed with variation in roof form. The number of required roof forms shall be calculated at a ratio of at least one roof form for every 30 feet of frontage and shall be located within 15 feet of the predominant building face on all building frontages. On Corner lots or double-frontage lots, standards for variation in roof form will apply to all frontages. See Figure 8.
i. Roof form is defined as a geometric plane or set of planes which form the top enclosure of a volumetric area below it/them. Common types of roof forms are gabled, hipped, sloped, flat, and flat with a decorative parapet. Examples of roof forms are illustrated in Figure 9.

40.467

Page 120 ends

ii. A change in roof form must be combined with a change in height of at least 3 feet, a horizontal change in plane of at least 4 feet, or a change in roof pitch. See Figure 7 for examples. Changes in roof form shall not exceed allowed building heights, as defined by the underlying zone district.
iii. Smaller roof forms that cover enclosed space (such as dormers and bay windows) count as individual roof forms if they are at least 36 square feet in horizontal surface area. Bay windows located on a wall below another roof form will not count as individual roof forms regardless of size.
iv. Unenclosed space (such balconies, terraces, porticos, and belfries) count as individual roof forms if they are at least 48 square feet in horizontal area. Balconies should also conform to the standards for Useable Open Space in Section 24.12.185.8. v. For the purposes of calculating the number of required roof forms on a building, each increment of 30 feet of building frontage requires an additional roof form, counted by rounding up to the next whole number. For example, a frontage of 31 feet would be required to provide two roof forms. However, there is no maximum dimension for any one roof form, nor are roofs required to be designed in 30-foot increments.

Figure 8: Applying Roofline Standards
Figure 9: Roof Forms

40.468

Page 121 ends

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

Another example is a flat roof on a building that has two bay windows with flat roofs, each at least 36 square feet in area. See Figure 6 for examples. v. For flat roofs and flat roofs with decorative parapets, changes in roofline must be accompanied by a minimum 2-foot change in height relative to the adjacent roof form. For buildings that are three stories or taller, the minimum change in height shall be 3 feet. This change in height shall be measured to the top of the parapet, where present. Changes in roof form shall not exceed allowed building heights, as defined by the underlying zone district.

40.469

Page 122 ends

Figure 10: Combining and Counting Roof Forms

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

40.470

Page 123 ends

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

40.471

Page 124 ends

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

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

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

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

Figure 14: Corridor Frontage

40.472

Page 125 ends

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

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

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

40.473

Page 126 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 16: Ground Floor Residential – Without Individual Access

40.474

Page 127 ends

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

40.475

Page 128 ends

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

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

24.12.185.10 Neighborhood Transition).

40.476

Page 129 ends

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

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

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

40.477

Page 130 ends

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

Figure 19: Material Application

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

40.478

Page 131 ends

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

Section 46. Section 24.12.186 – Requirements for Street Trees of Part 2: General Site Design Standards of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:

24.12.186 REQUIREMENTS FOR STREET TREES.

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

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

40.479

Page 132 ends

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

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

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

Section 47. Section 24.12.192 – Outdoor Extension Areas of Part 2: General Site Design Standards of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.192 OUTDOOR EXTENSION AREAS.

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

40.480

Page 133 ends

Section 48. Section 24.12.240 – Number of Parking Spaces Required of Part 3: Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.240 NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED.

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

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

40.481

Page 134 ends

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

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

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

40.482

Page 135 ends

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

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

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

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

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

40.483

Page 136 ends

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

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

40.484

Page 137 ends

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

40.485

Page 138 ends

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

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

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

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

Section 49. Section 24.12.280 – Design Requirements of Part 3: Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.280 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.

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

40.486

Page 139 ends

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

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

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

40.487

Page 140 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40.488

Page 141 ends

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

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

Section 50. Section 24.12.295 – Off-Street Loading Facilities of Part 3: Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.295 OFF-STREET LOADING FACILITIES.

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

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

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

40.489

Page 142 ends

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

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

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

40.490

Page 143 ends

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

Section 51. Section 24.12.430 – Protection of Archaeological Resources of Part 5: Historic Preservation of Chapter 24.12 – Community Design of Title 24 – Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

24.12.430 PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

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

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

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

40.491

Page 144 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

40.492

Page 145 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Section 52. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after final adoption for areas of the City outside the Coastal Zone and shall take effect and be in full force upon certification by the California Coastal Commission for areas of the City located within the Coastal Zone.

40.493
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING CHAPTER 24.20 – ZONING MAP OF THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE, INSIDE

THE COASTAL ZONE
WHEREAS the City of Santa Cruz adopted the 2030 General Plan in June 2012 in order to ensure that the City could achieve its vision of becoming a compact and vibrant city that preserves the diversity and quality of its natural and built environments, creates a satisfying quality of life for its diverse population and workers, and attracts visitors from around the world; and WHEREAS the 2030 General Plan calls for the creation of new Mixed Use areas to support Santa Cruz residents to live and work within close proximity, and to support transportation options; and
WHEREAS the existing zoning map does not include appropriate zone districts to achieve the vision of the 2030 General Plan; and
WHEREAS the parcels proposed for rezoning are those same parcels that have been identified and available for mixed-use development since the adoption of the 2030 General Plan in June 2012, and state law has changed such that residential development at the capacity anticipated by the General Plan is allowed, even if the Zoning for a parcel would not accommodate that residential development; and
WHEREAS the 2030 General Plan was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report approved by the City Council in June 2012, including the planned mixed-use development on the parcels proposed for rezoning, and the environmental effects of the subject rezonings were studied, disclosed, and mitigated through said 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS the City Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on June 30th, 2022 and continued final action to their regular meeting on July 21, 2022, and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map as proposed; and WHEREAS at the public hearing on July 21, 2022, the Planning Commission found that the proposed amendments to the zoning map serve and further the public necessity, the general community welfare, and good zoning practice; and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies, and land use designations set forth in the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and any adopted area or specific plan; and WHEREAS this action represents an amendment to the City’s Local Coastal Program / Implementation Plan and is subject to approval by the California Coastal Commission before taking effect in the Coastal Zone.

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

40.494
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT the amended zoning map shall take effect upon final action by the California Coastal Commission on this Ordinance.

PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 15th day of November, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

40.495
Proposed Amendments to Zoning Map, Coastal Parcels November 15, 2022 APN Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Site Address Coastal Zone? 003-052-08 RL MU-M 850 ALMAR AVE Yes
003-052-09 RL MU-M Yes
003-052-10 RL MU-M 840 ALMAR AVE METER Yes
007-403-19 CN MU-OM 311 OCEAN ST 10 Yes
007-403-20 CN MU-OM 305 OCEAN ST Yes
007-403-21 CN MU-OM 307 OCEAN ST Yes
007-403-22 CN MU-OM 425 BARSON ST Yes
007-403-23 CN MU-OM 427 BARSON ST Yes
007-431-01 CN MU-OM 434 BARSON ST Yes
010-165-18 CN MU-OM 236 OCEAN ST Yes
010-551-23 RL MU-OM 509 BARSON ST Yes
010-551-24 CN MU-OM 304 OCEAN ST Yes
010-551-25 CN MU-OM 308 OCEAN ST Yes
010-551-10 RM/RL MU-OH 330 OCEAN ST Yes
Exhibit A

40.496
SOQUEL
OCEAN
BAY
KING

MISSION
3RD
FRONT

PACIFIC
WALNUT
2ND
CENTER
CLIFF
BEACH
CEDAR
OCEAN

ESCALONA
SOQUEL
OTIS

GHARKEY

CHESTNUT
ALMAR

CALIFORNIA
ELM

LINCOLN
MAIN

LAURENT
OLIVE

DU FOUR
MYRTLE
BARSON
PALM
WALK

BROADWAY

DELAWARE

SANTA CRUZ

SEASIDE

TRESCONY
RANKIN
DUFOUR
1ST
PARK

COLUMBIA
FAIR

WASHINGTON

ANTHONY
CHURCH
CLAY
DAKOTA

NATIONAL

LEIBRANDT

BALDWIN

MUNICIPAL WHARF

OCEAN VIEW
PEARL

BELLEVUE
FELIX

YOUNGLOVE

LIBERTY
LAUREL
ANITA
ALLEY
BIXBY

KENNETH
RIGG
MAJORS

CLEVELAND

MONTEREY

SURFSIDE
SPRUCE
UNION

LIGHTHOUSE
MAY
MASON
WAVE
WILKES
MILES

VAN NESS

BERKSHIRE

CONTINENTAL
RINCON
LOCUST

CENTENNIAL
NAGLEE
ROSE
LENNOX
WEEKS
JENNE
KAYE

SHERMAN
ACADIA
PEYTON
RIVER

INGALLS

BLACKBURN
HEBARD
WALTI
NEW
JESSIE

BRANCIFORTE

PALMETTA

MIRAMAR

RIVERSIDE

MOORE DIMOND

AVERITT
TOLEDO

CATHCART
KIRBY

CANFIELD
STATE
DODERO
TOWNE
SPRING
BIRCH

HOLLYWOOD

DRIVEWAY
GREEN

ANDERSON
TAYLOR
NEARY

REDWOOD

TRINITY

YOUNGER
STOREY
PLAZA
SADI
COWELL
GLOVER

EASTERBY

SAN LORENZO

CHRYSTAL
ERRETT

CHESTNUT ST EXT

UNNAMED

EVERSON

ROOSEVELT

SYCAMORE
UHDEN

COMMERCE

VIADUCT

FAIRBANKS

FRAZIER LEWIS
ALLEY
RIGG
ALLEY
ALLEY
LAUREL

DRIVEWAY
ALLEY
LOCUST

UNNAMED
PALM

RIVERSIDE
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
JESSIE
ALLEY

UNNAMED

LAURENT

DRIVEWAY

CALIFORNIA
ALLEY

DRIVEWAY
WALK
ALLEY

SEASIDE
ALLEY

UNNAMED
CLIFF
CLIFF

CHESTNUT
ALLEY
ALLEY

UNNAMED

CHESTNUT

VAN NESS
OLIVE
ALLEY
ALLEY

DRIVEWAY
PEYTON
ALLEY
ALLEY

DRIVEWAY
ALLEY
LAUREL
Coastal Parcels proposed for Rezoning
MU-OH_Coastal
MU-OM_Coastal
MU-M_Coastal
Coastal Zone
City of Santa Cruz November 2022
Exhibit B

40.497
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING CHAPTER 24.20 – ZONING MAP OF THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE, OUTSIDE

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

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT the amended zoning map shall take effect 30 days after the final adoption of this Ordinance.

40.498
PASSED FOR PUBLICATION this 15th day of November, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

40.499
Proposed Amendments to Zoning Map, Non-Coastal Parcels November 15, 2022 APN Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Address
002-223-31 CC MU-M 2012 MISSION ST
002-223-32 CC MU-M 2018 MISSION ST
002-223-33 CC MU-M 2002 MISSION ST
002-223-34 CC MU-M 2006 MISSION ST
002-223-35 CC MU-M 2120 MISSION ST
002-223-36 CC MU-M 2114 MISSION ST
002-223-37 CC MU-M 2106 MISSION ST
002-235-09 CC MU-M 1612 MISSION ST
002-235-10 CC MU-M 1616 MISSION ST
002-235-18 CC MU-M 1618 MISSION ST
002-235-20 CC MU-M 1604 MISSION ST
002-235-21 CC MU-M 1610 MISSION ST
002-235-22 CC MU-M 1640 MISSION ST
002-622-19 CC MU-M 1700 MISSION ST
002-622-20 CC MU-M 115 OLIVE ST
003-051-33 IGP2/CC MU-M 2111 MISSION ST
003-051-34 CC MU-M 2113 MISSION ST
003-051-35 IGP2/CC MU-M 841 ALMAR AVE
004-011-36 CC/R-1-5 MU-M 1221 MISSION ST
004-011-37 CC MU-M 1211 MISSION ST
004-011-38 CC MU-M 1203 MISSION ST
004-011-39 CC MU-M 1215 MISSION ST 1
004-012-45 CC MU-M 1301 MISSION ST
004-043-23 CC MU-M 1509 MISSION ST A
004-043-24 CC MU-M 1507 MISSION ST B
004-043-25 CC MU-M 1501 MISSION ST
004-043-26 CC MU-M 1244 BAY ST
004-043-28 CC MU-M 1521 MISSION ST
004-043-29 CC MU-M 1515 MISSION ST
004-043-30 R-1-5 MU-M 1242 BAY ST
004-431-01 CC MU-M 930 ALMAR AVE
004-431-02 CC MU-M 343 YOUNGLOVE AVE
004-432-01 CC MU-M 350 YOUNGLOVE AVE
004-432-03 CC MU-M 2003 MISSION ST
004-432-28 CC MU-M 2015 MISSION ST
004-441-22 CC MU-M 1709 MISSION ST
004-441-23 CC MU-M 1701 MISSION ST
004-441-25 CC MU-M 1725 MISSION ST
006-181-33 CC MU-M 309 TRESCONY ST
006-181-75 CC MU-M 1508 MISSION ST
006-181-89 CC MU-M 1500 MISSION ST
006-181-90 CC MU-M 1520 MISSION ST
006-192-12 CC MU-M 1228 MISSION ST
006-192-14 CC MU-M 1232 MISSION ST A
006-192-24 CC MU-M 1220 MISSION ST
006-192-25 CC MU-M 1230 MISSION ST
Exhibit A

40.500
Proposed Amendments to Zoning Map, Non-Coastal Parcels November 15, 2022 006-192-26 CC MU-M 1212 MISSION ST
006-192-27 CC MU-M 1204 MISSION ST
006-193-20 CC MU-M 1310 MISSION ST
006-193-56 CC MU-M 1306 MISSION ST
006-203-24 CC MU-M 1132 MISSION ST
006-203-25 CC MU-M 1130 MISSION ST
006-493-27 CC MU-M 1129 MISSION ST
011-261-13 CC MU-H 1261 SOQUEL AVE
011-012-25 CC MU-H 1250 SOQUEL AVE
011-025-09 CC MU-H 728 DARWIN ST
011-025-01 CC MU-H 147 S MORRISSEY AVE
009-234-61 CC MU-H 908 N BRANCIFORTE AVE
009-234-26 CC MU-H 911 WATER ST
009-234-27 CC MU-H 905 WATER ST
009-253-10 CC MU-H 1305 WATER ST
009-253-09 CC MU-H 1315 WATER ST
010-062-16 CC MU-H 730 SOQUEL AVE
010-022-25 CC MU-H 715 SOQUEL AVE
010-022-37 CC MU-H 728 N BRANCIFORTE AVE A
010-022-23 CC MU-H 725 SOQUEL AVE
010-561-30 CC MU-H 550 OCEAN VIEW AVE
010-561-04 CC MU-H
010-561-01 CC MU-H 566 OCEAN VIEW AVE
010-561-02 CC MU-H 610 SOQUEL AVE
010-561-03 CC MU-H 622 SOQUEL AVE
010-062-18 CC MU-H 614 S BRANCIFORTE AVE
010-062-17 CC MU-H 710 SOQUEL AVE
010-062-10 CC MU-H 712 SOQUEL AVE
010-062-15 CC MU-H 519 CALEDONIA ST
010-062-11 CC MU-H 716 SOQUEL AVE
010-062-12 CC MU-H 718 SOQUEL AVE
010-012-06 CC MU-H 707 N BRANCIFORTE AVE
010-072-01 CC MU-H 1002 SOQUEL AVE
010-072-75 CC MU-H 1006 SOQUEL AVE
010-072-03 CC MU-H 1016 SOQUEL AVE
010-022-15 CC MU-H 927 SOQUEL AVE
010-022-14 CC MU-H 1007 SOQUEL AVE
010-022-13 CC MU-H 1001 SOQUEL AVE
010-081-10 CC MU-H 1609 SEABRIGHT AVE
010-081-01 CC MU-H 1100 SOQUEL AVE
010-022-12 CC MU-H 117 DOYLE ST
010-081-02 CC MU-H 1114 1/2 SOQUEL AVE
010-022-11 CC MU-H 119 DOYLE ST
010-081-03 CC MU-H 1116 SOQUEL AVE
010-081-04 CC MU-H 1120 SOQUEL AVE
010-081-30 CC MU-H 1126 SOQUEL AVE
010-041-08 CC MU-H 101 BENITO AVE
Exhibit A

40.501
Proposed Amendments to Zoning Map, Non-Coastal Parcels November 15, 2022 010-081-31 CC MU-H 1130 SOQUEL AVE
010-081-07 CC MU-H 1134 SOQUEL AVE
010-041-09 CC MU-H 100 DOYLE ST
010-081-08 CC MU-H 1142 SOQUEL AVE
010-041-10 CC MU-H 118 DOYLE ST
010-042-18 CC MU-H 1115 SOQUEL AVE
010-081-09 CC MU-H 1148 SOQUEL AVE
010-042-19 CC MU-H 1111 SOQUEL AVE
010-042-35 CC MU-H 1127 1/2 A SOQUEL AVE
010-042-21 CC MU-H 122 BENITO AVE
010-042-34 CC MU-H
010-042-38 CC MU-H 196 1/2 BENITO AVE
010-042-37 CC MU-H 1119 SOQUEL AVE
010-042-36 CC MU-H 1123 SOQUEL AVE
010-042-15 CC MU-H 1129 SOQUEL AVE
010-042-14 CC MU-H 1141 SOQUEL AVE
010-042-13 CC MU-H 1709 SEABRIGHT AVE
010-042-12 CC MU-H 1713 SEABRIGHT AVE A
010-042-11 CC MU-H 1717 SEABRIGHT AVE 1
011-291-11 CC MU-H 1226 SOQUEL AVE A
011-012-30 CC MU-H 1236 SOQUEL AVE
011-261-15 CC MU-H 1219 SOQUEL AVE
011-261-11 CC MU-H 1126 WATER ST
011-261-08 CC MU-H 1207 SOQUEL AVE
011-261-07 CC MU-H 1716 SEABRIGHT AVE
011-261-12 CC MU-H 1237 SOQUEL AVE
011-025-14 CC MU-H 1302 SOQUEL AVE
009-212-31 CC MU-H 825 WATER ST
009-234-60 CC MU-H 919 WATER ST
009-212-30 CC MU-H 833 WATER ST
009-234-62 CC MU-H 914 N BRANCIFORTE AVE
009-253-25 CC MU-H 117 MORRISSEY BLVD
010-561-06 RL MU-H 603 S BRANCIFORTE AVE
010-561-05 RL MU-H 607 S BRANCIFORTE AVE
010-062-05 RL MU-H 604 S BRANCIFORTE AVE
010-062-06 RL MU-H 608 S BRANCIFORTE AVE
010-012-20 CC MU-H 607 SOQUEL AVE
010-072-76 CC MU-H 1041 CAYUGA ST
010-072-77 CC MU-H 1039 CAYUGA ST
011-012-36 CC MU-H 1240 SOQUEL AVE
011-012-38 RM/CC MU-H 1266 SOQUEL AVE
011-024-30 CC MU-H 1404 SOQUEL AVE
009-234-59 CC MU-H 109 STANFORD AVE
009-234-25 CC MU-H 915 WATER ST
010-062-07 CC MU-H 612 S BRANCIFORTE AVE
010-012-09 CC MU-H 603 SOQUEL AVE
010-012-07 CC MU-H 613 SOQUEL AVE
Exhibit A

40.502
Proposed Amendments to Zoning Map, Non-Coastal Parcels November 15, 2022 010-031-70 CC MU-H 841 N BRANCIFORTE AVE
010-072-78 CC MU-H 1024 SOQUEL AVE
009-212-38 CC MU-H 823 WATER ST
011-012-15 CC MU-H 1616 SEABRIGHT AVE
005-251-09 CC MU-OM 107 LEONARD ST
005-251-10 CC MU-OM 712 OCEAN ST
005-271-15 CC MU-OM 628 OCEAN ST
005-271-16 CC MU-OM 630 OCEAN ST
005-271-17 CC MU-OM 636 OCEAN ST
005-271-18 CC MU-OM 640 OCEAN ST
005-271-19 CC MU-OM 644 OCEAN ST
005-271-21 CC MU-OM 624 OCEAN ST
005-271-22 CC MU-OM 612 OCEAN ST
008-251-21 CC MU-OM 1210 OCEAN ST
008-253-01 CC MU-OM 114 WASHBURN AVE
008-253-17 CC MU-OM 1108 OCEAN ST
008-253-18 CC MU-OM 1104 OCEAN ST A
008-253-19 CC MU-OM 1112 OCEAN ST
008-253-20 CC MU-OM 1118 OCEAN ST
008-302-19 CC MU-OM 1107 OCEAN ST
008-331-02 CC MU-OM 122 HUBBARD ST
008-331-03 CC MU-OM 126 HUBBARD ST
008-331-04 CC MU-OM 130 HUBBARD ST
008-331-05 CC MU-OM 457 MAY AVE
008-331-06 CC MU-OM 451 MAY AVE A
008-331-07 CC MU-OM 449 MAY AVE
008-331-08 CC MU-OM 433 1/2 MAY AVE
008-331-12 CC MU-OM 429 MAY AVE
008-331-13 CC MU-OM 423 MAY AVE
008-331-14 CC MU-OM 421 MAY AVE
008-331-15 CC MU-OM 419 MAY AVE
008-331-35 CC MU-OM 431 MAY AVE
008-331-37 CC MU-OM 116 HUBBARD ST CMN-36
008-541-01 CC MU-OM 1213 OCEAN ST 1
008-541-02 CC MU-OM 1203 OCEAN ST
008-541-03 CC MU-OM 115 HUNOLT ST
008-541-04 CC MU-OM 112 KENNAN ST
008-691-01 CC MU-OM 1111 OCEAN ST PKLOT
008-691-02 CC MU-OM 1111 OCEAN ST 101
008-701-01 CC MU-OM 1111 OCEAN ST 201
008-701-02 CC MU-OM 1111 OCEAN ST 202
008-701-03 CC MU-OM 1111 OCEAN ST 203
008-701-04 CC MU-OM 1111 OCEAN ST 204
008-701-05 CC MU-OM 1111 OCEAN ST 205
008-711-01 CC MU-OM 1111 OCEAN ST 301
008-711-02 CC MU-OM 1111 OCEAN ST 302
008-711-03 CC MU-OM 1111 OCEAN ST 303
Exhibit A

40.503
Proposed Amendments to Zoning Map, Non-Coastal Parcels November 15, 2022 008-711-04 CC MU-OM 1111 OCEAN ST 304
010-051-49 RL/CC MU-OH 414 OCEAN ST
007-403-05 CC MU-OH 367 OCEAN ST
007-403-07 RM MU-OH 359 OCEAN ST
007-403-06 RM MU-OH 363 OCEAN ST A
007-403-04 CC MU-OH 418 BROADWAY
005-941-07 CC MU-OH 405 OCEAN ST
005-941-01 CC MU-OH 411 BROADWAY COMMON
005-941-06 CC MU-OH 417 BROADWAY
005-941-08 CC MU-OH 409 OCEAN ST
005-941-09 CC MU-OH 415 OCEAN ST
005-941-10 CC MU-OH 421 OCEAN ST
005-941-11 CC MU-OH
008-322-17 CC MU-OH 100 COLOMA ST
008-322-39 CC MU-OH 909 OCEAN ST
008-331-45 CC MU-OH 902 OCEAN ST
008-322-40 CC MU-OH
008-331-25 CC MU-OH 908 OCEAN ST
008-331-26 CC MU-OH 908 OCEAN ST FRNT
008-331-27 CC MU-OH 916 OCEAN ST
008-331-28 CC MU-OH 920 OCEAN ST
008-331-29 CC MU-OH 928 OCEAN ST
008-331-30 CC MU-OH 1004 OCEAN ST
008-331-31 CC MU-OH 1008 1/2 OCEAN ST
008-331-32 CC MU-OH 1010 OCEAN ST
008-331-41 CC MU-OH 1014 OCEAN ST
008-331-40 CC MU-OH 110 HUBBARD ST
010-051-53 RL MU-OH 523 BROADWAY A
010-051-54 RL MU-OH 527 BROADWAY
010-391-10 RL MU-OH 533 BROADWAY CMN
010-551-08 RM MU-OH 344 OCEAN ST
010-551-07 RM MU-OH 342 OCEAN ST
010-551-05 RM MU-OH 356 OCEAN ST A
010-551-06 RM MU-OH 350 OCEAN ST
010-551-04 RM MU-OH 358 OCEAN ST
010-551-01 CC MU-OH 370 OCEAN ST
010-551-02 RL MU-OH 514 BROADWAY
010-551-03 RL MU-OH 518 BROADWAY Cmn
010-051-31 CC MU-OH 404 OCEAN ST A
010-102-01 RL MU-OH 526 BROADWAY
010-051-32 CC MU-OH 410 OCEAN ST
010-051-37 CC MU-OH 509 BROADWAY
010-051-38 CC MU-OH 515 BROADWAY
010-051-43 RL MU-OH 519 1/2 BROADWAY
008-303-16 CC MU-OH 1001 OCEAN ST
008-303-01 RM/CC MU-OH 1015 OCEAN ST
008-322-43 CC MU-OH 919 OCEAN ST
Exhibit A

40.504
Proposed Amendments to Zoning Map, Non-Coastal Parcels November 15, 2022 008-302-20 RM MU-OH 1101 OCEAN ST
010-391-09 RL MU-OH 533 BROADWAY 9
010-391-08 RL MU-OH 533 BROADWAY 8
010-391-07 RL MU-OH 533 BROADWAY 7
010-391-06 RL MU-OH 533 BROADWAY 6
010-391-05 RL MU-OH 533 BROADWAY 5
010-391-04 RL MU-OH 533 BROADWAY 4
010-391-03 RL MU-OH 533 BROADWAY 3
010-391-02 RL MU-OH 533 BROADWAY 2
010-391-01 RL MU-OH 533 BROADWAY 1
005-941-04 CC MU-OH 411 BROADWAY C
005-941-05 CC MU-OH 411 BROADWAY D
005-941-03 CC MU-OH 411 BROADWAY B
005-941-02 CC MU-OH 411 BROADWAY A
005-251-08 RL MU-VH 111 LEONARD ST
005-251-07 RL MU-VH 113 LEONARD ST
005-251-06 RL MU-VH 119 LEONARD ST
005-251-11 CC MU-VH 716 OCEAN ST
005-251-18 CC MU-VH
005-251-04 CC MU-VH 323 MAY AVE
005-251-16 CC MU-VH 420 WATER ST
005-302-27 CC MU-VH 330 SOQUEL AVE
005-302-28 CC MU-VH 340 SOQUEL AVE
005-941-16 CC MU-VH 354 SOQUEL AVE CMN
008-323-12 CC MU-VH 303 WATER ST
010-051-46 CC MU-VH 434 OCEAN ST
010-051-02 CC MU-VH 414 1/2 SOQUEL AVE
010-051-03 CC MU-VH 416 SOQUEL AVE CMN-02
010-051-04 CC MU-VH 422 SOQUEL AVE A
010-051-05 RL/CC MU-VH 500 SOQUEL AVE
010-051-06 RL/CC MU-VH 506 SOQUEL AVE
010-051-07 RL/CC MU-VH 510 SOQUEL AVE
010-012-13 CC MU-VH 501 SOQUEL AVE
010-012-29 CC MU-VH 513 SOQUEL AVE
005-251-19 CC MU-VH 730 OCEAN ST
005-283-10 CC MU-VH 107 DAKOTA AVE 2
005-941-12 CC MU-VH 433 OCEAN ST
010-011-33 CC MU-VH 500 OCEAN ST
005-541-05 CC MU-VH 111 DAKOTA AVE CMN
008-323-27 CC MU-VH 815 OCEAN ST
008-331-48 CC MU-VH 806 OCEAN ST
005-541-04 CC MU-VH 111 DAKOTA AVE 4
005-541-03 CC MU-VH 111 DAKOTA AVE 3
005-541-02 CC MU-VH 111 DAKOTA AVE 2
005-541-01 CC MU-VH 111 DAKOTA AVE 1
005-941-13 CC MU-VH 348 SOQUEL AVE
005-941-14 CC MU-VH 350 SOQUEL AVE
Exhibit A

40.505
Proposed Amendments to Zoning Map, Non-Coastal Parcels November 15, 2022 005-941-15 CC MU-VH 352 SOQUEL AVE
005-891-03 CC MU-VA 615 OCEAN ST
005-261-34 CC MU-VA
005-261-32 CC MU-VA 745 OCEAN ST
005-281-32 RM MU-VA 134 DAKOTA AVE
005-891-02 CC MU-VA 611 OCEAN ST
005-261-33 CC MU-VA 318 WATER ST
005-781-66 RM MU-VA
005-781-23 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 18
005-781-22 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 17
005-781-21 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 16
005-781-20 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 15
005-781-19 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 14
005-781-18 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 13
005-781-17 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 12
005-781-16 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 11
005-781-01 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE A
005-781-02 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE B
005-781-03 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE C
005-781-04 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE D
005-781-05 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE E
005-781-06 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE F
005-781-07 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE G
005-781-08 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE H
005-781-09 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE J
005-781-10 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE K
005-781-11 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE L
005-781-12 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE M
005-781-13 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE P
005-781-14 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE R
005-781-15 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE
005-791-05 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 28
005-791-04 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 27
005-791-06 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 26
005-791-03 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 25
005-791-07 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 24
005-791-02 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 23
005-791-08 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 22
005-791-01 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 21
005-801-05 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 38
005-801-04 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 37
005-801-06 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 36
005-801-03 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 35
005-801-07 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 34
005-801-02 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 33
005-801-08 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 32
005-801-01 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 31
Exhibit A

40.506
Proposed Amendments to Zoning Map, Non-Coastal Parcels November 15, 2022 005-811-04 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 47
005-811-02 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 43
005-811-05 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 48
005-811-06 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 46
005-811-07 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 44
005-811-08 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 42
005-811-01 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 41
005-811-03 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 45
005-821-02 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 53
005-821-03 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 55
005-821-04 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 57
005-821-05 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 58
005-821-06 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 56
005-821-07 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 54
005-821-08 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 52
005-821-01 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 51
005-831-02 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 63
005-831-03 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 65
005-831-04 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 67
005-831-05 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 68
005-831-06 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 66
005-831-07 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 64
005-831-08 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 62
005-831-01 RM MU-VA 180 DAKOTA AVE 61
Exhibit A

40.507
BAY
KING

MISSION
FAIR
OLIVE
ALMAR

DU FOUR
PALM

LAURENT
WALK

SEASIDE
RANKIN

TRESCONY

VAN NESS

ESCALONA

ANTHONY

BALDWIN

BELLEVUE

YOUNGLOVE
ANITA
LAUREL

MIRAMAR

BERKSHIRE
MASON
WILKES

KENNETH
ALLEY

CALIFORNIA
LENNOX

INGALLS
WEST

AVERITT

SURFSIDE
TOLEDO
ACADIA
DUFOUR

ANDERSON

REDWOOD
SADI
GLOVER
ERRETT

PENDEGAST

BETHANY CURVE

UNNAMED

CLEVELAND

COLORADO

DRIVEWAY

INGALLS
OLIVE
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
WALK
ALLEY
DUFOUR
ALLEY

LAURENT
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
PALM

SEASIDE

PENDEGAST
Parcels proposed for the Mixed-Use Medium Density (MU-M) Zone District Mixed Use Medium Density (MU-M_NonCoastal) City of Santa Cruz November 2022

40.508
SOQUEL

BRANCIFORTE

MORRISSEY
SOQUEL
Branciforte Cree
SOQUEL
WATER

BROADWAY
PINE

MELROSE
GAULT

HANOVER

BRANCIFORTE

FREDERICK
EFFEY
CAYUGA
SUMNER
POPLAR

MORRISSEY

WINDSOR
DOYLE
REED

PACHECO

BERKELEY

SAN JUAN

PENNSYLVANIA
BENITO

CALEDONIA
DAKE

STANFORD
DARWIN

CATALPA

BELVEDERE
HUGUS

OCEAN VIEW

MAGNOLIA

SEABRIGHT

DRIVEWAY
MINNIE
ALLEY
JOSEFA

HARRISON
DAHLIA

SUNNYSIDE

RATHBURN

MCCORNICK

UNNAMED

HANOVER

DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY
ALLEY

DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY
SUMNER

SEABRIGHT

DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY
DARWIN

DRIVEWAY
EFFEY

DRIVEWAY
Parcels proposed for the Mixed-Use High Density (MU-H) Zone District MU-H
City of Santa Cruz November 2022
Exhibit B

40.509
WATER
OCEAN
SOQUEL
OCEAN

BRANCIFORTE
Branciforte Creek
OCEAN
MAY
WATER
SOQUEL
DAKOTA

BROADWAY

BRANCIFORTE
FRONT

OCEAN VIEW
BLAINE
REED

BERKELEY
RIVER

WASHBURN
MOON

HUBBARD
MARKET
CLAY
ALLEY

RIVERSIDE

UNNAMED

CALEDONIA
HUNOLT

LEONARD
KENNAN

RIVER STREET SOUTH

DRIVEWAY
HUGUS
COLOMA
MINNIE

BELVEDERE

HANOVER
JOSEFA

FRANKLIN

WINDSOR

SUNNYSIDE

ROOSEVELT

RATHBURN

ROBERTS
DOYLE

MCCORNICK

CATHCART

EDGEWOOD

FAIRBANKS
CURTIS

CAMPBELL

UNNAMED

DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY
MAY

DRIVEWAY

UNNAMED
MARKET

UNNAMED

DRIVEWAY
Parcels to be Rezoned in the Ocean Street Corridor
Mixed Use Visitor Additional Height (MU-VA)
Mixed Use Visitor High Density (MU-VH)
Mixed Use Ocean Medium Density (MU-OM_NonCoastal)
Mixed Use Ocean High Density (MU-OH_NonCoastal) City of Santa Cruz November 2022

40.510
RESOLUTION NO. NSA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ ADOPTING A

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

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

40.511
(1) The proposed street tree replacement in-lieu fees in the Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit A, are designed to fund mitigation of impacts from the removal of any street trees in order to preserve the City’s existing tree canopy. (2) The street tree replacement in-lieu fees are intended to cover the full costs for the City to replace a removed street tree, which shall include the purchase, installation, watering for two years and initial structural pruning of a replacement tree. (3) The street tree replacement in-lieu fees are structured such that larger trees that are removed, as measured by diameter inches at standard height, incur a larger in-lieu fee.

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

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

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

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the adoption of this Resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act because it is the creation of a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ________2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

40.512

EXHIBIT A

FEE SCHEDULE

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

40.513
RESOLUTION NO. NSA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

ESTABLISHING MITIGATION MEASURE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REMOVAL OF A HERITAGE TREE OR HERITAGE SHRUB PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 9.56 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NS 21,436
WHEREAS, Section 9.56.100 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code requires certain mitigation requirements for approved and unapproved removals of heritage trees or heritage shrubs, pursuant to a mitigation requirement chart to be adopted by City of Santa Cruz City Council resolution; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution NS 21,436, whereby the City Council established certain mitigation measure requirements from any person who removes a heritage tree or heritage shrub; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz to by this resolution rescind Resolution NS 21,436 and update the mitigation measure requirements, and that this resolution, and the mitigation requirements hereby adopted, shall be used to determine the mitigation measures required from any person who alters or removes a heritage tree or heritage shrub with the conditional approval of the City, or who alters, damages, or removes a heritage tree or heritage shrub without the approval of the City; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz that it hereby rescinds Resolution NS 21,436 and adopts the mitigation requirements set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, respectively and by this reference incorporated herein, for the determination of the mitigation measures required pursuant to Section 9.56.100 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ________2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

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

40.514

EXHIBIT A

APPROVED AND UNAPPROVED HERITAGE TREE(S)/SHRUB(S) REMOVAL

MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
The Director of Parks and Recreation shall make a determination pursuant to Section 9.56.100 regarding replacement mitigation for any removal of heritage trees/shrubs based on the chart below. On-site replanting is the primary intent for mitigation. Unapproved removal of a heritage tree is also subject to penalties per 9.56.110.
* The in-lieu fee may be upwardly increased to the next whole dollar on January 1 of each year in accordance with the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Area (All Items) Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

MITIGATION REQUIREMENT
Removal of a Heritage Tree or Heritage Shrub
as defined in Section 9.56.010 of the City of
Santa Cruz Municipal Code.

A) Replant three (3) #15 container-size trees
or one (1) twenty-four inch (24”) box size
tree on the same property as the removed
tree.

B) In circumstances where replacement of the
removed heritage tree is not feasible due
to conflicts with existing or planned
public or private infrastructure or other
trees or shrubs, the Director of Parks and
Recreation or his/her designee may in his
or her sole discretion, authorize the
payment of an in-lieu fee in the amount of
$1,705* per removed tree.

C) If the property owner meets the criteria
described in subdivision (a) or (b) of
Government Code Section 68632 and has
complied with the permit requirements of
Section 9.56.060, the city shall waive the
in lieu fee.

D) For any removal of heritage trees that falls
under the purview of the City of Santa
Cruz’s Local Coastal Program (“LCP”),
property owners shall be subject to any
requirements under the LCP, including but
not limited to, a two-for-one planting and
maintenance program when tree removal
is necessary for new development.

40.515

40.516

40.517
Parks & Recreation Commission

AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA OF: October 10, 2022
TO: Parks & Recreation Commissioners
SUBJECT: Heritage Tree Mitigation Requirements Update
RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss the changes proposed to heritage tree mitigation requirements and recommend approval of the resolution governing those requirements and the new calculated fees to the City Council.

BACKGROUND:

At its August 8, 2022 meeting (Attachment 1) the Parks & Recreation Commission discussed changes to the in-lieu fees charged for street trees and for heritage trees. The Commission voted at that meeting to recommend approval of the in-lieu fees for street trees and to table discussion of heritage trees until a future meeting.

Upon further review by the City Attorney’s Office, it was determined that the in-lieu fees for street trees would not apply to heritage trees planted in the public right-of-way. Fees for those trees would be governed by the mitigation requirements for heritage trees instead.

Currently, heritage trees that are removed and cannot be replaced are assessed fees based on Council Resolution No. NS-21-426 (Attachment 2). By using the “current retail value” metric established in that resolution, staff currently assess a mitigation fee of $150 for each approved heritage tree removed when no tree can be feasibly replanted on site. If the City Council were to pass the resolution governing street tree in-lieu fees recommended for approval by the Parks & Recreation Commission without updating heritage tree mitigation requirements, it would create a situation in which removal of a 6” street tree would trigger an in-lieu fee ten times greater than removal of a 24” heritage tree.

DISCUSSION:

In order to maintain consistency in the in-lieu fees applied to heritage street trees and trees on public vs. private property generally, staff are proposing updating the in-lieu fees assessed for heritage trees alongside the updates already recommended for street tree in-lieu fees.

The proposed heritage tree mitigation requirement updates (Attachment 3) simply take the existing requirements of Council Resolution No. NS-21-426 and replace the “current retail value” fee alternative with a specific list of costs to be covered in order to plant and establish

40.518
replacement trees or shrubs of the sizes identified in the existing resolution. Based on current calculations (Attachment 4), the proposed fees would come to $1,710 for the approved removal of a heritage tree or shrub, $3,410 for the unapproved removal of a heritage shrub or a heritage tree less than 14” in diameter, and $3,904 for the unapproved removal of a heritage tree greater than 14” in diameter.

FISCAL IMPACT:

These revisions will lead to additional funding for planting and establishment of trees on public lands in the City.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Staff report from the August 8, 2022 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting Attachment 2 - Council Resolution No. NS-21-426
Attachment 3 – Resolution establishing heritage tree mitigation requirements Attachment 4 – Proposed in-lieu fees and supporting calculations Prepared and Submitted By: Travis Beck, Superintendent of Parks Approved By: Tony Elliot, Director

40.519

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

PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Summary
October 10, 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 – 4:02 PM
Roll Call - Commissioners: Bradley Angell, Leonardo Cruz, Gillian Greensite, Hollie Locatelli, Jane Mio, Jacob Pollock; Vice Chair Kristina Glavis.

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

Presentations – None.

Statements of Disqualification – None.

Oral Communications
No member public spoke.

Announcements

1. Commission and Department Updates.

Commissioners and staff made announcements.

40.520
Approval of Minutes

2. Approval of Minutes for the August 8, 2022, regular meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission.

Motion carried to approve minutes with changes.

Consent Agenda – None.

Public Hearings – None.

General Business

3. Election of Officers.

Motion carried to close nominations for the position of chair.

Commissioner K. Glavis was elected as chair.

Motion carried to close nominations for the position of vice chair.

Commissioner G. Greensite was elected as vice chair.

4. Acceptance of a License Agreement and Use of Park Facilities Tax Funds for Pickleball Court Improvements at University of California, Santa Cruz’s Court Facility at 2300 Delaware Avenue.

Motion carried to recommend the City Council authorize a license agreement with the University of California, Santa Cruz for pickleball courts at 2300 Delaware Avenue and appropriate funds for the project.

Motion carried to extend meeting time to beyond 6:00 PM.

5. Heritage Tree Mitigation Requirements Update.

Motion carried to 1) approve the proposed heritage tree mitigation requirements; and 2) recommend City Council adopt a resolution governing those requirements with newly calculated fees; and 3) base the calculated maintenance fee amount on five (5) years instead of two (2) years; and 3) double the fees for unapproved removals of heritage trees and heritage shrubs.

Friendly amendment accepted to 1) remove the five (5) year maintenance fee calculation for approved tree permits; and 2) keep in place the higher fee calculation for unapproved heritage tree and heritage shrub removals.

40.521
Information Items

6. Children’s Fund and Bill of Rights - Updates
Item to be heard at a future meeting.

Subcommittee Oral Reports – None.

Adjournment – 6:44 PM

40.522
rate unit total rate unit total
purchase price $200
(1) 24" box tree + tree
stakes (includes tax
and freight) $ 200 $100
(1) #15 tree + tree
stakes (includes tax
and freight) $ 100
planting labor $55/hr.
2 hours Parks
Maintenance Worker $ 110 $55/hr.
1 hour Parks
Maintenance Worker $ 55
planting equipment $39.41/hr.
2 hours pickup truck
with lift gate
(CalTrans rates) $ 79 $39.41/hr.
1 hour pickup truck
with lift gate
(CalTrans rates) $ 39
watering labor $55/hr.

0.25 hours per visit *
20 visits/yr. * 2 yrs. $ 550 $55/hr.

0.25 hours per visit *
20 visits/yr. * 2 yrs. $ 550
watering equipment
$39.41/hr. pickup
truck
$15.67/hr. water
trailer

0.25 hours per visit *
20 visits/yr. * 2 yrs. $ 551
$39.41/hr. pickup
truck
$15.67/hr. water
trailer

0.25 hours per visit *
20 visits/yr. * 2 yrs. $ 551
water $0.533/gallon

7.5 gallons per visit *
20 visits/yr. * 2 yrs. $ 160 $0.533/gallon

7.5 gallons per visit *
20 visits/yr. * 2 yrs. $ 160
structural pruning $55/hr. 1 hr. $ 55 $55/hr. 1 hr. $ 55 TOTAL FEE $ 1,705 $ 1,510
Approved and Unapproved Heritage Trees and Shrubs and Street Trees >7" in diameter Street trees <= 7" in diameter
Tree In Lieu Fee Calculations - Updated for 11/15/22

40.523

40.524
2 SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT

AGREEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL CRUZPASSES
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter called "METRO" and XYZ Developer, hereinafter called "XYZ".

I. Recitals

1.1 METRO's Primary Objective
The purpose of this Agreement is to promote transit ridership by providing annual residential transit pass (“CruzPasses”) valid on METRO services, to be distributed by XYZ to XYZ’s eligible participants. CruzPasses will be furnished on electronic fare cards or via mobile fare payment application, subject to the following terms and conditions.

1.2 XYZ wishes to provide METRO CruzPasses to all eligible residents of XYZ Development. This Agreement is intended to fix the terms and conditions thereby.

Therefore, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties, it is agreed as follows:

II. Scope of Services

2.1 Residential Transit Pass Program (CruzPass)
At its sole cost and expense, XYZ will issue METRO-provided annual transit passes (CruzPass) for use by individuals who reside at XYZ Development.

METRO shall furnish approved CruzPasses to XYZ Development upon the request and at the cost of XYZ.

2.2 Eligible Service and Fare Validation
Individuals utilizing CruzPass bus passes are granted unlimited use of METRO's local fixed-route transit service (excluding ParaCruz and the highway 17 Express) without paying an additional charge. CruzPass cards will be tagged on the fare box upon boarding the bus. CruzPasses accessed via METRO’s mobile fare payment app will be presented to the bus operator upon boarding the bus for visual validation.

III. Compensation

3.1 Participant Counts and Rates
Rates for this Agreement are as set forth in the METRO Fare Tariff (made

40.525
3 available to XYZ upon request) and are deeply discounted relative to all other METRO fares.

In order to be eligible for the program, XYZ must contract CruzPass for its entire resident population. The Agreement will cover all residents except for children under 46” tall. Population headcounts will be supported by reports submitted to public agencies or management bodies or residential rosters. For residential communities not yet opened/fully occupied, an occupancy analysis must be provided to estimate future residential headcount. This analysis can include studies prepared during the development approval process, a lease-up schedule, a site plan, or a population headcount of a related residential development.

CruzPasses may not be provided or resold to individuals outside XYZ Development or otherwise not part of the population as defined in this Agreement.

XYZ may charge eligible participants for CruzPasses but may not charge any more than the per-capita rate for the XYZ Development as stated in this Agreement, plus any card fee required by METRO. XYZ may divide the “Total Amount Due” under the Agreement between their participants only if the individual cost does not exceed the per participant rate. Any payment disputes resulting from the XYZ charging eligible participants for CruzPasses must be resolved by XYZ; METRO will not participate in any internal disputes or requests for refunds.

3.2 Payment
XYZ will pay METRO $78.00 per resident per year (subject to any fare increase).

New Customers: For a new (first-time customer) annual Agreement, full payment is due prior to receipt of CruzPass cards, unless a payment schedule has otherwise been agreed upon in writing between XYZ and METRO. Payment will include the calculated rate for annual CruzPasses, plus the fee per CruzPass card order for a specified quantity of CruzPass cards, as discussed further in Section 3.4 below. Any proration based on Agreement effective dates will be applied on a monthly basis.

Renewing Customers: For a renewed (returning customer) annual Agreement, full payment is due 15 days prior to the expiration date of the current CruzPass Agreement between METRO and XYZ, meaning the agreement that this Agreement is renewing (hereinafter referred to as “Prior Agreement”). Delays in payment may result in disruption of access to transit services. Renewal payments not received prior to the Prior Agreement expiration date will result in the deactivation of all CruzPasses assigned to XYZ.

If XYZ requests additional CruzPass cards during the Renewal Period, payment for such is due at the same time as the renewal payment, as described immediately above. If XYZ requests additional CruzPass cards after the end of the Renewal Period, payment for such is due prior to delivery of cards. The “Renewal Period” commences upon XYZ’s receipt of this Agreement for renewal and concludes 15 days prior to the expiration of the Prior Agreement.

If XYZ has an outstanding balance, XYZ is not eligible to participate in the

40.526
4 CruzPass Program and may have its inventory of CruzPasses deactivated until outstanding balances are settled.

Check and Credit Card Payments: The maximum payment allowed online with credit card, debit card, or PayPal is $2,500.00 per transaction. Any fees incurred for returned checks or chargebacks will be assessed to XYZ. Any such fees must be paid within five (5) business days. Failure to timely pay unpaid balances may result in the deactivation of all CruzPasses.

Third-Party Procurement Fees: XYZ will be invoiced by METRO for any paymentrelated fees incurred through the use of XYZ’s third-party procurement service.

Pause In Fare Collection Period: In the event of a Fare Pause, XYZ will receive an extension to its current CruzPass Agreement. The extension shall be reflective of the term of the Fare Pause and will be prorated by month.

3.3 CruzPass Card Fee
CruzPass cards supplied pursuant to this agreement are subject to a one-time $1.00 per card fee.

3.4 Fare Increase
In the event that METRO implements a fare increase during the term of this Agreement, XYZ acknowledges that payments to METRO (Section 3.01 above) shall increase to reflect the fare increase, effective the date of any such fare increase.

3.5 Record Keeping and Participant Termination
XYZ shall maintain an inventory of all CruzPass cards received from METRO and a log of card serial numbers and names of assigned cardholders. METRO reserves the right to audit headcount reports to verify the number of eligible participants at XYZ's location(s).

METRO will provide XYZ with the ability to cancel individual bus passes upon notice should the need arise for owners or tenants who no longer reside at the property.

3.6 Lost, Stolen or Confiscated CruzPass Cards
If a CruzPass card has been lost or stolen, XYZ shall immediately notify METRO to deactivate that CruzCard serial number. After deactivation, if XYZ maintains a card inventory of CruzPass cards, XYZ may provide a replacement card to the participant who reported the loss. XYZ will provide no more than one (1) replacement CruzPass to any single individual during the term of this Agreement.

CruzPass cards confiscated by Fare Inspectors or Coach Operators will be deactivated, and XYZ will be notified of such. Fare evasion, or unauthorized or

40.527
5 fraudulent use of fare media may result in fines and/or incarceration pursuant to California Penal Codes §483 or §640.

CruzPass cards that have been turned in to METRO’s Lost and Found will be stored at the METRO Customer Service Office unless METRO is able to identify the owner. If unclaimed after three (3) months, METRO will deactivate the CruzPass.

3.7 Improper Use of CruzPass
The CruzPass and other METRO fare media are nontransferable and, therefore, cannot be sold, transferred, or duplicated. Transfer of the CruzPass constitutes fare evasion, a violation of California Penal Code §640. METRO has the right to deactivate any or all passes if METRO believes that the CruzPass Program has been misused in any way by XYZ Development. METRO also reserves the right to pursue claims or demands against, or seek prosecution of, anyone who transfers, duplicates, alters, or commits unauthorized use of the CruzPass with the intent to defraud.

XYZ shall notify participants at the time of distribution that CruzPasses are nontransferable to family or friends. In the case of repeated instances of participants’ misuse of CruzPasses, XYZ bears the risk of termination of this Agreement without refund.

METRO may deactivate any CruzPass if there is reason to believe that the CruzPass was issued based on false information provided by XYZ or that the CruzPass has been transferred to a non-eligible person.

IV. Term and Termination, Audit & Authority

4.1 The term of this Agreement shall commence Date, Month, 20XX.

4.2 Per Santa Cruz County Ordinance, XYZ shall record a deed restriction or Condition of Approval requiring the purchase of annual transit passes for all eligible residents in perpetuity. METRO and the County of Santa Cruz are the only parties with the ability to terminate this agreement.

4.3 In the event of termination/suspension, the rights and obligations of the parties which by their nature survive termination of the services covered by this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect after termination. Compensation and revenues due from one party to the other under this Agreement shall be paid; loaned equipment and materials shall be returned to their respective owners.

40.528
6 V. General Provisions

5.1 Professional Relations
(a) Independent Contractor
No relationship of employer and employee is created by this Agreement.

In the performance of its work and duties, METRO is at all times acting and performing as an independent contractor, providing transportation services. XYZ shall neither have nor exercise control or direction over the methods by which METRO performs the services pursuant to this Agreement; provided, however, that METRO agrees that all work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be in strict accordance with currently approved methods and practices in its profession. The sole interest of XYZ is to insure that such services are performed and rendered in a competent and cost effective matter and in accordance with this Agreement.
(b) Federal, State and Local Laws
METRO and XYZ warrant that in the performance of this contract, each party shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and ordinances and all lawful orders, rules and regulations thereunder.

5.2 Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”)
(a) Because CruzPasses are furnished on electronic fare cards or mobile application, CruzPasses are subject to METRO’s privacy policy, which can be found here: https://www.scmtd.com/en/privacy-policy How METRO Uses PII
METRO will use the PII collected in order to process the following services: card replacements, card printing, card audits, Agreement renewals, and aggregated anonymous reports of travel pattern data, as discussed in Section (1) below. METRO does not sell or rent PII to any third party. METRO will not disclose PII to any third party not affiliated with METRO, except for disclosures to contracted service providers who assist METRO in the administration of the CruzPass program, and disclosures that are required by law, as discussed in Section (2) below.

METRO-contracted service providers will not share PII and will limit their use of gathered information to advance their ability to deliver requested services to METRO.
(1) Travel Pattern Data
Travel Pattern Data is information associated with a CruzPass card’s trip start points, routes used, and date(s) and time(s) traveled. METRO will aggregate Individual CruzPass card Travel Pattern Data. METRO will

40.529
7 provide aggregated data to third parties affiliated with METRO as anonymous usage data.
(2) Disclosure of Personal Information as Required by Law In the State of California, laws exist to ensure that government is open, and that the public has a right to access appropriate records and information possessed by state and local government. At the same time, there are exceptions to the public’s right to access public records. These exceptions serve various needs, including maintaining the privacy of individuals. Both state and federal laws provide exceptions. All information collected by METRO becomes public record that may be subject to inspection and copying by the public, unless an exemption in law exists. In addition, METRO will disclose personal information when required by law, or if we have a good-faith belief that such action is necessary to (a) comply with a current judicial proceeding, a court order, or legal process served on us, (b) protect and defend our rights, or (c) protect the rights, property, and other interests of our users or others.

Information in anonymous, aggregated form may be shared freely.

5.3 No Conflict of Interest
XYZ represents that it currently has no interest, and shall not have any interest, direct and indirect, that would conflict in any matter with the performance of services required under this Agreement.

5.4 Time of the Essence
Time is of the essence in this Agreement.

5.5 No Discrimination
In connection with the performance of services provided under this Agreement, METRO shall not on the grounds of race, age, color, sex, religion, national origin, sexual preference, marital status, medical condition or handicap discriminate or permit discrimination against any person or group in any manner prohibited by Federal, State, or local laws.

5.6 Prohibition of Discrimination Against Qualified Handicapped Persons METRO agrees to comply with the provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, pertaining to the prohibition of

40.530
8 discrimination against qualified handicapped persons in federally assisted programs.

5.7 Publicity
METRO agrees to submit to XYZ any and all advertising, sales promotion, and other publicity matter relating to any service furnished by METRO wherein XYZ name is mentioned or language used from which the connection of XYZ name therewith may, within reason, be inferred or implied. METRO further agrees not to publish or use any such advertising, sales promotion, or publicity matter without the prior written consent of XYZ.

5.8 Consent to Breach Not Waiver
No term or provision hereof shall be deemed waived and no breach excused, unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party claimed to have waived or consented. Any consent by any party to, or waiver of, a breach by the other, whether express or implied, shall not constitute consent to, waive of, or excuse for any other different or subsequent breach.

5.9 Notice
All notices under this Agreement shall be deemed duly given upon delivery, if delivered by hand; or three days after posting, if sent by registered mail return receipt requested; to a party hereto at the address set forth herein or to such other address as a party may designate by notice pursuant hereto:

METRO:

CEO/General Manager
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District
110 Vernon Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 426-6080
XYZ:

Contact
Title
Address

40.531
9 5.09 Amendment
This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties, but any such amendment must be in writing, dated, signed by duly authorized representatives of METRO and XYZ and attached hereto.

5.10 Entire Agreement
This Agreement, together with all subordinate and other documents incorporated by reference herein, constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter contained herein and may only be modified by an amendment executed in writing by both parties hereto. All prior Agreements, representations, statements, negotiations, understandings and undertakings are superseded hereby; provided, however. that XYZ hereby agrees that, except where this Agreement specifically indicates otherwise, all written proposals, specifications, brochures, and sales materials presented by XYZ to METRO in connection with this Agreement, and all other XYZ representations, commitments, and warranties referenced elsewhere in this Agreement, shall be deemed to be, and hereby are, incorporated by reference into and made a part of this Agreement.

5.11 Authority
Each party has full power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement, and the person signing this Agreement on behalf of each has been properly authorized and empowered to enter into this Agreement. Each party further acknowledges that it has read this Agreement, understands it, and agrees to be bound by it.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, this Agreement is executed by the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District and XYZ has affixed his or her signature the day and year first hereinabove written.

By: XYZ
BY:

SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT (METRO)
BY:

Date
Approved as to form:

40.532
1 0
BY

40.533
General Plan 2030
City Council Study Session
February 7, 2012

40.534
Overview of GP2030
• What is a General Plan?
• Context for General Plan
• Public Process
• Organization of the Plan
• Sustainability – Key Elements
• Land Use Map and Change Areas
• Quality of Life Elements
• Next Steps
• Q&A

40.535
GP 2030
Land Use Plan Process
• GPAC presents to City Council the guiding principles
for the General Plan 2030 in 2006.
• GPAC recommends preferred Land Use Plan in
Spring of 2007.
• The City Council accepted this plan for the purpose
of environmental review in Fall of 2007.
• Planning Commission reviewed the Goals, Policies
and Programs and the proposed GP 2030 Land Use
Plan and makes a recommendation to City Council in
2009.

The following detail maps review the proposed GP 2030
Land Use Plan.

40.536
Land Use Map and Change Areas
Monterey
Bay

40.537
Mission Street Corridor

40.538
Soquel/Water Corridor

40.539
Ocean Street Corridor

40.540
Final Draft
General Plan 2030
Planning Commission Hearing
May 17, 2012

40.541
Land Use Map and Change Areas

40.542
Ocean Street Corridor

40.543
Frequently Asked Questions about the Objective Standards for Multifamily Housing Why does the City want to upzone property around the City? The City is not upzoning any property. The fact is that these sites are available to be developed today at the intensities allowed by the 2030 General Plan and have been in this situation since the state law shifted at the beginning of 2020.

At the City Council hearing in August, many members of the community expressed concerns and opposition to the level of development included in the rezonings proposed as part of the Objective Development Standards project. These community members were concerned that the new zone districts represented an increase of development potential for these sites, and a significant change over the existing condition. This is a misunderstanding of the facts.

This project is not increasing development potential on any sites in the City. The project is making the City’s zoning ordinance consistent with development potential that is already allowed under State law as of January 1, 2020.

Every piece of property in the City (and throughout the state of California) is regulated by at least two documents: the General Plan, and the local zoning code. In Santa Cruz, the 2030 General Plan and City zoning map have been out of sync since the adoption of the General Plan ten years ago. The 2030 General Plan includes a vision of focusing new development into specific areas of the City where transportation and jobs can be close to new housing. The goal is to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions while accommodating new residents and creating more options for housing.

With passage of AB 3194 (Daly), the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and changes to the Housing Accountability Act (SB 330 and others), the discrepancy between the City’s policies means that the development planned for by the General Plan must be allowed on a property even if that amount of development doesn’t work with the existing zoning.

State law requires that development allowances in place as of January 1, 2018, be allowed statewide, and that local governments use only objective standards when determining how much housing can be built on a specific piece of property.

The City currently has many objective standards in its Zoning Ordinance and General Plan that have long been part of the development review process. Where these objective development standards cannot “facilitate and accommodate” (CA Gov. Code Section 65589.5(f)(1)) the development allowed, they cannot be applied. In other words, a development proposal can ignore standards in the zoning ordinance that would prevent the amount of housing called for in the General Plan.

That means without objective design standards and zoning standards that fit, the City has little control over development outcomes.

40.544
The below table compares current development allowances under the General Plan with that same property’s development allowances under the proposed zone districts in the Objective Standards project.

Allowed Today by General Plan (MXHD) Allowed by Proposed Zoning (MU-H)

2.75 Floor Area Ratio* 2.75 Floor Area Ratio*
55 dwellings/acre for 2+ bedroom units 55 dwellings/acre for 2+ bedroom units No density limit for Single Room Occupancy
(SROs), Flexible Density Units (FDUs),
1 bedroom units
No density limit for SROs, FDUs, 1 bedroom
units
No height limit 5-story height limit
0’-5’ setbacks 20’ rear setback minimum
No open space requirement 120 square feet of open space per unit No neighborhood transition requirement Above 3 stories, transition at 45 degrees No building articulation requirement Articulation of building face and roof *Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a measure of building volume: a ratio of interior floor area to total parcel area. An FAR of 1 is a single-story building covering 100% of the area of a parcel, or a 2-story building covering half of the area of a parcel.

Local control is significantly increased if the proposed project is approved. Developers have more say in setting standards for height, setbacks, transitions, and open space without the proposed zoning standards in place.

Why are the standards for Santa Cruz so complicated?
Some members of the community raised concerns that the amendment package was too complex and difficult to follow. Staff acknowledges that the proposed amendments are extensive. They represent two years of work with the community and decision-makers. The standards reflect the goals and direction heard throughout this project to create flexible standards that can be used to create variety in architecture. In the end, the proposed standards are more complex than standards in some other cities but also less complex than some others.

The Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Housing are the heart of this project. These are the changes proposed in code section 24.12.185, and they are also available as a stand-alone document on the project website at www.cityofsantacruz.com/OBJ.

These standards express the values of the community determined through extensive outreach.

Draft standards were developed following a community meeting, a survey with 800+ respondents, and six unique focus group events. Staff and consultants then walked the community through the draft standards in detail in November 2021 at a separate community meeting, Planning Commission Study Session, and City Council Study Session. Staff also held office hours at two different times to answer questions and support readers of the document as they worked their way through it. These design standards have been available to the public since November of 2021 and many community members have submitted comments on them in the past 10 months.

40.545
Through this outreach, it was apparent to staff that the community strongly values a mix of architectural styles and setting a range of flexible options for developers. Achieving this community goal requires the standards to be more complex. For instance, several of the standards have multiple options to achieve compliance. This adds to the length of the standards but strongly supports flexibility and variety in the resulting built form.

The Standards themselves begin with a statement of purpose and some definitions, and then cover the following aspects of Site and Building Design:

1. Maximum Building Length

2. Walkability

3. New Public Connections (aka. sidewalks, alleys, and pathways)

4. Public Frontages

5. Parking Location and Screening

6. Landscape and Buffering

7. Useable Open Space

8. Neighborhood Transitions

9. Roof Form

10. Building Modulation

11. Corridor Frontage

12. Ground Floor Design

13. Architectural Detail

14. Building Materials

15. Lighting
In addition to the design standards, this project also includes sections from the Public Works and Parks Departments relating to topics including requirements for sidewalks, street trees, road improvements, and undergrounding utility cables. These sections were added to the project a bit over a year ago based on community comment and concerns during the review of the City’s first SB35 application at 831 Water Street. That project review process showed that many of the City’s regulations for street improvements were not written in such a way that they could be applied effectively to projects that are limited to only using objective development standards (as is the case with SB35 applications), so the staff began working through those existing regulations to propose standards that would provide more certainty for future projects.

Through the community outreach, staff also heard just how important trees and landscaping are to Santa Cruz and that they should be maintained and enhanced with new development. Based on this feedback, Planning staff invited Parks and Recreation staff to collaborate on creating new standards to help ensure the City’s urban forest stays healthy and diverse, with street trees required with most new multifamily development.

Adding these Public Works and Parks and Recreation standards has lengthened the proposed amendments, but staff believes this is process is an ideal way to address other development components that the community values such as sidewalk standards, roadway improvement

40.546
triggers, street tree requirements, lighting standards, and extensions to the City’s fiber optic communication network.

Why does the City want to take away public hearings for new development? One of the most prevalent concerns raised at the prior hearing relates to a proposed change in public hearing requirements. The change was intended to streamline review for proposals that meet all of the local zoning regulations, including every one of the new design standards that are being proposed. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended this streamlined approach to provide an incentive for projects to fully conform to the standards that have been developed. This is the same streamlining that has been used for development in the multifamily R-L (Multiple Residence Low Rise) and R-M (Multiple Residence Medium Rise) zones for the past 30 years or more.

That said, most projects likely won’t qualify for the streamlining based on other permits they request, so making a change here to require a public hearing on fully-conforming projects will not affect most development. For this reason staff will be bringing an alternative option to the City Council to consider either using a streamlined process or requiring a Zoning Administrator hearing for conforming development.

Under either proposal, the City’s current community outreach policies including neighborhood notice and the community meeting requirement, the environmental review requirement, and the right to appeal will all remain in place. These outreach requirements are the part of the development review process that allows the community to work directly with a developer to adjust a project and influence a design early in the process. We believe these processes are working well and staff is not proposing to make any changes to them.

Why isn’t environmental review required for this project? Given that the amendments do not increase already studied and allowed development intensity evaluated as part of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), no further environmental review is required pursuant to Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Regarding the amendments relating to fences, accessory structures, and children’s play equipment, the proposed amendments do not change the level of impact these structures would have on the natural environment. Due to their small size; temporary, ancillary nature; and the fact that they do not effect the intensity of the primary residential use, such structures will not create a significant environmental impact. Section 15303(e) of the CEQA Guidelines states that accessory structures are categorically exempt from CEQA review. Minor amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related to the location, size, and physical characteristics of such accessory structures are also exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3), the “common sense” exemption, which states that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

40.547
Some community members raised concerns about one specific standard included with the new regulations for sidewalk installation, and those concerns misunderstand the application of the standard. The section reads as follows:

Section 15.20.060(d)
…
All Other Roadways
Unless specified in an Area Plan, sidewalk widths along all other roadways for all new multi-family and mixed use residential with 3 or more residential units or any commercial development shall be a minimum of 8 feet.

Commenters were concerned that requiring an 8-foot sidewalk on their single-family residential roadways would require the elimination of trees, landscaping and existing parking. Note that the above standard does not apply in single-family zone districts. The term “multifamily” in the municipal code means three equivalent attached units. Duplexes, ADUs, and Jr. ADUs will not trigger this requirement. Further, regulations for tree removal include accommodations for maintaining existing trees when new sidewalks are required, so long as the finished product complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and where tree removals may ultimately be allowed as part of a multi-family development, the City has standard measures applicable to any such tree removals that require replacement trees (or proposed in-lieu payments that would go towards planting and maintaining trees off-site) to mitigate potential impacts. Wide sidewalks are an essential feature of walkable neighborhoods that meet the needs of residents with all types of physical abilities, and the proposal seeks to ensure they are available in these new neighborhoods as they are built.

40.548
1 2022 Ordinance Update Summary Table
Department/
Project
Municipal Code
Section Number
Section Title Description of Change Document
Public Works 6.12.050 Storage of Receptacles Requires enclosures for trash receptacles with all new multifamily development.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Public Works Chapter 10.46 Citywide Trip Reduction
Program
Adds a requirement for the provision of transit passes to residents of certain multifamily development projects; Deletes sections that have become unenforceable under State Law.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Public Works 12.60.010 Underground Utility
Districts – Definitions
Adds definitions for “Communications service,” “Dark Conduit,” and adjusts numbering.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Public Works 12.60.040 Overhead Wires Creates allowance for City Engineer to grant permission for temporary utility poles and overhead wires.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Parks and
Recreation
Chapter 13.30 Trees Series of amendments clarifying several existing regulations, adding necessary definitions of terms, and adding sections for fines related to removing or damaging trees in violation of City policy, adding Objective Standards for Planting Street Trees, establishing procedures for nuisance vegetation, and clarifying procedures for permits.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Public Works Chapter 15.15 Public Realm Design for
Multifamily and Mixed-Use
Residential Projects
Establishes objective standards for the streets, sidewalks, transportation needs, transit facilities and streetlights associated with new multifamily and mixed-use development.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Public Works 15.20.060 Driveways and Sidewalks –
Size and Number
Establishes sidewalk width requirements that apply to the frontage of newly developed or redeveloped parcels based on location.

Locations listed by street segment.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Water 16.16 Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance
Adds definitions and performance standards for Living Walls. Non-LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.04.030 Types of Permits Update list of permit types to remove conditional driveway permit and grading for known archaeological sites, add project modifications
LCP Ordinance

40.549
2 2022 Ordinance Update Summary Table
Department/
Project
Municipal Code
Section Number
Section Title Description of Change Document
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.04.050 Permit Application,
Submittal and Processing;
Remove obsolete references to the redevelopment agency LCP Ordinance Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.04.090 Public Hearing
Requirement
Add “low risk alcohol outlets” to list of items that don’t require a public hearing
LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.04.130 Decision-Making Body with
Final Authority
Add “variations to parking design requirements and number of spaces” and “low risk alcohol outlets” to AUPs that don’t require a public hearing and remove large family daycare homes; remove conditional driveway permit
Establish the hearing body that will review multifamily housing applications – Includes options for public hearing policy: Option 1:

Streamlined, Option 2: Conforming Hearings, and Option 3: Hybrid.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.04.160(4)(b) Life of Permit Clarify that minor modifications that don’t increase floor area or intensity of use not subject to once-in-5-years restriction Establishes procedures for reviewing alternative designs for housing development projects that seek to vary from the Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Development.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.06.020 Initiation Include Planning Director as allowed to initiate zoning map and text amendments
Non-LCP
Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.08.030 Procedure-Administrative
Use Permits
Remove large family daycare homes from and add low risk alcohol to no public hearing list
LCP Ordinance

40.550
3 2022 Ordinance Update Summary Table
Department/
Project
Municipal Code
Section Number
Section Title Description of Change Document
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 5 of 24.08 Design Permit Amendments to create a review process for projects that either fully conform to the proposed Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Development, or seek to use an alternative design for one or more of those proposed design standards. The Section establishes the findings that would govern the decisions to approve these Design Permits, and provides 3 options for when public hearings would be required for these permits:

Option 1 (Streamlined): No hearings for conforming housing projects
Option 2 (Conforming Hearings): Public Hearing required for fully conforming housing projects
Option 3 (Hybrid): No hearings for conforming housing projects with 50 dwelling units or fewer, public hearings required for fully conforming housing projects with 51 dwelling units or more.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates
Part 14 of 24.08 Residential
Demolition/Conversion
Authorization Permits
Update Relocation Assistance and Replacement Housing
requirements, remove In Lieu Fees section to bring into compliance with State law
Non-LCP
Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates
Part 14 of 24.08 Land Use Permits and
Findings
Updating code to reflect state law requirements for replacement housing when existing affordable housing is demolished.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates
Part 23 of 24.08 Conditional Driveway
Permit
Delete remainder of section inadvertently retained in prior ordinance deletion
Non-LCP
Ordinance

40.551
4 2022 Ordinance Update Summary Table
Department/
Project
Municipal Code
Section Number
Section Title Description of Change Document
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.10.210, .230; .310,
.330; .410, .430; .510,
.530; .565, .575; .603,
.604; .611, .612; .619,
.620; .627, .628; .636,
.637; .710, .730; .910,
.930; .1010, .1030;
.1110, .1130; .1210,
.1230; .1505, .1510;
.1605, .1610, .1830
Principally permitted uses,
Use Permit required (all
zoning districts that allow
residential uses)
Add large family daycare homes as a principally permitted use, remove large family daycare homes from uses that require a use permit per State law; add “may also require” and “per section

24.08.410” to design permit requirement to clarify when design permit is required
Non-LCP
Ordinance AND
LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.10.240, .340, .440,
.540, .580, .606, .614,
.622, .625.4, .630,
.638, .740, .940, .1040,
.1140, .1240, .1320,
.1530, .1630, .1780,
.1840, .1930, .2040,
.2375
Use Determination (all
zoning districts)
Standardize use determination language in all zoning districts, add to IG/PER-2, with zoning administrator determining similar use Non-LCP
Ordinance AND
LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.10.160 Home Occupation
Regulations
Add large family daycare homes as exempt from permits per State law.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.10.330 Use Permit Requirement Correction #2 to say “special” rather than “administrative” use permit
LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 5 of 24.10 R-L Multiple Residence –
Low-Density District
Amendment to required side yard setbacks to simplify
implementation and allow more building area to be on the lower two floors. Illustration added.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 6 of 24.10 R-M Multiple Residence –
Medium Density District
Amendment to required side yard setbacks to simplify
implementation and allow more building area to be on the lower two floors. Illustration added.

LCP Ordinance

40.552
5 2022 Ordinance Update Summary Table
Department/
Project
Municipal Code
Section Number
Section Title Description of Change Document
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 6A of 24.10 R-H Multiple Residence –
High-Density District
Removing design standards that are replaced by the Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Development (24.12.185), and add relevant cross references.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 7B of 24.10 R-T(B) Residential Tourist,
Subdistrict A – Motel
Residential
Existing allowed residential uses amended to be principally permitted, consistent with regulatory allowances under state law.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 7C of 24.10 R-T(C) Residential Tourist
Subdistrict C – Beach
Commercial
Amendments consistent with proposed Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Development (24.12.185) – encouraging Uses for Active Frontage and defining uses appropriate for those spaces; categorizing allowed uses as Uses for Active Frontage, Residential or Commercial Uses; amending existing allowed residential uses to be principally permitted consistent with regulatory allowances under state law; creating standard for site frontage to be EITHER 50% Uses for Active Frontage OR 100% Live-work units.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 7D of 24.10 R-T(D) Residential Tourist
Subdistrict D – Beach
Residential
Existing allowed residential uses amended to be principally permitted, consistent with regulatory allowances under state law.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 7E of 24.10 R-T(E) Residential Tourist
Subdistrict E – Beach
Medium/High Density
Existing allowed residential uses amended to be principally permitted, consistent with regulatory allowances under state law.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 8 of 20.10 C-C Community
Commercial District
Amendments consistent with proposed Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Development (24.12.185) – encouraging Uses for Active Frontage and defining uses appropriate for those spaces; categorizing allowed uses as Uses for Active Frontage, Residential or Commercial Uses; amending existing allowed residential uses to be principally permitted consistent with regulatory allowances under state law; allowing a height increase of 5 feet for Mixed Use development with ground-floor retail; lowering the minimum lot area for mixed-use development to 5,000 sf from 8,000; creating standard for site frontage to be EITHER 50% Uses for Active Frontage OR 100% Live-work units.

LCP Ordinance

40.553
6 2022 Ordinance Update Summary Table
Department/
Project
Municipal Code
Section Number
Section Title Description of Change Document
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 9 of 24.10 MU-M Mixed-Use Medium
Density District
Establishes use and development standards for property in the MUM zone district. (Mission St, Ocean St.) Allows Mixed-Use development up to 4 stories and 45’ in height, Commercial development of 3 stories and 40’.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 9A of 24.10 Mixed-Use High Density
District
Establishes use and development standards for property in the MUH zone district. (Soquel Ave, Branciforte Ave, Water St, Morrissey Blvd.) Allows Mixed Use development up to 5 stories and 55’ in height, commercial development up to 4 stories and 50’.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 9B of 24.10 MU-OM Mixed-Use Ocean
Street Medium Density
District
Establishes use and development standards for property in the MUOM zone district. (Ocean St) Allows Mixed-Use development up to 3 stories and 40’, Commercial development of 3 stories and 45’.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 9C of 24.10 MU-OH Mixed-Use Ocean
Street High Density
Establishes use and development standards for property in the MUOH zone district. (Ocean St.) Allows Mixed-Use development up to 4 stories and 50’, Commercial development of 4 stories and 55’.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 9D of 24.10 MU-VH Mixed-Use VisitorServing High Density District
Establishes use and development standards for property in the MUVH zone district (Ocean St.) Allows Mixed Use development up to 4 stories and 55’ in height, commercial development up to 4 stories and 50’.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 9E of 24.10 MU-VA Mixed-Use Visitor
Serving Additional Height
District
Establishes use and development standards for property in the MUVA zone district (Ocean St, Dakota Ave)Non-LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 10 of 24.10 C-T Thoroughfare
Commercial Zone District
Adjusts permitting requirements of residential uses to reflect allowances under state law, to add appropriate references to proposed Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Development, and categorize existing allowed uses into categories to identify “Uses for Active Frontage,” “Residential Uses,” and “Commercial Uses;” amend existing allowed residential uses to be principal permitted uses, and clarifications regarding existing use permit and special use permit requirements.

Non-LCP
Ordinance

40.554
7 2022 Ordinance Update Summary Table
Department/
Project
Municipal Code
Section Number
Section Title Description of Change Document
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 11 of 24.10 C-N Neighborhood
Commercial District
Amendments consistent with proposed Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Development (24.12.185) – categorizing allowed uses as Uses for Active Frontage, Residential or Commercial Uses; amending existing allowed residential uses to be principally permitted consistent with regulatory allowances under state law; reducing open space requirements to support construction of housing.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 12 of 24.10 C-B Beach Commercial
District
Amendments consistent with proposed Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Development (24.12.185) – categorizing allowed uses as Uses for Active Frontage, Residential or Commercial Uses; amending existing allowed residential uses to be principally permitted consistent with regulatory allowances under state law; reducing open space requirements to support construction of housing, Requiring Uses for Active Frontage and defining uses appropriate for those spaces.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 13 of 24.10 P-A Professional and
Administrative Office
District
Amendments consistent with proposed Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Development (24.12.185) – categorizing allowed uses as Uses for Active Frontage, Residential or Commercial Uses; amending existing allowed residential uses to be principally permitted consistent with regulatory allowances under state law.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.10.2301,

24.10.2385, 24.12.192
CBD Uses, Lower Pacific
Design Guidelines, Outdoor
Extension Areas
Remove “Recovery” from Downtown Recovery Plan Non-LCP
Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards
Section 24.12.110 Setbacks Requirements
Modifications
Adds cross reference to additional setbacks that may be required in the proposed Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Development.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.12.120 Projections into required
yard areas
Change “conforming interior side yards” to “required setbacks” to allow uncovered decks, porches, patios etc. under 20” in all yards LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards

24.12.125 Landscaping Requirement Adds cross reference to additional landscaping requirements proposed in the Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Development.

LCP Ordinance

40.555
8 2022 Ordinance Update Summary Table
Department/
Project
Municipal Code
Section Number
Section Title Description of Change Document
Planning,
Objective
Standards

24.12.127 Bird Safe Building Design
Requirement
Creates a requirement for buildings within 300’ of natural areas to incorporate Bird Safe design features on their buildings.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.12.140 Accessory Buildings Add structures back into ordinance, separate into 2 sections (building, structures), allow children’s play equipment in front yard w/ height limit of 5 feet and 30 sq. ft. area for buildings and 8 feet for structures (all); exempt conforming fences from design permits in West Cliff Dr. overlay district
LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards

24.12.150 Height Limits Modifications Amendments to create consistency between code sections and proposed Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Development, and to ensure proper screening of roof top structures and equipment.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.12.160 Fencing and Screening Allow up to 6’ for exterior side yard fences with a minimum 3’ setback from property line set back from the front property line by the district front setback or the front of the building, whichever is greater; add 3’6” height limit for fences facing alleys or rail trail with ADU adjacent for consistency w/ADU ordinance
LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards

24.12.180 Community Housing
Project Requirements
Amendments to correct an obsolete reference, update
terminology, and adjust required open space standards to create consistency between rental and ownership housing developments, and create consistency with the proposed Objective Standards for Multifamily Development.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards

24.12.185 Objective Design Standards
for Multifamily
Development
Creates objective design standards for any multifamily
development outside of the Downtown Plan area. Regulates features of Site and Building Design to regulate, Maximum Building Length, Walkability, New Public Connections, Public Frontages, Parking Location and Screening, Landscape and Buffering, Useable Open Space, Neighborhood Transition, Roof Form, Building Modulation, Corridor Frontage, Ground Floor Design, Architectural Detail, Building Materials, and Lighting.

LCP Ordinance
Parks and
Recreation

24.12.186 Requirements for Street
Trees
Establishes standards for how many and where new street trees must be added with new multifamily development, as well as standards for alternative compliance when the required number of street trees cannot be accommodated in the public right of way.

LCP Ordinance

40.556
9 2022 Ordinance Update Summary Table
Department/
Project
Municipal Code
Section Number
Section Title Description of Change Document
Planning,
Objective
Standards

24.12.240 Number of Parking Spaces
Required
Text clarifying existing allowance for unbundled parking, clarification regarding use of front setbacks for parking, and cross reference to proposed Objective Standards for Multifamily Development.

LCP Ordinance
Public Works,
Planning
Objective
Standards

24.12.280 Design Requirements for
Off-Street Parking
Adding reference to AASHTO Green Book as objective reference for sight distances for Driveways and adding cross reference to proposed Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Development.

LCP Ordinance
Public Works 24.12.295 Off-Street Loading Facilities Reorganizes existing standards for Loading spaces, and also adds standards for smaller delivery trucks, and adds new categories of uses to those required to include loading spaces with new development; reduces the distance of loading spaces to any RDistrict from 50 to 20 feet to accommodate the addition of residential uses to those required to provide loading space.

LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.12.430 Protection of Archeological
Resources
Remove “known archeological sites” per state requirement LCP Ordinance Planning,
Objective
Standards
Part 8 of 24.12 Underground Utilities Creates objective standards that will apply to new development to install dark conduit or to connect to underground
telecommunication facilities.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.12.1108 Modification of Existing
Establishments Selling
Alcoholic Beverages
Remove obsolete references to the redevelopment agency. Non-LCP Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.14.030 Slope Regulations Clean up reference to prior code section, refer to Slope Development Permit section.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.16.015, 24.16.020,

24.16.205
Definitions, Basic on-site
inclusionary housing
requirements, Affordable
Housing Provisions
Definitions
Replace SOU (Small Ownership Units) with FDUs (flexible density units); add definition of FDU
Non-LCP
Ordinance

40.557
10 2022 Ordinance Update Summary Table
Department/
Project
Municipal Code
Section Number
Section Title Description of Change Document
Planning,
Objective
Standards

24.16.025 Standards for Inclusionary
Units
Prohibits the use of ADUs for meeting requirements for
Inclusionary housing units. Creates an inclusionary requirement for properties with 5 or more ADUs.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates
Part 7 of 24.16 Accessory Dwelling Units Clean up minor errors; clarify that an entitled project is considered “existing” for the purposes of ADU development; update parking requirements, fence height for consistency
Non-LCP
Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.22.162 Definitions – Building,
Height of
Add that midpoint of roof is determined using the intersection of the roof and exterior side wall and doesn’t include eaves.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Planning,
Miscellaneous
Zoning
Updates

24.22.355 Definitions - Family
Daycare Homes
Revise definition to remove licensing details, limit to # of children and residence of provider, reflective of updates to state law.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards

24.22.456.1 Definitions – Housing,
Volumetric Modular
Buildings with residential units may be built using building modules assembled off-site compliant with regulations of the California Building Standards Commission.

Non-LCP
Ordinance
Planning,
Objective
Standards

24.22.586 Definitions – Open Space,
Usable
Deletes limitation on percent of open space that can be assigned to private open space; establishes practice of counting space under the canopy of existing trees as double the amount of square footage toward the required amount of on-site open space.

Non-LCP
Ordinance.

40.558
Community Frequently Asked Questions, October 2022
Objective
Development
Standards and Zoning
Updates

40.559
2 1. Project Background
• Questions on where standards apply

2. General Plan Housing Intensity
• Questions on Zoning and Density Bonus

3. Complexity of Standards

4. Development Review/Public Hearings Policy Choices
• Questions on Public Hearings

5. Environmental Review
• Sidewalk width/Trees

6. Why increase heights from 40 to 45’ on Commercial Property?

7. How do we ensure our housing element is certified by HCD? Agenda

40.560
Project Background
• 2030 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
• General Plan adopted 2012
• Zoning does not implement
• SB2 grant to create objective standards
• Housing Crisis Act of 2019
• Must use objective standards
• Standards must allow for planned residential
capacity of a property
• "...shall not...reduc[e] the intensity of land
use..."
• Reductions to height, density, FAR, lot
coverage; increases to setbacks, open space
or minimum parcel size. Anything that
would “lessen the intensity of housing.”

40.561
Enforcing State Laws

40.562
5 • Could there be any
objective standards put
forward regarding the
Warriors arena or future
large facility so the public
could have some input, or
are the standards only for
residential or mixed use
buildings?
Response
• The Objective Standards apply to
Multifamily development (duplex
on up).
• Commercial development doesn’t
bypass local regulations in the
same way and is subject to our
standard development review
processes.
• The Downtown Plan Expansion has
a separate public process. Learn
more at
cityofsantacruz.com/downtown
Where do the Objective Standards apply?

40.563
• State Law
requires allowing
General Plan
Intensity
• Rezoning to only
reflect existing
intensity allowed
Housing Intensity: No Change

40.564
7 Allowed Today by General Plan (MXHD) Allowed by Proposed Zoning (MU-H)

2.75 FAR 2.75 FAR
55 dwellings/acre for 2+ bedroom units 55 dwellings/acre for 2+ bedroom units No density limit for Single Room Occupancy
(SROs), Flexible Density Units (FDUs), 1
bedroom units
No density limit for SROs, FDUs, 1 bedroom
units
No height limit 5-story height limit
0’-5’ setbacks 20’ rear setback minimum
No open space requirement 120 square feet of open space per unit No neighborhood transition requirement Above 3 stories, transition at 45 degrees No building articulation requirement Articulation of building face and roof Proposed Development Controls

40.565
8 • The applicant at 831 Water was able to
receive approval for 5 stories using
Density bonus law because 50% of the
base units are to be affordable. Under
the proposed zoning allowing 5 stories,
could the applicant revise the project for
the same number of units (about 140)
but only provide 20% affordable units
required by the City, since the height
waiver would no longer be necessary? Is
the proposed zoning change from 3 to 4
or 5 stories a disincentive to provide
more than 20% affordable units?
Responses
• 831 Water site could do this already
under state law per our General
Plan. The height could have been
increased through multiple means,
and they chose a density bonus. The
50% affordable meant they qualify
for SB35 streamlining with no CEQA.
• The developer could provide a new
application for a larger project under
the current conditions with or
without rezoning. A new application
would trigger a new review process.

Questions on proposed zoning

40.566
9 • With a base height requirement of 4
or 5 stories, as proposed along
portions of the corridor streets,
what would be the maximum
heights expected for projects that
(1) provide the city required 20%
affordable units and (2) provide
greater than the city required 20%,
given height waivers and
concessions allowed under State
and local law? That is, what is the
maximum height that could be built
on these parcels given this new
baseline zoning?
Responses
• Providing 20% affordable units at Low Income
for the base project (per the City’s
requirement) allows a 35% density bonus.

Providing 15% Very Low Income and 5% Low
income also meets the City requirement and
allows a 50% density bonus. The density
bonus is based on the number of units, the
size of units, and other building constraints,
and not directly proportional to height.
• A 5-story base project would typically see an
increase of 1-2 stories using a 35% density
bonus. A 50% bonus would be 1-3 additional
stories.
• It is not likely at this time to see a
development go above 7 stories outside of
downtown.

Questions on proposed zoning

40.567
10 1. If the City increased the height
requirements to 4 and 5 stories and later
found them to be problematic, could
they be reduced back to the current 3
stories without running afoul of State
law that prohibits downzoning (without
a comparable upzoning elsewhere)?

2. Conversely, could it make more sense to
retain the current height envelope on
these shallow lots that are immediately
adjacent to existing single-family homes,
and have developers rely on State and
local density bonuses to justify taller
buildings?
Responses

1. No, the General Plan already allows this
development capacity and that is locked in
per state law.
• Other portions of the objective standards can
be revisited, so long as the development
capacity allowed by the General Plan can be
achieved.

2. No, if the General Plan (GP) and Zoning are
out of sync, the higher capacity (GP in this
case) prevails. In this situation, the developer
is able to waive any zoning standards to make
the GP capacity feasible.
• Not having Zoning that accommodates the GP
capacity takes away local control and
provides the community with far less say over
development outcomes.

Questions on proposed zoning

40.568
• Responsive to Community
input
• Offer multiple options for
eclectic look
• Design Standards are part of
Code AND Stand-Alone
Complexity of Standards
• Include Parks and Rec and
Public Works
• Based on public feedback from
831 Water

40.569
12 Objective Standard Examples

40.570
13 Objective Standard Examples

40.571
14 Objective Standard Examples

40.572
15 24.12.185.16 Building Materials
Goal: To ensure that building materials are high-quality, durable, convey a sense of permanence, and reflect the existing character of buildings in the urban environment. a. Building materials shall be selected according to the following criteria:
i. The following materials are acceptable for use on building faces: tile, brick, glass, metal (except as prohibited below), painted or sealed wood, concrete, stucco, plaster, adobe, and stone (engineered or natural), and living walls (as defined).
ii. Unarticulated or flat panelized materials (such as metal, cement board, or GFRC panels) are prohibited on public frontages but may be incorporated on other building faces. Panels for modular and pre-fabricated construction are allowed (including sandwich panels).
iii. Any materials that are not explicitly listed here require an administrative design review permit to ensure that approved materials conform to the goal of this section.

Objective Standard Examples

40.573
How do these elements work together?

40.574
17 Current
• Community Outreach notice and
meetings
• Public Hearings for:
• Some 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:
• Some Commercial Development
• Density Bonus
• Planned Development Permit
• Variance
• Coastal Permit
• Subdivisions
• Proximity to Slope
• Alternative designs for Residential
• Right of Appeal
• CEQA Review
Development Review/Public Hearings

40.575
18 Option 2: Hearings for
Conforming Projects
• Hearing at Zoning
Administrator
• 0-5 variations from design
standards
• Findings Required
• Cannot reduce housing
intensity
Option 1: No Hearings for
Conforming Projects
• Administrative Review
• Fully Conforming rental
multifamily (already in R-L
and R-M)
• Findings Required
• Cannot reduce housing
intensity
• Incentive to conform
Public Hearing Policy Choices:

40.576
19 Option 3: Hearings based on
size of project
• Administrative Review for
≤50 unit projects
• Fully Conforming rental
multifamily
• Findings Required
• Hearing at ZA for:
• 51+ units
• 1-5 variations from design
standards
• Findings Required
• Cannot reduce housing
intensity
• Incentive for ≤50 units to
conform
Public Hearing Policy Choices:

40.577
20 1. If public hearings are for conforming
development that also includes other
permits/allowances like Density Bonus,
under what circumstances would a density
bonus allowance/waiver be denied if a
project meets objective standards?

2. Why would one of your alternatives be
public hearings for conforming
development if that doesn't affect most
projects? Isn't that adding a step to an
already lengthy process?

3. How are you able to add public hearings
for conforming development if they are
also eligible for streamlined processes
outlined in law?
Responses
First, a Public Hearing is NOT a community meeting –
it is a formal hearing. Most development applications
that require a hearing are reviewed by the Zoning
Administrator.

1. Density Bonus applications exceed the City’s
Zoning Code; they are not conforming and
require a public hearing. They cannot be
denied, but they are subject to CEQA.

2. Most development applications will need a
hearing even under the streamlined proposal,
because the project will include something
else that triggers a hearing. The Council might
still prefer to provide a hearing opportunity to
neighbors even for small conforming rental
development. It’s a policy choice.

3. State law will supersede where necessary.

Unless a state law requires streamline, most
development is still discretionary and subject
to CEQA. We are not required to streamline all
housing development at this time.

Questions on Public Hearings

40.578
21 • Reflecting 2030 General Plan
• Covered by existing EIR
• Sheds/Fences/Play Structures exempt under common
sense exemption
Environmental Review

40.579
22 • No Change • Wide sidewalks required
• More Street Trees
• Processes for conflicts
• Existing Trees/Fire Hydrants/
Driveways/Utility Poles
• Only applies to project frontage
Sidewalk Width/Trees
Single-Family Multifamily and Mixed Use

40.580
23 Why increase commercial heights?
• The justification I believe that you presented for increasing the height limit in Community Commercial zones in some cases (from 40 to 45 feet) is to encourage more than ground floor commercial. This could mean that each floor could be 15 feet tall. Since, generally office floors are only about 10 feet tall; what commercial uses are being envisioned above the ground floor that require such heights? Have there been any examples in Santa Cruz where the 40 foot height limit was not sufficient to accommodate a 3 story commercial building? Modern Retail and Restaurant Ceiling heights are frequently greater than 15 feet – up to 25’ in some cases – and modern office heights are closer to 12’ rather than 10’. A 20’ ground floor and two 12’ office floors above would reach 44’. There haven’t been local examples of this yet due to the current low demand for commercial real estate.

Allowing slightly higher heights would also make it easier to build pitched roofs on mixed use buildings, while 40’ makes flat roofs more likely.

40.581
24 How do we ensure our Housing Element is
certified by HCD?
• The City Housing Element Update is due to HCD December of 2023. • The project has started and a survey is open on the project website:
cityofsantacruz.com/housingelement
• Housing Elements around the state have faced challenges achieving certification during this cycle.
• The City needs to accommodate over 3,700 new dwelling units across the 8-year period between January 2024 and December 2031.

While there’s no way to ensure that the Housing Element will be certified in advance, we work with HCD throughout the process to do our best to meet their expectations. We also expect to submit a draft to HCD 6 months before it is due. They have 90 days to respond with comments. We have scheduled time for a second review by HCD (they have 60 days to respond to subsequent draft submittals). Finally, there is a 180 day period after our submittal before the document must be certified and we can respond to any additional comments during that period. We fully anticipate having our Housing Element certified on time.

40.582
25 1. What are the consequences of not
submitting a compliant housing element on
time?

2. What can people do to ensure that sites
are likely to be determined as valid by HCD?
Responses

1. If we don’t have a certified Housing
Element we are subject to SB35 and
have to accept all projects with a
minimum of 10% affordable units
that meet the City’s objective
standards.
• If we need to rezone properties
and don’t certify in time we will
only have one year to do those
rezones rather than three years.

2. The City may need to demonstrate
that sites are buildable, and also
show that more than enough land is
ready for housing. That’s why this
project and the Downtown Plan
Expansion are important. They help
demonstrate those features.

More Housing Element Questions

40.583
26 How can we ensure the city earns the
prohousing designation that elevates our
chances of state grants and funds?
• Staff believes Santa Cruz could be
eligible to be awarded the prohousing
designation with current policies.

However, the application will take time
and requires a resolution to be passed
by City Council.
• Staff will need Council direction to
pursue this work. Any one interested in
the designation should let the City
Council know that this should be part of
a future workplan.

How can we ensure the City earns the
Prohousing Designation?

40.584
27 1. Are the neighborhood transition planes
(Figure 7) required for development when
the residential homes are located across a
residential street or narrow alley? Or do
the planes only apply when the residential
homes are immediately adjacent to the
new development (e.g., not separated by a
residential street or narrow alley)?

2. Is the City considering performance zoning
for the future?

3. While the General Plan proposed 55 units
per acre, before the Objective Standards
were approved the FDU designation was
created and it provides unlimited density.

Therefore, why not create 3 story height so
that the baseline would address the
additional density impact?

4. The Test-Fit analysis showed that 4-stories
were needed to reach the 2.75 FAR for a
large site, yet you are recommending 5.

Responses, delivered Live:

1. The proposed transition plane would only apply
at property lines. Adding a standard for streetside
or alley transitions is something we could study
as part of a future update.

2. Not at this time, but that’s an interesting idea.

3. The General Plan identifies several types of small
units that do not count toward the density limits
in the GP, and Flexible Density Units are one of
those types of units (FDUs replace the previous
regulations for Small Ownership Units (SOUs)).

The Municipal Code has for many years had no
regulation for the density of residential
development that is part of a mixed-use project
in the Community Commercial Zone. A 3-story
height limit would not address the GP-allowed

2.75 Floor Area Ratio, and the GP EIR included
analysis of unit types that are not limited by
density.

4. Yes, 5 stories were necessary to meet the 2.75
FAR on the smaller site we studied, and the zone
district can only set one height limit for all the
parcels in the zone. 5 stories also ensures that the
neighborhood transition plane can be applied to
most sites where it may be needed.

Questions Asked Live:

40.585
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jamileh Cannon <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 5:02 PM
To: City Council; Sonja Brunner; Bonnie Bush
Cc: Sarah Neuse
Subject: Citywide Multifamily Objective Standards Project - Support for and review of design standards: 22.11.15 Meeting Agenda Item 40
Attachments: Workbench Support - Citywide MF Objective Standards Project - 22.11.11.pdf Dear City Council Members, Mayor Brunner and Clerk Bush, Please find attached our letter of support for the Citywide Multifamily Objective Standards Project. We applaud your efforts and are excited to see more objectivity and alignment in our local zoning codes. We have also included our comments on specific items in the Design Standards for your review and consideration.

Best,
Jamileh Cannon
415.730.2952
[email protected]
We're hiring designers and developers! See available opportunities here. Join Our Team!

40.586
189 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz CA 95060
www.workbenchbuilt.com
831.227.2217
Jamileh Cannon
189 Walnut Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
November 11, 2022
City of Santa Cruz City Council and City Staff
Planning Department
809 Center Street
Room 206
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: The City of Santa Cruz Citywide Multifamily Objective Standards Project Dear City of Santa Cruz City Council and City Staff:

I write on behalf of Workbench regarding the City of Santa Cruz’s (the “City”) proposed Multifamily Objective Standards Project. Workbench appreciates the opportunity to review the Design Standards and other documentation and provide our feedback.

Workbench is a local design, develop, build company focused on providing high-quality buildings that enhance the fabric of the city. We are a group of architects, interior designers, contractors, and developers dedicated to helping solve the current housing crises in California, and we are committed specifically to creating more affordable housing for our community here in Santa Cruz.

We appreciate the City’s efforts to create a holistic vision for the future design of our built environment, while continuing to embrace Santa Cruz’s eclectic spirit. We applaud the City’s community engagement in this discussion and the inclusion of the online Development Feasibility Calculator.

As local professionals who frequently navigate the nuances of state laws, local zoning codes, the general plan and the various opinions of review boards, having alignment and objectivity in one document is incredibly helpful. It will save us and our clients time and money, while creating an easier path to housing our neighbors and enhancing the vibrancy of our community. In short, it will help serve our City in a positive way and further align us with State law.

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the City’s documents and to this end, we have enclosed our comments on the Design Standards and Development Calculator. We would be happy to engage with the City on additional clarifications and/or revisions.

Sincerely,
Jamileh Cannon
Owner, Workbench
Enclosure: Workbench Response

40.587
Comment No. Section Page No. Item # Original Text Comment 1 Development Feasibility Calculator
The hard cost per square foot of building and the interest rates are currently higher than what is shown in the calculator. 2 N/A 2 N/A
"While the City has many design guidelines that promote best practices, many are subjective or optional, and therefore cannot currently be enforced under State law." Will these be identified and withdrawn or superseded? What is the timeline for addressing? 3 N/A 2 N/A "The standards in this document work in tandem with other City standards already in place." Clarify how "working in tandem" actually works - in case of a conflict, which standards will take precedence?4 N/A 2 N/A "The Zoning District Standards contain objective standards that define the building envelope such as setbacks, heights, parking, and open space requirements." The term building envelope in this sense is potentially confusing. "Zoning envelope" may be a better term for the three dimensional space within which a structure is permitted to be built on a lot. 5 N/A 2 N/A "Objective standards that exist in Area Plans will continue to apply." Which standards will take precedence in case of conflict? Clarify.6 N/A 2 N/A "Zoning. The Zoning District Standards contain objective standards that define the building envelope such as setbacks, heights, parking, and open space requirements." The term building envelope in this sense is potentially confusing. "Zoning envelope" may be a better term for the three dimensional space within which a structure is permitted to be built on a lot. 7 N/A 2 N/A
"City departments are evaluating the need to make some of the existing standards more objective in order to ensure they continue to apply in the necessary manner." Clarify which existing standards are being revised and the timeline for this. 8 N/A 3 N/A
"The regulations in this document shall apply to new
residential and mixed-use buildings proposed in the city of Santa Cruz in any district other than the Central Business District (CBD)." This seems very broad. Consider smaller developments within the MF zone and Urban-Low MF zone - would all of the regulations apply to these? Please clarify that this would be appropriate for the smaller scale projects. 9 N/A 4 N/A Vague terms/language.

Nebulous comments undermine objective intent. Request further definition of subjective comments such as "more livable", "environmental sustainability", and the "Environmental Values of Santa Cruz". The Definitions section could be expanded to address. 10 N/A 4 N/A Vague terms/language.

Nebulous comments undermine objective intent. Request further definition of subjective comments such as "taller and larger", "more space", "high-quality". The Definitions section could be expanded to address.

City of Santa Cruz - 220829 Draft Standards PAC and Development Feasibility Calculator Workbench Review Comments - 11/04/2022

40.588
Comment No. Section Page No. Item # Original Text Comment 11 I Site Design 8 24.12.185.4
"Goal: To promote pedestrian permeability and walkability through districts as redevelopment occurs over time, particularly for larger sites." Is this being measured? How is success determined?
12 I Site Design 9 24.12.185.4.a.ii.1 "Decorative sidewalks may be required based on Area Plan standards." What is a "decorative sidewalk"? Provide objective standards clarifying.13 I Site Design 9 24.12.185.5.b "Where the street frontage length of a site exceeds 400 feet along a single roadway, and there is not already a public connection required by an Area Plan, the project proposal shall include a minimum of one publicly accessible street, alley, path, paseo, trail, or other public pedestrian connection within the middle 50 percent of the site."
Is a site in this case defined as a single property? Or a development site? Please clarify. 14 I Site Design 10 24.12.185.6
"Public Frontages Goal: To ensure that new development
is pedestrian-oriented and provides ground floor uses that activate the public realm."
Does requirement for active frontage take into account contradictory requirements such as PG&E and other technical and service requirements? How are these acknowledged and accommodated? 15 I Site Design 11 24.12.185.6.d.ii
"Mechanical rooms shall not be placed along the public frontage. Mechanical rooms shall be located adjacent to a driveway or parking area." This seems overly restrictive and likely not possible for many projects. 16 I Site Design 11 24.12.185.6.d.iii
"Amenities provided to building residents do not qualify as Uses for Active Frontage unless they are also open and available to the general public." What about lobby access for residents? Does this count as amenity? 17 I Site Design 13 24.12.185.7.c.i
Podium parking facing a public frontage shall be wrapped with Uses for Active Frontage as allowed in the applicable zone district or residential uses on all levels facing a public frontage to a depth of at least 18 feet average, measured on each level perpendicular from the predominant building face.

Requirement for Active Frontage is 25' in 24.12.185.6.d.i. Clarify. 18 II Building Design 18 24.12.185.10.a.i 45 degree transition plane Many of the parcels in these zone districts are not very wide. A 45 degree angle above 35' would severely restrict the developability of such parcels. Consider a higher plate; 45' or more, or consider a less drastic angle. The R district is not always single family, but also includes low and medium density zones. Clarify where this would apply. 19 II Building Design 19 24.12.185.11 "Roof Forms"
The requirement for roof forms seems very broad.

Consider smaller developments and tie into the height and overall scale of the building. The scale of some of these design moves is not likely suitable for smaller townhomes. 20 II Building Design 22 24.12.185.12
"Where no other modulation controls apply (e.g., an Area Plan), building faces that are longer than 30 feet wide shall be articulated in one of the following three ways. " 30' may be too tight of a module for some multi-family developments - consider different scales and different settings. 21 II Building Design 23 24.12.185.12.a.iii
"When implemented as building notches, such notches may contain balconies, as long as the railing is at least 70 percent see-through or transparent." Clarify intent of "see-through". Does this mean the guardrails have to be glazed or is this a percent perforation? Clarify 70% intent. More opaque balcony railings can provide privacy and be nicer for the occupant.

40.589
Comment No. Section Page No. Item # Original Text Comment 22 II Building Design 25 24.12.185.14.a.
"Minimum ground floor frontage transparency of 70 percent between a height of 2 feet and 12 feet measured parallel above sidewalk grade." Provide elevation diagram and clarify/define "transparent". Is the transparent area required to be glazing? Does this contradict the energy code? Clarify intent of this requirement. 23 II Building Design 26/27 24.12.185.15.a
"Buildings that are mixed use and/or three stories in height or greater shall visually differentiate the ground floor from the floors above by one or more of the following:" The options provided will result in a City full of buildings that feel the same. If the ground floor must always be substantially differentiated from the upper floors the ground floor cadence will be visible down a long street view. It is not always desirable for buildings to look this way. Suggest added more options here or allowing for some carve out for creativity. 23 II Building Design 28 24.12.185.15.e "Windows shall be inset such that there is 2 inches…..." Consider adding an option for a curtain wall or storefront system here. These are not always as inset as the prescriptions 23 II Building Design 28 24.12.185.15.f
"Walls or portions of walls that are unfenestrated (…) that extend from the grade up to the foor line are limited to a maximum horizontal width of 15 feet." Consider increasing this width for larger projects. Stairwells and other circulation or service areas are often larger than 15' wide. 24 II Building Design 29 24.12.185.16.a.ii
"Unarticulated or flat panelized materials (such as cement board panels, metal, or GFRC panels) are prohibited on public frontages but may be incorporated on other building faces. Panels for modular and pre-fabricated construction are allowed (including sandwich panels)." Outright prohibition of materials seems unreasonable, especially for smaller projects. GFRC is typically an expensive product and objectively "higher quality" than stucco. Metal panels can be quite expensive/"high quality" as well. Cementitious panels are quite common locally and are not necessarily unarticulated. Clarify the thinking 25 II Building Design 29 24.12.185.16.b
"Buildings shall incorporate two or more of the accepted materials listed above…no single material may make up more than 85 percent of any building face. This may not include fenestration..." There are many examples of beautiful contemporary architecture that utilizes a simple material palate of one material and glazing. Consider rewriting this requirement in a way that will not preclude that kind of architecture. 26 II Building Design 27 Fig. 19 "Materials stop at the corner." This requirement seems to preclude change of materials which can help the human scale of the development and street presence of the building. Suggest revising to allow for changes of materials at building entrances and overhangs/canopies at entrance soffits, i.e. at interfaces between the building at the human scale. 27 II Building Design 27 Fig. 19 "Material does not wrap at the balcony inset." This requirement seems to preclude change of materials at entry soffits, which can help the human scale of the development and street presence of the building. Suggest revising to allow for changes of materials at building entrances and overhangs/canopies at entrance soffits. 28 II Building Design 28 24.12.185.17.c
"Lighting shall be provided at parking lots, pedestrian paths, outdoor gathering spaces, building entries, and any other pedestrian-accessible areas." Suggest quantifying lighting requirements or referencing standards such as CBC requirements for lighting.

40.590
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: fred willoughby <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 10:08 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Letter to council for Nov 15 meeting
Attachments: Scan.pdf

40.591

40.592
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: fred willoughby <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 10:09 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 2nd letter, two pages, also for council Nov 15 meeting Attachments: Scan pg 1.pdf; Scan pg 2.pdf

40.593

40.594

40.595
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Deborah Marks <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 9:04 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Central Park Neighborhood OS/Zoning
Attachments: COUNCIL FINAL letter 2 for 11-15 .pdf
Please add attached letter to packet for the 11/15/22 City Council Meeting on Objective Standards/Zoning Deborah Marks
831 247-4510
207 Leonard St
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

40.596
November, 12,2022
Dear Mayor Bruner and Council Members,
The Central Park Neighborhood has long recognized that we live near areas that could be developed due to our proximity to Ocean and Water St. This is why we were receptive when in 2007 the Planning Dept reached out to the neighborhoods along Ocean Street to learn about the Ocean Street Area Plan. From 2007- 2014 we worked intensively with the Senior Planner to put in place additional protections for our neighborhood beyond the City’s original OSAP proposal.

In 2007, We were told that the Ocean Street Area Plan was part of the General Plan. The Planning Department gave us zoning and land-use maps that were used throughout the OSAP process. Fast forward to the 2022 Objective Standards and Zoning … We were shocked to learn that the land use maps in the GP that date back to 2008 radically conflicted with the maps that we were provided by the PD during the OSAP process.

The staff report does not capture the fact that while Central Park Neighborhood was working with Planning on the OSAP that the GP was being developed simultaneously with this major inconsistency of maps. The GP maps that we were given show 3 lots 111-119 Leonard St as residential land use and the subsequent GP map shows it as MXVC. By virtue of working on the OSAP we were in fact working on the GP. The concept that there could be any inconsistency between maps on the same project was not even conceivable to us neighborhood advocates.

In our recent discussions with Planning and in the Staff Report, there is the question of how these parcels became MXVC. Planning asserts this was intentional. However, many inconsistencies bring the intent of this designation into question.

The GP, EIR and the OSAP use the following language:

Mixed Use Visitor Commercial designation may be applied to sites along the Ocean St., Corridor as well as sites within 1000 feet of Ocean St center line and which front on Water Street, Soquel, May Avenue and Broadway.

The homes on 111-119 Leonard Street front Leonard Street not May Avenue. We questioned the PD about this highly specific language we were told that a GP is ‘general’ and that this very specific definition of what defines what can be included in the MXVC/MUVH designation is not relevant. The homes at 111-119 Leonard St do not fall into in the GP definition of MXVC because these parcels front Leonard Street not May Ave. This language is repeated in the General Plan, OSAP and EIR This language is very clear precise and specific, it shows intent as to where the MXVC land use designation can be applied.

We looked at the EIR and the GP and found additional inconsistencies:

In the EIR for the GP the following language is repeated in several places:

40.597
LAND USE MAP CHANGES:

The properties identified are
Golf Club Drive property
Swenson property
Dimeo Lane landfill and recovery resource center.

There is no mention or reference of any land use map changes on the 111-119 on Leonard Street parcels.

The EIR also states that the mixed use visitor serving designation is applied to segments of Ocean Street that is designated Community Commercial. 111-119 Leonard St were never Community Commercial, again by this definition MXVC did not apply.

An objective of the OSAP was to provide protections and compatibility for the RL homes adjacent to the new MXVC development. This clearly explains why the map is orange(MXMD) on Ocean St at the lower height and density and one lot that fronts May Avenue which is adjacent to 119 Leonard St is also orange (MXMD). This land use designation was done purposefully to buffer the RL lots at 111-119 Leonard St. Every lot on this section of Ocean St where new development abuts a residence it is given the designation orange (MXMD). This demonstrates a clear and rational well documented intention to keep these lots residential which resulted from years of discussion in community meetings, Planning Commission meetings, City Council meetings in developing the OSAP. There was never a controversy about whether or not these lots would remain residential or become MXVC, the residential designation of these lots was a given. The subject of discussion in the OSAP was how to protect the RL neighborhood from adjacent MXVC development.

The Land Use map approved in 2012 puts a significantly higher density with unlimited intense commercial uses smack in the middle of the RL area. There are no other examples of this configuration in GP Land Use map in any other part of the city. The lower MXMD and limited uses surrounding these residential lots is a clear demonstration of the intent to provide a buffer to the adjacent neighborhood.

We have been shown many documents and many maps, But we have not been shown any language that specifically mentions a land use change at 111-119 Leonard St. There is no specific language in these documents that directing an employee to change the land use map at 111-119 Leonard St to MXVC . It is quite the opposite of an intentional change , it just showed up.

The Staff Report asks us to accept the proposed rezoning with no modifications or protections for our neighborhood. It asks our neighborhood to wait 1 or maybe many more years until the Housing Element has been completed and approved, and then staff will ‘explore’ whether a

40.598
GP Land use amendment ‘should’ occur as part of an upcoming process to work on the OSAP.

Words like ‘explore’ and ‘should’ are meaningless, there is no commitment to fix what is an obvious oversight.

This is no remedy at all. It leaves the residents of the existing apartment building and single family home vulnerable to displacement. It leaves our neighborhood vulnerable to incompatible development/land uses with no buffer. The GP and OSAP both stress neighborhood compatibility. Yet none is being offered to us. We are being asked to live with constant anxiety about what might be built next to us.

THE MUVH designation that replaces MXVC does not only change heights and density, but it also drastically changes land uses. The original MUVC designation was intended primarily for hotels and motels. We weren’t happy about that, but we accepted it because we had a buffer and language for neighborhood compatibility. The new MUVH designation allows hotels and every other imaginable possible use including mortuaries, cannabis outlets, smoking lounges, liquor stores nightclubs, live music, cinemas and many other uses that are obviously not compatible with a neighborhood full of families and young children. Most if not all protections and compatibility could be removed with density bonuses.

We appreciate that back in 2007 to 2014 the PD and the City Council understood that it was wrong to put large-scale high density buildings next to small apartments and single-family homes at the only entrance to our small pocket neighborhood without any buffer. We also appreciate the many hours the present Planners have spent working with our neighborhood to find a solution and we believe they also realize that it is wrong to put MUVH zoning inside the Central Park Neighborhood. In the past 2 months Planners Sarah and Matt and every Council member visited our neighborhood, met our vibrant community of adults and children. We ask Council to do the right thing.

We understand there may be a risk in postponing the rezoning of these lots. But once rezoned it may be impossible to have the zoning classification changed and that too is a risk. The MXVC designation of these parcels in the GP came about as an oversight, a product of many inconsistencies that were never resolved.

We ask the City Council to direct staff to fix this land use designation and make the GP consistent with the existing RL land use and zoning.

Thank you for your time and patience with this difficult issue. If you notice that I am missing from this important meeting 11/15 it is because I am having a surgery.

Deborah Marks… 207 Leonard St. Santa Cruz 95060… 831-247-4510 Central Park Neighborhood
Please include this letter in the packet for the 11/15 Council Meeting

40.599
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Santa Cruz YIMBY <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 5:58 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Bonnie Bush
Subject: Support for Objective Standards - Agenda #40 on 11/15/22 Attachments: Santa Cruz YIMBY Letter in support of Objective Standards.pdf.pdf Hello,
Please find our organization's support letter attached.

Thank you,
Santa Cruz YIMBY Leads

40.600
November 13, 2022
To: Santa Cruz City Council
From: Santa Cruz YIMBY
Re: Support for Objective Standards, Item #40 on November 15, 2022 Agenda We are writing in support of the Objective Standards as presented in the Agenda, item #40. They are a product of many discussions between the public and the City planners and establish rules that encourage the kind of development we want in Santa Cruz.

We support Option #1 (streamlining) for development review process and public hearing since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards. As noted in the staff report, public hearings take time and increase direct and carrying costs for housing development projects. We need more housing NOW to address our housing crisis.

State Law prevents the city from downzoning to permit fewer homes than are already allowed in the general plan. The Objective Standards updates the zoning code to align to the general plan. The development these standards enable is already allowed in the city. Objective Standards take politics out of land use, relying instead on approved plans.
● They facilitate the development of more multi-family and mixed-use housing which is already allowed in the city.
● These standards will help us build the housing we need. ● They ensure great urban design that is the product of lots of community discussion and feedback to the city’s planning project. ● They align the zoning code with the general plan.

Santa Cruz YIMBY advocates for an affordable, walkable city, with housing and public transportation to meet the needs of our growing population. We envision a community where our neighbors of all ages, cultures, abilities, and incomes, can make Santa Cruz their home.

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

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

40.601
November 13, 2022
To: Santa Cruz City Council
From: Santa Cruz YIMBY
Re: Support for Objective Standards, Item #40 on November 15, 2022 Agenda We are writing in support of the Objective Standards as presented in the Agenda, item #40. They are a product of many discussions between the public and the City planners and establish rules that encourage the kind of development we want in Santa Cruz.

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

40.602
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Alison Russell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 7:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards item on Nov. 15 agenda
Dear City Council,
Please do not raise building heights for the Objective Standards, but keep them as they are.

Thank you,
Alison Russell
Santa Cruz

40.603
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Peter Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 8:12 PM
To: City Council; Lee Butler
Subject: Objective Standards, PLEASE GO SLOW
Dear City Council and Planning Director,
I would urge you to GO SLOW and do not rush to implement these new objective standards for new development. I have BCCed many friends here who I’m sure will have opinions as well.

While I am generally supportive of more development downtown and along the corridors, I am concerned that allowing this without proper council and community input will create a backlash from our community (the next Measure O).

Questions and concerns:
‐ The public is very unaware of this MASSIVE change in how large developments are approved. This will shape the character of our city forever. PLEASE GO SLOW with these changes. ‐ I’m concerned this change will transfer all power to the planning department, as opposed to the city council, planning commission, or the community, to approve projects that will forever change our community. ‐ 42% of citizens voted Yes on O (I voted no) largely because they are opposed to big new developments. Even many No voters are very concerned about over‐development. Concerns around water, traffic, height, etc. should be more thoroughly addressed.
‐ We have a new at large mayor and city council in just under two months. I believe they should be allowed to weigh in on this decision (they will all be blamed for it if the community is unhappy). ‐ Given that this is such a monumental shift in how large developments are approved is there some way you can give short comprehensible synopsis to the community before voting?? I’m a real estate broker and small developer myself and I don’t understand these proposed changes. If I don’t understand them, I doubt very few if any people in the community do. Please I ask you to more thoroughly explain these proposed changes to the general community BEFORE VOTING ON THEM!! Sincerely,

40.604
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Laurie Dodt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 8:44 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Hold the vote
On Tuesday the city council is voting on a
300 page objective standards ordinance and
I don’t believe the community members
know enough about this or understand the
concept. I’m concerned about green lighting
massive new developments in our small
town.

I’m asking the council to slow down and
take the time to explain what this means to
our city and make sure the community is
supportive.

Personally, I’m very interested sustaining
the the architectural integrity of the
buildings as well as the affordability and
size of the apartments. I would benefit by

40.605
2 living in an affordable apartment but my
quality of life must be supported by having
more than a two room space for my life’s
memories to be in.

Please do more education and sharing before
voting.

Concerned and caring,
Laurie Dodt
Sent from my iPhone
--
Laurie Dodt
831-227-4995
Director/Teacher
Nature's Nursery School
'Nurtured in Nature'
“Receive the children in reverence;
Educate them in love;
Let them go forth in freedom.”
~ Rudolf Steiner

40.606
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Lee Butler
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 10:08 PM
To: Peter Cook; City Council
Cc: Sarah Neuse; Matthew VanHua
Subject: Re: Objective Standards, PLEASE GO SLOW
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your email. I wanted to provide a few responses.

First, this item includes a very substantial amount of material, which one would expect from over two years of work involving over 1,000 community members. To help summarize the various changes in a more digestible format, the table
at https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/91242/638031685557270000 was prepared and posted to the website.
2022 Ordinance Update Summary Table
Option 3 (Hybrid): No hearings for conforming housing projects with 50 dwelling units or fewer, public hearings required for fully conforming housing projects with 51 dwelling units or more. www.cityofsantacruz.com
Nothing in these standards changes the amount of development currently allowed. Developers, right now, actually have more of an ability to propose (and have the City be required to approve) taller buildings than what are included in the standards and associated rezonings. The standards and rezonings will provide more local control over development. I'd encourage you to review the Objective Standards website at https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/obj for more information.

CITYWIDE MULTIFAMILY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS PROJECT | City of Santa Cruz
housing standards, housing policy, santa cruz, housing development www.cityofsantacruz.com
Here are a few excerpts from the FAQs on that site that address some of your questions and comments. I'd encourage you to review the full FAQs at the site above, and if you'd like more info, a detailed, two‐hour presentation was provided to the Council on August 23, 2022. That video and PowerPoint show are available on the Council's agenda. I'd also highly encourage you to review the August 23, September 13, and November

40.607
2 15 staff reports. (The prior two staff reports are attached to the Nov. 15 Council agenda, so you can get them all from this coming Tuesday's agenda.)
 Is the City upzoning propoerites?
o This project is not increasing development potential on any sites in the City. The project is making the City’s Zoning Ordinance consistent with development potential that is already allowed under State law as of January 1, 2019.  The Objective Standards provide more local control. For any projects submitted before the new standards take effect, developers set many of the building standards, as state law currently overrides our Zoning Ordinance.
o The Objective Standards project was developed directly in response to changes in State law that took away some of the City’s local control over development. This project provides Santa Cruzans with significantly more control over development outcomes than currently available. The Objective Standards create many new design standards and are more specific than most existing standards. Additionally, the proposed new zone districts set various building standards, such as heights, setbacks, and open space requirements, that the City can use to control development, where these standards either do not exist or State law currently overrides the City’s standards. o
 Public Hearing Process
o One of the most prevalent concerns raised at the prior hearing relates to a proposed change in public hearing requirements. The change was intended to streamline review for proposals that meet all of the local zoning regulations, including every one of the new Objective Standards that are being proposed. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended this streamlined approach to provide an incentive for projects to fully conform to the standards that have been developed through our community engagement process and because fully conforming projects must be approved under state law requirements.

Also, the proposed streamlining process is the same process that has been used for residential development in the multifamily R-L (Multiple Residence Low Rise) and R-M (Multiple Residence Medium Rise) zones for more than 30 years, as well as certain commercial development in some of the City’s commercial zone districts. Under the streamlining proposal, public hearings would be reserved for situations where a project was proposing to vary in some way from any of the existing or proposed development requirements.

That said, most projects likely will not qualify for the streamlining based on other permits needed or allowances requested (like a density bonus) so, making a change to require a public hearing on fully conforming projects will likely not affect most development. For this reason, staff will be bringing alternatives to the City Council to consider using either a streamlined process or requiring a public hearing for conforming development. As discussed in detail in the 11/15 agenda report, the Council has three options from which to choose as it relates to the public hearing process.

Under any proposal, the City’s current community outreach policies, including neighborhood notice and the community meeting requirement, the environmental review requirement, and the right to appeal, will all remain in place. These outreach requirements are the part of the development review process that allows the community to work directly with staff and a developer to adjust a project and influence a design early in the process, when changes are easier to accommodate. The City believes these processes are working well, and staff is not proposing to make any changes to them.

This project is the culmination of an extensive effort over two years of work with over 1,000 community participants. The draft standards were presented to Planning Commission and City Council in November 2021. They've been available for public comment since then, with many community members providing feedback during that time, and they've been modified in response to those comments. We are recommending that the Council take action now, as these standards and associated rezonings bring myriad benefits to the City, including but not limited to increased local control, higher quality building and site design, and better transparency for all stakeholders.

Thanks and have a nice evening,

40.608
3 Lee

From: Peter Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 8:12 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Lee Butler <[email protected]> Subject: Objective Standards, PLEASE GO SLOW

Dear City Council and Planning Director,

I would urge you to GO SLOW and do not rush to implement these new objective standards for new development. I have BCCed many friends here who I’m sure will have opinions as well.

Questions and concerns:

 The public is very unaware of this MASSIVE change in how large developments are approved. This will shape the character of our city forever. PLEASE GO SLOW with these changes.  I’m concerned this change will transfer all power to the planning department, as opposed to the city council, planning commission, or the community, to approve projects that will forever change our community.  42% of citizens voted Yes on O (I voted no) largely because they are opposed to big new developments. Even many No voters are very concerned about over‐development. Concerns around water, traffic, height, etc. should be more thoroughly addressed.
 We have a new at large mayor and city council in just under two months. I believe they should be allowed to weigh in on this decision (they will all be blamed for it if the community is unhappy).  Given that this is such a monumental shift in how large developments are approved is there some way you can give short comprehensible synopsis to the community before voting??

I’m a real estate broker and small developer myself and I don’t understand these proposed changes. If I don’t understand them, I doubt very few if any people in the community do. Please I ask you to more thoroughly explain these proposed changes to the general community BEFORE VOTING ON THEM!!

Sincerely,

40.609
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: rebecca bogdan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 11:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rezoning
I live at 410 Dakota Avenue in the Central Park neighborhood off of Ocean and Water. I am writing about the potential rezoning of the Ocean Street corridor that dips into our neighborhood at Ocean and Leonard Street. I'm assuming that a mistake was made somewhere along the way that would rezone an entire block on one side of Leonard all the way to May Avenue. This has the potential to push tall buildings into a neighborhood of mixed single family homes and apartments. It occurs to me that the small net gain of increased density would not be worth the potential destruction of the neighborhood ambiance and social fabric of the neighborhood. Someone made the suggestion at one of our meetings with city council members that if we don't want those properties developed we should just buy them. This strikes me as cynical and insensitive to the economic realities of homeowners and renters who take pride in our peaceful neighborhood. Neither does it speak to the way properties are bought and sold with no thought to the long term consequences of neighborhood destruction.

Please correct this zoning mistake that seems to have a mysteriously undocumented history of how it came into being in the first place. Thank you and please consider neighborhood integrity as part of an overall rezoning effort. Rebecca Bogdan

40.610
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Susan Cavalieri <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:36 AM
To: City Council
Subject: comment for City Council meeting 11/15/22
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item #40 in the desperate hope that you will not diminish the requirements for alteration or removal or any Heritage Tree or Shrub for any purpose.

As we experience the rapidly heating earth our only hope is to reduce emissions by phasing out fossil fuels and agricultural emissions and sequestering emissions, already at record levels in the atmosphere, into the soil.

Large heritage trees and shrubs draw down more carbon dioxide from the air into the soil than small newly planted species. It is the responsibility of our City to do everything possible to prevent the increasing loss of land and life and the accelerating financial losses we will all experience with fire, heat, flooding and sea level rise.

Please prioritize the health of our community and save our largest and most important plants for the benefit of life on earth.

Our time to pivot to a pathway toward 1.5 C is now. We are already at 1.2 C and I am terrified as I see an unlivable future unfold.

Susan Cavalieri
Santa Cruz

40.611
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Pauline Seales <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:46 AM
To: City Council
Cc: SC CAN discussion
Subject: Items on Nov 15 agenda
A Thank you
Item 19. Affordable housing plan for 136 River St – former Outdoor World Great location – great need!
A Caution
Item 38/39. Continuance of Outdoor dining areas
Great – the public loves these and they are good for the businesses BUT ‐ heating the outdoors with propane heaters is a serious source of Greenhouse Gases Please Modify
Item 40 Municipal Code – subsections 6) 7)
6) Adopt a resolution establishing a new in lieu fee requirement for street tree removals 7) Adopt a resolution establishing mitigation requirements for the removal of a heritage tree or heritage shrub, replacing existing Council Resolution No. NS‐21,436.

This seems inconsistent with the already approved Climate Action plan section CR‐1 MEASURE CR‐1: Develop an Urban Forest Master Plan
and plant 3,000 new trees by 2030.
“In Lieu” fees supply an easy way for developers to avoid dealing with the environmental problems they create at a time when we urgently need their full involvement in Climate solutions.

Pauline Seales
Santa Cruz Climate Action Network

40.612
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Peter Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:04 AM
To: Lee Butler; City Council
Cc: Sarah Neuse; Matthew VanHua
Subject: RE: Objective Standards, PLEASE GO SLOW
Hi Lee,
As a long time YIMBY member (not necessarily supporter) I understand the significant challenges you are facing in implementing these new rules. The community, however, does not understand.

My main concerns are political. There are so many projects already approved, let alone new ones, that you are going to get a significant backlash. Wait until they put that six‐story building at the corner of Bay and West Cliff and I can basically guarantee you another citizen initiative around neighbors #1 concern, height. The only way you head this off is with significant and very simply explained public outreach (Sentinel, Look Out, SC Local, Nextdoor, etc). Measure O was only an opening salvo imo, I think you and the council need to be more mindful of this. The people pushing Measures M, N, and O got the most traction with O. Guaranteed there is another wedge issue in two years, there always is…..

As I see it the community has four main concerns, in order of importance:
1) Height
2) Parking
3) Water/traffic
4) Aesthetics
In reverse order, aesthetics seems somewhat well addressed in your proposal, although things like the Hampton Inn on Mission Street at Swift make it clear to me planning can’t really assure good outcomes here (but please ban T1‐11 siding!!!!). Water/traffic are largely outside your purvey.

Parking is a big issue because with ADU’s and the new parking rules recently put in place. The neighborhoods are already starting to feel the affects and alarm bells are going off. Without city wide parking restrictions these big new projects will push cars into the neighborhoods even more. Neighbors who could previously park in front of their house and all of a sudden can’t find parking on their block are going to vote to restrict growth.

Height is the #1 issue that will arouse a public backlash because it is so visible. Doing things like proposing 18 story buildings is akin to whacking a hornet’s nest. It makes me and the rest of the community very suspicious of what is going on. I think you need to very clearly and concisely explain this to the general public. People need to made more aware R1 is being preserved in exchange for this new height. But where the height, why and how much needs much better explanation.

At the end of the day, it is my friends on council who take the brunt of the public backlash. It is for their sake I am reaching out to you.

Best,

40.613
2 From: Lee Butler <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 10:08 PM
To: Peter Cook <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Cc: Sarah Neuse <[email protected]>; Matthew VanHua <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Objective Standards, PLEASE GO SLOW
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your email. I wanted to provide a few responses.

CITYWIDE MULTIFAMILY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS PROJECT | City of Santa Cruz

40.614
3 housing standards, housing policy, santa cruz, housing development www.cityofsantacruz.com
Here are a few excerpts from the FAQs on that site that address some of your questions and comments. I'd encourage you to review the full FAQs at the site above, and if you'd like more info, a detailed, two‐hour presentation was provided to the Council on August 23, 2022. That video and PowerPoint show are available on the Council's agenda. I'd also highly encourage you to review the August 23, September 13, and November 15 staff reports. (The prior two staff reports are attached to the Nov. 15 Council agenda, so you can get them all from this coming Tuesday's agenda.)
 Is the City upzoning propoerites?
o This project is not increasing development potential on any sites in the City. The project is making the City’s Zoning Ordinance consistent with development potential that is already allowed under State law as of January 1, 2019.  The Objective Standards provide more local control. For any projects submitted before the new standards take effect, developers set many of the building standards, as state law currently overrides our Zoning Ordinance.
o The Objective Standards project was developed directly in response to changes in State law that took away some of the City’s local control over development. This project provides Santa Cruzans with significantly more control over development outcomes than currently available. The Objective Standards create many new design standards and are more specific than most existing standards. Additionally, the proposed new zone districts set various building standards, such as heights, setbacks, and open space requirements, that the City can use to control development, where these standards either do not exist or State law currently overrides the City’s standards. o
 Public Hearing Process
o One of the most prevalent concerns raised at the prior hearing relates to a proposed change in public hearing requirements. The change was intended to streamline review for proposals that meet all of the local zoning regulations, including every one of the new Objective Standards that are being proposed. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended this streamlined approach to provide an incentive for projects to fully conform to the standards that have been developed through our community engagement process and because fully conforming projects must be approved under state law requirements.

40.615
4 This project is the culmination of an extensive effort over two years of work with over 1,000 community participants. The draft standards were presented to Planning Commission and City Council in November 2021. They've been available for public comment since then, with many community members providing feedback during that time, and they've been modified in response to those comments. We are recommending that the Council take action now, as these standards and associated rezonings bring myriad benefits to the City, including but not limited to increased local control, higher quality building and site design, and better transparency for all stakeholders.

Thanks and have a nice evening,
Lee

From: Peter Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 8:12 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Lee Butler <[email protected]> Subject: Objective Standards, PLEASE GO SLOW

Dear City Council and Planning Director,

I would urge you to GO SLOW and do not rush to implement these new objective standards for new development. I have BCCed many friends here who I’m sure will have opinions as well.

Questions and concerns:

Sincerely,

40.616
5 40.617
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Theo Kell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:54 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards Adoption
Hello, my name is Theo Kell, I'm a District 3 resident (608 Washington St.) I am writing on Agenda Item 40 - 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 the housing crisis in Santa Cruz.

I also support Santa Cruz YIMBY's recommendation that you choose Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards.

Best,
Theo

40.618
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Sarah Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:01 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Important. Please read priot to Nov 15 meeting -
Dear Council Member,
It is very important that each council member looks carefully at the objective standard regarding keeping the 3 story/40 foot height numbers in the community commercial (CC and the new mixed use medium and high density zoning districts, because there are numerous other provisions that allow these numbers to be adjusted upward if necessary to accommodate the residential intensities specified in the General Plan. The reason is that if greater height numbers are inserted in the zoning districts, the result could be even taller buildings and little chance of ever reducing heights in the future. With the density bonus provision to help our city gain additional affordable housing units, the height will go higher so why change the height? Please vote for this change in the objective standards to keep the existing heights.

Thank you.

Respectfully,
Sarah Olson

40.619
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Benjamin Breen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:05 AM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 40 - Objective Standards
Dear members of the Santa Cruz city council,
I write to recommend that you adopt the Objective Standards outlined in Agenda Item 40. These standards 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, I believe, will help us build the housing we desperately need to address the housing crisis in Santa Cruz. But they are not enough on their own. To that end, the streamlining option (Option #1) also strikes me as the best available choice for the development review process.

Finally, I’d like to note that with the decisive failure of Measure O, we now have an opportunity to move forward with a clear consensus from Santa Cruz voters who made it known that they favor increasing the supply of housing in the city.

One point of common ground uniting many supporters and opponents of Measure O was recognition that we need to shift toward green transportation infrastructure and denser housing in downtown lots. I believe the choices recommended above will help do that, but I also hope the city council can consider moving forward with affordable housing on some of the existing city-owned surface parking lots. Making some streets downtown pedestrian-only, and/or removing street parking, would also be popular with voters, IMO.

With best wishes,
Ben Breen
________________________
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

40.620
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Matt Farrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:36 AM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 40 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 40 - 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 the housing crisis in Santa Cruz. I also support Santa Cruz YIMBY's recommendation that you choose Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards.

Thanks for working to address the housing crisis in our community! Matt Farrell
922 Windsor Street
Santa Cruz 95062
831 331-7496

40.621
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: jen sandstrom <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 2:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Limit height of Buildings on Ocean Street
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of my neighbor, Rick Hyman's proposed letter regarding a height and story limit for commercial buildings on Ocean Street. I am a homeowner who lives on Glenwood Avenue. I am not in favor of the city council approving projects that are causing our city to grow ever upwards. We are a small beach town that has a hip vibe. Tourists come here because of the charm that our city offers. You, of the city council, are approving projects that are eroding our small beach town vibe. You will pay for this greater into the future when tourists choose to bypass Santa Cruz in favor of spending time and money in Pescadero which will be the new Santa Cruz. I choose to live here in Santa Cruz because of the small town feel and pay a premium to live here. I do not want our town to become another San Jose or Silicon Valley. It is very disappointing to see our town moving in this direction. Here is Rick Hyman's letter which I am in favor of:

Please limit heights in the proposed MU‐OH Mixed‐Use Ocean Street High Density zoning district for commercial only uses to 2 to 4 stories and 30 to 50 feet – not 55 feet as proposed. 50 feet is more than adequate for a 4 story commercial building. 50 feet is the proposed height for commercial uses in the MU‐H Mixed‐Use High Density. So, please be consistent – there is no reason to have taller buildings on Ocean Street than on Soquel or Water Street. Additionally, not all commercial‐only buildings need to be 4 stories; the Ocean Street Area Plan shows height limits of 2 to 4 stories. In reality the existing and newer commercial uses on the street have mostly been single story.

The Ocean Street Area Plan was years in preparation and involved business and neighborhood input. The varying height limits along Ocean Street reflect block by block consideration of the existing and potential property uses. At that time staff said that outstanding citizen concerns about neighborhood compatibility would be addressed through the zoning ordinance which could contain added detail, such as expressing heights in feet. Since then, State law has limited the ability of the city to respond to neighborhood concerns through the rezoning that you are now considering. When the Plan was adopted, the ability to require less than 4 stories for projects with residential uses had not yet been precluded. And, when the Plan was adopted, there were no requirements to add extra height for affordable housing projects; it was assumed at the time that the maximum height would never be more than 4 stories.

Given that some buildings that have residential uses are going to be taller than envisioned by the Ocean Street Area Plan, commercial‐only buildings need not all be so tall as well. The 2 to 4 story limit should be maintained for commercial‐only buildings in the zoning ordinance. This would give the City the future flexibility to require a design that is compatible with the neighborhood; it would not automatically have to allow a 4 story building by right on every parcel. This would also provide an incentive to provide needed housing since applicants could build more if they incorporated housing into their projects.

Thank you for considering the adjacent neighborhood input in your upcoming decision.

Thank you for making better decisions that maintain the small town feel of Santa Cruz.

40.622
2 Sincerely,
Jennifer Sandstrom
127 Glewnood Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

40.623
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Lorna Torkos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:04 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Big developments
Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
Please stop all this big development in our beautiful little town. Please don’t let big developers destroy our ambience and our feeling of small town.

Thanks,
Lorna Torkos

40.624
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ajay Shenoy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:40 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Yes on Objective standards (Agenda Item 40)
Dear Members of the City Council:

I am writing on Agenda Item 40 - 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.

I also support Santa Cruz YIMBY's recommendation that you choose Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards.

Thank you,
Ajay Shenoy
Resident, Upper Westside

40.625
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:40 AM
To: City Council
Subject: City Council Agenda Item 40, Public Hearing, Objective Design Standards, for meeting of November 15, 2022
Dear Honorable City Council,
Please accept my encouragement to adopt the Objective Standards that are the subject of tomorrow’s public hearing.

The standards have addressed public concerns. The primary concern is that the standards create some sort of pathway to unvetted and unrestricted development. This is not the case. To my eye, the amendments are mostly clarifications of existing standards, in order to bring the City into alignment with rapidly changing State standards, plus some minor clarification details regarding issues such as heritage tree removal fees. I do not see anything in the proposal as allowing unfettered development.

To offset the continually mounting mountain of paperwork and costs one must climb to build anything of much consequence, I do ask that you please codify Option 1 Streamlining for the development review process. Option 1 might incentivize designers and builders to adopt and conform to the standards rather than propose wildly differing projects that will burden our tax and fee‐funded government and thereby increase costs.

Best regards and sincere wishes for continuing health, happiness, and prosperity for all, Michael
Michael F. Cox
PO Box 786, Soquel, CA 95073‐0786
(408) 644‐7848 (cell)
(831) 462‐1907 (home)
[email protected]

40.626
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: geri lieby <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:49 AM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 40 - Objective Standards
Good Morning All,
I am writing on Agenda Item 40 - 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 the housing crisis in Santa Cruz.

I also support Santa Cruz YIMBY's recommendation that you choose Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards. geri lieby
[email protected]

40.627
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ben Eisenpress <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:52 AM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 40 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 40 - 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 the housing crisis in Santa Cruz.

40.628
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Sean Concannon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:54 AM
To: City Council
Subject: In support of today's agenda item 40 - objective standards Greetings -
I am writing to the council today concerning Agenda Item 40 - Objective Standards - and I am urging adoption.

The standards 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 the housing crisis in Santa Cruz.

I also support Santa Cruz YIMBY's recommendation that you choose Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards.

Many thanks
Sean Concannon
136 McCornick Street, Santa Cruz

40.629
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Nancy Maynard <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:16 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards... not so good...Good Bye
well... why are we green lighting massive developments in town? Most of us did not settle here to live in a mini Manhattan. I've talked to visitors... they are very disappointed. They had a fantasy view of the town... not any more. Crime and drugs are ruining this town... not lack of housing. After 20 years I will be moving. And probably never come back..

Good Bye Santa Cruz
Nancy Maynard

40.630
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Robynne Blume <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:18 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards for Development
Hello,
I am writing on Agenda Item 40 - 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 the housing crisis in Santa Cruz.

I also support Santa Cruz YIMBY's recommendation that you choose Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards.

Thank you for your time,
Robynne Blume

40.631
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Casey Coneway <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:21 AM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 40 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 40 - 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 the housing crisis in Santa Cruz. I also support Santa Cruz YIMBY's recommendation that you choose Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards.

Casey Coneway

40.632
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: jfbergs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:36 AM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 40 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 40 - 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 the housing crisis in Santa Cruz.

I also support Santa Cruz YIMBY's recommendation that you choose Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards.

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

40.633
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: David Steinberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:42 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Central Park neighborhood rezoning comment
Attachments: publickey - EmailAddress([email protected]) - 0xFBB616A4.asc; signature.asc Dear Council Members,
I have been a resident of the Central Park neighborhood for several years and it has been a joy to raise my two children here. When I learned of the plans to rezone the neighborhood it raised numerous concerns about how it would affect the quality of life in our community.

Thank you for considering other options than rezoning parcels in this neighborhood. I am confident there are ways to move forward that would allow Central Park to maintain its unique character.

Sincerely,
David Steinberg
210 Leonard St
831-236-7192

40.634
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Gerda Endemann <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:55 AM
To: Sonja Brunner; Donna Meyers; Martine Watkins; [email protected]; Justin Cummings; Sandy Brown; City Council
Subject: Please take more time with new housing density guidelines! To the Santa Cruz city council:

Please take more time with the new iteration of the corridors plan. We can increase affordable housing without building taller developments that will be affordable only to a higher-income demographic at the expense of neighborhood integrity.

Sincerely,
Gerda Endemann
139 Magnolia Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
650-814-4914

40.635
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Cory <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:59 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards
Hello,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 40 - Objective Standards - and urge adoption. The standards are the result 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 the housing crisis in Santa Cruz.

Additionally, I support Santa Cruz YIMBY's recommendation for Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process, because it will incentivize projects to fully conform to the standards.

Regards,
Cory M.

40.636
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jeanie Elliott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:08 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective standards
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to you to encourage you to take more time to involve community members in decisions about planning that will impact all of us.

While we do need more housing and understand that we are a obliged to follow state law, the facilitation of zoning rules that are advantageous to high-density ( and not affordable) and taller buildings downtown will not serve us well. Santa Cruz is desirable because it has “character”. Please help us keep that character while we grow, as grow we must, while keeping our neighborhood and downtown integrity.

Sincerely,
Jean Elliott
728 Darwin St
Santa Cruz, CA
Sent from my iPhone

40.637
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Wendy Martyna <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:19 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Protect Central Park support
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in appreciation of the time many of you have invested in research and onsite visits in relation to our neighborhood's profound opposition to redevelopment plans of three parcels on Leonard Street - the entry point to one of the oldest neighborhoods in Santa Cruz (my house was built in the very early 1900's, as were many of the houses in Central Park). We urge you not to rezone the three parcels in question and to ensure that this neighborhood is protected by a residential designation. To displace the many working families who have lived on one of the parcels in question - and are a longstanding part of our community - makes no sense, as they are already living in affordable housing that would be denied them if their homes were torn down to make way for new development.

Thank you for listening to our concerns,
Wendy Martyna, Ph.D.

Retired UCSC Lecturer in Sociology and Psychology

40.638
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:24 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: City Council meeting on Objective Standards rezoning Dear Councilmembers:

Additionally, not all commercial‐only buildings need to be 4 stories; the Ocean Street Area Plan shows height limits of 2 to 4 stories. In reality the existing and newer commercial uses on the street have mostly been single story.

The Ocean Street Area Plan was years in preparation and involved business and neighborhood input. The varying height limits along Ocean Street reflect block by block consideration of the existing and potential property uses. At that time staff said that outstanding citizen concerns about neighborhood compatibility would be addressed through the zoning ordinance which could contain added detail, such as expressing heights in feet. Since then State law has limited the ability of the city to respond to neighborhood concerns through the rezoning that you are now considering. When the Plan was adopted, the ability to require less than 4 stories for projects with residential uses had not yet been precluded.

And, when the Plan was adopted, there were no requirements to add extra height for affordable housing projects; it was assumed at the time that the maximum height would never be more than 4 stories.

Thank you for considering the adjacent neighborhood input in your upcoming decision.

Larry and Terrie Duimstra
Raneta Pomeroy
Russell Brutsche
Rick Hyman
Grant Park Neighborhood residents

40.639
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Maya Sapper <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:40 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Minimize
I urge you ro minimize height and density of buildings in Santa Cruz. My family does not want our city to become taller and uglier . I am a proud NIMBY
Maya Sapper
Sent from my iPad

40.640
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Libby Barnes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 1:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective standards support
Hello,
As an employee who works downtown, I am in support of the Objective Standards.

I also filled out the survey.

I look forward to seeing the development of these standards and for the city to continue to building affordable housing.

Libby
Libby Barnes
c: 831.238.1090
o: 831.227.2217 x515
[email protected]
We're hiring designers and developers! See available opportunities here. Join Our Team!

40.641
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Roe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 1:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: overbuilding Santa Cruz
Please take more time, and to reduce, not increase, zoning rules that benefit high-density and taller developments at the expense of neighborhood integrity.
thanks
Roe Shapiro

40.642
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Lira Filippini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 2:00 PM
To: City Council; Sonja Brunner; Donna Meyers; Justin Cummings; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Sandy Brown; Martine Watkins; Renee Golder Subject: Agenda Item 40; Objective Design Standards 11/15/22 Dear City Council,
Removing hearings for significant development projects that planning staff rubber stamps as meeting the objective standards is an erosion of democracy. It is untenable and poses clear equity problems. Only individuals who have the time and money to file for an appeal would be able to be officially heard by their elected representatives; please do not pass the streamlining part of staff's recommendations.

Additionally, increasing the height, FAR and overall density in many of the areas of the city is not what the community understands the setting of objective design standards to be.

The community survey did include questions about height, but they were specifically worded to imply that there would be increased affordability with the increase in height. Instead, there is an increase of height and residential density being ushered in without any increase in affordability.

Changing certain areas from 1.75 FAR "as of right," to 2.75 is clearly an increase of density and one that will only be utilized as the base density; we know the density and height will be increased on most of the projects coming forward through a state density bonus.

Below is what is currently in the General Plan and that would be greatly increased with staff's recommendations for objective standards:
 2030 General Plan - pg. 42 of actual document, but 48 of PDF - Mixed-use high Density (MxhD), 1.0 to 2.75 FAR, 10 to 55 du/ac.

This designation may be applied to sites along Water Street, and Soquel Avenue corridors. The typical commercial uses are similar to those in the Community Commercial (CM) designation, and pedestrian-oriented commercial uses are encouraged on the ground floor.

The MXHD designation allows a maximum FAR of 1.75 as of right, including a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre. However, a project that meets a number of specific criteria, as determined by the Planning Commission, may have an FAR of up to 2.75, including up to 55 dwelling units per acre. Details are contained in the Zoning Ordinance.  There is no knowable and officially adopted criteria in the Zoning Ordinance for 2.75 FAR or 55 du/acre. This limits the "base unit" calculation to 30du/acre (& FAR to 1.75).

Please do not increase the MXHD from 1.75 FAR to 2.75. Keep it to 40ft height, 30 du/acre and 1.75 FAR.

I understand that all of the technical elements of this process and of land use regulations in general are complex. But it is up to you, our elected representatives, to represent what is best for constituents. Staff's recommendations are not what is best for your constituents. And if they are adopted, they can't be reversed due to the new state laws. Maybe if staff had included an increase in affordability with their proposition for increase in height and density, this could benefit the community. But that is not the case.

Thank you for your consideration,
Lira Filippini

40.643
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jane Royer Barr <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 2:17 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 40 - Objective Standards
To the Santa Cruz City Council members:

RE: Agenda Item 40 - Objective Standards
I am writing in support of the proposed Objective Standards. They will align zoning code with the general plan and adopt much needed objective standards for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects. Therefor, I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council. These standards will assist the development of housing so desperately needed to address our housing crisis in Santa Cruz and meet our RHNA goals.

I also support Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards.

Jane Barr
Jane Royer Barr
Associate Director of Real Estate Development
860 Avocado Road Corralitos, CA 95076
Office 510-512-0127 | Cell 831-840-3500
[email protected] | edenhousing.org
Eden Housing creates and sustains high-quality affordable housing communities that advance equity and opportunity for all.

40.644
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ryan Meckel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 2:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 40 - Objective Standards
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing on Agenda Item 40 - 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 the housing crisis in Santa Cruz.

I also support Santa Cruz YIMBY's recommendation that you choose Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards.

Sincerely,
Ryan Meckel
Transportation and Public Works Commissioner

40.645
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jennifer Post <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 2:37 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards
Santa Cruz City Council,
I am writing on Agenda Item 40 - 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 the housing crisis in Santa Cruz.

I also support Santa Cruz YIMBY's recommendation that you choose Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Post
City of Santa Cruz Resident

40.646
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: melanie mayer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: objective standards
Please do not pass the “objective standards” ordinance without thoroughly explaining what exactly this means to our city and
giving us citizens a real chance to ask questions about it. (Zoom session are not a substitute for real communication .

Melanie j. Mayer
246 High Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

40.647
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Emerald Waters <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:37 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support Objective Standards - Agenda Item 40
Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
I am writing on Agenda Item 40 - Objective Standards - and urge adoption. They are the product of a community that came together to discuss and give feedback on the city’s planning project. I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns the 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 the housing crisis in Santa Cruz.

I also support Santa Cruz YIMBY's recommendation that you choose Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards.

Thank you,
--
Emerald Waters
(She/Her/Hers)

40.648
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Gary Patton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:14 PM
To: Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; City Council; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Donna Meyers; Martine Watkins
Subject: Objective Standards - Agenda Item #40 on November 15, 2022 Agend Attachments: Save Santa Cruz Letter November 14 Letter To City Council On Objective Standards.pdf Dear Council Members,
Here are comments from Save Santa Cruz. We urge the Council not to adopt the huge (and hugely important) set of changes to the city’s land use policies that are being recommended to the Council by the Planning staff.

No action should be taken until the Council has established a way for members of the public to weigh in much more substantively than can be accomplished by a two-minute comment on the staff’s proposed omnibus set of recommendations.

Please review our letter, and the attachment to our letter, and take seriously the concerns we raise.

Thanks you!
Gary A. Patton, Attorney at Law
Co-Chair, Save Santa Cruz
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

40.649
Save Santa Cruz
Stop Overbuilding Santa Cruz
Post Office Box 4086, Santa Cruz, CA 95063
Email: [email protected]
November 14, 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: November 15, 2022 Agenda Item #40
Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Members:

This letter is, in essence, a follow up to our letters to the Council dated August 16, 2022, and August 23, 2022, which are part of the public record. We reiterate here the concerns we expressed in those letters, and we want particularly to highlight the fact that additional review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is legally required.

Save Santa Cruz is 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” 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 providing appropriate new development opportunities doesn’t have to undermine what makes our community such a great place to live, and to raise a family.

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

40.650
2 to comment on proposed projects – and to have a real impact on what happens when projects and new policy measures 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).

The “Objective Standards” proposals now before the Council represent the staff’s suggested way to “resolve the existing inconsistencies between … General Plan policies and the Zoning Ordinance.” Save Santa Cruz does not believe that the proposed ordinance amendments, as reflected in the Objective Standards that the staff is recommending, will 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 proposals before you are key. First, what you have before you is not understandable. It wasn’t understandable in August, and it is not understandable now. We believe that neither Council Members nor members of the public 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 outcome, the overall impact, is simply not clear. To say it again, what you will have before you for adoption is not understandable!
Save Santa Cruz would like the Council to break down this omnibus proposal into smaller segments and set up a process that will allow the

40.651
3 Council to hear, in detail, from concerned members of the public. Giving interested persons an ability to speak for two minutes on the massive number of proposed changes before you (with many of these two-minute statements made anonymously by telephone) does not permit the kind of deliberation that these major changes deserve.

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.

We recommend that the Council take no action on the so-called Objective Standards proposal on November 15, 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.

3. Further, the Council meetings 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. We do suggest that multiple meetings should be required, conducted in a way that will allow members of the public to focus their commentary on each specific segment of the conglomeration of proposed changes that the Planning Department has brought to you as an omnibus package.

40.652
4 Should the Council proceed to make final decisions today, despite the lack of adequate environmental review and despite the fact that it is unlikely that even the Council Members – much less members of the public – actually understand the on-the-ground impacts of the proposed changes, then Save Santa Cruz urges the following:

1. Respect the requests of the Central Park Neighborhood, as conveyed in its November 12, 2022, letter from Deborah Marks, and make no zoning changes with respect to that area at this time.

2. Do NOT change zoning designations along any of our major transportation corridors to “upzone” properties to track designations in the existing General Plan. Please see the attached explanation of why this is not only unnecessary but will have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and on the city’s ability to maintain future options with respect to land use policy.

Thank you 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
Central Park Neighborhood
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.

40.653
5 Why Proposed Corridor Rezonings Should Not Be Made Now The City Council will be considering rezoning some parcels along the corridor streets from Community Commercial (CC) that has a 3 story/40 foot height requirement to either Mixed Use Medium Density that will have a proposed 4 story/45 foot height requirement for mixed use projects, or Mixed Use High Density proposed for 5 stories/55 feet for mixed use projects and 4 stories/50 feet for commercial-only development. Also, in the CC district, mixed use projects with ground floor retail are proposed to be allowed an extra 5 feet (i.e., 45 feet high).

What do these height numbers mean?
These numbers do not represent absolutes:
-height can be greater than these with a Planned Development permit; -height can be greater if affordable housing is provided; -some rooftop uses and structures are allowed above these numbers; -below ground development does not count as height or stories; -for a pitch or hip roof height is the average midpoint of roof planes of the highest gable, not the absolute highest point.

What intensity of use do these height numbers have to accommodate? The Housing Crisis Act requires the City to allow the planned intensity of housing that was in the General Plan (GP) and zoning as of January 1, 2018.
• In Community Commercial designations, a project with residential units has to accommodate a

1.75 FAR (GP) and need not be lower than 3 stories or 40 feet (CC zoning). • In Mixed Use Medium Density designations, a project with residential units has to accommodate a Floor Area Ratio of up to 1.75 and 30 two-or-more-bedroom dwelling units per acre (GP) and need not be lower than 3 stories or 40 feet (CC zoning). • Similarly, in Mixed Use High Density designations, a 1.75 FAR is granted by right and has to be accommodated as do 30 dwelling units per acre and, again, residential projects need not be lower than 3 stories or 40 feet;
• Also, in Mixed Use High Density designations up to a 2.75 FAR and 55 two or more bedroom dwelling units per acre are allowed under specific criteria determined by the Planning Commission and contained in the zoning ordinance (GP). Such criteria were not determined by January 1, 2018, but the current Objective Standards proposal assumes that the new Mixed Use High Density zoning district has to accommodate a 2.75 FAR for all parcels that will have mixed use projects, not just select ones that meet certain criteria.

What heights are needed to accommodate the specified intensities (expressed as Floor Area Ratios)? • 3 stories/40 feet are adequate to accommodate 1.75 FARs and 30 dwelling units/ acre; • Up to 4 stories/45 feet are adequate to accommodate 2.75 FARs and 55 dwelling units/acre; • Greater heights allow more design flexibility, but are not necessary.

Will greater heights of buildings with the same FAR limits result in greater development intensity? They can, as in the following examples:
• Picture a mixed use commercial building of 3 stories/40 feet compared to one of 3 stories/45 feet, i.e., one or more floors are taller within the same building footprint (i.e., they have identical FARs). Taller floors can accommodate, for example, more vertical storage space and

40.654
6 hence leave more floor space for more office workers; or more room for merchandise which can attract more retail customers; or allow for some loft or mezzanine space that could accommodate more restaurant patrons.
• Picture a residential building of 4 stories compared to one of 5 stories – to be of the same FAR, the taller building would have to be skinnier, leaving more room for (1) more or larger balconies to be built which satisfy the open space requirements, thus, freeing up more internal space for more residential units (which if under 650 sq feet have no density limit) and/or (2) more ground area to be devoted to parking, thus, again freeing up more internal space for more residential units.
• An additional few feet permitted above ground may render digging feasible to install partially underground parking, which would not count as a story and free up the first floor for intensified development instead of being needed for parking.

What happens if the City takes action on the proposed heights in the new zoning districts? If the City increases the allowed heights and stories, then:
• Fully non-residential projects can take advantage of these increases, even though the State law does not mandate this, it only applies to residential intensities; • Projects could be even taller than these numbers by virtue of the exceptions listed above; City staff said such projects would be unlikely to exceed 7 stories; • Alternatively, if projects complied with these numbers, applicants could use one of their allowed affordable housing exceptions to vary another zoning standard, such as obtaining a reduced setback;
• The City would mostly lose its ability to require any height reduction below these numbers when considering a project application, because these heights would be allowed by right; • If the City ever wanted to lower these numbers once adopted into the Zoning Ordinance, the City could only do so by increasing residential intensities elsewhere in the City because under State law any future height decrease is considered a less intensive use that must be offset.

Does the City need to take immediate action on the staff proposals? If the City retained the current height requirements in the new zoning districts for now, then:
• Projects would stay more compact, potentially reducing resource and energy use; • Projects in most, if not all, cases whose heights fall within the stated numbers could still accommodate the maximum FARs as required by State law;
• Projects that require additional height in order to accommodate the maximum FARs could incorporate some public benefit in order to qualify for the necessary increased height with a planned development permit;
• If any project still could not accommodate the maximum FAR due to a height restriction that could not be excepted or waived under the zoning provisions, it could still be built pursuant to the State law that says in such cases the height requirement would not be enforceable; • All of the proposed objective standards and other zoning provisions could still be adopted, and the height requirements could be separately revised in the future if so desired.

40.655
7 A Simple Argument For What Save Santa Cruz Recommends

1. The City is required to enact zoning that assures that the maximum residential intensity specified by the General Plan and zoning as of 2018 is allowed.

2. The maximum intensity in the General Plan is mostly a 1.75 FAR which corresponds to and can easily be accommodated by the 3 story/40 foot height requirement now in the zoning.

3. In the high density designation in the General Plan the intensity can be as high as 2.75 FAR and 55 dwelling units/ acre under criteria established by the Planning Department and in the zoning ordinance.

4. The established criteria are to provide some public good which entitles a project to receive an extra story through a Planned Development permit.

5. Four stories (3 plus 1 extra) is sufficient to accommodate the maximum 2.75 FAR/ 55 dwelling units/ acre residential intensity.

6. As far as non-residential intensity is concerned, the State law does not require that the maximum always has to be allowed in the zoning ordinance.

7. Therefore, at this time there is no reason and certainly no urgency to raise any height limits – the 3 story/40 foot height requirement in the CC-zoning district can be carried over in the new mixed use zoning districts.

8. As experience is gained with implementing the new objective standards and zoning districts, there will be opportunities to further review and make changes in the height requirements.

9. To increase any limits at this time precludes the possibility of adjusting them downward in the future, unless residential intensity is correspondingly increased elsewhere in the city.

Please Take The Save Santa Cruz Recommendations Seriously!

40.656
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: El Solway <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:44 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Corridors plan proposal
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
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 providing appropriate new development opportunities
doesn’t have to undermine what makes our community such a great place
to live, and to raise a family.

Please take careful consideration of what your proposal means for our community.

Sincerely, Ellen Solway
Virus-free.www.avast.com

40.657
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Meghan Arnold <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 40 - Objective Standards
I am writing on Agenda Item 40 - 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 the housing crisis in Santa Cruz.

I also support Santa Cruz YIMBY's recommendation that you choose Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards.

Thank you,
Meghan Arnold
200 California St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

40.658
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: john markytan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:57 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Can you please stop overbuilding santa cruz
I disagree with state housing policy and hope you don't destroy our town in your needless rush to build higher denser and easier. A forty year Architect in santa cruz I feel betrayed by city planning for this reckless rush to build. Go slow and thoughtful and demand excellent design.....we deserve it.

These new units are available to any person in the U.S., and most return to market rates after 20 years or so. Do we even have the water. May we please vote on this issue of population growth and densification, instead of being pushed around by state and local proponents. John Markytan---Architect

40.659
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Dan Cossentine <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:01 PM
To: Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Sandy Brown; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Donna Meyers; City Council
Subject: Important please read before Nov 15 6 pm meeting Dear City Council,
You have an important piece of the proposed objective standards to wait on to give more consideration. The Objective Standards have one segment that can be waited to vote on. It is regarding the height numbers. This needs further study. It makes sense to wait to vote on this portion of the objective standards because there is not requirement to move forward on the height requirement. The base height is very important in the objective standards. The maximum intensity in the General Plan shows mainly 1.75 Area Floor Ratio (FAR) which can be accomplished by the 40 feet height requirement currently.

It makes sense to retain this requirement because of the environmental impact of projects would need to be build in a more compact manner which will have less of an effect on the environment. The projects that would come to the city asking for additional height (which they will) the city would get a benefit to allow this increase.

That would be a good thing for our city. All of the proposed objective standards but changing the base height could work out. We need to think about what benefits our city the most going forward. The density bonus ordnance will add height, therefore, keeping the base height accomplishes two things:

1. It allows more affordable housing to be built.

2. It allows an option of changing the height later.

If the base height is part of our objective standards it does not give advantages to the city and it's residents. It is like giving away something unnecessarily. We must be wise stewards of the responsibility of the end building results possible. By waiting you give the city planning department something to enable more affordable units, common space, traffic medication measures by the developer and other benefits.

Please make a motion to leave out the portion of the objective standards regarding height.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dan Cossentine

40.660
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Candace Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:06 PM
To: City Council; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Donna Meyers; Martine Watkins
Subject: Objective Standards - Agenda Item #40 on Nov 15 2022 Agenda Attachments: Letter Nov 15 2022 City Council Item 40.pdf Please find attached my letter regarding the Objective Standards.

If there are any questions, feel free to reach out to me directly as this is a very complicated subject.

Sincere regards,
Candace Brown

40.661

40.662

40.663

40.664

40.665

40.666

40.667

40.668

40.669

40.670
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Pete Shanks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:18 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Central Park Neighborhood
To the Santa Cruz City Council, for the November 15, 2022 meeting:

I have lived in the Central Park neighborhood (at 410 Dakota Ave) for a decade and love this little community.

Like everyone else I know here, I was very surprised to learn that a small part of Leonard Street is zoned differently that the rest of the neighborhood. That seems like a mistake, and one that could and should be fixed.

Several of us have met with Council members and staffers to discuss this. We all really appreciate the opportunities we have had to discuss the issue. We have been able to lobby without rancor and I for one have come away with a greater appreciation for the complexities of planning. Our request is very simple: please ensure that the three parcels at issue, 111–119 Leonard Street, are formally as well as actually part of our neighborhood.

Therefore I strongly support the requests that the City Council make a motion to direct the Planning Department to do what is legally necessary to make that happen.

Pete Shanks
410 Dakota Ave
831-239-4574
[email protected]

40.671
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Marianne Franks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:24 PM
To: Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; City Council; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Donna Meyers; Martine Watkins
Subject: Re: Objective Standards - Agenda Item #40 on November 15, 2022 Agenda Attachments: Save Santa Cruz Letter November 14 Letter To City Council On Objective Standards.pdf Dear Council Members I fully concur with Gary Patton's letter (attached ) and urge the Council not to adopt the huge (and hugely important) set of changes to the city’s land use policies that are being recommended to the Council by the Planning staff. No action should be taken until the Council has established a way for members of the public to weigh in much more substantively than can be accomplished by a two-minute comment on the staff’s proposed omnibus set of recommendations.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this very important topic.

Sincerely
Marianne Franks [email protected]

40.672
Save Santa Cruz
Stop Overbuilding Santa Cruz
Post Office Box 4086, Santa Cruz, CA 95063
Email: [email protected]
November 14, 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: November 15, 2022 Agenda Item #40
Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Members:

Save Santa Cruz is a community-based group with over 1,700 supporters.

40.673
2 to comment on proposed projects – and to have a real impact on what happens when projects and new policy measures 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:

40.674
3 Council to hear, in detail, from concerned members of the public. Giving interested persons an ability to speak for two minutes on the massive number of proposed changes before you (with many of these two-minute statements made anonymously by telephone) does not permit the kind of deliberation that these major changes deserve.

We recommend that the Council take no action on the so-called Objective Standards proposal on November 15, 2022, and that the Council do the following, instead:

40.675
4 Should the Council proceed to make final decisions today, despite the lack of adequate environmental review and despite the fact that it is unlikely that even the Council Members – much less members of the public – actually understand the on-the-ground impacts of the proposed changes, then Save Santa Cruz urges the following:

1. Respect the requests of the Central Park Neighborhood, as conveyed in its November 12, 2022, letter from Deborah Marks, and make no zoning changes with respect to that area at this time.

Thank you for taking our suggestions seriously.

40.676
5 Why Proposed Corridor Rezonings Should Not Be Made Now The City Council will be considering rezoning some parcels along the corridor streets from Community Commercial (CC) that has a 3 story/40 foot height requirement to either Mixed Use Medium Density that will have a proposed 4 story/45 foot height requirement for mixed use projects, or Mixed Use High Density proposed for 5 stories/55 feet for mixed use projects and 4 stories/50 feet for commercial-only development. Also, in the CC district, mixed use projects with ground floor retail are proposed to be allowed an extra 5 feet (i.e., 45 feet high).

40.677
6 hence leave more floor space for more office workers; or more room for merchandise which can attract more retail customers; or allow for some loft or mezzanine space that could accommodate more restaurant patrons.
• Picture a residential building of 4 stories compared to one of 5 stories – to be of the same FAR, the taller building would have to be skinnier, leaving more room for (1) more or larger balconies to be built which satisfy the open space requirements, thus, freeing up more internal space for more residential units (which if under 650 sq feet have no density limit) and/or (2) more ground area to be devoted to parking, thus, again freeing up more internal space for more residential units.
• An additional few feet permitted above ground may render digging feasible to install partially underground parking, which would not count as a story and free up the first floor for intensified development instead of being needed for parking.

40.678
7 A Simple Argument For What Save Santa Cruz Recommends

1. The City is required to enact zoning that assures that the maximum residential intensity specified by the General Plan and zoning as of 2018 is allowed.

2. The maximum intensity in the General Plan is mostly a 1.75 FAR which corresponds to and can easily be accommodated by the 3 story/40 foot height requirement now in the zoning.

4. The established criteria are to provide some public good which entitles a project to receive an extra story through a Planned Development permit.

5. Four stories (3 plus 1 extra) is sufficient to accommodate the maximum 2.75 FAR/ 55 dwelling units/ acre residential intensity.

6. As far as non-residential intensity is concerned, the State law does not require that the maximum always has to be allowed in the zoning ordinance.

8. As experience is gained with implementing the new objective standards and zoning districts, there will be opportunities to further review and make changes in the height requirements.

9. To increase any limits at this time precludes the possibility of adjusting them downward in the future, unless residential intensity is correspondingly increased elsewhere in the city.

Please Take The Save Santa Cruz Recommendations Seriously!

40.679
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: eyvye <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:41 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YES on Agenda Item 40 - Objective Standards
Hello, I am writing on Agenda Item 40 - 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 the housing crisis in Santa Cruz.

I also support Santa Cruz YIMBY's recommendation that you choose Option #1 (streamlining) for the development review process since it incentivizes projects to fully conform to the standards.

Thank you,
Felix Vayssieres

40.680
From: Coral Brune
To: City Council
Subject: Objective Standards overview
Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:44:32 PM
Dear Council,
Regarding your upcoming discussion in reviewing the Objective Standards agreement tomorrow, would the best thing be to let the public know what this means for Santa Cruz and make sure there is community support for results in the decision? That would be best for all. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Coral Brune
Santa Cruz
C()r@L
[email protected]
Business number: 831-325-8685

40.681
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Judi Grunstra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Nov 15 Meeting__Objective Standards
Dear Council Members,
I urge the Council not to adopt the very significant set of changes to the city’s land use policies that are being recommended to the Council by the Planning staff.

It's true that there have been a few Zoom presentations on the Objective Standards and online survey. I watched at least one presentation and read some of the documents. There are still many people who have limited (or no) knowledge of what the results would be if the Standards are adopted by you this evening. They do not understand how density bonuses work, resulting in taller buildings. City Staff might design and distribute a simplified pamphlet (in English and Spanish) and distribute it widely in print, social media, city‐wide mailings.

We expect Council to STAND UP FOR A SUSTAINABLE SANTA CRUZ and consider the impacts of drought, climate change, traffic, and allow for local control of our built environment.

Thank you.

Judi Grunstra
Thanks you!

40.682
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Linda Locatelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: EXCESSIVE HEIGHTS ALONG OCEAN STREET
Dear Councilmembers:

Please limit heights in the proposed MU-OH Mixed-Use Ocean Street High Density zoning district for commercial only uses to 2 to 4 stories and 30 to 50 feet – not 55 feet as proposed. 50 feet is more than adequate for a 4 story commercial building. 50 feet is the proposed height for commercial uses in the MU-H Mixed-Use High Density. So, please be consistent – there is no reason to have taller buildings on Ocean Street than on Soquel or Water Street. Additionally, not all commercial-only buildings need to be 4 stories; the Ocean Street Area Plan shows height limits of 2 to 4 stories. In reality the existing and newer commercial uses on the street have mostly been single story.

The Ocean Street Area Plan was years in preparation and involved business and neighborhood input. The varying height limits along Ocean Street reflect block by block consideration of the existing and potential property uses. At that time staff said that outstanding citizen concerns about neighborhood compatibility would be addressed through the zoning ordinance which could contain added detail, such as expressing heights in feet. Since then State law has limited the ability of the city to respond to neighborhood concerns through the rezoning that you are now considering. When the Plan was adopted, the ability to require less than 4 stories for projects with residential uses had not yet been precluded. And, when the Plan was adopted, there were no requirements to add extra height for affordable housing projects; it was assumed at the time that the maximum height would never be more than 4 stories.

Given that some buildings that have residential uses are going to be taller than envisioned by the Ocean Street Area Plan, commercial-only buildings need not all be so tall as well. The 2 to 4 story limit should be maintained for commercial-only buildings in the zoning ordinance. This would give the City the future flexibility to require a design that is compatible with the neighborhood; it would not automatically have to allow a 4 story building by right on every parcel. This would also provide an incentive to provide needed housing since applicants could build more if they incorporated housing into their projects.

Thank you for considering the adjacent neighborhood input in your upcoming decision.

Linda Locatelli and Gordon Lion
153 Market St.

SC 95060

40.683
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Aldo Giacchino <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:49 PM
To: City Council; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Justin Cummings; Renee Golder; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Donna Meyers; Martine Watkins
Subject: Agenda Item #40 o Objective Standards
Dear Council Member,
I strongly urge you to vote against any Density Increases and any Height Increases as you consider the proposed Objective Standards. Keep the current density limits at 1.75 FAR; keep the current height limit at 3 stories/40 feet, throughout the CC Zoning Districts and in the new Mixed Use District and all business/residential areas.

The City needs to minimize the density and height limits to restrain the oppressive massing of future developments. What we are seeing going up at Front and Laurel is an abomination that cannot be repeated, unless we want to destroy the character of Santa Cruz. Developers are the enemies of a City that needs to be a reasonable place for all, not just for rich developers.

There is no harm in going slowly on changes of such sweeping magnitude and importance. Let the community absorb, review, and react to each and all of the many, many changes and potential impacts of what is being proposed.

Thank you.

Aldo Giacchino
1005 Pelton Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831 460 1538

40.684
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Kevin Stierhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Ocean Street Area Plan Amendments; Options for 111-119 Leonard St November 13, 2022
Dear Mayor Bruner and members of the Santa Cruz City Council, Since 2007, the residents of the Central Park Neighborhood have been actively engaged with the City’s Planning Department to develop an Ocean Street Area Plan that enabled development but also protected the integrity of our small, tight-knit neighborhood adjacent to the main corridors of Ocean and Water Streets.

In studying the maps associated with the Objective Standards, we were shocked to learn that several parcels at the gateway to our community, along Leonard St., had their land use designation changed from Low Density Multiple Residential (R-L) to Mixed Use Visitor High Density (MU-VH), which would allow for potential development that would be in conflict with the City’s stated goal of neighborhood compatibility, and may actually reduce access to affordable housing.

We felt that, if enacted to its full extent, the potential changes would have catastrophic impacts on the character of our neighborhood.

Since learning of this, our neighborhood has again engaged with the Planning Department and all members of City Council to discuss the potential negative impacts that these changes would have on our unique pocket neighborhood.

From these discussions, we got an overwhelming impression that these changes, whether implemented intentionally or by mistake, do not make sense and should be remedied as soon as possible to minimize the risk to our community. City Council was in agreement and the Planning Department was looking for guidance from City Council to address the problem.

To that end, I am writing to request that City Council take action to reject the rezoning of three parcels at 111-119 Leonard St. (005-251-06, 005-251-07, and 005-251-08) as part of the Objective Standards process, and proceed with an off-cycle General Plan amendment to provide these protections. We hope that this process can be done as quickly as possible, to provide immediate protection to our community, but in a manner that does not impede the implementation of Objective Standards, and also minimizes impacts to any residential neighborhoods in Santa Cruz.

We sincerely thank the Planning Department, especially Sarah Neuse and Matt VanHua, and all of the members of City Council who have taken considerable time to visit our neighborhood, listen to our concerns, and propose solutions. We hope that we can find a solution that protects our neighborhood while also allowing us to address the real affordable housing crisis that we face in Santa Cruz!
Finally, please see the letter submitted by Deborah Marks, our neighbor at 207 Leonard St. and active participant in these past efforts, for more background and specifics.

Sincerely,
Kevin L. Stierhoff
203 Leonard St., Santa Cruz, CA
Central Park Neighborhood

40.685
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: ANNE MITCHELL <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:54 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Amendments to Municipal CodesRelated to Objective Design Standards & various related updates proposed for 11/15/2022 Council Meeting Dear Esteemend Council Members:

As a member of Srop Overbuilding Santa Cruz, I stress the need to take more time to involve City residents in
the process of of developing policies that impact developments for high density and tall buildings like the "Taco
Bell" development.

The proposals have not been subject to robust outreach to city residents, in ways that are accessible to the majority of city residents to be affected. "12 members of the public" at a meeting October 27" is not significant participation regarding such important, wide ranging legislation.

Proposals along City corridors will significantly affect the integrity of adjacent neighborhoods. Parking problems
will be exacerbated by lack of required parking proposed for the majority of proposed developments.

Health in all policies relating to creation of objective standards has not been done in a manner of equitable
outreach as alleged in the Agenda item.

Please take time to involve city residents in development at your November 15, 2022 meeting Anne Mitchell
104 Stoenycreek Rd.

40.686
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 5:00 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Keep 111-119 Leonard St residential
Dear city council members,
Please keep the 3 parcels of 111‐119 Leonard St zoned as residential low density.

Thank you for your support!
Best regards,
Christian Kadner

40.687
City Council Public Hearing, November 15, 2022
Objective
Development
Standards and Zoning
Updates

40.688
2 • Project initiated to:
• Create Local Controls under new state laws for housing development
 Objective Review Process instead of Design Permit Findings • Reconcile General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
 Do not alter land use pattern in 2030 General Plan
• Rezonings set height limits, etc. for new Mixed-Use
Development
Background

40.689
3 Background - Enforcing State Laws

40.690
• Multi-Family Housing planned
for Santa Cruz
• Mixed Use in existing
Commercial areas
• Residential areas throughout
the City
• State Law reduces discretion
• Rezonings create height limits
and setbacks
Background - Local Context

40.691
5 Allowed Today (MXHD) Proposed Zoning (MU-H)

2.75 FAR 2.75 FAR
55 dwellings/acre for 2+ bedroom units 55 dwellings/acre for 2+ bedroom units No density limit for Single Room Occupancy
(SROs), Flexible Density Units (FDUs), 1-
bedroom units
No density limit for SROs, FDUs, 1-bedroom
units
No height limit 5-story height limit
0’-5’ setbacks 20’ rear setback minimum
No open space requirement 120 square feet of open space per unit No neighborhood transition requirement Above 3 stories, transition at 45 degrees No building articulation requirement Articulation of building face and roof Background - Rezoning Action

40.692
6 • Maximum Building Length
• Walkability
• New Public Connections
• Public Frontages
• Parking Location and
Screening
• Landscape and Buffering
• Usable Open Space
• Neighborhood Transition
• Roof Form
• Building Modulation
• Corridor Frontage
• Ground Floor Design
• Architectural Detail
• Building Materials
• Lighting
Background – Objective Design Standards

40.693
Frequently Asked Questions
7 40.694
8 Is the City upzoning
property?
• No, the proposed residential
intensities are identical to
what is currently allowed,
given changes in state law
since 2019.
• Zoning creates height limits
that do not exist today.

Can we make the Standards
less complicated?
• The standards are based on
community input that favors
eclecticism, so there are
multiple ways to comply.
• They are more complicated
than some places and less
complicated than others.

Frequently Asked Questions

40.695
9 Would this take away public
hearings for development?
• The Council can make a
choice about development
review
• Conforming housing must
be approved under state
law.
• Policy options in next
section
What Environmental Review
was required?
• The land uses, design
standards, and public works
amendments are covered by
the Environmental Impact
Report for the General Plan
in 2012.

Frequently Asked Questions

40.696
10 What’s in it for me?
• Local Control
• Transparency
• Design Standards
• More Street Trees
• Dark-sky Lighting
• Meaningful open space with
new development
Frequently Asked Questions

40.697
Public Hearing Policy
Design Permit Review Process, Updated Findings
11 40.698
12 • No change to:
• Community Outreach Policy (Notification, Community Meetings) • Public hearing requirements for:
 Most 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
In all three Policy Options:

40.699
13 1) Streamlined 2) Conforming
Hearings 3) Hybrid
Administrative
Review
Fully-conforming
rental housing
Fully-conforming
rental housing up to
50 units
Public Hearings
Fully-conforming
rental housing
Fully-conforming
rental housing with
51+ units
Alternative Designs: ZA for 1-5, PC for 6+
Conforming Res in
Residential Zones Administrative Review (No Change)
Review of Housing in Commercial or
Mixed-Use Zones

40.700
14 Current
• Community Outreach notice and
meetings
• Public Hearings for:
• Most Commercial Development
• Density Bonus
• Planned Development Permit
• Variance
• Coastal Permit
• Subdivisions
• Proximity to Slope
• Residential in Commercial zones
• Right of Appeal
• CEQA Review
Option 1 - Streamlined
• Community Outreach notice and
meetings
• Public Hearings for:
• Most 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

40.701
15 Current
• Community Outreach notice and
meetings
• Public Hearings for:
• Most Commercial Development
• Density Bonus
• Planned Development Permit
• Variance
• Coastal Permit
• Subdivisions
• Proximity to Slope
• Residential in Commercial zones
• Right of Appeal
• CEQA Review
Option 2 – Conforming Hearings
• Community Outreach notice and
meetings
• Public Hearings for:
• Most Commercial Development
• Density Bonus
• Planned Development Permit
• Variance
• Coastal Permit
• Subdivisions
• Proximity to Slope
• Conforming Residential in
Commercial or Mixed-Use Zones
• Alternative designs for Residential
• Right of Appeal
• CEQA Review
Public Input Maintained

40.702
16 Current
• Community Outreach notice and
meetings
• Public Hearings for:
• Most Commercial Development
• Density Bonus
• Planned Development Permit
• Variance
• Coastal Permit
• Subdivisions
• Proximity to Slope
• Residential in Commercial zones
• Right of Appeal
• CEQA Review
Option 3 - Hybrid
• Community Outreach notice and
meetings
• Public Hearings for:
• Most Commercial Development
• Density Bonus
• Planned Development Permit
• Variance
• Coastal Permit
• Subdivisions
• Proximity to Slope
• 51+ units in Commercial or Mixed
Use
• Alternative designs for Residential
• Right of Appeal
• CEQA Review
Public Input Maintained

40.703
17 • Findings focus on conformance with City policies.
• For alternative designs, decision makers will evaluate against stated goal for each standard
Findings

40.704
Leonard St. Neighbor
Concerns
18 40.705
Leonard St. Neighbor Concerns
Slide from City Council Study Session,
February 7, 2012
• General Plan Land Use
Maps adopted by Council
June of 2012

40.706
20 • Proceed with rezoning today
• Direct staff to consider these
parcels as part of needed
Ocean St. Area Plan
amendments to begin in 2023
• Housing Element Update,
Downtown Plan Expansion,
and OSAP updates allows us to
take a citywide look at these
issues
111-119 Leonard St.

40.707
Transit Passes
A New Recommendation
21 40.708
22 Transit Pass Requirement
• Responsive to PC
recommendation and
AB2097
• New residential projects of
20+ units within ½ mile of
high-quality transit
• Must provide transit passes
to all residents in
development
• Direct contract between
developer and METRO

40.709
Street Tree Standards
Updates
Updates to Fee Resolutions, minor adjustments to Municipal Code Recommendation
23 40.710
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

40.711
• 13.30.030 - Definitions
• Add definitions of “heritage tree” and “nuisance vegetation” • 13.30.060 – Property Owner Maintenance Responsibilities • Remove language around tree replacement
• 13.30.063 – Replacement of Street Trees
• New section requiring replacement or payment of an in-lieu fee • Gives the Director the ability to waive replacement requirement • Establishes criteria to waive in-lieu fee for reasons of economic hardship • Points to requirements of Local Coastal Program
• 13.30.100 – Permits Required
• Clarifies when heritage tree and sidewalk permits required • Changes not reviewed by Parks & Recreation Commission Tree Ordinance (Chapter 13.30) revisions
Additional changes

40.712
• 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
• Recommended for adoption by the Parks & Recreation
Commission on August 8, 2022
• Presented at August 23, 2022 City Council meeting
Resolution establishing the street tree
replacement in-lieu fee

40.713
• To replace existing resolution NS-21, 436 (adopted 1994) • Applies same mitigation requirements to heritage trees of all sizes, heritage shrubs, approved, and unapproved removal • Replant three #15 or one 24” box container size tree (primary intent) • $1,705 in-lieu fee
• Additional penalties apply for unapproved removals
• Parks & Recreation Commission October 10, 2022
recommendation:
• $1,705 in-lieu fee for approved removal
• ̴$7,800 fee for unapproved removal
Resolution establishing mitigation requirements
for heritage tree or shrub removal

40.714
Additional Community Outreach
since 8/23
Website, email, community meeting
28 40.715
29 • FAQ on project website
• Emailed link to
• Each correspondent on 8/23
agenda and
• All who signed up for updates
• Community meeting on FAQ
+ additional community
questions
• Publicized on
• City Facebook; Instagram
• City Manager update
• Direct Email
• FAQ meeting slides and
recording on project
website
• Ordinance Summary on
project website
Since August 23, 2022 Hearing

40.716
Environmental Review
CEQA for all components
30 40.717
31 • 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

40.718
Conclusion
Next Steps and Staff Recommendation
32 40.719
33 • 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 January of 2023
• Create implementation tools for staff and applicants
• OSAP amendment and rezoning of additional property
• General Plan clean-up Text Amendment
• Check in with any changes needed (1-2 years)
Next Steps

40.720
34 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 included in and making modifications to the Local Coastal Program or Implementation Plan, and in doing so, select Option 1 (Streamlined) as the policy governing a requirement for public hearings for conforming residential and mixed-use projects; 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 parcels list for parcels inside the Coastal Zone, which represent changes to the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan; and
Staff Recommendation

40.721
35 4) 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 parcels list for parcels outside the Coastal Zone; and 5) Direct staff to consider options for 111-119 Leonard St. as part of the forthcoming Ocean Street Area Plan Amendments, as further described in this report; and
6) Adopt a resolution establishing a new in lieu fee requirement for street tree removals; and
7) Adopt a resolution establishing mitigation requirements for the removal of a heritage tree or heritage shrub, replacing existing Council Resolution No. NS21,436.

Staff Recommendation (part 2)

40.722
36 Questions?

40.723

41.1 41.2

41.3 41.4

41.5 41.6

41.7 42.1

42.2 42.3

42.4 42.5

42.6 42.7

42.8 42.9

42.10 42.11

42.12 42.13

42.14 42.15

42.16 42.17

42.18 42.19

42.20 42.21

42.22 42.23

42.24 42.25

42.26 42.27

42.28 42.29

42.30 42.31

42.32 42.33

42.34 42.35

42.36 42.37

42.38 42.39

42.40 42.41

42.42 42.43

42.44 42.45

42.46 42.47

42.48 42.49

42.50 42.51

42.52 42.53

42.54 42.55

42.56 42.57

42.58 42.59

42.60 42.61

42.62 42.63

42.64 42.65

42.66 42.67

42.68 42.69

42.70 42.71

42.72 43.1

43.2 43.3

43.4 43.5

43.6 43.7

43.8 43.9

43.10 43.11

43.12

Santa Cruz City CouncilNovember 15, 2022

Santa Cruz City Council
November 15, 2022