Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, November 29, 2022 (part 3 of 4)

As indicated above, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3, certain (or potentially all) aspects of a development project that are consistent with a General Plan for which an EIR was certified may be exempt from additional CEQA analyses (i.e., negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR) of issues that were adequately covered in the General Plan EIR. The project site is designated Low Density Residential (L) in the City’s General Plan 2030 and is zoned Single Family Residence with West Cliff Drive, Coastal Zone, and Shoreline Protection Overlays (R-1- 5/WCD-O/CZ-O/SP-O). The proposed project use is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and falls within the density range of the General Plan. Thus, the project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the site.

Since adoption of the General Plan, approximately 2,301 residential units have been constructed or approved throughout the City. Thus, the 76 proposed residential and senior living units would be within the remaining residential buildout estimates considered in the city-wide General Plan EIR impact analyses.

An “Environmental Checklist Review” was prepared and is on file with the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department. The purpose of the checklist was to evaluate the impact categories covered in the City’s certified General Plan EIR to determine whether the project’s impacts have been adequately analyzed in that EIR or whether any new significant impacts peculiar to the project or project site would result. Where an impact resulting from the project was adequately analyzed previously, the review provides a cross-reference to the pages in the General Plan EIR where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic. The Environmental Checklist also identifies whether the project involves new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR or new significant impacts not peculiar to the site or project. As indicated above, an impact would not be considered “peculiar” to the project or project site if uniformly applied development policies or standards will substantially mitigate an environmental effect. Therefore, the review includes mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR that would be applicable to the site or

4.70 FRM ENV-04 4 (Rev. 5/09)
project and/or relevant applicable development policies or standards that will be applied to the project.

Based on the following review, it has been determined that the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR has adequately addressed the following issues, and no further environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3: aesthetics (scenic views, scenic resources); agricultural and forest resources; air quality (conflicts with Air Quality Management Plan, sensitive receptors, odors); biological resources (riparian, wetland or other sensitive habitat, conflicts with plans); cultural resources (historical resources); energy; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards/hazardous materials (create hazard, airport safety, emergency response, wildfire hazards); hydrology-water quality (groundwater, flood risk, conflicts with plans); land use (physical division of an existing community); mineral resources; noise and vibration; population and housing; public services; recreation; tribal cultural resources; utilities (wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal); and wildfire.

The following site-specific impacts have been analyzed and determined to be less than significant due to substantial mitigation resulting from General Plan policies, zoning regulations and/or development standards that are uniformly applied to development projects throughout the City:
aesthetics (visual character, light and glare); air quality (project emissions); biological resources (special status species, nesting birds, conflicts with local tree ordinance); cultural resources (archaeological resources, human burials); geology and soils (seismic, geologic hazards, erosion, soils, paleontological resources); hazards/hazardous materials (exposure to hazardous materials); hydrology/water quality (drainage and water quality); land use (conflict with plans); transportation; utilities (infrastructure, water supply); and cumulative impacts.

For reasons explained in the Environmental Checklist Review prepared for the project, the Planning Commission agreed with City staff’s conclusion that the Project is wholly exempt from CEQA under section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183. The Environmental Checklist Review explained why the project does not create any impacts that are peculiar to the project or parcel. The document identifies numerous impacts that were sufficiently addressed in the General Plan EIR. The remaining impacts can be substantially mitigated by the uniformly applied development policies and standards identified in the Checklist. The Planning Commission found that these policies and standards, as applied to the project, were effective in substantially mitigating these impacts.

Thus, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183, no further environmental analysis is required.

Categorial Exemption - CEQA Guidelines Sections 15305 and 15332. CEQA provides several “categorical exemptions” which are applicable to categories of projects and activities that the Natural Resource Agency has determined generally do not pose a risk of significant impacts on the environment.

The Class 5 categorical exemption is for “minor alterations in land use limitations.” Examples provided include minor lot line adjustments, side yard and setback variances, not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. The project includes a sequential lot line adjustment reconfiguring five existing parcels into two that would result in one 3.97-acre parcel that would retain five existing buildings (Lot 1) and a second, 3-acre parcel that would include the proposed senior housing facility (Lot 2). The lot line adjustment would not create a new parcel as more than two parcels already

4.71 FRM ENV-04 5 (Rev. 5/09)
exist. Furthermore, the project site is relatively flat with average slopes substantially less than 20% and would not result in any changes in land use or density, consistent with the requirements for this categorical exemption class.

The Class 32 categorical exemption is for “infill development” projects that meet the following criteria:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations;
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The proposed project meets all of the foregoing criteria to claim the application of the infill exemption because, as explained in the Environmental Checklist documenting the project’s compliance with the Statutory Exemption under Public Resources Code section 21083.3, the project is consistent with General Plan designations and policies, and City staff review has found the project consistent zoning designations and regulations for purposes of subdivision (a) of section 15332.

The project site is located within City limits and is substantially surrounded by existing developed uses. The project area is located within an existing residential neighborhood. Lighthouse Field State Beach is located directly south of Pelton Avenue and the project site. The park provides urban open space amenities including trails and parking and beach access along the coast. Although the project site is 6.9 acres in size, the development area, including the limited changes made to Lot 1, would consist of only three acres, which is less than five acres as required for this exemption under subdivision (b) of section 15332.

The project site also has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species under subdivision (c) of section 15332. The primary species of concern with respect to the project is the monarch butterfly, which is not an endangered, rare or threatened species because it has not been listed under one of these categories pursuant to either the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Rather, the monarch butterfly is only a candidate for federal listing as a threatened species under ESA. In California, the species is included on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's list of Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority and is identified as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in California's State Wildlife Action Plan. But these characterizations stop short of making the species endangered or threatened under either ESA or CESA.

Regardless, the potential impacts to this species have been carefully considered and no significant impacts will occur. The development area is developed with two existing buildings that were formerly used as a private school and a surface parking lot. Small areas of the northern and southern portion of the project site are within mapped areas of potential sensitive monarch butterfly habitat as depicted on City General Plan maps. Based on results of biological resources assessment conducted for the project, however, it is not expected that monarch butterflies would

4.72 FRM ENV-04 6 (Rev. 5/09)
use the project site for roosting due to the lack of protection from prevailing wind, as well as the structure and orientation of the Monterey cypress and other trees on the church property portion of the project site.

The project would not result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality, as explained in the Environmental Checklist supporting the determination of Statutory Exemption. The project therefore meets the criteria set forth in subdivision (d) of section 15332.

The project would not result in significant impacts related to traffic-transportation based on review with the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) threshold and Implementation Guidelines because the project use (assisted living and memory care senior housing) is considered nonsignificant and screened from further review. No significant impacts related to noise would result given the project use as a senior housing facility. Air emissions modeling found that neither project construction nor operation would exceed adopted criteria air pollutant emissions thresholds. The project is consistent with City regulations and requirements regarding stormwater management for construction and operation, and the project would not result in significant impacts to water quality.

The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services, as existing utility infrastructure already serves the project area and is sized sufficiently to serve the proposed use, meeting the criteria in subdivision (e) of section 15332.

The City has further considered whether the project is subject to any of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2. This section prohibits the use of categorical exemptions under the following circumstances:
(a) for certain classes of categorical exemptions (including Class 5 but not Class 32), due to locations with particularly sensitive environmental conditions; (b) when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant;
(c) where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances;
(d) where the project may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway;
(e) where the project is located on a state designated hazardous waste site; and (f) where the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(a), a categorical exemption for Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 is qualified by consideration of where the project is location – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. The consideration includes where the project may impact an environmental resource of “hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.” Section 15300.2(a) does not apply to the Class 32 category of projects. For purposes of the Class 5 exemption, the project site does not qualify as an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern. Neither the City’s General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, nor any state or federal regulatory document has precisely mapped and officially designated the site as such an environmental resource. Absent such a formal designation, the

4.73 FRM ENV-04 7 (Rev. 5/09)
location exception cannot apply. (See, e.g., Aptos Residents Assn. v. County of Santa Cruz (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1039, 1052-1053; Don’t Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 338, 362-363.) Moreover, the site is already mostly developed, has already been previously disturbed.

Therefore, the Class 5 category of projects as applied to the project is not excluded on the basis of location on a site with particularly sensitive environmental conditions.

There is no evidence of a potential significant cumulative impact (section 15300.2(b)) because successive projects of the same type in the same place have not been approved and are not proposed. Additionally, there is no evidence to conclude that significant impacts would occur based on past project approvals in the surrounding area or that the proposed project's impacts are cumulatively considerable when evaluating any cumulative impacts associated with air quality, noise, transportation or water quality as a result of other approved projects in the surrounding area. Therefore, this exception does not apply.

The project would not result in any significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances (section 15300.2(c)). The project site’s immediate area has similar General Plan and zoning designations as the project property. There are no “unusual circumstances” that differentiates the project from the general class of similarly situated projects. For example, other properties in the surrounding area have developed or could develop a residential care facility.

Additionally, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project would result in a significant impact based on project reviews and technical studies conducted for the project as reviewed and summarized in the Environmental Checklist supporting the determination of Statutory Exemption.

The site is located within the coastal zone, but is within a developed urban area, surrounded by development, and sensitive resources are not present on the project site. For these reasons, the project would not result in any significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances, and exception (c) does not apply to the project.

The project will not result in damage to scenic resources within a scenic highway (section 15300.2(d)), as the site is not adjacent to or visible from a designated scenic highway. There are no designated state scenic highways within the City, and the project is not adjacent to the highways located in the City. Therefore, the project site is not located within or near a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway and would not result in damage to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Thus, this exception does not apply to the project.

The site is not a hazardous waste site, and thus is not subject to the exception set forth in subdivision (e) of section 15300.2.

A historic evaluation performed for the project concluded that existing buildings that are proposed for demolition are not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, or the City of Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey. Thus, existing structures on the project site are not historical resources under the definition found in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, subdivision (a). Therefore, the project, including demolition of existing buildings, would not result in a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historic resource.

The project is not subject to the exception set forth in subdivision (f) of section 15300.2.

For all of these reasons, the City is able to document that the project qualifies for the Categorical Exemption found at CEQA Guidelines section 15332 for infill development projects, and that none

4.74 FRM ENV-04 8 (Rev. 5/09)
of the potential exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, apply to this project or the project site.

Lead Agency
Contact Person: Clara Stanger Phone: (831) 420-5247
Department: Planning & Community Development Address: 809 Center Street, Room 101 Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Signature: Date:
 Signed by Lead Agency
Title: Senior Planner Signed by Applicant
If filed by applicant:

1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.

2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No
Date Received for filing at County Clerk:

Date Received for filing at OPR:

4.75 FRM ENV-04 4.76 9 (Rev. 5/09)
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -1- November 2022 Revised
City of Santa Cruz

E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T

FOR DETERMINATION OF CEQA EXEMPTION
I. BACKGROUND

1. Application No: CP20-0068

2. Project Title: The Watermark at Santa Cruz

3. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department 809 Center Street, Room 101
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

4. Contact Person and Contact Information:

Clara Stanger, Senior Planner
(831) 420-5247; [email protected]

5. Project Location: 126 Eucalyptus Avenue (APN 004-571-02 and 004-571-04); see Figure 1.

6. Project Applicant / Sponsor Name and Address:

Roger Bernstein, 1100 Lincoln Avenue #382, San Jose, CA 95125 Owner: Oblates of St. Joseph, 544 W Cliff Drive, Santa Cruz, CA 95060

7. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LM), 1.1-10 dwelling unit (DU)/acre

8. Zoning: Single Family Residence (R-1-5) / West Cliff Drive Overlay (WCD-O) / Coastal Zone Overlay (CZ-O) / Shoreline Protection Overlay (SP-O)

9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: None known

10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.31? Yes
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed Uses and Site Plan. The proposed project consists of a Non-Residential Demolition Authorization Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, Special Use Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, and Historic Alteration Permit to reconfigure two APN parcels (five lots) into two lots,

4.77 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -2- November 2022 Revised
demolish two existing former school buildings, and construct a 76-unit senior housing facility that includes 59 assisted living units(with 76 beds), 15 memory care units (with 19 beds), and two inclusionary units (one studio and one 1-bedroom unit). Of the 59 assisted living units, 11 would be equipped with full kitchens; both of the inclusionary units also would have full kitchens and would be required to be either independent living, assisted living, or staff housing as a condition of approval.

The project includes a proposed lot line adjustment to create two new lots from the existing

6.97-acre project site; “Lot 1” would consist of a 3.97-acre parcel which would retain five existing buildings, including: three historic buildings that include two residences and a carriage house, a garage, and a church. Under the project, “Lot 2” would consist of a 3-acre parcel that would include the proposed senior housing facility.

Improvements to Lot 1 include the addition of eight parking stalls, relocation of an existing meditation garden, and a new access driveway to be connected through Lot 2 off Pelton Avenue. No new structures would be built on proposed Lot 1.

Improvements to Lot 2 include two buildings for the senior housing facility (“Building A” and “Building B”) as shown on Figure 2. Building A would be two stories with basement and roof spaces and would cover approximately 58,000 gross square feet. The building consists of two rectangular sections that are connected by a hallway at the middle of the building. This building would house the facilities services and administrative functions including the following rooms: dining, cafe/bar, lounge, multi-purpose, fitness, salon, office, administrative, and lobby. Building A includes 46 Assisted Living Units and 2 Inclusionary Units for a total of 48 living units. Building A is proposed to be 30 feet tall from ground level to the rooftop; the building includes dining and lounge areas and a rooftop terrace. The building would have a rooftop trellis structure which would support photovoltaic solar panels.

Building B would also be two stories tall, covering approximately 19,300 gross square feet.

The building is sited to the north of Building A and consists of two rectangular sections. This building would provide memory care services and 15 Memory Care Units on the first floor and 13 Assisted Living Units on the second floor. Building B is proposed to be 30 feet tall to the rooftop.

Access and Parking. Primary access to the proposed senior housing facility (Lot 2) would be provided from a new driveway running along the southern perimeter of the site to and from Pelton Avenue. The new fire lane would also be constructed along the western boundary of Lot 2 via Eucalyptus Avenue. The existing church and residential buildings (Lot 1) are currently accessed via three existing driveways along West Cliff Drive to the east of the project site.

These existing driveways would continue to serve Lot 1.

A total of 45 parking spaces are proposed for the senior housing facility, Lot 2. The facility would also include three bicycle parking spaces. Eight additional parking spaces would also be constructed on Lot 1 adjacent to the existing church; these spaces would supplement the approximately 95 parking spaces that exist on Lot 1. The project includes frontage

4.78 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -3- November 2022 Revised
improvements along Pelton Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue Drive per City standards, including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.

The project would be bordered by a new six-foot wall along the northern and southeastern perimeters of site. Resident access to and from the senior housing facility would be provided through new paved walkways throughout Lot 2, connecting Pelton Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue to building entrances and outdoor amenities.

Landscaping. The project would involve the removal of six heritage trees, as defined by the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance. The project would preserve 14 of the 42 trees that currently exist on the proposed Lot 2 site and would plant an additional 154 new trees of various types and sizes. Notably, the western perimeter of the senior housing facility would be planted with trees to provide privacy and visual relief from Pelton Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue. Several other landscape plants and groundcover are proposed throughout Lot 2 to compliment the proposed outdoor living amenities such as the courtyard, activity lawn, resident garden, memory care garden, and dog park. The project would be subject to provisions of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO), per Chapter 16.16 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Stormwater. The project site is currently developed with 51,135 square feet of impervious surface area; the project proposes a net increase in 37,983 square feet of new imperious surface area through the construction of new structures, parking, and hardscapes.

Stormwater would be controlled with a new storm drain system and several Low Impact Development (LID) methods outlined in the project’s Stormwater Management Plan. These include limiting potential disturbance to natural drainage features, limiting clearing and grading of native vegetation, and implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would minimize stormwater runoff. The project proposes to install catch basins, pipelines, and 3,750 square feet of biofiltration raingardens along the southwestern perimeter of the site.

Demolition, Construction Schedule, and Earthwork. The project involves demolition of two vacant school buildings (totaling approximately 28,800 square feet), school blacktop, and frontage improvements along Eucalyptus Avenue and Pelton Avenue. Existing utilities on the project site within the limits of demolition are to be cut at the property line, capped and abandoned per agency standards.

Construction would be expected to occur over approximately 18-19 months with grading and foundation work taking approximately 12 weeks. In terms of grading, approximately 1,200 cubic yards (cy) of earth material would be cut from the site and approximately 2,700 cy of earth material would be filled. Therefore, there would be net fill of approximately 1,500 cy of earth material on site.

4.79 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -4- November 2022 Revised
III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The approximately 6.97-acre (303,613-square-foot) project site is located at 126 Eucalyptus Avenue, directly west of West Cliff Drive in the southern portion of the City. The project site is located within the coastal zone and is approximately 40 feet west of the Pacific Ocean (across West Cliff Drive) and 0.4 miles southwest of the Santa Cruz Wharf. The project site is bordered by Pelton Avenue on the south, Eucalyptus Avenue on the west, West Cliff Drive on the east, and residential development on the north.

The project area is characterized by primarily by residential development, open space amenities at Lighthouse Field State Beach including parking, trails, and beach access, and hotels to the north. Surrounding development includes single-family residences to the west and north. Lighthouse Field State Beach is located directly south of the project site, which is operated by the California Department of Parks and Recreation.

The project site currently contains two residences fronting West Cliff Drive, both of which are historic resources, a church which is in operation, and a former school campus, including two buildings, which are now vacant. The western portion of the project site has been previously disturbed by the construction of the former school campus.

The project is relatively flat with existing onsite elevation of approximately 40 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The project site gently slopes with a one-percent slope to the south.

The western portion of the project site (proposed Lot 2), which is the portion of the site that would be subject to project demolition and new construction, contains 42 existing trees of varying condition. Of this total, 11 trees are classified as heritage trees pursuant to City regulations (SOURCE V.8
1 ):
• 2 Black Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)
• 1 Wild Plum (Prunus spp.)
• 1 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
• 2 Canary Island Date Palm (Phoenix canariensis)
• 1 Fruitless Mulberry (Morus alba)
• 2 Queen Palm (Syragus romanzoffiana)
• 1 Monterey Cyprus (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa)
1 All cited sources/references are identified in Section V at the end of this document.

4.80 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -5- November 2022 Revised
F I G U R E 1 : Project Location
SOURCE: CALLISONRTKL, INC., Project Architect

4.81 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -6- November 2022 Revised
F I G U R E 2 : Site Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan SOURCE: MJS Landscape Architecture 2021

4.82 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -7- November 2022 Revised
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. Introduction and Background
In analyzing a proposed project, the City may consider whether existing environmental documents already provide an adequate analysis of potential environmental impacts. An earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program environmental impact report (EIR), or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions, it can be determined that one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (State CEQA Guidelines section 15063(c)(3)(D)). If an earlier analysis is used, the Initial Study checklist discussion should identify: a) the earlier analyses and state where they are available for review; b) identify which effects were adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis; and c) describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

CEQA also allows a lead agency to avoid repeating analyses that were already provided in a certified General Plan EIR for a development project that is consistent with the General Plan.

Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and its parallel CEQA Guidelines provision, section 15183, provide for streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with the General Plan for which an EIR was certified. Pursuant to section 21083.3, subdivision (b), if a development project is consistent with the general plan for which an environmental impact report was certified, the application of CEQA shall be limited to effects on the environment which are “peculiar to the parcel or to the project” and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report. Subdivision (d) further indicates that an effect of a project upon the environment shall not be considered “peculiar to the parcel or to the project,” “if uniformly applied development policies or standards” have been previously adopted by the city or county, with a finding based upon substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards would not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. CEQA Guidelines section 15183, subdivision (f), adds that “[w]here a city or county, in previously adopting uniformly applied development policies or standards for imposition on future projects, failed to make a finding as to whether such policies or standards would substantially mitigate the effects of future projects, the decisionmaking body of the city or county, prior to approving such a future project pursuant to this section, may hold a public hearing for the purpose of considering whether, as applied to the project, such standards or policies would substantially mitigate the effects of the project.” Under these provisions of CEQA, a project that is consistent with a General Plan that was adopted pursuant to a certified EIR, could be potentially partially or wholly exempt from further CEQA analyses.

4.83 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -8- November 2022 Revised
Section 15183 provides more detailed guidance than can be found in Public Resources Code section 21083.3 itself. Section 15183, subdivision (b), states that if a project is consistent with an agency’s General Plan for which an EIR has been certified, the agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent; (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan, or zoning action; or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15183(b).)
Guidelines section 15183, subdivision (c), further provides that “if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” “[D]evelopment policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire city or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located….

Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance.” (Guidelines, § 15183, subd. (f).)
B. Use of Earlier Analyses
On June 26, 2012, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted the General Plan 2030 after certifying an EIR for the plan. The General Plan 2030 EIR includes the Draft EIR volume (September 2011) and the Final EIR volume (April 2012). The General Plan EIR reviewed all of the topics included on the Appendix G environmental checklist in the State CEQA Guidelines as well as all sections required to be included in an EIR.

The General Plan EIR is a “program” EIR prepared pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15168, which reviewed environmental impacts associated with future development and buildout within the City’s planning area that would be accommodated by the General Plan. A program EIR can be used for subsequent projects implemented within the scope of the program/plan. Typically, site-specific or new significant impacts that weren’t addressed in the program EIR would be evaluated in an Initial Study, leading to preparation of a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or EIR. Mitigation measures adopted for the General Plan also would be a part of future development projects, as relevant, and

4.84 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -9- November 2022 Revised
supplemented, as may be necessary, with any site-specific mitigation measures identified in the project-specific environmental review process.

As indicated above, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3, certain (or potentially all) aspects of a development project that are consistent with a General Plan for which an EIR was certified may be exempt from additional CEQA analyses (i.e., negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR) of issues that were adequately covered in the General Plan EIR. The project site is designated Low Density Residential (L) in the City’s General Plan 2030 and is zoned Single Family Residence with West Cliff Drive, Coastal Zone, and Shoreline Protection Overlays (R-1-5/WCD-O/CZ-O/SP-O). The proposed project use is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. According to the General Plan, “L” General Plan land use designation is intended to provide for single-family residential neighborhoods typically comprising detached homes.” The R-1 zone district allows uses such as churches and community care facilities that are compatible with single-family residential neighborhoods.

The proposed project meets the Zoning Ordinance definition of a community care facility, which is a permitted use in the R-1 zone district. The project’s General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential, prescribes a density limitation of 1 to 10.1 dwelling units per acre (du/acre). The project has 13 units (dwelling with a kitchen) for purposes of calculating residential density, and the project falls within the density range of the General Plan. Thus, the project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the site.

While the General Plan 2030 EIR considered the impacts of repurposing, intensifying, and redeveloping existing developed parcels in the City as a whole, specific future development of the project site was not noted or specifically evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR, and there were no site-specific impacts identified for the project site. However, as part of the overall estimated buildout, the EIR considered construction of new housing units and nonresidential uses in the City with an estimated buildout of 3,350 new residential units and approximately 1,090,000 square feet of commercial uses throughout the City by the year 2030 (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume-page 3-13). Since adoption of the General Plan, approximately 2,200 residential units have been constructed or approved throughout the City. Thus, the 76 proposed residential and senior living units would be within the remaining residential buildout estimates considered in the city-wide General Plan EIR impact analyses. For purposes of estimating buildout, all 76 proposed units were counted even though only 13 rise to the full definition of a dwelling unit.

The proposed project is located within the “Lower Westside” neighborhood area that was identified in the General Plan EIR for the purposes of evaluating potential growth. The General Plan EIR identified additional development in the Lower Westside to include 188 residential units. Since adoption of the General Plan, approximately 30 residential units have been constructed, are under construction, or have been approved in the Lower Westside area. The proposed project would not exceed the buildout estimates considered in the General Plan EIR for the Lower Westside area and, as discussed above, the project would be within city-wide buildout estimates in the General Plan EIR.

4.85 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -10- November 2022 Revised
C. Environmental Checklist Review
The purpose of the checklist presented on the following pages is to evaluate the impact categories covered in the City’s certified General Plan EIR to determine whether the project’s impacts have been adequately analyzed in that EIR or whether any new significant impacts peculiar to the project or project site would result. Where an impact resulting from the project was adequately analyzed previously, the review provides a cross-reference to the pages in the General Plan EIR where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic. The checklist also identifies whether the project involves new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR or new significant impacts not peculiar to the site or project. As indicated above, an impact would not be considered “peculiar” to the site or project if uniformly applied development policies or standards will substantially mitigate an environmental effect.

Therefore, the following review includes mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR that would be applicable to the site or project and/or relevant applicable development policies or standards that will be applied to the project.

The General Plan 2030 EIR is on file at the City’s Planning and Community Development Department, 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, California from 7:30 AM to 11:30 AM, Monday through Thursday. The documents are also available for review on the City of Santa Cruz Planning Department’s website at: https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/citydepartments/planning-and-community-development/long-range-policy-planning/generalplan.

D. Conclusion
Based on the following review, it has been determined that the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR has adequately addressed the following issues, and no further environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3: aesthetics (scenic views, scenic resources); agricultural and forest resources; air quality (conflicts with Air Quality Management Plan, sensitive receptors, odors); biological resources (riparian, wetland or other sensitive habitat, conflicts with plans); cultural resources (historical resources); energy; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards/hazardous materials (create hazard, airport safety, emergency response, wildfire hazards); hydrology-water quality (groundwater, flood risk, conflicts with plans); land use (physical division of an existing community); mineral resources; noise and vibration; population and housing; public services; recreation; transportation (conflicts tribal cultural resources; utilities (wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal); and wildfire.

4.86 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -11- November 2022 Revised
ordinance); cultural resources (archaeological resources, human burials); geology and soils (seismic, geologic hazards, erosion, soils, paleontological resources); hazards/hazardous materials (exposure to hazardous materials); hydrology/water quality (drainage and water quality); land use (conflict with plans); transportation; utilities (infrastructure, water supply); and cumulative impacts. Thus, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183, no further environmental analysis is required.

E. Checklist and Discussion

1. AESTHETICS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
Except as provided in Public
Resources Code section 21099,
would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
DEIR pp. 4.3-2
to 4.3-7, 4.3-13
to 4.3-15
FEIR pp. 3-2
No No None
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited to
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
DEIR pp. 4.3-14
to 4.3-17 No No None
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality public views of the site and
its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point.) If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
DEIR pp. 4.3-7
to 4.3-8, 4.3-15
to 4.3-19
FEIR pp. 3-2
No No
Design Review &
Permit
Requirements
Municipal Code
section

24.08.400-430
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
DEIR pp. 4.3-19
to 4.3-20 No No
Municipal Code
section

24.14.266
Standard
Condition of
Approval to
prevent offsite
lighting
(a) Scenic Views. The project site is located in a developed area of the City of Santa Cruz that is characterized primarily by existing residential development, as well as recreational areas along the coast. The General Plan 2030 indicates that prominent scenic views mostly are those that are oriented toward Monterey Bay and the Pacific Ocean or toward the Santa Cruz Mountains that frame the northern boundary of Santa Cruz (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). According to maps developed for the

4.87 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -12- November 2022 Revised
City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR (SOURCE V.1b-DEIR Figure 4.3-1), the project site is mapped in proximity to two panoramic views of the Monterey Bay as seen from West Cliff Drive. The nearest panoramic view is approximately 400 feet north of the project site along the intersection of West Cliff Drive and Manor Avenue. Per Figure 4.3-1 of the General Plan EIR, this panoramic view faces the north and east direction towards the Pacific Ocean, away from the project site and proposed project site. Therefore, the project would not have an adverse effect on this view.

The next closest designated panoramic view is approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site at Lighthouse Point along West Cliff Drive. This location is both a designated panoramic view and visual landmark in the General Plan EIR. This viewpoint and visual landmark would be unaffected by the proposed redevelopment project because the project site is not visible from this location and would not affect coastal views. The project site is screened from these scenic coastal areas due to its flat topography and by Lighthouse Field State Beach which intervenes with dense vegetation, including mature trees up to approximately 50 feet in height. The third visual resource identified in the General Plan EIR within proximity to the project site is an Urban View of Neary Lagoon. This viewpoint is approximately 0.42 mile to the northwest of the project site and oriented away from the proposed project. Therefore, it would be unaffected by proposed redevelopment under the project.

The General Plan EIR, which comprehensively addressed visual impacts associated with new population growth and development, concluded that most of the future development accommodated by the General Plan would not be in areas that are part of a public scenic view. The EIR discussed several limited areas in which potential disruption to scenic views could occur with future development, but the project site is not located within these areas. None of the General Plan policies and actions directed toward protection of scenic views are applicable to the project as no scenic views would be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project, which would replace existing structures with new structures, would not have an adverse effect on a scenic view as none have been identified, mapped or observed that include the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Scenic Resources. There are no designated state scenic highways or roads within the City. The project site is not located near a state scenic highway. The project site is developed with existing former private school, residential, and church structures. The western portion of the project site (proposed Lot 2), which would be redeveloped, is currently developed with two vacant structures, pavement and former landscaped areas. There are no historic structures on the proposed Lot 2, which represents the portion of the project site that would be redeveloped, that would be considered scenic resources. The two existing historic residential structures along West Cliff Drive would be retained and would not be altered or modified as part of the project; see Section IV.E.5(a) for further discussion of historical resources.

The project would result in the removal of 28 of the 42 existing trees that are on the proposed Lot 2; six of the trees to be removed are considered Heritage trees under City regulations. Most trees to be removed are not tall, and none are prominently visible or distinctive. The project retains seven heritage trees and also proposes the replanting of 154 new trees of various types and size. For these

4.88 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -13- November 2022 Revised
reasons, the trees are not considered scenic and removal would not substantially alter the visual character of the area.

The General Plan EIR concluded that, with implementation of General Plan policies and actions, future infill development accommodated by the Plan would not result in significant impacts to scenic resources. The General Plan seeks to preserve natural features that visually define areas and provide scenic benefits (CD1.1), as well as to protect significant vegetation that provides scenic value (CD

4.3.3). Although 11 of the 28 trees proposed to be removed are of heritage size, the trees are not visible from a wide-ranging area, are not visually prominent or distinctive, and are not considered scenic resources. Thus, the project would not have an impact on scenic resources.

For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in impacts to scenic resources that would be peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(c) Effects on Visual Character. As described above in Section IV.E.1(a), the project would not impact prominent views or landmarks designated under the General Plan. The project area is characterized by existing residential development. The project proposes a senior housing facility with two buildings with varied exterior stucco, wood trellises and columns, metal trim, and glazing that would align with the architectural and visual characteristics of the surrounding commercial buildings.

The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that most of the future development accommodated by the General Plan would not substantially degrade the visual character of surrounding areas with implementation of General Plan policies and actions to develop design guidelines and review development to protect “distinctive design characteristics” and landmarks of neighborhoods (CD2.1, CD2.3) in combination with continued application of design review as part of Design Permit approvals.

The proposed project consists of two two-story buildings with a surface parking lot. The structures’ 30-foot height would be a similar height to the existing former school structure on the site and singlefamily residences in the neighborhood, which are also are generally two stories in height. The overall massing would also be similar to, but greater than, the existing school and church buildings that currently exist on the project site. There are no regulations on floor area ratio (FAR) for the site’s General Plan land use designation (Low Density Residential). However, the West Cliff Drive Overlay Zone District has an FAR limitation of 0.35 for lots over 12,500 square feet in size, and the proposed project with the existing structures on the entire project site would meet this requirement.

As described in Section II, Project Description, the proposed project will be reviewed through the Design Permit process. Per section 24.08.400 of the Municipal Code, the purpose of the City’s Design Permit review is to “promote the public health, safety and general welfare through the review of architectural and site development proposals and through application of recognized principles of design, planning and aesthetics and qualities typifying the Santa Cruz community.” To receive Design Permit approval, the project would require findings from the City’s approving body. Design Permit

4.89 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -14- November 2022 Revised
review and approval would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards, which would reduce potential visual character impacts to a less-than-significant level.

The City of Santa Cruz is an “urbanized area” under the definition of the term in CEQA Guidelines section 15387. Therefore, per the CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist question that was amended subsequent to the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City need not specifically consider existing visual character or the quality of the existing views and the project’s potential effect on them. Nonetheless, this analysis has considered these issues and concludes that the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings, nor the quality of the views to or from the site as described above.

Furthermore, the proposed project does not affect coastal views between the sea and the first public roadway parallel to the sea because it is located west of Pelton Avenue. Therefore, the project is consistent with required findings for a coastal development permit set forth in Municipal Code section 24.08.250, which requires that views between the sea and the first public roadway parallel to the sea be maintained. The project would be consistent with building height requirements set forth for the R-1 zone district. There are no other applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in aesthetic impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR and would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site or area, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (d) Light and Glare. The project would not result in introduction of a major new source of light or glare, although there would be introduction of windows and typical exterior lighting for residential buildings. This type of lighting would be oriented so as to not create off-site light. Exterior building lighting would be further reviewed by City staff as part of the Design Permit review.

The General Plan EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the plan could result in potential sources of light and glare, but would not result in creation of “substantial” new sources of light and glare or result in a significant impact. The EIR indicated that buildings would have standard window and exterior lighting treatments, but would not be expected to result in new sources of substantial light or glare as future development projects would largely replace or redevelop existing urban uses. Exterior lighting would be included as part of the development, but would be typical of residential lighting in the area, and would not result in nighttime illumination levels beyond the property line. Additionally, section 24.14.266 of the City’s Municipal Code prohibits direct or skyreflected glare. Furthermore, the Design Permit review that is required for most larger development projects would ensure project compliance with City standards and regulations.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to creation of a new source of substantial light or glare or result in off-site impacts. Details of lighting would be reviewed by City staff as part of the Design Permit. A standard condition of approval requires all exterior lighting required to be shielded to contain the light source in a downward direction and avoid glare and illumination of adjacent properties. An approved Design Permit, including findings pursuant to Municipal Code section 24.08.430 and inclusion of a standard condition of approval regarding shielding of exterior lighting would be considered application of uniformly applied development

4.90 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -15- November 2022 Revised
standards that would substantially reduce light and glare impacts. There would be no light and glare impacts peculiar to the project or the site with uniformly applied development standards imposed as part of the design review process. Thus, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

2. AGRICULTURE AND
FOREST RESOURCES2
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
DEIR pp. 4.15-3,

4.15-6 to 4.15-8
No No None
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
DEIR pp. 4.15-3,

4.15-6 to 4.15-8
No No None
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
DEIR pp. 4.15-3,

4.15-5 to 4.15-6
No No None
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
DEIR pp. 4.15-3,

4.15-5 to 4.15-6
No No None
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
DEIR pp. 4.15-3,

4.15-5 to 4.15-8
No No None
2 In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement Methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

4.91 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -16- November 2022 Revised
The project site is located within the developed urban area of the City of Santa Cruz. The project site does not contain prime farmland or other agricultural lands as mapped on the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.15-1). The site is not designated for agricultural uses in the City’s General Plan and is not located adjacent to agricultural lands. The project site is not zoned Timberland Preserve.

The General Plan EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the General Plan 2030 would not result in conversion of agricultural or forest or timber resource lands or conflict with agricultural or timberland zoning within the City or its Sphere of Influence. The General Plan EIR further concluded that potential future development accommodated by the General Plan could be sited adjacent to agricultural lands in two limited areas outside City limits, and that with implementation of the General Plan 2030 goals, policies and actions aimed at preventing conversion of agricultural lands and the maintenance and establishment of adequate buffers between adjacent land uses, there would be no conflicts between future development and agricultural uses. The project site is not located in the areas adjacent to agricultural lands. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly result in conversion of agricultural or forest lands, as these resources are not present on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts on agriculture and forest resources that would be peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

3. AIR QUALITY3
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
DEIR pp.

4.11-11 to

4.11-12, 4.11-15
to 4.11-18
FEIR p. 3-24
No No
GP EIR
Mitigation

4.11-1
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
DEIR pp. 4.11-6
to 4.11-7,

4.11-9 to

4.11-10, 4.11-18
to 4.11-34
FEIR 3-24 to 3-
26 No No
GP Policies &
Actions HZ 2.2,
HZ2.2.1,
HZ2.2.2, LU1.2,
LU1.2.1 that
require project
level reviews
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
DEIR pp. 4.11-7
to 4.11-8,
No No None
3 Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

4.92 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -17- November 2022 Revised

4.11-10 to

4.11-11,

4.11-18, 4.11-24
to 4.11-26
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
DEIR pp.

4.11-26 to

4.11-27
No No
Municipal Code
section

24.14.264
(a) Conflict with Air Quality Management Plan. In 1991, the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD), formerly the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD), adopted the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Monterey Bay Region in response to the California Clean Air Act of 1988, which established specific planning requirements to meet the ozone standards.

The California Clean Air Act requires that AQMPs be updated every three years. The MBARD has updated the AQMP seven times. The most recent update, the 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP), was adopted in 2017. The 2016 AQMP relies on a multilevel partnership of federal, state, regional, and local governmental agencies. The 2016 AQMP documents the MBARD’s progress toward attaining the state 8-hour ozone standard, which is more stringent than the state 1-hour ozone standard. The 2016 AQMP builds on information developed in past AQMPs and updates the 2012 AQMP. The primary elements from the 2012 AQMP that were updated in the 2016 revision include the air quality trends analysis, emission inventory, and mobile source programs (SOURCE V.6a).

The MBARD has an approved procedure for determining whether a residential project conflicts with the District’s adopted AQMP that uses the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments’ (AMBAG’s) adopted housing unit forecast instead of population, and the MBARD has developed a method to assist jurisdictions with developing calculations, which was used to determine whether the proposed project conflicts with the AQMP. The City had 24,250 existing dwelling units as of January 1, 2022 (SOURCE V.4), and approximately 1,590 residential units are under construction or have been approved. With the addition of these units, the City’s housing units would total 25,840 dwelling units. With existing units and the proposed project’s increase of 76 residential and senior living units(counting both units with kitchens and those without full kitchens), there would be a total of 25,916 dwelling units within the City. The current AQMP is based on AMBAG’s 2014 Regional Growth Forecast (AMBAG 2014), which estimated 27,547 dwelling units within the City for the year 2025 (SOURCE V.3c). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP.

The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Plan could result in development of dwelling units that exceed regional projections, which could result in conflicts with the AQMP according to the MBARD’s methodology for determining consistency. The

4.93 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -18- November 2022 Revised
General Plan EIR includes a mitigation measure (Mitigation 4.11-1) that directs City staff to work with AMBAG staff in future updates of population and housing forecasts and indicates that the potential population growth and housing unit increase exceedance would not occur for at least 10+ years, if it occurs at all. Subsequent to adoption of the General Plan, AMBAG updated and adopted regional population and housing forecasts in June 2014, June 2018 and June 2022. At this time, the City’s residential population and existing and approved housing units do not exceed adopted regional housing forecasts upon which the existing AQMP was developed, and the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of the regional housing forecast that was accounted for in the AQMP.

Thus, there would be no impact related to conflicts with the current adopted AQMP.

Given the foregoing, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to conflicts with the AQMP that would be peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Project Criteria Pollutant Emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards that are the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health and welfare. Criteria pollutants include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulates (PM10), fine particulates (PM2.5), and lead. High O3 levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), which react under certain meteorological conditions to form O3. In California, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility-reducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants. An area is designated as “in attainment” when it is in compliance with the federal and/or state standards, as further discussed below.

The project site is located within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the MBARD and includes Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito Counties. The NCCAB is designated attainment for the federal PM10 and SO2 standards, and is designated attainment/unclassified for the other federal standards. The NCCAB is designated attainment for the state PM2.5, NO2, SO2, and lead standards, and is designated unclassified for CO in Santa Cruz County.

The NCCAB has nonattainment designations for state O3 and PM10 standards.

The MBARD 2012-2015 AQMP, adopted March 15, 2017, identifies a continued trend of declining O3 emissions in the NCCAB primarily related to lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT), showing that the region is continuing to make progress toward meeting the state O3 standard during the three-year period reviewed (SOURCE V.6a).

The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Plan could result in air pollutant emissions, but overall future emissions of ozone precursor pollutants are projected to decrease or remain nearly unchanged over the next 20 years, and thus, project-level emissions would not contribute to existing or potential future violations of air quality standards related to O3. The General Plan EIR further concluded that while, PM10 emissions would increase, compliance with MBUAPCD significance criteria at a project level would ensure that emissions would not exceed daily standards. It was also found that vehicular emission rates are anticipated

4.94 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -19- November 2022 Revised
to lessen in future years due to continuing improvements in automobile and fuel efficiency and new regulations and programs adopted by the state of California that are scheduled to be phased in over the life of the proposed General Plan, and such reductions are factored into the air quality models used to estimate emissions.

Furthermore, the proposed General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies and actions that set forth measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on air quality, including environmental review to address project-level emissions, requiring project-level mitigation measures, and reduction of vehicle trips and emissions. General Plan policies and actions LU1.2, LU1.2.1 and HZ2.2.1 (as modified by the General Plan EIR) are intended to ensure that new development does not result in creation of air pollution and implements measures set forth by the MBARD as part of future projectlevel review. Specifically, Action HZ2.2.1 requires future development projects to implement applicable MBARD control measures and/ or air quality mitigations in the design of new projects as set forth in the District’s “CEQA Guidelines. General Plan Action HZ2.2.2 permits major indirect sources of air pollution only if transportation measures are provided to reduce impacts to a less-thansignificant level, consistent with applicable MBARD recommended mitigation and control measures as set forth in the District’s CEQA Guidelines. The policies and actions require future project-level review and implementation of mitigation measures, if warranted, consistent with the adopted standards in the MBARD’s CEQA Guidelines. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the General Plan policies and actions, compliance with MBARD requirements and air quality control measures, and adherence to MBARD permit requirements, contributions to air pollutant emissions and air quality impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would result in construction of a 76-unit senior housing facility. The project would indirectly generate air pollutant emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The MBARD CEQA Guidelines provide several land use types with corresponding screening threshold levels to assess ozone impacts. The proposed project size is substantially below the MBARD’s screening levels for single-family homes (810 units) or apartments (1,080 dwelling units), the uses most similar to the proposed project, which is used to determine potential significant ozone impacts as set forth in the MBAED’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (SOURCE V.6b). Therefore, project emissions would not be considered substantial or result in an air quality violation, although air emissions as a result of the project were modeled as further described below.

Project construction could result in generation of dust and PM10 emissions as a result of site excavation and grading. According to MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (SOURCE V.6b), construction activity on 8.1 acres per day with minimal earthmoving or 2.2 acres per day with grading and excavation are assumed to be below the MBARD’s PM10 significance threshold of 82 pounds per day. The area of proposed development is approximately 3 acres in size, which is above the screeninglevel threshold.

Therefore, air emissions were modeled for construction emissions to comply with MBARD CEQA Guidelines and also included modeling for operational emissions, using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version. The results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, and as shown,

4.95 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -20- November 2022 Revised
neither project construction nor operational emissions would exceed MBARD thresholds for criteria pollutant air emissions.

Table 1. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Year
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
2023 5.07 50.59 39.12 0.08 14.65 8.27
2024 16.83 36.33 37.64 0.08 6.07 3.36
2025 16.69 15.75 21.76 0.05 1.89 0.91
Maximum Daily
Emissions 16.83 50.59 39.12 0.08 14.65 8.27
MBARD Threshold N/A N/A N/A N/A 82 N/A
Threshold
Exceeded? N/A N/A N/A N/A No N/A
Source: Dudek
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; MBARD = Monterey Bay Air Resources District; N/A = not applicable; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gases; SOx = sulfur oxides. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod and include watering of exposed areas two times per day, per the City’s Standard Construction Practices.

Technical calculations are on file with the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department.

Table 2. Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emission Source
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
Area 2.08 0.07 6.27 <0.01 0.03 0.03
Energy 0.02 0.16 0.07 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Mobile 1.12 1.32 10.54 0.02 1.87 0.51
Total 3.22 1.55 16.88 0.02 1.91 0.56
MBARD Threshold 137 137 550 150 82 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No N/A
Source: Dudek
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; MBARD = Monterey Bay Air Resources District; N/A = not applicable; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gases; SOx = sulfur oxides. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod.

Technical calculations are on file with the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department.

Therefore, the project-level review required by the General Plan 2030, and as considered in the General Plan EIR, finds that potential emissions would not exceed MBARD’s adopted CEQA significance thresholds, and the project would not violate current air quality standards or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. General Plan Action HZ2.2.1 establishes

4.96 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -21- November 2022 Revised
a procedure for project-level reviews and requires site-specific mitigation measures if significant impacts are identified. These measures include applicable MBARD control measure and/ or air quality mitigation. The proposed project has complied with this requirement and no significant impacts were identified, and project emissions would be within the less-than-significant impact evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site, or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

In addition, according to the MBARD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, projects that are consistent with the AQMP would not result in cumulative impacts as regional emissions have been factored into the AQMP. The MBARD prepares air quality plans which address attainment of the state and federal emission standards, and incorporate growth forecasts developed by AMBAG. As indicated in subsection 3(a) above, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP, which takes into account cumulative development within the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant increase. (c) Sensitive Receptors. For CEQA purposes, a sensitive receptor is defined as any residence, including private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters; education resources such as preschools and kindergarten through grade 12 schools; daycare centers; and healthcare facilities such as hospitals or retirement and nursing homes. A sensitive receptor includes long term care hospitals, hospices, prisons, and dormitories or similar live-in housing (SOURCE V.6b). Sensitive residential uses are located, west, north and east of the project site. The proposed residential project would not introduce a new source of stationary emissions, and thus, would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Diesel Particulate Emissions. Diesel particulate matter was identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by the State of California in 1998. The General Plan 2030 EIR discusses construction-related impacts in which diesel particulate matter could be emitted from construction equipment. The impact was found to be less than significant due to the California Air Resources Board’s ongoing adoption of regulations for in-use, off-road diesel vehicles that will significantly reduce particulate matter emissions by requiring fleet owners to accelerate turnover to cleaner engines and install exhaust retrofits. The EIR also noted that the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 2486(c)(1) prohibits idling of a diesel engine for more than five minutes in any location, thereby further limiting particulate matter emissions. Additionally, emissions during construction are of a short-term duration in comparison to life-long exposure and health risks. Construction-related diesel emissions at the project site would be of limited duration (i.e., primarily during grading) and temporary. Thus, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to diesel emissions and associated risks are considered a less-than-significant impact as evaluated and concluded in the General Plan EIR. Since the proposed project is within the overall buildout analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no new significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or the site have been identified, no further environmental analysis regarding diesel particulate emissions is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (d) Odors. According to the Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (SOURCE V.6b), land uses associated with odor complaints typically include landfills, agricultural uses, wastewater treatment

4.97 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -22- November 2022 Revised
plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, and refineries. The General Plan EIR indicates that the General Plan 2030 does not specifically identify, designate or support any new stationary sources that would be considered likely significant odor-generating facilities and that the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code section 24.14.264 prohibits emission of odorous gases or matter in quantities readily detectable. Additionally, future proposed development will be subject to project-level environmental review (LU1.2, LU1.2.1) and mitigation (HZ2.2.1), if required, which would result in avoidance of potentially significant impacts related to odor. The General Plan EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the General Plan would not be expected to result in generation of significant odors with implementation of proposed General Plan policies and with compliance with City regulations that prohibit odor emissions.

The proposed residential project does not include any uses associated with odors and would not result in impacts related to odors. Since the proposed project is within the overall buildout analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no new significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or the site have been identified, no further environmental analysis regarding diesel particulate emissions is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
DEIR pp. 4.8-13
to 4.8-14,

4.8-16 to

4.8-21, 4.8-41,

4.8-43 to

4.8-44, 4.8-48
to 4.8-51
FEIR pp. 3-22,
3-25 to 3-40
No No
GP Policy
NRC2.1, NCR2.4,
Actions
NCR2.1.3,
NCR2.1.4
LCP EQ 4.5.3.2
GP Action
NR2.4.1 & GP
Table 1-
Assessment and
Management
Protocols for
Sensitive
Species and
Habitat
Municipal Code
section

24.14.080
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the California Department of
DEIR pp. 4.8-14
to 4.8-15,

4.8-24, 4.8-26
to 4.8-30,

4.8-22, 4.8-38
No No
GP Action
NR2.4.1 & GP
Table 1-
Assessment and
Management
Protocols for

4.98 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -23- November 2022 Revised

4.8-48 to 4.8-51
FEIR p. 3-22
Sensitive
Species and
Habitat
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
DEIR pp. 4.8-15,

4.8-41, 4.8-38
to 4.8-39,

4.8-48 to 4.8-51
No No
GP Action
NR2.4.1 & GP
Table 1-
Assessment and
Management
Protocols for
Sensitive
Species and
Habitat
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
DEIR pp. 4.8-22
to 4.8-25,

4.8-41, 4.8-44
to 4.8-45
No No
GP Action
NRC2.2.1
GP Action
NR2.4.1 & GP
Table 1-
Assessment and
Management
Protocols for
Sensitive
Species and
Habitat
Condition of
Approval for
Pre-construction
bird nesting
surveys
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
DEIR pp. 4.8-41,

4.8-45 to 4.8-47 No No
LCP Policy CD

6.1.2 Municipal Code
Chapter 9-6
Heritage Tree
Removal Permit,
required
replacement
trees, and
payment of inlieu fees
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
DEIR pp. 4.5-11
to 4.5-12,

4.8-25 to

4.8-26, 4.8-37
FEIR p. 3-23
Not Applicable Not Applicable None

4.99 The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -24- November 2022 Revised
(a) Special-Status Species. The project site is developed with an unoccupied former private school facility, church building, and two single-family residences. The former school facility is comprised of classroom buildings, schoolyard blacktop, and surface parking. According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, a northern portion and a small area or the southern portion of the project site are mapped within a potential monarch butterfly habitat (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.8-3).

A Biotic Assessment was conducted for the project to determine the presence of sensitive habitat, plants, or wildlife species on the project site and to assess the project’s potential impacts to sensitive biological resources (SOURCE V.10a). The project site supports three habitat types, including:
developed, ornamental-landscaped, and ruderal grassland. Developed areas include the former school classrooms and pavement; landscaped areas include ornamental vegetation and remnants of a former urban farm and garden; ruderal grassland areas are mowed by the church staff and are comprised of non-native grass, white clover, and fescue. The assessment determined there are no wildland areas with potential to support special-status plant species on the project site due to the developed and formerly maintained condition of vegetated areas within the project site. The assessment also concluded that no wetlands or other waters are present within the project area (SOURCE V.10a).

There is a known monarch butterfly autumnal and overwintering roost site approximately 200 feet southwest of the project site in Lighthouse Field State Beach. The management of the grove and associated monarch butterfly habitat is the responsibility of California State Parks Department.

Monarch butterflies are considered sensitive in the City’s General Plan 2030, have a NatureServe Rarity Rank of S2/S34, are a candidate for federal listing as a threatened species as discussed below, are included on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's list of Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority and identified as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in California's State Wildlife Action Plan, and were recently listed as endangered by the International Union of the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Currently, however, no federal or state regulatory protections exist for monarch butterflies. There is a management plan for monarch butterflies and other wildlife within Lighthouse Field (SOURCE V.10b).

The monarch butterfly was petitioned to be listed as a threatened species in 2014 and was under review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In May 2019, the USFWS announced an extension of the deadline to determine whether the species warrants protection under the federal 4 The California Natural Diversity Database program is a member of the NatureServe Network of natural heritage programs, and uses the same conservation status methodology as other network programs. The ranking system was originally developed by The Nature Conservancy and is now maintained and recently revised by NatureServe. It includes a Global rank (G-rank), describing the status for a given taxon over its entire distribution, and a State rank (S-rank), describing the status for the taxon over its state distribution. S2-Imperiled indicates species at high risk of extirpation in the state due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. S3-Vulnerable indicates species is at moderate risk of extirpation in the state due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors. SOURCE: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, April 2022. Special Animals List.

4.100
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -25- November 2022 Revised
Endangered Species Act. In December 2020, the USFWS announced that the candidacy for listing was warranted but precluded by other earlier listed and more imperiled species. The monarch will remain a candidate for listing pending annual review of its status until a final decision is made by the USFWS (SOURCE V.10a).

The project Biotic Assessment included site visits in 2019 and 2021 to observe the project area during monarch butterfly roosting season. During the 2019 field visit, no potential roost sites were identified within the proposed development area of the project site (proposed Lot 2). However, several mature trees in other portions of the project site were determined to have limited potential to support roosting monarch butterflies. During the field visit, monarch butterflies were observed roosting at the adjacent Lighthouse Field State Beach; however, no monarchs were observed roosting in trees on the 6.97-acre project site (SOURCE V.10a).

During the 2021 surveys, no monarch butterflies were observed roosting within the project area.

During several site visits, monarchs were observed flying within the site and nectaring on flowering ornamental plants within maintained gardens on the church property, which will not be disturbed as part of the proposed project. According the to the Biotic Assessment, it is not expected that monarchs would use the project site for roosting due to the lack of protection from prevailing wind as well as the structure and orientation of the Monterey cypress and other trees on the church property portion of the project site. Nevertheless, monarchs are present annually at moderate to high abundance within the adjacent Lighthouse Field State Beach approximately 75 feet southwest of the proposed project parking lot and approximately 250 feet from proposed residential buildings. It is also noted that monarchs generally are not present year-round, and the majority of monarchs roost with the central or southern portion of the nearby grove, more than 150 feet from the proposed parking lot.

There are existing private residences and a public street (Eucalyptus Avenue) that are closer to existing monarch butterfly roosts than the proposed project parking lot (SOURCE V.10b).

Direct or indirect impacts to this grove, including removal of nearby wind buffer trees could significantly impact roosting habitat. However, the project would not result in direct permanent impacts to the grove (e.g. tree removal) (SOURCE V.10b). Currently, a hedgerow of five mature Monterey cypress tress south of the church chapel provide protection to the Lighthouse Field roost sites from southerly winds; however, none of these trees are planned to be removed to accommodate the proposed senior housing facility (SOURCE V.10a).

The Biotic Assessment (SOURCE V.10a) and subsequent reviews (SOURCE V.10b) did not identify direct or indirect project impacts to the known monarch roost site, including potential indirect impacts resulting from project lighting and automobile traffic, including vehicle lights. There is no evidence of potential indirect impacts resulting from automobile lighting (SOURCE V.10b). As indicated in section IV.E.1(d), a standard condition of approval requires all exterior lighting to be shielded to contain the light source in a downward direction and avoid off-site glare and illumination of adjacent properties.

The Biotic Assessment recommends an additional fall/winter preconstruction survey be performed prior to commencing project construction by a qualified biologist to determine if monarchs are present in or near the project site prior to construction. The Biotic Assessment recommends that a condition of project approval include the following measures in the unlikely event that monarchs are

4.101
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -26- November 2022 Revised
determined to be present, or are roosting near the edge of the Lighthouse Field State Beach within 75 feet of the construction project activities:
• All roost trees including buffer trees will be retained; • Occupied roosts, including those present in Lighthouse Field State Beach will be buffered by 100 feet;
• Daily construction will begin after temperatures are above 55 degrees Fahrenheit, so that butterflies have emerged from nocturnal torpor and are capable of flying and thereby avoiding being displaced by vibrations caused by building demolition, earthmoving, and other construction; and
• Trucks and equipment should enter and exit the site along Pelton Avenue from the east towards West Cliff Drive to minimize vibrations and exhaust impact to the Lighthouse Field State Beach roosting sites (SOURCE V.10a).

Based on subsequent biotic reviews (SOURCE V.10b) and consultation with the applicant, the City has developed additional conditions of approval that function as “avoidance and management strategies” within the meaning of General Plan policy-Action NRC2.4.1, which is a uniformly applied development policy within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183. NRC2.4.1 references Table 1 of the NRC element, which identifies four broad categories of avoidance and management strategies:
• Avoidance – design plans to avoid take of individuals and habitat • Buffers to maintain suitable habitat conditions
• Conduct construction activities outside of winter roosting season or develop appropriate mitigation such as buffers to avoid disturbance such as smoke and fumes • Management to protect from indirect impacts
These following conditions of approval are avoidance and management strategies developed pursuant to Table 1:
• Prohibit right-turns out of the Pelton Avenue driveway to divert outbound trips east of the existing monarch butterfly grove and avoid casting vehicle headlight glare into the grove. • Require signage prohibiting high beams until drivers are completely on eastbound Pelton Avenue.
• All commercial deliveries shall use the West Cliff driveway for entering and exiting the site at all times.
• Final landscape plan shall locate new trees to avoid excess shading of nectar resources. • All exterior project lighting shall be shielded to contain the light source in a downward direction and avoid glare and illumination of adjacent properties and monarch butterfly grove at Lighthouse Field.
• Provide an onsite water source, such as a fountain, for the monarchs near the nectar gardens. • Install and maintain predator proof waste bins.

4.102
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -27- November 2022 Revised
• Eliminate populations of yellow jackets, eastern grey squirrels and rats on the property utilizing non-toxic methods.
• Restrict use of seed feeders that attract eastern grey squirrels and corvids. • Utilize leaf vacuums instead of blowers during maintenance operations. • Prohibit the use of neonicotinoids and other pesticides known to negatively impact monarchs.

The General Plan EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the plan would result in construction that could result in impacts to special status species and sensitive habitats. However, with implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and actions, as well as future environmental review of specific development projects and compliance with local regulations and plans, indirect impacts on sensitive habitats resulting from development accommodated by the General Plan would be considered less than significant. Both the General Plan 2030 and the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) require environmental impact analyses for development in the vicinity of sensitive habitats and designated monarch sites (General Plan NCR2.1.3, NCR2.4 and NCR2.4.1; LCP EQ 4.5.3.2). In particular LCP Policy EQ 4.5.3.2 requires development in the vicinity of designated monarch butterfly sites to undergo environmental impact analysis and prepare a management plan addressing preservation of the habitat if a monarch sites would be affected. The policy suggests management criteria in a monarch site, such as: prohibiting the cutting, thinning, pruning or removal of any tree or shrub; prohibiting pesticide use and keeping all water sources clean; allowing construction only during the months when monarchs are not present; and keeping smoke from infiltrating monarch roosting sites.

The Biotic Assessment prepared for the project provides this required review, including two seasons of field surveys in accordance with protocols set forth in the General Plan as referenced in Action NCR2.4.1 (Table 1-Assessment and Management Protocols for Sensitive Species and Habitat). As noted above, Action NCR2.4.1 indicates that Table 1 summarizes assessment protocols to be used determine if a sensitive biological resource is present, and identifies general avoidance or management strategies to be employed when sensitive biological resources occur. The General Plan sensitive species and habitat protocols include recommended management strategies in the event a resource is found. For monarch butterflies, these include, as indicated above, the following:
development design to avoid take of individuals and habitat; buffers to maintain suitable habitat conditions; a requirement that construction activities be conducted outside of winter roosting season or that appropriate mitigation such as buffers be developed to avoid disturbance, such as smoke and fumes; and management to protect from indirect impacts. While monarch roosting sites were not identified on the project site, and no significant indirect impacts were identified resulting from the project, the conditions of approval recommended in the Biotic Assessment and subsequent biotic review are consistent with, and examples of, the management strategies identified in the General Plan and the LCP. In particular, the conditions of approval imposed pursuant to General Plan policyAction NRC2.4.1 and Table 1 include retention of roost trees, establishment of a buffer to occupied roost trees, measures to avoid disturbance caused by construction vibration and vehicle exhaust and other general management measures. These avoidance and management strategies will be made mandatory and enforceable as project conditions of approval.

4.103
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -28- November 2022 Revised
In addition, section 24.14.080 of the City’s Municipal Code includes provisions for wildlife habitat areas identified in the LCP, which includes the project site. This section requires that construction, grading or removal of vegetation shall be permitted within wildlife habitats where among other criteria, the integrity of the area as a habitat is not compromised. The Biotic Assessment prepared for the project did not identify significant impacts to the adjacent monarch butterfly habitat.

Therefore, no significant impacts to special-status species would occur as a result of the project. The proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site with application of uniformly applied development standards or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b-c) Sensitive Habitat. The project site is developed and surrounded by existing residential development; Lighthouse Field State Beach is located to the south of the project site. As discussed above, the Biotic Assessment determined the project site is developed and does not support sensitive habitat types. The assessment also determined that no wetlands or other waters are present within the project area (SOURCE V.10a, 10b). No riparian habitat is located on or adjacent to the project site.

Riparian habitat is defined as woody vegetation occurring immediately adjacent to, and dependent upon, semi-permanent or permanent waterbodies/watercourses (i.e., lakes, ponds, rivers, streams).

This habitat type does not occur at Lighthouse Field. Seasonal wetlands that are periodically saturated or flooded are present throughout Lighthouse Field, including east of the monarch grove, but would not be impacted by the proposed project as not construction is proposed at Lighthouse Field (SOURCE V.10b).

The General Plan EIR concluded that the City is primarily developed, and new development would predominantly occur within developed areas without impacts to sensitive habitats. As indicated above, the project site is not located within or adjacent to a stream or wetland and would not result in direct or indirect impacts to these sensitive habitats. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive habitat would occur as a result of the project, and there would be no new significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or the site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(d) Wildlife Movement/Breeding. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the proposed General Plan 2030 goals, policies and actions, as well as compliance with local regulations and plans, potential impacts related to wildlife movement would be considered less than significant.

The primary wildlife movement corridors are located along major watercourses and within Cityowned open space lands, which would be protected from future development impacts. Table 1- Assessment and Management Protocols for Sensitive Species and Habitat in the General Plan prescribe protocols and recommended management measures in wildlife dispersal corridors, including buffers and compliance with the Citywide Creeks and Wetland Management Plan. Projects adjacent to watercourses would be subject to setback requirements set forth in the Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan. The project site is developed and located within a developed urban area. The site does not contain habitat, nor does it connect to other habitat areas and is not within or adjacent to a creek, riparian area, or wildlife dispersal area. The proposed project is not located

4.104
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -29- November 2022 Revised
adjacent to or within proximity to a watercourse. Thus, the project would have no effect on wildlife movement and would not interfere with native fish or wildlife movement. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or the site, and no further review regarding wildlife movement is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

The project involves the removal of 28 trees. The trees on and adjacent to the project site could provide potential nesting habitat for migratory birds which are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Tree removal during the breeding season (generally February 15 to August 31) has the potential to destroy bird nests, eggs or chicks if any are present during the removal. However, General Plan Action NCR2.4.1 and Table 1, which is referenced therein, establish biological survey protocols, including pre-construction nesting bird surveys with establishment of appropriate construction buffers if needed, if tree removal and/or construction were to commence during the nesting season. A project condition of approval requires Implementation of a pre-construction nesting survey, including sufficient area to account for potential nesting in Lighthouse Field, and recommendations for buffers if active bird nests, including raptors, are found.

While no special-status bat species are expected to occur on the site, common roosting bat species are protected under the CFGC. The project Biotic Assessment recommends pre-construction surveys if tree removal or building demolition occurs within the maternity roosting season (May 1-September 1), which generally coincides with the bird nesting season, or during winter hibernation (November 1-February 15). A condition of approval requires pre-construction surveys for bats to ensure compliance with state regulations. This condition is not needed to avoid any significant environmental effect, but rather is included in order to ensure compliance with law.

The General Plan EIR concluded that potential impacts of future development that could directly or indirectly interfere with wildlife breeding/nesting would be less than significant with implementation of the General Plan policies and actions for resource protection, which include a requirement to conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys to protect nesting birds if present at a construction site, which is a standard condition of approval. Inclusion of a standard condition of approval to require a pre-construction bird nesting survey would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. Therefore, potential project impacts would be considered less than significant with application of uniformly applied development standards (condition of approval to conduct pre-construction nesting survey). There would be no significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or the site. Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(e) Conflicts with Local Policies and Ordinances. The project would result in the removal of 28 of the 42 existing trees that are on the proposed Lot 2, six of which are heritage trees under City regulations.

The project retains and preserves seven heritage trees and proposes the replanting of 154 new trees of various types and size.

Approval of a heritage tree removal permit automatically requires replacement trees or payment of an in-lieu fee. Removal of a heritage tree that is consistent with the criteria, provisions, and

4.105
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -30- November 2022 Revised
requirements set forth in City regulations would not result in a conflict with a local ordinance. City regulations require tree replacement for removal of a heritage tree to consist of replanting three 15- gallon or one 24-inch size specimen for each heritage tree approved for removal. Because the site is located in the Coastal Zone, LCP policy CD 6.1.2 requires a two-to-one or more replanting ratio. The removal of six heritage trees would require replanting at least 12 new trees. The project proposes to plant 154 new trees of various types and sizes, and thus, would exceed the replanting requirements, and the project would not conflict with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance.

The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that development accommodated by the General Plan could result in the removal of heritage trees; however, with implementation of General Plan goals, policies, and actions, as well as compliance with local regulations and plans, impacts would be less than significant. Removal of heritage trees that is consistent with City regulations and requirements would not be considered a significant impact of the project or an impact peculiar to the project. Approval of a heritage tree removal permit automatically requires replacement trees or payment of in-lieu fees as set forth above.

The proposed trees shown on the landscape plan comply with the types of replacement trees per the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance. Measures to protect existing heritage trees along the northern and eastern property line, as recommended by the project arborist report, would be implemented during construction as a standard condition of approval. Inclusion of a standard condition of approval to require protection of retained trees during construction would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts related to conflicts with local ordinances or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards set forth in the heritage tree regulations, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(f) Habitat Conservation Plans. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans in the project vicinity. The City’s recently approved Operations and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (O&M HCP) is not applicable to the proposed project or project site as it was developed for improvements or projects related to City facilities with the potential to take federally listed species and other non-listed special-status species.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource as pursuant to section
15064.5?
DEIR pp. 4.9-12
to 4.9-14,

4.9-15, 4.9-21,

4.9-23 to 4.9-24
No No None

4.106
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -31- November 2022 Revised

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to section
15064.5?
DEIR pp. 4.9-10
to 4.9-12,

4.9-19 to 4.9-23
No No
GP EIR
Mitigation 4.9-1
and Municipal
Code section

24.12.430
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
DEIR pp. 4.9-10
to 4.9-12,

4.9-19 to 4.9-23
No No
GP EIR
Mitigation 4.9-1
and Municipal
Code section

24.12.430
(a) Historical Resources. According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within a designated historic district (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.9-4). The project site includes two residential structures on West Cliff Drive (544 and 560) that are included in the City’s Historic Building Survey (Volume 1). The house at 544 West Cliff Drive is described as “exceptional” and is a very early example of the colonial Revival style, built at a time when most of Santa Cruz mansions were Queen Ann styles. The building at 560 West Cliff Drive is described as “good” and is a blend of the Prairie and Mission Revival styles. The row of mature cypress trees at the property line is also noted in the City’s Survey (SOURCE V.2e). Both structures will remain on the proposed Lot 1 created as part of the proposed project, and no changes or alterations to these buildings are proposed.

The portion of the project site proposed for development is currently developed, and two existing structures are present. One building (Building 1) was relocated to its existing site in 1955-1957 and was used as a refectory for a Catholic seminary operated by the Oblates of St. Joseph before being converted to use as a classroom for private schools that occupied the site between 1971 and 2019.

The second building (Building 2) was built in 1961 and was designed to provide dormitories, classrooms, a library, and administrative offices for the seminary’s school. Building 2 also was occupied between 1971 and 2019 by private schools. Both buildings have been vacant since 2019 (SOURCE V.13).

Both buildings are older than 50 years in age and were reviewed to determine whether either structure is a historical resource under the definitions in CEQA. The existing buildings were evaluated by Page & Turnbull in May 2022, which included preparation of standard State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms. The historic resources evaluation concluded that neither building is individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources or the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey.

Additionally, Page & Turnbull determined that the buildings did not appear to be eligible as contributors to any existing or potential historic districts (SOURCE V.13). As such, the buildings proposed to be demolished are not considered historical resources under the definitions of CEQA.

4.107
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -32- November 2022 Revised
The historic resources evaluation also considered potential impacts to the two residences on West Cliff Drive as a result of construction of the proposed senior housing facility to the west of these structures. The identified historic resources include Rutherglen Terrace, a former single-family residential property built in 1893 with a residence and a detached carriage house, and, the Davis House, another former single-family residence built in 1912, and as indicated above, each of these resources are included in the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey. The historical resources analysis reviewed the proposed project with respect to compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and concluded that the proposed project, which proposes no alteration to these historic resources, fully meets the Standards (SOURCE V.13).

The proposed project includes no direct alterations to either historic building, nor either building’s immediate site. The proposed buildings at 126 Eucalyptus Avenue will be two stories tall with flat roofs. The new construction will be physically detached and well set back from the identified historic residences. The new buildings will be partially visible from West Cliff Drive, primarily when facing east through the driveway and parking lot that separates the Shrine and the Davis House. The proposed new buildings do not appear to reduce visibility of any of the character-defining features of Rutherglen Terrace or the Davis House and do not appear to impair the ability of either historic residence to remain visible from West Cliff Drive, which has served as the primary roadway for each residence throughout their existence. The new proposed development will be separated from the residential structures on West Cliff Drive by a six-foottall split-faced concrete block. The architectural character of the new buildings is generally compatible with the existing materials and scale of the residences (SOURCE V.13).

In conclusion, the proposed project includes the demolition of two buildings at 126 Eucalyptus Avenue, which were determined not to be as historical resources. The new development, including two new two-story buildings, a driveway and parking lots, is adjacent to (west of) 544 West Cliff Drive, which contains two identified historical resources, Rutherglen Terrace and the Davis House. However, review of the proposed project, as currently designed, found that the project is in compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Thus, the proposed project would not affect the ability of Rutherglen Terrace and the Davis House to remain listed in the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, which qualifies the residences as historical resources under CEQA. Per CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b)(1), if a project complies with the Standards for Rehabilitation, the project’s impact “will generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant.” As the proposed project is in overall compliance with the Standards for Rehabilitation, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resources as defined by CEQA (SOURCE V.13). Furthermore, field surveys conducted as part of the archaeological investigation did not result in the finding of intact historical deposits (SOURCE V.7).

The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the General Plan would result in construction that may result in impacts to historic resources. However, the EIR found that compliance with local regulations regarding protection of historic resources, and implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and actions would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project would not directly affect historical resources as a

4.108
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -33- November 2022 Revised
result of demolition of the existing buildings at 126 Eucalyptus Avenue, and would not result in significant impacts to the existing historical resources on West Cliff Drive. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to historical resources not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b-c) Archaeological Resources. According to a map developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR and updated in 2018, the project site is located in an area identified as sensitive for archaeological resources (SOURCE V.1c). A Cultural Resources Report was prepared for the project, which included a files records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University and field survey (SOURCE V.7). The records search found that the project parcel had not been previously surveyed, although three studies have been conducted within 300 feet of the project area. The NWIC search also included a review of previously recorded archaeological resources within ¼ mile of the project site. Archival research indicated that there are no archaeological resources within ¼ mile of the project site (SOURCE V.7). Furthermore, the field survey not reveal any indication of cultural resources on the project site (SOURCE V.7).

The archaeological report did not reveal evidence of the existence of any archaeological resources or deposits on the project site and did not predict archaeological impacts due to the project operation or proposed ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, no subsurface testing was recommended for the project. However, the report did recommend in the event that construction ground-disturbing activities expose unanticipated archaeological materials, that a qualified archaeologist be retained to immediately inspect and assess the find, which is required under City regulations. Section 24.12.430 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth the procedure to follow in the event that previously unknown prehistoric or cultural features are discovered during construction. Under provisions of this Code section, work shall be halted within 100 feet of the find and the Planning Director shall be immediately notified to determine the appropriate course of action, including implementation of potential mitigation measures. Additionally, the County Coroner shall be notified in accordance with provisions of Public Resources Code 5097.98-99 in the event human remains are found and the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code section 5097 if the remains are determined to be Native American.

The General Plan EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the plan would result in construction that could result in impacts to buried archaeological resources. Mitigation 4.9-1 added an Action to the General Plan (HA1.2.2), which establishes a procedure for preparing archaeological investigations for development within areas designated as “sensitive” or “highly sensitive” and implementing site-specific mitigation measures if significant impacts are identified, with which the proposed project has complied. However, implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and actions, compliance with local regulations, and General Plan EIR Mitigation 4.9-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

A cultural resources report and field survey were conducted consistent with the requirements of the General Plan 2030 policies and actions (HA1.2.2) as set forth in the General Plan EIR. The project archaeological investigation did not identify sensitive resources, and therefore, the project would not

4.109
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -34- November 2022 Revised
result in archaeological impacts peculiar to the site or project. In addition, implementation of standards set forth in the City’s Municipal Code (section 24.12.430) related to potential discovery of unidentified archaeological resources during construction would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. Discovery of unidentified (e.g., buried) cultural resources during any construction, including human burials, would be subject to this requirement as a standard condition of approval. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to archaeological resources not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

6. ENERGY
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
DEIR pp. 4.6-27
to 4.6-29, 4.6-
45 to 4.6-46, 5-
4 to 5-6
No No None
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
No No None
(a) Energy Use. Construction of the project would require consumption of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline) for automobiles and construction equipment, and other resources including, but not limited to, lumber, sand, gravel, asphalt, metals, and water. Construction would include energy used by construction equipment and other activities at the project site (e.g., building demolition, excavation, paving), in addition to the energy used to manufacture the equipment, materials, and supplies and transport them to the project site. It is expected that nonrenewable energy resources would be used efficiently during future construction of residential units accommodated by the project. Therefore, the amount and rate of consumption of such resources during construction and maintenance activities would not result in the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of energy resources.

The proposed project avoids or reduces inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy in part through siting. The project site also is in proximity to bicycle and pedestrian paths/trails in the area. The project also provides bicycle parking spaces and proposes photovoltaic panels on the roofs of Buildings A and B that would supply the building with renewable energy.

The project would be subject to approval of building permits that meet the California Building Code (CBC) and City Green Building Code requirements, as well as compliance with City requirements for

4.110
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -35- November 2022 Revised
water conservation fixtures and features, including drought-resistant landscaping. These measures are consistent with those recommended for residential uses in the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan related to building and energy efficiency and water conservation. Additionally, Santa Cruz residents are enrolled in the Central Coast Community Energy (3CE), formerly Monterey Bay Community Power electricity service, which supplies electricity generated from hydropower, solar and wind, which are renewable resources.

The General Plan EIR reviewed energy use associated with development accommodated by the General Plan. The estimated energy demand was found to be within state per capita projections for the planning area, and the EIR concluded that overall, the future consumption of electrical and natural gas resources would not represent unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources given the implementation of policies that address lighting and energy conservation measures. The proposed project would result in an increase of 76 dwelling units. This level of development would be within the overall amount of residential and commercial development evaluated in the General Plan EIR and within remaining potential development as described in Section IV.B. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to inefficient or wasteful use of energy that would be peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
b) Conflicts with Plans. The proposed project would not result in conflicts with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed project transportation features, design elements, and compliance with building code requirements described above are consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan provisions related to energy efficiency. Therefore, no further review is necessary.

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
DEIR pp. 4.10-7
to 4.10-9,

4.10-20
No No None
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? DEIR pp. 4.10-6
to 4.10-14,
No No General Plan
Action HZ6.3.1

4.111
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -36- November 2022 Revised

4.10-21 to

4.10-23
Municipal Code
section

18.04.030
(California
Building Code
adoption,
including
Seismic Design
Criteria)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
DEIR pp.

4.10-12 to

4.10-13, 4.10-21
to 4.10-23
No No
General Plan
Action HZ6.3.6
Municipal Code
section

24.14.070
regarding
geotechnical
investigation
requirements
regarding
geotechnical
investigations
iv) Landslides?
DEIR pp.

4.10-13 to

4.10-14, 4.10-22
to 4.10-24
No No None
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
DEIR pp.

4.10-17 to

4.10-18, 4.10-25
to 4.10-26
No No
City Municipal
Code section

24.14.060 and
Chapter 18.45
regarding
grading and
erosion control
plans
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
DEIR pp. 4.10-5
to 4.10-6,

4.10-15 to

4.10-16, 4.10-24
to 4.10-25
No No None
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating direct or indirect substantial
risks to life or property?
DEIR pp.

4.10-16 to

4.10-17, 4.10-19
No No
Municipal Code
section

18.04.030
(California
Building Code
adoption,
including

4.112
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -37- November 2022 Revised

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
requirements
for Geotechnical
Reports
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
DEIR pp. 4.9-14
to 4.9-16,

4.9-21, 4.9-24
to 4.9-25
No No
GP EIR
Mitigation 4.9-2;
standard
Condition of
Approval for
Accidental
Discovery of
Paleontological
Resources
(a-i) Fault Rupture. The project site is located in a seismically active region of California, which has the potential to be subject to very intense shaking during a seismic event. The City of Santa Cruz is situated between two major active faults: the San Andreas, approximately 9 miles to the northeast, and the San Gregorio, approximately 9 miles to the west. Other known active faults in the vicinity of the site include the Zayante – Vergeles (approximately 9 miles northeast of the site) and the Monterey Bay-Tularcitos (approximately 6 southwest of the site) (SOURCE V.9). However, there are no active fault zones or risk of fault rupture within the City (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). The General Plan EIR found that there are no active faults within the City of Santa Cruz, and thus, fault rupture is not a hazard that required further evaluation. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to fault rupture not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards.

No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(a-ii – iv, c) Seismic and Geologic Hazards. The project could be subject to strong seismic shaking during an earthquake on regional faults. According to maps developed as part of the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, a small portion along the eastern perimeter of the project site is located within a liquefaction hazard zone (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.10-4).

A Geotechnical Investigation Report (geotechnical report) was performed for the project that included subsurface borings and representative soil samples at the project site (SOURCE V.9). The soils consisted of 5.5 to 12.5 feet of terrace deposits over Purisima Formation sandstone with a thin 1 to

4.113
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -38- November 2022 Revised
2 feet thick clay layer located 2 to 3 feet below grade. The geotechnical report noted that groundwater was encountered between 5 to 9 feet below grade in some boring instances.

The geotechnical report concludes that there is a potential for liquefaction of soils, which could cause ground settlement. The report provides recommendations for supporting foundations on engineered fill or supporting structures on pier foundations. Implementation of these recommendations would be verified through design documents that would need to be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of construction (grading or building) permits. The geotechnical report includes recommended design measures to ensure the project would not cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death due to potential geologic hazards. These measures address the safety of project residents and users, and thus involve reducing the effects of existing environmental hazards on the project itself, which does not exacerbate those hazards. For this reason, the measures to not address an environmental impact cognizable under CEQA. (See California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377- 378.)
The project site is relatively level and is not in an area susceptible to landslides (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.10-3 and SOURCE V.9). The project site is not located in an area of steep slopes (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.10-5).

The General Plan EIR concluded that adherence to existing regulations and standards, including the California Building Code (CBC) and various policies and actions established in the proposed General Plan 2030 would minimize harm to people and structures from adverse seismic and geologic events and conditions. General Plan Action HZ6.3.1 requires that all new construction conform with the latest edition of the CBC, and Municipal Code section 18.040.030 adopts State of California building codes as part of the City’s Building Code. General Plan Action HZ6.3.6 requires site-specific geologic investigation(s) by qualified professionals for proposed development in potential liquefaction areas and requires developments to incorporate the design and other mitigation measures recommended by the investigation. In addition, Municipal Code section 24.14.070 requires preparation of a geotechnical report and implementation of recommendations for residential projects with more than four units that are within potential liquefaction areas. Thus, buildings must be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the CBC, which sets forth structural design parameters for buildings to withstand seismic shaking without substantial structural damage.

Conformance to the CBC as required by state law and the City would ensure the maximum practicable protection available for structures and their associated trenches, excavations and foundations.

The General Plan EIR concluded that with adherence to existing regulations and standards, including preparation of a project-specific geotechnical report and adherence to the CBC, as incorporated into the City’s Municipal Code, and various policies and actions established in the General Plan, harm to people and structures from adverse seismic events would be minimized (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). As noted above, a project-specific geotechnical investigation was performed and design recommendations would be implemented and be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard. Demonstration of project design adherence to geotechnical report recommendations will be required at the time of building permit application that demonstrates that the proposed buildings are designed to current seismic design standards. Thus, the proposed project

4.114
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -39- November 2022 Revised
would not result in new significant impacts related to seismic and geologic hazards not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards for required geological and geotechnical investigations and implementation of recommendations contained in these reports. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (b) Erosion. According to maps developed as part of the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site consists of Watsonville loam soils with 0 to 2 percent slopes (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.10-6). As described in the General Plan EIR, erosion potential for this soil profile is not high (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume).

In terms of earthwork, approximately 1,200 cubic yards (cy) of earth material would be cut from the site and approximately 2,700 cy of earth material would be filled. Therefore, there would be net fill of approximately 1,500 cy of earth material on site. See subsection 10(a) below regarding potential water quality impacts due to grading and earthwork. The project site itself is generally flat, with less than one percent slopes to the south. Project construction would include grading, trenching, and removing trees and other vegetation. These activities would include ground disturbance, which would potentially result in short-term soil erosion. The project plans include preliminary erosion control measures. In addition, because the proposed project footprint is greater than 1 acre, it would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for construction site stormwater discharges, and would comply with those requirements. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required to be prepared and implemented under these requirements, which includes appropriate erosion-control and water-quality-control measures during site preparation, grading, construction, and post-construction. Implementation of the SWPPP for the proposed project would minimize short-term erosion impacts. Long-term impacts of the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion, as the soils would be covered by buildings, pavement, vegetation, and landscaping.

The General Plan EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Plan could result in erosion during construction, but could be mitigated with adherence to local regulations that require implementation of erosion control plans, and thus, potential erosion during construction would be minimized, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. Implementation of required erosion control plans and erosion control standards and requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter

18.45 would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, the project would not result in new significant erosion impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or site with the application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(d) Expansive Soils. Expansive soils contain large amounts of clays that expand when wetted and contract when dried. Soils at the project site consist of Watsonville loam, which has a low expansive soil potential. As discussed above, the project proponent performed a project-specific geotechnical report that assesses soil conditions and provides design recommendations based on soil characteristics at the project site. The geotechnical investigation did not identify soils that would be considered expansive during the field exploration and concluded that the site is suitable for

4.115
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -40- November 2022 Revised
development with implementation of recommendations in the geotechnical report. Implementation of recommendations set forth in the project geotechnical report is required by the CBC and City regulations and policies, which would ensure that potential exposure to geotechnical hazards associated with potentially expansive soils would be mitigated.

The General Plan EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Plan could be exposed to expansive soils, which would be addressed through compliance with state and local regulations, including the CBC requirements and section 24.14.070 of the City’s Municipal Code (requirement for geotechnical investigations), which would ensure that buildings are designed to prevent structural damages based on the project-specific geotechnical report. The requirement to implement the recommendations would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, with implementation of the foregoing uniformly applied development standards and regulations that require preparation of geotechnical report and implementation of recommendations set forth in the geotechnical investigation, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site related to expansive soils. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(e) Use of Septic Systems. The project would be connected to City sanitary sewers and would not use septic systems.
(f) Paleontological Resources. According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is within an area mapped as Late Pleistocene alluvium formations (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.9-5). Late Pleistocene alluvium is one of the four geologic units in the General Plan area known to contain paleontological resources (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume).

The General Plan EIR Mitigation 4.9-2 added General Plan Action HA1.2.3, which requires the City to notify applicants within paleontologically sensitive areas of the potential for encountering such resources during construction and condition approvals that work will be halted and resources examined in the event of encountering paleontological resources during construction. If the find is significant, the City would require treatment in accordance with the recommendations of the evaluating paleontologist. Treatment may include, but is not limited to, specimen recovery and curation or thorough documentation. This provision was added to the City’s Municipal Code (section 24.12.431), and all projects are subject to this requirement, which is included as a project condition of approval.

Inclusion of a standard condition of approval that specifies actions to take in the event of discovery of paleontological resources would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. Therefore, with implementation of the General Plan EIR mitigation measure, the proposed project would not result in significant paleontological resource impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR with application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

4.116
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -41- November 2022 Revised

8. GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
DEIR pp.

4.12-13 to

4.12-17, 4.12-21
to 4.12-28
FEIR pp. 3-26 to
3-27
No No
Climate Action
Plan GHG
Reduction
Measures
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
DEIR pp.

4.12-18 to

4.12-20, 4.12-29
to 4.12-a31
No No
Climate Action
Plan GHG
Reduction
Measures
(a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as average temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns over a period of time. Climate change may result from natural factors, natural processes, and human activities that change the composition of the atmosphere and alter the surface and features of the land. Significant changes in global climate patterns have recently been associated with global warming, an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface, attributed to accumulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes, while others are created and emitted solely through human activities. Climate change models predict changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, water availability, and rising sea levels, and these altered conditions can have impacts on natural and human systems in California that can affect California’s public health, habitats, ocean and coastal resources, water supplies, agriculture, forestry, and energy use (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume).

The most common GHG that results from human activity is carbon dioxide, followed by methane and nitrous oxide. The primary contributors to GHG emissions in California are transportation (about 37 percent), electric power production (24 percent), industry (20 percent), agriculture and forestry (6 percent), and other sources, including commercial and residential uses (13 percent).

Approximately 81 percent of California’s emissions are carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel combustion (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume).

In 2006, the California Legislature passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which sought to reduce GHG emissions generated by California to 1990 emissions levels by the year 2020.

AB 32 defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. In 2016, the Legislature followed up with SB 32, which requires California, by 2030, to reduce its statewide GHG emissions so that they are 40 percent below those that occurred in 1990.

4.117
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -42- November 2022 Revised
In enacting both AB 32 (2006) and SB 32 (2016), the Legislature codified some of the ambitious GHG reduction targets included within certain Executive Orders issued by Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown. The 2020 statewide GHG reduction target in AB 32 was consistent with the second of three statewide emissions reduction targets set forth in former Governor Schwarzenegger’s 2005 Executive Order known as S-3-05, which is expressly mentioned in AB 32. (See Health & Safety Code section 38501, subd. (i).) That Executive Branch document included the following GHG emission reduction targets: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. To meet the targets, the Governor directed several State agencies to cooperate in the development of a climate action plan. The Secretary of Cal-EPA leads the Climate Action Team, whose goal is to implement global warming emission reduction programs identified in the Climate Action Plan and to report on the progress made toward meeting the emission reduction targets established in the executive order.

In 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order, B-30-15, which created a “new interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is established in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” SB 32 codified this target.

In 2018, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a statewide goal to “achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and maintain and achieve negative emissions thereafter.” The order directs the CARB to work with other State agencies to identify and recommend measures to achieve those goals.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the lead agency for implementing AB 32 and SB 32. In accordance with these statutes, CARB conducts an annual statewide GHG Emission Inventory that provides estimates of the amount of GHGs emitted to the atmosphere by human activities within California. In accordance with requirements of AB 32, CARB adopted an Initial Scoping Plan in 2008 and is required to update the scoping plan at least every five years. The First Update to the Scoping Plan, approved in 2014, established a 2030 emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The current (2017) Scoping Plan identifies a balanced mix of strategies to meet the State’s 2030 GHG limit.

A new draft Scoping Plan was underway at the time of the issuance of this environmental checklist.

The City’s General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies, and actions on climate change, including reducing communitywide GHG emissions 30 percent by 2020, reducing 80 percent by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels), and for all new buildings to be emissions neutral by 2030. In October 2012, the City also adopted a “Climate Action Plan” that outlines the actions the City will take to reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent.

The General Plan EIR estimated greenhouse emissions that could result from potential development and buildout accommodated by the plan that included 3,350 residential dwelling units with an associated population increase of 8,040 residents and approximately 3,140,000 additional square feet of new commercial, office, and industrial uses by the year 2030 with an estimated 8,665 new employees. The General Plan EIR analysis determined that the GHG emission levels associated with potential buildout that would be accommodated by the General Plan would not be considered

4.118
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -43- November 2022 Revised
substantial compared to long-term forecasts and state and regional targets, and would be less than forecast statewide per-capita emission rates. Implementation of the proposed General Plan 2030 policies and actions, including the Climate Action Plan, as well as planned implementation of statewide actions, would further reduce emissions. Therefore, the impact was considered less than significant.

The proposed project would result in an increase of 76 dwelling units within the City. This level of development would be within the overall amount of residential development evaluated in the General Plan EIR and within remaining potential development as described in Section IV.B. Because the project size (and resulting GHG emissions) is within the total amount of potential residential development and level of emissions analyzed in the General Plan EIR, no impacts peculiar to the site or substantially more severe impacts would occur. No further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15193. (b) Conflicts with Applicable Plans. The project would not conflict with state plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The General Plan EIR found no impacts related to conflicts with applicable plans related to GHG emissions and reduction strategies.

In October 2012, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to address citywide greenhouse emissions and reduction strategies. The CAP outlined the actions the City and its partners may take pertaining to reduction of GHG emissions to meet the goals and implement the policies and actions identified in the General Plan 2030. The CAP provided City emissions inventories, identifies an emissions reduction target for the year 2020, and included measures to reduce energy use, reduce vehicle trips, implement water conservation programs, reduce emissions from waste collection, increase solar systems, and develop public partnerships to aid sustainable practices. Measures were outlined for the following sectors: municipal, residential, commercial, and community programs.

Each chapter, as well as Appendix A, provided a table of actions necessary to meet each reduction measure, quantified the potential GHG emission reduction, and prioritized implementation based on funding, ease, and current infrastructure. With a couple of exceptions, all measures established the year 2020 as the target date to achieve the specified reductions. The CAP included an Implementation chapter that identifies tracking and reporting of the success of the measures, including City staff responsibilities.

The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2020 included 12 climate action milestones, addressing energy use, renewable energy, sustainable transportation, waste diversion and increasing tree canopy, and these milestones were tracked through 13 indicator metrics. Four of the 13 indicator targets were achieved by the sunset of the CAP 2020. The City is developing a Climate Action Plan 2030 that will include updated climate goals and the strategies the City will implement to achieve them.

The project would be subject to approval of building permits that meet the CBC and City Green Building Code requirements, as well as compliance with City requirements for water conservation fixtures and features, including drought-resistant landscaping. These uniformly applicable standards are consistent with goals for residential uses in the CAP related to building and energy efficiency and water conservation. Specifically, the CAP seeks to increase market penetration of Green Building

4.119
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -44- November 2022 Revised
Programs for residential buildings and maximize water use efficiency, with which the project would conform. Thus, the project would not conflict with provisions of the CAP.

Furthermore, the proposed project location and uses are consistent with the sustainable transportation and land use planning goals set forth in the City’s CAP that encourage higher density development, particularly along transit corridors and activity centers, to support efficient, accessible, and sustainable transportation options. The project site is located in proximity to transit stops and is near emerging activity centers on the westside of the City.

In addition, the AMBAG, as a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), is required by state law (2008 Senate Bill (SB) 375) to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)—an integrated transportation, land use, and housing plan that addresses ways to accommodate future population growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045 is the MTP/SCS for the three-county Monterey Bay Area (SOURCE V.3b). The MTP/SCS identifies Opportunity Areas with the highest chance for successful sustainable growth in the future.

Opportunity Areas are generally located where Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) and Economic Development Areas (EDAs) within the AMBAG region overlap. An Opportunity Area is an area within

0.5 miles of an existing or planned “high-quality transit corridor” (as defined in California Public Resources Code section 21064.3) that has the potential for transit-oriented development, including mixed use. The proposed project is not located within an identified Opportunity Area, but given its proximity to transportation corridors and activity centers, the proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies of the SCS Strategy.

Given the foregoing, the project would not result in impacts related to conflicts with plans related to GHG emissions and reduction strategies that would be peculiar to the site or substantially more severe than described in the General Plan 2030 EIR. No further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

9. HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
DEIR pp. 4.14-9
to 4.14-10 No No
GP Policy HZ4.1,
HZ4.2, HZ4.3,
HZ4.4
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
DEIR pp. 4.14-5
to 4.14-7,

4.14-9 to

4.14-11
No No None

4.120
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -45- November 2022 Revised

9. HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

4.14-12 No No None
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
DEIR pp. 4.14-5
to 4.14-7
No No None
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
DEIR pp. 4.6-2
to 4.6-5, 4.6-33
to 4.6-37
No No None
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
DEIR pp. 4.6-3
to 4.6-4, 4.6-34
to 4.6-35
No No
General Plan
Actions HZ1.5.3,
HZ1.5.4
Standard Fire
Department
Conditions of
Approval
(a-b, d) Use or Release of Hazardous Materials or Creation of Hazard. The proposed project consists of a residential land use which would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes, and would not result in the creation of a public health hazard. A search of databases managed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (EnviroStor) and the State Water Resources Control Board (GeoTracker) was conducted. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. There are no open cases listed on the EnviroStor and GeoTracker databases located within 0.5 miles of the project site.

The project site is not within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school.

The General Plan EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the General Plan that utilizes hazardous materials or generates hazardous waste would be regulated pursuant to federal,

4.121
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -46- November 2022 Revised
state, and local laws to ensure proper transportation, handling, and disposal, and with adherence to local and state regulations, as well as implementation of policies and actions, impacts related to creation of hazards due to hazardous material transport, use, or disposal were considered less than significant. Policy HZ4.4 and its supporting actions call for reduction of the risk of exposure to hazardous materials, including regulating the siting and permitting of businesses that handle hazardous materials. Policies HZ4.1 and HZ4.2 call for regulation of hazardous wastes, and HZ4.3 calls for quick and proper response to emergencies. Furthermore, Policy NRC3.2 discourages the use of environmentally harmful pesticides and herbicides.

The proposed project would result in development that would be within the overall amount of residential development evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(c) Exposure to Hazardous Materials. The General Plan EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the General Plan could result in exposure to hazardous materials due to proximity to contaminated sites but, with adherence to federal, state, and local regulations, impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would include demolition of two existing buildings, which may contain asbestos and lead-based paint that could expose workers to a hazardous material release. The General Plan EIR found that all demolition activities would be required to be undertaken according to OSHA standards to protect workers from asbestos and lead based paint. Any demolition of buildings containing asbestos also would be required to comply with the MBARD’s Rule 306 that requires reporting and investigation of certain buildings with asbestos as established under federal law. Under federal law, a building must be inspected for asbestos prior to demolition or renovation, and federal and state agencies must be notified prior to demolition.

According to the State Air Resources Control board, removal and disposal of asbestos procedures and controls must be specified in the notification form. The federal government banned consumer use of lead-based paint (LBP) in 1978 and many, but not all, asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were banned in construction products in 1989.

One structure on the project site was relocated to the site in 1955-57 and was constructed at some point prior to that time; the other structure was constructed in 1961. Project construction would be required to comply with applicable state regulations regarding LBP work practices, including testing and abatement. The removal of ACMs would be subject to the Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Program administered by the MBARD, which protects the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos through enforcement of the Federal Asbestos Standard. The Program includes survey and notification requirements prior to beginning a project, as well as work practice standards and disposal requirements. Additionally, under California law, fluorescent lamps cannot be disposed as municipal waste. Fluorescent tubes and bulbs may be managed as universal wastes under Title 22, Chapter 23 of the California Code of Regulations and are typically recycled.

4.122
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -47- November 2022 Revised
A standard condition of approval is included in the project to require testing for asbestos and leadbased paint prior to demolition with approval from MBARD if hazardous materials are found and require removal.

For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in exposure to hazardous materials and would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. The application of the standard condition of approval for projects with demolition of buildings additionally ensures that, as the General Plan EIR anticipated, compliance with applicable federal and state laws will ensure the avoidance of any significant effects. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (e) Airport Safety. The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or air strip and would not be subjected to potential aircraft hazards.
(f) Emergency Response. Existing access to the project site is provided by West Cliff Drive and Eucalyptus Avenue. Access to the proposed project would be provided from Pelton Avenue, and a fire lane would be provided off of Eucalyptus Avenue. The project would not include any changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency access to the site, except for improvements along the project’s Eucalyptus Avenue and Pelton Avenues frontages. Eucalyptus Avenue would be improved with a new curb cut, driveway, and sidewalk; Pelton Avenue would be improved by reconstructing existing curb cut and sidewalk surfaces. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response or evaluation plan, and would not result in an impact. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (g) Wildland Fire Hazards. The General Plan EIR indicated that future growth could result in an indirect increased risk of wildfires in the urban-rural interface and adjacent to the City’s greenbelt areas, but none of the major vacant sites within the City are within identified fire hazard zones. The EIR indicates that areas targeted as “likely” to have a wildland fire include the Arroyo Seco/Meder Canyon, DeLaveaga, Pogonip, Moore Creek area and Arana Gulch, and future growth in these areas could result in an indirect increased risk of wildfires in the urban-rural interface and adjacent to the City’s greenbelt areas. The General Plan EIR found that the City’s adopted “Local Hazard Mitigation Plan” includes mitigation strategies to avoid or reduce potential wildfires and that General Plan actions also seek to ensure that new development is sited and designed to accommodate facility emergency access and response (HZ1.2.5, HZ1.2.6, HZ1.5.5) and that street widths are adequate to safely accommodate emergency vehicles (M3.2.3). With implementation of the General Plan policies and actionsas well as implementation of the City’s “Local Hazard Mitigation Plan”, the General Plan EIR concluded that indirect impact on fire protection services would be less than significant. Specifically, General Plan policies and actions related to future development include measures aimed are reducing wildfire hazards (HA1.5, HZ1.5.1) and regulating development siting/design to reduce wildland fires (HZ1.5.3 [setbacks], HZ1.5.4 [fire-resistant/retardant building materials]).

According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within a fire hazard area (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.6-1). The project site

4.123
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -48- November 2022 Revised
is not located within or adjacent to fire hazard areas identified in the General Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

10. HYDROLOGY AND

WATER QUALITY
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
DEIR pp. 4.6-22,

4.7-8 to 4.7-12,

4.7-24 to 4.7-25
No No
City Municipal
Code section

24.14.060,
Chapters 16.19
and 18.45
regarding water
quality and
erosion control
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
DEIR pp. 4.5-6
to 4.5-7, 4.5-39
to 4.5-42,

4.7-24 to 4.7-25
No No
City Municipal
Code section

24.14.090
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:

DEIR pp. 4.7-5
to 4.7-8, 4.7-22
to 4.7-24
No No
City Municipal
Code section

24.14.050,
Chapter 16.19
and 18.45
regarding runoff
control, grading
and erosion
control
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
DEIR pp. 4.7-5
to 4.7-8, 4.7-22
to 4.7-24
No No See above
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
DEIR pp. 4.7-5
to 4.7-8, 4.7-22
to 4.7-24
No No See above
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
DEIR pp. 4.7-7
to 4.7-8, 4.7-22
to 4.7-24
No No
General Plan
2030 Action
CC5.1.8 and
Municipal Code
Chapters 16.19
and 24.14
regarding

4.124
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -49- November 2022 Revised

10. HYDROLOGY AND

WATER QUALITY
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
drainage and
BMPs
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
DEIR pp. 4.7-12
to 4.7-14,

4.7-25 to 4.7-27
No No None
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
DEIR pp. 4.7-15,

4.7-25 to

4.7-26, 4.10-14
No No
General Plan
Policy HZ6.6 and
actions
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
DEIR pp. 4.7-17 No No None
(a) Water Quality/Discharges. The proposed project does not involve any discharges that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Within urbanized areas such as the City, pollutants frequently associated with stormwater include sediment, nutrients, oil and grease, heavy metals, and litter. The primary sources of stormwater pollution in urban areas include automobiles, parking lots, landscape maintenance, construction, illegal connections to the stormwater system, accidental spills, and illegal dumping.

Urban runoff and other “non-point source” discharges are regulated by the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program that has been implemented in two phases through the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). Phase I regulations, effective since 1990, require NPDES permits for storm water discharges for certain specific industrial facilities and construction activities, and for municipalities with a population size greater than 100,000. Phase II regulations expand the NPDES program to include all municipalities with urbanized areas and municipalities with a population size greater than 10,000 and a population density greater than 1,000 persons per square mile (SOURCE V.1b. DEIR volume).

The City has developed a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) in order to fulfill the requirements of the Phase II NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) (General Permit) and to reduce the amount of pollutants discharged in urban runoff. In compliance with the Phase II regulations, the City’s comprehensive SWMP is designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) and to protect water quality (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). The City also adopted an ordinance for “Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control” (Chapter 16.19 of the City’s

4.125
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -50- November 2022 Revised
Municipal Code), as part of its Storm Water Management Plan in accordance with the RWQCB’s requirements. The ordinance identifies prohibited discharges and required Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction and new development. City regulations (Municipal Code section

16.19.140) requires that any construction project, including those undertaken under any permit or approval granted pursuant to Titles 15 (Streets and Sidewalks), 18 (Buildings and Construction), and 24 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code, shall implement best management practices including the City’s mandatory BMPs as detailed in the latest BMP manual published by the City’s Public Works Department. BMPs shall be maintained in full force and effect during the duration of the project. The City’s BMP manual requires a development project to include a structural or treatment control BMPs, or a combination of BMPs, to reduce potential pollutant loadings in storm water runoff to the maximum extent practicable.

The City’s mandatory BMPs, as detailed in the latest BMP manual published by the City’s Public Works Department, must be implemented to protect water quality into the municipal storm drain system.

The project would also be subject to the Central Coast Post-Construction Requirements (PCRs) that were enacted by the Central Coast RWQCB in July 2013. The PCRs are for projects that create and/or replace ≥2,500 square feet of impervious surfaces. Based on the amount of new/replaced impervious surface area created by the project (37,983 square feet), the project would be required to comply with Tiers 1 through 4 (Site Design, Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Management). However, the project is exempt from Tier 4 requirements because stormwater runoff from the project site discharges to a continuous underground storm drain system that discharges to the marine nearshore waters.

The project would include drainage features to collect and treat stormwater runoff. The project proposes to install catch basins, pipelines, and 3,750 square feet of biofiltration raingardens along the southwestern perimeter of the site (SOURCE V.11). The project site is designed so that stormwater would collect into this system. Stormwater would be filtered through this system before it is discharged from the site.

Construction activity on projects that disturb one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under the State’s General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must list best management practices (BMPs) that the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and SWPPP must be prepared prior to commencement of construction. Proposed grading and development on the project site would disturb more than one acre and, thus, the project would be subject to the Construction General Permit and preparation of a SWPPP. In addition, the project would be required to implement the City’s regulatory requirements and BMPs, as detailed in the “Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual” published by the City’s Public Works Department.

The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to City regulations to protect water quality, impacts from future development on water quality, including potential erosion, would be less than significant. Compliance with regulations contained in

4.126
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -51- November 2022 Revised
the City’s Municipal Code regarding implementation of stormwater BMPs, grading requirements and implementation of erosion control plans (Chapters 16.19 and 18.45 and section 24.14.060), as well as, preparation and implementation of a SWPPP during construction, would mitigate potential storm runoff water quality and erosion impacts during earthwork and construction as discussed above and would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant water quality impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the project would not result in water quality impacts peculiar to the site or project with application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (b) Groundwater. The City is primarily developed, and no groundwater recharge areas are identified or mapped in the City’s General Plan 2030 or General Plan EIR; groundwater resources utilized as part of the City’s water supply are obtained from aquifers outside of the City (SOURCE V.1b. DEIR volume).

The General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies and actions that set forth measures to protect groundwater resources and supporting actions seek to safeguard existing surface and groundwater sources. The General Plan EIR concluded that development accommodated by the General Plan would not be located within groundwater recharge areas and would have no effect on recharge capabilities, and therefore, would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Development within groundwater mapped recharge areas also is regulated in Municipal Code section 24.14.090 in order to minimize adverse environmental impacts.

The project site is located within a developed area. The project would be connected to the City’s public water system and does not include the use of a groundwater well. Therefore, the project would not affect groundwater supplies or recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant water quality impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the project would not result in water quality impacts peculiar to the site or project with application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (c[i-iii]) Drainage. The project site is located within a developed urban area. The project site is currently developed with impervious surface from existing structures and pavement, amounting to 51,135 square feet. As described above, the project would lead to an overall increase of 37,983 square feet of impervious surface. On-site engineered stormwater control is detailed in the project’s stormwater control and management plans. These plans are designed so that the project would not generate a flow of stormwater that would exceed the capacity of storm water facilities, or result in substantial erosion.

The General Plan EIR concluded that potential impacts related to increased stormwater runoff would be a less-than-significant impact with implementation of General Plan policies and actions that require new development to maintain pre-development runoff levels (CC5.1.8). The project’s stormwater would be required to be maintained at pre-development runoff levels in accordance with General Plan and City requirements. However, as discussed above, the project is exempt from this

4.127
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -52- November 2022 Revised
requirement because stormwater runoff from the project site discharges to a continuous underground storm drain system that discharges to the marine nearshore waters. Nonetheless, the project would not alter existing drainage patterns. Furthermore, section 24.14.050 of the City’s Municipal Code requires preparation of a drainage plan. Drainage improvements would be required to be designed in accordance with City standards and Public Works requirements in order to meet water quality standards and maintain pre-project runoff levels. Implementation of measures identified in a stormwater plan in accordance with requirements of the City’s Municipal Code would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. The proposed project would not result in significant drainage impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the site or project with implementation of uniformly applied development standards related to stormwater management. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(c [iv], d) Flood Hazard Areas and Risk of Release of Pollutants. According to maps prepared for the General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.7-1). The eastern portion of the project site is within a mapped tsunami inundation zone (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.7-2). However, this portion of the project site is along proposed Lot 1, which would not be redeveloped under the project and there would be no increase in inhabited structures within the tsunami inundation zone. Furthermore, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration operates a tsunami warning system that gives several hours’ notice to allow evacuation of threatened areas (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). With implementation of the proposed policies and actions related to flood control and adherence to other City plans and regulations, the General Plan EIR concluded that future development would not result in substantial risk of exposure of structures or people to flood hazards and impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in significant flood hazards not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the site or project. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

Sea Level Rise. The General Plan EIR reported that sea level rise, storms of increasing intensity, and an alternating series of floods and droughts threaten the City of Santa Cruz in the coming decades.

The EIR indicated that the City was in the process of drafting a “Climate Change Adaptation Plan” to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of climate change on the City of Santa Cruz, analyze the severity of the hazards that the City faces, and develop potential adaptation responses to reduce the risk and exposure of the City to these hazards. The City prepared a “Climate Adaptation Plan” with funding from FEMA (SOURCE V.2a). The objectives of this Plan are to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of climate change on the City of Santa Cruz, analyze the severity of the hazards that the City faces, and develop potential adaptation responses to reduce the risk and exposure of the City to these hazards. The potential risks were identified in a “Vulnerability Study” that identified potential facilities vulnerable to risks of sea level rise, including beaches, the City’s wastewater treatment facility, and the Santa Cruz Harbor (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume).

The Climate Adaptation Plan Update 2018-2023, adopted by the City Council in October 2018, further addresses sea level rise. The project site is not located within an area identified as being subject to potential effects of sea level rise. While the project site borders the Pacific Ocean via West Cliff Drive, the Plan states that West Cliff are protected by sea walls and rip rap that mitigate much of predicted

4.128
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -53- November 2022 Revised
sea level rise erosion. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to sea level rise not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR related to sea level rise, and the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the site or project. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (e) Conflict with Plans. The project site is not located adjacent to a water course or water body and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. A sustainable groundwater management plan for the area in which the project is located has not yet been prepared. Therefore, the project would not conflict with adopted plans.

11. LAND USE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Physically divide an established
community?
DEIR pp. 4.1-21
to 4.1-22 No No None
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental
effect?
DEIR pp. 4.1-9
to 4.1-14,

4.1-25 to 4.1-27
No No
Coastal Permit
Review and
Requirements
Municipal Code
section

24.10.2430
(a) Physically Divide an Established Community. The project site is located within a developed urban area of the City and the project would not physically divide an established community. The General Plan EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the General Plan would result in no impact because the City of Santa Cruz is primarily built out and as an established community, new development accommodated by the proposed General Plan 2030 would be considered infill development. Thus, new development would be within an established community and would not result in a physical division of an established community. Furthermore, proposed goals, policies and actions in the draft General Plan 2030 limit potential expansion of the City’s boundaries and seek to maintain the City’s urban development limits. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site.

No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Conflict with Policies and Regulations. As indicated in Section IV.B., the proposed project is consistent with General Plan 2030 land use designations. The project site is located within the Coastal Zone and Shoreline Protection Overlays. Pursuant to the California Coastal Act, the City has a LCP that was certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The LCP consists of a land use plan, implementing ordinances and maps applicable to the coastal zone portions of the City, and applies to all private and public projects located within the coastal zone. The purpose of these overlay

4.129
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -54- November 2022 Revised
districts is to preserve and protect the coastal and environmental resources within the City and to provide the means of carrying out policies of the Coastal Act and City’s Local Coastal Program. Per sections 24.10.2400 and 24.10.2500 of the Municipal Code, the project would be subject to a City Coastal Permit. For Coastal Permit approval, the City’s approving authority would be required to make findings pursuant to section 24.10.2430 of the Municipal Code related to grading, erosion control, coastal hazards, public views, shoreline access, and more generally, the goals of the LCP.

Coastal Permit review and approval would be considered application of uniformly applied development standard, which would ensure project compliance with its Coastal Zone and Shoreline Protection Overlay designations. The proposed project does not include construction on or near coastal bluffs or the shoreline.

The project site is also located within the West Cliff Drive Overlay District. The purpose of this district is to promote residential development on and adjacent to West Cliff Drive that enhances public space and protect public views of the Pacific Ocean. Per sections 24.10.4230 and 24.10.4240 of the Municipal Code, the project is subject to design permit approval and district development standards to ensure the project is consistent with the intent of the overlay district. As described in Section II, Project Description, the proposed project will be reviewed through the Design Permit process to ensure the project’s design is consistent with West Cliff Drive Overlay District development standards listed in the Municipal Code. Design Permit review and approval would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards, which would reduce potential land use impacts related to a less-than-significant level.

The proposed use is consistent with General Plan and zone district land use designations as discussed in section IV.B and C. Based on the analyses contained in this Environmental Checklist and a review of the General Plan 2030 and LCP, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with any policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, and the project would not result in land use impacts peculiar to the site or project. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
DEIR pp. 4.15-3
to 4.15-4,

4.15-6
No No None
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
DEIR pp. 4.15-3
to 4.15-4,

4.15-6
No No None

4.130
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -55- November 2022 Revised
a-b) Loss of Mineral Resources. There are no mineral resources within the City (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). The project therefore would not result in any impact peculiar to the parcel or project with respect to this impact, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

13. NOISE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project result in: Standards
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance or applicable
standards of other agencies?
DEIR pp. 4.13-4
to 4.13-8,

4.13-10 to

4.13-22
No No
GP Action
HZ3.1.1,
HZ3.1.2,
HZ3.1.3,
HZ3.1.5, HZ3.2.3
Municipal Code
section

24.14.260,
Municipal Code
section

18.04.030
(California
Building Code
adoption,
including Sound
Transmission
Control)
b) Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise
levels?
DEIR pp.

4.13-10 No No
GP Action
HZ3.1.3,
HZ3.1.5
Municipal Code
section

24.14.220
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Not Applicable No No None
(a) Noise Increases. The primary existing noise source within the project area is traffic noise along West Cliff Drive, which is a local-serving street. This street is within a 60-dBA noise contour according to the General Plan 2030 (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figures 4.13-1 and 4.13-2).

4.131
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -56- November 2022 Revised
The General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies and actions that set forth measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts regarding exposure to noise. In particular, noise-land use compatibility standards will be applied to all new residential projects (HZ3.2.1), and the General Plan seeks to ensure that noise standards are met in the siting of noise-sensitive uses (HZ3.2). The policies also establish an interior noise level of 45 dBA for all residential uses (HZ3.2.3), consistent with state law.

Municipal Code section 18.040.030 adopts State of California building codes as part of the City’s Building Code, and section 18.36.010 refer to CBC sound transmission control. The General Plan indicates that exterior noise levels to 65 dBA are normally acceptable for new multi-family development; noise levels to 70 dBA are considered conditionally acceptable and typically require an acoustical study to determine whether additional insulation or window treatments are required.

Normal noise attenuation within residential structures with closed windows is about 20 dBA. As noted above, the project site is not mapped within a noise contour per the General Plan; however, the project is located adjacent to a 60-dBA noise contour along West Cliff Drive. Therefore, the project conditions would be below the 65-dBA exterior noise threshold as designated by the General Plan EIR.

At the end of 2018, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines were adopted by the State of California that included changes to the Appendix G environmental checklist, including elimination of questions related to exposure to noise. The questions focus on the potential permanent and temporary noise generated by a project. The proposed project would include residential development; this land use is not associated with substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels. Noise associated with the project’s proposed parking area, which would include 45 new spaces, would not represent a substantial increase in noise, because the site is already developed with approximately 95 surface parking spaces. Operational noise associated with the project is also anticipated to comply with the City of Santa Cruz noise standards and not predicted to result in significant noise impacts at nearby noise-sensitive receptors given the project use as a senior housing facility. Therefore, the project would not result in significant permanent noise increases not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR.

There would be a temporary increase in existing noise levels during demolition, earthwork, and construction of the project. Noise impacts resulting from construction would depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors, as well as existing ambient noise levels. Noise generated during construction would vary throughout the construction period and on any given day, depending on the construction phase and the type and amount of equipment used at the construction site. The highest noise levels would be generated during demolition and grading of the site, with lower noise levels occurring during building construction and finishing. The nearest sensitive noise receptors would be immediately across Eucalyptus Avenue to the west of the project site. As explained in the General Plan EIR, construction sound levels would be intermittent and varied through a single day as well as the duration of project construction.

The General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies and actions that set forth measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts of increased noise resulting from construction or operation of development projects (HZ3.1.1,HZ3.1.2, HZ3.1.3, and HZ3.1.5). The General Plan EIR concluded that

4.132
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -57- November 2022 Revised
with implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to City regulations, noise impacts from future development would be less than significant. The General Plan EIR concluded that development accommodated by the plan would result in construction of varying sound level and duration, but with implementation of General Plan policies and actions that set forth measures to minimize exposure construction noise levels, the increase in temporary noise levels from construction-related activities would be considered less than significant. General Plan policies seek to minimize and monitor construction noise (HZ3.1.3, HZ3.1.5). In particular, the General Plan seeks to ensure that construction activities are managed to minimize overall noise impacts on surrounding land uses (HZ3.1.3). Development projects are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and typical conditions of approval include limiting the day and times of day during which construction and/or heavy construction can be conducted, provision of notification to neighbors regarding construction schedules, and implementation of a process to receive and respond to noise complaints. These are some of the types of measures that would be required by the City to manage and minimize construction noise impacts of development projects per proposed General Plan Actions HZ3.1.3 and HZ3.1.5 (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume), which would be considered uniformly applied development policies and standards.

Municipal Code section 24.14.220 indicates that no land or building in any district shall be used or occupied in any manner so as to create noise or vibration in such a manner or in an amount as to adversely affect the surrounding area or adjoining premises. Municipal Code section 9.36.010 prohibits offensive noise between the hours of 10 PM and 8 AM and section 9.36.020 prohibits unreasonably disturbing noises. Furthermore, section 24.14.260 prohibits increases of sound levels above five dBA above the local ambient on a residential property. These regulations are intended to prevent increases in ambient noise levels and would be considered uniformly applied regulations to which the proposed project would be subject to compliance.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site regarding permanent or temporary increases in noise. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Vibration. The General Plan EIR indicates that there were no planned land uses that would be expected to result in generation of groundborne vibration, and that the potential for vibration is mostly associated with construction-related impacts. Construction noise and potential vibration would be performed during daytime hours and be temporary in nature. As indicated above, the General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to City regulations, noise impacts from construction of future development projects would be less than significant. Municipal Code section 24.14.220 indicates that no land or building in any district shall be used or occupied in any manner so as to create noise or vibration in such a manner or in an amount as to adversely affect the surrounding area or adjoining premises.

The proposed residential use would not result in generation of or exposure to vibration as neither the proposed use or other existing residential uses in the vicinity are known to be sources of vibration.

4.133
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -58- November 2022 Revised
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site regarding generation of excessive vibration. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (e-f) Airport Noise. The project site is not located near an airport or private airstrip.

4. POPULATION

AND HOUSING
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
DEIR pp. 4.2-2
to 4.2-6, 4.2-12
to 4.2-14
Not Applicable Not Applicable None
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
DEIR pp. 4.2-14
to 4.2-15 Not Applicable Not Applicable None
(a) Inducement of Substantial Population Growth. The General Plan 2030 EIR estimated population and housing increases that could result from potential development and buildout accommodated by the plan that included 3,350 residential dwelling units with an associated population increase of 8,040 residents by the year 2030. The project would include construction of 76 new dwelling units. The assisted living and memory care living units are within the total remaining unbuilt residential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR; see discussion in Section IV.B. The project would not induce substantial population growth in the City as it would be consistent with population growth projections developed for the City and the amount of development described in the General Plan EIR as described below (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume).

The City had a population of 64,075 people as of January 1, 2022 (SOURCE V.4). The proposed project includes 95 beds in the assisted living and memory care units and two inclusionary units that could accommodate up to two people per unit. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a population increase of 99 residents when added to the City’s existing population, resulting in a total population of 64,174 in the City. This is within the adopted regional population forecast of 68,845 for the city of Santa Cruz for the year 2025 (SOURCE V.3a), and also within the population forecast of 64,649 residents in the City in 2025 that was considered in the General Plan 2030 EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially induce unplanned population growth. Since the potential population growth resulting from the proposed project would fall within the total level of

4.134
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -59- November 2022 Revised
development analyzed in the General Plan EIR and is consistent with current regional forecasts, no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Displacement of Existing Housing or People. No housing units exist on the portion of the site that would be redeveloped (proposed Lot 2). The project site consists of a vacant school facility that would be replaced with the proposed senior living facility. Therefore, the project would not result in displacement of housing or residents and thus would not result in any impact peculiar to the parcel of the project with respect to this category of impact.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
DEIR pp. 4.6-2
to 4.6-4, 4.6-33
to 4.6-36
FEIR pp. 3-19
No No None
Police protection?
DEIR pp. 4.6-4
to 4.6-5, 4.6-36
to 4.6-37
No No None
Schools?
DEIR pp. 4.6-20
to 4.6-21,

4.6-40 to 4.6-41
No No
Payment of
School Impact
Fees
Parks?
DEIR pp. 4.6-5
to 4.6-20,

4.6-37 to 4.6-40
FEIR pp. 3-20 to
3-22
No No None
Other public facilities? Not Applicable No No None
Police and Fire Protection Services. As indicated in Section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan EIR considered construction of approximately 3,350 residential units within the City to the year 2030 (SOURCE V.1b); the proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units and commercial square footage. Thus, the project’s proposed 76 residential units would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential development and buildout accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant for fire and police protection services. Thus, construction of any new public facilities to serve the project would not be warranted with General Plan buildout. Since the proposed project

4.135
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -60- November 2022 Revised
size would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would not result in more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR, no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

School Enrollments. The General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the Plan could result in potentially significant impacts to schools but, with required payment of school impact fees to fund necessary facility expansion and/or additions in conjunction with potential reuse of the former Natural Bridges Elementary School if needed, the impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The EIR concluded that potential addition or expansion of school classroom facilities is not expected to result in significant physical impacts due to the location of existing facilities within developed footprints. As the proposed project is a senior housing facility that would not generate school-aged students and would be within the amount of development analyzed in the General Plan EIR , no new or substantially worsened impacts to schools or impacts peculiar to the project or site would occur and no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3. It is also noted that payment of school impact fees would be required.

Parks and Recreation. See Section IV.E.16 below regarding impacts to parks and recreational facilities.

16. RECREATION
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
DEIR pp. 4.6-5
to 4.6-20,

4.6-37 to 4.6-40
No No
Parks and
Recreation
Facilities Tax
b) Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities?
DEIR pp. 4.6-10
to 4.6-11 No No None
(a) Use of Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities. The City has responsibility for management, maintenance and operation of over 1,700 acres of parks and open space lands, and various community/recreational facilities, and oversees development of new parks and improvements within City-owned parks, open space, and community facilities. In the project area, West Cliff Drive and the Santa Cruz Coastal Rail Trail provides pedestrian and bicycle access to coastal recreational sites. The project site is also adjacent to and north of Lighthouse Field State Beach that provides walking trails to the coast.

4.136
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -61- November 2022 Revised
As indicated in Section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan EIR considered construction of approximately 3,350 residential units within the City to the year 2030 (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume), and the proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. Thus, the proposed project would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The EIR analyses concluded that, while the City does not meet its goal for neighborhood parks of 2.0 acres per 1,000 residents and for community parks of 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents, implementation of General Plan goals, policies, and actions that set forth measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on park and recreational facilities, as well as compliance with local regulations, would ensure that impacts to parks and recreational facilities resulting from buildout of the General Plan would be less than significant.

Furthermore, the City imposes a “Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax” (pursuant to Chapter 5.72 of the Municipal Code) on new residential development within the City, payable at the time of issuance of a building permit. The collected taxes are placed into a special fund, and “shall be used and expended solely for the acquisition, improvement and expansion of public park, playground and recreational facilities in the city” (Municipal Code section 5.72.100). The required fees for park expansion and improvements would be considered an application of uniformly applied development standards. (It is noted that projects that have dedicated land or fees in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 23.28 requirements for subdivisions are exempt from this tax). Thus, with implementation of uniformly applied development standards, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) New Recreational Facilities. The project does not include public recreational facilities. As indicated above, the General Plan concluded that potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities with growth accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

17. TRANSPORTATION

4.4-31 to 4.4-45
No No
GP Actions
M3.1.3, M3.1.4,
M2.3.2
regarding traffic
improvements
Traffic Impact
Fee Program

4.137
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -62- November 2022 Revised

17. TRANSPORTATION

AND TRAFFIC
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Not Applicable No No
GP Policy LU4.2
GP Actions
M3.1.1, M3.1.1
regarding trip
reduction, high
occupant
vehicle travel,
and alternative
travel modes
City VMT
Implementation
Guidelines
Traffic Impact
Fee Program
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (for
example, sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(for example, farm equipment)?
DEIR pp. 4.4-45
to 4.4-46 No No None
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
DEIR pp. 4.6-33
to 4.6-37 No No None
(a) Conflict with Circulation Plan, Policy or Ordinance. The project site is bordered by West Cliff Drive to the east, Pelton Avenue to the south, and Eucalyptus Avenue to the west. Project access will be provided via driveways along Eucalyptus Avenue and Pelton Avenue. A total of eight new parking spaces, to supplement the approximately 95 existing spaces, are proposed for Lot 1; 45 parking spaces are proposed for the development of Lot 2 on a new surface parking lot. Additionally, the project applicant is proposing improvements in the Eucalyptus Avenue and Pelton Avenue public right-of-way and frontages, including construction of a curb cut, sidewalk, and gutter per City standards.

The local roadway network serving the project site includes Highway 1 (State Route 1), West Cliff Drive, Bay Street, Pelton Avenue, and Delaware Avenue. The Santa Cruz Metro Transit District (METRO) has bus route service along Delaware Street and Bay Street. Local METRO bus stops are located along the Delaware Street and Liberty Street intersection (Route 20) and along the intersection of Bay Street and Laguna Street (Route 19). Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are located in the area, including the multi-use path West Cliff Drive and trails within Lighthouse Field State Beach. The project includes three outdoor bicycle parking spaces and indoor bicycle lockers for residents. The project vicinity has multi-use paths, sidewalks, and some nearby transit stops.

4.138
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -63- November 2022 Revised
The General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies and actions that set forth comprehensive measures to reduce vehicle trips, increase vehicle occupancy, encourage use of alternative transportation modes, and promote alternative-sustainable land use patterns, all of which would help reduce vehicle trips, avoid and minimize adverse impacts related to traffic. The City’s General Plan strives to maintain the established “level of service” D or better at signalized intersections (M3.1.3). “Level of service” (LOS) is typically used to evaluate traffic operations, in which operating conditions range from LOS “A” (free-flowing) to LOS “F” (forced-flow). Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and D on State highway facilities. Delays for signalized intersections are evaluated for the overall peak hour as an “average.” The methodologies for unsignalized intersections also evaluates the delays for the each “critical” movement (e.g. stop sign controlled approaches on the minor street and main line left turn). The City’s General Plan also accepts a lower level of service and higher congestion at major regional intersections if necessary improvements would be prohibitively costly or result in significant, unacceptable environmental impacts (M3.1.4).

According to a traffic study performed for the project, the proposed project would result in a net increase of less than 274 daily trips with 26 weekday PM peak hour trips (SOURCE V.12a). The study found that all intersections in the project vicinity, which are unsignalized, currently operate under Level of Service (LOS) A or B and would continue to operate at this level with the project (SOURCE V.12b). The proposed senior housing project is located in proximity to pedestrian and bicycle facilities that could be used for some of the project’s daily trips. Furthermore, the traffic study found that the proposed project would result in fewer daily and weekday PM peak hour trips than occurred with the former private school that operated on the project site (SOURCE V.12a).

The City’s General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that adoption and implementation of the General Plan 2030 would accommodate future development that would result in increased vehicle trips and traffic, which would cause changes in some intersection levels of service to unacceptable levels or further deterioration of intersections currently operating at unacceptable levels of service at some locations.

The General Plan EIR did not identify impacted intersections in the project, but identified four impacted intersections near the project site resulting from development accommodated by the General Plan: Mission Street/Bay Street, Bay Street/California Street, Bay Street/California Avenue, and Pacific Avenue/Beach Street. (It is noted that while the General Plan EIR did not identify a significant impact at the West Cliff Drive/Bay Street intersection, the City’s adopted Beach/South of Laurel (B/SOL) Plan identified a signal for the intersection, and signalization is included in the City’s Traffic Impact Fee [TIF] program.) Subsequent to certification of the General Plan EIR and adoption of the General Plan, the City installed a roundabout at the Pacific/Beach intersection that improved traffic operations at that intersection. With implementation of General Plan 2030 policies and actions, including road improvements identified in an updated TIF program, the General Plan EIR concluded that intersection operations would be improved to an acceptable LOS at the Bay/California Street intersection; however, improvements to the other two intersections would not improve operations to an acceptable LOS, although overall delays would be reduced. With implementation of proposed General Plan 2030 policies and actions, including road improvements identified in an updated TIF program, the General Plan EIR concluded that intersection operations would be improved to an acceptable LOS.

4.139
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -64- November 2022 Revised
The General Plan EIR found that with implementation of the identified intersection improvements and General Plan 2030 policies and actions to reduce vehicular traffic, increase vehicle occupancy and support/encourage use of alternative transportation measures, the identified impact could be reduced to a less-than-significant level at the remaining impacted intersections. However, funding availability likely would remain constrained for major facility improvements and expansion of transit service into the foreseeable future. The General Plan concluded that implementation of recommended improvements and alternative transportation facilities cannot be assured, and that the impact to the intersections identified as operating at unacceptable levels of service under the proposed General Plan 2030 was conservatively assumed to be significant.

The project would be subject to payment of traffic impact fees that are applied uniformly throughout the City to all new development as part of the city-wide TIF program. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to conflicts with policies or regulations regarding the City’s circulation system or peculiar to the project or site. The project does not conflict with General Plan mobility policies regarding level of service goals, transportation improvements, reduction of vehicle trips, and encouraging multi-modal and alternative transportation systems. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs that support alternative transportation. Thus, no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

In addition, subsequent to the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR for the General Plan, provisions of CEQA essentially outlawing the use of level of service as a basis for finding significant transportation impacts took effect. Senate Bill (SB) 743, enacted in 2013, created Public Resources Code section 21099, which directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to establish criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas, with the option of creating new statewide criteria. The significance criteria for transit priority areas were to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the new criteria, OPR and the Secretary were to recommend potential metrics that included, but were not limited to, vehicle miles traveled [VMT], vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. Section 21099 further provided that, once the CEQA Guidelines had been updated as required by the statute, “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service [LOS] or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to [CEQA], except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” Consistent with these directives, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, which became effective in late 2018. It provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts,” with VMT referring to “the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.” Rather than limit its scope only to transit priority areas, the section changed the approach to assessing transportation impacts under CEQA all over the State. By its own terms, however, the section did not require agencies to begin using VMT as a new metric until July 1, 2020. LOS had ceased to be a valid significance criterion as of

4.140
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -65- November 2022 Revised
late 2018, however. (See Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 625-626.)
For these reasons, the City could not find a significant transportation-related effect from the proposed project even if the project resulted in LOS worse than what was anticipated in the General Plan EIR.
(b) Conflicts with State CEQA Guidelines. Subsequent to certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines at the end of 2018 added a new question of whether or not a project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

As explained above, this is a new section that codifies the switch from LOS to VMT as the metric for transportation analysis pursuant to state legislation adopted in 2013, SB 743.

CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) indicates that development projects that exceed an applicable VMT threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

In accordance with the amended CEQA Guidelines, the City has transitioned from intersection LOS formerly used for traffic impact analyses to VMT as the metric for determining potentially significant impacts. The City adopted a VMT transportation threshold on June 9, 2020 in accordance with CEQA and state requirements, as well as VMT Implementation Guidelines that are consistent with the State’s SB 743 Guidelines. The threshold generally establishes that a project exceeding a level of 15 percent below the County-wide average VMT may result in a significant transportation impact.

Updates to the City’s Guidelines were adopted on June 14, 2022. The City’s adopted SB 743 (VMT) Implementation Guidelines include potential Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to help achieve VMT reduction.

The City’s guidelines to determine whether a land use project is within the VMT threshold includes a screening process in which situations are identified under which projects are determined to not have a significant impact and further VMT analysis is not required. Projects, or portions of the project, that meet the screening criteria do not require a CEQA transportation analysis. Such projects will have a non-significant CEQA transportation impact based on their project location and characteristics. These include:
• Small projects that generate fewer than 110 trips per day; • Projects near high quality transit: within a ½ mile of a major transit stop or a high quality transit corridor with a combined service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during the AM and PM peak hours;
• Local-serving retail if a single store is less than 50,000 square feet or project is a localserving project as determined by the City; • Affordable housing projects that provide a high percentage of affordable housing as determined by the City;

4.141
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -66- November 2022 Revised
• Local essential service, including day care center, public K-12 schools, police or fire facility, medical/dental office building, government offices, and supportive housing types (assisted living, permanent supportive housing, memory care, etc.); • Map based screening; and
• Redevelopment projects that do not result in a net increase in VMT (SOURCE V.2d).

City staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the City’s adopted guidelines and concluded that the proposed project meets the screening criteria for an essential service, as it consists of an assisted living and memory care senior housing. Under the City’s guidelines, this would not result in a significant impact related to VMT and no further transportation-VMT analysis is required. Notably, the proposed project is located on an infill site and would predominantly include assisted living units and memory care units, in which residents would not be expected to own cars.

Moreover, although the former school buildings on site are not in current use, a functioning school serving approximately 187 students represents the historic use of the property in the relatively recent past, thereby making past school-related trips part of the baseline condition. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a)(1) [“[w]here existing conditions change or fluctuate over time, and where necessary to provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project’s impacts, a lead agency may define existing conditions by referencing historic conditions, or conditions expected when the project becomes operational, or both, that are supported with substantial evidence”] [italics added]; and North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 94, 105 [court upholds agency’s use of baseline traffic conditions that assumed the occupancy of formerly occupied retail space that was vacant at the time of environmental review].) According to the November 11, 2021, “Watermark Community Traffic Study” prepared by traffic engineer Keith Higgins, the proposed project would generate 254 daily trips, which is significantly less than the 769 daily trips generated by the school that previously occupied the site. The proposed project, therefore, would result in a net decrease in daily trips compared with historic conditions. For all of these reasons, the project would not result in a significant impact related to VMT based on the City’s adopted threshold and would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.

The General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies and actions that set forth comprehensive measures to reduce vehicle trips, increase vehicle occupancy, encourage use of alternative transportation modes, and promote alternative-sustainable land use patterns, all of which would help reduce vehicle trips and VMT, and avoid and minimize adverse impacts related to traffic. General Plan EIR indicates that Policies M3.1.1 and M3.1.2 direct the City to seek ways to reduce vehicle trip demand, reduce the number of peak hour vehicle trips, and encourage high occupant vehicle travel. Implementation of General Plan policies that serve to reduce VMT would be considered uniformly applied development policies or standards. General Plan policies also encourage employment-related strategies (i.e., flextime, telecommuting, parking management, ridesharing) (M3.1.7, M3.1.8, M2.4.4) as ways to reduce vehicle trips, which would also reduce VMT.

While the General Plan EIR did not analyze VMT as the requirement to do so was not in place, the proposed project does not exceed the City’s VMT threshold, which was adopted after certification of the General Plan EIR. Furthermore, the proposed services to support residents that are included in

4.142
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -67- November 2022 Revised
the project, such as dining, salon, and fitness facilities, would serve to reduce VMT, consistent with General Plan policies and actions to reduce vehicle trips. General Plan Policy LU4.2 encourages land use changes that reduce the need for autos. The proposed assisted living and memory care uses would require limited automobile use for employees as most residents would not have vehicles, and the project would result in a reduction of auto use from the previous private school use at the site.

As indicted above in subsection (a), the project would be subject to payment of traffic impact fees that are applied uniformly throughout the City to all new development as part of the city-wide TIF program. TIF fees are used to address needed traffic improvements at key intersections for circulation and also for alternative transportation improvements; 15 percent of the collected TIF fees are allocated to alternative transportation improvements. In addition, the City’s adopted SB 743 (VMT) Implementation Guidelines include potential Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to help achieve VMT reduction, which serve to reduce project VMT impacts and are considered uniformly applied development standards. The proposed project was designed pursuant to these guidelines and includes a covered driveway with trellis in the front of the building for drop-offs and pedestrians, consistent TDM measures included in the City’s Guidelines. Therefore, with this design planned pursuant to the City’s VMT guidelines and payment of required traffic impact fees, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or site with implementation of uniformly applied development policies and standards, and no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3. (c, d) Design-Safety and Emergency Access. The project has been designed in accordance with standard City requirements, and there are no access designs that would substantially increase hazards. Fire truck access would be provided from the Pelton Avenue entrance and along the western boundary of the property off of Eucalyptus Avenue. The fire lane is proposed to have a width of 20 feet with no overhead clearance restrictions. The project would be designed in accordance in accordance with City police and fire department requirements and would provide for adequate emergency access. Therefore, the project would not result in increased hazards related to project design, would not provide inadequate emergency access, and would not result in new significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or site; no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3.

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL

RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

4.143
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -68- November 2022 Revised

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL

RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
Not Evaluated Not Applicable Not Applicable
GP EIR
Mitigation 4.9-1
and Municipal
Code section

24.12.430
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe?
Not Evaluated Not Applicable Not Applicable
GP EIR
Mitigation 4.9-1
and Municipal
Code section

24.12.430
State Assembly Bill 52, effective July 1, 2015 after the City’s adoption of the General Plan 2030, recognizes that California Native American prehistoric, historic, archaeological, cultural, and sacred places are essential elements in tribal cultural traditions, heritages, and identities. The law establishes a new category of resources in the California Environmental Quality Act called “tribal cultural resources” that considers the tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation. Public Resources Code section 21074 defines a “tribal cultural resource” as either:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(a) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(b) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of section 5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of section 5024.1. (a-b) Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation. The California Public Resources Code section 21084.2 establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the

4.144
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -69- November 2022 Revised
environment.” The requirements for review of impacts to tribal cultural resources were added after the certification of the General Plan EIR. While there are no known tribal cultural resources meeting the above definition on the project site per the project archaeological report (SOURCE V.7), the project site is located within an area identified as being sensitive for archaeological resources (SOURCE V.1c).

As described above in Section IV.E.5, Cultural Resources, the archaeology review and field survey conducted of the project site concluded that the site appears to have a very low potential archaeological materials and that no prehistoric materials are anticipated to be encountered on the site from project construction or operation (SOURCE V.7). Section 24.12.430 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth the procedure to follow in the event that unknown archaeological materials are unearthed during construction, as described in Section IV.E.5 above. Thus, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on tribal cultural resources.

19. UTILITIES AND

4.6-41 to

4.6-43, 4.5-29
to 4.5-38
FEIR pp. 3-2 to
3-19
No No None
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
DEIR pp. 4.5-3
to 4.5-42
FEIR pp. 3-2 to
3-19
No No
Municipal Code
sections 16.02-
04 regarding
Water
Conservation,
Plumbing
Fixtures, &
Water Service
Charges
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
DEIR pp. 4.6-21
to 4.6-25,

4.6-41 to 4.6-43
No No None
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure,
DEIR pp. 4.6-25
to 4.6-27,

4.6-43 to 4.6-44
FEIR p. 3-22
No No None

4.145
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -70- November 2022 Revised

19. UTILITIES AND

SERVICE SYSTEMS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
DEIR pp. 4.6-25
to 4.6-27 No No None
(a) Relocation or Construction of Utilities. Subsequent to certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G questions were modified to include a new question regarding need for new, relocated, or expanded infrastructure systems. The project would be served by existing utilities, and the General Plan EIR concluded that the City’s wastewater treatment facility would be adequate to handle growth and development accommodated by the General Plan and would not require expansion or construction of facilities to serve future growth; see subsection (c) below.

Because the size of the proposed project would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not result in more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The project does not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. No further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (b) Water Supply. The project site is located within the service area of the City of Santa Cruz Water Department, which serves an approximate 20-square-mile area. The service area includes the entire City of Santa Cruz, adjoining unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County, a small part of the City of Capitola, and coastal agricultural lands north of the City. Water is treated at the City’s Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant (GHWTP), except for groundwater, which is treated as part of the Beltz well system.

The City’s General Plan EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of impacts of water demand within the City’s service area, including potential buildout accommodated by the General Plan. The General Plan EIR predicted that water supplies would be adequate in normal years to serve estimated growth within the City of Santa Cruz water service area, although the document acknowledges that the outcome of the pending Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for anadromous fisheries may affect supplies. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to the City’s water supply would be significant and unavoidable during times of prolonged drought and potentially significant during normal years by the year 2030. Measures are identified in General Plan policies and actions to further conserve water, reduce demand and implement a desalination facility to provide a supplemental water supply during droughts.

4.146
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -71- November 2022 Revised
Subsequent to the City’s General Plan 2030, the City adopted the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), and in November 2021, the City adopted the 2020 UWMP. The 2015 UWMP reported that water demand in the City’s water service area has ranged between nearly 3,800 million gallons per year (MGY) in 2006 to approximately 2,500 MGY in 2015 (SOURCE V.2b). The 2020 UWMP reported that annual water use has decreased since the early 2000s, but annual water use fell to a level of about 2.5 billion gallons, similar to the level experienced during the 1970s drought. However, in 2020, demand was still at a similar level as 2015, about 2.6 billion gallons, despite several years above longterm average rainfall from 2016 and 2020. Current projections forecast that water use over the next 25 years, including projected population growth, will increase at a very slow rate to reach approximately 2.8 billion gallons per year by 2045 (SOURCE V.2c).

With implementation of the City’s proposed water rights modifications and water supply augmentation strategies as summarized below, the City projects having sufficient water available in normal years and single dry years to serve anticipated demand throughout the 2020-2045 UWMP planning period. However, the City’s 2020 UWMP predicts that under multi-year drought conditions in the near term (2025) with proposed water rights modifications but before implementation of the planned aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) facilities and planned infrastructure projects, available supplies would meet projected demand in years one through four of the multi-year drought scenario, but would fall short of demand by 27 percent in year five, although such a shortage could occur sooner and persist longer through a multiple dry year period. Under multi-year drought conditions after 2030, with implementation of the ASR and planned infrastructure projects, available supplies would meet projected demand in years one through four of the multi-year drought scenario, and the year-five shortage is anticipated to be substantially reduced with projected shortages no larger than a negligible two percent or five percent with consideration of climate change parameters in dry years (SOURCE V.2c).

The General Plan EIR predicted that water supplies would be adequate in normal years to serve estimated growth within the City of Santa Cruz water service area, although the documents acknowledge that the outcome of the pending HCP may affect supplies. The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that impacts to the City’s water supply would be significant and unavoidable during times of drought and potentially during normal years by the year 2030 with growth and development within the City’s water service area if recent water use trends change. Measures are identified in General Plan policies and actions to further conserve water, reduce demand and implement a supplemental water supply during droughts. These include: implementation of the City’s Long-Term Water Conservation Plan to reduce average daily water demand and maximize the use of existing water resources (CC3.1.1); promotion of water conservation (C3.11.2); updating guidelines and standards for new landscaping that emphasizes xeriscaping and other water-conserving practices (CC3.11.1); Implementation of water conservation best management practices (CC3.5.1); and offering water audits and technical assistance to residents and businesses reduce their average daily water use (CC3.5.3).

However, the 2020 UWMP indicates that while the City is vulnerable to water shortages during later years of a multiple dry year period primarily due to the limitation in when and how much water is available to meet system demand, exacerbated by a lack of storage within the system, the City is

4.147
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -72- November 2022 Revised
actively planning and implementing a number of projects and major investments in the water system designed to secure future water supply reliability. Since 2015, the City of Santa Cruz has been pursuing a Water Supply Augmentation Strategy (WSAS) developed by the Water Supply Advisory Committee, a citizen committee, which was formed in 2014 by Santa Cruz City Council with the charge to analyze potential solutions to deliver a safe, adequate, reliable, affordable and environmentally sustainable water supply for the City of Santa Cruz. The WSAS portfolio elements, which are being pursued on a concurrent timeline, include:
• Element 0: Demand Management. Demand Management, or conservation, is not considered a water supply for the purposes of the UWMP, but is addressed in the UWMP 2020. • Element 1: Transfers and Exchanges. The City has been piloting water transfers to the Soquel Creek Water District since 2018, as water supplies are available, under a cooperative piloting agreement that extends through 2025. Potential water transfers and exchanges with local water districts in addition to the Soquel Creek Water District, include Central Water District, Scotts Valley Water District, and San Lorenzo Valley Water District, which would be facilitated by the City’s proposed water rights modifications to place of use as briefly summarized below. • Element 2: Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). The City has been evaluating the feasibility of ASR in both the Santa Cruz Mid-County and in the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basins, with current work primarily focused on the portion of Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin within the City of Santa Cruz service area. Pilot testing has been conducted at the existing Beltz 8 and Beltz 12 well facilities to better understand potential water quality and operational constraints. Implementation of ASR also may occur in the future in the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin.
• Element 3: Recycled Water or Desalination. Following completion of the 2017 Desalination Feasibility Update Review Report, further study of recycled water has been prioritized over study of seawater desalination. The City is continuing to examine the use of recycled water through commissioned engineering studies. The 2018 Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study recommendation includes two projects that would provide non-potable reuse in the City. The City is also committed to exploring other reuse opportunities, including:
coordination with Soquel Creek Water District’s Pure Water Soquel project, exploring groundwater replenishment and reuse at Beltz Well system, and exploring groundwater replenishment and reuse in Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin (SOURCE V.2c).

The City is also pursuing the Santa Cruz Water Rights Project to support the implementation of the WSAS. The project involves the modification of the City’s existing water rights to increase the flexibility of the water system by improving the City’s ability to utilize surface water within existing allocations. This project also incorporates into the City’s water rights bypass flow requirements for all of the City’s surface water sources which are protective of local anadromous fisheries. The primary components of the Santa Cruz Water Rights Project include:
• Water rights modifications related to place of use, method of diversion, points of diversion and re-diversion, underground storage and purpose of use, extension of time, and stream bypass requirements for fish habitats;

4.148
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -73- November 2022 Revised
• Water supply augmentation components, including new aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) facilities at unidentified locations, ASR facilities at the existing Beltz Well facilities, water transfers and exchanges and intertie improvements; and
• Surface water diversion improvements, including the Felton Diversion fish passage improvements and the Tait Diversion and Coast Pump Station improvements (SOURCE V.2c).

In addition, as required by California Water Code and to manage risks due to water supply shortages that can be expected in the future, the 2020 UWMP includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that addresses how the City’s water system would be managed during a water shortage emergency that arises as a result of drought, which could result in required customer water use reductions (SOURCE V.2c). Furthermore, the City continues to administer its water conservation program, has completed a Conservation Master Plan.

As indicated in section IV.B, the City’s General Plan EIR considered development of approximately 3,350 new residential units throughout the City to the year 2030 (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume), and the proposed project would be within the total and remaining unbuilt residential development evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Because the number of new residential units falls within the projected number of units within the EIR, the water demand generated by the proposed project would fall within the total level of water demand estimated and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As indicated above, annual water demand projections are less than what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and the City currently predicts potential negligible shortages during multi-year droughts with implementation of proposed water augmentation projects. However, the proposed project would be subject to uniformly applied development standards that include requirements for installation of water conservation fixtures and landscaping for new construction. In addition, the project would pay the required “System Development Charge” for the required new service connection. This charge as set forth in Chapter 16.14 of the City’s Municipal Code is intended to mitigate the water supply impacts caused by new development in the City of Santa Cruz water service area, and the funds are used for construction of public water system improvements and conservation programs. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to availability of water supplies not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site with implementation of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Wastewater Treatment Capacity. The project would be served by existing utilities, and the General Plan EIR concluded that the City’s wastewater treatment facility would be adequate to handle growth and development accommodated by the General Plan and would not require expansion or construction of facilities to serve future growth. As indicated in section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan EIR considered development of approximately 3,350 residential units within the City to the year 2030 (SOURCE V.1b), and the proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. The EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential development and buildout accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant for wastewater treatment. Since the size of the proposed project would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or more

4.149
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -74- November 2022 Revised
severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or site. No further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3. (d-e) Solid Waste Disposal. The project would be served by existing utilities, and the General Plan EIR concluded that the City’s landfill would be adequate to handle growth and development accommodated by the General Plan and would not require expansion or construction of facilities to serve future growth. As indicated in section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan EIR considered development of approximately 3,350 residential units within the City to the year 2030 (SOURCE V.1b); and the proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. The EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential development and buildout accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant for solid waste disposal. Since the size of the proposed project would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or site. No further environmental analysis is required regarding solid waste pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3.

20. WILDFIRE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation?
DEIR pp. 4.6-2
to 4.6-5, 4.6-33
to 4.6-37
No No None
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Not Evaluated Not Applicable Not Applicable None
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
Not Evaluated Not Applicable Not Applicable None
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Not Evaluated Not Applicable Not Applicable None

4.150
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -75- November 2022 Revised
(a) Emergency Plans. The project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (SOURCE V.5). See also Section IV.E.9(f) regarding emergency access.
(b-d) Exacerbation of Wildfire Impacts. Subsequent to the certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR, the 2019 CEQA Guidelines amendment added a question regarding wildfire impacts and exposure.

The project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; see also 9(g). The project site is located in a local responsibility area. Local responsibility areas are located within incorporated city limits, and therefore, fire protection would be provided by the City’s fire department. The proposed project therefore would not cause any impacts peculiar to the parcel or the project with respect to this category of impact.

The site is flat and surrounded by development in an urban setting. The project would result in construction of habitable structures, but the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose people or structures to significant risks including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of post-fire conditions. Therefore, no impacts of these kinds would occur. See also section IV.9(g) above.

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS

OF SIGNIFICANCE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
DEIR pp. 4.8-13
to 4.8-21,

4.8-24, 4.8-26
to 4.8-30,

4.8-41, 4.8-38
to 4.8-44,

4.8-48 to

4.8-51, 4.9-10
to 4.9-12,

4.9-19 to 4.9-23
FEIR pp. 3-22,
3-25 to 3-40
No No
GP Action
NRC2.2.1 &
Project
Assessment
Protocols for
Special Status
Species; GP EIR
Mitigation 4.9-1
and Municipal
Code section

24.12.430
b) Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of the
past projects, the effects of other
DEIR pp. 5-8 to
5-36
FEIR pp. 3-27 to
3-33
No No None

4.151
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -76- November 2022 Revised

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS

4.13-10 to

4.13-20
No No None
(a) Quality of the Environment. The project would not degrade the quality of the environment or otherwise affect fish and wildlife habitat as discussed in Section IV.E.4 (Biological Resources) of this Environmental Checklist review. As explained in Section IV.E.4, biological resource impacts are not peculiar to the parcel or the project because they were either adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR or can be substantially mitigated by the application of uniformly applied development policies or standards. As discussed in Section IV.E.5 (Cultural Resources) and Section IV.E.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources), cultural resources are not peculiar to the parcel or the project because they were either adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR or can be substantially mitigated by the application of uniformly applied development policies or standards. The project would not result in elimination of important examples of a major period of California history or prehistory. (b) Cumulative Impacts. The General Plan EIR identified potential significant cumulative impacts related to traffic, water supply, population, and noise. Vehicle trips resulting from the proposed project would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. However, project trips would be minimal, and the proposed project is within the overall development considered in the General Plan EIR and thus considered in the traffic and noise modeling conducted for the General Plan EIR.

The General Plan 2030 EIR identified cumulative population growth as a potentially significant impact due to growth at the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) in conjunction with growth accommodated by the General Plan. Regional population forecasts have been revised since certification of the General Plan EIR, and citywide cumulative development analyzed in the General Plan EIR would not exceed current adopted regional population forecasts for the year 2030.

Therefore, no new significant cumulative impacts related to the City’s contribution to cumulative population growth would occur with project implementation. Subsequent to certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR, UCSC updated its Long-Range Development Plan in 2021 with updated growth projections to the year 2040. The General Plan EIR indicatesthat regional population forecasts, which are updated every four years, would account for changing trends in cumulative development and growth.

4.152
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -77- November 2022 Revised
The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative impacts related to water supply identified in the General Plan EIR. As indicated in Section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan EIR considered development of approximately 3,350 residential units within the City to the year 2030 (SOURCE V.1b), and the proposed project is within the total and remaining estimated unbuilt residential units. Furthermore, as explained in Section IV.E.19(b), projected water demands have decreased since certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR. The proposed project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts relating to water supply than analyzed in the General Plan EIR, nor would the project result in any new significant impacts that are peculiar to the site or project that were not considered in the General Plan EIR. The project would be subject to City requirements for installation of water-conserving fixtures and landscaping in accordance with current City Municipal Code and building requirements.

Under multi-year drought conditions, the project, like other City customers, would be subject to water use restrictions. The increase in water demand due to the proposed project would not substantially exacerbate water supply reliability in the future or during a drought because the amount of additional demand when spread across all service area customers would not result in any noticeable increase in the timing or extent of curtailment in customer use that would otherwise be implemented during drought conditions. In addition, the project would pay the required “System Development Charge” for the required new service connection. This charge, as set forth in Chapter

16.14 of the City’s Municipal Code, is intended to mitigate the water supply impacts caused by new development in the City of Santa Cruz water service area, and the funds are used for construction of public water system improvements and conservation programs. Payment of the System Development Charge and implementation of other water conservation measures would mitigate the project’s contribution to cumulative water supply impacts. Therefore, the project’s incremental contribution to a significant cumulative water supply impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Because the potential project contribution to cumulative impacts falls within the total level of those analyzed in the General Plan EIR, no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts analyzed in the General Plan 2030 EIR. The General Plan EIR identified significant cumulative impacts in the project vicinity at the Beach Street/Pacific Avenue intersection, which subsequently has been installed as described in Section IV.E.17(a). With implementation of proposed General Plan 2030 policies and actions, including road improvements identified in an updated TIF program, the General Plan EIR concluded that intersection operations would be improved to an acceptable LOS at the Beach Street/Pacific Avenue intersection. Furthermore, changes to CEQA since certification of the General Plan EIR no longer use intersection LOS as a basis for determining transportation impacts. As discussed in Section IV.E.17(b), VMT is the new metric used to evaluate transportation impacts, and the project was found to result in a less-than-significant impact, consistent with City guidelines, and thus would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts related to VMT. There are no significant pending projects within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project; there is an approved residential project located at the intersection of West Cliff Drive and Bay Street to the east of the project site. However, future development projects would be individually evaluated for potential VMT impacts, and none were identified. There are no new significant cumulative impacts to which the proposed project would contribute that have not been addressed in the General Plan EIR.

4.153
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -78- November 2022 Revised
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Nor would the project result in cumulative water supply or traffic impacts peculiar to the project or site with implementation of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings. The General Plan EIR did not identify impacts relating to air or water pollution or noise levels that would result in adverse effects on human beings; see Sections IV.E.3, 10 and 13. Project construction would require demolition of existing buildings that may contain hazardous materials (asbestos and lead-based paint). However, as discussed in Section IV.E.9, an uniformly applied development standard to require testing and removal of these materials if found in compliance with applicable regulations is included as a project condition of approval. Thus, no environmental effects have been identified that would have direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings, and the project would not result in new significant impacts peculiar to the project or site that would result in substantial adverse effects on humans.

V. REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCE LIST
Agency Plans and Studies

1. City of Santa Cruz General Plan and EIR
a. Adopted June 26, 2012. General Plan 2030. Available online at https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-andcommunity-development/long-range-policy-planning/general-plan. b. April 2012. City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 Final EIR. SCH #2009032007. Certified June 26, 2012. Includes Draft EIR document, dated September 2011. Available online at: https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-andcommunity-development/long-range-policy-planning/general-plan. c. July 2018. “Cultural Resources Background Report Update with Policies, Programs, and Maps, City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California.” Prepared by Dudek.

2. City of Sana Cruz Adopted Plans.
a. Adopted October 2018. Climate Adaptation Plan Update 2018-2023. b. Adopted August 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by City of Santa Cruz Water Department.
c. Adopted November 2022. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by the City of Santa Cruz, Water Department. Available online at:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/water/urban-watermanagement-plan-2020. d. Adopted June 14, 2022. SB 743 Implementation Guidelines, City of Santa Cruz. May 12, 2022.
e. 1970 Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey. Prepared by Charles Hall, Page & Associates, Inc.

4.154
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -79- November 2022 Revised

3. AMBAG.
a. Adopted June 15, 2022. “2022 Regional Growth Forecast.” b. Adopted June 2018. Monterey Bay 2040 Moving Forward, 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy. c. Adopted June 11, 2014. “2014 Regional Growth Forecast”.

4. California Department of Finance. May 2022. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022.” Available online at:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housingestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/

5. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA Map. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planningengineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/.

6. Monterey Bay Air Resources District.
a. Adopted March 15, 2017. 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan. Available online at: http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=62318. b. February 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available online at:
https://www.mbard.org/files/f665829d1/CEQA_full+%281%29.pdf. c. Adopted April 1996-Revised February 2016. Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act.

Project Studies and Other References

7. Albion Environmental, Inc. August 2020. “Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for 126 Eucalyptus Avenue, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California.”

8. Nigel Belton Consulting Arborist. July 8, 2020. “A Tree Resource Assessment and Preliminary Recommendations Concerning the Proposed Senior Housing Development at 126 Eucalyptus Avenue Santa Cruz, California.”

9. Dees & Associates, Inc. August 7, 2020. “Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Senior Residential Care Facility.”

10. Ecosystems West Consulting Group.
a. April 28, 2022. “Biotic Assessment for the proposed Watermark at Santa Cruz Retirement Care for the Elderly Project, Santa Cruz, California.” b. September 29, 2022. Response to Comments on Biological Resources Potentially Impacted by the Watermark RCFE Project.

11. Ifland Engineers. October 2021. “Stormwater Control Plan for Watermark Santa Cruz Senior Housing.”

4.155
The Watermark at Santa Cruz
Environmental Review -80- November 2022 Revised

12. Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer.
a. November 11, 2021. “Watermark Retirement Community Traffic Study.” b. August 6, 2020. “Watermark Retirement Community Traffic Study.”

13. Page & Turnbull. May 23, 2022. 126 Eucalyptus Street – Historic Evaluations and Project Analysis. Includes Cover Letter to Planning and Community Development Department, Project Analysis Memorandum and DPR Forms.

4.156

C I T Y A T T O R N E Y
PO BOX 481, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95061-0481 • 831 420-6200 • Fax: 831 576-2269 • www.cityofsantacruz.com

M E M O R A N D U M
November 14, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Cassie Bronson, Deputy City Attorney; Monica Hammer, Deputy City Attorney RE: Oppidan, Inc.’s Appeal Related to the Inclusionary Requirement for 126 Eucalyptus Avenue
CC: Tony Condotti, City Attorney; Matt Huffaker, City Manager; Planning Department Staff
I. Issue Presented and Short Answer
Planning Department staff and the City Manager asked our office to, for the November 29, 2022 open session Council meeting, provide a formal legal opinion related to Oppidan, Inc.’s appeal for the 126 Eucalyptus Avenue Project (“the Project”). The Oppidan appeal objects to the following Planning Commission condition of approval:

As provided under Section 24.16.030.08 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission as an approval body for the project, and based on substantial evidence, determines that the project includes congregate care living units and assisted living units and is therefore subject to the requirement that 15% of the congregate living or assisted living units shall be made available for rent to low-income households for an affordable rent.1
This memorandum addresses whether the condition above was properly applied to the Project.

In summary, it is our legal opinion that the Planning Commission erred in applying the condition above. Under SCMC § 24.16.020, the Project’s 13 “dwelling units” are subject to the City’s 20% basic on-site inclusionary housing requirement, and the Project applicant committed to building the requisite number of inclusionary units under Section 24.16.020. It was not appropriate to apply SCMC § 24.16.030(8) as a mandatory requirement that 15% of the project’s congregate/assisted living units be made available to low-income households because Section

24.16.030(8) is an “alternative method” to comply with the City’s inclusionary housing 1 Planning Commission Action Summary, dated 10/6/2022, p. 5-6.

4.157
Mayor and City Council
November 29, 2022

Page 2 of 5 ends

CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
requirements, and the Project applicant did not seek to take advantage of any of the City’s “alternative methods” of inclusionary housing compliance.

II. Factual Background
The Planning Commission met on October 6, 2022 to consider the permits associated with a planned development at 126 Eucalyptus Avenue for 76 units of senior housing.2 Thirteen of the 76 planned units have full kitchens, and 63 units designated do not have kitchens. Of the thirteen units with full kitchens, the Project’s plans indicated 11 units were set aside for assisted living and that two of the dwelling units would be designated as “affordable”.3 After consulting with outside counsel (Barbara Kautz) on a number of issues related to the project, the Planning Department staff recommended that a condition of approval require that the two affordable units be set aside for independent living, assisted living, or staff housing.4 The developer did not request an “alternative method” to comply with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements. 5 It is also worth noting that staff recommended a condition that stated Units that do not meet the definition of dwelling unit shall not contain food preparation fixtures or appliances that would meet the definition of a kitchen. A change in the number of dwelling units would require approval of a permit to modify this approved permit, and all applicable standards, including . . . inclusionary housing requirements[.]6
In preparation for the October 6, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, staff submitted an Agenda Report which concluded that the plan for two inclusionary full dwelling units complied with the City’s “basic on-site” inclusionary housing requirement. 7 During the meeting, questions
were raised as to whether the City’s “alternative method” to comply with the inclusionary housing requirement (SCMC § 24.16.030(8)) could be applied to units that do not contain full kitchens. Staff replied that they had discussed this matter with the City Attorney’s Office and outside counsel and that the “alternative method” cannot be applied to those units unless the applicant proposed them, pursuant to SCMC § 24.16.030.

Eventually, Commissioner Schiffrin made a motion that was seconded by Commissioner Maxwell to approve the project with a condition that 15% of the congregate living or assisted living units be made available for rent to low-income households for an affordable rent, citing SCMC § 24.16.030(8).
8 The motion passed on a 3-2-2 vote.9
2 Planning Commission Action Summary, dated 10/6/2022.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 October 13, 2022 Notice of Appeal letter to City Clerk from Roger Bernstein, VP of Construction Oppidan 6 Exhibit A Conditions of Approval, 126 Eucalyptus – CP20-0068, p. 7, ¶ 42. 7 Planning Commission Agenda Report, dated 10/6/2022, p. 14. 8 October 6, 2022 Planning Commission Action Summary, p. 5. 9 October 6, 2022 Planning Commission Action Summary, p. 6.

4.158
Mayor and City Council
November 29, 2022

Page 3 of 5 ends

CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
On October 13, 2022, the developer, Oppidan, Inc., filed a Notice of Appeal. In their letter of Appeal, Oppidan reiterates that: (a) the company planned to meet the City’s inclusionary housing requirement by designating 20% of the dwelling units (those units with kitchens) as affordable housing;
10 and (b) they do not wish to submit any “alternative methods” to comply with the City’s inclusionary housing requirement.
11 III. Legal Analysis
The Eucalyptus project is a rental residential development with two or more additional dwelling units and is therefore subject to the City’s inclusionary housing requirement under SCMC § 24.16.020(1), which states:

The inclusionary housing requirements defined in this chapter are applicable to all residential developments that create two or more new and/or additional dwelling units or SOU or SRO units at one location by construction or alteration of structures.

As for how much inclusionary housing the Project must provide, SCMC § 24.16.020(5) states:

Rental residential developments that would create five or more new or additional dwelling units . . . shall provide twenty percent of the dwelling units as inclusionary units, which shall be made available for rent to low-income households at an affordable rent…. If the number of dwelling units required results in a fractional requirement of 0.7 or less, then there will be no inclusionary requirement for the fractional unit.12
In the proposed Project, 13 of the proposed 76 units are properly characterized as “dwelling units” because 13 units contain “food preparation facilities” (i.e., kitchens) as that term is defined by SCMC § 24.22.372.
13 Given that the Project contains 13 “dwelling units”, it must include 2 affordable units to comply with the City’s “basic on-site” inclusionary housing requirements.14 10 October 13, 2022 Notice of Appeal letter to City Clerk from Roger Bernstein, VP of Construction Oppidan 11 Id.
12 SCMC § 24.16.020(5) (italics added).
13 SCMC § 24.22.320 defines a “dwelling unit” as: “a portion of a building including one or more rooms … with facilities for living, sleeping, eating, sanitation, and food preparation. A dwelling unit shall have only one domestic food preparation facility”
A food preparation facility is, in turn, defined as: “Any room or portion of a room used or designed to be used for cooking and/or preparation of food and containing two or more of the following appliances and/or fixtures; any sink (larger than fourteen inches by fourteen inches and/or having a drain outlet larger than one and one-half inches in diameter), refrigerator (larger than two and one-half cubic feet), hot plate, microwave, burner, stove or oven.” SCMC § 24.22.372.
14 Note that 13 x 0.2 = 2.6, which is rounded down to 2 under SCMC § 24.16.020(5).

4.159
Mayor and City Council
November 29, 2022

Page 4 of 5 ends

CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
Santa Cruz Municipal Code § 24.16.030 provides a variety of “alternative methods” that a project applicant might wish to take advantage of to fulfill the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.15 For example, instead of building the number of affordable units required by SCMC § 24.16.020 (the “basic on-site” inclusionary housing requirement), an applicant might propose to pay an in-lieu housing fee16, dedicate land to the City17, or construct inclusionary units off-site18.

Relevant to the Planning Commission’s decision and Oppidan, Inc.’s appeal, SCMC §

24.16.030(8) states:

An applicant may propose to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements of this chapter by providing congregate living units or assisted living units. If the approval body determines that a proposed residential development includes congregate living units or assisted living units, the following alternative requirements shall apply:
a. Fifteen percent of the congregate living or assisted living units shall be made available for rent to low-income households at an affordable rent.

In other words, just like a project applicant might choose to pay an in-lieu fee, or dedicate land to the City, or build inclusionary units offsite, as an alternative method, an applicant could propose to include congregate or assisted living units as a way to fulfill the City’s inclusionary requirements. If the applicant chooses that path, then certain requirements apply, including a requirement that 15% of the congregate units be available to rent for low-income households.19 In making its decision, the Planning Commission likely focused on to the second sentence above, which states “If the approval body determines that a proposed residential development includes congregate living units or assisted living units, the following alternative requirements shall apply: . . .”20 It is important to note that a court is unlikely to read that sentence in a vacuum. That sentence is qualified by: (1) the prior sentence which states “An applicant may propose to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements of this chapter by providing congregate living units or assisted living units” 21; and (2) the fact that this requirement
is in a section entitled “Alternative Methods to Comply with Inclusionary Housing Requirements”, which contains a host of voluntary, alternative measures that can be taken at the project applicant’s discretion22. A court is also likely to opine that, if the City is going to impose an expensive inclusionary housing requirement on a project applicant, then the language in the 15 See SCMC § 24.16.030 (1-11).
16 SCMC § 24.16.030(6).
17 SCMC § 24.16.030(7).
18 SCMC § 24.16.030(3).
19 SCMC § 24.16.030(8).
20 SCMC § 24.16.030(8)(italics added).
21 SCMC § 24.16.030(8)(italics added).
22 SCMC § 24.16.030(8).

4.160
Mayor and City Council
November 29, 2022

Page 5 of 5 ends

CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
Municipal Code should make that abundantly clear, so that project applicants can adequately economically assess whether or not to pursue their projects.

In this instance, the Project applicant submitted a plan to meet the City’s “basic on-site” inclusionary housing requirement under SCMC § 24.16.020(5) and did not request an “alternative method” to comply with inclusionary housing under SCMC § 24.16.030. 23 Therefore, the Planning Commission erred when it included a condition that mandated the Project be subject to one of the “alternative methods” contained in SCMC § 24.16.030(8).

IV. Conclusion
Thank you for your attention to this memo, and we would be happy to answer any questions that the Council may have.

We suspect that the Planning Commission majority is of the opinion that congregate care facilities should be subject to greater inclusionary requirements. If the Council agrees with this sentiment, then the Council, for future projects, could consider amending the Municipal Code to specifically apply inclusionary requirements to these types of units that do not have kitchens.

With that said, as currently written, SCMC § 24.16.030(8) is an “alternative method” that cannot be involuntarily imposed on a project applicant who is willing to meet the City’s “basic on-site” requirements.

Very truly yours,
Cassie Bronson,
Deputy City Attorney
Monica Hammer,
Deputy City Attorney
23 Planning Commission Agenda Report, dated 10/6/2022, p. 14.

4.161

4.162

4.163

4.164

4.165

4.166

4.167

4.168

4.169

4.170

4.171

4.172
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\HPC\7-20-22\Eucalyptus 126 CP20-068 HPC report.docx

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: July 15, 2022
AGENDA OF: July 20, 2022
ITEM NO: CP20-0068 126 Eucalyptus Ave.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Historic Alteration Permit based on the Findings listed below and the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “A”.

PROJECT DATA:

APN: 004-571-02, 004-571-04
Property Owner: Oblates of St. Joseph
Applicant: Roger Bernstein
Application Type: Historic Alteration Permit to reconfigure five lots into two, demolish two existing school buildings (approx. 28,417 square feet) and construct a 76-unit (including 13 full dwelling units) senior housing facility on a site listed on the historic building survey (Vol. 1, p. 39) in the R-1-5/WCD-O/CZ-O/SP-O (Single family residence/West Cliff Drive Overlay/Coastal Zone
Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay) zone district. This project includes the removal of six Heritage trees.

Zoning: R-1-5/WCD-O/CZ-O/SP-O (Single family residence/West Cliff Drive Overlay/Coastal Zone Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay)
Project Consistency: Consistent with approval of Historic Alteration Permit General Plan: L (Low Density Residential)
Project Consistency: Consistent with approval of Historic Alteration Permit Land Use - existing: Single family homes, church, vacant school buildings - proposed: Single family homes, church, senior housing facility - in area: Single family homes (north, west), pacific ocean (east), Lighthouse Field State Beach (south)
CEQA Determination: Categorical Exemption Class 32 (Infill Exemption); exempt under PRC CEQA section 21083.3
Planning Staff: Clara Stanger

4.173

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of July 20, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Avenue
Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 2
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\HPC\7-20-22\Eucalyptus 126 CP20-068 HPC report.docx

PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
The project site is located on a 6.97 acre property at the northwest intersection of West Cliff Drive and Pelton Avenue. The site is surrounded by single family homes to the north and west, the Pacific Ocean to the east, and Lighthouse Field State Park to the south.

The site is currently developed with two residences, the Shrine of St. Joseph church, and two vacant school buildings that were last occupied by the Gateway School and have been vacant for several years. The two residences, Rutherglen Terrace and the Davis house, are on the northeastern portion of the site and face West Cliff Drive. Rutherglen Terrace and its carriage house were constructed in 1893. The Davis House was constructed in 1912. The Shrine of St.

Joseph Guardian of the Redeemer was constructed in 1951 and was significantly remodeled to the current two-story height and architectural style in 1993. On the west side of the parcel, the two-story school building was constructed in 1961 to provide a dormitory and instruction building for a seminary school operated by the Oblates of St. Joseph. From 1970 to 1988, the building was used for Joseph Morello College Preparatory High School. The building was then vacant for a few years until it became the home of the Gateway School from 1991 to 2019. The one-story educational building was moved to the site in approximately 1955 to 1957, from the Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo. The building was used as a meeting hall and then a refectory until 1991 when the Gateway School repurposed it to meet their educational programming needs. The western portion of the site also had several portable classroom buildings that have since been removed. Several prefabricated shed buildings and a trash enclosure remain from the school use.

This project proposes to make the following changes to the site:
 Complete a lot line adjustment to reconfigure five lots into two;  Demolish the former Gateway School buildings;
 Remove six heritage sized trees; and
 Construct a 76 unit senior housing facility consisting of 74,218 square feet of floor area in a two story building with associated site improvements Because the site is listed in the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, a Historic Alteration Permit is required for this project. This project requires a hearing with the Historic Preservation Commission for the Historic Alteration Permit. Other permits required for this project include a Non-Residential Demolition Authorization Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Coastal Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to be heard at a subsequent hearing by the Planning Commission.

4.174

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of July 20, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Avenue
Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 3
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\HPC\7-20-22\Eucalyptus 126 CP20-068 HPC report.docx

ANALYSIS
Historic Listing
The subject property is listed in Volume I, Page 39 of the Historic Building Survey, which describes the two residences facing West Cliff Drive. The Survey indicates that the house at 544 West Cliff Drive (Rutherglen Terrace) was constructed in 1893 and provides the following comments:

This is a very early example of the Colonial Revival style, built at a time when most Santa Cruz mansions were Queen Annes. The slanted bay window and the rounded corner tower are vestiges of the Queen Anne. The house was built for James McNeil who owned the Santa Cruz Electrical Light and Power Works.

The Historic Building Survey indicates that the house at 560 West Cliff Drive (Davis House) was constructed in 1912 and provides the following comments:

A successful blend of the Prairie and Mission Revival styles with a shallow hip roof, wide overhanging eaves, an open loggia on the second floor, and a walled terrace. There is a row of mature cypress trees at the property line and the lot faces the beach.

Historic Evaluation of Proposed Project
An historic project analysis prepared by Josh Bevan and Ruth Todd of Page & Turnbull, Inc. on May 22, 2022, evaluated the project’s consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as they relate to the two residences described in the City’s Historic Building Survey. According to the report, the buildings with historic significance on the site include Rutherglen Terrace, its carriage house, and the Davis House. These buildings are located at the northeastern portion of the site and face West Cliff Drive.

The historic evaluation indicated that the character defining features of the buildings include the following:
 For Rutherglen Terrace: The circular driveway in the front, the spatial relationship of the house and the carriage house with the carriage house placed behind, and the original materials and architectural features of the two buildings.  For the Davis House: The original material and architectural features retained on the building.

The evaluation concluded that the proposed project does not affect the character defining features of these historic resources, especially because there are no changes proposed on these buildings and because the new development will be spatially separated from the historic buildings.

The evaluation also expressed that the contemporary Mediterranean architectural style is generally compatible with the historic buildings. However, Standard for Rehabilitation number

4.175

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of July 20, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Avenue
Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 4
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\HPC\7-20-22\Eucalyptus 126 CP20-068 HPC report.docx nine requires new construction to be compatible with the historic materials of the resource, and the report is silent on this point. The plans propose vinyl clad aluminum windows and fine sand 20/30 stucco finish on the new buildings. Higher quality materials for this architectural style would include hard trowel, smooth finish stucco and either baked enamel aluminum or stained wood windows. To ensure that the quality of materials on the new development is compatible with that of the historic resources, a condition of approval requires the new development to use these materials. In addition, a condition of approval requires windows on the new development to be recessed at least three inches in order to ensure a high quality architectural design that complements the level of architectural design of the historic buildings on the site.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards also call for protection and preservation of archaeological resources. The site is within an area mapped as sensitive for archaeological resources under the general plan. General plan policy HA1.2.2 requires projects in this area to include an archaeological investigation that involves both archival research and site reconnaissance. An archaeological investigation completed for this project by Albion Environmental dated August 2020 found a very low probability of encountering archaeological resources on the site. A standard condition of approval requires the applicant to stop work and contact the appropriate authorities should any soil disturbing work result in the discovery of an archaeological resource.

Demolition of School Buildings
The project involves demolition of a two-story dormitory and classroom building, a one-story classroom building, several prefabricated sheds, and a trash enclosure structure. Josh Bevan of Page & Turnbull, Inc. prepared Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523A forms (DPRs) dated April 19, 2022 to evaluate the historic significance of the two main structures to be demolished. The DPRs for each building found that neither building meets criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or the City of Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey. In addition, the evaluation found that neither building is eligible as a contributor to any existing or potential historic district. Therefore, demolition of the buildings does not involve demolition of the historic defining features of the site and do not constitute a significant historic impact under CEQA.

Site Development Conditions
In order for the project to meet the zone district site development standards and findings for other permits to be heard at the Planning Commission, staff will be recommending several conditions of approval. These conditions make minor changes to the project design and are noted here to provide clarity on the intended approved project:
 To meet the height limitation, the rooftop trellis will be removed.  To meet the height limitation, the chimney feature will be removed. However, if the plans show the chimney is an actual functioning chimney and not a faux chimney, then it qualifies for an exception to the height limitation under the zoning ordinance and can remain.
 The walls of the proposed trash enclosure will be finished with stucco and color to match the new building.

4.176

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of July 20, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Avenue
Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 5
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\HPC\7-20-22\Eucalyptus 126 CP20-068 HPC report.docx  The loading area at the southeast corner of the building will have a gate material of wood, and the adjacent wall will be obscured with tall vegetation or vines or will be finished with stucco to match the building.
 Water backflows and the transformer will be screened with vegetation.  Rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened with a color to match the building color.

CEQA Review
Environmental Review
Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 allows a lead agency to avoid repeating analyses that were already provided in a certified general plan EIR for a development project that is consistent with the general plan. Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and its parallel CEQA Guidelines provision, section 15183, provide for streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with the general plan for which an EIR was certified. Subsection (d) further indicates that an effect of a project upon the environment shall not be considered “peculiar to the parcel or to the project…if uniformly applied development policies or standards” have been previously adopted by the city or county, with a finding based upon substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards would not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. Under these provisions of CEQA, the project has been found to be consistent with the General Plan. It has been determined that the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR has adequately addressed environmental issues related to the project, and some site-specific project impacts have been analyzed and determined to be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies, zoning regulations and/or development standards that are uniformly applied to development projects throughout the City. Therefore, no further environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the project is exempt from further CEQA review. An environmental checklist is attached that provides the explanations and support for this determination.

Additionally, the project is exempt from CEQA review under Class 32 as an infill project. The project qualifies for this exemption because:
 The project is consistent with the general plan designation, applicable general plan policies, the zoning designation, and zoning regulations.  The development will take place within an area less than five acres on a site substantially surrounded by urban uses. While the entire site is nearly seven acres in size, a large proportion of the property will remain as is and will not be redeveloped. The proposed development area is approximately 3.3 acres, which is less than five acres.  The site has no value for endangered, rare, or threatened species based on results of a biotic resources report prepared for the project. The report found that the project site does not have value as monarch butterfly habitat, while trees on the church portion of the site has the potential to provide limited roosting habitat although roosting was not observed.

The report includes recommendations for standard pre-construction surveys for roosting bird or bat species, which are included as conditions of approval.

4.177

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of July 20, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Avenue
Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 6
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\HPC\7-20-22\Eucalyptus 126 CP20-068 HPC report.docx  The project does not create any significant effects relating to traffic because the project is below the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) significance as it is a use (community care facility) that is considered non-significant and screened from further review. The project also will generate far fewer daily vehicle trips than the previous school use. The project would not result in significant effects relating to noise, air quality, or water quality.  The site will continue to be served by utilities and public services.

None of the exceptions to the exemptions under Section 15300.2 apply to the project in that the project is not part of a larger project that could result in a cumulative impact, there are no unusual circumstances associated with the project or subject parcel, the project will not result in damage to resources associated with an officially designated scenic highway, the project site is not included on any lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code related to Hazardous Waste Sites, and the project will not result in substantial adverse changes in the significance of a historical resource site. An archaeological report did not identify potential resources or impacts. While the site is listed on the City’s Historic Building Survey, a historic evaluation of the project found that the project will not significantly impact the historic resources on the site.

SUMMARY
As designed, the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the project based on the Findings below and the attached Conditions of Approval.

FINDINGS
Historic Alteration Permit, Section 24.08.930

1. The action proposed is consistent with the purposes of historic preservation as set forth in Section 24.12.400 of this title and in the Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan; and one of the following three findings:

The purpose of the historic preservation provisions in Section 24.12.400 is as follows:
 Designate, preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate those historic structures, districts, and neighborhoods contributing to cultural and aesthetic benefit of Santa Cruz;
 Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past;  Stabilize and improve the economic value of certain historic structures, districts, and neighborhoods;
 Protect and enhance the City’s cultural, archaeological and aesthetic heritage;  Promote and encourage continued private ownership and use of such buildings and other structures now so owned and used, to the extent that the objectives listed above can be obtained under such policy;
 Serve as part of the Local Coastal Implementation Plan for the Coastal Program.

4.178

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of July 20, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Avenue
Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 7
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\HPC\7-20-22\Eucalyptus 126 CP20-068 HPC report.docx The project is consistent with this purpose in that the proposed project will protect the existing historic features on the site. Retention of the historic buildings fosters civic pride in these structures and retains their economic value. These buildings will be located on the new parcel to remain in the ownership of the Oblates of St. Joseph. The property is in the Coastal Zone, and preservation of the historic features of this site and is consistent with Local Coastal Plan policies CD3.5, CR2.1, CR2.2.2, and CR2.3, which seek to preserve the historic nature of designated sites within the coastal zone.

The project is also consistent with the following policies of the Historic Preservation, Arts & Culture element of the general plan:
 Policy HA1.2.2 requires projects in areas mapped as sensitive for archaeological resources to include an archaeological investigation that involves both archival research and site reconnaissance. An archaeological investigation completed for this project by Albion Environmental in August 2020 found a very low probability of encountering archaeological resources on the project site. A standard condition of approval requires the applicant to stop work in the event that earth-disturbing work results in discovery of an archaeological resource.  Policy HA1.2.3 requires projects with the potential of encountering paleontological resources to be conditioned to stop work and follow appropriate protocols in the event a paleontological resource is encountered. The site is in an area mapped as being underlain by Late Pleistocene Alluvium, which has the potential for having paleontological resources. The condition required by the policy is therefore included.
 Policy HA1.11.6 calls for the City to consider historic preservation in the enforcement of City regulations. The project is consistent with this policy as it meets the findings for a Historic Alteration Permit.

2. The project complies with Standards for Rehabilitation approved by the United States Secretary of the Interior; and that the project’s:
 architectural design;
 height and bulk of buildings and structures;
 lot coverage and orientation of buildings;
 color and texture of surface materials;
 grading and site development;
 landscaping;
 changes to natural features;
 antennas, satellite dishes and solar collectors;
 off-street parking, signs;
 light fixtures and street furniture;
 steps, walls, doors, windows, screens and security grills;  yards and setbacks

4.179

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of July 20, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Avenue
Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 8
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\HPC\7-20-22\Eucalyptus 126 CP20-068 HPC report.docx protect and preserve the historic and architectural qualities and the physical characteristics which make the building, structure, or property a contributing feature of the landmark, historic building survey building or historic district; or An historic evaluation completed by Josh Bevan and Ruth Todd of Page & Turnbull on May 23, 2022 found the project consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and that the development does not affect the character-defining features of the historic resource. The evaluation also expressed that the contemporary Mediterranean architectural style is generally compatible with the historic buildings.

However, Standard for Rehabilitation number 9 requires new construction to be compatible with the historic materials of the resource, and the report is silent on this point. The plans propose vinyl clad aluminum windows and fine sand 20/30 stucco finish.

Higher quality materials for this architectural style would include hard trowel, smooth finish stucco and either baked enamel aluminum or stained wood windows. To ensure that the quality of materials on the new development is compatible with that of the historic resources, a condition of approval requires the new development to use these materials. Otherwise, the proposed colors and textures of the materials on the Mediterranean-style development are compatible with the historic buildings. In addition, a condition of approval requires windows on the new development to be recessed at least three inches in order to ensure a high quality architectural design that complements the level of architectural design of the historic buildings on the site.

The two story height of the new buildings is compatible with the two story height of the three historic buildings on the site. The new development’s massing and lot coverage are substantially larger, but it is placed on the west half of the site and therefore does not affect the spatial relationship between the main house and carriage house of Rutherglen Terrace or visually overpower the historic buildings from the view of West Cliff Drive.

Proposed landscaping on the site will not affect the site’s historic features as there are no historic landscaping features and no changes are proposed to the circular driveway in front of Rutherglen Terrace. Changes to natural features are limited to the removal of six heritage trees, which are not character-defining features of the historic resource. The site is relatively flat, so the project will not involve substantial grading. Any antennas, satellites, solar equipment, parking, signs, and street furniture will be placed on the west side of the property with the new development and will not affect the northeast side of the property where the historic buildings are located. The proposed lot split will place the historic buildings on a separate lot from that of the proposed development, and the new lot will include setbacks and yards as required by the West Cliff Drive Overlay zone district and consistent with the historic defining features of the buildings.

3. The applicant has demonstrated that the action proposed is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property pursuant to Section 24.08.940; or This finding does not apply as the project is not necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property.

4.180

AGENDA REPORT
HPC Meeting of July 20, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Avenue
Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 9
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\HPC\7-20-22\Eucalyptus 126 CP20-068 HPC report.docx

4. The applicant has demonstrated that denial of the application will result in immediate and substantial economic hardship that denies the applicant the ability to make reasonable beneficial use of the property or the ability to obtain a reasonable return from the property.

This finding does not apply as the applicant has not indicated a desire to assert substantial economic hardship.

Submitted by:

Clara Stanger
Senior Planner
Approved by:

Ryan Bane
Senior Planner
Attachments:

1. Conditions of Approval

2. Historic Project Analysis for 126 Eucalyptus Avenue, prepared by PAST Consultants, LLC, January 7, 2021

3. DPR for 126 Eucalyptus Avenue Dormitory and Classroom Building

4. DPR for 126 Eucalyptus Avenue Refectory Building

5. CEQA exemption checklist pursuant to PRC 21083.3

6. Project Plans

4.181
EXHIBIT "A"

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT ON PROPERTY AT
126 Eucalyptus Avenue – CP20-0068
Historic Alteration Permit to reconfigure five lots into two, demolish two existing school buildings (approx. 28,417 square feet) and construct a 76 unit (including 13 full dwelling units) senior housing facility on a site listed on the historic building survey (Vol. 1, p. 39) in the R-1- 5/WCD-O/CZ-O/SP-O (Single family residence/West Cliff Drive Overlay/Coastal Zone Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay) zone district. This project includes the removal of six Heritage trees.

P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\HPC\8-17-22\126 Eucalyptus\HPC Conditions of Approval_FINAL (clean).docx

1. If one or more of the following conditions is not met with respect to all its terms, then this approval may be revoked.

2. All plans for future construction which are not covered by this review shall be submitted to the City Planning and Community Development Department for review and approval.

3. This permit shall be exercised within three (3) years of the date of final approval or it shall become null and void.

4. The applicant shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. Any errors or discrepancies found therein may result in the revocation of any approval or permits issued in connection therewith.

5. Except as modified by other project conditions contained herein, the development of the site shall be in substantial accordance with the approved plans prepared by CallisonRTKL Inc. dated October 15, 2021 and on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development of the City of Santa Cruz. All aspects of construction must be completed prior to occupancy. Major modifications to plans or exceptions to completion may be granted only by the City authority which approved the project.

6. Final building permit plans shall show the exterior stucco finish to be hard trowel, smooth finish and windows to be stained wood or baked enamel aluminum. Applicant shall submit a window sample and a 10’ x 10’ on-site stucco mock-up for review and approval by Planning staff prior to building permit issuance.

7. Final building permit plans shall show all windows recessed at least three inches.

8. All requirements of the Building, Fire, Public Works and Water Departments shall be completed prior to occupancy and continuously maintained thereafter.

9. Any person exercising a development permit or building permit who, at any time in the preparation for or process of excavating or otherwise disturbing earth, discovers any human remains of any age or any artifact or any other object which reasonably appears to be evidence of an archaeological/cultural resource or paleontological resource, shall:
a. Immediately cease all further excavation, disturbance, and work on the project site;

4.182

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – CP20-0068
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\HPC\8-17-22\126 Eucalyptus\HPC Conditions of Approval_FINAL (revised).docx 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.

10. The applicant and contractor who obtains a building permit for the project shall be required to sign the following statement at the bottom of these historic alteration permit conditions, which will become conditions of the building permit:
“I understand that the subject permit involves a site which is protected under the City’s historic preservation regulations. I intend to perform or supervise the performance of the work allowed by this permit in a manner which does not destroy any of the historic materials on the site beyond what is approved.”
Signature of Contractor Date
Printed Name, Contractor

4.183

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California, 95060

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

ACTION SUMMARY
August 17, 2022
7:00 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, ZOOM WEBINAR Call to Order-The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m.

Roll Call-Commissioners Kusz, Michalak, Narath, Subocz, and Lauritson were present.

Commissioners Bliss and Zwart were absent with notification.

Statements of Disqualification-None.

Oral Communications-None.

Approval of Minutes

1. Approval of the minutes of June 15, 2022.

Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Subocz, seconded by Commissioner Michalak, to approve the minutes of June 15, 2022 with the following changes:

The action taken on Item 5 shall read, ‘After discussion, Chairperson Lauritson created four subcommittees and appointed members as follows:
 Historic Building Survey Volume Four Planning Subcommittee: Bliss, Kusz, Zwart
 Zoning Permit Incentives for Historic Properties Subcommittee: Subocz, Lauritson
 HPC Website Update Committee: Michalak and Lauritson
 Mills Act Subcommittee: Kusz, Lauritson, Subocz’
Additionally, Item 8 is added to Information Items-Update from Ryan Bane about meeting with the Santa Cruz Museum of Art and History (MAH) Director regarding requirements for historic alteration permits for cemetery alterations.

4.184
ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Kusz, Michalak, Narath, Subocz, Lauritson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bliss, Zwart
Public Hearings

2. 126 Eucalyptus Avenue Project Number: CP20-0068 APN: 004-571-02, 004-571- 04 Historic Alteration Permit to reconfigure five lots into two, demolish two existing school buildings (approx. 28,417 square feet) and construct a 76-unit (including 13 full dwelling units) senior housing facility on a site listed on the historic building survey (Vol. 1, p. 39) in the R-1-5/WCD-O/CZ-O/SP-O (Single family residence/West Cliff Drive Overlay/Coastal Zone Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay) zone district. This project includes the removal of six Heritage trees.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Subocz, seconded by Commissioner Narath, to approve the Historic Alteration Permit based on the Findings listed below and the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “A” of the staff report dated July 15, 2022, with the following modification to Condition of Approval Number 6:

Final building permit plans shall show the exterior stucco finish to be hard trowel, smooth finish, and windows to be stained wood or baked enamel aluminum. Applicant shall submit a ten foot by ten-foot sample of the stucco finish proposed and sample windows for review and approval by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Information Items
Subcommittee/Advisory Body Oral Reports
Adjournment-The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.

4.185
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx

PLANNIG COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: September 30, 2022
AGENDA OF: October 6, 2022
ITEM NO: CP20-0068 126 Eucalyptus Avenue & 136 Pelton Ave.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Non-Residential Demolition Authorization Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, Special Use
Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit based on the findings listed below and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A”.

PROJECT DATA
APN: 004-571-02, 004-571-04
Property Owner: Oblates of St. Joseph
Project Applicant: Roger Bernstein
Application Type: Non-Residential Demolition Authorization Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, Special Use Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to reconfigure five lots into two, demolish two existing school buildings (approx. 28,417 square feet), remove six Heritage trees, and construct a 76 unit (including 13 full dwelling units) senior housing facility on a site listed on the historic building survey (Vol. 1, p. 39) and located in the R-1-5/WCD-O/CZO/SP-O (Single Family Residence/West Cliff Drive Overlay/Coastal Zone Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay) zone district.

Zoning: R-1-5 (Single Family Residence), WCD-O (West Cliff Drive Overlay), CZ-O (Coastal Zone Overlay), SP-O (Shoreline Protection Overlay)
Project Consistency: Consistent with the above listed zone districts General Plan: L (Low Density Residential)
Project Consistency: Consistent with the general plan designation Land Use - existing: Church and associated dwellings, vacant school buildings over five lots
- proposed: Lot 1: 3.97 acres. developed with church and associated dwellings Lot 2: 3 acres developed with a 76 unit (13 full dwelling units) senior housing facility
- surrounding: Single family homes (north, west), Shrine of St. Joseph church and Pacific Ocean (east), Lighthouse Field State Park (south) Lot Area: 6.97 acres (303,613 square feet)

4.186

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 2
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx Lot Dimensions: Irregular
Coastal Review: Coastal Permit Required
Environmental Review: Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Class 32 categorical exemption (infill development); and consistent with PRC section
21083.3/CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

Planning Staff: Clara Stanger

PROJECT DESCRIPTION & HISTORY
The project site is located on a 6.97 acre property at the northwest intersection of West Cliff Drive and Pelton Avenue. The site is surrounded by single family homes to the north and west, the Pacific Ocean to the east, and Lighthouse Field State Park to the south.

The project site is comprised of five legal lots with two assessor parcel numbers. The site is currently developed with two residences, a carriage house, the Shrine of St. Joseph church, and two vacant school buildings that were last occupied by the Gateway School and have been vacant for a few years. The two residences, Rutherglen Terrace and the Davis house, are on the northeastern portion of the site and face West Cliff Drive. Rutherglen Terrace and its carriage house were constructed in 1893. The Davis House was constructed in 1912. The Shrine of St.

Joseph Guardian of the Redeemer was constructed in 1951 and was significantly remodeled to the current two-story height and architectural style in 1993. On the west side of the parcel, the twostory school building was constructed in 1961 to provide a dormitory and instruction building for a seminary school operated by the Oblates of St. Joseph. Most recently, it was the home of the Gateway School from 1991 to 2019 and has since been vacant. The one-story educational building, also currently vacant, was moved to the site in approximately 1955 to 1957, from the Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo. The building was used as a meeting hall and then a refectory until 1991 when the Gateway School repurposed it to meet their educational programming needs. The western portion of the site also had several portable classroom buildings that have since been removed.

Several prefabricated shed buildings and a trash enclosure remain from the school use. The site also has several heritage trees, and portions of the northern and southern ends of the site are mapped as potentially sensitive for monarch butterfly habitat under the general plan.

This project proposes to make the following changes to the site:
 Complete a lot line adjustment to reconfigure five lots into two;  Demolish the former Gateway School buildings;
 Remove six heritage sized trees; and
 Construct a 76 unit senior community care facility consisting of 74,218 square feet of floor area in a two story building with associated site improvements.  The units include studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units and include 59 Assisted Living units with a total of 76 beds, 15 Memory Care units with a total of 19 beds, and two inclusionary units with a total of two beds. Eleven of the Assisted Living units and both inclusionary units are full dwelling units.

4.187

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 3
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx Because the project involves demolition of nonresidential buildings over 50 years old, a NonResidential Demolition Authorization Permit is required. A Lot Line Adjustment is required to configure the lot lines on the property. A Design Permit is required for the construction of three or more dwelling units. A Coastal Permit is required as the project site is located within the Coastal Appeal and Exclusion Zone B areas and does not qualify for any exemption or exclusion to Coastal Permit provisions. Because the site is in the Shoreline Protection Overlay Zone District, additional findings regarding the protection of coastal resources must be made. A Heritage Tree Removal permit is required to remove six heritage trees. Finally, the R-1-5 zone district requires a Special Use Permit for approval of community care facilities including retirement homes and nursing homes, and the proposed project falls into this category. Because the project includes a Special Use Permit, it must be approved at a hearing by the Planning Commission. Conditions of approval require the applicant to obtain a Sign Permit prior to installation of a proposed wall sign on the property.

This project also requires a hearing with the Historic Preservation Commission for the Historic Alteration Permit. At the August 17, 2022 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, the commission found that the project is compatible with the existing historic resources on the site and took action to approve the Historic Alteration Permit with a modified condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide window and stucco samples for Planning staff review and approval prior to building permit approval.

Community Outreach
The project is considered a large sized development project requiring community outreach under the Department of Planning & Community Development Community Outreach Policy for Planning Projects. The project applicant hosted two community meetings after pre-application review for the project and prior to formal project submittal. The first community meeting was held in person on March 3, 2020. Approximately 55 members of the public attended the meeting, and feedback from attendees included concerns about the project size, traffic, a service lane and associated potential back-of-house activities across the street from residences on Eucalyptus Avenue, setbacks to residences, unit affordability, and impacts to Heritage trees and monarch butterflies. The applicant subsequently submitted a revised pre-application based on staff comments and community input. The second community meeting was a virtual meeting on May 28, 2020 that focused on the revised design. This meeting was also substantially attended, and comments included concerns about the project size, traffic and parking, construction impacts on the neighborhood, distance from the new building to Eucalyptus Avenue, monarch butterflies, noise from emergency vehicle visits, and the effect of the project on surrounding property values.

It should be noted that the project presented today is substantially smaller than that presented at the community meetings (76 units and two stories versus 100 units and three stories).

ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency
The Housing Element of the general plan recognizes the need for a variety of housing types for special needs groups such as senior citizens and individuals with disabilities and calls for the City to continue providing housing options for such populations. The project is also consistent with several general plan policies that promote housing for senior citizens and those with special needs,

4.188

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 4
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx infill development compatible with the surrounding area, preservation of historical resources, and protection of sensitive biotic resources. These policies include:
 Housing Element Policy 1.1 Provide adequate sites and supporting infrastructure to accommodate housing through land use, zoning, and specific plan designations that encourage a broad range of housing opportunities.
 Housing Element Policy 1.4 Establish and maintain residential development standards that support housing production yet promote the vitality of established neighborhoods.  Housing Element Policy 3.1 Support the development of accessible and affordable senior rental housing readily accessible to support services; provide assistance for seniors to maintain and improve their homes.
 Housing Element Policy 3.5 Increase the supply of permanent, affordable, and accessible housing suited to the independent living needs of persons with disabilities; provide assistance to persons with disabilities to maintain and improve their homes.  Housing Element Policy 3.6 Encourage the integration of special needs housing in residential environments, readily accessible to public transit, shopping, public amenities, and supportive services.
 Housing Element Policy 3.7 Encourage the provision of supportive services for persons with special needs to further the greatest level of independence and equal housing opportunities.
 Housing Element Policy 5.3 Ensure that the character and design of both infill development and remodel/rehabilitation projects promote the vitality of existing neighborhoods.  Housing Element Policy 6.4 Ensure that wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, and sensitive species are protected from the impacts of new residential development.  HA1.8 Protect, encourage, and develop guidelines for restoring and rehabilitating historic or architecturally-significant buildings, sites, and landmarks. Cf. HA1.11, 1.11.1 and CD2.3.2.
 CD5.2 Require new development to include elements that relate to the pedestrian scale. Cf.

CD4.3.1, M1.3.
 LU1.1 Relate residential, commercial, and industrial land use intensities to the capability and location of the land while ensuring optimum utilization of infill parcels.  LU3.1 Foster land use patterns that balance economic, housing, community, and environmental needs, and promote social diversity.
 LU3.11.2 Ensure appropriate land uses and development standards that do not adversely impact adjacent open spaces.
 LU4.1.2 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that infill and intensified development is sensitive to existing neighborhood and business districts.  M3.3.5 Require new development to be designed to discourage through traffic in adjacent neighborhoods and to encourage bicycle or pedestrian connections.  NRC2.2 Protect sensitive habitat areas and important vegetation communities and wildlife habitat, to include riparian, wetland (salt marsh and freshwater wetland), coastal prairie, coastal bird habitat, and habitat that support special status species, as well as, sensitive and edge habitats (“ecotones”). Cf. CD4.3.3, CC3.3.6, and NRC2.1, 2.4, and 6.3.

4.189

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 5
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx The project area has a general plan land use designation of Low-Density Residential, which accommodates single family residential neighborhoods, typically made up of detached homes. The corresponding R-1 zone districts in the zoning ordinance allow additional uses that are compatible with single family residential neighborhoods, such as community care facilities, churches, and bed and breakfasts, as long as approval of a Special Use Permit confirms that the use is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. While the proposed senior housing community care facility is not the typical detached home found in the neighborhood, it is consistent with the neighborhood use envisioned in the general plan and as further defined in the zoning ordinance.

The Low-Density Residential designation allows a residential density range of 1.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre. The project results in two lots with two existing dwellings on the eastern lot (Lot 1) and the new senior housing facility on the western lot (Lot 2). The density of Lot 1 will continue to be less than the density range minimum, however, there remains some development potential on the site that would allow it to be brought up to four units and meet the minimum end of the density range in the future. The new senior housing facility on the western lot has 76 units, of which 13 have full kitchens and meet the definition of “dwelling unit” under the zoning ordinance.

These 13 units have a density of 4.3 dwellings per acre on the three acre lot, falling within the general plan density range.

Biotic Resources
The project site contains small areas mapped as potentially containing sensitive habitat for monarch butterflies under the general plan. In addition, there is a known monarch butterfly habitat area approximately 200 feet to the southwest of the site within Lighthouse Field State Park.

Monarch butterflies are not listed under the state or federal endangered species acts, but they are locally identified as a sensitive species in the general plan. General plan policy-action NRC2.2.1 requires the environmental review for development projects to evaluate and mitigate potential impacts to sensitive habitat and species. General plan policy-action NRC2.4.1 references Table 1 of the Natural Resources and Conservation element, which identifies four broad categories of avoidance and management strategies to be applied to projects where monarch butterflies are present:
 Avoidance – design plans to avoid take of individuals and habitat,  Buffers to maintain suitable habitat conditions,
 Conduct construction activities outside of winter roosting season or develop appropriate mitigation such as buffers to avoid disturbance such as smoke and fumes, and  Management to protect from indirect impacts.

A biotic report prepared by Ecosystems West Consulting Group on April 28, 2022 assessed the presence of monarch butterflies as well as other sensitive species or habitats. The biotic evaluation included several site visits in November 2019 and October through December 2021.

The evaluation found not roosting habitat on the project site and limited potential for roosting habitat in the few of the trees proposed to be retained on the remaining church property; roosting was not observed in those trees during any of the site visits. The Biotic Assessment also concluded that it is not expected that monarchs would use the project site for roosting due to the lack of protection from prevailing wind and other features. The Biotic Assessment and subsequent reviews did not identify direct or indirect project impacts to the known monarch roost

4.190

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 6
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx site, including potential indirect impacts resulting from project lighting and automobile traffic, including vehicle lights. During the site visits, the biologist observed monarch butterflies flying on the project site and nectaring on flowering ornamental plants within maintained gardens on the church property, which will not be disturbed as part of the proposed project. The project’s new landscaping includes species that can provide nectaring value to butterflies visiting the site.

The report recommended measures to implement during project construction consistent with the general plan policy and action calling for these measures. The measures include:
 All roost trees including buffer trees will be retained;  Occupied roosts, including those present in Lighthouse Field, will be buffered by 100 feet;  Daily construction will begin after temperatures are above 55 degrees Fahrenheit, so that butterflies have emerged from nocturnal torpor and are capable of flying and thereby avoiding being displaced by vibrations caused by building demolition, earthmoving, and other construction; and
 Trucks and equipment should enter and exit the site along Pelton Ave from the east towards West Cliff Drive to minimize vibrations and exhaust impacts to the Lighthouse Field roosting sites.

In addition, the biologist reviewed comments and suggestions submitted by the public related to monarch butterfly protection and, as a result, recommended additional measures related to project design, construction, and management that function as “avoidance and management strategies” within the meaning of general plan policy-action NRC2.4.1:
 Prohibit right-turns out of the Pelton Avenue driveway to divert outbound trips east of the existing monarch butterfly grove and avoid casting vehicle headlight glare into the grove.  Require signage prohibiting high beams until drivers are completely on eastbound Pelton Avenue.
 All commercial deliveries shall use the West Cliff driveway for entering and exiting the site at all times.
 Final landscape plan shall locate new trees to avoid excess shading of nectar resources.  All exterior project lighting shall be shielded to contain the light source in a downward direction and avoid glare and illumination of adjacent properties and monarch butterfly grove at Lighthouse Field.
 Provide an onsite water source, such as a fountain, for the monarchs near the nectar gardens.
 Install and maintain predator proof waste bins.
 Eliminate populations of yellow jackets, eastern grey squirrels and rats on the property utilizing non-toxic methods.
 Restrict use of seed feeders that attract eastern grey squirrels and corvids.  Utilize leaf vacuums instead of blowers during maintenance operations.  Prohibit the use of neonicotinoids and other pesticides known to negatively impact monarchs.

4.191

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 7
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx The biotic report did not find the presence of other sensitive or protected species or habitat but recommended additional standard measures to conduct pre-construction surveys and protect nesting birds or roosting bats during construction if present, based on biological review protocols established in general plan policy-action NRC2.4.1 and Table 1.

The recommendations from the biotic report and the above listed recommendations from the biologist’s follow-up review of public comments are included as conditions of approval.

Heritage Trees
The City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance requires approval of a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove a heritage tree, and LCP Policy CD 6.1.1. also calls for projects involving heritage trees to include analysis of impacts and recommendations for maintenance of heritage trees. According to an arborist report prepared by Nigel Belton on July 8, 2020, the project site has 42 trees within or near the area of development. Of these trees, 11 are considered heritage trees with a trunk measuring at least 14 inches in diameter at 54 inches above grade. The arborist report recommended removal of six of the heritage trees:
 Tree 5: a 20.5 inch black acacia tree on the western side of the property near Eucalyptus Avenue that is in a state of decay and presents a hazard due to potential failure,  Tree 8: A 14.5 inch wild plum that is in declining health and also within the construction footprint,
 Tree 24: a 14 inch fruitless mulberry with structural issues and located within the southern area of the construction footprint,
 Tree 25: a 16 inch fruitless mulberry with structural and health issues and located within the southern area of the construction footprint,
 Tree 31: an 18 inch queen palm within the construction footprint, and  Tree 41: a 15.5 inch queen palm within the parking lot footprint.

The report recommended relocation of several trees proposed for removal, including some nonheritage olive trees and the two heritage queen palms. For the trees to be retained, the arborist report included recommendations for protective measures during project construction as well as actions, such as pruning, to preserve tree health. An addendum letter by the arborist dated September 7, 2021 found that while the final project design was somewhat different from the design evaluated in the arborist’s original report, the new design generated the same conclusions and the same heritage trees would need to be removed. The City Urban Forester has reviewed the report and agrees with the recommendations. To meet heritage tree removal standards as well as LCP Policy CD6.1.2, replacement trees will be required at a ratio of either two 24-inch box trees or six 15-gallon trees for each tree to be removed. Conditions of approval require the applicant to follow all recommendations in the arborist report and for the replacement trees species and location to be approved by the City Urban Forester.

Historic and Cultural Resource Review
The site is within an area mapped as sensitive for archaeological resources under the general plan.

General plan policy HA1.2.2 requires projects in this area to include an archaeological investigation that involves both archival research and site reconnaissance. An archaeological

4.192

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 8
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx investigation completed for this project by Albion Environmental dated August 2020 found a very low probability of encountering archaeological resources on the site. A standard condition of approval requires the applicant to stop work and contact the appropriate authorities should any soil disturbing work result in the discovery of an archaeological resource.

Because the project involves demolition of two non-residential buildings that are each more than 50 years old, the applicant submitted a historical evaluation of the two buildings to determine whether they have any historical significance. The evaluation, completed by Page & Turnbull, Inc. on April 19, 2022 on standard State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms found that neither building is eligible for listing on national, state, or local registers and neither rises to the level of significance for the purposes of evaluation for consistency with CEQA.

The Historic Preservation Commission concurred with the evaluation’s conclusion.

Coastal Resources
The project site is located in the Coastal Exclusion Zone B and Coastal Appeal areas of the Coastal Zone Overlay zone district and is also located within the Shoreline Protection Overlay Zone District, which seek to ensure that development protects coastal resources and meets the policies of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCP) and Local Coastal Implementation Program. LCP policy L 1.4 calls on projects to utilize the environmental review process to ensure protection of natural resources, wildlife habitats, archaeologically sensitive areas, and scenic views. The project was evaluated for effects on coastal resources such as biotic resources, potential archaeological resources, visual resources, and coastal access.

Biotic resources at and near the site include heritage trees and monarch butterfly habitat. As discussed in the heritage tree section of this report, the project is consistent with LCP policies CD

6.1.1 and CD 6.1.2, which require review of projects with heritage trees and replacement plantings at a two-to-one ratio. The Local Coastal Program defines the monarch butterfly as a “sensitive species” and includes policies to ensure their protection. Policy EQ 4.5.3 calls for protection of monarch butterfly overwintering habitat and requires development to be adequately buffered from these sites. Policy 4.5.3.2 requires development near monarch butterfly habitat to include an environmental impact analysis and to include management measures to preserve the habitat. As discussed above, the biotic report prepared for the project evaluated the project’s potential impact to monarch butterflies and their adjacent roosting habitat and recommended management measures to ensure protection of the butterflies and the habitat during project construction. A condition of approval requires the applicant to adhere to the report recommendations.

Policy CR 1.2.2 requires projects to evaluate the extent of on-site archaeological and paleontological resources through archival research, site surveys and necessary supplemental testing as part of the initial environmental assessment on each potentially significant site. The project has done this with an archaeological investigation as discussed above, and a standard condition will require the applicant to stop work in the event archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered.

4.193

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 9
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx with the southern end of the site in parking lot and landscaping. This arrangement creates a visual transition to the open space of Lighthouse Field State Park across Pelton Avenue to the south.

Since the new building is west of the existing church and several trees are proposed to be retained on the site, and since the building at 30 feet tall is consistent with the height of buildings in the surrounding area, the view of the development from along the shoreline will be consistent with the view of other buildings in the neighborhood. The area of the project site is also within the viewshed of the Santa Cruz Wharf, which is a designated viewpoint and panorama on LCP Map CD-3:

Scenic Views. The new development may be partially visible from the wharf and will appear consistent with the surrounding area for the same reasons mentioned for the shoreline view.

The project is near several coastal access features shown on Map LCP-6: Coastal Recreation Areas and Access Routes (also shown as Map C-15: Visitor/Coastal Access Routes). According to the map, the site is near the West Cliff Drive, Lighthouse Point, and Cowell Beach coastal recreation areas. The map also designates West Cliff Drive as a coastal access route and identifies two sets of coastal access stairs along West Cliff Drive across the street from the north and south ends of the project site. LCP policy L 3.5.2 requires new development to not interfere with public access to the ocean. The project will provide all required parking on site and does not propose to eliminate existing public parking adjacent to the site. Therefore, the project is not expected to affect any public parking spaces for those wishing to access the coast. In addition, the site does not have an existing public coastal access trail, so the project will not affect pedestrian or bicycle access to the coast. Policies CD 1.4 and L 5.6.2 call for development to maintain and provide public access to adjacent open space and coastal recreation areas. The proposed site plan includes a walkway that extends to the south of the site to the sidewalk along Pelton Avenue, giving residents, staff, and visitors the ability to walk from the site to Lighthouse Field State Park or to West Cliff Drive and the shoreline access stairways. The site plan also includes a pedestrian walkway that connects to the walkway on the church parcel, providing access through that site to West Cliff Drive. Finally, the project itself will make coastal access possible for seniors with limited mobility, a demographic that may otherwise have limited access to this resource.

Design and Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposal meets Design Permit and Special Use Permit requirements for a balanced and harmonious design that is compatible with the surrounding area and that does not cause a nuisance.

While the building is substantially larger than surrounding buildings at 74,218 square feet, it meets the zone district height standard of 30 feet and is two stories tall, a comparable height to the church and residence buildings on the east side of the project site as well as the single family homes in the surrounding area. The building is sited to provide setbacks along Eucalyptus Avenue and Pelton Avenue that exceed the minimum required for the zone district including 29 feet and ranging up to 120 feet where 20 feet are required and 172 feet where 25 feet are required, respectively. The wide setbacks allow for landscaped buffers that reduce the appearance of the building size and make the site more visually pleasing. The building is modulated along the western elevation facing Eucalyptus Avenue to create open courtyards, which softens the visual line of the building and separates the massing into smaller building segments that are more proportional to the size of the surrounding single family homes. The building has a consistent Mediterranean architectural style, with a flat roof throughout; arched entry features; stucco siding; bronze-colored metal rooftop parapet copings, balcony railings, and window frames; and wood balcony trellises and walkway coverings. Terra cotta colored attic vents comprised of three circles

4.194

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 10
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx arranged in a triangular formation add further detail consistent with the architectural style. To ensure a high quality and consistent architectural style throughout the development, conditions of approval require:
 All windows shall be recessed at least three inches,
 Window frames shall be stained wood or baked enamel aluminum,  Stucco shall be hard trowel smooth finish
 Window and stucco samples shall be provided to Planning staff for review and approval prior to building permit approval
 The trash enclosure walls shall have stucco and color to match the building, and the trellis-style roof shall be wood to match the trellis and covered walkway features throughout the site.
 The gate on the southwest side of the building shall be wood and the wall associated with the gate shall either be finished with stucco to match the building or shall be visually obscured with tall vines or other vegetation.

The site plan places the parking and circulation on the south side of the development so that vehicles will enter and exit onto Pelton Avenue. This layout minimizes traffic impacts on Eucalyptus Avenue and the other nearby residential streets. The site layout also places the assisted living and memory care units on the west and north parts of the building while residential amenities such as the cafeteria, exercise room, and salon, and the facility’s operational uses are all located on the southeast side of the building near the church and away from the surrounding single family homes and open space. The applicant has indicated that they expect a maximum of three deliveries per week, including deliveries from a refrigerated box truck. The proposed location of the loading area off Pelton Avenue and minimal expected commercial vehicle trips ensures compatibility with the nearby uses. The memory care portion of the facility has its own kitchen and cafeteria that are located at the northern end of the building and closer to the single family homes north of the project. While this use is not expected to generate any nuisances, standard conditions of approval will ensure that the project will be designed to meet the City’s standards with regard to noise, odor, and air quality, and the project will need to demonstrate conformance with any air quality standards at the time of building permit application. Therefore, the northern kitchen and cafeteria will not create any nuisance features that would impact the adjacent residential uses.

The development includes a 20 foot wide landscaping area between the parking lot and Pelton Avenue, and a landscaping area at least 20 feet wide, but wider in most places, along the Eucalyptus Avenue frontage. The landscaping consists of a variety of trees and shrubs that will add visual interest to the site from the public view. In addition, the northern side of the site will include 12 new trees and retain three heritage sized trees, creating a visual buffer between the project and the existing single family homes to the north.

Zoning Ordinance Site Development Standards
The project must meet several site development standards in the zoning ordinance, including those for the R-1-5 zone district, the West Cliff Drive Overlay zone district, parking standards, and signage standards. The tables and discussion below explain the project’s consistency with the development standards.

4.195

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 11
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx R-1-5 zone district (section 24.10.350) and WCD-O zone district (section 24.10.4230) development standards:

Standard Required Proposed
Lot area 5,000 sq. ft. min. 3.0 acres
Front yard setback (from
Eucalyptus)
Min. 20’ with 25’ for at least
40% of frontage
29’
Interior Side yard setback-first
floor
10’ min. 20’10” (north)
46’2” (south)
Interior Side yard setbacksecond floor15’ min. 20’10” (north) 46’2” (south)
Exterior Side yard setbackfirst floor (from Pelton)20’ min. 172’3” Exterior Side yard setbacksecond floor (from Pelton)25’ min. 172’3” Combined side yard setbacksfirst floorCombined 30% lot width (lot width = 514’, 30% = 154’)
Front of lot: 181’6”*
Mid-depth: 193’
Combined side yard setbackssecond floorCombined 35% lot width (lot width = 514’, 35% = 180’
Front of lot: 181’6”*
Mid-depth: 193’
Rear yard setback (east) 20’min. 20’
Building height-main building 30’ max. 30’*
Number of stories-main
building
2 max. 2
Height - accessory structure 15’ max. 14’6” (porte coche/entry trellis)
12’ (trash enclosure)
Number of stories-accessory 1 max. 1
Side yard setback-accessory Same as main building:

Interior side yard: 10’
Exterior side yard: 15’
Porte coche/entry trellis:
34’4” (interior side yard, west
99’10” (exterior side yard,
south)
Trash enclosure:
44’6” (interior side yard, north)
51’11” (exterior side yard,
south)
Floor area ratio 0.35 max 0.33*
Level of first floor 5’ max above sidewalk 0’ above sidewalk *See discussion
The plans show several features that exceed the 30-foot height limitation.  The elevator enclosure extends to 37’6”in height, and zoning ordinance section 24.12.150.1.e allows this feature to exceed the height limitation.
 An arched architectural feature at the front of the building was originally proposed to extend to 34’8” in height. and did not meet the height limitation. This feature has been reduced to 30’ in height on the final plans; however, it is still shown with the taller height on sheet A-201

4.196

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 12
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx (Building A exterior elevations). A condition of approval will require the building permit plans to show this feature meeting the building height limitation.  The plans show a rooftop trellis that exceeds the maximum allowed building height by 8’7”.

While the plans indicate that this trellis will be used to operate solar PV equipment, the City’s Green Building specialist has concluded that such a structure is not needed as the solar PV can be located directly on the rooftop. Therefore, a condition of approval requires the building permit plans to omit the trellis structure to ensure the building meets the height limitation.  Finally, the plans include a chimney that exceeds the building height by 9’6”. While zoning ordinance section 24.12.150.1.b allows chimneys to exceed the height limitation, the proposed chimney appears to be an architectural feature and not a functioning chimney, given the absence of any associated fireplaces. A condition of approval requires the building permit plans to show the locations of the associated fireplaces, or to remove the chimney feature.

The West Cliff Drive Overlay Zone District requires the combined side yard setbacks for the first floor to be at least 30 percent of the lot width and the combined setbacks for the second floor to be at least 35 percent of the lot width. As the new Lot 2 has the front yard facing Eucalyptus Avenue, the lot width, measured at the mid-point of the lot depth, is 514 feet, and the combined side yard setbacks would need to be a minimum of 154 feet for the first floor and 180 feet for the second floor. Because of the lot’s irregular shape, with the front part of the lot near Eucalyptus Avenue substantially narrower than the rear of the lot, the combined first and second story setbacks of 154’ and 180’ are applied separately in the front portion of the lot and the rear portion of the lot. The development meets the combined setbacks on both portions of the lot, thereby meeting the intent of the West Cliff Drive Overlay Zone District to promote quality residential development that reinforces the residential character north of West Cliff Drive and includes modulation of building forms.

The floor area ratio (FAR) limitation for the West Cliff Drive Overlay Zone District was implemented in order preserve the residential scale and character along the public realm of West Cliff Drive. The project is utilizing a cluster development in order to locate density at the rear of lot to minimize impacts to historic resources and impacts to public views of surrounding open space areas, such as Lighthouse Field, the Santa Cruz Wharf and the Monterey Bay (General Plan policy CD1.4.1 & Residential Densities text). The FAR, defined as the gross floor area divided by the net lot area, has a limitation of no more than 0.35 for lots greater than 12,500 square feet in size. The site as a whole, including the development plus existing buildings on the church property, has an FAR of approximately 0.33, which is within the 0.35 limitation. While the floor area of the proposed building is substantially larger than the single family homes in the area, the height, setbacks, and overall site FAR are within the range of the neighborhood’s established physical development.

Conditions of approval ensure that future development will keep the overall site FAR within this limitation. The result will allow only minimal future development on the portion of the site adjacent to West Cliff Drive, ensuring the site’s consistency with the intent of the zone district and to preserve cultural resources and public viewsheds of open space areas, consistent with the General Plan.

Development within the West Cliff Drive Overlay Zone District must also fit within a building envelope defined under Zoning Ordinance Section 24.10.4230 as “a line beginning at a point six feet above the lowest point along the front property line and extending over the property at an

4.197

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 13
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx angle of 35 degrees from the horizontal plane.” The proposed building fits within this envelope, with the building envelope line intersecting the topmost point of the rooftop parapet.

The West Cliff Drive Overlay Zone District requires landscaping of non-invasive native or drought-tolerant species within the front and exterior side yards, with no more than 35 percent of the front yard and exterior side yard setback areas developed in non-plant materials. The proposed landscaping includes a variety of shrubs and trees that are non-invasive species and have a low to moderate water demand. The front and exterior side yard setbacks comprise 11,514 square feet, and 3,448 square feet, or 30 percent, is in non-planted material, less than the maximum allowed.

Fencing in the West Cliff Drive Overlay Zone District can be up to three and a half feet tall in the front yard setback and conditions of approval are included to ensure that this requirement will be met.

The project meets the zoning ordinance parking requirements as shown in the following table.

Parking Standards, section 24.12.200 et seq.

Standard Required Proposed
Number of spaces Community care facility: 1 per
5 guests plus 1 for each
employee during largest shift:
95 guest beds and 16
employees = 35 spaces
Apartment units: 1 space per
studio or 1-bedroom unit., One
studio and one2 1-bed unit = 2
spaces
Total: 37
42 Number of compact spaces Up to 50% of total provided (21 max.)
19 EV charging stations 12% of total provided, (5
spaces)
5 Bicycle parking: Class 1 1 space per full dwelling (units with kitchens, not assisted
living units) (2 total)
2 Bicycle parking: Class 2 1 space per 4 units dwelling (units with kitchens, but not
assisted living units) (1 total)
1 Parking area in landscaping 10% min. (1,827 square feet) 4,036 square feet Driveway width 20’ min. 26’
Inclusionary Units

4.198

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 14
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx Zoning ordinance section 24.16.020.5a requires a development with five or more rental units to provide 20 percent of those units to low income households at an affordable rent. In this case, 13 of the proposed units have full kitchens and therefore meet the zoning ordinance definition of a dwelling unit. To meet the inclusionary requirement, 20 percent of those units, or two, will be restricted at an affordable rent for low income households. As the applicant has not designated the proposed use of these units, a condition of approval requires the units to be assisted living, independent living, or staff housing.

The City’s inclusionary ordinance, zoning ordinance section 24.16.020, only requires provision of affordable units to a residential development with dwelling units, unless the development is exempt under the ordinance. Thirteen of the proposed living units (11 assisted living units and the two units designated as inclusionary on the plans) have full kitchens (as defined by zoning ordinance section 24.22.372) and therefore meet the definition of “dwelling unit” (as defined by zoning ordinance section 24.22.320), so the 20% inclusionary housing requirement of zoning ordinance section 24.16.020.5 would apply to the 13 full dwelling units. The remainder of the assisted living units and all of the proposed memory care units that do not have full kitchens do not meet the definition of dwelling unit under section 24.22.320 but can be considered congregate care units. Section 24.16.020 does not identify congregate care units as a type of unit that must meet the inclusionary requirements.

Providing congregate/assisted living units as set forth in section 24.16.030 (8) is one of several alternatives/options to meet the City’s inclusionary requirement (such as paying an in-lieu fee), for which the developer would need to submit an application per section 24.16.030(1). Under section 24.16.030.8, the developer “may propose to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements by providing congregate living units or assisted living units.” Only after the developer chooses this option to meet the inclusionary housing requirement by providing congregate/assisted living units would then the subsections under section 24.16.030.8.a-b apply to determine the number of affordable congregate/assisted living units. Similarly, the alternatives to meet the City’s inclusionary requirements include options such as dedication of land or in-lieu fees, but the City does not require applicants to implement these unless requested by the applicant. In this case, the applicant did not propose to utilize section 24.16.030.8 to satisfy the inclusionary requirement, and instead is providing the number of inclusionary units per the standard requirements under 24.16.020. Therefore, the provisions of 24.16.030.8 do not apply.

For clarification, conditions of approval include a requirement that the two inclusionary units must meet the definition of dwelling unit and that units not meeting the “dwelling unit” definition will not be allowed to have full kitchens.

Lot Line Adjustment
The project site is comprised of five lots which the project consolidates into the two resulting lots through a sequential lot line adjustment. While a lot line adjustment can be done with four or fewer parcels, the consolidation of five parcels into two can be done sequentially through lot line adjustments that each involve no more than four lots. The resulting lots are required to meet the minimum lot size and width standards, and buildings on the new lots must meet the setback and FAR standards for the R-1-5 and WCD-O zone districts. The two resultant lots and existing buildings on the lots meet the standards or retain their legal nonconforming status, and the

4.199

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 15
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx buildings meet the new interior side yard setbacks created by the new lot line separating the two lots. The resulting development on the site meets the overall FAR for the project site, and conditions of approval ensure that future development will not exceed this limitation.

Environmental Review
The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under a Statutory Exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with General Plan, Community Plan or Zoning) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Categorical Exemption, Class 32, Infill Development Projects) as explained below. A copy of the Notice of Exemption is attached.

Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 allows a lead agency to avoid repeating analyses that were already provided in a certified general plan EIR for a development project that is consistent with the general plan. Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and its parallel CEQA Guidelines provision, section 15183, provide for streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with the general plan for which an EIR was certified. Subsection (d) further indicates that an effect of a project upon the environment shall not be considered “peculiar to the parcel or to the project…if uniformly applied development policies or standards” have been previously adopted by the city or county, with a finding based upon substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards would not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. Under these provisions of CEQA, the project has been found to be consistent with the General Plan. It has been determined that the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR has adequately addressed most environmental issues related to the project, and some site-specific project impacts have been analyzed and determined to be less than significant due to substantial mitigation resulting from General Plan policies, zoning regulations and/or development standards that are uniformly applied to development projects throughout the City. Therefore, no further environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the project is exempt from further CEQA review. An environmental checklist is attached that provides the explanations and support for this determination.

Additionally, the project is exempt from CEQA review under Class 32 as an infill project. The project qualifies for this exemption because:
 The project is consistent with the general plan designation, applicable general plan policies, the zoning designation, and zoning regulations.
 The development will take place within an area less than five acres on a site substantially surrounded by urban uses. While the entire site is nearly seven acres in size, a large proportion of the property will remain as is and will not be redeveloped. The proposed development area is approximately 3.3 acres, which is less than five acres.  The site has no value for endangered, rare, or threatened species based on results of a biotic resources report prepared for the project.
 The project would not result in significant effects related to traffic vehicle miles traveled (VMT) because the project use (assisted living and memory care facility) is considered non-significant and screened from further review. The project would not result in

4.200

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 16
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx significant effects relating to noise, air quality, or water quality as discussed in the attached CEQA checklist.
 The site will continue to be served by utilities and public services.

None of the exceptions to the exemptions under Section 15300.2 apply to the project in that the project is not part of a larger project that could result in a cumulative impact, there are no unusual circumstances associated with the project or subject parcel, the project will not result in damage to resources associated with an officially designated scenic highway, the project site is not included on any lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code related to Hazardous Waste Sites, and the project will not result in substantial adverse changes in the significance of a historical resource site based on a historical resources evaluation prepared for the project.

Regarding the Potential for ADU’s
Like all multi-family property in the state, this project is entitled to create ADUs in addition to the units proposed as a ministerial action. Up to 25% of the total number of units (for this project, a total of three ADUs for 13 full dwelling units) can potentially be created by converting non-livable space, and up to two New Construction ADUs can also potentially be built – either attached to or detached from the proposed structure.

Health in all Policies (HiAP)
HiAP is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. HiAP is based on 3 pillars:
equity, public health, and sustainability. The goal of HiAP is to ensure that all decision-makers are informed about the health, equity, and sustainability impacts of various policy options during the policy development process. The project supports the pillar of equity by providing assisted living and memory care units on a site in a residential area that is improved with sidewalks, street trees, and that is near recreational areas. The project provides two inclusionary units that will be made available at an affordable rent to low income households for assisted living or independent living seniors or for staff. The project retains several heritage trees and will follow best management practices regarding the protection of nesting birds, roosting bats, and monarch butterflies, promoting sustainability of these natural resources. Therefore, the project is consistent with the three pillars of the HiAP and is recommended as an efficient use of the land.

SUMMARY
The project meets all the required site area standards, and the findings for approval of the NonResidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, Special Use Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit are attached. The proposed development provides housing for seniors with needs for assisted living or memory care, which the general plan seeks to accommodate. The site layout and building are designed to be compatible with nearby sensitive habitat and open space, the adjacent residential neighborhood, and with coastal resources.

Staff recommends approval based on the Findings listed below and the Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit A.

4.201

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 17
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx

FINDINGS
Lot Line Adjustment, Section 23.12.030.1b

1. The parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, zoning and building ordinances; and
The two resulting parcels conform to the general plan in that the existing parcels are below the density range for the Low Density Residential land use designation, the resulting Lot 1 is still below the density range but able to be developed to within the range in the future, and the resulting Lot 2 with the proposed new development is within the density range. The site is not located in the focus area of any specific plan. The two lots conform to the coastal plan in that a lot line adjustment requires a Coastal Permit in the Coastal Appeal Zone, and the project includes a Coastal Permit. The parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment conform to the zoning ordinance in terms of lot size, lot width, street frontage, FAR for existing buildings, and building setbacks. Conditions of approval require the overall site to meet the FAR limitation in the future. The lot line adjustment has been reviewed by the Building division and confirmed to meet California Building Codes.

2. A greater number of parcels than originally existed are not created by the lot line adjustment.

The lot line adjustment results in two lots, which is less than the five lots originally existing before the sequential lot line adjustment.

Special Use Permit, Section 24.08.050

3. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this title, and of the General Plan, relevant area plans, and the Coastal Land Use Plan, where appropriate;
The project is consistent with several general plan policies that promote housing for senior citizens and those with special needs (Housing Element Policy 3.1, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7; LU3.1) infill development that is compatible with the surrounding area (Housing Element Policies 1.1,

1.4, 5.3; LU 1.1; LU3.1; LU4.1.2; CD5.2; M3.3.5), protection of historic resources (HA1.8), and protection of sensitive biotic resources (Housing Element Policy 6.4, LU3.11.2, NRC2.2).

The project area has a general plan land use designation of Low-Density Residential, which accommodates single family residential neighborhoods, typically made up of detached homes. The corresponding R-1 zone districts in the zoning ordinance allow additional uses that are compatible with single family residential neighborhoods, such as community care facilities, churches, and bed and breakfasts, as long as approval of a Special Use Permit confirms that the use is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood.

Therefore, while the proposed senior housing community care facility is not the typical

4.202

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 18
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx detached home found in the neighborhood, it is consistent with the neighborhood use envisioned in the general plan and as further defined in the zoning ordinance.

The Low-Density Residential designation allows a residential density range of 1.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre. The project results in two lots with two existing dwellings on the eastern lot (Lot 1) and the new senior housing facility on the western lot (Lot 2). The density of Lot 1 will continue to be less than the density range minimum; however, some development potential remains on the site that would allow it to be brought up to the density range in the future. The new senior housing facility on the western lot has 76 units, of which 13 have full kitchens and meet the definition of “dwelling unit” under the zoning ordinance.

These 13 units have a density of 4.3 dwellings per acre on the 3 acre lot, falling within the general plan density range.

The project site is not located within the focus area of any area or specific plan.

As conditioned, the project is consistent with the R-1-5 zone district and West Cliff Drive Overlay Zone District development standards and with the parking, signage, and inclusionary unit standards in the zoning ordinance. The following conditions ensure the project meets these standards:
 Final building permit plans shall show the arched architectural feature at the front of the building to be no more than 30 feet in height.
 Final building permit plans shall omit the over-height rooftop trellis feature.  Final building permit plans shall either show fireplaces on the floorplans below and connected to the proposed chimney or shall omit the over-height chimney.  A document (the document type be determined in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office) will be recorded on each of the two new lots ensuring that any future development does not exceed the overall FAR for the project site.  Final building permit plans shall include as-built drawings for all existing buildings on the church parcel in order to precisely calculate the remaining square footage available within the FAR limitation.
 Final building permit plans shall show any wall within the front yard setback to have a height of no more than three and a half feet.
 Applicant shall obtain a Sign Permit and any necessary building permit prior to installing the proposed wall sign.
 Inclusionary units shall be either independent living, assisted living, or staff housing units.

The project is consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and the Local Coastal Implementation Program. LCP policy L 1.4 calls on projects to utilize the environmental review process to ensure protection of natural resources, wildlife habitats, archaeologically sensitive areas, and scenic views. The project was evaluated for effects on coastal resources such as biotic resources, potential archaeological resources, visual resources, and coastal access.

4.203

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 19
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx Biotic resources at and near the site include heritage trees and monarch butterfly habitat. The project is consistent with LCP policies CD 6.1.1 and CD 6.1.2, which require review of projects with heritage trees and replacement plantings at a two-to-one ratio. The Local Coastal Program defines the monarch butterfly as a “sensitive species” and includes policies to ensure their protection. Policy EQ 4.5.3 calls for protection of monarch butterfly overwintering habitat and requires development to be adequately buffered from these sites.

Policy 4.5.3.2 requires development near monarch butterfly habitat to include an environmental impact analysis and to include management measures to preserve the habitat.

The project has done this with an archaeological investigation as discussed above, and a standard condition will require the applicant to stop work in the event archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered.

The LCP calls for preservation of visual resources and especially those associated with open spaces (CD 1.4, CD 2.2.1, L 3.3, L 3.3.4), the shoreline (CD 3.4, LU 1.6), and areas designated by the LCP as scenic viewpoints (L 1.6). The proposed development has the building situated toward the north, with the southern end of the site in parking lot and landscaping. This arrangement creates a visual transition to the Lighthouse Field State Park across Pelton Avenue to the south. Since the new building it is west of the existing church and several trees to be retained on the site, and since the building at 30 feet tall is consistent with the height of buildings in the surrounding area, the view of the development from along the shoreline will be consistent with the view of other buildings in the neighborhood. The area of the project site is also within the viewshed of the end of the Santa Cruz Wharf, which is a designated viewpoint and panorama on LCP Map CD-3: Scenic Views. The new development may be partially visible from the wharf and will appear consistent with the surrounding area for the same reasons mentioned for the shoreline view.

The project is near several coastal access features shown on Map LCP-6: Coastal Recreation Areas and Access Routes (also shown as Map C-15: Visitor/Coastal Access Routes).

Therefore, the project will not affect any public parking spaces for those wishing to access the coast. In addition, the site does not have an existing public coastal access trail, so the project will not affect pedestrian or bicycle access to the coast. Policies CD 1.4 and L 5.6.2 call for development to maintain and provide public access to adjacent open space and coastal

4.204

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 20
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx recreation areas. The proposed site plan includes a walkway that extends to the south of the site to the sidewalk along Pelton Avenue, giving people the ability to walk from the site to Lighthouse Field State Park or to West Cliff Drive and the shoreline access stairways. The site plan also includes a pedestrian walkway that connects to the walkway on the church parcel, providing access through that site to West Cliff Drive. Finally, the project itself will make coastal access possible for seniors with limited mobility, a demographic that may otherwise have limited access to this resource.

4. That any additional conditions stipulated as necessary in the public interest have been imposed;
The following conditions have been applied as they are necessary in the public interest:
 Based on the approved number of parking spaces, the number of employees on site at any given time shall not exceed 21. An increase in the number of employees on the site at a given time shall require approval of a modification to this permit and include an updated site plan to accommodate the increased parking requirement.  Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant, in conjunction with the property owner, shall submit a maintenance and management plan to address potential nuisance impacts associated with interior/exterior areas adjacent to the tenant space outlining measures to address trash/litter removal, graffiti, landscape maintenance, abandoned vehicles, noise and loitering, subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator.
 The management plan shall assign a “Neighbor Liaison” staff to provide a single point of contact between the community care facility and neighbors  The use shall operate in conformance with Chapter 9.36 of the Municipal Code (Noise).
 Any Public/Major Special Events on the premises shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 10.64 of the Municipal Code, with requisite permit applications being filed in accordance with the timelines outlined therein.  Unless otherwise authorized by the City, all parking spaces shall be continuously maintained on the site in a condition that allows access by customers and employees of the use.
 Prior to occupancy of the tenant space, the applicant shall file a trespass letter with the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) in accordance with Santa Cruz Municipal Code section 9.60.012 providing SCPD the authority to remove trespassers on the premises.
 Final building plans shall include security alarms for the building that include motion activation and manual activation capabilities.
 Final building plans shall include exterior security lights that provide 360-degree coverage around the perimeter of all buildings while meeting the performance standards in the Zoning Ordinance.
 Final building plans shall include exterior security cameras that provide 360-degree coverage around the perimeter of all egress and ingress into the building. The security

4.205

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 21
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx camera system shall have the capability to provide the recordings to police within 24 hours. In addition to the exterior security cameras, cameras need to be installed within the business itself and shall cover the doors and windows.  Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall obtain a Zoning Clearance from the Planning Department and a Business License from the Finance Department.  This use permit shall run with the land and shall be transferrable to a subsequent property owner or tenant upon confirmation that the subsequent use is in substantial compliance with the original use as verified through issuance of a Zoning Clearance.  This use permit shall expire and become void if the use has ceased for a period of six consecutive months, whether or not it is the intent to abandon said use.  Except for the stairs leading to the rooftop deck, all stairs leading to the roof shall be locked and accessible by staff only.
 The cafeterias/bar/cafe shall not be open to the public.  The use shall meet the standards and shall be developed within limits established by Chapter 24.14 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code as to the emission of noise, odor, smoke, dust, vibration, wastes, fumes, or any public nuisance arising or occurring incidental to its establishment or operation.
 Inclusionary units shall be designated as either independent living, assisted living, or staff housing.
 Final building permit plans shall show the location, size, height, and content of signage at the Pelton Avenue exit prohibiting right turns onto Pelton and prohibiting the use of high beams until drivers are completely on eastbound Pelton Avenue.  Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a review letter from the project biologist referring to the revision date of the final landscape plans and confirming that the new trees shown on the final landscape plan are located to avoid excess shading of monarch butterfly nectar resources.
 Final building permit plans shall show the location of an onsite water source, such as a fountain, for the monarchs near the nectar gardens.
 Prior to approval of any demolition, grading, or building permit, the applicant shall record in the Santa Cruz County Recorder’s office an access easement from West Cliff Drive across Lot 1 to Lot 2 along the proposed driveway extending across the south end of Lot 1. The easement shall provide for access for all vehicles visiting the site.  Prohibit right-turns out of the Pelton Avenue driveway to divert outbound trips east of the existing monarch butterfly grove and avoid casting vehicle headlight glare into the grove.
 Install and maintain signage prohibiting high beams until drivers are completely on eastbound Pelton Avenue.
 All commercial deliveries shall use the West Cliff driveway for entering and exiting the site at all times.

4.206

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 22
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx  All exterior project lighting shall be shielded to contain the light source in a downward direction and avoid glare and illumination of adjacent properties and monarch butterfly grove at Lighthouse Field.
 Provide and maintain an onsite water source, such as a fountain, for the monarchs near the nectar gardens.
 Install and maintain predator proof waste bins.
 Eliminate populations of yellow jackets, eastern grey squirrels and rats on the property utilizing non-toxic methods.
 Restrict use of seed feeders that attract eastern grey squirrels and corvids.  Utilize leaf vacuums instead of blowers during maintenance operations.  Prohibit the use of neonicotinoids and other pesticides known to negatively impact monarchs.

5. That such use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community; and
The majority of the site will be a residential use that will be compatible with the surrounding residential, church, and open space uses. The site plan has placed operational uses as well as most of the residential amenities at the southeast corner of the building, away from both the surrounding residences and the open space to the south. This distance ensures compatibility with the surrounding uses. The memory care kitchen and cafeteria are located at the northern end of the building, which is closer to the residential uses. The kitchen will be required to meet any air quality standards as part of the building permit. In addition, standard conditions of approval requires the project to meet the performance standards relating to noise, odors, glare, and air pollutants.

6. That all thrift store uses shall include a management plan that identifies collection facilities for donated items, operating hours for donation facilities which discourage unsupervised dropoffs, adequate storage areas for sorting the materials, and provides a plan to properly dispose of unusable items in a timely, secure, and orderly fashion and maintains premises in a clean and attractive condition.

The project does not include a thrift store; therefore, this finding does not apply.

Coastal Permit, Section 24.08.250

7. The hearing body must find that the development is consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and the Local Coastal Implementation Program; The project is consistent with several general plan policies that promote housing for senior citizens and those with special needs (Housing Element Policy 3.1, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7; LU3.1) infill development that is compatible with the surrounding area (Housing Element Policies 1.1,

1.4, 5.3; LU 1.1; LU3.1; LU4.1.2; CD5.2; M3.3.5), protection of historic resources (HA1.8),

4.207

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 23
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx and protection of sensitive biotic resources (Housing Element Policy 6.4, LU3.11.2, NRC2.2).

Therefore, while the proposed senior housing community care facility is not the typical detached home found in the neighborhood, it is consistent with the neighborhood use envisioned in the general plan and as further defined in the zoning ordinance.

The Low-Density Residential designation allows a residential density range of 1.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre. The project results in two lots with two existing dwellings on the eastern lot (Lot 1) and the new senior housing facility on the western lot (Lot 2). The density of Lot 1 will continue to be less than the density range minimum, however, some development potential remains on the site that would allow it to be brought up to the density range in the future. The new senior housing facility on Lot 2 has 76 units, of which 13 have full kitchens and meet the definition of “dwelling unit” under the zoning ordinance. These 13 units have a density of 4.3 dwellings per acre on the 3 acre lot, falling within the density range.

Biotic resources at and near the site include heritage trees and monarch butterfly habitat. The project is consistent with LCP policies CD 6.1.1 and CD 6.1.2, which require review of projects with heritage trees and replacement plantings at a two-to-one ratio. The Local Coastal Program defines the monarch butterfly as a “sensitive species” and includes policies to ensure their protection. Policy EQ 4.5.3 calls for protection of monarch butterfly overwintering habitat and requires development to be adequately buffered from these sites.

Policy 4.5.3.2 requires development near monarch butterfly habitat to include an environmental impact analysis and to include management measures to preserve the habitat.

4.208

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 24
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx The project has done this with an archaeological investigation as discussed above, and a standard condition will require the applicant to stop work in the event archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered.

The LCP calls for preservation of visual resources and especially those associated with open spaces (CD 1.4, CD 2.2.1, L 3.3, L 3.3.4), the shoreline (CD 3.4, L 1.6), and areas designated by the LCP as scenic viewpoints (L 1.6). The proposed development has the building situated toward the north, with the southern end of the site in parking lot and landscaping. This arrangement creates a visual transition to the Lighthouse Field State Park across Pelton Avenue to the south. Since the new building is west of the existing church and several trees are proposed to be retained on the site, and since the building at 30 feet tall is consistent with the height of buildings in the surrounding area, the view of the development from along the shoreline will be consistent with the view of other buildings in the neighborhood. The area of the project site is also within the viewshed of the Santa Cruz Wharf, which is a designated viewpoint and panorama on LCP Map CD-3: Scenic Views. The new development may be partially visible from the wharf and will appear consistent with the surrounding area for the same reasons mentioned for the shoreline view.

The project is near several coastal access features shown on Map LCP-6: Coastal Recreation Areas and Access Routes (also shown as Map C-15: Visitor/Coastal Access Routes).

According to the map, the site is near the West Cliff Drive, Lighthouse Point, and Cowell Beach coastal recreation areas. The map also designates West Cliff Drive as a coastal access route and identifies two sets of coastal access stairs along West Cliff Drive across the street from the north and south ends of the project site. LCP policy L 3.5.2 requires new development does not interfere with public access to the ocean. The project will provide all required parking on site and does not propose to eliminate existing public parking adjacent to the site. Therefore, the project is not expected to affect any public parking spaces for those wishing to access the coast. In addition, the site does not have an existing public coastal access trail, so the project will not affect pedestrian or bicycle access to the coast. Policies CD 1.4 and L 5.6.2 call for development to maintain and provide public access to adjacent open space and coastal recreation areas. The proposed site plan includes a walkway that extends to the south of the site to the sidewalk along Pelton Avenue, giving people the ability to walk from the site to Lighthouse Field State Park or to West Cliff Drive and the shoreline access stairways. The site plan also includes a pedestrian walkway that connects to the walkway on the church parcel, providing access through that site to West Cliff Drive. Finally, the project itself will make coastal access possible for seniors with assistance needs, a demographic that may otherwise have limited access to this resource.

8. Maintain views between the sea and the first public roadway parallel to the sea; The site is located on the inland side of West Cliff Drive, which is the first public road parallel to the sea, and therefore will not obstruct any views between the road and the sea.

4.209

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 25
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx

9. Protect vegetation, natural habitats and natural resources consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan;
Biotic resources at and near the site include heritage trees and monarch butterfly habitat. The project is consistent with LCP policies CD 6.1.1 and CD 6.1.2, which require review of projects with heritage trees and replacement plantings at a two-to-one ratio. The Local Coastal Program defines the monarch butterfly as a “sensitive species” and includes policies to ensure their protection. Policy EQ 4.5.3 calls for protection of monarch butterfly overwintering habitat and requires development to be adequately buffered from these sites.

Policy 4.5.3.2 requires development near monarch butterfly habitat to include an environmental impact analysis and to include management measures to preserve the habitat.

The biotic report prepared for the project evaluated the project’s potential impact to monarch butterflies and their adjacent roosting habitat and recommended management measures to ensure protection of the butterflies and the habitat during project construction. The report also included standard protection measures for nesting birds and roosting bats. A follow up biotic review of public comments received regarding the monarch butterfly habitat included several additional recommendations to protect and manage the butterflies. Conditions of approval require the applicant to adhere to the report recommendations and to the follow up recommendations that are consistent with the LCP and general plan.

10. Be consistent with any applicable design plans and/or area plans incorporated into the Local Coastal Land Use Plan;
The site is not located within the focus area of any design or area plan; therefore, this finding does not apply.

11. Maintain public access to the coast along any coastline as set forth in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan;
The site does not contain any existing coastal access way, although people parking on the street adjacent to the site may do so in order to access the coast. The project will provide all required parking on site and will not eliminate existing public parking adjacent to the site.

Therefore, the project is not expected to affect any public parking spaces for those wishing to access the coast. The project is near several coastal access features shown on Map LCP6: Coastal Recreation Areas and Access Routes (also shown as Map C-15: Visitor/Coastal Access Routes). According to the map, the site is near the West Cliff Drive, Lighthouse Point, and Cowell Beach coastal recreation areas. The map also designates West Cliff Drive as a coastal access route and identifies two sets of coastal access stairs along West Cliff Drive across the street from the north and south ends of the project site. The proposed site plan includes a walkway that extends to the south of the site to the sidewalk along Pelton Avenue, giving people the ability to walk from the site to Lighthouse Field State Park or to West Cliff Drive and the shoreline access stairways. The site plan also includes a pedestrian walkway that connects to the walkway on the church parcel, providing access through that site to West Cliff Drive.

4.210

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 26
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx

12. Be consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan goal of providing visitor-serving needs as appropriate;
The site is designated for residential development and not for development for visitor-serving needs, and visitor-serving uses are not proposed; therefore, this finding does not apply.

13. Be consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan goal of encouraging coastal dependent uses as appropriate.

The project site is not located in an area designated for coastal dependent industries, and the project does not propose a coastal dependent use; therefore, this finding does not apply.

Shoreline Protection Overlay District Review Criteria, Section 24.10.2430

14. Protect trees and vegetation and sensitive wildlife habitat.

Policy 4.5.3.2 requires development near monarch butterfly habitat to include an environmental impact analysis and to include management measures to preserve the habitat.

15. Be consistent with the following criteria for bluff or cliff development:
a. The development is sited and designed to assure stability and structural integrity of its expected economic life span and minimize alterations to natural land forms.

The project site does not include any coastal bluffs or cliffs; therefore, this finding does not apply.
b. The development will not create or contribute significantly to problems of erosion or geologic instability on the site or on surrounding geologically hazardous areas.

4.211

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 27
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx The site is not located on a cliff or bluff; therefore, this finding does not apply. c. The development minimizes alteration of cliffs, bluff tops, faces or bases, and will not interfere with sand movement.

The project site is not located on a cliff, bluff top, face, or base, and is not located on the beach; therefore, this finding does not apply.
d. The development which proposes use of retaining walls shall be allowed only to stabilize slopes. Sea walls at the toe of sea cliffs to check marine erosion shall be allowed only where there is no less environmentally damaging alternative.

The proposed project does not include any retaining walls or sea walls; therefore, this finding does not apply.
e. The development within one hundred feet of any cliff or bluff line shall follow the recommendations of an approved geologic report by a registered geologist.

The area where such a report is required may be increased where the issue of slope stability requires a greater distance from any cliff or bluff line.

The proposed improvements are not within 100 feet of a cliff or bluff; therefore, this finding does not apply.

16. Provide maximum erosion protection, using accepted engineering practices and other methods and specifications set forth in this title.

During construction, the project proposes and will be required to follow Best Management Practices with regard to erosion and storm water control.

17. Maintain public view corridors between the sea and the first public roadway parallel to the sea and maintain natural views of the coastline; The site is located inland from West Cliff Drive, the first public road parallel to the sea, and therefore will not obstruct any public views of the coastline from that road.

18. Protect paleontological resources as prescribed in the Land Use Plan; A condition of approval requires the applicant to stop work and contact the proper authorities should any earth-disturbing work result in the discovery of a paleontological resource.

19. Protect and enhance free public access to or along the beach, and sign such access when necessary;
The site does not contain any existing public coastal access way, although people parking on the street adjacent to the site may do so in order to access the coast. The project will provide all required parking on site and will not reduce the number of existing public parking adjacent

4.212

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 28
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx to the site. Therefore, the project is not expected to affect public parking spaces for those wishing to access the coast. The project is near several coastal access features shown on Map LCP-6: Coastal Recreation Areas and Access Routes (also shown as Map C-15:

Visitor/Coastal Access Routes). According to the map, the site is near the West Cliff Drive, Lighthouse Point, and Cowell Beach coastal recreation areas. The map also designates West Cliff Drive as a coastal access route and identifies two sets of coastal access stairs along West Cliff Drive across the street from the north and south ends of the project site. The proposed site plan includes a walkway that extends to the south of the site to the sidewalk along Pelton Avenue, giving people the ability to walk from the site to Lighthouse Field State Park or to West Cliff Drive and the shoreline access stairways. The site plan also includes a pedestrian walkway that connects to the walkway on the church parcel, providing access through that site to West Cliff Drive.

20. Include mitigation measures prescribed in any applicable environmental document; The project is exempt from CEQA review and therefore does not have an environmental document with mitigation measures. Conditions of approval require the project to follow recommended standard measures provided by the biotic, arborist, and archaeological consultants to protect resources consistent with the general plan, the LCP, and the zoning ordinance.

21. Be compatible with the established physical scale of the area; The proposed building is two stories and meets or exceeds all required setbacks for the West Cliff Drive Overlay zone district. The northern portion of the building is set back 56 feet from Eucalyptus Avenue, providing a substantial buffer between the building and the nearby residential buildings. When the site is considered as a whole, the development plus existing buildings on the church property have an FAR of approximately 0.33, within the 0.35 limitation. Conditions of approval ensure that future development will keep the overall site FAR within this limitation. While the floor area of the proposed building is substantially larger than the single family homes in the area, the height, setbacks, and overall site FAR are within the range of the neighborhood’s established physical development.

22. Be consistent with the design review guidelines of this title and the policies of any applicable area plan;
The development meets the findings for a Design Permit in that the building has a comparable height to buildings in the surrounding area; the building’s large setbacks, modulated walls, and generous landscaping create a buffer to the street and soften the visual line of the building, the Mediterranean architectural style with proposed detailing and as conditioned create a high quality architectural design; the placement of amenities away from existing homes minimizes any impacts on those homes; the proposed setbacks ensure solar access and privacy for the residences to the north; and the site will blend in with the surrounding area from the viewpoint of the wharf, a designated panorama viewpoint in the general plan.

The site is not located within the focus area of any area plan.

4.213

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 29
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx

23. Be consistent with the policies of the Local Coastal Program, the General Plan, and the California Coastal Act.

Policy 4.5.3.2 requires development near monarch butterfly habitat to include an environmental impact analysis and to include management measures to preserve the habitat.

4.214

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 30
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx The project is near several coastal access features shown on Map LCP-6: Coastal Recreation Areas and Access Routes (also shown as Map C-15: Visitor/Coastal Access Routes).

Therefore, the project is not expected to affect any public parking spaces for those wishing to access the coast. In addition, the site does not have an existing public coastal access trail, so the project will not affect pedestrian or bicycle access to the coast. Policies CD 1.4 and L

5.6.2 call for development to maintain and provide public access to adjacent open space and coastal recreation areas. The proposed site plan includes a walkway that extends to the south of the site to the sidewalk along Pelton Avenue, giving people the ability to walk from the site to Lighthouse Field State Park or to West Cliff Drive and the shoreline access stairways.

The site plan also includes a pedestrian walkway that connects to the walkway on the church parcel, providing access through that site to West Cliff Drive. Finally, the project itself will make coastal access possible for seniors with limited mobility, a demographic that may otherwise have limited access to this resource.

The project is consistent with several general plan policies that promote housing for senior citizens and those with special needs (Housing Element Policy 3.1, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7; LU3.1) infill development that is compatible with the surrounding area (Housing Element Policies 1.1,

1.4, 5.3; LU 1.1; LU3.1; LU4.1.2; CD5.2; M3.3.5), protection of historic resources (HA1.8), and protection of sensitive biotic resources (Housing Element Policy 6.4, LU3.11.2, NRC2.2).

The Low-Density Residential designation allows a residential density range of 1.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre. The project results in two lots with two existing dwellings on the eastern lot (Lot 1) and the new senior housing facility on the western lot (Lot 2). The density of Lot 1 will continue to be less than the minimum of the range; however, there remains some development potential on the site that would allow it to be brought up to the density range in the future. The new senior housing facility on the western lot has 76 units, of which 13 have full kitchens and meet the definition of “dwelling unit” under the zoning ordinance. These 13 units have a density of 4.3 dwellings per acre on the 3 acre lot, falling within the density range.

4.215

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 31
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx The project is consistent with the California Coastal Act.

Design Permit, Section 24.08.430

24. The site plan and building design are consistent with design and development policies of the General Plan, any element of the General Plan, and any area plan, specific plan, or other city policy for physical development. If located in the Coastal Zone, the site plan and building design are also consistent with policies of the Local Coastal Program.

1.4, 5.3; LU 1.1; LU3.1; LU4.1.2; CD5.2; M3.3.5), protection of historic resources (HA1.8), and protection of sensitive biotic resources (Housing Element Policy 6.4, LU3.11.2, NRC2.2).

The Low-Density Residential designation allows a residential density range of 1.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre. The project results in two lots with two existing dwellings on the eastern lot (Lot 1) and the new senior housing facility on the western lot (Lot 2). The density of Lot 1 will continue to have a density less than the minimum of the range; however, there remains some development potential on the site that would allow it to be brought up to the density range in the future. The new senior housing facility on the western lot has 76 units, of which 13 have full kitchens and meet the definition of “dwelling unit” under the zoning ordinance. These 13 units have a density of 4.3 dwellings per acre on the 3 acre lot, falling within the density range.

The project site is not located within the focus area of any area or specific plan.

4.216

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 32
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx  Final building permit plans shall omit the over-height rooftop trellis feature.  Final building permit plans shall either show fireplaces on the floorplans below and connected to the proposed chimney or shall omit the over-height chimney.  Prior to approval of any demolition, grading, or building permit, the applicant shall execute and record in the Santa Cruz County Recorder’s office a covenant or deed restriction, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, documenting that Lot 2 shall not be approved for any additional Floor Area Ratio.
 Final building permit plans shall include as-built drawings for all existing buildings on the church parcel in order to precisely calculate the remaining square footage available within the FAR limitation.
 Final building permit plans shall show any wall within the front yard setback to have a height of no more than three and a half feet.
 Applicant shall obtain a Sign Permit and any necessary building permit prior to installing the proposed wall sign.
 Inclusionary units shall be either independent living, assisted living, or staff housing units.

Policy 4.5.3.2 requires development near monarch butterfly habitat to include an environmental impact analysis and to include management measures to preserve the habitat.

The biotic report prepared for the project evaluated the project’s potential impact to monarch butterflies and their adjacent roosting habitat and recommended management measures to ensure protection of the butterflies and the habitat during project construction. A follow up biotic review of public comments received regarding the monarch butterfly habitat included several additional recommendations to protect and manage the butterflies. Many of these are consistent with LCP and general plan policies regarding monarch butterfly habitat.

Conditions of approval require the applicant to adhere to the report recommendations and to the follow up recommendations that are consistent with the LCP and general plan.

The project has done this with an archaeological investigation as discussed above, and a

4.217

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 33
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx standard condition will require the applicant to stop work in the event archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered.

The project is near several coastal access features shown on Map LCP-6: Coastal Recreation Areas and Access Routes (also shown as Map C-15: Visitor/Coastal Access Routes).

25. For non-residential projects, the project’s location, size, height, operations, and other significant features and characteristics are compatible with and do not adversely affect or further degrade adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood, or the public health, safety, and welfare. For residential projects, the project complies with the objective standards and requirements of the zoning district in which it is located, as well as any objective standards of any area plan or other regulatory document that applies to the area in which the project is located.

4.218

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 34
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx The proposal is a residential project but also has operational characteristics as it is a residential care facility. The development is adjacent to single family residences to the north and west, a church to the east, and the Lighthouse Field State Park open space to the south.

The development meets the required setbacks of the West Cliff Drive Overlay Zone District and exceeds the setbacks from Eucalyptus Avenue and Pelton Avenue, creating a substantial buffer between the development and the residential uses on Eucalyptus Avenue as well as the open space and monarch butterfly habitat south of Pelton Avenue. The new building is 74,218 square feet, substantially larger than the surrounding church buildings and single family homes. However, as the project site is nearly seven acres in size, the overall FAR is still within the maximum 0.35 allowed in the West Cliff Drive Overlay Zone District, and the size is therefore consistent with the FAR of surrounding development. The proposed building is two stories and 30 feet tall and is consistent with the height of the surrounding single family homes and adjacent church buildings. The site layout places the delivery and back-of-house operations area on the west side of the lot, adjacent to the church site and away from the residential uses to the north and west and the natural area to the south. This placement ensures compatibility with the neighborhood. As conditioned, the project complies with the applicable objective standards of the R-1-5 and West Cliff Drive Overlay zone districts and the objective standards of the zoning ordinance parking and signage regulations. The project site is not located within an area plan.

26. For non-residential projects, the project provides for an arrangement of uses, buildings, structures, open spaces, and other improvements that are compatible with the scale and character of the adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhood.

The proposal is a residential use but has some operational characteristics. The site layout places the delivery and back-of-house operations area on the west side of the lot, adjacent to the church site and away from the residential uses to the north and west and the natural area to the south. This placement ensures compatibility with the neighborhood. The kitchen and cafeteria associated with the memory care facility is not expected to generate nuisance features and will be required to meet the zoning ordinance’s performance standards with regard to noise, odors, and fumes.

27. The exterior design and appearance of buildings and structures and the design of the site plan shall be compatible with design and appearance of other existing buildings and structures in neighborhoods which have established architectural character worthy of preservation.

The development is located on a site that is listed on volume 1, page 39 of the City’s Historic Building Survey for the two historic residential buildings facing West Cliff Drive. The historic building survey identifies the architectural styles and pertinent design features on the buildings. While the new development has a Mediterranean architectural style, which is different from that of the historic buildings, the quality of the design will ensure compatibility with the historic resources. To meet this end, conditions of approval require windows to be recessed at least three inches, stucco to be hard trowel, smooth finish, and windows to be stained wood or baked enamel aluminum. The Historic Preservation Commission heard the

4.219

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 35
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx item on August 17, 2022 to evaluate potential impacts on the historic resources and voted 6- 0-1 in favor of the development.

28. Design of the site plan respects design principles in terms of maintaining a balance of scale, form and proportion, using design components which are harmonious, and materials and colors which blend with elements of the site plan and surrounding areas.

Location of structures takes into account maintenance of public views; rooftop mechanical equipment is incorporated into roof design or screened from public rightsof-way to the extent possible. Utility installations such as trash enclosures, storage units, traffic-control devices, transformer vaults and electrical meters are accessible and screened.

While the building is quite large at 74,218 square feet, it maintains a balance of scale, form, and proportion in several ways. The building is two stories and 30 feet tall, a comparable height to the church and residence buildings on the east side of the project site as well as the single family homes in the surrounding areas. The building is sited to provide setbacks along Eucalyptus Avenue and Pelton Avenue that exceed the minimum required for the zone district including 29 feet and ranging up to 120 feet where 20 are required and 172 feet where 25 feet are required, respectively. The site plan includes substantial landscaping with many trees and shrubs to buffer the building and shows a conceptual layout. A condition of approval requires detailed landscape plans submitted for building permit review to include the number, size, and location of each plant. The building is modulated to create open courtyards, which softens the visual line of the building and separates the massing into smaller building segments that are more proportional to the size of single family homes. The building has a consistent Mediterranean architectural style, with a flat roof throughout; arched entry features; stucco siding; bronze-colored metal rooftop parapet copings, balcony railings, and window frames; and wood balcony trellises and walkway coverings. Terra cotta colored attic vents comprised of three circles arranged in a triangular formation add further detail consistent with the architectural style. To ensure a high quality and consistent architectural style throughout the development, conditions of approval require:
 All windows shall be recessed at least three inches,
 Window frames to be stained wood or baked enamel aluminum,  Stucco shall be hard trowel smooth finish
 The trash enclosure walls shall have stucco and color to match the building, and the trellis-style roof shall be wood to match the trellis and covered walkway features throughout the site.
 The gate on the southwest side of the building shall be wood and the wall associated with the gate shall either be finished with stucco to match the building or shall be visually obscured with tall vines or other vegetation.
 Any rooftop elevator enclosure shall have the same exterior finish as the building.

The proposed development may be partially visible from the end of the wharf, which is designated as a panoramic view in Figure 4.3-1: Significant Views/Features of the general plan EIR. Because the building is two stories tall, because it is behind the church building from the view of the wharf, and because there are several large trees on the church property

4.220

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 36
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx that will further screen the view of the building, it will blend in with the view of the existing development along the cliff from the perspective of the wharf.

A condition of approval requires building permit plans to show the height of rooftop mechanical equipment and to include sight lines to confirm whether the equipment is visible from the public right of way. Any screening needed to shield the equipment from the pedestrian view shall be screened with a color that matches the building color. The proposed transformer is located near the back of the parking area but would be visible from Pelton Avenue, so a condition of approval requires the southern and western sides of the transformer to be screened with landscaping. The plans include several water backflow prevention devices along the Eucalyptus Avenue frontage. A condition of approval requires landscaping between the backflows and the sidewalk to screen the public view of the backflows. A standard condition of approval requires all other utility installations and mechanical equipment to be accessible and screened.

29. Where a site plan abuts, or is in close proximity to, uses other than that proposed, the plan shall take into account its effect on other land uses. Where a nonresidential use abuts or is in close proximity to a residential use, the effect of the site plan should maintain the residential quality of adjacent or nearby areas.

The project site is surrounded by single family homes to the north and west, the church property to the east, and Lighthouse Field State Park to the south. The non-residential uses, such as back of house operations and deliveries, are located on the east side of the building and away from the residential uses, ensuring these activities will not affect the quality of the residential neighborhood. The proposed building exceeds the setbacks along Eucalyptus Avenue and Pelton Avenue, creating a landscaped buffer between the development and the residences on Eucalyptus Avenue as well as the open space and monarch butterfly habitat south of Pelton Avenue. The use is not anticipated to generate any nuisance features that would interfere with the residential uses, the open space, or the day-to-day activities of the adjacent church. To further discourage parking for the project along Eucalyptus Avenue and other nearby residential streets, a condition of approval requires the east-west pedestrian walkway directly north of 112 Eucalyptus Avenue to be omitted, with the landscape plan showing this area fully landscaped. To ensure a compatible relationship with the property at 112 Eucalyptus, which is directly adjacent to the project and closer to the parking, amenity, and operational uses than the other single family homes in the area, the following conditions of approval apply:
 Applicant shall plant the proposed landscaping trees adjacent to the northern and eastern property lines of 112 Eucalyptus Avenue as early as practicable during the construction cycle.
 An additional arbor shall be constructed over the four parking spaces at the northwest corner of the parking lot. The arbor shall either be a continuation of the arbor in front of the building or shall be separated from that arbor by at least six feet. The arbor design and materials shall match that of the arbor in front of the building.  The western balcony wall at unit 236 shall have a privacy screen that extends to six feet above the floor of the balcony. The privacy screen color shall match the building.

4.221

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 37
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx  Final landscaping plans shall show additional vegetation between the northeastern corner of 112 Eucalyptus Avenue and the southwestern corner of the balcony for unit 236. The additional vegetation shall have a mature height to contribute to visual screening between the balcony and 112 Eucalyptus Avenue.

30. To the extent feasible, the orientation and location of buildings, structures, open spaces and other features of the site plan maintain natural resources including significant trees and shrubs, minimize impacts to solar access of adjacent properties, and minimize alteration of natural land forms; building profiles, location, and orientation must relate to natural land forms.

The arborist report prepared by Nigel Belton on July 8, 2020 and update letter dated September 7, 2021 indicated the presence of 11 heritage trees and recommend removal of six of those trees. Of the six trees, the report recommended removal of one acacia due to poor health, two queen palms that are in good health but within the construction footprint, and three (a plum and two fruitless mulberry trees) with structural or health issues that are also within the construction footprint. Due to the size of the project, it is not feasible to re-orient the buildings to accommodate the two palms, which are the healthy trees, without substantially reducing the amount of open space facing Eucalyptus Avenue or affecting the project’s ability to meet the setback or height development standards. The City Urban Forester has reviewed the report and agrees with the recommendation. To meet Heritage tree removal standards as well as Coastal Policy CD6.1.2, replacement trees will be required at a ratio of either two 24-inch box trees or six 15-gallon trees for each tree to be removed.

Conditions of approval require the applicant to follow all recommendations in the arborist report and for the replacement trees species and location to be approved by the City Urban Forester.

The project site contains areas mapped as potentially containing sensitive habitat for monarch butterflies under the general plan. In addition, there is a known monarch butterfly habitat area approximately 200 feet to the southwest of the site within Lighthouse Field State Park.

A biotic report prepared by Ecosystems West Consulting Group on April 28, 2022 observed monarch butterflies flying on the project site and utilizing some flowering plants for nectaring. The report indicated that while some of these plants will be removed for the project, the project’s new landscaping includes species that can provide nectaring value to butterflies visiting the site. The report found no roosting habitat on the project site and limited potential for roosting habitat in the trees on the remaining church property, and roosting was not observed on the property during any of the site visits. The report recommended standard measures to prevent any impacts to monarch butterflies during project construction. The report did not find the presence of other protected species or habitat but recommended additional standard measures to protect nesting birds or roosting bats during construction. A follow up biotic review of public comments received regarding the monarch butterfly habitat included several additional recommendations to protect and manage the butterflies.

Conditions of approval require the applicant to adhere to the report recommendations and to the follow up recommendations that are consistent with the LCP and general plan. The site is also within the area affected by the Planning Department’s bird- safe building design standards, and a condition of approval requires the project to meet these standards.

4.222

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 38
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx The shadow study submitted with the plans show that the site will not cast shade on adjacent properties during the summer months. On December 21st, when the shadows are anticipated to be the longest, the project will shade the back ends of the three houses at 103, 105, and 107 Manor Place at 9am, will not shade these houses at 12 noon, and will cast shade on the rear corner of the house at 103 Manor Place at 3pm. The shadow study showed that shadows will not reach the houses on Eucalyptus Avenue or shade buildings on the church property at any time between 9am and 3pm. Therefore, the proposal does not affect solar access to the surrounding properties. The project site is generally flat, and the proposed development will not change that landform.

31. The site plan ensures that the scale, bulk, and setbacks of new development preserves important public views along the ocean and of designated scenic coastal areas. Where appropriate and feasible, the project shall restore and enhance visual quality of visually degraded areas.

The site is on the inland side of West Cliff Drive and therefore will not affect public views of the ocean or other scenic coastal areas. The site is somewhat visually degraded as the existing school buildings are vacant and the site therefore is not maintained to its greatest potential. The new Mediterranean style building and ample landscaping will enhance the visual quality of the site and improve its visual compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

32. The site plan shall reasonably protect against external and internal noise, vibration and other factors which may tend to make the environment less desirable. The site plan should respect the need for privacy of adjacent residents.

Any noise or vibrations that may occur as a result of construction are temporary; once constructed, the units within the proposed senior housing and care facility will not cause any noise, vibrations, or other factors beyond those normally associated with a multi-family development that would make the environment less desirable. The residential amenities are all located at the southwestern end of the building, away from the existing single family homes in the area. The laundry facility and staff break room are in a small basement area that will not impact any residential uses. The memory care portion of the facility includes a kitchen, pantry, and dining room on the northern end of the building. While this is closer to the single family homes than other amenities, the kitchen will be required to meet any air quality standards associated with exhaust fumes as part of building permit approval. Adjacent residents with potential privacy impacts include the three single family homes to the north of the proposed development. The second floor of the development has six memory care units along the north end of the building with windows and balconies facing the north. All elements of these units, including the balconies, meet or exceed the minimum 15 foot second floor interior side yard setback, and the wall of the building is set back 20 feet. This distance is typical of, or greater than, what would occur for single family development. A standard sized residential lot in the West Cliff Drive Overlay Zone District would have a minimum seven and a half foot interior side yard setback or a minimum 20 foot rear yard setback.

Therefore, the proposal has similar privacy impacts on adjacent properties to what would be

4.223

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 39
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx expected with any kind of development in this neighborhood. In addition, the project will retain three heritage trees along the northern side of the property and plant 12 new trees along this side, which will help to create a visual buffer between the memory care units and the residences to the north. To ensure a sense of privacy for the single family home at 112 Eucalyptus, which is directly adjacent to the project and closer to the parking, amenity, and operational uses than the other single family homes in the area, the following conditions of approval apply:
 Applicant shall plant the proposed landscaping trees adjacent to the northern and eastern property lines of 112 Eucalyptus Avenue as early as practicable during the construction cycle.
 An additional arbor shall be constructed over the four parking spaces at the northwest corner of the parking lot. The arbor shall either be a continuation of the arbor in front of the building or shall be separated from that arbor by at least six feet. The arbor design and materials shall match that of the arbor in front of the building.  The western balcony wall at unit 236 shall have a privacy screen that extends to six feet above the floor of the balcony. The privacy screen color shall match the building.  Final landscaping plans shall show additional vegetation between the northeastern corner of 112 Eucalyptus Avenue and the southwestern corner of the balcony for unit 236. The additional vegetation shall have a mature height to contribute to visual screening between the balcony and 112 Eucalyptus Avenue.

33. Building and structures shall be designed and oriented to make use of natural elements such as solar radiation, wind, and landscaping for heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting.

The new building includes windows on all four elevations to allow light and air to pass through the building. Units have porches or balconies, giving residents access to private open space with fresh air and sunlight. Outdoor areas are landscaped and designed as useable open spaces for residents to spend time outdoors. Seven of the 11 heritage trees on the site will be retained, including two that will be removed and relocated on site, and the landscaping plan proposes several new trees that will provide shade. Ample landscaping throughout the site creates a natural cooling effect.

Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Section 24.08.1230.3

34. The cultural resources evaluation is accepted as accurate and complete; and the cultural resources evaluation concludes that the building or structure is not eligible for listing on the city historic building survey.

The historic evaluation of the two school buildings to be demolished, completed by Page & Turnbull, Inc. on April 19, 2022 on standard State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms, found that neither building is eligible for listing on national, state, or local registers and they do not rise to the level of significance for the purposes of evaluation for consistency with CEQA. The evaluation is accurate and complete.

4.224

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 40
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx

35. The project which will replace the demolished building or structure has been, or is concurrently being, approved by the city, and an appropriate building permit has been, or is concurrently being, issued; unless some other practical hardship can be documented rendering this requirement inappropriate.

The project also includes approval of a new residential senior care facility in the location of the existing buildings. A condition of approval requires the building permit to be issued concurrently with the demolition permit consistent with section 24.08.1230 of the zoning ordinance.

36. The property owner has been advised of the benefits of listing the property on the city historic building survey and incorporating the preservation of the historic resource into the proposed project.

The buildings to be demolished are not eligible for listing on the historic building survey; therefore, this finding does not apply.

37. The cultural resources evaluation determines that the resource is eligible for listing on the city historic building survey, appropriate environmental review has been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the zoning administrator can make a finding of overriding consideration that the replacement project will have public benefits which will outweigh the impact of loss of the historic resource.

The buildings to be demolished are not eligible for listing on the historic building survey; therefore, this finding does not apply.

Submitted by:

Clara Stanger
Senior Planner
Approved by:

Samantha Haschert
Principal Planner
Attachments:

1. Exhibit “A” – Conditions of Approval

2. Project plans

3. Biotic report prepared by Ecosystems West Consulting Group dated April 28, 2022

4. Biotic follow up review of public comments submitted for September 1, 2022 Planning Commission meeting

5. Arborist report prepared by Nigel Belton dated July 8, 2020

6. Arborist addendum letter by Nigel Belton dated September 7, 2021

7. Archaeological report by Albion Environmental dated August 2020

4.225

AGENDA REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2022
SUBJECT: 126 Eucalyptus Ave. – Project No. CP20-0068
PAGE 41
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Staff Report.docx

8. Historic DPR for Dormitory and Classroom Building by Page & Turnbull, Inc. dated April 19, 2022

9. Historic DPR for Refectory Building by Page & Turnbull, Inc. dated April 19, 2022

10. CEQA exemption checklist pursuant to PRC 21083.3 dated 9-30-22

11. CEQA Notice of Exemption dated 9-29-22

12. Stormwater Control Plan for Watermark Santa Cruz Senior Housing by Ifland Engineers dated October 2021

13. Traffic study by Keith Higgins dated November 11, 2021

14. Public Notice Radius Map

15. Public correspondence for September 1, 2022 Planning Commission meeting

16. Public correspondence received after the September 1, 2022 Planning Commission meeting

4.226
EXHIBIT "A"

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT ON PROPERTY AT
126 Eucalyptus – CP20-0068
Non-Residential Demolition Authorization Permit, Sequential Lot Line Adjustment, Special Use Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to reconfigure five lots into two, demolish two existing school buildings (approx. 28,417 square feet), remove six Heritage trees, and construct a 76 unit (including 13 full dwelling units) senior housing facility on a site listed on the historic building survey (Vol. 1, p. 39) in the R-1-5/WCD-O/CZ-O/SP-O (Single family residence/West Cliff Drive Overlay/Coastal Zone Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay) zone district. (Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption & PRC/CEQA section 21083.3/15183) P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Exhibit A Conditions of Approval.docx

1. If one or more of the following conditions is not met with respect to all its terms, then this approval may be revoked.

2. All plans for future construction which are not covered by this review shall be submitted to the City Planning and Community Development Department for review and approval.

3. This permit shall be exercised within three (3) years of the date of final approval or it shall become null and void. When a building permit is required, a zoning permit shall be considered exercised following the issuance of a valid building permit. When only an occupancy permit is required, a zoning permit shall be considered exercised when the occupancy permit is issued.

4. If, upon exercise of this permit, this use is at any time determined by the Planning Commission to be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, revocation of, or amendment to, this permit by the Planning Commission could occur.

5. The use shall meet the standards and shall be developed within limits established by Chapter

24.14 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code as to the emission of noise, odor, smoke, dust, vibration, wastes, fumes or any public nuisance arising or occurring incidental to its establishment or operation.

6. The applicant shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. Any errors or discrepancies found therein may result in the revocation of any approval or permits issued in connection therewith.

7. All final working drawings shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval in conjunction with building permit application. The plans submitted for building permits shall have the same level of articulation, detailing, and dimensionality as shown in the approved plans. All approved exterior finishes and materials shall be clearly notated on the building permit plans.

8. The applicant and contractor who obtains a building permit for the project shall be required to sign the following statement at the bottom of these conditions, which will become conditions of the building permit:
“I understand that the subject permit involves construction of a building (project) with an approved Design Permit. I intend to perform or supervise the performance of the work allowed by this permit in a manner which results in a finished building with the same level of detail, articulation, and dimensionality shown in the plans

4.227

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 126 Eucalyptus Ave – CP20-0068
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Exhibit A Conditions of Approval_FINAL_clean.docx submitted for building permits. I hereby acknowledge that failure to construct the building as represented in the building permit plans, may result in delay of the inspections process and/or the mandatory reconstruction or alteration of any portion of the building that is not in substantial conformance with the approved plans, prior to continuation of inspections or the building final.”
Signature of Building Contractor Date

9. The development of the site shall be in substantial accordance with the approved plans submitted and on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development of the City of Santa Cruz. All aspects of construction must be completed prior to occupancy. Major modifications to plans or exceptions to completion may be granted only by the City authority which approved the project.

10. All refuse and recycling activities during construction shall be done in accordance with Chapter

6.12 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code. Be aware that private companies offering refuse or debris box services are not allowed to operate within the City limits, except under certain limited circumstances detailed in Chapter 6.12.160.

11. All requirements of the Building, Fire, Public Works, Housing, and Water Departments shall be completed prior to occupancy and continuously maintained thereafter.

12. Adequate provisions shall be made to supply water to each of the premises covered by this application. The design of water facilities shall be to standards of the Water Department, and plans therefore must be submitted to the Water Department Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.

13. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include electric vehicle charging stations as required per Section 24.12.241 of the Zoning Ordinance.

14. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall show all exterior site lighting locations and fixture details. All exterior building lighting shall be shielded and contained in a downward direction. No exterior lighting shall produce off-site glare.

15. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application and will be reviewed by both the Planning Department and Water Department.

The landscape and irrigation plans shall demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the City’s Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance in Chapter 16.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code prior to issuance of the building permit.

16. All landscaping shall be installed prior to final utility release or issuance of occupancy permits.

17. All trees shall be a minimum 15-gallon size.

4.228

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 126 Eucalyptus Ave – CP20-0068
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Exhibit A Conditions of Approval_FINAL_clean.docx

18. Bike parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 24.12.250-252 of the City's Zoning Ordinance.

19. All utilities and transformer boxes shall be placed underground in accordance with the provisions of Section 24.12.700 through 24.12.740 of the Zoning Ordinance.

20. A drainage plan shall be submitted in conjunction with application for building permits.

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

22. Grading shall be done during periods of dry weather and protective measures shall be incorporated during grading to prevent siltation from any grading project halted due to rain.

23. Prior to site grading or any disturbance all trees and/or tree stands indicated for preservation or approved plans shall be protected through fencing or other approved barricade. Such fencing shall protect vegetation during construction and shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development.

24. All new mechanical equipment and appurtenances, including gas and water meters, electrical boxes, roof vents, air conditioners, antennas, etc. visible from the public way and from adjacent properties, shall be screened with material compatible with the materials of the building and shall be subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator.

25. Final colors shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to application for building permits.

26. The owner shall comply with the inclusionary housing requirements as outlined in Section

24.16.010 et seq. of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, two units shall be provided to low income households at an affordable rent. The inclusionary units shall be either assisted living, independent living, or staff housing, and each inclusionary unit shall meet the definition of a dwelling unit per SCMC section 24.22.320, including a full kitchen. A Participation Agreement establishing compliance with inclusionary housing requirements shall be entered into prior to building permit issuance and recorded prior to final occupancy of the first unit.

4.229

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 126 Eucalyptus Ave – CP20-0068
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Exhibit A Conditions of Approval_FINAL_clean.docx

27. Construction activity resulting in a land disturbance of one acre or more, or less than one acre but part of a larger common plan of development or sale must obtain the Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit. Construction activity includes clearing, grading, excavation, stockpiling, and reconstruction of existing facilities involving removal and replacement. Construction activity does not include routine maintenance such as, maintenance of original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility.

28. The applicant shall be responsible for filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and for developing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to commencement of any soil disturbing activities at the site.

Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the City with proof of coverage under the state’s Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit, including a copy of the letter of receipt and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number issued by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB) that acknowledges the property owner’s submittal of a complete Notice of Intent (NOI) package.

29. Since the storm water BMP facility “SCM F” will be located on a separate adjacent parcel owned by Oblates of St. Joseph, the following shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the Building Permit:
a. Proof of a recorded land use agreement for the storm water BMP “SCM F” area including Watermark access and maintenance rights, and flow into the existing Oblates of St. Joseph storm drain line.
b. The recorded land use agreement shall be referenced on the Site Plan sheet, Sheet AS-100, and applicable Civil sheets including Sheet C1.1. If a final Lot Line Adjustment map, e.g. Sheet LLA1.0, is submitted with the Building Permit application, plans shall reference the land use agreement for the Watermark access and maintenance rights to the storm water BMP “SCM F” area. c. A signed Agreement between the Watermark Project and the Oblates of St.

Joseph regarding the storm water BMP “SCM F” area including Watermark access and maintenance rights. Since “SCM F” flows into an existing storm drain line on Church property, the Agreement shall include access and maintenance of that line from the point of connection to ensure that SCM F functions as designed long-term.
d. A drainage easement shall be recorded upon transfer of either Lot 1 or Lot 2 such that the owner of Lot 1 is not one and the same as the owner of Lot 2.

30. The property owner and/or project applicant agree(s) as a condition and in consideration of the approval of this discretionary development permit that it will, pursuant to agreement and/or statutory provisions as applicable, including but not limited to Government code Section 66474.9, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Santa Cruz or its agents, officials, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officials, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval, which action is brought within the time period provided for under law, including but not limited to, Government Code Section 66499.37, as applicable. The property owner and/or project

4.230

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 126 Eucalyptus Ave – CP20-0068
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Exhibit A Conditions of Approval_FINAL_clean.docx applicant will reimburse the City for any court costs and attorney’s fees, which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of such action; but such participation shall not relieve the property owner and/or project applicant of these obligations under this condition. An agreement to this effect shall be recorded upon demand of the City Attorney or concurrent with the issuance of building permits, use of the property, filing of the final map, whichever occurs first and as applicable. The City shall promptly notify the property owner and/or project applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. If the City fails to promptly notify the property owner and/or project applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense thereof, the property owner and/or project applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify or hold the City harmless.

31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the Park and Recreation Facility Tax pursuant to Chapter 5.72 of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code based on the final building permit plans.

32. The demolition permit to demolish the two school buildings shall be issued concurrently with the building permit for the new development consistent with section 24.08.1230 of the zoning ordinance.

33. Applicant shall implement all recommendations from the biotic report prepared by Ecosystems West Consulting Group dated April 28, 2022.

34. If project site work occurs anytime during the months of November through August, the applicant shall submit a pre-construction survey report by the project biologist prior to the start of work. The survey shall be completed as described in the biotic report prepared by Ecosystems West Consulting Group dated April 28, 2022, the survey shall be completed no more than seven days before the start of any project activities on the site and shall include observations of any nesting activities on the site. Site work may commence once the Planning Department has accepted the report and confirmed that there are no nesting birds on the site or that nesting birds are present and an appropriate buffer zone has been recommended by the biologist and physically established on the site.

35. Prior to the start of any project work on the site, the applicant shall submit a preconstruction roosting bat survey as described in the biotic report prepared by Ecosystems West Consulting Group dated April 28, 2022. If bats are found, the survey report shall include the appropriate measures described in the biotic report. These measures shall be implemented during project work.

36. The applicant shall follow all recommendations of the arborist report dated July 8, 2020 by Nigel Belton.

37. The applicant shall retain Nigel Belton as the project arborist to ensure the recommended measures from the report are implemented correctly. A change in project arborist shall require prior approval by the City Urban Forester.

4.231

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 126 Eucalyptus Ave – CP20-0068
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Exhibit A Conditions of Approval_FINAL_clean.docx

38. Final building permit plans shall show the new locations of the two heritage trees recommended by the arborist report for relocation. Applicant shall submit a review letter from the project arborist confirming approval of the new locations.

39. The applicant shall plant replacement trees at a ratio of two 24-inch box trees or six 15-gallon trees, or pay a comparable in lieu fee, as required by the City Urban Forester, for each heritage tree removed. If replacement trees are required, the final building permit plans shall include a replacement tree plan showing the number, size, species, and location of the replacement trees.

The plan shall be approved by the City Urban Forester prior to building permit approval.

40. Prior to building permit final, the applicant shall submit a follow up letter from the project arborist confirming that all recommendations from the arborist report have been implemented.

41. The following shall be shown on the final building permit plans:
 All windows shall be recessed at least three inches
 Window frames shall be stained wood or baked enamel aluminum.  Stucco shall be hard trowel smooth finish.
 The trash enclosure walls shall have stucco and color to match the building, and the trellisstyle roof shall be wood to match the trellis and covered walkway features throughout the site.
 The gate on the southwest side of the building shall be wood and the wall associated with the gate shall either be finished with stucco to match the building or shall be visually obscured with tall vines or other vegetation.
 All references to the second-story arched architectural feature at the front of the building shall show its height to be no more than 30 feet.
 The rooftop trellis shall be omitted from the plans.
 Floorplans shall either show fireplaces on the floors directly below and connected to the chimney or shall omit the chimney feature.
 The height of the apparent wall feature within the front yard setback at the benches south of the meditation area next to memory care building shall be indicated and shall be no more than three and a half feet.
 The rooftop elevator enclosure shall have an exterior finish the same as the building.  Plans shall show the height of rooftop mechanical equipment and shall include sight lines to confirm whether the equipment is visible from the public right of way. Plans shall include any screening needed to shield the equipment from the pedestrian view. Color of such screening shall match the building color.
 Landscaping plans shall show plantings on the southern and western sides of the transformer with a height to screen the view of this equipment from the public right of way on Pelton Avenue. Plans shall indicate the number, species, and size of proposed plantings.  Landscape plans shall show plantings between the backflows and the sidewalk on Eucalyptus Avenue with a height to screen the view of this equipment from the public right of way. Plans shall indicate the number, species, and size of proposed plantings.  Landscape plans shall indicate the number, species, size, and location of proposed plants.  Site plan shall indicate the square footage available on Lot 1 for future development within the FAR limitation.

4.232

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 126 Eucalyptus Ave – CP20-0068
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Exhibit A Conditions of Approval_FINAL_clean.docx  Inclusionary units shall be designated as either independent living, assisted living, or staff housing.
 The east-west pedestrian walkway adjacent to 112 Eucalyptus Avenue shall be omitted, and the landscape plan shall show this area fully landscaped.  An additional arbor shall be constructed over the four parking spaces at the northwest corner of the parking lot. The arbor shall either be a continuation of the arbor in front of the building or shall be separated from that arbor by at least six feet. The arbor design and materials shall match that of the arbor in front of the building.
 Building permit plans shall include visual screening on the west side of the balcony at unit 236. The screening shall extend the entire length of the western face of the balcony, shall reach a height of at least six feet from the floor of the balcony, and shall fully obscure the view to and from that side of the balcony. The screening shall be in the form of a continuation of the building wall finished the same as the building wall, or lattice and/or landscaping plants that create a fully obscure visual screen. Lattice shall be compatible with the exterior building materials and colors. If landscaping is used for screening, it shall be maintained in good condition to continuously provide full visual obscurity.Final landscaping plans shall show additional vegetation between the northeastern corner of 112 Eucalyptus Avenue and the southwestern corner of the balcony for unit 236. The additional vegetation shall have a mature height to contribute to visual screening between the balcony and 112 Eucalyptus Avenue.  Final building permit plans shall show how the project meets the bird-safe building design standards.
 Final building permit plans shall show the location, size, height, and content of signage at the Pelton Avenue exit prohibiting right turns onto Pelton and prohibiting the use of high beams until drivers are completely on eastbound Pelton Avenue.  Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a review letter from the project biologist referring to the revision date of the final landscape plans and confirming that the new trees shown on the final landscape plan are located to avoid excess shading of monarch butterfly nectar resources.
 Final building permit plans shall show the location of an onsite water source, such as a fountain, for the monarchs near the nectar gardens.

42. The approved project contains 13 dwelling units with kitchens as defined under zoning ordinance sections 24.22.320 and 24.22.272. Final building permit plans shall show sink dimensions and sink drain diameters, refrigerator sizes, and any other proposed appliances for each unit, including both the proposed dwelling units and units not proposed to meet the definition of dwelling unit. Units that do not meet the definition of dwelling unit shall not contain food preparation fixtures or appliances that would meet the definition of a kitchen. A change in the number of dwelling units would require approval of a permit to modify this approved permit, and all applicable standards, including, but not limited to, inclusionary housing requirements and general plan density limitations, shall apply.

43. Prior to building permit issuance, applicant shall submit a copy of the lease agreement for new tenants. The lease agreement shall include language limiting the size and number of appliances for the units that are not considered dwelling units to ensure they do not meet the

4.233

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 126 Eucalyptus Ave – CP20-0068
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Exhibit A Conditions of Approval_FINAL_clean.docx definitions of a dwelling unit with kitchen under zoning ordinance sections 24.22.320 and

24.22.372.

44. Applicant shall submit a window sample and a 10’ x 10’ on-site stucco mock-up for review and approval by Planning staff prior to building permit issuance.

45. Pursuant to Section 66412(d) of the California Government Code the following requirements have been imposed in order for the lot-line adjustment to conform with the City's Zoning and Building Ordinances, or to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements:
 The lot line adjustment shall be recorded as a sequential lot line adjustment, with each lot line adjustment involving no more than four lots;
 For each sequential lot line adjustment, a new property description shall be recorded with the County Recorder's office and a copy of the recorded description provided to the City Planning Department. The deed(s) of conveyance must contain the following statement after the description of the property(ies) or portion(s) of property to be transferred:
"The purpose of the deed is to adjust the boundary between Lots [insert lots here] as approved by the City of Santa Cruz under Application CP20-0068. This conveyance may not create a separate parcel and is null and void unless the boundary is adjusted as stated."

46. The sequential lot line adjustment shall be recorded prior to approval of any demolition, grading, or building permit.

47. Prior to approval of any demolition, grading, or building permit, the applicant shall record in the Santa Cruz County Recorder’s office a land use agreement requiring:
 That commercial deliveries take access from West Cliff Drive,  That refuse service vehicles be allowed to take access from West Cliff Drive,  That access is allowed to stormwater treatment and drainage facilities on Lot 1 for maintenance and repair purposes,
 That an easement for commercial and refuse service vehicles be recorded upon transfer of either Lot 1 or Lot 2 such that the owner of Lot 1 is not one and the same as the owner of Lot 2.

48. Prior to approval of any demolition, grading, or building permit, the applicant shall execute and record in the Santa Cruz County Recorder’s office a covenant or deed restriction, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, documenting that allowable density shall be calculated across the entire Project site (Lot 1 and Lot 2), and notifying any future owners that development potential shall be shared between Lot 1 and Lot 2 and that any additional remaining density below the otherwise maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio for the site shall be allocated to Lot 1.

49. Prior to approval of any demolition, grading, or building permit, the applicant shall execute and record in the Santa Cruz County Recorder’s office a covenant or deed restriction, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, documenting the remaining floor area square footage available for development on Lot 1. The square footage shall be calculated as the total

4.234

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 126 Eucalyptus Ave – CP20-0068
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Exhibit A Conditions of Approval_FINAL_clean.docx remaining square footage available within the allowed Floor Area Ratio for the entire site when counting existing construction on Lot 1 and the approved Project on Lot 2.

50. Final building permit plans shall include as-built drawings for all existing buildings on Lot 1 to precisely calculate the remaining square footage available for development within the Floor Area Ratio limitation.

51. Prior to installing the wall sign shown as S03 on the plans, applicant shall obtain a Sign Permit for the proposed wall sign and a building permit to install the sign.

52. Prior to building permit application, applicant shall pay any outstanding fees due for this permit.

53. Applicant shall plant the proposed landscaping trees adjacent to the northern and eastern property lines of 112 Eucalyptus Avenue as early as practicable during the construction cycle.

54. Prior to the demolition of any building, applicant shall complete any testing and removal of asbestos and lead-based paint as required by MBARD.

55. Construction activities shall be in conformance with Chapter 9.36 of the Municipal Code (Noise). Prior to the start of site work, applicant shall notify the neighbors of work schedules and provide a contact and process for neighbors to submit complaints regarding noise.

56. Operational conditions:
 Based on the approved number of parking spaces, the number of employees on site at any given time shall not exceed 21. An increase in the number of employees on the site at a given time shall require approval of a modification to this permit and include an updated site plan to accommodate the increased parking requirement.  Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant, in conjunction with the property owner, shall submit a maintenance and management plan to address potential nuisance impacts associated with interior/exterior areas adjacent to the tenant space outlining measures to address trash/litter removal, graffiti, landscape maintenance, abandoned vehicles, noise and loitering, subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator.  The management plan shall assign a “Neighbor Liaison” staff to provide a single point of contact between the community care facility and neighbors  The use shall operate in conformance with Chapter 9.36 of the Municipal Code (Noise).  Any Public/Major Special Events on the premises shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 10.64 of the Municipal Code, with requisite permit applications being filed in accordance with the timelines outlined therein.
 Unless otherwise authorized by the City, all parking spaces shall be continuously maintained on the site in a condition that allows access by customers and employees of the use.
 Prior to occupancy of the tenant space, the applicant shall file a trespass letter with the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) in accordance with Santa Cruz Municipal Code section 9.60.012 providing SCPD the authority to remove trespassers on the premises when closed to the public.

4.235

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 126 Eucalyptus Ave – CP20-0068
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Exhibit A Conditions of Approval_FINAL_clean.docx  Final building plans shall include security alarms for the building that include motion activation and manual activation capabilities.
 Final building plans shall include exterior security lights that provide 360-degree coverage around the perimeter of all buildings while meeting the performance standards in the Zoning Ordinance.
 Final building plans shall include exterior security cameras that provide 360-degree coverage around the perimeter of all egress and ingress into the building. The security camera system shall have the capability to provide the recordings to police within 24 hours. In addition to the exterior security cameras, cameras need to be installed within the business itself and shall cover the doors and windows.  Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall obtain a Zoning Clearance from the Planning Department and a Business License from the Finance Department.  This use permit shall run with the land and shall be transferrable to a subsequent property owner or tenant upon confirmation that the subsequent use is in substantial compliance with the original use as verified through issuance of a Zoning Clearance.  This use permit shall expire and become void if the use has ceased for a period of six consecutive months, whether or not it is the intent to abandon said use.  Except for the stairs leading to the rooftop deck, all stairs leading to the roof shall be locked and accessible by staff only.
 The cafeterias/bar/cafe shall not be open to the public.  Prohibit right-turns out of the Pelton Avenue driveway to divert outbound trips east of the existing monarch butterfly grove and avoid casting vehicle headlight glare into the grove.
 Install and maintain signage prohibiting high beams until drivers are completely on eastbound Pelton Avenue.
 All commercial deliveries shall use the West Cliff driveway for entering and exiting the site at all times.
 All exterior project lighting shall be shielded to contain the light source in a downward direction and avoid glare and illumination of adjacent properties and monarch butterfly grove at Lighthouse Field.
 Provide and maintain an onsite water source, such as a fountain, for the monarchs near the nectar gardens.
 Install and maintain predator proof waste bins.
 Eliminate populations of yellow jackets, eastern grey squirrels and rats on the property utilizing non-toxic methods.
 Restrict use of seed feeders that attract eastern grey squirrels and corvids.  Utilize leaf vacuums instead of blowers during maintenance operations.  Prohibit the use of neonicotinoids and other pesticides known to negatively impact monarchs.

57. The facility may hold no more than six special events per year that result in staffing levels greater than the limit imposed in these conditions. Prior to building permit final, the applicant shall record in the Santa Cruz County Recorder’s Office a land use agreement describing an off-site parking and transportation plan to accommodate additional vehicle trips associated with these events.

4.236

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 126 Eucalyptus Ave – CP20-0068
P:\_Public\PACKETS\2022\PC\2022-10-6\126 Eucalyptus\Exhibit A Conditions of Approval_FINAL_clean.docx

58. To the extent permitted by the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department, a more substantial traffic control device shall be installed to prevent vehicles from making a right turn when exiting the facility onto Pelton Avenue. The device shall be included on final building permit plans.

59. The solar panel trellis shall be retained on building permit plans; Condition 42, point 7 regarding removal of the trellis shall be deleted.

60. The Planning Commission determines, based on substantial evidence, that the project includes congregate living units or assisted living units, and the following alternative requirements shall apply: 15% of congregate care or assisted living units shall be made available at affordable rent to low income households.

61. The applicant shall consult with a butterfly ecologist in preparing the landscaping and lighting plans to make every effort to make the landscape and lighting support a thriving monarch butterfly population. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by planning staff during building permit review.

4.237

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes
Regular Meeting
October 6, 2022
7:00 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, ZOOM WEBINAR Call to Order-The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m.

Roll Call-Commissioners Kennedy, Maxwell, Mesiti-Miller, Schiffrin, and Greenberg were present. Commissioners Conway and Dawson were absent with notification.

Statements of Disqualification-None.

Approval of Minutes

1. Approval of the minutes of September 1, 2022
MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffrin, seconded by Commissioner Maxwell, to approve the minutes of September 1, 2022.

ACTION: The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Maxwell, Schiffrin, Greenberg
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Kennedy, Mesiti-Miller
ABSENT: Conway, Dawson
Public Hearings

2. 126 Eucalyptus Ave and 136 Pelton Ave, Santa Cruz CA Project Number: CP20- 0068 Non-Residential Demolition Authorization Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, Special Use Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to reconfigure five lots into two, demolish two existing school buildings (approx. 28,417 square feet), remove six Heritage trees, and construct a 76 unit (including 13 full dwelling units) senior housing facility on a site listed on

4.238
the historic building survey (Vol. 1, p. 39) and located in the R-1-5/WCD-O/CZO/SP-O (Single Family Residence/West Cliff Drive Overlay/Coastal Zone Overlay/Shoreline Protection Overlay) zone district. This project requires a Coastal Permit which is appealable to the California Coastal Commission after all possible appeals are exhausted through the City.

Senior Planner Clara Stanger presented the item to the Commission.

The public hearing was opened.

Applicant Shannon Rusk addressed the Commission.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Ralph Meyberg, Unidentified speaker, Anne Segal, Kathy (last name not given), Noelle (last name not given), Bill Henry, Fr. Matthew Spencer, Russ Weisz, Jessie Bristow, Jeannine Sacco, Bill Barnes, Dennis Reagan, Frannie Bradley, Shawn Medved, Lisa Glick, Bryan Schachter, Berri Michel, Gillian Greensite The public hearing was closed.

MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffrin, seconded by Commissioner Maxwell, to acknowledge the environmental determination and approve the Non-Residential Demolition Authorization Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, Special Use Permit, Coastal Permit, Design Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit based on the findings listed below and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A” of the staff report dated September 30, 2022, with the following modifications:

Condition of Approval Number 29 is modified to read:

Since the storm water BMP facility “SCM F” will be located on a separate adjacent parcel owned by Oblates of St. Joseph, the following shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the Building Permit:
a. Proof of a recorded drainage easement land use agreement for the storm water BMP “SCM F” area including Watermark access and maintenance rights, and flow into the existing Oblates of St. Joseph storm drain line. b. The recorded drainage easement land use agreement shall be shown referenced on the Site Plan sheet, Sheet AS-100, and applicable Civil sheets including Sheet C1.1. If a final Lot Line Adjustment map, e.g.

Sheet LLA1.0, is submitted with the Building Permit application, plans shall show the drainage easement reference the land use agreement for the Watermark access and maintenance rights to the storm water BMP “SCM F” area.
c. A signed Agreement between the Watermark Project and the Oblates of St. Joseph regarding the storm water BMP “SCM F” area including Watermark access and maintenance rights. Since “SCM F” flows into an existing storm drain line on Church property, the Agreement shall include access and maintenance of that line from the point of connection to ensure that SCM F functions as designed long-term.

4.239
d. A drainage easement shall be recorded upon transfer of either Lot 1 or Lot 2 such that the owner of Lot 1 is not one and the same as the owner of Lot 2.

Condition of Approval Number 30 listed in Exhibit A of the staff report dated September 30, 2022, is deleted.

A recorded parking easement or signed Agreement between Watermark and the Oblates of St. Joseph Church shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the Building Permit. for the 8 additional parking spaces proposed to be constructed on the adjacent parcel owned by Oblates of St. Joseph Church.

Condition of Approval Number 42, 19th point is modified to read:

1. The following shall be shown on the final building permit plans:
 All windows shall be recessed at least three inches
 Window frames shall be stained wood or baked enamel aluminum.  Stucco shall be hard trowel smooth finish.
 The trash enclosure walls shall have stucco and color to match the building, and the trellis-style roof shall be wood to match the trellis and covered walkway features throughout the site.  The gate on the southwest side of the building shall be wood and the wall associated with the gate shall either be finished with stucco to match the building or shall be visually obscured with tall vines or other vegetation.
 All references to the second story arched architectural feature at the front of the building shall show its height to be no more than 30 feet.
 The rooftop trellis shall be omitted from the plans.
 Floorplans shall either show fireplaces on the floors directly below and connected to the chimney or shall omit the chimney feature.  The height of the apparent wall feature within the front yard setback at the benches south of the meditation area next to memory care building shall be indicated and shall be no more than three and a half feet.
 The rooftop elevator enclosure shall have an exterior finish the same as the building.
 Plans shall show the height of rooftop mechanical equipment and shall include sight lines to confirm whether the equipment is visible from the public right of way. Plans shall include any screening needed to shield the equipment from the pedestrian view. Color of such screening shall match the building color.  Landscaping plans shall show plantings on the southern and western sides of the transformer with a height to screen the view of this equipment from the public right of way on Pelton Avenue.

4.240
Plans shall indicate the number, species, and size of proposed plantings.
 Landscape plans shall show plantings between the backflows and the sidewalk on Eucalyptus Avenue with a height to screen the view of this equipment from the public right of way. Plans shall indicate the number, species, and size of proposed plantings.  Landscape plans shall indicate the number, species, size, and location of proposed plants.
 Site plan shall indicate the square footage available on Lot 1 for future development within the FAR limitation.
 Inclusionary units shall be designated as either independent living, assisted living, or staff housing.
 The east-west pedestrian walkway adjacent to 112 Eucalyptus Avenue shall be omitted, and the landscape plan shall show this area fully landscaped.
 An additional arbor shall be constructed over the four parking spaces at the northwest corner of the parking lot. The arbor shall either be a continuation of the arbor in front of the building or shall be separated from that arbor by at least six feet. The arbor design and materials shall match that of the arbor in front of the building.
 The western balcony wall at unit 236 shall have a privacy screen that extends to six feet above the floor of the balcony. The screen shall be in the form of an extended wall, arbor, or other feature that matches the design and color of the building.

Building permit plans shall include visual screening on the west side of the balcony at unit 236. The screening shall extend the entire length of the western face of the balcony, shall reach a height of at least six feet from the floor of the balcony, and shall fully obscure the view to and from that side of the balcony. The screening shall be in the form of a continuation of the building wall finished the same as the building wall, or lattice and/or landscaping plants that create a fully obscure visual screen.

Lattice shall be compatible with the exterior building materials and colors. If landscaping is used for screening, it shall be maintained in good condition to continuously provide full visual obscurity. Final landscaping plans shall show additional vegetation between the northeastern corner of 112 Eucalyptus Avenue and the southwestern corner of the balcony for unit 236. The additional vegetation shall have a mature height to contribute to visual screening between the balcony and 112 Eucalyptus Avenue.  Final building permit plans shall show how the project meets the bird-safe building design standards.
 Final building permit plans shall show the location, size, height, and content of signage at the Pelton Avenue exit prohibiting right

4.241
turns onto Pelton and prohibiting the use of high beams until drivers are completely on eastbound Pelton Avenue.
 Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a review letter from the project biologist referring to the revision date of the final landscape plans and confirming that the new trees shown on the final landscape plan are located to avoid excess shading of monarch butterfly nectar resources.
 Final building permit plans shall show the location of an onsite water source, such as a fountain, for the monarchs near the nectar gardens.

Condition of Approval Number 48 is revised to read:

Prior to approval of any demolition, grading, or building permit, the applicant shall record in the Santa Cruz County Recorder’s office an access easement ¬from West Cliff Drive across Lot 1 to Lot 2 along the proposed driveway extending across the south end of Lot 1. The easement shall provide for access for all vehicles visiting the site. a land use agreement requiring:
 that commercial deliveries take access from West Cliff Drive,  that refuse service vehicles be allowed to take access from West Cliff Drive,
 that access is allowed to stormwater treatment and drainage facilities on Lot 1 for maintenance and repair purposes,  that an easement for commercial and refuse service vehicle access be recorded upon transfer of either Lot 1 or Lot 2 such that the owner of Lot 1 is not one and the same as the owner of Lot 2.

New Condition of Approval:

The facility may hold no more than six special events per year that result in staffing levels greater than the limit imposed in these conditions. Prior to building permit final, the applicant shall record in the Santa Cruz County Recorder’s Office a land use agreement describing an off-site parking and transportation plan to accommodate additional vehicle trips associated with these events.

The Planning Commission made the findings to include the following additional Conditions of Approval:
 To the extent permitted by the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department, a more substantial traffic control device shall be installed to prevent vehicles from making a right turn when exiting the facility onto Pelton Avenue. The device shall be included on final building permit plans.

4.242
 The solar panel trellis shall be retained on building permit plans; Condition of Approval 42, point 7 regarding removal of the trellis shall be deleted.
 As provided under Section 24.16.030.08 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission as an approval body for the project, and based on substantial evidence, determines that the project includes congregate care living units and assisted living units and is therefore subject to the requirement that 15% of the congregate living or assisted living units shall be made available for rent to low-income households for an affordable rent.  The applicant shall consult with a butterfly ecologist in preparing the landscaping and lighting plans to make every effort to make the landscaping and lighting support a thriving monarch butterfly population. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by Planning staff during building permit review.

ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Maxwell, Schiffrin, Greenberg
NOES: Kennedy, Mesiti-Miller
ABSENT: Conway, Dawson
Information Items-Assistant Planning Director Eric Marlatt advised the Commission a right of way abandonment and cannabis ordinance amendments would be presented at the October 20, 2022, Planning Commission meeting.

Subcommittee/Advisory Body Oral Reports-None.

Items Referred to Future Agendas-Commissioners Kennedy and Schiffrin requested staff report back regarding the feasibility of site visits to projects under construction in the Laurel/Pacific and other areas.

Adjournment-The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

4.243

REFERENCE SYMBOLS LOCATION MAP

ABBREVIATIONS & NOTATIONS GENERAL PROJECT DATA

GENERAL NOTES
& ANDL ANGLE (RIGHT)L ANGLE (ACUTE)@ ATCL CENTERLINE

AB AC AD AFF ALT ALU
M
ARC
H AU
AV

ANCHOR BOLT ACOUSTICAL TILE AREA DRAIN ABOVE FINISH

FLOOR ALTERNATE

ALUMINUM ARCHITECTURAL ASH URN AUDIO VISUAL

BD BLDG BLKG BM BNG BOBOD BOT BR BRG BUR BW

BOARDBUILDING BLOCKING BEAM OR BENCHMARK BEARINGBOTTOM OF BOTTOM OF DECK BOTTOM BACKER ROD BRIDGING BUILT-UP ROOFING BOTH WAYS CCAB CEM CG CIP CIRCJ CLG cm CMU CIK CONC CONST CONT CORR CPT CSK CT

COURSE CABINET CEMENT OR CEMENTITIOUS CORNER GUARD CAST-IN-PLACE CIRCLE CONTROL JOINT CEILING CENTIMETER CONCRETE MASONRY UNITCOLUMN CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CONTINUOUS CORRIDOR CARPET COUNTERSINK OR COUNTERSUNK CERAMIC TILE

DDBL DEG DEMO DTL DF DIA DIM DN DP DR DS DTL DW DWG DWR

DEPTH OR DEEP DOUBLE DEGREE DEMOLITION DETAIL DRINKING FOUNTAIN DIAMETER DIMENSION DOWN DAMPPROOFING DOOR DOWNSPOUT DETAIL DISHWASHER DRAWING DRAWER

E EA EHB EHD EIFS EJ EL ELEC EQ EQUIP ETS EW EWC EXP EXIST EXT EXTD

EAST EACH ELECTRIC HAIR BLOWER ELECTRIC HAND DRYER EXTERIOR INSULATING FINISH SYSTEM EXPANSION JOINT ELEVATION (GRADE) ELECTRICAL EQUAL EQUIPMENT EXPOSED TO STRUCTURE EACH WAY ELECTRIC WATER COOLER EXPANSION OR EXPOSED EXISTING EXTERIOR EXTRUDED

FD FE FEC FEX FFA FFE FF FHC FIN FLR FLUOR FP FR FRPFT FTCFTG FURN FV FWC FPHB

FLOOR DRAIN FIRE EXTINGUISHERFIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FIRE EXTINGUISHER (NO CABINET) FURNITURE, FIXTURES & ACCESSORIES FURNITURE, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT FINISHED FLOOR FIRE HOSE CABINET FINISH FLOOR FLUORESCENT FIREPROOFING FIRE RETARDANT/ FIRE RESISTIVE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED POLYMER FOOT/ FEET FULL TILE COURSEFOOTING FURNITURE FIELD VERIFY FABRIC WALL COVERING FREEZE-PROOF HOSE BIBB ABCDEF

GA GALV GB GFRC GFRG GL GND GR GYP GYP BD

GAUGE GALVANIZED GRAB BAR GLASS FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE GLASS FIBER REINFORCED GYPSUM GLASS GROUND GRADE GYPSUM GYPSUM BOARD G

H HB HC HD HBD HCTLT HDR HDW HDWD HM HOR HPL HR HT HVAC

HIGH HOSE BIBB HOLLOW CORE HOLD HARDBOARD HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE TOILET HEADER HARDWARE HARDWOOD HOLLOW METAL HORIZONTAL HIGH PRESSURE LAMINATE HOUR HEIGHT HEATING, VENTILATION & AIR CONDITIONING

ID IN INCAN INSUL INT

INSIDE DIAMETER INCH INCANDESCENT INSULATION INTERIOR
JB JT

JUNCTION BOX JOINT
KD KO

KNOCK DOWN KNOCKOUT

L LAM LAV LB LF LLH LLV LT

LONG LAMINATED LAVATORY LAG BOLT LINEAR BOLT OR LINEAR FEET LONG LEG HORIZONTAL LONG LEG VERTICAL LIGHT OR LIGHTING

M MACH MAS MAT'L MAX MBH MBR MC MECH MEMB MFR MH MIN MIR-F MIR-G MLD MM MO MS MTD MTG MTL

METER MACHINE MASONRY MATERIAL MAXIMUM MOP AND BROOM HOLDER MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOFING MEDICINE CABINET MECHANICAL MEMBRANE MANUFACTURER MANHOLE MINIMUM MIRROR-FRAMED EDGE MIRROR-GLASS EDGE MOULDING MILLIMETER MASONRY OPENING MOP SINK MOUNTED MOUNTING METAL

N NCOM NIC NOM NPS NTS

NORTH NONCOMBUSTIBLE NOT IN CONTRACT NOMINAL NOMINAL PIPE SIZE NOT TO SCALE

OC OD OFCI OFD OFOI OH OPG OPP OPT

ON CENTER OUTSIDE DIAMETER OWNER FURNISHED/ CONTRACTOR INSTALLED OVERFLOW DRAIN OWNER FURNISHED/ OWNER INSTALLED OPPOSITE HAND OR OVERHEAD OPENING OPPOSITE OPTION OR OPTIONAL PC PCEM PA PCF PL P. LAM PLTR PLBG PLF PMR PNL PNT POL PR PSF PSI PT PTD PTD/WR PTM PTN PVC PVMT PWD

PRECAST PORTLAND CEMENT PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT PLATE PLASTIC LAMINATE PLASTER PLUMBING POUNDS PER LINEAR FOOT PROTECTED MEMBRANE ROOFING PANEL PAINT OR PAINTED POLISHED PAIR POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH POINT PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER/ WASTE RECEPTACLE PATCH TO MATCH PARTITION POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PAVEMENT PLYWOOD

QT QTR QTY

QUARRY TILE QUARTER QUANTITY

HIJKLMNOPQ

R RA RCP RD RE REFL REG REINF REQ RES REV RH RM RO ROW RSF

RADIUS OR RISER RETURN AIR REFLECTED CEILING PLAN ROOF DRAIN REFER OR REFERENCE REFLECTED REGISTER REINFORCEMENT REQUIRED RESILIENT REVERSE ROBE HOOK ROOM ROUGH OPENING RIGHT-OF-WAY RESILIENT SHEET FLOORING

S SA SABSAN SB SC SCHED SD SECT SF SFP SH SHT SHTG SIM SKLT SND SNV SP SPEC SPR SQ SR SR/SC SS ST STA STC STD STL STOR STRU SUSP SYM SYN SYS

SOUTH SUPPLY AIR SOUND ATTENUATION BATTSSANITARY SPLASH BLOCK SOLID CORE OR SHOWER CURTAIN SCHEDULE OR SCHEDULED SOAP DISPENSER SECTION SQUARE FOOT OR SQUARE FEET SPRAYED FIREPROOFING SPRINKLER HEAD SHEET SHEATHING SIMILAR SKYLIGHT SANITARY NAPKIN DISPOSAL SANITARY NAPKIN VENDOR STANDPIPE SPECIFIED OR SPECIFICATIONS SINGLE PLY ROOFING SQUARE SHOWER ROD SHOWER ROD/ SHOWER CURTAIN STAINLESS STEEL SOAP TRAY STATION SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS STANDARD STEEL STORAGE STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURAL SUSPENDED OR SUSPENSION SYMBOL SYNTHETIC SYSTEM

T TB TBL T&B TC TD TEL TERR T&G THK THRU TLT TOTOC TOD TOF TOI TOJ TOL TOP TOS TOW TPH TRTS TTB TV TYP

TREAD OR TOP TOWEL BAR TOP OF BRICK LEDGE TOP AND BOTTOM TOP OF CURB TRENCH DRAIN TELEPHONE TERRAZZO TONGUE & GROOVE THICK OR THICKNESS THROUGH TOILET TOP OFTOP OF CONCRETE TOP OF DECK TOP OF FOOTING TOP OF INSULATION TOP OF JOIST TOLERANCE TOP OF PARAPET TOP OF STEEL TOP OF WALL TOILET PAPER HOLDER TELEPHONE RECEPTACLE TOP OF SLAB TELEPHONE TERMINAL BOARD TELEVISION TYPICAL

UCL ULAY UNO UR

UNDER CABINET LIGHT UNDERLAYMENT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE URINAL

VB VCT VERT VP VS VT VWC

VAPOR BARRIER VINYL COMPOSITION TILE VERTICAL VENT PIPE VENT SHAFT VINYL TILE VINYL WALLCOVERING

W W/ WB WC WCOT WD WDO WH WO W/O WP WR W/R WS WT WWF

WEST OR WIDE OR WIDTH WITH WIND BRACE OR BRACING WATER CLOSET WAINSCOT WOOD WINDOW WEEPHOLE WINDOW OPENING WITHOUT WATERPROOFING WASTE RECEPTACLE WATER RESISTIVE OR RESISTANT WEATHERSTRIPPING WEIGHT WELDED WIRE FABRIC

YD YARD
RSTUVY
W
= EQUAL± PLUS OR MINUS# POUND OR NUMBERx TIMES

DEGREES
' FOOT OR FEET" INCH - MINUS+ PLUS

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9. DO NOT SCALE THESE DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. IN THE EVENT OF OMISSION OF NECESSARY DIMENSION(S), THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT.ALL DIMENSIONS ON 1/16", 1/8" & 1/4" SCALE PLANS ARE TO THE FACE OF MASONRY OR CONCRETE OR THE OUTSIDE FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.ALL MASONRY DIMENSIONS ARE ACTUAL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, CONDITIONS, EXISTING CONSTRUCTION AND GRADES AT JOB SITE. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS.

VERIFY SIZE, LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL WORK AND EQUIPMENT TO BE INSTALLED OR RELOCATED (WHETHER FURNISHED BY OWNER OR BY CONTRACTOR(S)) BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION PERTAINING TO SAME IS BEGUN. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS IN THE ROOM, DOOR, WINDOW OR EQUIPMENT SCHEDULES DO NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTORS FROM EXECUTING WORK SHOWN ON DRAWINGS OR DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.VERIFY AND COORDINATE THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL OPENINGS FOR STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL WORK AND EQUIPMENT WITH ALL TRADES INVOLVED.CEILING HEIGHTS INDICATED ON THE ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE ARE TAKEN FROM THE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION. THE SIZE, LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND STRUCTURAL ITEMS SHALL BE VERIFIED BEFORE CEILING CONSTRUCTION IS BEGUN.COORDINATE WITH ALL TRADES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SCHEDULED CEILING HEIGHTS. VERIFY THAT REQUIRED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CLEARANCES ARE PROVIDED FOR ALL EQUIPMENT ITEMS.

INSTALL ALL ITEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS, EXCEPT THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS HEREIN, WHERE THE MORE STRINGENT, SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING OF ANY CONFLICTS.COORDINATE DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION OF ALL EQUIPMENT WITH OWNER. VERIFY THAT ALL INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AS DESCRIBED ARE MET, INCLUDING ADEQUATE TRAVEL ACCESS FOR EQUIPMENT ITEMS THROUGH THE BUILDING.

PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT SITE

GROSS FLOOR AREA (GFA)

FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)

CALCULATION

UNIT MATRIX UNIT DISTRIBUTION/CLASSIFICATION
LOT 2 LOT 1
A101
1 SIM
XX.X
ROOM
N
1i
NAME

ELEVATION ROOM NAME/NUMBER

DOOR TYPESTRUCTURAL GRID - NEWSTRUCTURAL GRID - EXISTINGPARTITION TYPEFIXTURE TAGWINDOW FRAME MARKLOUVER MARKREVISION MARK

DATUM ELEVATIONWALL SECTION MARKDETAIL MARK
XX.X
XX
1 ROOM
NAME
XXXX
1 A101
SIM
1i
ELEVATION MARKSPOT ELEVATIONNORTH ARROWBUILDING SECTION MARK 1 A101
SIM
1 A101
SIM
LEADER
xxx
1 A101
TOTAL SITE AREA INCLUSIVE OF PROPOSED LOT 1 AND LOT 2 = 6.97 AC (303,613 SF)LOT 1 AREA = 3.97 AC (172,933 SF)LOT 2 AREA = 3 AC (130,680 SF) ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) = .35
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA ALLOWED PER FAR: 303,613 SF x .35 = 106,264 SF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ON LOT 1 = APPROX. 24,370 SFFLOOR AREA PROPOSED FOR PROJECT ON LOT 2 = 74,218 SFLOT 1 & LOT 2 TOTAL FLOOR AREA = 98,588 SF (24,370 SF + 74,218 SF)TOTAL SITE FAR = .32 (98,588 SF / 303,613 SF) APPROX. 8,000 SF OF AVAILABLE EXPANSION ON LOT 1
LOT 2 FAR CALCULATION:

ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) = .35
FLOOR AREA ALLOWED PER FAR: 130,680 SF x .35 = 45,738 SF TRANSFERRED FLOOR AREA*: 28,500 SFTOTAL FLOOR AREA ALLOWED: 45,738 SF + 28,500 SF = 74,238 SFTOTAL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED: 74,218 SF (<74,238 SF TOTAL FLOOR AREA ALLOWED)*THE CHURCH WILL PERMANENTLY TRANSFER UP TO 28,500 SF OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (FAR) FROM LOT 1 TO LOT 2 PURSUANT TO A DEED RESTRICTION; BOTH LOT 1 AND LOT 2 WILL BE HELD IN COMMON OWNERSHIP.

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
REV#
DATE
(MM.DD.YY) ISSUE NAME
126 EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
OPPIDAN INVESTMENT COMPANY1100 LINCOLN AVENUE, SUITE 3382SAN JOSE, CA 95125THE FRESHWATER GROUP2020 WEST RUDASILL ROADTUCSON, AZ 85704 8/7/20 LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL8/21/20 SCHEMATIC DESIGN SUBMITTAL8/6/21 LAND USE APPLICATION RESUBMITTAL10/15/21 LAND USE APPLICATION RESUBMITTAL C:\Users\natalie.ruiz\Documents\_RevitLocals\190064_SantaCruz_v20_natalie.ruiz.rvt 10/14/2021 1:19:25 PM

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
PROJECTINFORMATIONCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G-001
PROJECT TITLE:

THE WATERMARK AT SANTA CRUZ
OWNER ADDRESS:

OPPIDAN INVESTMENT COMPANY1100 LINCOLN AVENUE, SUITE 3382SAN JOSE, CA 95125 OPERATOR ADDRESS:

THE FRESHWATER GROUP2020 WEST RUDASILL ROADTUCSON, AZ 85704 PROJECT LOCATION:
126 EUCALYPTUS AVENUESANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PROJECT CONTACT:

OWNERROGER BERNSTEIN: 760.419.8032
PROJECT CONTACT:

ARCHITECTCRTKL
BUILDING AREAS: (APPROXIMATION) - SEE GROSS FLOOR AREAPROJECT NARRATIVE: LAND USE APPLICATION PACKAGE - SEE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION

UNIT MATRIX - TYPES

UNIT TYPE AREA (SF) COUNT
AL STUDIO TYPE A 386 SF 4
IU STUDIO TYPE A 386 SF 1
MC TYPE A 382 SF 10
MC TYPE A1 375 SF 1MC TYPE B 474 SF 4
AL 1BR TYPE A 637 SF 32AL 1BR TYPE A1 678 SF 1AL 1BR TYPE A2 691 SF 3AL 1BR TYPE A3 703 SF 1 IU 1BR TYPE A 637 SF 1
AL 2BR TYPE A 926 SF 2AL 2BR TYPE B 931 SF 1AL 2BR TYPE C 959 SF 1AL 2BR TYPE D 951 SF 4AL 2BR TYPE E 991 SF 1AL 2BR TYPE F 1,004 SF 3AL 2BR TYPE G 1,008 SF 1AL 2BR TYPE H 1,016 SF 3AL 2BR TYPE J 1,070 SF 1AL 2BR TYPE K 1,149 SF 1 76 UNIT MATRIX - LEVELS

UNIT TYPE AREA (SF) COUNT
LEVEL 01IU STUDIO TYPE A 386 SF 1MC TYPE A 382 SF 10MC TYPE A1 375 SF 1MC TYPE B 474 SF 4 AL 1BR TYPE A 637 SF 11AL 1BR TYPE A1 678 SF 1AL 1BR TYPE A2 691 SF 1 IU 1BR TYPE A 637 SF 1
AL 2BR TYPE A 926 SF 1AL 2BR TYPE D 951 SF 2AL 2BR TYPE F 1,004 SF 1AL 2BR TYPE H 1,016 SF 1 LEVEL 01: 35 35LEVEL 02
AL STUDIO TYPE A 386 SF 4
AL 1BR TYPE A 637 SF 21
AL 1BR TYPE A2 691 SF 2AL 1BR TYPE A3 703 SF 1AL 2BR TYPE A 926 SF 1AL 2BR TYPE B 931 SF 1AL 2BR TYPE C 959 SF 1AL 2BR TYPE D 951 SF 2AL 2BR TYPE E 991 SF 1AL 2BR TYPE F 1,004 SF 2AL 2BR TYPE G 1,008 SF 1AL 2BR TYPE H 1,016 SF 2AL 2BR TYPE J 1,070 SF 1AL 2BR TYPE K 1,149 SF 1 LEVEL 02: 41 41GRAND TOTAL: 76 76

UNIT MATRIX

CLASS NUMBER UNIT TYPE PATIO/DECK KITCHEN
LEVEL 01
MC 100 MC TYPE A1
MC 101 MC TYPE AMC 102 MC TYPE BMC 103 MC TYPE AMC 104 MC TYPE BMC 105 MC TYPE AMC 106 MC TYPE BMC 107 MC TYPE AMC 108 MC TYPE BMC 109 MC TYPE AMC 110 MC TYPE AMC 111 MC TYPE AMC 112 MC TYPE AMC 113 MC TYPE AMC 114 MC TYPE A AL 115 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 116 AL 2BR TYPE H * *
AL 117 AL 2BR TYPE A * *AL 118 AL 1BR TYPE A *
AL 119 AL 1BR TYPE A *
AL 120 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 121 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 122 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 123 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 124 AL 2BR TYPE D *AL 125 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 126 AL 2BR TYPE F * *AL 127 AL 1BR TYPE A2 * IU 128 IU STUDIO TYPE A * *
AL 129 AL 1BR TYPE A1 *AL 130 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 131 AL 1BR TYPE A * IU 132 IU 1BR TYPE A * *
AL 133 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 134 AL 2BR TYPE D * *
LEVEL 01: 35LEVEL 02
AL 200 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 201 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 202 AL STUDIO TYPE A *AL 203 AL STUDIO TYPE A *AL 204 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 205 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 206 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 207 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 208 AL 2BR TYPE B *AL 209 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 210 AL 2BR TYPE H * *AL 211 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 212 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 213 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 214 AL 2BR TYPE H * *AL 215 AL 2BR TYPE A * *AL 216 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 217 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 218 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 219 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 220 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 221 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 222 AL 2BR TYPE D *AL 223 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 224 AL 2BR TYPE F * *AL 225 AL 1BR TYPE A2 *AL 226 AL STUDIO TYPE A *AL 227 AL STUDIO TYPE A *AL 228 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 229 AL 2BR TYPE F * *AL 230 AL 1BR TYPE A2 *AL 231 AL 2BR TYPE E *AL 232 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 233 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 234 AL 1BR TYPE A *AL 235 AL 2BR TYPE D *AL 236 AL 1BR TYPE A3 *AL 237 AL 2BR TYPE G *AL 238 AL 2BR TYPE J * *AL 239 AL 2BR TYPE K * *AL 240 AL 2BR TYPE C * LEVEL 02: 41GRAND TOTAL: 76

FLOOR AREA

COMPONENT AREA
LEVEL B1BUILDING A 3,108 SF
3,108 SF
LEVEL 01BUILDING A 27,547 SFBUILDING B 9,611 SF
37,159 SF
LEVEL 02BUILDING A 26,895 SFBUILDING B 9,741 SF
36,636 SF
ROOF LEVELBUILDING A 423 SF
423 SF
TOTAL FLOOR AREA (MC 24.22.366) 77,326 SF
UNIT MIX:ASSISTED LIVING (AL) 59 UNITS (76 BEDS)
4 STUDIO38 1BD 17 2BD
MEMORY CARE (MC) 15 UNITS (19 BEDS)
11 SINGLES4 DOUBLES
INCLUSIONARY UNIT (IU) 2 UNITS (2 BEDS)
1 STUDIO 1 1BD
NOTE: UNIT AREAS CALCULATED USING BOMA METHOD A (GROSS AREA) - CL DEMISING WALL TO OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALL AND CORRIDOR WALL. (SUBJECT TO CHANGE) NOTE: 20 TYPES
PROJECT LOCATION:126 EUCALYPTUS AVE, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060PROJECT DESCRIPTION:THE PROPOSED PROJECT INVOLVES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING GATEWAY SCHOOL AND CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMUNITY CARE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CONSISTING OF A NEW BUILD TWO STORY STRUCTURE OF MEMORY CARE, ASSISTED LIVING, INCLUSIONARY UNITS, SUPPORT SPACES AND AMENITIES. IN ADDITION, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD SUBDIVIDE THE SITE INTO TWO NEW PARCELS INCLUDING THE 3-ACRE PARCEL ON WHICH THE COMMUNITY CARE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED (LOT 2), AND AN APPROXIMATELY 3.97- ACRE PARCEL WHICH WOULD RETAIN THE EXISTING BUILDINGS (LOT 1). IMPROVEMENTS ON LOT 1, INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY EIGHT PARKING STALLS, RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING MEDITATION GARDEN, AND OTHER MINOR IMPROVEMENTS ALSO INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 100% PRIVATELY FUNDED, NO TAX CREDIT, NOT PUBLIC HOUSINGAPN: 004-571-02 & 04GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION:ZONING DESIGNATION: R-1-5 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

CZ - COASTAL ZONE OVERLAYWCD-O - WEST CLIFF DRIVE OVERLAY TOTAL LAND AREA: INCLUSIVE OF LOT 1 AND LOT 2 = 6.97 AC (303,613 SF) LOT 1 AREA = 3.97 AC (172,933 SF)LOT 2 AREA (PROPOSED PROJECT) = 3 AC (130,680 SF) BUILDING HEIGHT: 30'-0"NUMBER OF STORIES: 2CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE VA, AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM (NFPA 13)OCCUPANCY: R-2.1APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS:2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE WITH CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDMENTS2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE WITH CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDMENTS2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODEAPPLICATION/PERMITS:1. NON-RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION AUTHORIZATION PERMIT 2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3. COASTAL PERMIT4. DESIGN PERMIT 5. HISTORIC ALTERATION PERMIT6. HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL PERMITCITY OF SANTA CRUZ GENERAL NOTES:DEMOLITION – PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, ASBESTOS AND LEAD BASED PAINT TESTING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY EITHER EPA OR CA STATE HEALTH CERTIFIED INDIVIDUALS TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THE ONSITE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES. APPROVAL SHALL THEN BE OBTAINED FROM MONTEREY BAY AIR RESOURCES DISTRICT (MBARD) FOR THE HAZARDOUS OR OTHER REGULATED MATERIAL REMOVAL. APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE THE CITY WITH A COPY OF THE ASB APPLICATION OR A COPY OF AN EMAIL FROM MBARD STATING NO APPLICATION IS REQUIRED. A SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION AND PLANS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION FROM THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ BUILDING DIVISIONIF PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. PROPOSED OCCUPANCY WILL NOT STORE OR USE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN EXCESS OF THOSE ALLOWED IN CBC 307 UNLESS STORED OR UTILIZED IN CONTROL AREAS OR RECLASSIFIED AS A HIGH-HAZARDOUS OCCUPANCY (GROUP H) PER CBC AND CFC.

UNIT AREAS SHOWN ON CRTKL'S DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN CALCULATEDELECTRONICALLY BASED ON CRTKL'S DESIGN DOCUMENTS, USING THEAPPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF APPLICABLE BOMA STANDARDS ACCORDING TO THIS PROJECT'S USE, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE CLIENT, AND ARE PROVIDED SOLELY AS AN ACCOMMODATION TO THE CLIENT. ASSUCH, THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE APPROXIMATE CALCULATIONS. ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF BUILT SPACES MAY VARY DUE TO A NUMBER OF FACTORS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CHANGES DURING CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES, AND VARIATIONS IN THE METHODOLOGY USED TO CALCULATE AREA. CRTKL ADVISES THE CLIENT TO VERIFY ALL AREAS AND METHODS OF CALCULATION PRIOR TO PUBLICATION FOR ANY REASON. *PER MC 24.22.366 "FLOOR AREA" DEFINITION NON-HABITABLE BASEMENTS THAT ARE FULLY SUBTERRANEAN BELOW FINISHED GRADE DO NOT COUNT AS FLOOR AREA. *
74,218 SF
********* 11/16/22 LAND USE APPLICATION RESUBMITTAL

4.244
The Watermark at Santa Cruz

LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
OPPIDAN INVESTMENT COMPANY1100 LINCOLN AVE SUITE 382SANTA CRUZ, CA 95125CONTACT: ROGER BERNSTEINC: 760.419.8032CALLISONRTKL INC333 S. HOPE STREET SUITE C200LOS ANGELES, CA 90017PROJECT ARCHITECT: DAUN St. AMAND AIAPROJECT MANAGER: NATALIE RUIZO: 213.633.6000DEVELOPERARCHITECT IFLAND ENGINEERS INC5300 SOQUEL AVE SUITE 101SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062CONTACT: JON IFLANDO: 831.426.5313CIVIL ENGINEER ENGLEKIRK888 S. FIGUEROA ST. 18th FLOORLOS ANGELES, CA 90017CONTACT: TONY GHODSIO: 714.557. 8551STRUCTURAL ENGINEER GLUMAC 18200 VON KARMAN AVE SUITE 100IRVINE, CA 92612CONTACT: JOSEPH FONGO: 214.555.5555MEP ENGINEERKGM LIGHTING270 CORAL CIRCLEEL SEGUNDO, CA 90245CONTACT: DAVID McCARROLLO: 310.552.2191LIGHTING DESIGNERS Client/Owner/OperatorSheet IdentificationCallisonRTKL Inc.Issue Drawing Log © 2020 CallisonRTKL Inc.

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
COVER SHEETCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G-000
TM engineers for a sustainable f uture
THE FRESHWATER GROUP2020 WEST RUDASILL ROADTUCSON, AZ 85704CONTACT: JAMES GOEBELO: 520.615.5243CCI CODE CONSULTANT INC2301 ROSECRANS AVE SUITE 2155EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245CONTACT: ADEN MALEK STEPANIANSO: 213.622.5880 MJS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE507 30TH ST.NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663CONTACT: DAN DELLEO: 949.675.9964 CORSI ASSOCIATES1489 BALTIMORE PIKE SUITE 109SPRINGFIELD, PA 19064CONTACT: DANIEL PERSONO: 610.541.0822

OPERATOR

CODE CONSULTANT LANDSCAPE ARCHIECT KITCHEN/LAUNDRY
RESUBMITTED 10/15/21
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ GENERAL NOTE:NATURAL GAS-FREE DESIGN AS REQUIRED BY SCMC6.100.

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
SHEET INDEXCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G
-000A
ARCHITECTURALA-000 MATERIAL SCHEDULEA-110 LEVEL 01 & B1 FLOOR PLAN - OVERALLA-110A LEVEL 01 FLOOR PLAN - AREA 'A'A-110B LEVEL 01 FLOOR PLAN - AREA 'B'A-111 LEVEL 02 FLOOR PLAN - OVERALLA-111A LEVEL 02 FLOOR PLAN - AREA 'A'A-111B LEVEL 02 FLOOR PLAN - AREA 'B'A-112 ROOF FLOOR PLAN - OVERALLA-112A ROOF FLOOR PLAN - AREA 'A'A-112B ROOF ROOF PLAN - AREA 'B'A-125 ROOF DETAILSA-126 ROOF DETAILSA-200 BUILDING A EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA-201 BUILDING A EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA-202 BUILDING B EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA-300 BUILDING SECTIONSA-301 BUILDING SECTIONSA-610 STAIR DETAILSA-901 TYPICAL FIRE RATED DETAILSA-902 TYPICAL FIRE RATED DETAILSA-910 ACOUSTICAL DETAILSA-920 DOOR & WINDOW DETAILSA-930 ELEVATOR DETAILS

ARCHITECTURAL
Sheet
Number Sheet Name
GENERALG-000 COVER SHEETG-000A SHEET INDEXG-001 PROJECT INFORMATIONG-002 AREA PLANSG-003 2010 ADA REGULATIONSG-004 2010 ADA REGULATIONSG-005 2010 ADA REGULATIONSG-006 2010 ADA REGULATIONSG-007 2010 ADA REGULATIONSG-008 TOILET TYPESG-009 UL LISTINGS, FIRESTOP & PENETRATIONSG-009A PARTITION TYPESG-009B PARTITION DETAILSG-010 FLOOR ASSEMBLY TYPESG-011 RENDERINGSG-012 RENDERINGSG-013 RENDERINGSG-014 RENDERINGSARCHITECTURAL SITEAS-100 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANAS-110 SHADOW STUDYAS-111 SHADOW STUDY CIVIL
Sheet
Number Sheet Name
C1.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLANC1.1 PRELIMINARY SITE PLANC2.0 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION DETAILSC3.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANSC3.1 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANSC3.2 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANSC4.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANC5.0 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLANC6.0 PRELIMINARY OFF-SITE STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANSC7.0 PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLANS & DETAILSC7.1 PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLANS & DETAILSC7.2 PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLANS & DETAILS LLA1.0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT

LANDSCAPE
Sheet
Number Sheet Name
L-1 LANDSCAPE INSPIRATION IMAGESL-2 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANL-3 BUILDING A ENLARGEMENTL-4 BUILDING B ENLARGEMENTL-5 BUIILDING A ROOF TERRACEL-6 TREE PLAN PLANT PALETTE AND NOTESL-7 PLANT PALETTE AND NOTESL-8 TREE IMAGESL-9 LANDSCAPE MATERIALSL-10 WALL, FENCE AND SCREENING EXHIBITL-11 HYDROZONE PLANL-12 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLANL-13 Unnamed

SIGNAGE
Sheet
Number Sheet Name
SIGNAGEG-01 SUMMARY OF SIGN TYPESG-02 LOOK & FEELG-03 SIGN LOCATION PLANG-04 ELEVATIONSG-05 SITE SIGNAGE DESCRIPTIONS

4.246

REFERENCE SYMBOLS LOCATION MAP

ABBREVIATIONS & NOTATIONS GENERAL PROJECT DATA

GENERAL NOTES
& ANDL ANGLE (RIGHT)L ANGLE (ACUTE)@ ATCL CENTERLINE

AB AC AD AFF ALT ALU
M
ARC
H AU
AV

ANCHOR BOLT ACOUSTICAL TILE AREA DRAIN ABOVE FINISH

FLOOR ALTERNATE

ALUMINUM ARCHITECTURAL ASH URN AUDIO VISUAL

BD BLDG BLKG BM BNG BOBOD BOT BR BRG BUR BW

BOARDBUILDING BLOCKING BEAM OR BENCHMARK BEARINGBOTTOM OF BOTTOM OF DECK BOTTOM BACKER ROD BRIDGING BUILT-UP ROOFING BOTH WAYS CCAB CEM CG CIP CIRCJ CLG cm CMU CIK CONC CONST CONT CORR CPT CSK CT

DDBL DEG DEMO DTL DF DIA DIM DN DP DR DS DTL DW DWG DWR

DEPTH OR DEEP DOUBLE DEGREE DEMOLITION DETAIL DRINKING FOUNTAIN DIAMETER DIMENSION DOWN DAMPPROOFING DOOR DOWNSPOUT DETAIL DISHWASHER DRAWING DRAWER

E EA EHB EHD EIFS EJ EL ELEC EQ EQUIP ETS EW EWC EXP EXIST EXT EXTD

FD FE FEC FEX FFA FFE FF FHC FIN FLR FLUOR FP FR FRPFT FTCFTG FURN FV FWC FPHB

GA GALV GB GFRC GFRG GL GND GR GYP GYP BD

GAUGE GALVANIZED GRAB BAR GLASS FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE GLASS FIBER REINFORCED GYPSUM GLASS GROUND GRADE GYPSUM GYPSUM BOARD G

H HB HC HD HBD HCTLT HDR HDW HDWD HM HOR HPL HR HT HVAC

HIGH HOSE BIBB HOLLOW CORE HOLD HARDBOARD HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE TOILET HEADER HARDWARE HARDWOOD HOLLOW METAL HORIZONTAL HIGH PRESSURE LAMINATE HOUR HEIGHT HEATING, VENTILATION & AIR CONDITIONING

ID IN INCAN INSUL INT

INSIDE DIAMETER INCH INCANDESCENT INSULATION INTERIOR
JB JT

JUNCTION BOX JOINT
KD KO

KNOCK DOWN KNOCKOUT

L LAM LAV LB LF LLH LLV LT

LONG LAMINATED LAVATORY LAG BOLT LINEAR BOLT OR LINEAR FEET LONG LEG HORIZONTAL LONG LEG VERTICAL LIGHT OR LIGHTING

M MACH MAS MAT'L MAX MBH MBR MC MECH MEMB MFR MH MIN MIR-F MIR-G MLD MM MO MS MTD MTG MTL

N NCOM NIC NOM NPS NTS

NORTH NONCOMBUSTIBLE NOT IN CONTRACT NOMINAL NOMINAL PIPE SIZE NOT TO SCALE

OC OD OFCI OFD OFOI OH OPG OPP OPT

QT QTR QTY

QUARRY TILE QUARTER QUANTITY

HIJKLMNOPQ

R RA RCP RD RE REFL REG REINF REQ RES REV RH RM RO ROW RSF

S SA SABSAN SB SC SCHED SD SECT SF SFP SH SHT SHTG SIM SKLT SND SNV SP SPEC SPR SQ SR SR/SC SS ST STA STC STD STL STOR STRU SUSP SYM SYN SYS

T TB TBL T&B TC TD TEL TERR T&G THK THRU TLT TOTOC TOD TOF TOI TOJ TOL TOP TOS TOW TPH TRTS TTB TV TYP

UCL ULAY UNO UR

UNDER CABINET LIGHT UNDERLAYMENT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE URINAL

VB VCT VERT VP VS VT VWC

VAPOR BARRIER VINYL COMPOSITION TILE VERTICAL VENT PIPE VENT SHAFT VINYL TILE VINYL WALLCOVERING

W W/ WB WC WCOT WD WDO WH WO W/O WP WR W/R WS WT WWF

YD YARD
RSTUVY
W
= EQUAL± PLUS OR MINUS# POUND OR NUMBERx TIMES

DEGREES
' FOOT OR FEET" INCH - MINUS+ PLUS

PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT SITE

GROSS FLOOR AREA (GFA)

FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)

CALCULATION

UNIT MATRIX UNIT DISTRIBUTION/CLASSIFICATION
LOT 2 LOT 1
A101
1 SIM
XX.X
ROOMN
1i
NAME

ELEVATION ROOM NAME/NUMBER

DOOR TYPESTRUCTURAL GRID - NEWSTRUCTURAL GRID - EXISTINGPARTITION TYPEFIXTURE TAGWINDOW FRAME MARKLOUVER MARKREVISION MARK

DATUM ELEVATIONWALL SECTION MARKDETAIL MARK
XX.X
XX
1 ROOM
NAME
XXXX
1 A101
SIM
1i
ELEVATION MARKSPOT ELEVATIONNORTH ARROWBUILDING SECTION MARK 1 A101
SIM
1 A101
SIM
LEADER
xxx
1 A101
TOTAL SITE AREA INCLUSIVE OF PROPOSED LOT 1 AND LOT 2 = 6.97 AC (303,613 SF)LOT 1 AREA = 3.97 AC (172,933 SF)LOT 2 AREA = 3 AC (130,680 SF) ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) = .35
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA ALLOWED PER FAR: 303,613 SF x .35 = 106,264 SF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ON LOT 1 = APPROX. 26,838 SFFLOOR AREA PROPOSED FOR PROJECT ON LOT 2 = 74,218 SFLOT 1 & LOT 2 TOTAL FLOOR AREA = 101,056 SF (26,838 SF + 74,218 SF)TOTAL SITE FAR = .33 (101,056 SF / 303,613 SF)LOT 2 FAR CALCULATION:

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
PROJECTINFORMATIONCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G-001
PROJECT TITLE:

THE WATERMARK AT SANTA CRUZ
OWNER ADDRESS:

OPPIDAN INVESTMENT COMPANY1100 LINCOLN AVENUE, SUITE 3382SAN JOSE, CA 95125 OPERATOR ADDRESS:

THE FRESHWATER GROUP2020 WEST RUDASILL ROADTUCSON, AZ 85704 PROJECT LOCATION:
126 EUCALYPTUS AVENUESANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PROJECT CONTACT:

OWNERROGER BERNSTEIN: 760.419.8032
PROJECT CONTACT:

ARCHITECTCRTKL
BUILDING AREAS: (APPROXIMATION) - SEE GROSS FLOOR AREAPROJECT NARRATIVE: LAND USE APPLICATION PACKAGE - SEE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION

UNIT MATRIX - TYPES

UNIT MATRIX

FLOOR AREA

4.247
UP
UP
9611 SF

BUILDING B
27547 SF

BUILDING A
FLOOR AREA Gross Building Area
9741 SF

BUILDING B
26895 SF

BUILDING A
198 SF

BUILDING A
226 SF

BUILDING A
3108 SF

BUILDING A
*
*
*PER MC 24.22.366 "FLOOR AREA" DEFINITION NONHABITABLE BASEMENTS THAT ARE FULLY SUBTERRANEAN BELOW FINISHED GRADE DO NOT COUNT AS FLOOR AREA.

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
AREA PLANSCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G-002
1/32" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 01
1/32" = 1'-0" 2 LEVEL 021/32" = 1'-0" 3 ROOF LEVEL
1/32" = 1'-0" 4 LEVEL B1

FLOOR AREA

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
2010 ADAREGULATIONSCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G
-003

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
2010 ADAREGULATIONSCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G
-004

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
2010 ADAREGULATIONSCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G
-005

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
2010 ADAREGULATIONSCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G
-006

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
2010 ADAREGULATIONSCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G
-007

4.253

TOILET ROOM & ACCESSORIES NOTES
ENLARGED PLANS INDICATE TYPICAL DIMENSIONS, LOCATIONS FOR ACCESSORIES AND SPECIALTIES AS WELL AS REQUIRED CLEARANCES TO BE MAINTAINED. REFER TO THE EQUIPMENT FLOOR PLAN SHEET(S) WHERE TOILET & SINK TYPES ARE KEYED ON THE DRAWINGS & ADDITIONAL TOILET ACCESSORIES ARE IDENTIFIED. REFER TO FLOOR PLAN SHEETS FOR ROOM OR FIXTURE ORIENTATION, LOCATION OF DOOR, WALL CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT ITEMS. DIMENSIONS INDICATED ARE TYPICAL UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE ON DIMENSIONED 1/8" SCALE FLOOR PLAN SHEETS. DIMENSIONS SHOWN FOR WALLS AND OPENINGS ARE TAKEN FROM FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD. DIMENSIONS SHOWN FOR ACCESSORIES AND EQUIPMENT ITEMS AND CLEAR FLOOR SPACE AREAS ARE FROM FACE OF ROOM FINISH (SUCH AS TILE).NOTE THAT DOORS CANNOT INFRINGE OR SWING INTO REQUIRED RECTANGULAR CLEAR FLOOR SPACE AREAS - SHOWN DASHED ON ENLARGED PLANS. FIXTURES SHOWN ARE GENERIC - REFER TO THE PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR SCHEDULED FIXTURES.

1.2.3.4.5.6.7. TOILET FIXTURES & ACCESSORIES - MOUNTING HEIGHTSSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" T1 ANSI TOILETSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
T2 TOILETSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
VARIOUS TOILET ROOM DOOR OPENING OPTIONS SHOWN HERE- SEE PLAN FOR SPECIFIC LAYOUT NOTE THAT DOOR(S)CANNOT OVERLAP RECTANGULAR CLEAR FLOOR SPACE BOXES (SHOWN DASHED) @ ACCESSIBLE TOILET ROOMSREFER TO DRAWING 'WC1' THIS SHEET FOR

ADDITIONAL WATER CLOSET & RELATED TOILET ACCESSORY DETAILS TOILET TYPE 'T1' -SEE "AQ" SHEET EQUIPMENT PLANS FOR TOILET TYPE DESIGNATIONS ON DRAWING 7'-2" MIN - REFER TO PLANS
7' - 4"
60" DIA

TURNING
RADIUS

REFER TO PLANS
9' - 2"
REFER TO DRAWING 'S1' THIS SHEET FOR

ADDITIONAL SINK DETAILS & RELATED TOILET ACCESSORIES
WC1
S1

WATER CLOSET CLINICAL SINK EWC URINAL SINK

REFER TO PLANS
7' - 4"

REFER TO PLANS
9' - 2"
WC2
S2

STANDARD - NON HC

ACCESSIBLE
WC1SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
ANSI WATER CLOSET WC2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
NON HC ST1
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
ADA/ANSI END OF ROW STALL SH1
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
ANSI/ADA SHOWER (TILE) SH2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SHOWER (TILE) SH3
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SHOWER (TILE) S3
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
NON HC SINK S4
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

SINK IN COUNTERTOP
S2 NON HC SINKS1 ANSI/ADA SINK
T3 ADD TOILET PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1'-5''@ H.C ACCESS
2'-0'' STANDARD
3' - 0" T.O. SPOUT MAX
1' - 6"
3' - 0"
MAX
1' - 0"
4'-0" MAX @ ACCESSIBLE
4' - 6"
4' - 0"
A.F.F.

ACCESSIBLE

SHOWER CONTROLS

CENTER LINE OF SHOWER HEAD MOUNTING

SHOWER CONTROL SHOWN SHADED

CONTROL
WALL
60" NO FIXTURES CAN ENCROACH
1' - 6"
1' - 0"
6"
EQ EQ
1' - 0"
IF ROOM WIDER THAN 3'-6"
1' - 6"
5' - 1" CLEAR
1' - 6"
6"
1' - 0"
36" DOOR
ALT. DOOR

LOCATION (SEE FLOOR PLAN)
60" X 60" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE36" X 60" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE

REFER PLANS
MIN. 7'-8" @ FLOOR MTD. WC
MIN. 7'-11" @ WALL MTD. WC

WALL WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN
@ WOMEN'S TOILETS ONLY
60" WIDE X 56" DEEP CLEAR FLOOR SPACE

CLEAR FLOOR SPACE REQUIREMENTS SHOWN DASHED
36" X 48" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE
3' - 0" UNO
1' - 1 1/2"
3' - 2" UNO

REFER PLANS

REFER PLANS
1' - 2"
NOTE: ALL SHOWER ACCESSORY (TA) ITEMS SHOWNFOR REFERENCE ONLY. ALL ITEMS TO BE PROVIDED BYSHOWER STALL MANUFACTURER - COORDINATE WITH PLUMBINGFIXTURE SCHEDULE. 3'
- 0"

REFER PLANS

REFER PLANS
6" 1' - 2"30"X48" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE @ S3
@ S1,S2@ S1,S2

GENERIC SINK OR DOUBLE SINK AS SCHEDULES ON PLUMBING DRAWINGS 1' - 3"
TA7F

WATER CLOSET CLINICAL SINK EWC URINAL SINK
2'-10"
2' - 1" STANDARD 1'-5" @ H.C ACCESS
3' - 0" T.O. BUBBLER
ST-01 TA1A ST-01 ST-01 TA4A ST-01 TA4B ST-01 TA5A ST-01 TA5B ST-01 TA7A ST-01 TA7A TA10A ST-1 TA10B ST-1 TA11A ST-01 TA12A ST-01 TA14A ST-01 TA15A ST-01 TA16A ST-01 ST-01 TA9A TA75C ST-01 ST-01 TA7B
ST-01 TA7CST-01 TA7DST-01 TA7EST-01 TA7F
ST-01 TA7BST-01 TA7CST-01 TA7D
TA11B ST-01
1' - 8"
1' - 6"
3' - 0" 1' - 0"
2' - 9"
1' - 6"
2' - 9"
4' - 6"
BOCA CODE REQUIRES A 38" MOUNTING HEIGHT - VERIFY THIS WORKS WITH YOUR SINK & BACKSPLASH 3' - 4" UNO
6' - 6" UNO
6' - 8"
1' - 8"
4' - 6"

LEVEL OF BED IN OPEN POSITION SHOWN DASHED

SHOWER CURTAIN ROD

HC ACCESSIBLE SHOWER CONTROLS

CENTER LINE OF SHOWER HEAD MOUNTING

SHOWER CONTROL SHOWN SHADED

CONTROL WALL

TOWEL DISPENSER /

WASTE RECEPTACLES

TOWEL DISPENSER TOILET PAPER

DISPENSERS

MIRRORS GRAB BARS STAINLESS STEEL
SHELF
(BELOW GRAB BAR)
SHOWER

CURTAIN ROD

TOWEL BAR
/ TOWEL
RING

SANITARY NAPKIN

DISPOSAL
COAT
HOOK
SHOWER
SEAT

SOAP DISH HAIR DRYER
44" MAX

TO FLUSH CONTROL
(TOP OF SEAT)
1'-5" STANDARD OR
1'-7" @ H.C. ACCESS
2' - 6"
10" OR AS REQUIRED
44" MAX TO FLUSH CONTROL
@ ACCESSIBLE
2'-3 1/2" @ CHILDREN'S
2' - 10"

SOAP DISPENSER
4' - 0" MAX FOR CONTROL
3' - 4" TO DISPENSER 1'-2" @ CHILDREN'S
1' - 8"

RECOMMENDED
3' - 8" FOR PUSH BUTTON MAX
2' - 10 1/2"
1' - 0"

TO TOP OF UNIT
6"TY
PIC
AL
6' - 8"

TOP OF UNIT
2' - 6"
5' - 6"
A.F.F.
4' - 0"
A.F.F.

TA1A TA2A TA4A TA4B TA5A TA5B TA6A TA7F TA7A TA8A TA9A TA10A TA10B TA11A TA11B TA12A TA14A TA15A TA16A TA7B
TA7CTA7D
3' - 6"
A.F.F.
3' - 2" MIN FOR CONTROL
6' - 6" U.N.O.
5' - 2" TO TOP OF UNIT
3' - 4" A.F.F.
2' - 9"
3' - 2"
18" MIN
NOTE: LOCATE HANDLE FACING SIDE OF TOILET ROOM (AWAY FROM WALL) TYPICAL 2' - 11" T.O. SPOUT MAX
2'-11" MIN
TOILET FIXTURES & ACCESSORIES - MOUNTING HEIGHTSSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

MOP/BROOM
HOLDER
6' - 8"
SHELF
42" AND 58" AS INDICATED

SEAT COVER

DISPENSER
45" - 59" @ STANDARD
30"-48" @ ACCESSIBLE

SANITARY
NAPKIN

DISPENSER

LEVEL OF BED IN OPEN POSITION SHOWN DASHED
2' - 9"

BABY CHANGING
HCU-01SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

ACCESSIBLE
UR-01SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1' - 9"
2' - 10"
1' - 9"
2' - 10" 30" WIDE X 48"

DEEP CLEAR FLOOR SPACE
HC-01SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

HC-AMBULATORY
3' - 0"
3' - 6" 1' - 0"
3' - 4"
60" MIN.

MIN.
32" CLEAR
HC-02SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

HC-ACCESSIBLE
3' - 6" 1' - 0"
3' - 4"
60" MIN.
60" MIN.
1' - 6"
4" MAX
CLEAR
32"
1' - 0" 2' - 0"
TA7A
TA4ATA7B
TA7C
TA7C
TA4A
TA7D
TA7A
TA4B
TA7C
TA7B
TA12B
TA11BTA11A
TA15A
TA14A
TA7E
TA10BTA12A
TA15A
TA7E
TA14A
TA9A
TA15A
TA14A
TA9A TA7F TA2A TA5A
TA2A
X
LAV OR

COUNTERTOP
3' - 4"
TA11A
EWC W/

BOTTLE FILLER
XX.XX
3' - 4" UNO

FRONT OF

GRAB BAR
1' - 5" MIN
Client/Owner/OperatorSheet IdentificationCallisonRTKL Inc.Issue Drawing Log © 2020 CallisonRTKL Inc.

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
TOILET TYPESCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G-008

TOILET ACCESSORY SCHEDULE
Type Comments TAG TYPE Count Manufacturer Model Comments Responsibility

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
UL LISTINGS,FIRESTOP &PENETRATIONSCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G-009 . THIS PORTION OF THE PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

4.255

PARTITION TYPES NOTES

FLAGGED WOOD FRAME
A. REFER TO SHEET A-002 FOR TYPICAL HEAD DETAILS (RATED & NON-RATED) B. UL DESIGN NUMBERS REFER TO THE UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES FIRE RESISTANCE DIRECTORY C. FIRE RATED PARTITIONS SHALL HAVE FIRESTOP SEALANTS AT THE HEAD, SILL, THROUGH PENETRATIONS, OPENINGS AND JUNCTURES WITH DISSIMILAR MATERIALSD. NON-RATED PARTITIONS SHALL HAVE SEALANTS AT THE HEAD, SILL, THROUGH PENETRATIONS, OPENINGS AND JUNCTURES WITH DISSIMILAR MATERIALS

A E F G
TYPICAL 1 HR CORRIDOR WALL

STUD SIZE SUFFIX / WIDTH CHART STUD SIZE SUFFIX / WIDTH CHART STUD SIZE SUFFIX / WIDTH CHART STUD SIZE SUFFIX / WIDTH CHART SUFFIX
A3

STUD SIZE TOTAL WIDTH SUFFIX
E1

STUD SIZE TOTAL WIDTH SUFFIX
F1

STUD SIZE TOTAL WIDTH
7 3/8"
NON-RATEDSTC: N/A

STRUCTCLGFLR

STRUCT (PLAN) STRUCT

SEALANT (NO

AIR LEAKAGE)
WOOD STUDS5/8" GYP BD. EA. SIDESEALANT
0' - 5"

SEALANT (NO AIR LEAKAGE)
2X4 STAGGERED WOOD STUDS

SEALANT
(2) LAYERS 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP BD.2X6 BOTTOM PLATE
(1) LAYERS 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP BD.

CLGFLR
SEALANT (NO AIR LEAKAGE)2X4 WOOD STUDSSEALANT
1" MIN. AIR GAP
0' - 10" FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION FILL

BOTH STUD CAVITIES
1 HR DEMISING WALL
2 x 6 6 3/4"
2 x 6 G1
STRUCT
1HR RATEDUL#U340STC: 53 (CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF NOISE CONTROL 1.2.3.5.4.3)

DEFAULT PARTITION

SUFFIX STUD SIZE TOTAL WIDTH
1 HR EXTERIOR WALL
CLG
EXT

SEALANT (NO

AIR LEAKAGE)
SEALANT2X6 BOTTOM PLATE
(1) LAYERS 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP BD.
1HR RATEDUL#U356STC: N/A
CEMENTITIOUS PLASTER W/(1) LAYER OF 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING

FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION TO FILL CAVITY
0' - 7 1/2"
R-19 FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION TO FILL CAVITY
NOTE: EXTERIOR WALLS IN TYPE IIIA BUILDINGS REQUIRED TO HAVE FIRE-RETARDANT TREATED WOOD FRAMING. ESR 1791 OR EQUAL PER CBC 602.3. 1HR RATEDUL#U341STC: 61 (CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF NOISE CONTROL 1.2.4.5.5.4) A1 2 x 4 4 3/4"
2 x 8 8 3/4"
*REPLACE WITH 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING WHERE IT OCCURS PER STRUCT. DWG 2 x 4 5 1/2"
A2
(2) 2 x 4 9 7/8"
J

STUD SIZE SUFFIX / WIDTH CHART
STRUCT
J1
2 x 4
8 1/4"

SUFFIX STUD SIZE TOTAL WIDTH

EXTERIOR WALLPLASTER BOTH SIDES
CLG
EXT
2X6 BOTTOM PLATE
NOTE: TYPE J1, J2, J3 & J4 FURR-OUT -PLASTER ONE SIDE ONLYNOTE: EXTERIOR WALLS IN TYPE IIIA BUILDINGS REQUIRED TO HAVE FIRE-RETARDANT TREATED WOOD FRAMING. ESR 1791 OR EQUAL PER CBC 602.3.NOTE: TYPE J5A IS 1 HR RATED INT
2HR RATED
2HR RATEDUL#U301STC: N/A

STRUCTCLGFLR

SEALANT (NO
AIR

LEAKAGE)WOOD STUDSSEALANT
0' - 6"
(2) LAYERS 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP BD. EA. SIDE
2 x 4 6"
2 x 6 8"2 x 8 10"
D

STUD SIZE SUFFIX / WIDTH CHART
SUFFIXD1

STUD SIZE TOTAL WIDTH
B

STUD SIZE SUFFIX / WIDTH CHART
SUFFIXB3

STUD SIZE TOTAL WIDTH
B1B2
H

STUD SIZE SUFFIX / WIDTH CHART
STRUCT
2 x 4 6 3/4" H1

SUFFIX STUD SIZE TOTAL WIDTH
2 HR EXTERIOR WALL
CLG
EXT

SEALANT (NO AIR LEAKAGE)

SEALANT
2X6 BOTTOM PLATE
(2) LAYERS 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP BD.
2HR RATED ASSEMBLY COMPLIES WITH:

A. 2016 CBC, TABLE 721.1(2) 15-1.6
B. G.A. FILE NO. WP 8420STC: N/A

CEMENTITIOUS PLASTER

FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION TO FILL CAVITY
0' - 9"
NOTE: EXTERIOR WALLS IN TYPE IIIA BUILDINGS REQUIRED TO HAVE FIRE-RETARDANT TREATED WOOD FRAMING. ESR 1791 OR EQUAL PER CBC 602.3.NOTE: TYPE G3 TO INCLUDE RESILIENT CHANNELS PER ACOUSTICAL.

NOTE: TYPE G5 INCLUDES 1" AIR GAP BTW FRAMINGNOTE: TYPE G7 INCLUDES 5 3/8" AIR GAP BETWEEN FRAMING. LOCATED ABOVE 3 HOUR WALL.

INT
2 x 8
1' - 6"
J2
(2) 2 x 6
1' - 10"
2 x 6 7 5/8"
2 x 6
1' - 0"
J3J4
F2
2HR RATEDUL#U316STC: N/A
NOTE: EXTERIOR WALLS IN TYPE IIIA BUILDINGS REQUIRED TO HAVE FIRE-RETARDANT TREATED WOOD FRAMING. ESR 1791 OR EQUAL PER CBC 602.3. (2) 2 x 6
J5
2 x 6 9 1/2"
G2 2 x 6 8 3/4"G3
2 x 8 10 3/4"
STRUCT
CLG
EXT
2X6 BOTTOM PLATE

CEMENTITIOUS PLASTER
2 HR EXTERIOR WALLPLASTER BOTH SIDES
0' - 9 1/2"
J6
2 x 4 4 7/8"
(2) 2 x 6
J7
(2) 2 x 6 5' - 0"
J8
10 1/4"
5"
B4 2 x 10 11 3/4" G4
2 x 10 1' - 0 1/2"

MINERAL WOOL DRAFT STOP AS REQ'D
NOTE: TYPE D2 INCLUDES (1) EXTRA LAYER OF 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP BD.

D2 (2) 2 x 4 10 1/2"
0' - 7 3/8"
(2) LAYERS 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP BD.
(1) LAYERS 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP BD.
*REPLACE WITH 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING PER STRUCT. DWG
0' - 8 1/4"
NOTE: *1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING SHOULD OCCUR ON OUTER SIDE OF THE WALL.

G5
2 x 6 9 1/4"
*ADD 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING PER STRUCT. DWG UNDER GYP. BD.

NOTE: *1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING SHOULD OCCUR ON OUTER SIDE OF THE WALL.

G6
B5 (2) 2 x 4 10 1/2" (2) 2 x 4 11 1/4"
NOTE: TYPE B6 INCLUDES 1" AIR GAP BETWEENFRAMING
5/8" TYPE "X" EXT. RATED WATER-RESISTANT GYPSUM SHEATHING FIRESTOPPING INS. @ 10'-0" INTERVALS
H2 (2) 2 x 4 1' - 0"
(2) LAYERS 5/8" TYPE "X" EXT. RATED WATER RESISTANT GYPSUM SHEATHING (1) LAYER OF 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING

CEMENTITIOUS PLASTER
(1) LAYER OF 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING
NON-RATEDSTC: N/A
G7 (2) 2 x 4 1' - 4 1/8"
NOTE: TYPE B2 INCLUDES BATT INSULATION TO FILL CAVITY PER ACOUSTICAL.

D3 (2) 2 x 4 1' - 1 1/4"
NOTE: INCLUDES (1) EXTRA LAYER OF 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP. BD ON EITHER SIDE OF AIR SPACE.

NOTE: INCLUDES (1) EXTRA LAYER OF 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP. BD.

CLGFLR
SEALANT (NO AIR LEAKAGE)2X4 WOOD STUDSSEALANT

AIR SPACE
0' - 1 1/2"
1' - 0" FIBERGLASS BATT

INSULATION FILL BOTH STUD CAVITIES
STRUCT
*ADD 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING WHERE IT OCCURS PER STRUCT. DWGMINERAL WOOL DRAFT STOP AS REQ'D (2) LAYERS 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP BD.
(2) LAYERS 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP BD.
2 HR DEMISING WALL
2HR RATEDUL#U342STC: 63 (CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF NOISE CONTROL 1.2.4.2.5.6) D3

SUFFIX STUD SIZE TOTAL WIDTH
E3
2 HR CORRIDOR WALL

STUD SIZE SUFFIX / WIDTH CHART

SUFFIX STUD SIZE TOTAL WIDTH
2HR RATEDGA FILE NO. WP 3910STC: 53 (CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF NOISE CONTROL 1.2.3.2.5.5) E3 2 x 6 8 1/2"

STRUCT (PLAN) SEALANT (NO AIR LEAKAGE)
2X4 STAGGERED WOOD STUDS

SEALANT
(2) LAYERS 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP BD.2X6 BOTTOM PLATE
(1) LAYERS 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP BD.

R-19 FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION TO FILL CAVITY
0' - 8 1/2"
*ADD 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING PER STRUCT. DWG
*ADD 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING PER STRUCT. DWG UNDER GYP. BD.FIRESTOPPING INS. @ 10'-0" INTERVALS E2 2 x 6 7 7/8"

STUD SIZE SUFFIX / WIDTH CHART
J9
J10
6 7/8"
2 x 6 7"2 x 4
E. R-13 BATT INSULATION AT ALL EXTERIOR WALLS (EXCLUDES WALL TYPES H, J, & K) F. REFER TO SHEET S1.30 THRU S1.33 FOR WOOD STUD FRAMING DTLS.

FLAGGED WOOD FRAME EXT K STUD SIZE SUFFIX / WIDTH CHART SUFFIX K1 STUD SIZE TOTAL WIDTH 2 x 4 4 1/8" WALL FURRING NON-RATED STC: N/A

STRUCTCLGFLR

SEALANT (NO

AIR LEAKAGE)
WOOD STUDS5/8" GYP BD. SEALANT
0' - 4"
K2 2 x 6 6 1/8"NOTE: TYPE K3 SPACE FRAMING 1" MIN. OFF FACE OF WALL, INCLUDES BATT INSULATION TO FILL CAVITY PER ACOUSTICALK3 2 x 6 7 1/8" 1HR RATEDUL#U305STC: 33 (RAL-TL111-172)NOTE: SEE ENLARGED UNIT PLANS FOR INTERIOR BEARING WALL LOCATIONS

INTERIOR BEARING PARTITION
NOTE: *1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING SHOULD OCCUR ON OUTER SIDE OF THE WALL.

F3 2 x 6 8 5/8"
NOTE: TYPE F3 TO INCLUDE RESILIENT CHANNELS PER ACOUSTICAL AND TWO LAYERS OF 5/8-INCH GYPSUM BOARD ON INTERIOR.

PARTITION NOTES
FOR ALL PARTITIONS SHOWN ON FLOOR PLANS WITHOUT "FLAG" SYMBOLS - REFER TO "GRAPHICAL DEFAULT" PARTITION TYPES DRAWINGS THIS SHEET.-"FLAGGED" PARTITIONS ARE ADDITIONAL PARTITION TYPE VARIATIONS - SHOWN ALSO THIS SHEET.-NOTE THAT NOT ALL PARTITION TYPE VARIATIONS SHOWN THIS SHEET ARE NECESSARILY USED.LINE OF "STRUCTURE" AS SHOWN AT PARTITION TYPE HEAD CONDITIONS IS DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND DOES NOT INDICATE EXACT CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS. OFFSET PARTITION CONSTRUCTION AS NECESSARY TO EXTEND WALL TO DECK ABOVE & SEAL AS SHOWN.

1.2. PROVIDE DEFLECTION TRACKS OR CLIPS FOR ALL PARTITIONS ABUTTING STRUCTURE ABOVE.EXTEND RATED PARTITIONS THROUGH THE INTERIOR FACE OF EXTERIOR WALL GYPSUM BOARD AND SEAL TO THE INSIDE FACE OF THE EXTERIOR BUILDING WALL SHEATHING. REFER ALSO PARTITION INTERSECTION DRAWINGS.INTERIOR METAL STUD PARTITIONS ARE DIMENSIONED FROM FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD.ROOMS W/ PARTITIONS TO RECEIVE SOUND ATTENUATION BLANKETS (SAB) ARE IDENTIFIED ON PLAN WITH A SOLID BAR TO THE LEFT OF THE ROOM NUMBER BOX. EXTEND SAB THE FULL LENGTH & HEIGHT OF ALL ROOM PERIMETER PARTITIONS TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE ROOM ENCLOSURE. NOTE THAT "SUB-ROOMS" MAY BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE OVERALL PERIMETER SAB ENCLOSURE.--NOTE THAT 3 1/2" FIBERGLASS BATTS OR 2" MINERAL WOOL FIBER INSULATION MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SOUND ATTENUATION BATTS.RESTROOM / TOILETS ARE TO RECEIVE SOUND ATTENUATION BLANKETS IN THE PERIMETER WALLS. WHEN FIXTURES ARE PLACED BACK TO BACK, BOTH WALLS OF THE CHASE ARE TO RECEIVE SOUND ATTENUATION.

ALL GLAZING IN ROOMS TO RECEIVE SOUND ATTENUATION SHALL BE 1" INSULATED GLASS.

MAINTAIN THE FIRE-PROTECTION RATINGS FOR ALL OPENINGS IN RATED PARTITIONS.

ALL RATED PARTITIONS SHALL USE UL RATED 5/8" TYPE "X" GYPSUM BOARD U.N.O.

IDENTIFY ALL RATED PARTITIONS WITH LABELS LOCATED 6" ABOVE THE CEILING AT MAX. 10'-0" O.C. WITH 1 1/2" HIGH LETTERS, CLEARLY LEGIBLE & BRIGHTLY INDICATED AGAINST A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND.CONSTRUCT ALL CORRIDOR WALLS TO RESIST THE PASSAGE OF SMOKE. I.E., TO BE SMOKE TIGHT.REFER TO PLUMBING CHASE SCHEDULE THIS SHEET FOR DEFAULT CHASE WIDTH DIMENSIONS.REFER TO GYPSUM BOARD SCHEDULE THIS SHEET AND SUBSTITUTE OTHER BOARD MATERIALS WHERE NOTED.WHERE THICKNESS VARIES BETWEEN TWO PARTITIONS IN AN UNINTERRUPTED CONTINUOUS WALL PLANE -OFFSET STUDS AND ALIGN FACE OF PARTITIONS. REF. TO PARTITION INTERSECTIONS.PROVIDE 20 GAGE DOUBLE STUDS @ EACH DOOR & WINDOW JAMB.BLOCKING: PROVIDE 16 GAUGE SHEET METAL STRAP BLOCKING FOR ALL WALL MOUNTED ITEMS, U.N.O.

NOTE THAT ONLY PARTITIONS THAT VARY FROM THE GRAPHICAL DEFAULT PARTITIONS ARE FLAGGED 2 HR CMU1 HR FIRE2 HR SHAFT1 HR FIRE

TYPICAL DEFAULT
2 HR CMUNON- RATED CMU
"FLAGGED PARTITION TYPE SYMBOL
A6
A6
SUFFIX "6"(STUD SIZE)PARTITION "A"PARTITION
PARTITION "FLAG" LEGEND EXAMPLE FLOOR PLAN - PARTITION IDENTIFICATION

3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.17.16. IN A DEMISING WALL CONDITION, CONDUIT (AND ALL OTHER SERVICES INCLUDING MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING) SHALL BE RUN ON THE STUD SIDE SERVED.

CABINETS AND DRAWERS SHOULD USE SOFT CLOSE ELEMENTS LIKE BLUM BLUMOTION. GYPSUM CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE POURED ONTO THE WALL PLATES OR ON THE INSIDE OF THE DEMISING WALL PARTITIONS (I.E. BETWEEN THE PLATES). WHERE GYPSUM BOARD ENCLOSURES ARE REQUIRED TO RETAIN FIRE RATING, THEY SHOULD ONLY WRAP THE ITEM REQUIRED. THEY CANNOT EXTEND TO WRAP TWO OR THREE OF THE SAME ITEM. EACH MUST BE WRAPPED INDIVIDUALLY.

INSTALLATION OF GYPSUM BOARD AND ALL ACOUSTICAL MATERIALS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE UL RATING, THE USG CONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK, MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS AND PRACTICES AND ASTM PRACTICE STANDARDS FOR LIGHT WALL CONSTRUCTION. IF THESE REQUIREMENTS CONTRADICT METHODS WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT, THEN DURING DESIGN THE METHOD SHOULD BE DISCUSSED. IF THIS OCCURS DURING CONSTRUCTION, AN RFI SHOULD BE PREPARED AND DISCUSSED. PRACTICES UTILIZED BY CONTRACTORS SHALL ALWAYS BE THOSE THAT MAXIMIZE ACOUSTICAL PERFORMANCE. CORRIDOR WALL ASSEMBLIES - STEEL CONSTRUCTION. ALL RESILIENT CHANNELS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE CLARK DIETRICH RCSD, NO EXCEPTIONS. ALL RESILIENT CHANNEL SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS WITH CLOSE ATTENTION PAID TO MAINTAINING A GAP BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE CHANNEL AT THE PERIMETER, USING THE PRE-DRILLED HOLES TO SCREW TO THE JOISTS, USING A SHEET METAL SCREW TO HOLD THE OVERLAPPING CHANNELS TOGETHER, HAVING NO FREE FLANGE IN CONTACT WITH THE STRUCTURE PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF GYPSUM BOARD, MARKING THE LOCATION OF THE JOISTS TO VERIFY THAT NO SCREW IS POTENTIALLY CONNECTING TO A JOIST. RESILIENT CHANNEL SHALL BE ATTACHED AT 24" O.C. WITH THE FREE SIDE (FLANGE) AT THE TOP AND NO CONTACT WITH THE FRAMING PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE GYP. BD.

IN DEMISING WALL, NO SERVICE, WIRE OR CONDUIT SHALL BE INSTALLED INTO THE AIR SPACE BETWEEN THE STUDS. MATERIALS THAT ARE SHARED OR ROUTED THROUGH THIS AREA CAN BE RUN IN BETWEEN THE TWO STUDS, BUT SHOULD NOT BE CONNECTED ACROSS STUDS RIGIDLY. NO GUSSETS ACROSS THE STUDS THAT

ARE STEEL, WOOD OR ANY OTHER HARD MATERIAL
ELECTRICAL BOX PADS SHALL BE INSTALLED BEHIND ALL ELECTRICAL BOXES IN DEMISING WALL, CORRIDOR WALL AND FLOOR CEILING ASSEMBLIES. ELECTRICAL BOX PADS SHALL COMPLETELY WRAP THE ELECTRICAL BOXES AND EXTEND TO THE BACK OF THE STRUCTURE OR BUILDING MATERIAL. BOX PADS SHALL BE EQUAL TO HILTI CP617.

ELECTRICAL BOXES SHALL BE OFFSET AS REQUIRED IN THE CODE IN DEMISING CONSTRUCTION. GYPSUM BOARD SHALL BE SCREWED, NOT NAILED. ANY GYPSUM BOARD DAMAGED MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED BY THE ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER. WALLS INCLUDING MECHANICAL PLUMBING SERVICES SHALL ALSO INCLUDE INSULATION. INSULATION SHALL BE THE DEPTH OF THE CAVITY. IN DEMISING CONSTRUCTION, INSULATION SHALL BE IN THE WALL AND JOIST CAVITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE DEMISING WALLS, CORRIDOR WALLS, SHAFT WALLS, EXTERIOR WALLS AND FLOOR CEILING ASSEMBLIES. INSULATION SHALL BE THE DEPTH OF THE CAVITY IN THE WALLS. INSULATION SHALL BE FULL CAVITY IN THE FLOOR CEILING CAVITIES.

A GAP SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF ALL DEMISING WALL, CORRIDOR WALL AND FLOOR CEILING ASSEMBLIES. GAP SHALL OCCUR AT ALL CEILING AND WALL INTERSECTIONS INCLUDING INTERIOR WALLS. THE GAP SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 1/4 INCH AND BE FILLED WITH PERMANENTLY RESILIENT NONHARDENING ACOUSTICAL SEALANT OR PERMANENTLY RESILIENT NON-HARDENING FIRE RATED SEALANT DEPENDING ON THE APPLICATION. USG SHEETROCK FIRE RATED ACOUSTICAL SEALANT IN TUBE, OR EQUAL. THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE WALL MUST BE ACOUSTICALLY SEALED PRIOR TO TAPING AND FINISHING.

IN LIVING ROOMS, DINING ROOMS AND BEDROOMS, SYSTEMS SHOULD NOT BE RUN LIKE PLUMBING OR MECHANICAL.

IF PLUMBING MANIFOLDS ARE USED, THEY SHOULD BE ISOLATED FROM THE STRUCTURE AND BE LOCATED IN THE CEILING OF THE BATHROOM OR CLOSET AREAS.

THERE SHALL BE NO CONTACT BETWEEN ANY SERVICE PENETRATING THE GYPSUM BOARD AND THE GYPSUM BOARD. A GAP SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AND SEALED. THIS INCLUDES ALL SERVICES (INCLUDING ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING).

CORRIDOR WALL ASSEMBLIES - STEEL CONSTRUCTION. IF RESILIENT CHANNEL IS SHOWN ON THE UNIT SIDE

AND CABINETS, ETC ARE REQUIRED TO BE HUNG FROM THE WALL, ADDITIONAL RESILIENT CHANNELS AND COORDINATION WITH SUB-CONTRACTORS SHALL BE COMPLETED TO HANG THESE ELEMENTS FROM THE RESILIENT CHANNEL.

18. 20.

21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.34. ALL RESILIENT CHANNELS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE CLARK DIETRICH RCSD, NO EXCEPTIONS. ALL RESILIENT CHANNEL SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS WITH CLOSE ATTENTION PAID TO MAINTAINING A GAP BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE CHANNEL AT THE PERIMETER, USING THE PRE-DRILLED HOLES TO SCREW TO THE JOISTS, USING A SHEET METAL SCREW TO HOLD THE OVERLAPPING CHANNELS TOGETHER, HAVING NO FREE FLANGE IN CONTACT WITH THE STRUCTURE PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF GYPSUM BOARD, MARKING THE LOCATION OF THE JOISTS TO VERIFY THAT NO SCREW IS POTENTIALLY CONNECTING TO A JOIST.

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
PARTITION TYPESCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G-009A

4.256

PARTITION AS SCHEDULED

WOOD BLOCKING

A - DOOR JAMB B - OPEN'G SILL

PARTITION AS SCHEDULEDPARTITION AS SCHEDULEDWOOD BLOCKING

PARTITION AS SCHEDULED

C- DOUBLE DOOR - HEADER

PARTITION AS SCHEDULED

D- SINGLE DOOR - HEADER

WOOD BLOCKING WOOD BLOCKING
PROVIDE DIAGONAL BRACING AT CENTER OF 6" OPENING AND EVERY 48" FOR OPENING GREATER THAN 6'CONTINUE BOTH JAMBS OF ALL OPENINGS TO BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE* TWO 3 1/2" STUDS AT 4'W OPENING MAX*TWO 5 1/2" STUDS AT OPENING GREATER THAN 4'

SINGLE DOOR PAIR OF DOORS WALL OPENING
A
D
A A
C *
B

OPENING OPENING OPENING
FIN. FLOOR

LINE OF STRUCTURE
2X6 SILL PLATE1X MUD PLATEDRAFT STOP WITH 3 LAYERS OF 1/2" GYPSUM BOARD BETWEEN TRUSSES (THE GYP.BD. PIECES SHOULD PROVIDE A TIGHT BARRIER BETWEEN THE TRUSS MEMBERS WITH ACOUSTICAL SEALANT) GYPSUM UNDERLAYMENTSCHEDULED FLOOR MATERIAL (VARIES)BASE AS SCHEDULED (REF. INTERIORS)1/2" ACOUSTICAL SEALANT BEAD IN 1/4" GAP1/4" ACOUSTICAL SELANT BEAD IN 1/4" GAPFIRE STOPCORRIDOR SHAFT PIPE INSULATOR / FOAM WRAP1X MUD PLATEPIPE INSULATER / FOAM WRAPPLUMBING PIPE / WASTE LINEGYPSUM UNDERLAYMENTFLOOR FINISH AS SCHEDULED (REF. INTERIORS)WOOD BASE AS SCHEDULED (REF. INTERIORS) SCHEDULED BASE (REF. INTERIORS)1X MUD PLATE

ACCOUSTICAL
SEALANTPLYWOOD PANEL BATTEN JOINTSCONTINUOUS FIRE BLOCKINGCEILING ASSEMBLY:1-HR RATING PER UL #521 APT. UNIT
GYPSUM UNDERLAYMENT3/4" PLYWOOD DECKSCHEDULED FINISH FLOOR (REF. INTERIORS)1/2" RELSILIENT CHANNEL @ 16 O.C. PERPENDICULAR TO TRUSS1 LAYER OF 5/8" TYPE 'C' GYP. BD.ACOUSTICAL SEALANT APT. UNIT
APT. UNIT APT. UNIT
Client/Owner/OperatorSheet IdentificationCallisonRTKL Inc.Issue Drawing Log © 2020 CallisonRTKL Inc.

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
PARTITIONDETAILSCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G-009B

FRAMING DETAILS - WOOD
TYPICAL PARTY WALL DTL TYP SECT @ PLUMB ISOLATION TYPICAL SHAFT DETAIL

4.257

FLOOR ASSEMBLY TYPES
FR- 01TYP. INTERIOR WOOD FLOORTOTAL DEPTH = 1' -4 1/4"UL #L570FIRE RATING : 1 HOURSTC : STC 60 IIC 55 (IN I5788.03) FR- 03TYP. CONCRETE FLOORTOTAL DEPTH = SEE STRUCTURALSTC 56 IIC 56 (IN G5873.04) VARIES

CAST-IN PLACE CONCRETE
TYP. WOOD FLOOR ABOVE AMENITY SPACES TOTAL DEPTH = VARIESRATING : 1 HOURSTC 62 IIC 54 (IN F4543.07) FR- 06SHEATHINGLIGHT-WEIGHT CONCRETE TOPPINGTJI FLOOR JOISTSECONDARY RESILIENT MATTING PER ACOUSTICALFIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION TO FILL CAVITY PAC INT'L RSIC-1 CLIP OR EQUAL
MIN.
0' - 10"
0' - 0 3/4"
0' - 1 1/2"
0' - 11 7/8"
0' - 1 1/2"
(2) LAYERS 5/8" GYP.
(2) LAYERS 5/8" GYP.

PAC INT'L DC04X2 CLIPS WITH WIRE, SPACED AS DETERMINED BY STRUCTURAL 3 1/2" BATT INSULATION

ACOUSTICAL
1' - 4 1/4"
FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION TO FILL CAVITY1 1/2" LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE TOPPING1/4" RESILIENT MATTING FR- 02TYP. UNIT WOOD FLOOR W/ DROP CEILINGTOTAL DEPTH = 2'-5"UL #L570FIRE RATING : 1 HOURSTC : STC 60 IIC 55 (IN I5788.03)

CLARKE DIETRICH RESILIENT CHANNEL PER ACOUSTICALSHEATHING MIN. 4.5mm FLOATING HARD SURFACE FLOORING
TJI FLOOR JOIST(2) LAYERS 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP. BOARD
0' - 1 1/2"
0' - 1"
1' - 1"
0' - 0 1/2"
0' - 0 1/2"
MIN. 1.4mm SECONDARY RESILIENT MATTING PER ACOUSTICAL
2' - 5"
FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION TO FILL CAVITY1 1/2" LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE TOPPING1/4" RESILIENT MATTING 0' - 10 1/2" 0' - 0 5/8"
0' - 1 5/8"
1 5/8" DROP CEILING CHANNEL STUD
5/8" GYP. BOARD

MECHANICAL DUCTS
7'-7" CEILING HEIGHT
UPGRADED WOOD FLOOR/CEILING @ MECH AREAS AND PUBLIC WALKWAYSTOTAL DEPTH =VARIESSTC 62 IIC 54 (IN F4543.07)SEE DETAIL 8b/A9.09a_A FR- 09SHEATHINGFINISH FLOORING OR ROOF DECKINGTJI FLOOR JOISTSECONDARY RESILIENT MATTING PER ACOUSTICALFIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION TO FILL CAVITY PAC INT'L RSIC-1 CLIP OR EQUAL(2) LAYERS 5/8" GYP.

SITE C UPGRADED WOOD FLOOR W/ DROP CEILINGTOTAL DEPTH = 2'-5"UL #L570 FIRE RATING : 1 HOURSTC 62 IIC 54 (IN F4543.07)SHEATHINGLIGHT-WEIGHT CONCRETE TOPPINGTJI FLOOR JOISTSECONDARY RESILIENT MATTING PER ACOUSTICALFIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION TO FILL CAVITY 0' - 0 3/4"
0' - 1 1/2"
0' - 11 7/8"
0' - 1 1/2"
PAC INT'L DC04X2 CLIPS WITH WIRE, SPACED AS DETERMINED BY STRUCTURAL FR - 10
MIN. 5mm FLOATING HARD SURFACE FLOORING
MIN. 1.5mm SECONDARY RESILIENT MATTING PER ACOUSTICAL
Client/Owner/OperatorSheet IdentificationCallisonRTKL Inc.Issue Drawing Log © 2020 CallisonRTKL Inc.

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
FLOORASSEMBLY TYPESCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G-010

4.258
A
B
Client/Owner/OperatorSheet IdentificationCallisonRTKL Inc.

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
RENDERINGSCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G-011
1 VIEW OF ENTRANCE FROM PELTON AVE LOOKING NORTH2 VIEW OF ARRIVAL ENTRANCE AND PORTE-COCHERE 1 2

4.259
A
B
Client/Owner/OperatorSheet IdentificationCallisonRTKL Inc.

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
RENDERINGSCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G-012
1 ON EUCALYPTUS AVE. LOOKING EAST
2 ON EUCALYPTUS AVE. LOOKING SOUTHEAST
1 2

4.260
A
B
Client/Owner/OperatorSheet IdentificationCallisonRTKL Inc.

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
RENDERINGSCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G-013
1 VIEW OF SOCIAL COURTYARD LOOKING WEST
2 VIEW OF ACTIVITY COURTYARD LOOKING EAST
1 2

4.261
A
B
Client/Owner/OperatorSheet IdentificationCallisonRTKL Inc.

SealConsultant

NOT FOR

THE WATERMARK AT

SANTA CRUZ
RENDERINGSCallisonRTKL Project No: 040-190064333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE C-200LOS ANGELES, CA 90071Tel: 213.633.6000 G-014
1 AERIAL VIEW LOOKING DINING COURTYARD
1 4.262
FIR
ELANE

FIRELANE

FIRE LANE

FIRELANE

COMPACT

COMPACTCO

MPACTCOMP

ACTCOMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCO

MPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV
CHAR
GING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
NO
PARKIN
G
EV
NO

PARKING
EV
2%
1%
2%
1%

4.7%
(41.67 FS)
(44.31 FF) (41.01 FS)

43.87 FS

43.17 FS

42.99 FS

43.39 FS
(41.92 FS)
FF 44.31
FF 44.31
decorative gravel
decomposed gravel
D
A
1 2-B
2-A
2-2
1-0
1-B
1-A
LOBBY

PARCEL LINEREAR SETBACK

FIRE APPARATUS

ACCESS TURNAROUND

BUILDING A
R2.1 OCCUPANCY
2-STORY

TYPE VA CONSTRUCTION

BUILDING B
R2.1 OCCUPANCY
2-STORY

TYPE VA CONSTRUCTION

MARK AS FIRE LANE
66 FIRE LANE
130' - 0"

PELTON AVE

EUCALYPTUS
AVE
15'
-
0"
15' -
0 "
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
1ST FLOOR INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK2ND FLOOR AND ABOVE INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK 28' - 7 1/2"
FIR
ELAN
E
150' - 0"
20' - 0"

PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT FROM CHURCH PARKING LOT TO NEW PROJECT FOR EMERGENCY AND SERVICE VEHICLES

PROJECT FRONT IS EUCALYPTUS AVE
347' - 0"
46' - 1 3/4"
134' - 10 3/4"

PROPERTY LINE

CHURCH FRONT IS PELTON AVE
20' - 0"
WEST
CLIFF
DR
20' -
91/2
"
C

TRELLIS FOR DROP OFF AND PEDESTRIAN
28 '
- 2
"
78'
- 3"
96' - 0"
51' - 0"
50' - 11 3/4"
6' - 2 1/8"
G
T
TR

LOADING
120' - 4 1/2"
17'
- 6"
64' - 1"
200' DISTANCE
200' DISTANCE
200' DISTANCE
93' - 1"
61' - 1 1/2"
6' TALL DOUBLE SIDED SPLIT FACE WALL W/ CAP

Santa Cruz City CouncilNovember 29, 2022

Santa Cruz City Council
November 29, 2022