Addition of walkable, pedestrian-and cyclist-oriented ground-floor uses would maintain neighborhood-and community-serving uses within City limits, preventing leakage to locations
17.19 outside of Santa Cruz. The location of affordable housing, childcare, and commercial space within a single building creates a symbiotic mix of uses which completement surrounding land uses and furnish a broader range of destinations in the locale intended to represent a destination for the community.
8. The design of the façade of the proposed use meets the design standards and guidelines of the Downtown Plan and is not restricted by corporate standardized or trademarked exterior design, signage, materials, color or other visual treatments; The proposed project includes high quality of architecture and attractive arrangement and presentation of facades, aesthetically enhancing the existing site, ensuring compatibility with surrounding uses, and ensuring consistency with the provisions of the Downtown Plan. The design incorporates relief in the buildings’ front and side facade planes; diversity of materials and colors; insetting of windows and placement of projecting metal awnings; and integration of a distinct building base, middle, and cap. Varied fenestration, ample use of score lines, and placement of decorative louvers and trim detail additionally offer visual diversity, while reducing the appearance of project building bulk and mass. With a design tailored to the project site, the proposed project introduces no corporate architecture or signage, but, rather, affords originality and uniqueness, furthering the unique identity which establishes Santa Cruz as a vibrant, authentic, and attractive city. Use of native, drought-tolerant, and low-water-use vegetation further enhance the image of the proposed development while providing ecological benefits and functionality through improved treatment of stormwater, creation of passive recreational space, and provision of opportunities for both active and passive recreation and gathering space for social interaction to the entirety of the Santa Cruz community.
9. The proposed use would be a good neighbor and contribute to the community life of the downtown by participating in such community activities as: (1) Membership in downtown merchant, resident, neighborhood improvement organizations and/or assessment districts; (2) to the greatest extent feasible, hiring local residents; and (3) hosting or participating in downtown festivals, fairs, benefit events and similar neighborhood activities; and
The proposed use would enhance the vibrancy and life of the community, acting as an integral component of the City’s continually evolving and diversified downtown core. The new library would provide capacity for community gatherings, events, festivals, and fairs and offer a venue for hosting of events open to the public and serving a wide range of stakeholder needs. The childcare use would allow for area residents to care for the youngest members of their families in a location near a high0density commercial and employment center, while the commercial tenant space would offer capacity for new retail, service, and similar residentserving categories of uses accessible from ground level and offering expanded business and employment stock and representing a venue accommodating new and existing local merchants.
10. If applicable, all food and/or beverage service activities shall be conducted in accordance with the following “good neighbor operating procedures” for such uses.
17.20 i. Sufficient trash and recycling receptacles shall be provided and shall be regularly maintained;
ii. All debris boxes shall be screened and kept on the premises in a designated or approved location;
iii. The operator shall be responsible for cleaning the sidewalk within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance from the premises during the hours of operation to maintain the sidewalk free of paper, spillage or other litter; and
iv. Noise, glare and odors shall be contained within the premises so as not to be a nuisance to neighbors. Under no circumstance shall the ventilation outlets or motors cause emission of objectionable odors or noise directed toward neighbors.
The mix of land uses incorporated within the proposed project would introduce an array of enterprises into the Cedar Street Village subarea of the City’s Downtown Plan area. While food and beverage services are not currently expected as part of the regular library operations, if such service were to occur, through application of standards conditions of approval and through implementation of principles of design in keeping with the provisions of the Downtown Plan and practices of property maintenance conforming to the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, trash receptacles would remain in sufficient capacity and of a unified design consistent with the aesthetic standards of the City’s Downtown Plan; debris boxes would remain within designated, approved locations; proper sanitation practices would be followed; and nuisance impacts related to generation of noise, glare, odors, and similar offensive effects would not manifest.
Design Permit, Section 24.08.430
11. 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.
The project site plan demonstrates consistency with, and will facilitate achievement of, the goals, policies, and actions of General Plan 2030, whose Land Use Map designates the land including the subject parcel as “Retail Visitor Commercial.” Demolition of an existing, aged commercial building and surface parking lot situated on the respective parcels comprising the project area and replacement with a higher-intensity development will provide improved utility of the site; and placement of a new development will provide for a more uniform, cohesive exterior appearance consistent with the bulk, mass, and architecture of existing, surrounding uses. As proposed, the project will, therefore, 1) attain General Plan Goal CD-1 by promoting “a building environment in harmony with its natural setting;” and 2) advance Policy LU1.1 by relating “residential, commercial, and industrial land use intensities to the capability and location of the land while ensuring optimum utilization of infill parcels.” The project provides 124 dwelling units, resulting in an elevated residential intensity as allowable by the State’s Density Bonus Law, and thus advances site development standards of the Downtown Plan through advancement of elements of the plan by facilitating the vision that “A range of housing types is integrated into the downtown … This urban-density housing provides both market-rate and affordable units, and expands the immediate market for downtown goods, services and public transportation” and fostering attainment of qualities of
17.21 the Code Street Village Corridor as envisioned in the Plan that “upper-level residential uses are particularly encouraged within the Cedar Street subarea to intensify the resident population of the downtown and to create an appropriate land use transition to the adjacent neighborhoods.” Through provision of traffic-calming measures, including widened sidewalks and extended bicycle travel lanes, the project mitigates increases in vehicular volumes and assists in improvement of public safety while avoiding disruption to current circulation patterns. Consistency with the General Plan, Downtown Plan, and other applicable regulations is further articulated in the project plans, staff reports, website materials for the project, public hearing presentations, and conditions of approval, and elsewhere in these findings.
12. 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.
The project complies with all applicable objective standards, in part through the implementation of State Density Bonus Law, as articulated in the project plans, staff reports, website materials for the project, public hearing presentations, and conditions of approval, and elsewhere in these findings. The proposed project would replace an existing, low-intensity building and fixtures with a dynamic new mixed-use development accommodating a variety of uses, including public facility, commercial, and residential units at a site bounded on all sides by existing buildings of similar scale and range of land uses. Demolition of the existing aged structures and replacement with a new development boasting modern architecture will eliminate aging infrastructure while introducing new land uses whose attributes retain compatibility with the nature of surrounding uses of commercial, residential, and publicfacilities character, with a diversity analogous to that proposed while avoiding spillover effects inducing detrimental effects to surrounding land uses. The proposed layout will allow for improved use of the site for mixed-use high-density commercial and residential use and maintain compatibility in design and utility of surrounding land uses.
13. 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.
Through removal of an antiquated, underutilized building and surface parking lot, the proposed project will allow for better use of a property of constrained dimensions and limited area while continuing the multi-use character of the site and maintaining cohesiveness to surrounding uses. The design of the project and all landscaping will enhance the aesthetics of the project site and allow for an intensity of use and activity appropriate for the site’s downtown location, while minor regrading of the project area and setting of new surface material will combine for improved circulation and site access conducive to a high-density, mixed-use development.
17.22 The building would reflect an individual character while introducing ample articulation, diversity of colors and materials, varied setbacks across stories, and appropriate scale and massing, compatible building form and bulk, and protection for solar access; provide an appropriate height, setting the taller residential building components closer to Pacific Avenue and stepping down significantly from the height of the residential component to a structured parking facility and library, and consistent with the maximum height stipulated by the Downtown Plan, in part through implementation of State Density Bonus Law; supply multifamily housing as a core component of the proposed scope of work; ensure accessibility to downtown destinations; integrate a strong network of public and private open spaces for social activity and pedestrian orientation; emphasize pedestrian and bicyclist circulation; and centralize parking within a structured facility. The project would provide new opportunities for placement of affordable residential units in the City’s Downtown; would promote the appearance of groupings of buildings rather than one monolithic mass; will facilitate the creation of internal pedestrian connections and will advance the construction of childcare and structured parking and will incorporate public right-of-way improvements. The project therefore 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.
14. 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 proposed project proposes modifications to an existing underutilized downtown site containing a single decades-old commercial building and asphalt parking lot, whose removal will eliminate a low-performing, aged structure precluding attainment of optimum development potential and use of the subject site; and proposed replacement with a new landmark building, attractive landscaping, and attendant on- and off-site amenities granting enhanced aesthetics and acting as the impetus for urban renewal in the subject area.
Construction of a modern building with variation in height, ample articulation in planes, diversity in materials and colors, balance in fenestration, and incorporation of a tiered building design would enhance the project site while complementing the local environment, including surrounding land uses of various scales of development intensity, thus advancing neighborhood compatibility.
The proposed project includes high quality of architecture and site design, satisfying the stated rationale of the requirement for Design Permit and providing consistency with the provisions of the Downtown Plan. The design incorporates relief in the buildings’ front and side facade planes; diversity of materials and colors; insetting of windows and placement of projecting metal awnings; and integration of a distinct building base, middle, and cap. Varied fenestration, ample use of score lines, and placement of decorative louvers and trim detail additionally offer visual diversity, while reducing the appearance of project building bulk and mass. Use of native, drought-tolerant, and low-water-use vegetation further enhance the image of the proposed development while providing ecological benefits and functionality through improved treatment of stormwater, creation of passive recreational space, and
17.23 provision of opportunities for both active and passive recreation and gathering space for social interaction to the entirety of the Santa Cruz community.
Consistent with the design standards of the Cedar Street Village Corridor, the building provides ground-level treatment integrating primary entrances accessible from Cedar Street, accentuating the building’s point of entry; transparency at ground level to afford visibility to the budling’s interior, thereby and creating a sense of activity and vitality; integration of signage into building facades; and incorporation of ample glazing. The new green roof positioned atop the third floor of the library building, aligned to the building’s primary frontage, include landscaping to soften the appearance of the built environment, blurring the hard edge of the building’s cap along Cedar Street and blending nature with new construction, offers an element for visual interest, access to usable space, and opportunities for community interaction.
The surrounding area has a mix of building heights and massing, and the proposed design responds to the urban context and planned building intensities by placing taller building heights closer to Pacific Avenue and stepping building heights down towards Cedar Street.
The existing building on the site at 113 Lincoln Street was determined to not qualify for local, state, or national historic register designations, though some buildings with historic designations are located in proximity to the site. The closest building with a historic designation is at the southwest corner of Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Street, at 1129 Pacific Avenue. The historic report for that building notes the large glass display windows on the façade and the terra cotta tiles along the parapet. These design features are not present in what appears to be a later addition to the building at 105 Lincoln Street, based on the lack of those features, different building height, different parapet design, and different fenestration.
Regardless, the existing and planned urban context of the area with mixed building heights provides an existing condition and expectation of differing new building sizes and scales in the area, and the urban context, separations (in addition to 105 Lincoln Street providing separation between the proposed project and the historic building at 1129 Pacific Avenue, an alleyway also separates the project from the historic building, and the taller element of the building is separated even further from the edge of the alley, making the taller element over approximately 30 feet from the property line of 105 Lincoln Street), and building design provide for compatibility between the historic building at 1129 Pacific Avenue and the proposed project. Other historic buildings are located nearby on or near the west side of Cedar Street. Similar to the case with the 1129 Pacific Avenue structure, the urban context, the separations between the project and the historic sites, and the building design are all proposed in a manner that creates compatibility with nearby structures with architectural character that is worthy of preservation. The project’s consistency with applicable rules of the Downtown Plan and other plans establishes compatibility between the project and existing and planned development in the area, and the context of the area would not be altered by the project in a manner that would affect the respective designations of any of the nearby historically-listed structures.
15. 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.
17.24 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.
The proposed project will maintain a balance of scale, form, and proportion with both the existing site and neighboring properties in a variety of ways. Through removal of an antiquated, underutilized building and surface parking lot, the project will allow for better use of a property of constrained dimensions and limited area while continuing the multi-use character of the site and maintaining cohesiveness to surrounding uses. The design of the proposed project and all landscaping will enhance the aesthetics of the project site and allow for an intensity of use and activity appropriate for the site’s downtown location, while minor regrading of the project area and setting of new surface material will combine for improved circulation and site access conducive to a high-density, mixed-use development. New rooftop mechanical equipment and all ground-mounted equipment and utility installations will be required to be fully screened from view from surrounding properties and public rights-of-way.
16. 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 proposed project would replace an existing, low-intensity building and fixtures with a dynamic new mixed-use development accommodating a variety of uses, including public facility, commercial, and residential units at a site bounded on all sides by existing buildings of similar scale and range of land uses. Demolition of the existing aged structures and replacement with a new development boasting modern architecture will eliminate aging infrastructure while introducing new land uses whose attributes retain compatibility with the nature of surrounding uses of commercial, residential, and public-facilities character, with a diversity analogous to that proposed while avoiding spillover effects inducing detrimental effects to surrounding land uses. The proposed layout will allow for improved use of the site for mixed-use high-density commercial and residential use and maintain compatibility in design and utility of surrounding land uses.
The proposed project would likely generate only a minor increase in traffic to the surrounding area, as the project’s scope of work would provide for ingress and egress from existing frontages, thereby continuing all existing circulation patterns to minimize impacts and simultaneously enhancing safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. A broadened sidewalk of 10’ in width per design criteria of the Downtown Plan, and continuation of a 6’ wide westbound bicycle lane combine to improve circulation and safety of motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, and enhancing the astatic environmental and streetscape.
Vehicular ingress and egress would occur from Cathcart Street to the parking garage serving all uses included in the project, with pedestrian entry positioned midblock along Cedar Street.
Pedestrian access to the parking garage occurs adjacent to the vehicular entries along the building’s southerly elevation, as well at the project’s north side along its Lincoln Street frontage, immediately adjacent to the library’s easterly wall By replacing existing surface
17.25 parking stalls with new structured parking of greater increased capacity near the easterly portion of the project site, the project would provide a parking facility readily accessible to the public, accommodating the anticipated project demand and helping to offset deficits projected through existing and future downtown development while minimizing the visual impacts of vehicle storage. Through placement of the entry from Cathcart Street at a sufficient distance from Cedar Street, the site design affords ease of ingress and egress while avoiding obstructions to vehicular flow and facilitating safe passage to and from the project site. The scale of the building is compatible with the scale of the surrounding urbanized area, and the project design responds to the criteria called for in the Downtown Plan.
17. 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 proposal requires the removal of existing vegetation, including trees; however, a new plant palette will provide a renewed, vibrant appearance through incorporation of native, lowwater-use, and drought-tolerant foliage selected for adaptation to local climatic and soil conditions and with City street trees of a number greater than those proposed for removal. The project scope incorporates minor alteration of site topography. Due to the flat slope of the site, limited earthwork would occur and not alter landforms in any appreciable manner.
Although new buildings are proposed, such development would replace an existing underutilized site with new features occurring in approximately the same location as existing development, maintaining height as allowable by Code, and as modified pursuant to State legislation, while avoiding inducement of adverse impacts related to height, setbacks, or loss of sunlight exposure to surrounding properties.
The proposed project incorporates new landscaping with a plant palette tailored to local soil and climatic conditions situated at the perimeter of the project site, providing limited screening to new parking stalls located within the proposed structure. Open space has been integrated in the project design, breaking up building mass and bulk while providing opportunities for respite, reflection, and outdoor recreation.
18. 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 does not have a view of the ocean or scenic coastal areas and is not located in a visually degraded area; therefore, this finding is not applicable.
19. 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.
17.26 A temporary increase in noise and vibration will result from project construction; however, no long-term intensification in nuisance impacts, including noise or vibration, would stem from the project. As a minor modification to the existing site zoned for Central Business District intensity and flanked by existing development and buffered by surrounding buildings, the project would not produce detrimental impacts related to loss of privacy, as no alteration to site standards or existing setbacks required by the Downtown Plan are incorporated in the scope of work, aside from the height increase allowed pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law. Placement of the project’s residential component at the easterly portion of the project site, maximizing separation from neighboring residences and siting of the project’s rooftop terrace, including outdoor community gathering space, adjacent to the Cedar Street public right-of-way, diminishes impacts related to potential loss of privacy and reduces adverse, potential nuisance activities related to noise, glare, and vibration associated with occupancy of proposed housing units and associated with congregate gathering on the library’s rooftop.
Therefore, the project will not render the environment less desirable, nor will it affect privacy of adjacent residents.
20. 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 proposed project has been designed to maximize space efficiency while providing ample access to light and air. Integration of generous glazing on all levels and facades of the building, including operable windows, introduces opportunities for passive heating and cooling, while providing views to the surroundings. The project design accommodates future installation of rooftop photovoltaic arrays, furthering sustainability goals for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, reducing the project’s carbon footprint while offsetting costs associated with provision of electricity while maximizing efficiency of energy use.
The project scope of work includes new landscaping maximizing use of native vegetation and low water-use, drought-tolerant plant varieties. The project will further be required to comply with all applicable provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 16.16, Water-Efficient Landscaping related to regulation of landscape design, construction, and maintenance, thereby promoting efficient water use, facilitating management of peak season water demand, and assisting with the preservation of water storage in order to ensure a reliable and adequate public water supply. The application has been conditioned to provide a final landscape plan for review and approval with the building permit plans. Additionally, all new building and plumbing fixtures will be required to comply with Title 24 Energy-Efficiency requirements, including maximum efficiency of resource utilization.
Density Bonus, Section 24.16.270
21. The housing development is eligible for a density bonus and any concessions, incentives, waivers, modifications, or modified parking standards requested; conforms to all standards for affordability included in this section; and includes a financing mechanism for all implementation and monitoring costs.
17.27 The General Plan establishes a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 5.0 for property with a land use designation of Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC). As Floor Area Ratio constitutes a general measure of mass and bulk, it intrinsically relates to residential density in that the number of residential units which may be accommodated within a project relies on the intensity of development (i.e., the three-dimensional space occupied by the building, or its massing).
Although the General Plan establishes a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 5.0 in the City’s Downtown, notably, State Density Bonus Law allows for an increase in the number of residential units which may be accommodated within a project through provision of affordable housing units of particular percentages of the number of residential units included in the project’s base density, or the density of residential units which may be included in a project fully-conforming to all applicable regulations, including legislation, Code, policy and such as height, setbacks, and the like.
As shown in the base density plans, 72 residential can be accommodated within the threedimensional space provided per all applicable standard regulations. Such base density incorporates a library facility, commercial tenant space, and childcare component as specified by City Council directives and results in an FAR of 3.86.
Through AB1763, any project located within a half-mile of a major transit stop remains exempt from maximum density controls and is provided a height increase of up to three (3) stories or thirty-three (33) feet above the standard maximum threshold allowable by the Municipal Code. Via this legislation, a qualifying project may receive four (4) incentives or concessions pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 et. seq.), as affirmed through the provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019).
Further, Assembly Bill 2345 exempts the housing component of the project from provision of vehicular parking due to the site’s proximity to a major public transit location.
The City’s Municipal Code, Section 24.16.020, requires that residential developments that would create five or more new residential dwelling units provide twenty percent (20%) of the dwelling units as inclusionary units, which shall be made available for lease to low-income households at an affordable rent. Inclusionary units are restricted in perpetuity to households earning eighty percent (80%) or less of the Area Median Income (AMI). The proposed project provides one hundred percent of the residential units as affordable units. A condition of approval has been added, requiring designation of unit(s) as manager’s residences as deemed necessary or appropriate.
With 124 units proposed and a residential base density of 72 units, the project as presented exhibits an FAR of 4.60, a number below the maximum threshold allowable by the General Plan for sites located on land within the City’s Downtown Plan area; the design additionally has a residential density of approximately eighty (80) dwelling units per acre and would result in a density bonus of 72%. The housing component of the project therefore demonstrates eligibility for a density bonus and waivers and modified parking standards requested; the project additionally conforms to all standards for affordability; and, as conditioned, will include a financing mechanism for all implementation and monitoring costs. The project
17.28 applicant has secured various sources of financing for construction, implementation, and monitoring costs and has expressed the intent to pursue a range of future financing opportunities.
22. Any requested incentive or concession will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable rents or affordable ownership costs based upon appropriate financial analysis and documentation if required by Section.
The project plans present a design which places the bottom level of the parking garage at surface level, with the residential component positioned atop the structured parking faciality.
An incentive/concession is requested for increase in height related to placement of structured parking at surface level, as included in the project plans. Reasonable financial documentation has been submitted in support of the requested incentive/concession in which the applicant has demonstrated the elevated expenditures associated with the proposal for subterranean parking compared with placement of structured parking at surface level, including costs incurred related to design, structural reinforcement, ventilation, waterproofing, and construction.
23. If the density bonus is based all or in part on dedication of land, the approval body has made the findings included in Section 24.16.230.
The above finding remains inapplicable, as the project does not include any requests for dedication of land.
24. If the density bonus, incentive, or concession is based all or in part on the inclusion of a child care center, the development conforms to the standards included in Section
24.16.235.
Although the proposed development includes a childcare facility, no waiver or incentive/concession has been requested related to the childcare facility, and, thus, the above finding remains inapplicable pursuant to SCMC 24.16.235.
25. If the density bonus incentive or concession is approved for a condominium conversion, the development conforms to the standards included in Section 24.16.240.
The above finding remains inapplicable, as the project does not include a proposal for a condominium conversion.
26. If the incentive or concession includes mixed-use buildings or developments, the nonresidential land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and the proposed nonresidential uses are compatible with the housing development and with existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing development will be located.
An incentive/concession has been proposed for placement of the structure parking facility at surface level in order to offset costs associated with subterranean construction as illustrated in the base density plans, which present a theoretical, fully-conforming, baseline project. To support the proposed incentive/concession, financial documentation has been provided to
17.29 demonstrate the actual cost reductions associated with avoidance of underground construction.
The financial gains accrued from averting subterranean construction translate into increased availability of funds for building affordable housing.
The proposed project displays consistency with all relevant requirements, including provisions of the City’s Downtown Plan, and completeness the existing site, project features, and surrounding development as proposed, thereby establishing compatibility between the project and existing and planned development in the area.
27. If a waiver or modification is requested, the applicant has shown that the development standards for which the waiver or modification is requested will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the densities or with the incentives or concessions permitted by this Part 3.
The Downtown Plan includes areas in which height may be increased beyond the standard maximum threshold, named “Additional Height Zone A” and “Additional Height Zone B.” Portions of the project site, composed of two lots, fall within “Additional Height Zone A,” which accommodates building heights of up to 75’ if located within 200’ of Pacific Avenue.
That is, the easterly, approximately one quarter of the combined project site (including most of 113 Lincoln Street) fall within Additional Height Zone A, and the height of the building may be proposed as up to 75’ within that portion of the project area.
Portions of the proposed affordable housing component of the Library Affordable Housing Project fall outside “Additional Height Zone A” delineated in the Downtown Plan, in which the Downtown Plan allows a height of up to 75’ if approved by the City Council. As a 100% affordable housing project located within a half-mile of a major transit stop, the proposed height of 84’ has been requested as a waiver; as specified in the associated staff report, recent court rulings indicate that all waivers must be granted unless resulting in a violation of law, involving a “specific adverse impact,” or impacting an historic resource. Thus, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council granting of a waiver to the proposed project for the residential component of the project to attain the height of the residential component as proposed.
The project proposes a maximum height of approximately 84’ (determined in the manner specified by Section 24.12.262 of the Municipal Code), including a height of 91’-0” to the top of parapet and 95’-0” to the top of the rooftop access stair. The proposed design complies with the increased height thresholds as allowable through State legislation. Without approval of the incentive/concession for placement of the parking facility at surface level, and, absent authorization of the requested waiver for exceedance of the project’s residential component beyond the standard maximum height of 50’ as specified in the Downtown Plan, the project would incur significant financial burdens potentially resulting in project infeasibility due to cost, and prompting severe reduction in the number of affordable housing units, respectively, precluding development of the project at a scale and density allowable per the General Plan and pursuant to applicable State legislation.
17.30 Justification for the waiver is further articulated in the staff report, project plans, and associated materials submitted by the applicant.
28. If a commercial development bonus is requested, the project complies with the requirements of Section 24.16.258, the city has approved the partnered housing agreement, and the bonus has been mutually agreed upon by the city and the commercial developer.
The above finding remains inapplicable, as the project does not include a proposal for a commercial development bonus.
29. If the housing development or the commercial development is in the coastal zone, any requested density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, modification, modified parking standard, or commercial development bonus is consistent with all applicable requirements of the certified Santa Cruz local coastal program, with the exception of density.
The project site is not located within the Coastal Zone, and, therefore, the above finding does not apply.
Heritage Tree Removal Permit, Chapter 9.56, City Council Resolution No. NS-23, 710 One or more of the following findings must be made:
30. The heritage tree or heritage tree shrub has, or is likely to have, an adverse effect upon the structural integrity of a building, utility, or public or private right of way;
31. The physical condition or health of the tree or shrub, such as disease or infestation, warrants alteration or removal;
The arborist report prepared by Registered Consulting Arborist Torrey Young of Dryad, LLC dated January 18, 2022, supported by its two addenda dated September 9, 2022 and December 18, 2022, respectively, confirm that all subject trees exhibit various states of decline, with only a handful serving as potential candidates for retention or relocation, and, even then, only through extensive intervention. Per the submitted arborist report, two of the existing nine heritage trees on-site display severe decline to the extent that removal is warranted. The first addendum to the arborist report, dated September 9, 2022 states that each of the two sweetgum (Liquidambar spp.) trees presents weak structure, poor architecture, severe pruning, and a severely restricted and damaged root system. In addition to the two trees described above, the report further characterizes Tree No. 4, the existing southern magnolia, as exhibiting conditions associated with declining health, with “canopy thin, stunted and chlorotic with tip dieback … raised and lion-tailed; many large pruning cuts with decay…root pruning apparent.” In reference to the twelve existing trees on site, the arborist report indicates, “These trees will continue to increase in size, exacerbating current conditions [insufficient growing space and inadequate capacity for water and nutrient absorption] … Many of the conditions observed can be expected to worsen over time.” The report states that, in general, “It is ill advised to retain these trees on site unless
17.31 extensive design accommodation can be undertaken to both enhance their growing conditions and reduce risk.”
32. A construction project design cannot be altered to accommodate existing heritage trees or heritage shrubs.
Of the twelve total trees, nine constitute Heritage Trees as defined in the Municipal Code.
Maintaining the trees in their current form would severely restrict the area of the library, and possibly preclude construction of both the library and residential building entirely, and would prevent fulfillment of the project objectives previously recommended by the City’s Downtown Commission and Planning Commission and as confirmed by the City Council, including creation of a mixed-use project featuring a flagship downtown central branch library, additional affordable housing stock, integrated commercial tenant space, community-serving commercial childcare use, and public parking capacity to serve the proposed use and to address loss or parking capacity prompted by downtown development.
The City Council resolution, adopted December 14, 2021, was borne of an extensive public outreach process including a series of community meetings as described in Attachment 7 of the staff report dated December 12, 2022 presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the appeal of Tree Removal Permit TR22-0201. Years-long community engagement and public outreach activities collectively contributed to the evolution of, and currently proposed design of, the Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project. The memorandum by For the Future Housing dated November 17, 2022 attached to the staff report dated December 12, 2022 presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission states that, “An estimated area of 7,774 SF is needed to preserve the 9 existing heritage trees … this loss of area would result in a loss of available building program area of 30,974 SF. The three major program elements for Library, Housing and Parking that were set by City Council cannot be met if 30,974 SF is removed from the available building area.” Additionally, the memorandum by Jayson Architecture dated December 1, 2022 attached to the staff report dated December 12, 2022 presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission, relays, “The library as currently designed, which is in the Construction Documents stage of the documentation process, would no longer be feasible, even with significant modifications … is our determination that the construction project design cannot be altered to accommodate existing heritage trees and still meet the requirements established for the project by the City Council.” Given the limited size of the lot, dispersal of the trees throughout the parcel, and constraints inherent to its dimensions, as supported by the narratives included in the aforementioned memoranda, no reasonable alteration of the proposed site plan would allow retention of the trees while simultaneously achieving the project's objectives of creating a mixed-use development inclusive of a library with features as directed by the City Council and 124-units of affordable housing, thus necessitating the removal of such trees.
The project site is located outside land within the City’s Wildland-Urban Interface.
Consistent with the tree removal mitigation requirements of City Resolution No. NS-28,707, the applicant has deposited a bond in the amount of $2,250.00 into the City’s Tree Trust
17.32 Fund to ensure that a minimum of nine, 24-inch box-sized replacement trees will be planted on-site near the perimeter of the proposed building.
Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Section 24.08.1230
33. 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.
Pursuant to the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit ordinance, the permit serves to evaluate requests for demolition of nonresidential structures fifty years of age or older, and of undetermined age, to ensure that those which may have historic value are not demolished.
An historic evaluation (DPR 523) dated March 14, 2022, has been prepared by City-approved historian Seth Bergstein of PAST Consultants, LLC, concluding that the property located at 113 Lincoln Stret remains unlisted on the California Register of Historic Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, or the City of Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, and appears ineligible for listing on any of the registers. As described in the historic evaluation, The commercial building at 113 Lincoln Street has been altered considerably since the time of its construction, with remodel of the storefront and removal of the building’s original entrance undertaken in 1980, and a rear addition constructed in 1986. As substantiated by the report, the subject building no longer exhibits sufficient integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship feeling, or association for it to qualify for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. The subject property containing the commercial building at 113 Lincoln Street is further determined ineligible for the Santa Cruz Historic Resources Inventory, as the building fails to satisfy City preservation criteria and experienced substantial alterations since the time of its original construction. The proposed redevelopment project requires no mitigation for impact to historic resources pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA - Section 15064.5), as the subject property addressed 113 Lincoln Street, including its existing structure, has been demonstrated to lack historic significance. As the property at 119 Lincoln Street contains no structure, the above finding remains inapplicable to that parcel.
34. 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 proposed project has been proposed for approval concurrently with the approval to demolish the existing commercial structure.
35. 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 above finding remains inapplicable, as the subject property has been determined to not be eligible for listing.
17.33 36. 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.
It has been determined that the property does not qualify as a historic resource. Therefore, the above finding does not apply.
Lot Line Adjustment, Section 23.12.030.1
37. 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 lot line adjustment will combine two (2) existing parcels, bearing Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 005-141-11 and 005-141-21, into a single lot. The parcel resulting from the lot line adjustment will enclose approximately 66,921 square feet, exceeding the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet as established in Section 24.10.2305 of Title 24, Zoning, Part 24, Central Business District zone district, of the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code. By combining the two parcels, the lot-line adjustment will form one lot of adequate size to facilitate development of a public facilities/commercial/ high-density residential mixed-use complex and encourage “appropriate transition in scale and use between the downtown and the adjacent residential neighborhoods and the civic center”, conform to the Local Coastal Program to support greater intensity of residential development in the City’s Downtown per Policies and Programs 2.7.7; and advance a project on a “local-serving street with a mixture of professional offices [and] support and convenience retail”, which reinforces the overall pedestrian character of these areas “to preserve and enhance the informal ‘village’ qualities of the Cedar Street Corridor”, while affording a strong pedestrian ambiance creating a more welcoming environment along the corridor and ensuring high quality of new buildings as advanced by the Downtown Plan.
38. A greater number of parcels than originally existed are not created by the lot line adjustment.
The lot line adjustment will combine two (2) contiguous parcels, as tabulated below, to result in one (1) merged parcel; therefore, no new parcels will be created as a result of the lot line adjustment.
Parcel No. Address Recorded Map
Designation
Existing
Size
Proposed
Size
005-141-11 113 Lincoln
Street
966-M-302 (lot no.
unspecified)
6,882 square
feet
005-141-21 119 Lincoln 56-PM-05 (Parcel 60,039
66,921 square
feet
17.34 Street B) square feet
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz hereby acknowledges the CEQA determinations and approves the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Lot-Line Adjustment, and Density Bonus Request, and upholds the approval of a Heritage Tree Removal permit, to allow demolition of the existing surface parking lot and structures and construction of the Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project, encompassing development of a new, approximately 273,194 square-foot, eight (8)-story building including a three (3)-story, approximately 38,069 square-foot City library featuring two floors; a three (3)-story parking garage with 243 parking spaces; a five (5)-story, 100% affordable housing component comprising 124 residential units; a three (3)-story, approximately 9,598 square-foot commercial tenant space; a one (1)-story, approximately 1,231 square-foot childcare facility with adjoining 674 square-foot outdoor play area; and new landscaping and associated site improvements, including the removal of 12 trees, on parcels located at 113 Lincoln Street and 119 Lincoln Street, subject to the analysis included in the associated staff report and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _____________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
17.35 RESOLUTION NO. NS-29-XX
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT ON PROPERTY AT
113, 119 Lincoln St. – CP22-0128
Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Lot-Line Adjustment, Density Bonus request, and upholding approval of a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to allow demolition of the existing surface parking lot and structures and construction of the Library Mixed-Use/Affordable Housing Project, encompassing development of a new, approximately 273,194 square-foot, eight-story building integrating a three-story, approximately 38,069 squarefoot City library featuring two floors double-heighted with elevated ceilings; a three-story parking garage with 243 parking spaces; a five-story, 100% affordable housing component comprising 124 residential units; a three-story, approximately 9,598 square-foot commercial tenant space; a onestory, approximately 1,231 square-foot childcare facility with adjoining 674 square-foot outdoor play area; and new landscaping and associated site improvements, including the removal of 12 trees, on land located in the CBD/FP-O (Central Business District/Floodplain Overlay) zone districts
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 City Council 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
17.36 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 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. All revisions to proposed exterior colors and/or materials must be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to submittal of application for Building Permit.
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 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. Future uses shall submit a disclosure statement for Zoning Administrator review prior to issuance of any occupancy permit regarding materials and chemicals to be used and disposed of from the site.
17.37 14. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include electric vehicle charging stations as required per Section 24.12.241 of the Zoning Ordinance.
15. 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.
16. Exterior site lighting shall be provided along pedestrian pathways and in the vehicle parking area. Security lighting shall be motion sensor only.
17. 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.
18. Turf is not permitted in new non-residential landscape projects.
19. All landscaping shall be installed prior to final utility release or issuance of occupancy permits.
20. Where feasible, all trees shall be a minimum 24-inch box size.
21. Bike parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 24.12.250-252 of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
22. 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.
23. A drainage plan shall be submitted in conjunction with application for building permits.
24. During all grading and subsurface excavations (including but not limited to grubbing, demolition, excavation, and utility-line trenching) an archaeologist and a Native American observer, authorized by the Planning Department, shall be present to collect and catalog any material uncovered. The cost for this service shall be paid by the applicant.
25. Prior to building or grading permit issuance or in any case any ground disturbance, including but not limited to grubbing, demolition, excavation, and utility-line trenching, the applicant shall submit a copy of a signed contract with a qualified archaeologist (based on the city’s list of approved consultants or as previously authorized by the Planning Department) indicating that the archaeologist will be present on the site to observe and monitor all grading and subsurface excavations and that they will provide a follow-up letter to the Planning Department with the results of the monitoring.
26. 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
17.38 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.
27. An archaeologist, approved by the City, shall submit a reconnaissance report for the subject parcel prior to any grade-disturbing activity on the site.
28. Prior to building permit final, the approved project archaeologist shall provide a follow-up letter to the Planning Department confirming that they were present on the site to monitor all grading and subsurface excavations and the results of the monitoring. If the property owner fails to comply with the full extent of on-site monitoring requirements, the property owner shall be subject to the Archaeological Monitoring Non-compliance Guidelines which includes supplemental archaeological investigation and monetary administrative civil penalties which could delay final inspections and occupancy.
29. The plan for erosion control approved as part of this application shall be submitted and all work installed by November 1.
30. Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate compliance with Stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) and Low Impact Development (LID) requirements for single family residential dwelling projects contained in “Chapter 6 of the Best Management Practices Manual for the City’s Storm Water Management Program” dated October 2011.
At a minimum, downspouts shall be disconnected from underground pipes or prohibited from directly flowing onto impervious surfaces and instead be redirected to landscaping or bioswales. Pervious walkway surfaces and driveways shall be installed where possible.
Show all implemented LID measures on the plans.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Handicap access shall be provided in accordance with California Building Code.
17.39 34. 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. Bifacial solar panels are specifically exempted from the requirement for screening.
35. Final colors shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to application for building permits.
36. The applicant shall prepare a signage plan for the project and submit it for Sign Permit review and approval before occupancy of structure.
37. 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 (2009-0009-DWQ 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.
38. 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.
39. 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 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
17.40 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.
40. 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.
41. Prior to commercial/business use of a building or site, owners or tenants shall obtain a Zoning Clearance/Occupancy Permit from the City Planning Department and a Business License from the City Finance Department.
42. 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:
43. "The purpose of the deed is to adjust the boundary between Assessor's Parcel Number 005- 141-11 and Assessor's Parcel Number 005-141-21 as approved by the City of Santa Cruz under Application CP22-0118. This conveyance may not create a separate parcel, and is null and void unless the boundary is adjusted as stated."
44. Asbestos/Lead-Based Paint: Prior to demolition, testing shall be performed for presence of asbestos and lead based paint by EPA or CA state certified health inspectors. An application shall be submitted, and approval shall then be obtained from Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) for the hazardous or other regulated material removal. An ASB application number through MBARD or release in the form of an email from MBARD shall be provided to the City of Santa Cruz Building and Safety Division prior to plan approval and permit issuance.
45. Building Division Compliance: Prior to issuance of any Building Permit, all necessary documents and plans shall be submitted demonstrating compliance with all requirements of the Building Division.
46. Fire Department Compliance: Prior to issuance of any Building Permit, all necessary documents and plans shall be submitted demonstrating compliance with all requirements of the Fire Department.
47. Water Engineering Compliance: Prior to issuance of any Building Permit, all necessary documents and plans shall be submitted demonstrating compliance with all requirements of the Water Engineering Division.
48. Green Building Compliance: At the time of building permit submittal, plan sets must provide for compliance with all regulations related to Green Building, including details demonstrating conformance with both 2019 CALGreen Mandatory Measures and City
17.41 Green Building requirements. The Green Building Checklist must be allocated to its own plan sheet employing an adequately legible font size. Applicable measures listed in the checklists must be shown (material, method, or application) on the plan page where they are to be installed or implemented and indicated in the column provided in the checklist.
49. Construction Waste Management Plan: Prior to demolition permit issuance, a fully completed Construction Waste Management Plan for 65% minimum diversion rate must be submitted and shall include diversion rates and methods for individual waste streams. The document is available at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showdocument?id=58142
50. Stormwater Management: Prior to issuance of Building Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be submitted.
51. Green Building: Each residential unit will require compliance with Santa Cruz Green Building Program for Residential New Construction and Residential Mandatory Measures Chapter 4 of 2019 CALGreen using a Residential Green Building Checklist. Note: The city green building program points required scale with unit floor area.
52. Electric Vehicles: For the purposes of determining EV Charging Space compliance, the plans must clearly allocate parking spaces between residential and commercial use.
53. Outdoor Lighting: Outdoor lighting must demonstrate compliance with BUG rating limits in 2019 CALGreen 5.106.8 for Lighting Zone 3 for this development in the Outdoor Lighting Schedule in the building permit submission.
54. Bicycle Parking: Prior to issuance of Building Permit, details of proposed bicycle parking facilities, including identification of vendor and specification of dimensions and arrangement of interior layout with spacing for all bike parking proposed, must be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Public Works or authorized designee. Bicycles of different sizes, and charging of e-bikes, shall be considered in the design.
55. Manager’s Unit(s): Plans submitted for Building Permit shall require designation of unit(s) as manager’s residence(s).
56. Public Right-of-Way Improvements: Prior to Building Permit issuance, all required improvements to the public right-of-way, as determined by Public Works staff, must be included in the plans, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Sanitary Sewer Lateral: Plans submitted for Building Permit shall indicate the location of the sanitary sewer lateral. Lateral shall be SDR 26 from property line to the main per City standard lateral and trench details. Provide sewer cleanout capped with a popper in the sidewalk for sanitary sewer lateral per City standard detail. Include notes and City Standard Details 1 and 2 of 20 on the plans.
b. Accessible Ramp. Plans submitted for Building Permit shall indicate the installation of ADA access ramps at the corners of Lincoln/Cedar and Cathcart/Cedar per City standard detail. Include notes and Caltrans Case C ramp on the plans.
17.42 c. Sidewalk – Sidewalks will need to be consistent with the Downtown Plan for design and widths.
d. Street Light (Standard) - Installation of 2 new LED street light on the property frontage of Cedar Street. per City standard detail. Indicate location on the plans and include notes and City Standard Detail 16 of 20.
e. Street Lights (Decorative) – Installation of a new decorative LED street lights per the Downtown Plan on the property frontage of Lincoln Street per City standard detail.
Include notes and City Standard Detail 17 of 20 on the plans. f. Street Lights (Decorative) – Installation of a new decorative LED street lights per the Downtown Plan on the property frontage of Cathcart Street per City standard detail.
Include notes and City Standard Detail 17 of 20 on the plans. g. Catch Basins (Type A) – Upgrade of the 3 Type A catch basins surrounding the project to Type B catch basins per City standard detail. Include notes and City Standard Detail 6 of 20 on the plans.
h. Traffic Calming Device – Installation of a traffic calming island on Lincoln St. at the southeast corner. Should match existing island on the northeast corner of Lincoln St. i. Street Tree (Tree Grate) – Trees in the Public right-of-way need to be placed in tree wells with tree grates and not in landscape strips. Provide a detail of the street tree installation, including a four-foot by four-foot tree well located at the back of curb, per City standard detail. A flood bubbler shall be installed from the existing irrigation system to irrigate the tree until established. Provide notes and City Standard Detail 19 of 20 in the plans.
j. Trash Enclosure (New) – Construction of a new trash enclosure that complies with all of the requirements of the "City of Santa Cruz Department of Public Works Refuse Container Storage Facility Standard Design Policy." The trash enclosure design shall include a roof to keep stormwater from leeching pollutants from the area where the containers are stored and to secure the area from unauthorized entry; a floor drain installed in the slab and connected to the sanitary sewer system; and a hose bib for the purpose of cleaning the interior of the structure. The final trash enclosure design shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. k. Utility Locations – Illustration of locations of all existing and proposed underground utilities and points of connection for sewer lateral, gas, and water lines on the plans. l. Utility Undergrounding - When providing new electrical service to a parcel, it shall be undergrounded. Indicate the location and the point of connection to the nearest Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) facility for the underground power to the property.
57. Payment of required fees: Prior to issuance of any building permit, payment of all necessary fees shall be made as applicable, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Traffic Impact Fee - A Traffic Impact Fee will be assessed by the Public Works Department and shall be paid prior to issuance of the building permit. Traffic Impact fee shall be based on approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). b. Inspection Fee - An inspection fee of the estimated cost to construct the off-site improvements to be inspected shall be paid to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
c. Fair share of transportation improvements shall be paid as required in the Downtown Plan Amendment and evaluated in the approved TIA.
17.43 d. Parking Fees – Parking In-Lieu Fees will be assessed at the design review application stage.
58. Lot-Line Adjustment: Prior to issuance of any Building permit, lot merger/lot-line adjustment must be recorded.
59. Operations and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan): A final O&M Plan shall be submitted as part of the Building Permit application. The O&M Plan shall include at a minimum: 1) site plan showing the location of drainage structures and structural control measures; 2) O&M procedures, timing, and maintenance frequency for the LID features and drainage systems, and include applicable BMPs from Chapter 6B of the City's Storm Water BMPs for Development Projects; 3) cost estimates for maintenance; and 4) BMPs for any Special Site Conditions (see pages 30-31), e.g. trash enclosure, parking, etc. The O&M plan as required by CalGreen shall also be included.
The O&M Plan shall be submitted in an 8 ½ x 11 inch report format, and can be included as a SWCP appendix. The signed Maintenance Agreement shall be included in the O&M Plan as an attachment.
60. Maintenance Agreement: Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, the property owner shall sign and submit a BMP maintenance agreement ensuring that they will provide long-term operation and maintenance of structural storm water control measures (see template in Appendix C of Chapter 6B Storm Water BMPs for Private and Public Development Projects). The signed maintenance agreement should be attached to the O&M Plan. Please email a pdf of the signed Maintenance Agreement to Suzanne Healy, Associate Planner, at:
[email protected]. The signed Maintenance Agreement with original ink signature may be submitted via the Building Counter.
If applicable, the Maintenance Agreement shall be included in the HOA agreement and/or recorded in the CCRs with proof of CCR recordation submitted to the City. The O&M Plan shall be included or referenced in the CCRs as well.
61. Construction Dewatering Operations: Plans submitted must indicate whether dewatering or groundwater discharges are expected either during construction or post-construction/longterm for any of the below ground project components. If so, please inform the project planner and submit plans indicating whether there are any current or past site contamination issues.
62. State Construction General Permit: A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) prior to commencing work. The applicant is responsible for filing a Notice of Intent and for developing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Prior to issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit, the applicant shall provide the City with proof of coverage under the State Construction General Permit, including a copy of the letter of receipt and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID)
17.44 number issued by the SWRCB that acknowledges the property owner’s submittal of a complete Notice of Intent (NOI) package. Please submit an electronic copy of the site’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) submitted to the State. For information on the Construction General Permit, please see the State Water Board website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml
63. Compliance with Recommendations of Project Reports/Technical Studies. At all times, the project applicant/property owner shall ensure compliance with all recommendations included in reports/technical studies related to natural resources, including, but not limited to, Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory prepared Albion Environmental dated March 2022 as may be amended by the Extended Phase I Archaeological Testing Report by Dudek dated November 22, 2022; Noise Impact Analysis prepared by Salter dated January 23, 2023; Transportation Impact Study prepared by Kimley Horn dated December 23, 2022; Historic Evaluation prepared by PAST Consultants, LLC dated March 14, 2022; Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Rock Solid Engineers, Inc. dated September 22, 2022; Arborist Report by Dryad, LLC dated January 18, 2022; Arborist Report Addendum by Dryad, LLC dated September 29, 2022; Arborist Report Addendum by Dryad, LLC dated December 19, 2022; Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment by Weber, Hayes, and Associates dated September 22, 2022; Geotechnical evaluation prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group dated June 2, 2022 ; Trip Generation Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants dated September 7, 2022; and Stormwater Control Plan prepared by BKF Engineers dated September 8, 2022.
64. Acoustic Evaluation. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, an acoustic analysis (noise report) must be prepared, demonstrating consistency of the proposed project design with General Plan Policy HZ3.2.3, and compliance with recommendations of the acoustic evaluation to ensure ongoing conformance with that General Plan Policy must be maintained at all times.
65. Affordable Housing: As applicable, the applicant shall comply with the inclusionary housing requirements set forth at SCMC Chapter 24.16 Part 1 and shall enter into and record an affordable housing development agreement prior to or concurrently with the final parcel map or final subdivision map approval, or prior to issuance of a building permit for any structure in the residential development, whichever occurs first. The affordable housing development agreement shall run with the land and bind all future owners and successors in interest. The agreement shall include a financing mechanism for all implementation and monitoring costs.
66. New Sanitary Sewer Connection: Plans submitted for building permit shall show a new sanitary sewer connection, which will be required to connect to the existing City Sanitary Sewer Manhole. A City Standard clean-out will be required.
67. Existing Sanitary Sewer Lateral(s): Plans submitted for building permit shall show the existing sanitary sewer lateral(s) abandoned at the City sewer main by method of mechanical plug or factory cap.
17.45 68. Compliance with Recommendations of Project Reports/Technical Studies: At all times, the project applicant/property owner shall ensure compliance with all recommendations included in reports/technical studies related to natural resources, including, but not limited to, the arborist report prepared by Kurt Fouts, Consulting Arborist, dated September 14, 2022; Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Report prepared by Patricia Paramoure Archaeological Consulting dated August 25, 2022; Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Rock Solid Engineers, Inc. dated September 22, 2022; Historic Evaluation prepared by PAST Consultants dated October 7, 2022; Trip Generation Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants dated September 7, 2022; and Preliminary Stormwater Treatment Facilities Operation and Maintenance Plan prepared by Ifland Engineers, Inc. dated October 2022.
69. County Health Services Agency – Environmental Health: Prior to issuance of Building Permit, compliance with all requirements of the County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency, Department of Environmental Health, shall be fulfilled.
70. Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District: Prior to issuance of Building Permit, compliance with all requirements of the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, shall be fulfilled, including coordination regarding retention or relocation of existing infrastructure, including, but not limited to, existing bus stop(s).
71. WELO: Plans submitted for Building Permit must demonstrate compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) (Chapter 16.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code).
72. Tree Removal: No Heritage Tree at the project site may be removed prior to issuance of a demolition permit, building permit, or grading permit.
73. Tree Replacement: A total of nine 24-inch box size replacement street trees will be installed around the proposed library building to replace the nine Heritage Trees to be removed to accommodate the proposed project. Additionally, City staff will plant 12 street trees, of 24- inch box size, at off-site locations within the City’s downtown area. Locations and species shall be identified by the Parks & Recreation Department, consistent with the Downtown Plan and Approved Street Tree List. In total, 21 replacement street trees will be installed in the downtown area to offset the nine heritage trees currently proposed for removal at the library site. All such trees shall be planted prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for any affordable housing unit.
74. Electric Vehicle Parking: 25 parking spaces shall be provided with Level 2 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) before occupancy; 99 additional parking spaces shall provide the electrical capacity to add Level 1 EVCS in the future.
75. Accommodation of Future Food Service Use: All commercial spaces shall be constructed to accommodate a future food service use. Plans shall also show the locations of grease traps, grease lines, and grease storage facilities.
17.46 17.47
FRM ENV-04 1 (Rev. 5/09)
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
Notice of Exemption
To: Clerk of the Board Office of Planning and Research County of Santa Cruz 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Governmental Center Sacramento, CA 95814
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
From: City of Santa Cruz, Planning and Community Development Department 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Project Title: Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project Project Address: 113 and 119 Lincoln Street
Assessor's Parcel No.: 005-141-11 and 005-141-21
Project Location: City of: Santa Cruz – see Figure 1. County of: Santa Cruz Project Description: The project consists of a Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Lot-Line Adjustment, Sign Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to demolish one existing commercial building and surface parking lot and construct the Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project (DLAHP). The project uses include a new, approximately 38,000-square-foot public library, 124 affordable housing units, a parking garage with up to 336 parking spaces, approximately 10,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial tenant space, an approximately 1,500-square-foot commercial childcare facility, and associated site improvements. The project uses would be integrated within a new 273,194-square-foot building, which would range in height from three to eight stories at 50 to 84 feet tall, respectively. The lotline adjustment would merge the two existing site parcels into one lot. The project also includes a density bonus request as permitted pursuant to state and local regulations with one requested waiver and one incentive/concession to development standards.
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Santa Cruz in partnership with For The Future Housing, Inc. and Eden Housing
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Santa Cruz Exempt Status: (check one)
Ministerial Project (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268).
____ Statutory Exemption (Code/Section 21083.3).
____ Categorically Exempt (Section 15305 and Section 15332).
Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)).
Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)).
The project clearly will not have a significant effect on the environment (15061(b)(3)).
17.48 FRM ENV-04 2 (Rev. 5/09)
Reasons why project is exempt: 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 Sections 15305 (Categorical Exemption, Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) and 15332 (Categorical Exemption, Class 32, In-fill Development Projects) as explained below.
Statutory Exemption – Public Resources Code Section 21083.3. CEQA 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 or exemption 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 decision-making 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 CEQA.
Section 15183 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides further guidance related to Public Resources Code section 21083. Specifically, 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
17.49 FRM ENV-04 3 (Rev. 5/09)
have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines section 15183(b).)
CEQA 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.” 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 (April 2012) 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. In addition the project is located within the Downtown Plan area, which was adopted as a specific plan (pursuant to California Government Code requirements) to implement General Plan policies in the downtown area. The Santa Cruz City Council approved amendments to the Downtown Plan in November 2017 after certifying an EIR for the Plan amendments. The certified Downtown Plan Amendments EIR (November 2017) includes the Draft EIR volume (July 2017) and the Final EIR volume (October 2017). Impacts arising from future development with the downtown area, potentially occurring as a result of amendments to the Downtown Plan, were addressed in this EIR, including aesthetics, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, public services, transportation and traffic, water and wastewater utilities, land use, and cumulative impacts.
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 Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC) in the City’s General Plan 2030 and is zoned Central Business District (CBD). Mixed-use development is strongly encouraged in areas designated RVC, and the General Plan further indicates that the Downtown Plan provides detailed requirements in the downtown area. The project uses are consistent with the General Plan land use designation and uses identified in the Downtown Plan. The General Plan allows a floor area ratio (FAR) for the Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC) land use designation in the downtown area of up to
5.0, and the project’s FAR is 4.08, which is within the allowed FAR established in the General Plan as amended in 2017. Thus, the project uses are consistent with the General Plan 2030 for which an EIR was prepared and certified in June 2012, and meets the provisions of CEQA section 21083.3(b) with regards to project consistency with the City’s adopted General Plan.
While the General Plan 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments 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 non-residential uses in the City with an estimated buildout of 3,350 new residential units and approximately 1,090,000 and 1,274,000 square feet of commercial and office uses, respectively, uses throughout the City by the year 2030. Since adoption of the General Plan, approximately 2,390 residential units and 436,950 and 41,315 square feet of commercial and office space, respectively, have been constructed or approved throughout the City. Thus, the project’s 124 affordable residential units and 46,050 square feet of non-residential uses would be within the
17.50 FRM ENV-04 4 (Rev. 5/09)
remaining residential and non-residential development estimates considered in the city-wide General Plan EIR impact analyses.
Potential future development in the downtown area considered in the General Plan 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR analyses was estimated at approximately 1,350 housing units and approximately 205,050 square feet of non-residential commercial and office space. Since adoption of the General Plan 2030, approximately 1,200 residential units have been constructed or approved in the downtown area and would total 1,324 units with the project, which is slightly below the total number of residential units considered for development (1,347 units) in the General Plan 2030 and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs. Additionally, with the project, constructed and approved nonresidential development would result in a net increase of approximately 46,050 square feet, which is within development estimates analyzed in the General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs.
Specific future development of the project site was not noted in the General Plan 2030 EIR or Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, and there were no site-specific impacts identified for the project site, although a new library at the project site was considered in the cumulative impact analyses in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR. However, as indicated above, the project’s residential and non-residential uses would be within the remaining residential and non-residential development estimates considered in the city-wide General Plan 2030 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 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments 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 and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs 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 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments 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 project and/or relevant uniformly applicable development policies or standards that will be applied to the project.
Based on this 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, visual character); agricultural and forest resources; air quality (conflicts with Air Quality Management Plan, project emissions, sensitive receptors, odors); biological resources (special status species, riparian, wetland or other sensitive habitat, conflicts with plans); cultural resources (historical resources); energy; greenhouse gas emissions (conflict with plans); hazards/hazardous materials (use/disposal of hazardous materials, create hazard, airport safety, emergency response, wildfire hazards); hydrology-water quality (groundwater, flood risk, conflicts with plans); land use; mineral resources; noise and vibration; population and housing; public services; recreation;
17.51 FRM ENV-04 5 (Rev. 5/09)
transportation (conflicts with program, policy, design, emergency access); utilities (infrastructure, 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 (light and glare); biological resources (nesting birds, conflicts with local tree ordinance); cultural resources (archaeological resources, human burials); geology and soils (seismic, geologic hazards, erosion, soils, paleontological resources); greenhouse gas emissions; hazards/hazardous materials (exposure to hazardous materials); hydrology/water quality (drainage and water quality); transportation (conflict with CEQA Guidelines); tribal cultural resources; utilities (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.
For reasons explained in the Environmental Checklist Review prepared for the project, the Planning Commission and City Council 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 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments 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 lot line adjustment to merge two existing site parcels into one lot. The lot line adjustment would not create a new parcel, but would result in one parcel instead of the two parcels that already 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 “in-fill 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;
17.52 FRM ENV-04 6 (Rev. 5/09)
(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 project meets all of the foregoing criteria to claim the application of the in-fill exemption because, as explained in a Categorical Exemption Review memo and 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 the General Plan 2030 land use designation and policies. With the exception of building height, City staff review has found the project consistent with zoning designations and regulations. However, one waiver and one incentive/concession regarding building height is requested as part of the density bonus request pursuant to provisions in state law. Therefore, the project is consistent with zoning regulations pursuant to provisions under the State Density Bonus law, which allow for waivers to the City’s zoning regulations. Therefore, the project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning pursuant to subdivision (a) of section 15332.
The project site is located within City limits, is currently developed, and is surrounded by existing developed uses that are considered urban uses in the downtown area. The City meets definition of an urbanized area in the CEQA Guidelines as explained in the Categorical Exemption Review memo.
The project site is 1.55 acres, which is less than the maximum five acres as required for this exemption under subdivision (b) of section 15332.
The project site is currently developed and surrounded by development. A review of potential special status species on the project site found that none are known and that the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species under subdivision (c) of section 15332.
The project would not result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality, as explained in the Categorial Exemption Review memo, the Environmental Checklist supporting the determination of Statutory Exemption, and supporting technical studies. The project therefore meets the criteria set forth in subdivision (d) of section 15332 as summarized below. 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 location (within one-half mile of a major transit stop) and uses, including 100 percent affordable housing and community facilities, are screened from further review pursuant to City VMT guidelines. No significant impacts related to noise would result from project operations or construction as determined in a noise impact study. Air emissions modeling found that neither project construction nor operation would exceed adopted criteria air pollutant emissions thresholds, and the project would not result in conflicts with the Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s adopted Air Quality Management Plan. 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 project uses, 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:
17.53 FRM ENV-04 7 (Rev. 5/09)
(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 2030 nor the Downtown Plan, or 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 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 developed and 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.
As explained in the Categorical Exemption Review memo, 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 project's impacts are cumulatively considerable when evaluating any cumulative impacts associated with air quality, noise, transportation or water quality or cumulative impacts evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR 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. As explained in the Categorical Exemption Review memo, there are no “unusual circumstances” that differentiates the project and project site from the general class of similarly situated projects and project sites. For example, other properties in the surrounding area have developed or could develop a similar mixed-used project, utilizing waivers permitted under the provisions of the state and local density bonus laws.
17.54 FRM ENV-04 8 (Rev. 5/09)
The project site possesses no unusual features or environmental characteristics that distinguish it from other properties of the same size in the downtown area. There are numerous in-fill development sites in the downtown area that could similarly be redeveloped with a mixed-use project. There are at least six similar mixed-use projects that are currently under construction or approved in the downtown area on in-fill sites, some of which include surface parking lots similar to the project site; four of these projects have applied the in-fill development categorical exemption under CEQA. The size and density of the project do not represent unusual features or circumstances, as numerous other approved projects have similar or greater densities and size.
Additionally, there is no substantial evidence that the project would result in a significant impact based on project reviews and technical studies conducted for the project as reviewed and summarized in the Categorical Exemption Review memo and the Environmental Checklist supporting the determination of Statutory Exemption. The project would result in a building height of 84 feet due to the waiver and incentive/concession required for qualifying projects that include density bonus units. While the project height is greater than other buildings in the immediate vicinity, there are other approved downtown mixed-use projects with similar heights. The additional height allowed by an approved waiver pursuant to the density bonus law would not be considered to conflict with zoning standards, and therefore would not be considered an unusual circumstance.
Furthermore, CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21099) states that aesthetic impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an in-fill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment, although design review would still be required pursuant to local City requirements and regulations. The project site is considered an in-fill site and also is located within a transit priority area.
Additionally, there is no substantial evidence that the project would result in a significant impact due to unusual circumstances based on project reviews and technical studies conducted for the project as explained in the Categorical Exemption Review. 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 state-designated 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 the existing building that is proposed for demolition is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the National Register of Historic Places, or the City of Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey.
Evaluation of artifacts found during archaeological testing concluded that they do not meet the criteria to be found eligible for listing in the CRHR or requirements under local criteria. Thus, the existing structure on the project site and discovered artifacts are not historical resources under the definition found in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, subdivision (a). Therefore, the project,
17.55 FRM ENV-04 9 (Rev. 5/09)
including demolition of an existing building, 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 sections 15305 and 15332 for in-fill development projects and minor alterations in land use limitations, respectively, and that none 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: Timothy Maier Phone: (831) 420-5129
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:
17.56 Project Location
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2022, County of Santa Cruz 2020, OpenStreetMap Date: 1/19/2023 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD\Figure1_ProjectLocation.mxd 0 200 400Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
Gilroy
Morgan Hill
Los Gatos
Saratoga Campbell
Cupertino
Los
Altos Hills Santa
Clara
San Jose
Palo Alto
Santa Cruz
Watsonville
Portola
Valley
Capitola
San Juan
Bautista
Sunnyvale
S A N T A C R U Z
C O U N T Y
S a n M a t e o
C o u n t y
S a n t a C l a r a
C o u n t y
M o n t e r e y
C o u n t y
101
1 152
1 82
85 84 130
17 236
9 680
280
Project Site
17.57 THE DOWNTOWN LIBRARY
& AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECT
ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGE 09/08/22
The proposed Downtown Santa Cruz Library and Affordable Housing Project delivers much needed affordable housing and provides a cultural hub embodying the spirit of Santa Cruz’s diverse and creative community through a public library. The architecture speaks directly to the surrounding scale, form, and materiality of the downtown core while re-energizing the spirit of place through vibrancy and joy.
17.58 CLIENTS
FOR THE FUTURE HOUSING INC.
945 W. JULIAN ST.
SAN JOSE, CA 95126
CONTACT: JIM RENDLER
[email protected]
ARCHITECT
TEN OVER STUDIO
539 MARSH ST., SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
805.541.1010
CONTACT: FRANK THAXTER
[email protected]
INDEX
PROJECT INFO & DATA T1.0
PROJECT INFO & DATA T1.1
PROJECT IMAGES T2.0 - T2.4
SOLAR SHADING STUDY T3.1
SOLAR SHADING STUDY T3.2
SITE SURVEY A1.0
DEMO SITE PLAN A1.1
SITE PLAN A1.2
EXISTING CONDITIONS C1.0
SITE PLAN C2.0
GRADING & DRAINAGE C3.0
UTILITY PLAN C4.0
STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN C5.0
GROUND LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.0
PODIUM LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.1
GROUND FLOOR PLAN A2.1
SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.2
THIRD FLOOR PLAN A2.3
FOURTH FLOOR PLAN A2.4
FIFTH - SIXTH FLOOR PLAN A2.5
SEVENTH - EIGHTH FLOOR PLAN A2.6
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - SOUTH & WEST A3.0
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - NORTH & EAST A3.1
BUILDING SECTIONS A4.0
CONTACTS
EDEN HOUSING
22645 GRAND ST.
HAYWARD, CA 94541
CONTACT: DIXIE BAUS
[email protected]
17.59 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 T1.0
119 LINCOLN STREET, 600-698 CEDAR STREET
APN 005-141-11 & 21
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION RVC- REGIONAL VISITOR COMMERCIAL 66921 SF 1.54 ACRE
AFFORDABLE UNITS PROPOSED 124 (100% AFFORDABLE)
HEIGHT LIMIT ALLOWABLE PROPOSED
FAR ALLOWABLE 0.25 - 5.0 PROPOSED 4.08
ADJACENT ZONES NORTH CBD
EAST CBD
SOUTH CBD
WEST CBD
SETBACKS FRONT 0'
SIDE 0'
REAR 0'
ALLOWED USES IN
ZONE
PROPOSED USE MULTIPLE-DWELLING "A" ADMIN. USE
PERMIT, SPECIAL
USE PERMIT > 60
UNITS
STRUCTURED
PARKING
"A" ADMIN. USE PERMIT
FITNESS STUDIO "A" ADMIN. USE PERMIT
DAYCARE CENTER "A" ADMIN. USE PERMIT
COMMUNITY
(LIBRARY)
"A" ADMIN. USE
PERMIT, SPECIAL
USE PERMIT >
16,000 SF
50'-0"/91'-0", 96' TO
PENTHOUSE
50'
LAND USE REQUIREMENTS
ZONING
SPECIFIC AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES
LOT SIZE
CBD (CENTRAL BUSINESS DRISTRICT)
CEDAR STREET VILLAGE CORRIDOR
ADDRESS
ENTITLEMENTS/USE PERMIT REQUIRED ADMIN USE PERMIT & SPECIAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project proposes a new 273,194 SF, 8-story building in the Cedar Street Village Corridor of Downtown Santa Cruz. The project site spans the full block between Lincoln and Cathcart Street. The primary use is an approx. 38,000 SF Public Library Facility with a main entrance at the mid-block point on Cedar, and a roof deck at the southwest corner of Cedar and Cathcart. A 16-child (minimum) Daycare is proposed immediately adjacent to the Library, with the outdoor play yard capitalizing on south and western light. Approximately 10,000 SF of commercial use is programmed for the three levels at the southwest corner below the Library roof deck with a 2-story presence at the sidewalk.
The eastern side of the project proposes a 243 stall parking garage with minimal frontage on the street facades on Cathcart and Lincoln St. The parking is three above grade levels. The parking will be a Public City Parking Facility with 24 hour access.
Above the parking podium are 5 levels of residential units. The 124 units made up of studios, 1-bd, 2-bd, & 3-bd types are 100% affordable and will meet TCAC requirements for community gathering places, unit mix and accessibility.
Throughout the site, there are more than 250 bike parking locations proposed. These locations are spread throughout the site to accommodate varying bike parking needs. On the exterior, there are lockable locations along the sidewalk building entries, and additional stalls located within the public parking garage along the pedestrian entry corridor. In addition, there are separate, secured bike parking locations inside the parking garage for residential tenants and staff as well as library, daycare and commercial employees.
USE GROSS SF
FIRST FLOOR LIBRARY 17,914
COMMERCIAL 1,888
DAYCARE 1,322
PARKING GARAGE 35,337
TOTAL: 56,461
SECOND FLOOR LIBRARY 0 INTERSTITIAL SPACE
COMMERCIAL 4,117
PARKING GARAGE 35,337
TOTAL: 39,454
THIRD FLOOR LIBRARY 17,159
COMMERCIAL 5,945
PARKING GARAGE 35,337
TOTAL: 58,441
FOURTH FLOOR LIBRARY 2,996
RESIDENTIAL 23,240
TOTAL: 26,236
FIFTH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 23,240
TOTAL: 23,240
SIXTH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 23,240
TOTAL: 23,240
SEVENTH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 23,061
TOTAL: 23,061
EIGHTH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 23,061
TOTAL: 23,061
GROSS BLDG TOTAL 273,194
GROSS BUILDING AREAS
LIBRARY GROSS SF 38,069 SF
LIBRARY ROOFTOP PATIO SF 3,240 SF
PARKING STALL COUNT 243 STALLS
UNIT COUNT 124
DAYCARE NET SF 1,231 SF
DAYCARE PLAY AREA NET SF 674 SF
COMMERCIAL NET SF 9598 SF
PROGRAM TAKE-OFFS
PROJECT LOCATION
CED
ER STREET
LINCOLN STREET
CATHCART STREET
SOQUEL AVE.
PACIFIC
AVE. PACIFIC
AVE.
WALNUT AVE.
CENTER STREET
NEW STREET
17.60 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 T1.1
UNIT FACTOR PARKING FACTOR REQ'D
OUTSIDE
OF PARK.
DISTR 01
WITHIN
PARK.
DISTR 01
SPACES PROVIDED
RESIDENTIAL 13 S-BD + 48 1-BD 1 PER STUDIO/1-BD 61 TBD 0 32 2-BD + 31 3-BD 2 PER 2+ UNIT 126 TBD 0
LIBRARY 38086 SF 1 PER 400 SF 95 TBD 0
FITNESS CENTER 9598 SF 1 PER 250 SF 38 TBD 0
DAYCARE 16 CHILDREN 1 PER 5 CHILDREN +
1 FOR MANAGER
5 TBD 0
243
243
ADA & EV REQUIREMENTS OF THE PARKING PROVIDED
ADA SPACES USE # OF SPACES ADA REQUIRED
COMMERCIAL 243 7
RESIDENTIAL TBD
7 PROVIDED TOTAL
EV REQUIRED USE # OF SPACES EV REQUIRED
COMMERCIAL 243 15
RESIDENTIAL TBD TBD
15 PROVIDED TOTAL 15 TOTAL (13 TYP. EV, 1 EV ADA, & 1 EV VAN)
PARKING CALCULATIONS
8 TOTAL (5 TYP. ADA & 3 VAN)
PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE
PARKING CALC DONE IN ORDER TO CALCULATE REQUIRED BIKE PARKING SITE IS IN DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT NO. 1 AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE DETERMINED BY CITY COUNCIL AT TIME OF APPLICATION.
TOTAL PROVIDED
REQ'D TOTAL
REQ'D TOTAL
EV FACTOR
6% OF SPACES
12% OF SPACES
TOTAL BIKE PARKING
REQUIREMENT
BREAK UP OF TOTAL
BETWEEN CLASS 1 &
CLASS 2
FACTOR TOTAL
REQ.
C1*
REQ.
C2**
REQ.
LIBRARY
COMMERCIAL 35% AUTO PARKING CLASS 1: 10%
CLASS 2: 90%
95 PARKING STALLS
(CALC'D FOR SAKE OF
DETERMINING BIKE
PARKING REQ.)
34 3 31
MULTIFAMILY 1 SPACE PER UNIT CLASS 1: 1 PER UNIT
CLASS 2: 1 PER 4
UNITS IN ADDITION TO
CLASS 1
124 UNITS 155 124 31
COMMERCIAL
FITNESS & DAYCARE 2 + 15% AUTO
PARKING
CLASS 1: 20%
CLASS 2: 80%
43 PARKING STALLS
(CALC'D FOR SAKE OF
DETERMINING BIKE
PARKING REQ.)
826
197 129 68
258 140 118
BICYCLE PARKING CALCULATIONS
*CLASS 1 PARKING = INDIVIDUALLY LOCKED ENCLOSURE, WEATHER AND VANDALISM PROTECTED, SUPERVISED **CLASS 2 PARKING = STAND OR OTHER DEVICE TO LOCK BIKE WHEEL TO FRAME
TOTAL REQUIRED
TOTAL PROVIDED
TOTAL PROVIDED CAR PARKING 243
TYPICAL STALLS (8'-6" x 19'-0") 103
TYPICAL STALLS - EV (8'-6" x 19'-0") 13
COMPACT STALLS (8'-6" x 16'-0") 117
ADA STALLS 8
EV ADA STALLS (TYP. & VAN) 2
TOTAL PROVIDED BIKE PARKING PROVIDED REQUIRED
258 197
RESIDENTIAL CLASS I 130 124
RESIDENTIAL CLASS II 52 31
LIB/COM/DAYCARE CLASS I 10 5
LIB/COM/DAYCARE CLASS II 66 37
PROVIDED VEHICLE & BIKE PARKING
17.61 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22
OCCUPANCY
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
LIBRARY & COMMERCIAL & DAYCARE 1A
GARAGE & BLDG SUPPORT 1A
RESIDENTIAL 3A OVER 3-HR CONCRETE PODIUM FLOOR CONSTRUCTION STORIES PROPOSED 8
ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 85'-0" TO ROOF DECK
PROPOSED HEIGHT 84'-0" FROM FINISH FLOOR TO ROOF DECK
SPRINKLER SYSTEM NFPA 13 FULL BUILDING
BUILDING CODE INFORMATION
MIXED OCCUPANCY, MULTI-STORY WITH THE
FOLLOWING USES: A-3, M, S-2, R-2, E
HEIGHT STORIES PROPOSED
A-3, TYPE IA, S UL UL 2 STORIES, 47'-0" TO STRUCTURE
S-2, TYPE IA, S UL UL
R-2, TYPE IIIA, S 85'-0" FROM GRADE
(WITHOUT AREA
INCREASE)
5 (WITHOUT AREA
INCREASE)
B/M, TYPE IA, S UL UL 3 STORIES, 33'-0" TO STRUCTURE
E, TYPE IA, S UL UL 1 STORY, 11'-0" TO STRUCTURE
FRONTAGE INCREASE QUALIFIER
PERIMETER (P) WIDTH (W)* LENGTH (F) ** PERCENTAGE
1,016 >30 689.5 68%
* OF OPEN SPACE/ PUBLIC WAY
**OF BUILDING ON PUBLIC WAY OR OPEN SPACE W/ MINIMUM 20' WIDTH REQUIRED 25% ACTUAL 68%
QUALIFIES YES
ALLOWABLE FRONTAGE INCREASE
If= AREA FACTOR INCREASE DUE TO FRONTAGE
F= PERIMETER THAT FRONTS ON PUBLIC WAY
P= PERIMETER OF ENTIRE BUILDING
W= WIDTH OF PUBLIC WAY OR OPEN SPACE
If = (F/P-0.25)W/30
If = (689.5/1016-0.25)30/30 If = 0.429
BUILDING AREA CALCULATIONS / FLOOR
Aa= ALLOWABLE AREA
At= TABULAR AREA FACTOR
NS= TABULAR AREA FACTOR FOR NS BUILDING
If= AREA FACTOR INCREASE DUE TO FRONTAGE
Sa = 1 (DE FACTO NUMBER OF STORIES)
MIXED OCCUPANCY, MULTI-STORY
EQUATION 5-3 Aa = [At + (NS x If)]
RES R-2, IIIA Aa = [24000 + (24000 x .429)] Aa= 33984 / FLOOR ALLOWABLE/FLR 34287 LARGEST PROPOS'D 23240
USE ACTUAL AREA ALLOWABLE AREA RATIO
SEPARATED OCCUPANCIES & 3+ STORIES - ALLOWABLE AREA
ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT, STORIES & AREAS
MIXED USE OCCUPANCIES - ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
3 STORIES, 33'-0" TO STRUCTURE
5 STORIES, 51-0" ABOVE PODIUM / 84'-0" TO
STRUCTURE
A-3, TYPE IA, S UL UL 2 STORIES, 47'-0" TO STRUCTURE
S-2, TYPE IA, S UL UL
R-2, TYPE IIIA, S 85'-0" FROM GRADE
(WITHOUT AREA
INCREASE)
5 (WITHOUT AREA
INCREASE)
B/M, TYPE IA, S UL UL 3 STORIES, 33'-0" TO STRUCTURE
E, TYPE IA, S UL UL 1 STORY, 11'-0" TO STRUCTURE
FRONTAGE INCREASE QUALIFIER
PERIMETER (P) WIDTH (W)* LENGTH (F) ** PERCENTAGE
1,016 >30 689.5 68%
* OF OPEN SPACE/ PUBLIC WAY
**OF BUILDING ON PUBLIC WAY OR OPEN SPACE W/ MINIMUM 20' WIDTH REQUIRED 25% ACTUAL 68%
QUALIFIES YES
ALLOWABLE FRONTAGE INCREASE
If= AREA FACTOR INCREASE DUE TO FRONTAGE
F= PERIMETER THAT FRONTS ON PUBLIC WAY
P= PERIMETER OF ENTIRE BUILDING
W= WIDTH OF PUBLIC WAY OR OPEN SPACE
If = (F/P-0.25)W/30
If = (689.5/1016-0.25)30/30 If = 0.429
BUILDING AREA CALCULATIONS / FLOOR
Aa= ALLOWABLE AREA
At= TABULAR AREA FACTOR
NS= TABULAR AREA FACTOR FOR NS BUILDING
If= AREA FACTOR INCREASE DUE TO FRONTAGE
Sa = 1 (DE FACTO NUMBER OF STORIES)
MIXED OCCUPANCY, MULTI-STORY
EQUATION 5-3 Aa = [At + (NS x If)]
RES R-2, IIIA Aa = [24000 + (24000 x .429)] Aa= 33984 / FLOOR ALLOWABLE/FLR 34287 LARGEST PROPOS'D 23240
USE ACTUAL AREA ALLOWABLE AREA RATIO
FIRST FLOOR S-2, TYPE IA, S 35338 UNLIMITED 0.00
A-3, TYPE IA, S 18006 UNLIMITED 0.00
M, TYPE IA, S 2035 UNLIMITED 0.00
E, TYPE IIIB, S 1322 UNLIMITED 0.00
TOTAL 0.00
SECOND FLOOR S-2, TYPE IA, S 35338 UNLIMITED 0.00
A-3, TYPE IIIB, S 0 UNLIMITED 0.00
M, TYPE IIIB, S 4112 UNLIMITED 0.00
TOTAL 0.00
SEPARATED OCCUPANCIES & 3+ STORIES - ALLOWABLE AREA
3 STORIES, 33'-0" TO STRUCTURE
5 STORIES, 51-0" ABOVE PODIUM / 84'-0" TO
STRUCTURE
THIRD FLOOR S-2, TYPE IA, S 35338 UNLIMITED 0.00
A-3, TYPE IA, S 17025 UNLIMITED 0.00
M, TYPE IA, S 5946 UNLIMITED 0.00
TOTAL 0.00
TOTAL 0.00
REQ'D RATIO </=1 PER FLOOR, </=3 PER ENTIRE BUILDING
CODE SECTION (IF APPLICABLE)
CBC 510.2
1 2
3 4
5 6 THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN FEET
SHALL NOT EXCEED THE LIMITS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 504.3 FOR THE BUILDING HAVING THE
SMALLER ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AS MEASURED
FROM GRADE PLANE.
AS OUTLINED HERE, THE SMALLEST
ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR THE VARIOUS USES IS
THE R-2 TYPE IIIA, 85'-0" (TAKING HEIGHT
INCREASE). TOTAL BUILDING HEIGHT WILL BE
84'-0" FROM FINISH FLOOR TO TOP OF ROOF
DECK.
SHAFT, STAIRWAY, RAMP AND ESCALATOR
ENCLOSURES THROUGH THE HORIZONTAL
ASSEMBLY SHALL HAVE NOT LESS THAN A 2-
HR FIRE RATING WITH OPENING PROTECTIVES.
ALL STAIR TOWERS AND SHAFTS GOING
THROUGH THE PODIUM CONSTRUCTION WILL
BE OF A 2-HR RATED ENCLOSURE WITH
OPENING PROTECTIVES.
THE BUILDING ABOVE THE HORIZONTAL
ASSEMBLY SHALL BE GROUP A (IF LESS THAN
300 OCCUPANTS), OR GROUP B, M, R OR S
THE PROPOSED BUILDING ABOVE THE PODIUM
IS TO BE R-2 WITH INCIDENTAL USES
PERTAINING TO THE R-2 USE.
THE BUILDING BELOW THE HORIZONTAL
ASSEMBLY SHALL BE PROTECTED
THROUGHOUT BY AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC
SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 903.3.1.1 AND CAN BE ANY
OCCUPANCY EXCEPT H.
THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE WILL BE FULLY
SPRINKLERED WITH AN NFPA 13 SYSTEM, AND
THERE WILL BE NO TYPE H OCCUPANCY
PROPOSED.
PODIUM CODE REVIEW (SECTION 510.2)
A BUILDING SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BUILDINGS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING AREA LIMITATIONS,
CONTINUITY OF FIRE WALLS, LIMITATION OF
NUMBER OF STORIES AND TYPE OF
CONSTRUCTION WHERE THE FOLLOWING ARE
MET:
HORIZTONAL 3 HOUR ASSEMBLY, VERTICAL
OFFSETS ALLOWED, BUT MUST ALSO BE 3-HR.
THE BUILDING BELOW (INCLUDING THE
HORIZONTAL ASSEMBLY) IS OF TYPE IA
CONSTRUCTION
RELATION TO PROPOSED STRUCTURE
RESIDENTIAL TOWER IS CONSIDERED A
SEPARATE BUILDING, COMPLYING WITH AREA
(WITH FRONTAGE INCREASE)
3-HR CONCRETE PODIUM PROPOSED
BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL TOWER AND PROGRAM
BENEATH: GARAGE AND COMMERCIAL.
ALL PROGRAM EXCEPT THE RESIDENTIAL IS TO
BE 1A CONSTRUCTION.
THIRD FLOOR S-2, TYPE IA, S 35338 UNLIMITED 0.00
A-3, TYPE IA, S 17025 UNLIMITED 0.00
M, TYPE IA, S 5946 UNLIMITED 0.00
TOTAL 0.00
TOTAL 0.00
REQ'D RATIO </=1 PER FLOOR, </=3 PER ENTIRE BUILDING
CODE SECTION (IF APPLICABLE)
CBC 510.2
PODIUM CODE REVIEW (SECTION 510.2)
A BUILDING SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BUILDINGS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING AREA LIMITATIONS,
CONTINUITY OF FIRE WALLS, LIMITATION OF
NUMBER OF STORIES AND TYPE OF
RELATION TO PROPOSED STRUCTURE
RESIDENTIAL TOWER IS CONSIDERED A
SEPARATE BUILDING, COMPLYING WITH AREA
(WITH FRONTAGE INCREASE)
51' - 0" 33' - 0"
3-HR PODIUM
PARKING GARAGE S-2
1A, 3 STORIES
RESIDENTIAL R-2
3A, 5 STORIES
STRUCTURE
47' - 0" TOP OF
LIBRARY A-3
1A, 2 STORIES
GLASS
CLERESTORY
TOP OF STRUCTURE
84' - 0"
20' FIRE SEP.
40' - 0" MIN
NOTE: ALL HEIGHTS ARE MEASURED FROM TOP OF SLAB
RESIDENTIAL R-2
3A, <24,000 SF
LIBRARY A-3
1A
DIAGONAL HATCH AREA
INDICATES EXTENT OF
3-HR PODIUM
SECTION 01 SECTION 02
33' - 0"
PARKING GARAGE S-2
1A, 3 STORIES
RESIDENTIAL R-2
3A, 5 STORIES
COMMERCIAL M
1A, 3 STORIES
STRUCTURE
33' - 0" TOP OF
3-HR PODIUM
10' FIRE SEP.
20' MIN
51' - 0"
TOP OF STRUCTURE
84' - 0" NOTE: ALL HEIGHTS ARE MEASURED FROM TOP OF SLAB 51' - 0" 33' - 0"
3-HR PODIUM
PARKING GARAGE S-2
1A, 3 STORIES
RESIDENTIAL R-2
3A, 5 STORIES
STRUCTURE
47' - 0" TOP OF
LIBRARY A-3
1A, 2 STORIES
GLASS
CLERESTORY
TOP OF STRUCTURE
84' - 0"
20' FIRE SEP.
40' - 0" MIN
NOTE: ALL HEIGHTS ARE MEASURED FROM TOP OF SLAB
RESIDENTIAL R-2
3A, <24,000 SF
LIBRARY A-3
1A
DIAGONAL HATCH AREA
INDICATES EXTENT OF
3-HR PODIUM
SECTION 01 SECTION 02
33' - 0"
PARKING GARAGE S-2
1A, 3 STORIES
RESIDENTIAL R-2
3A, 5 STORIES
COMMERCIAL M
1A, 3 STORIES
STRUCTURE
33' - 0" TOP OF
3-HR PODIUM
10' FIRE SEP.
20' MIN
51' - 0"
TOP OF STRUCTURE
84' - 0" NOTE: ALL HEIGHTS ARE MEASURED FROM TOP OF SLAB 51' - 0" 33' - 0"
3-HR PODIUM
PARKING GARAGE S-2
1A, 3 STORIES
RESIDENTIAL R-2
3A, 5 STORIES
STRUCTURE
47' - 0" TOP OF
LIBRARY A-3
1A, 2 STORIES
GLASS
CLERESTORY
TOP OF STRUCTURE
84' - 0"
20' FIRE SEP.
40' - 0" MIN
NOTE: ALL HEIGHTS ARE MEASURED FROM TOP OF SLAB
RESIDENTIAL R-2
3A, <24,000 SF
LIBRARY A-3
1A
DIAGONAL HATCH AREA
INDICATES EXTENT OF
3-HR PODIUM
SECTION 01 SECTION 02
33' - 0"
PARKING GARAGE S-2
1A, 3 STORIES
RESIDENTIAL R-2
3A, 5 STORIES
COMMERCIAL M
1A, 3 STORIES
STRUCTURE
33' - 0" TOP OF
3-HR PODIUM
10' FIRE SEP.
20' MIN
51' - 0"
TOP OF STRUCTURE
84' - 0" NOTE: ALL HEIGHTS ARE MEASURED FROM TOP OF SLAB SECTION 01
SECTION 02
17.62 T1.2
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22
TAX CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
TCAC AFFORDABLE UNITS REQ'D #UNITS REQUIRED #UNITS PROVIDED 25% 3-BEDS MIN. 900 SF* 31 31
25% 2-BEDS MIN. 700 SF* 31 31
REMAINING 1-BEDS MIN. 450 SF* 48
REMAINING STUDIOS MIN. 450 SF* 13
15% 11B MOBILITY IMPAIRED 19
10% 11B COMMUNICATION 13
*SEE "UNIT TYPES" ON THIS SHEET FOR TOTAL NUMBER AND SIZE OF UNITS AS WELL AS LOCATION OF ALL MOBILITY & COMMUNICATION UNITS.
TCAC AMENITIES MIN. SF / FACTOR # / SF
COMMUNITY ROOM 1,800 SF
LAUNDRY* 1 PER 10 UNITS 13W, 13D*
PLAY AREA FOR AGES 2-12 970 SF
PLAY AREA FOR AGES 13-17
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
* (12) SETS OF WASHERS & DRYERS ARE STACKED, (1) SET IS SIDE-BY-SIDE FOR
ACCESSIBILITY REACH RANGE COMPLIANCE
**SQUARE FOOTAGE IS ACCOMMODATED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AREA AND WILL BE ACCESSIBLE TO MINORS FROM 6 AM TO 10 PM EXCEPT WHEN THE AREA IS RESERVED FOR SERVICE AMENITIES OR SPECIAL EVENTS.
20 (5 3-BD, 5 2-BD, 8
1-BD, 2 STUDIO)
20 (5 3-BD, 5 2-BD, 8
1-BD, 2 STUDIO)
600 SF + 5 SF FOR
EACH ADD. UNIT OVER
100 (600 + 120 =
720 SF MIN)
2,000 SF
(COMMUNITY ROOM
+ LOUNGE)
**INCLUDED IN
COMMUNITY SPACE
T1.3
UNIT TYPE BED # NET SF DECK SF N. GROSS COUNT TL NET TL DECK TL GROSS TL BEDS S-1 STUDIO 456 -- -- 10 4560 -- -- 0
S-2 STUDIO 344 -- -- 1 344 -- -- 0
S-3 STUDIO 473 -- -- 2 946 -- -- 0
1-1 1 455 -- -- 38 17290 -- -- 38
1-2 1 512 -- -- 5 2560 -- -- 5
1-3 1 509 -- -- 3 1527 -- -- 3
1-4 1 507 -- -- 2 1014 -- -- 2
2-1 2 742 -- -- 20 14840 -- -- 40
2-2 2 730 -- -- 5 3650 -- -- 10
2-3 2 819 -- -- 3 2457 -- -- 6
2-4 2 729 -- -- 2 1458 -- -- 4
2-5 2 844 -- -- 2 1688 -- -- 4
3-1 3 909 -- -- 15 13635 -- -- 45
3-2 3 957 -- -- 5 4785 -- -- 15
3-3 3 932 -- -- 5 4660 -- -- 15
3-4 3 902 -- -- 2 1804 -- -- 6
3-5 3 907 -- -- 2 1814 -- -- 6
3-6 3 950 -- -- 2 1900 -- -- 6
TOTAL 124 80932 TBD TBD 205
AVERAGE NET UNIT SIZE: 653
AVERAGE GROSS UNIT SIZE: --
UNIT AREA TABULATION
TOTAL UNITS TOTAL # UNITS: 124
STUDIO: 13 10.5%
1BD: 48 38.7%
2BD: 31 25.0%
MANAGER (2-BD) 1 0.8%
3BD: 31 25.0% (MIN 25% REQ'D)
STUDIO 1-BD 2-BD 3-BD MGR TOTAL
FOURTH FLOOR 3655120
FIFTH FLOOR 2 11 7 6 26
SIXTH FLOOR 2 11 7 6 26
SEVENTH FLOOR 3 10 6 7 26
EIGHTH FLOOR 3 10 6 7 26
TOTAL 13 48 31 31 1 124
124
MOBILITY (11B ACCESSIBLE) : 20 16% (MIN 15% REQ'D)
COMMUNICATION: 20 16% (MIN 10% REQ'D)
FOURTH FLOOR 44
FIFTH FLOOR 44
SIXTH FLOOR 44
SEVENTH FLOOR 44
EIGHTH FLOOR 44
TOTAL 20 20
UNIT COUNT: TYPE
% OF TOTAL UNITS PROPOSED
MOBILITY (11B) COMMUNICATION
ACCESSIBLITY & COMMUNICATION
TOTAL # UNITS: % OF TOTAL UNITS PROPOSED
(MIN 25% REQ'D)
17.63 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 T2.0
NE corner of cathcart and cedar street
17.64 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 T2.1
view from adjacent parking at cedar street
17.65 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 T2.2
elevation along cedar street
17.66 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 T2.3
S E c o r n e r o f c e d a r a n d l i n c o l n s t r e e t
17.67 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 T2.4
APPROACH FROM cathcart street
17.68 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 T3.1
SOLAR SHADING STUDY
SC ALE: N.T.S.
N
CATHCART STREET
LINCOLN STREET
CEDAR
STREET
5 STORIES
2 STORIES
3 STORIES SURFACE
PARKING
1 STORY
SURFACE
PARKING CATHCART STREET
LINCOLN STREET
CEDAR
STREET
5 STORIES
+/-65'-0"
2 STORIES
+/-22'-0"
3 STORIES
+/- 35'-0"
SURFACE
PARKING
PACIFIC
AVE
1 STORY
+/- 15'
SURFACE
PARKING
3 STORIES
+/-35'-0"
1 STORY
+/- 15'
2 STORIES
+/- 22'
CATHCART STREET
LINCOLN STREET
CEDAR
STREET
5 STORIES
+/-65'-0"
2 STORIES
+/-22'-0"
3 STORIES
+/- 35'-0"
SURFACE
PARKING
PACIFIC
AVE
1 STORY
+/- 15'
SURFACE
PARKING
3 STORIES
+/-35'-0"
1 STORY
+/- 15'
2 STORIES
+/- 22'
CATHCART STREET
LINCOLN STREET
CEDAR
STREET
5 STORIES
2 STORIES
3 STORIES SURFACE
PARKING
1 STORY
SURFACE
PARKING CATHCART STREET
LINCOLN STREET
CEDAR
STREET
5 STORIES
+/-65'-0"
2 STORIES
+/-22'-0"
3 STORIES
+/- 35'-0"
SURFACE
PARKING
PACIFIC
AVE
1 STORY
+/- 15'
SURFACE
PARKING
3 STORIES
+/-35'-0"
1 STORY
+/- 15'
2 STORIES
+/- 22'
WINTER SOLSTICE @ 9 AM WINTER SOLSTICE @ 12 PM WINTER SOLSTICE @ 3 PM
17.69 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 T3.2
SOLAR SHADING STUDY
SC ALE: N.T.S.
N
CATHCART STREET
LINCOLN STREET
CEDAR
STREET
5 STORIES
2 STORIES
3 STORIES SURFACE
PARKING
1 STORY
SURFACE
PARKING CATHCART STREET
LINCOLN STREET
CEDAR
STREET
5 STORIES
+/-65'-0"
2 STORIES
+/-22'-0"
3 STORIES
+/- 35'-0"
SURFACE
PARKING
PACIFIC
AVE
1 STORY
+/- 15'
SURFACE
PARKING
3 STORIES
+/-35'-0"
1 STORY
+/- 15'
2 STORIES
+/- 22'
CATHCART STREET
LINCOLN STREET
CEDAR
STREET
5 STORIES
2 STORIES
3 STORIES SURFACE
PARKING
1 STORY
SURFACE
PARKING CATHCART STREET
LINCOLN STREET
CEDAR
STREET
5 STORIES
+/-65'-0"
2 STORIES
+/-22'-0"
3 STORIES
+/- 35'-0"
SURFACE
PARKING
PACIFIC
AVE
1 STORY
+/- 15'
SURFACE
PARKING
3 STORIES
+/-35'-0"
1 STORY
+/- 15'
2 STORIES
+/- 22'
CATHCART STREET
LINCOLN STREET
CEDAR
STREET
5 STORIES
2 STORIES
3 STORIES SURFACE
PARKING
1 STORY
SURFACE
PARKING CATHCART STREET
LINCOLN STREET
CEDAR
STREET
5 STORIES
+/-65'-0"
2 STORIES
+/-22'-0"
3 STORIES
+/- 35'-0"
SURFACE
PARKING
PACIFIC
AVE
1 STORY
+/- 15'
SURFACE
PARKING
3 STORIES
+/-35'-0"
1 STORY
+/- 15'
2 STORIES
+/- 22'
SUMMER SOLSTICE @ 9 AM SUMMER SOLSTICE @ 12 PM SUMMER SOLSTICE @ 3 PM
17.70 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 A1.0 Tel 831.426.7941 Fax 831.426.6266 5300 Soquel Avenue, Suite 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95062
SITE SURVEY
SC ALE: N.T.S.
17.71 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 A1.1
SITE DEMO PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
S
S
C
S
S
C
O
DD
W
M
W
M
WM
U
BSLSL
P
G
&
E
PG&E
S
L
EB PG&E
PG&E
CEDAR STREET
CATHCART STREET
LINCOLN STREET
(E) BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED
(E) ASPHALT
PAVEMENT TO BE
DEMOLISHED
THROUGHOUT SITE
539 Marsh Street
SanLuis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010 info@tenovers
tudio.com
www.tenoverstudio.com
SC LIBRARY MIXED USE600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA04/13/22 ( e ) b u i l d i n g t o
be demolished
17.72 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 A1.2
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 50’-0”
N
PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURE
SANTA CRUZ LIBRARY MIXED USE
RESIDENTIAL BIKE PARKING
80 BIKES (CLASS I)
RESIDENTIAL BIKE PARKING
50 BIKES (CLASS I) 80 BIKES (CLASS II)
6 BIKES (CLASS II)
20 BIKES (CLASS II)
LIBRARY, COMMERCIAL &
DAYCARE BIKE PARKING
10 BIKES (CLASS I)
CEDAR STREET
CATHCART STRE
E
T
LINCOLN STR
E
E
T
6 BIKES (CLASS II) 6 BIKES (CLASS II)
DAYCARE
PLAY AREA
FLUSH ACCESS
4' - 0" (E) ADA
16' - 0"
1119 PACIFIC
BUSINESS
ACCESS
1117 PACIFIC
BUSINESS
ACCESS
1101 PACIFIC
SERVICE AREA
1101 PACIFIC
ACCESS
105 LINCOLN
SERVICE DOOR 1101 PACIFIC
SUITE F ACCESS
1123 & 1125 PACIFIC
PARKING AND SERVICE
AREA
R 40' - 0"
ELEC &
TRANSFORMER
RESIDENTIAL
GARBAGE
LIBRARY
GARBAGE
LIBRARY
LOADING
FIRE RISER
LIBRARY ENTRANCE
MAIN LIBRARY
ENTERANCE
PARKING GARAGE
PEDESTRIAN
ENTRANCE
PARKING GARAGE
VEHICULAR
ENTRANCE
RESIDENTIAL
ENTRANCE
RESIDENTIAL
ENTRANCE
CLR
20' - 0"
(5) of (6)
EXISTING STREET
PARKING SPACES
TO REMAIN ON
LINCOLN
EXISTING (7) ON-STREET
PARKING SPACES TO BE
REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE
LARGER SIDEWALK NEW 12'-0" WIDE SIDEWALK WITH (4)
LOADING/UNLOADING PARKING
SPACES
NEW 10'-0" WIDE
SIDEWALK TO MATCH
ADJACENT 1101
PACIFIC CATHCART
SIDEWALK FRONTAGE
EXISTING (4) ONSTREET PARKING
SPACES TO BE
REMOVED ON
CATHCART TO
ACCOMMODATE
LARGER SIDEWALK
CLR
16' - 5"
182.09' 20.62'
123.34' 57.4'
135.42'
125.0' 80.64'
12.05 151.75'
'
176.55'
TO P.L.
15' - 3"
ONE-WAY ALLEY
C
ONE-WAY ALLEY
LR
17' - 10 1/2"
NEW 12'-0" WIDE
SIDEWALK TO MATCH
ADJACENT 105 LINCOLN
SIDEWALK FRONTAGE
BUS STOP
PARKING GARAGE
DAYCARE
COMMERCIAL
LIBRARY
MECHANICAL
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
www.tenoverstudio.com SC LIBRARY MIXED US
E
600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRU
Z, CALIFORNIA
08/16/2022
17.73 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 C1.0
e x i s t i n g
conditions
SC ALE: N.T.S.
17.74 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 C2.0
civil site plan
SC ALE: N.T.S.
17.75 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 C3.0
g r a d i n g &
drainage
SC ALE: N.T.S.
17.76 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 C4.0
utility plan
SC ALE: N.T.S.
17.77 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 C5.0
s t o r m w a t e r
control plan
SC ALE: N.T.S.
···
17.78 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 L1.0
GROUND LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURE
SANTA CRUZ LIBRARY MIXED USE
CEDAR STREET
CATHCART STREET
LINCOLN STREET
PARKING GARAGE
DAYCARE
COMMERCIAL
LIBRARY
1 2
3 3
2 2
2 1
2 1 3
4 2
2 2
2 2
3 KEYNOTES
1. (N) STREET TREES
2. (N) GROUND LEVEL STREET PLANTING
3. (N) RAISED STEEL PLANTERS
4. (N) DAY CARE PLAY PATIO
LANDSCAPE precedents
17.79 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 L1.1
PODIUM LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
UNITS
LIBRARY MEZZANINE
OPEN TO
BELOW
LIBRARY MECHANICAL
ROOFTOP AREA
LIBRARY ROOF DECK
RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITY ROOM
2 1
3 4
5 6
6 5 6
7 7
7 7
8 8
8 8
8 7
9 9 9
10 KEYNOTES
1. (N) TOT LOT, NATURE PLAY CLIMBING
STRUCTURES AND PIP SURFACING
2. (N) TEEN COURTYARD WITH WEATHER
PROOF SHUFFLEBOARD AND PING PONG
TABLES
3. (N) PODIUM GARDEN WITH CONCRETE
PLANK WALK
4. (N) RAISED VEGETABLE BEDS FOR
RESIDENCE USE/MAINTENANCE
5. (N) COMMUNITY GATHERING SPACE
6. (N) PLANK WALK, CONCRETE
7. (N) PRIVATE RESIDENCE PATIO SPACE
8. (N) RAISED STEEL PLANTERS
9. (N) GREEN ROOF, BY OTHERS
10. (N) DECK
podium precedents
17.80 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22
COMMERCIAL
LIBRARY
DAYCARE
1 - B E D RO O M U N I T &
STUDIO
2-BEDROOM UNIT
3-BEDROOM UNIT
RES. SUPPORT SPACES
DECK
GREEN ROOF
GARAGE
Legend
A2.1
1ST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
30791 SF
PARKING GARAGE
1718 SF
COMMERCIAL
1231 SF
DAYCARE
1 A4.0
1 A4.0
LIBRARY
GARBAGE &
SUPPORT
LIBRARY
LOADING
LOBBY
674 SF
PLAY
RES
GARBAGE
RAMP UP
MAIL
ELEC &
TRANSFORMER
LOBBY
EV
FIRE
57' - 0" 22' - 9"
197' - 8"
108' - 2" 71' - 9"
253'- 2"
LIBRARY
17,914 SF
BIKE
STORAGE
BIKE
STORAGE
2 A4.0
2 A4.0
A3.0
1 2 A3.
0 A3.1
1 A3.1
2 20' - 0" 101' - 9"
STORAGE
181' - 6"
326'- 6"
MECHANICAL
EV EV EV
EV
73'- 4"
129'- 9" 196'- 3"
326'- 0"
17' - 9"
539 Marsh Street
SanLuis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010 info@tenovers
tudio.com
www.tenoverstudio.com
SC LIBRARY MIXED USE600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA03/24/2022 1" = 30'-0"
1 OVERALL
FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 01
17.81 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22
COMMERCIAL
LIBRARY
DAYCARE
1 - B E D RO O M U N I T &
STUDIO
2-BEDROOM UNIT
3-BEDROOM UNIT
RES. SUPPORT SPACES
DECK
GREEN ROOF
GARAGE
Legend
A2.2
2ND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
1 A4.0
1 A4.0
33387 SF
PARKING GARAGE
LOADING
BELOW
3308 SF
COMMERCIAL
RAMP UP RAMP DN
OPEN TO
BELOW
EVEVEV EVEV
LOBBY
LOBBY
LIBRARY
OPEN TO BELOW
20' - 0"
79' - 9" 101' - 9"
2 A4.0
2 A4.0
A3.0
1 2 A3.
0 A3.1
1 A3.1
2 253'- 2"
181' - 6"
MECH
129'- 9" 196'- 3"
326'- 0"
326'- 6"
73'- 4"
197' - 2"
17' - 3" 108' - 2" 71' - 9"
539 Marsh Street
SanLuis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010 info@tenovers
tudio.com
www.tenoverstudio.com
SC LIBRARY MIXED USE600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA03/24/2022 1" = 30'-0"
1 OVERALL
FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 02
17.82 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22
COMMERCIAL
LIBRARY
DAYCARE
1 - B E D RO O M U N I T &
STUDIO
2-BEDROOM UNIT
3-BEDROOM UNIT
RES. SUPPORT SPACES
DECK
GREEN ROOF
GARAGE
Legend
A2.3
3RD FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
1 A4.0
1 A4.0
5646 SF
COMMERCIAL
33305 SF
PARKING GARAGE
RAMP UP RAMP DN
EVEVEV EVEV
20' - 0"
130'- 3" 196'- 3"
101' - 9" 79' - 9"
326'- 6"
181' - 6"
79' - 9"
LOBBY
LOBBY
251'- 6" 75'- 0"
2 A4.0
2 A4.0
326'- 6"
A3.0
1 2 A3.
0 A3.1
1 A3.1
2 LIBRARY
17,159 SF
101' - 9"
199' - 3"
MECH
17' - 9"
539 Marsh Street
SanLuis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010 info@tenovers
tudio.com
www.tenoverstudio.com
SC LIBRARY MIXED USE600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA03/24/2022 1" = 30'-0"
1 OVERALL
FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 03
17.83 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22
COMMERCIAL
LIBRARY
DAYCARE
1 - B E D RO O M U N I T &
STUDIO
2-BEDROOM UNIT
3-BEDROOM UNIT
RES. SUPPORT SPACES
DECK
GREEN ROOF
GARAGE
Legend
4TH FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
A2.4
1 A4.0
1 A4.0
TOT LOT
COMMUNITY
PATIO
932 SF
3-BD
819 SF
2-BD
957 SF
3-BD
730 SF
2-BD
509 SF
1-BD
1619 SF
COMMUNITY
LIBRARY ROOFTOP MECH AREA
467 SF
LAUNDRY
471 SF
MAINT.
456 SF
STUDIO
456 SF
STUDIO
742 SF
2-BD
742 SF
2-BD
455 SF
1-BD
742 SF
2-BD
909 SF
3-BD
909 SF
3-BD
512 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
742 SF
2-BD
909 SF
3-BD
455 SF
1-BD
LOUNGE
LIBRARY PATIO
GREEN ROOF
81' - 6" 19' - 3" 79' - 3"
73' - 3" 49' - 0" 48' - 6" 25' - 6" 54' - 6" 26' - 6" 36' - 4" 9' - 11"
LIBRARY MEZZANINE
2,996 SF
OPEN TO
BELOW
2 A4.0
2 A4.0
UTILITY
OFFICE OFFICE
323' - 6"
A3.0
1 2 A3.0
A3.1
1 A3.1 2
21' - 10" 78' - 8" 79' - 6"
181' - 6" 20' - 0"
326' - 6"
344 SF
STUDIO
251' - 6" 75' - 0"
180' - 0"
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
www.tenoverstudio.com SC LIBRARY MIXED US
E
600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRU
Z, CALIFORNIA
03/24/2022
1" = 30'-0" 1 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 04
17.84 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22
COMMERCIAL
LIBRARY
DAYCARE
1 - B E D RO O M U N I T &
STUDIO
2-BEDROOM UNIT
3-BEDROOM UNIT
RES. SUPPORT SPACES
DECK
GREEN ROOF
GARAGE
Legend
5TH-6TH FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
A2.5
1 A4.0
1 A4.0
932 SF
3-BD
819 SF
2-BD
957 SF
3-BD
950 SF
3-BD
730 SF
2-BD
509 SF
1-BD
729 SF
2-BD
456 SF
STUDIO
456 SF
STUDIO
742 SF
2-BD
742 SF
2-BD
742 SF
2-BD
909 SF
3-BD
909 SF
3-BD
742 SF
2-BD
909 SF
3-BD
455 SF
1-BD
512 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
0' - 6" 73' - 3" 49' - 0" 48' - 6" 25' - 6" 54' - 6" 26' - 6" 36' - 4" 9' - 11" 0' - 6" 21' - 10" 78' - 8"
100' - 6"
73' - 3" 49' - 0" 48' - 6" 25' - 6" 127' - 3"
323' - 6"
2 A4.0
2 A4.0
UTILITY
323' - 6"
A3.0
1 2 A3.0
A3.1
1 A3.1 2
81' - 6"
26' - 9" 54' - 9"
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
www.tenoverstudio.com SC LIBRARY MIXED US
E
600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRU
Z, CALIFORNIA
03/24/2022
1" = 30'-0" 1 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 05
17.85 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22
COMMERCIAL
LIBRARY
DAYCARE
1 - B E D RO O M U N I T &
STUDIO
2-BEDROOM UNIT
3-BEDROOM UNIT
RES. SUPPORT SPACES
DECK
GREEN ROOF
GARAGE
Legend
7TH-8TH FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
A2.6
1 A4.0
1 A4.0
742 SF
2-BD
742 SF
2-BD
456 SF
STUDIO
933 SF
3-BD
455 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
742 SF
2-BD
909 SF
3-BD
909 SF
3-BD
742 SF
2-BD
909 SF
3-BD
512 SF
1-BD
907 SF
3-BD
455 SF
1-BD
844 SF
2-BD
730 SF
2-BD
957 SF
3-BD
455 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
507 SF
1-BD
455 SF
1-BD
323' - 6"
49' - 0" 48' - 6" 25' - 6" 54' - 6" 26' - 6" 36' - 4"
81' - 6"
100' - 6"
54' - 9"
73' - 3" 49' - 0" 48' - 6" 25' - 6" 127' - 3"
2 A4.0
2 A4.0
UTILITY
A3.0
1 2 A3.0
A3.1
1 A3.1 2
902 SF
3-BD
456 SF
STUDIO
473 SF
STUDIO
26' - 9"
73' - 3"
323' - 3"
9' - 8"
22' - 1" 78' - 5"
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
www.tenoverstudio.com SC LIBRARY MIXED US
E
600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRU
Z, CALIFORNIA
03/24/2022
1" = 30'-0" 1 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 07
17.86 LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
www.tenoverstudio.com SC LIBRARY MIXED US
E
600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRU
Z, CALIFORNIA
03/24/2022
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
www.tenoverstudio.com SC LIBRARY MIXED US
E
600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRU
Z, CALIFORNIA
03/24/2022
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 A3.0
1 WEST ELEV ATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
2 SOUTH ELEV ATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
2 KEYNOTES
1. GLASS CURTAINWALL
2. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH WOOD SLAT
RAINSCREEN SYSTEM
3. WEATHERED WOOD TONGUE & GROOVE
SIDING
4. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH FRIT PATTERN
5. GLASS RAILING AT LIBRARY ROOF DECK
6. VINYL WINDOWS WITH BLACK EXTERIOR
FINISH (AT RESIDENTIAL AREAS ONLY)
7. 3-TONE INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO WITH
METAL TRIM
8. SINGLE TONE FIELD COLOR INTEGRAL
STUCCO
9. ACCENT INTEGRAL COLOR AT STUCCO AT
WINDOWS
10. HORIZONTAL CONCRETE BASE, BOARD
FORM TEXTURE
11. OPEN AIR OPENING AT GARAGE
12. MAIN BUILDING SIGNAGE
13. GREEN ROOF
14. GLASS STOREFRONT
15. THERMALLY BROKEN ALUMINUM WINDOWS
12 2 14 3
1 3
5 10 12 7 11
8 TOP OF ROOFTOP ACCESS STAIR: 95’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET: 91’-0”
4 1 3
6 7
15 14
3 1 3
13 1 9 14
8 6
7 5
7 15
17.87 LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
www.tenoverstudio.com SC LIBRARY MIXED US
E
600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRU
Z, CALIFORNIA
03/24/2022
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
www.tenoverstudio.com SC LIBRARY MIXED US
E
600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRU
Z, CALIFORNIA
03/24/2022
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 A3.1
1 east ELEV ATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
2 NORTH ELEV ATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
14 12 2
6 7
1 7
6 9
10 TOP OF ROOFTOP ACCESS STAIR: 95’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET: 91’-0”
10 8
8 13
4 KEYNOTES
1. GLASS CURTAINWALL
2. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH WOOD SLAT
RAINSCREEN SYSTEM
3. WEATHERED WOOD TONGUE & GROOVE
SIDING
4. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH FRIT PATTERN
5. GLASS RAILING AT LIBRARY ROOF DECK
6. VINYL WINDOWS WITH BLACK EXTERIOR
FINISH (AT RESIDENTIAL AREAS ONLY)
7. 3-TONE INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO WITH
METAL TRIM
8. SINGLE TONE FIELD COLOR INTEGRAL
STUCCO
9. ACCENT INTEGRAL COLOR AT STUCCO AT
WINDOWS
10. HORIZONTAL CONCRETE BASE, BOARD
FORM TEXTURE
11. OPEN AIR OPENING AT GARAGE
12. MAIN BUILDING SIGNAGE
13. GREEN ROOF
14. GLASS STOREFRONT
15. THERMALLY BROKEN ALUMINUM WINDOWS
3 9 14 8
17.88 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22
COMMERCIAL
LIBRARY
DAYCARE
1 - B E D RO O M U N I T &
STUDIO
2-BEDROOM UNIT
3-BEDROOM UNIT
RES. SUPPORT SPACES
DECK
GREEN ROOF
GARAGE
Legend
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
PARKING GARAGE
PL PL
PROP LINE
1' - 4" BLDG TO
95'-0" FROM GRADE
@ STAIR TOWER TYP
91'-0" TOP OF PARAPET
FROM GRADE
RES. RES. RES.
SC LIBRARY MIXED US
E
600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRU
Z, CALIFORNIA
03/24/2022
A4.0
BUILDING SECTIONS
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LIBRARY
PL
PROP LINE
3' - 3" BLDG TO
PARKING GARAGE
EXISTING
BUILDING
PL 91'-0" TOP OF PARAPET
FROM GRADE
50'-0" TOP OF PARAPET
FROM GRADE
35'-0" TOP OF PARAPET
FROM GRADE
35'-0" TOP OF PARAPET
FROM GRADE
RESIDENTIAL
(VARIES)
ROOF TOP PLATE
PL PL95'-0" FROM GRADE
@ STAIR TOWER TYP
91'-0" TOP OF PARAPET
FROM GRADE
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
www.tenoverstudio.com
1 NORTH-SOUTH SECTION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
2 EAST-WEST SECTION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
17.89 17.90
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 01/26/23 L1.0
GROUND LANDSCAPE PLAN
landscape schedule
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURE
SANTA CRUZ LIBRARY MIXED USE
CEDAR STREET
CATHCART STREET
LINCOLN STREET
PARKING GARAGE
DAYCARE
COMMERCIAL
LIBRARY
2 22
23 4
2 3
2 1
1 32
32 2
2 1 KEYNOTES
1. (N) STREET TREES W/ METAL GRATE, TYP.
2. (N) AT GRADE PLANTER
3. (N) RAISED STEEL PLANTERS
4. (N) DAY CARE PLAY PATIO
CANOPY TREE
Laurus x 'Saratoga' / Saratoga Hybrid Laurel
Platanus x acerifolia 'Columbia' / Columbia London
Plane Tree
Pistacia chinensis / Chinese Pistache Tree
Quercus spp. / California Native Oak Species
ORNAMENTAL GRASS
Festuca californica 'River House Blues' / River
House Blues California Fescue
Lomandra longifolia 'Roma 13' / Platinum Beauty®
Variegated Mat Rush
Pennisetum spathiolatum / Slender Veldt Grass
Sesleria autumnalis 'Campo Verde' / Campo Verde
Autumn Moor Grass
FLOWERING PERENNIAL
Drimia maritima / Sea Squill
Epilobium canum 'Sierra Salmon' / Sierra Salmon
California Fuchsia
Eriogonum fasciculatum / California Buckwheat
Santolina chamaecyparissus 'Nana' / Lavender Cotton
LARGE NATIVE SHRUB
Arctostaphylos densiflora 'Howard McMinn' / Howard
McMinn Vine Hill Manzanita
Carpenteria californica / Bush Anemone
Fremontodendron californicum / CA Flannelbush
ORNAMENTAL GROUNDCOVER
Arctostaphylos x 'Emerald Carpet' / Emerald Carpet
Manzanita
Ceanothus griseus horizontalis 'Diamond Heights' /
Diamond Heights Carmel Creeper
Dymondia margaretae / Silver Carpet Dymondia
BIORETENTION PLANTING
Carex praegracilis / California Field Sedge
Chondropetalum tectorum 'Dwarf' / Dwarf Cape Rush
Juncus effusus 'Carman's Japanese' / Carman's
Japanese Common Rush
Juncus patens 'Elk Blue' / Spreading Rush
CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE
/ 24" BOX MIN. such as,
/ 1 GAL MIN. such as,
/ 1 GAL MIN. such as,
/ 5 GAL MIN. such as,
/ 1 GAL MIN. such as,
/ 4" POT MIN. such as,
CANOPY TREE
Laurus x 'Saratoga' / Saratoga Hybrid Laurel
Platanus x acerifolia 'Columbia' / Columbia London
Plane Tree
Pistacia chinensis / Chinese Pistache Tree
Quercus spp. / California Native Oak Species
ORNAMENTAL GRASS
Festuca californica 'River House Blues' / River
House Blues California Fescue
Lomandra longifolia 'Roma 13' / Platinum Beauty®
Variegated Mat Rush
Pennisetum spathiolatum / Slender Veldt Grass
Sesleria autumnalis 'Campo Verde' / Campo Verde
Autumn Moor Grass
FLOWERING PERENNIAL
Drimia maritima / Sea Squill
Epilobium canum 'Sierra Salmon' / Sierra Salmon
California Fuchsia
Eriogonum fasciculatum / California Buckwheat
Santolina chamaecyparissus 'Nana' / Lavender Cotton
LARGE NATIVE SHRUB
Arctostaphylos densiflora 'Howard McMinn' / Howard
McMinn Vine Hill Manzanita
Carpenteria californica / Bush Anemone
Fremontodendron californicum / CA Flannelbush
ORNAMENTAL GROUNDCOVER
Arctostaphylos x 'Emerald Carpet' / Emerald Carpet
Manzanita
Ceanothus griseus horizontalis 'Diamond Heights' /
Diamond Heights Carmel Creeper
Dymondia margaretae / Silver Carpet Dymondia
BIORETENTION PLANTING
Carex praegracilis / California Field Sedge
Chondropetalum tectorum 'Dwarf' / Dwarf Cape Rush
Juncus effusus 'Carman's Japanese' / Carman's
Japanese Common Rush
Juncus patens 'Elk Blue' / Spreading Rush
CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE
/ 24" BOX MIN. such as,
/ 1 GAL MIN. such as,
/ 1 GAL MIN. such as,
/ 5 GAL MIN. such as,
/ 1 GAL MIN. such as,
/ 4" POT MIN. such as,
PLANTING NOTE
1. STRUCTURED SOILS OR SILVA CELLS TO BE USED
UNDER SIDEWALKS IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE TREE
VITALITY AND ROOT HEALTH.
17.91 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 01/26/23
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
UNITS
LIBRARY MEZZANINE
OPEN TO
BELOW
LIBRARY MECHANICAL
ROOFTOP AREA
LIBRARY ROOF DECK
RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITY ROOM
1 3
6 6
5 6
7 7
7 8
8 8
8 8
7 9
9 9
10 5
4 2
7 CEDAR STREET
CATHCART STREET
L1.1
PODIUM LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
KEYNOTES
1. (N) TOT LOT, NATURE PLAY CLIMBING STRUCTURES AND
PIP SURFACING
2. (N) TEEN COURTYARD WITH WEATHER PROOF
SHUFFLEBOARD AND PING PONG TABLES
3. (N) PODIUM GARDEN WITH CONCRETE PLANK WALK
4. (N) RAISED VEGETABLE BEDS FOR RESIDENCE USE/
MAINTENANCE
5. (N) COMMUNITY GATHERING SPACE
6. (N) PLANK WALK, CONCRETE
7. (N) PRIVATE RESIDENCE PATIO SPACE
8. (N) RAISED STEEL PLANTERS
9. (N) GREEN ROOF, BY OTHERS
10. (N) DECK
LANDSCAPE precedents
IRRIGATION NOTE
1. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH A PERMANENT UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE
DESIGNED TO ADEQUATELY AND EFFICIENTLY WATER ALL SHRUB AREAS AND TREES.
17.92 539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY MIXED USE
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 08/31/22
CEDAR STREET
CATHCART STREET
35' - 0"
90' - 0"
50' - 0"
35' - 0"
35' - 0"
RESIDENTIAL:
5 STORIES ABOVE
GARAGE
LIBRARY:
2 STORIES PARKING GARAGE:
3 STORIES ABOVE GRADE
COMMERCIAL:
3 STORIES
91' - 0"
CEDAR STREET
CATHCART STREET
RESIDENTIAL:
3 STORIES ABOVE
GARAGE
LIBRARY:
2 STORIES PARKING GARAGE:
1 STORY ABOVE GRADE
COMMERCIAL:
3 STORIES
48' - 0"
50' - 0"
35' - 0"
35' - 0"
RESIDENTIAL
23,312 SF FOOTPRINT
@ 48'-0" / 91'-0"
LIBRARY
6,755 SF FOOTPRINT @ 50'-0"
GARAGE
15,466 SF FOOTPRINT
@ 12'-0" / 35'-0"
LIBRARY
8,918 SF FOOTPRINT
@ 35-0"
COMMERCIAL
4,265 SF FOOTPRINT
@ 35-0"
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
www.tenoverstudio.com SC LIBRARY MIXED US
E
600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRU
Z, CALIFORNIA
08/11/22
CEDAR STREET
CATHCART STREET
35' - 0"
90' - 0"
50' - 0"
35' - 0"
35' - 0"
RESIDENTIAL:
5 STORIES ABOVE
GARAGE
LIBRARY:
2 STORIES PARKING GARAGE:
3 STORIES ABOVE GRADE
COMMERCIAL:
3 STORIES
91' - 0"
CEDAR STREET
CATHCART STREET
RESIDENTIAL:
3 STORIES ABOVE
GARAGE
LIBRARY:
2 STORIES PARKING GARAGE:
1 STORY ABOVE GRADE
COMMERCIAL:
3 STORIES
48' - 0"
50' - 0"
35' - 0"
35' - 0"
RESIDENTIAL
23,312 SF FOOTPRINT
@ 48'-0" / 91'-0"
LIBRARY
6,755 SF FOOTPRINT @ 50'-0"
GARAGE
15,466 SF FOOTPRINT
@ 12'-0" / 35'-0"
LIBRARY
8,918 SF FOOTPRINT
@ 35-0"
COMMERCIAL
4,265 SF FOOTPRINT
@ 35-0"
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
www.tenoverstudio.com SC LIBRARY MIXED US
E
600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRU
Z, CALIFORNIA
08/11/22
BASE DENSITY - 3D DIAGRAM
PROPOSED DENSITY - 3D DIAGRAM
CEDAR STREET
CATHCART STREET
35' - 0"
90' - 0"
50' - 0"
35' - 0"
35' - 0"
RESIDENTIAL:
5 STORIES ABOVE
GARAGE
LIBRARY:
2 STORIES PARKING GARAGE:
3 STORIES ABOVE GRADE
COMMERCIAL:
3 STORIES
91' - 0"
CEDAR STREET
CATHCART STREET
RESIDENTIAL:
3 STORIES ABOVE
GARAGE
LIBRARY:
2 STORIES PARKING GARAGE:
1 STORY ABOVE GRADE
COMMERCIAL:
3 STORIES
48' - 0"
50' - 0"
35' - 0"
35' - 0"
RESIDENTIAL
23,312 SF FOOTPRINT
@ 48'-0" / 91'-0"
LIBRARY
6,755 SF FOOTPRINT @ 50'-0"
GARAGE
15,466 SF FOOTPRINT
@ 12'-0" / 35'-0"
LIBRARY
8,918 SF FOOTPRINT
@ 35-0"
COMMERCIAL
4,265 SF FOOTPRINT
@ 35-0"
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
www.tenoverstudio.com SC LIBRARY MIXED US
E
600-698 CEDAR STREETSANTA CRU
Z, CALIFORNIA
08/11/22
SITE AREA DIAGRAM - PROPOSED DENSITY
T1.2
BASE PROJECT
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE 153,180 SF
NOTE: LIBRARY REDUCED BY 3,218 SF
BUILDING HEIGHT COMMERCIAL: 35'-0"
(GRADE TO PARAPET) LIBRARY: 50'-0"
RESIDENTIAL: 48'-0"
STORIES ABOVE GRADE 4
FAR ALLOWABLE: 0.25- 5.0 66921 SF LOT AREA FAR: 2.29
# OF UNITS 72 UNITS
DENSITY 46.45 UNITS/ACRE
PARKING 80
CONCESSIONS REQUIRED NONE
PROPOSED PROJECT
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE 273,194 SF
BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA BELOW 50' HEIGHT (GRADE TO PARAPET) GARAGE/COMMERCIAL: 35'-0" 28,649 SF SITE AREA 42.81% LIBRARY: 50'-0" 6,755 SF SITE AREA 10.09%
TOTAL: 52.90%
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA ABOVE 50' HEIGHT
RESIDENTIAL: 91'-0" 23,312 SF SITE AREA 34.84%
TOTAL: 34.84%
STORIES ABOVE GRADE 8
FAR ALLOWABLE: 0.25- 5.0 66921 SF LOT AREA FAR: 4.08
# OF UNITS 124 UNITS
DENSITY 80 UNITS/ACRE
PARKING 318
CONCESSIONS REQUIRED HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT
BASE DENSITY VS PROPOSED DENSITY
NOTE: HEIGHTS ARE TO TOP OF PARAPET FROM GRADE
NOTE: HEIGHTS ARE TO TOP OF PARAPET FROM GRADE NOTE: HEIGHTS ARE TO TOP OF PARAPET FROM GRADE
TOP OF PARAPET
TOP OF PARAPET
TOP OF PARAPET
TOP OF PARAPET
TOP OF PARAPET
TOP OF PARAPET TOP OF PARAPET
243
17.93 01/06/23
17.94 17.95
17.96 17.97
17.98 17.99
17.100
17.101
17.102
17.103
17.104
17.105
17.106
17.107
17.108
17.109
17.110
17.111
17.112
17.113
17.114
17.115
17.116
17.117
17.118
17.119
17.120
17.121
17.122
17.123
17.124
17.125
17.126
17.127
17.128
Statements by Pauline M. Seales Included in the Appeal Dated 12-21-22 of the Decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission to Uphold Approval of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit Related to the Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project (CP22-0128) and Staff’s Responses to the Appellant’s Statements
In documentation submitted to support the appeal of the Parks and Recreation Commission’s decision of December 12, 2022 to uphold staff’s approval of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit (TR22-0201) related to the Downtown Library Affordable Housing project, the appellant states the following (presented in italics). Staff’s responses appear below each of the appellant’s statements.
A. The commission meeting was conducted in a biased, unfair manner that favored the applicant.
• Appellants were informed by commission secretary that the meeting would be following Council Policy 1.1, (Appeals). He gave clear instructions on time limits (15 minutes) for both parties plus 5- minute rebuttal for the appellant. We planned accordingly. At the start of the hearing the chair changed these policy-set time limits from 15 minutes per side to 25-30 minutes per side. Had we known of this change we would have prepared a more detailed presentation. The chair granted the applicant, at his request, extra time even beyond this extended time-period. • Council appeal policy grants a 5-minute rebuttal to only the appellant since the burden of proof is on the appellant. This was confirmed by city attorney John Barisone, who was present throughout the hearing. Despite his legal clarification, despite Council Policy 1.1, and over objections from a commissioner, the chair granted rebuttal time to the applicant. Although this decision may be the prerogative of a chair, it is unprecedented and created a biased hearing favoring the applicant.
In response to Section A of the appeal as referenced above, it is notable that staff adhered to all procedures of the Parks and Recreation Commission as directed by the Parks and Recreation Commission liaison and Chair. The Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission retains the authority to extend time granted to parties in presentation and in rebuttal. The Chair originally granted 25 minutes to both staff and the appellant for presentation. The appellant presented its arguments in approximately 21 minutes. Staff was granted a further three minutes for “rebuttal” of the arguments presented by the appellant. Further of note, although staff represented the applicant in the context of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit appeal, City staff operates in a neutral manner to ensure compliance of projects with relevant Code and policy. Staff assumed such a role in response to the appeal of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit. The Parks and Recreation Commission complied with its own bylaws during the December 12 public hearing, as observed by both the City Attorney and Parks and Recreation Commission liaison. The statement above contains factual inaccuracies in that it alleges unequal allotment of time and implies partiality in conduct of the hearing.
17.129
B. Misleading Statements in Agenda Report from Parks and Recreation Department influenced commission votes.
• Resolution No. NS-30, 072 codifies the only criteria that allow heritage tree removals in the city of Santa Cruz. The criterion used by the department to justify the removal of the nine heritage trees is 1 (c) (3): "a construction project design cannot be altered to accommodate existing heritage trees." This criterion was the only one cited by the director for the granting of the tree removal permit. This fact is documented in the city file and documented in the email from the city urban forester clarifying the criterion used to justify the tree removals. • Despite this fact, the staff Agenda Report to the commission on page 4.7 includes a misleading, incorrect statement that "Minimally two of the criteria of Resolution No. NS-30, 072 can clearly be demonstrated to have been met. The other criterion referenced covers disease, tree failure, etc. A criterion that was NOT used as the basis for the permit should not be referenced as though it had bearing on the issue.
In addition, this criterion is not supported by the consulting arborist from Dryad LLC who wrote that, "four of the Heritage trees are worthy of preservation." The misleading entry in the Agenda Report influenced at least one commissioner's vote.
The commissioner cited the reference to additional criteria in the Agenda Report as further reason for not upholding the appeal.
In response to Section B of the appellant’s statement, regarding the first bulleted paragraph, above, the appellant references the grounds upon which the Heritage Tree Removal Permit was approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation. In the second bulleted paragraph, the appellant alleges that the applicant’s citation (in the staff report prepared for the appeal) of a second criterion bolstering staff’s approval of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit renders support based on additional evidence invalid, as such justification was not referenced in the grounds of the original permit approval. It is notable that reference to publicly-available information which could have been cited in the original decision to approve the Heritage Tree Removal Permit, simply because such information was not explicitly identified in staff’s ministerial decision, cannot legitimately be claimed to invalidate or nullify the rationale for approval of the same permit and cannot be reasonably construed to constitute malfeasance in any justifiable manner as asserted by the appellant. The hearing before the Parks and Recreation Commission was de novo, and they rightly considered all the information in the record, including the information regarding the trees’ health, even when the Director of Parks and Recreation was well within his right to approve the tree removals based solely on one of the applicable criteria, just as the Commission could have also done.
C. No Attempt to Incorporate Any Trees into a Design.
The appellants presented the commission with detailed evidence from the Public Record that showed there was no attempt to try to incorporate at least some of the heritage trees into a project design. This disregard for the Heritage Tree Resolution persisted despite early letters from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, reminding the Economic Development Director of the Resolution
17.130
language and requesting inclusion of some of the heritage trees into the design be taken seriously. Moreover, an email in June 2022 from the city urban forester asked what was being done to try to incorporate some of the heritage trees into the design, as required by the Resolution. Her inquiry went unanswered.
The argument presented in Section C of the appellant's statement contends that no attempt was made to incorporate Heritage Trees into the project design. This argument substantively reiterates an argument that was presented in the original appeal. The staff report prepared in response to the appeal of staff’s decision approving the Heritage Tree Removal Permit (i.e., the initial appeal) presented a robust refutation of this argument, accompanied by correspondence of the project architect addressing the impracticality of retaining existing trees due to their health status and the technical infeasibility of achieving City Council directives for the project in attempting to design a building to avoid locational conflicts with existing non-native, trees unsuitable to the project location, most of which incidentally exhibit declining health.
D. Incorporate a Heritage Tree, then create a Design
The aim of the Heritage Tree Ordinance Resolution 1. (c) (3) is to try to incorporate a heritage tree prior to a final design. To produce a final design that covers the entire site and then claim not a single heritage tree can be accommodated is not in the spirit of heritage tree protection nor in the letter of the law.
The staff report to the Parks and Recreation Commission dated December 12, 2022, responds to the substance of the argument presented in Section D of the appellant’s statement As noted, attainment of City Council directives for the project renders retention of existing trees unreasonable and inadvisable.
E. Addressing the Issue After the Fact.
The only statements from the project architects and city planners regarding the issue of heritage tree inclusion were dated November 17th and December 1st, 2022, long after the tree removal permit was granted and an appeal filed. In other words, after the fact. The statements draw on disingenuous scenarios to try to demonstrate, after the fact, why all the heritage trees could not be incorporated into the project design, without considering whether some of them could be accommodated.
The contention in Section E of the appellant's declaration appears to assert that staff’s statements in response to the appeal of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit should have been prepared prior to the filing of such appeal. The application submitted to the Director of Parks and Recreation presents a rationale justifying the request for approval of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit by the Director or Parks and Recreation, in conformance with permit application requirements.
Consistent with the procedures for response to any appeal, statements in response to the appeal were prepared only following the filing of the appeal.
F. A Tiny Portion of the Site Needed to Accommodate Two Trees
17.131
The buildable site is 58,000 square feet. The liquidambars are next to the sidewalk on the western side. At most they might need 2,000 square feet of the project footprint to thrive. They have a long future and would be a fitting symbol of community values in heritage tree preservation. Their inclusion would also comply with city law as per the criterion to alter a design to accommodate (in this case) two heritage trees. This compliance should have been addressed from the beginning. It is not too late to do the right thing.
Section F of the appellant’s statement maintains that the two Liquidambar spp. trees present onsite “have a long future” and constitute strong candidates for retention. The submitted arborist report and two subsequent addenda include an assessment of the health of the existing trees onsite. Excerpts of the arborist report, dated January 18, 2022 describes the conditions of the sweetgum (Liquidambar spp.) as follows:
Tree #10: Poor architecture (few lateral limbs/top-heavy); evidence of major branch failures; small rooting space
Transplant viable: No
Tree #11: Numerous codominant stems and limbs, many with weak, acute-angle attachments; small rooting space.
Transplant viable: No
Generally considered poorly suited to growth in urban environments and particularly poor specimens selected as City street trees, Liquidambar spp. as represented by the two existing sweetgum trees, display poor health and lack adequate rooting area for long-term viability, as described in excerpts from the addendum to the arborist report, as noted above. The appellant’s assertion that the trees exhibit promise for a bright future at the project site fails to align with the findings of a certified arborist retained to prepare an objective analysis and evaluation of the conditions of the existing trees. Design of the Downtown Library Affordable Housing Project, the achievement of whose objectives as directed by the City Council present significant challenges given the limited size and constrained dimensions of the site, to specifically avoid impacts to poorly-adapted trees in compromised condition, represents an unreasonable and illogical approach to development and stewardship of public funds.
G. Please Uphold this Appeal
We urge the City Council to uphold this appeal and deny the Heritage Tree Removal Permit TR22-0201. We recommend that staff direct the project developer to alter the design to accommodate at least the two liquidambars, which were cited by the consulting arborist as ''worthy of preservation.'' Such an accommodation would still allow for and uphold all project goals.
Section G of the appellant’s statement claims that retention of existing trees would allow for achievement of the goals of the project. Staff’s responses, as stated above and as underscored in
17.132
the staff report presented to the Parks and Recreation at the December 12, 2022 hearing, provide a well-reasoned, robust, and comprehensive refutation to the arguments presented by the appellant.
17.133
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION SUMMARY
Special Meeting
February 23, 2023
7:00 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, ZOOM WEBINAR Call to Order-the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call-Commissioners Conway, Dawson, Gordon, Maxwell, Mesiti-Miller, Polhamus, and Kennedy were present.
Statements of Disqualification-None.
Public Hearings
1. 113 and 119 Lincoln Street; Project Number: CP22-0128 Application Type:
Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, and Lot-Line Adjustment to demolish the existing surface parking lot and structures and construct the Library Mixed-Use/Affordable Housing Project, encompassing development of a new, approximately 273,194 squarefoot, eight story building integrating a three story, approximately 38,069 square-foot City library featuring two floors double heighted with elevated ceilings; a three-story parking garage with 243 parking spaces; a five story, 100% affordable housing component comprising 124 residential units; a three story, approximately 9,598 square-foot commercial tenant space; a one story, approximately 1,231 square-foot childcare facility with adjoining 674 squarefoot outdoor play area; and new landscaping and associated site improvements on land located in the CBD/FP-O (Central Business District/Floodplain Overlay) zone districts and within the Cedar Street Village Corridor and Pacific Avenue Retail District Subareas of the Downtown Plan.
MOTION: Motion made by Commissioner Conway, seconded by Commissioner Mesiti-Miller to recommend to the City Council acknowledgement of the
17.134
environmental determination and approval of the Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, and Lot-Line Adjustment to demolish the existing surface parking lot and structures and construct the Library/Affordable Housing Project based on the findings listed below and Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A" of the staff report dated February 15, 2023, with the additional recommended modifications to the Conditions of Approval:
Condition of Approval No. 34: 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.
Bifacial Solar Panels are specifically exempted from this condition. Condition of Approval No. 52: Bicycle Parking: Prior to issuance of Building Permit, details of proposed bicycle parking facilities, including identification of vendor and specification of dimensions and arrangement of interior layout with spacing for all bike parking proposed, must be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Public Works or authorized designee. Bikes of different sizes and charging of e-bikes shall be considered in the design. Condition of Approval No. 57: Operations and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan): A final O&M Plan shall be submitted as part of the Building Permit application.
The O&M Plan shall include at a minimum: 1) site plan showing the location of drainage structures and structural control measures; 2) O&M procedures, timing, and maintenance frequency for the LID features and drainage systems, and include applicable BMPs from Chapter 6B of the City's Storm Water BMPs for Development Projects; 3) cost estimates for maintenance; and 4) BMPs for any Special Site Conditions (see pages 30-31), e.g. trash enclosure, parking, etc.
The O&M Plan shall be submitted in an 8 ½ x 11-inch report format and can be included as a SWCP appendix. The signed Maintenance Agreement shall be included in the O&M Plan as an attachment. An O&M plan as required by Cal Green shall also be included.
The Planning Commission also recommends the addition of the following Conditions of Approval:
a.) 25 parking spaces shall be provided with Level 2 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) before occupancy. 99 additional parking spaces shall provide the electrical capacity to add Level 1 EVCS in the future. b.) All commercial spaces shall be constructed to support a future food service use. Plans shall also show the locations of grease traps, grease lines, grease storage facilities, and garbage disposal areas.
17.135
ACTION: The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Conway, Dawson, Gordon, Maxwell, Mesiti-Miller, Polhamus, and Kennedy
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Adjournment-The meeting adjourned at 10:19 p.m.
17.136
To: Samantha Haschert, Principal Planner and Timothy Maier, Senior Planner City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department From: Stephanie Strelow
Subject: Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project California Environmental Quality Act Categorical Exemption Review Date: March 6, 2023
cc: Brian Borguno, Development Manager, City of Santa Cruz Economic Development Department
This memorandum provides a review of the applicability of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15332, Class 32 categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects), to the proposed Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project (DLAHP or project).
I. Background
1. Application No: CP22-00128
2. Project Title: Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
3. Project Location: 113 and 119 Lincoln Street (APN 005-141-11, -21); see Figure 1. 1 4. General Plan Designation: Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC)
5. Zoning: Central Business District (CBD), Cedar Street Village Corridor subdistrict A. Project Location
The project site is located at 113 and 119 Lincoln Street in the City of Santa Cruz (City) on an 1.55-acre (67,921- square-foot) site. The project site is located on the eastern side of Cedar Street, immediately south of Lincoln Street and north of Cathcart Street. The site is bounded by Lincoln Street on the north, commercial development along Pacific Avenue on the east, Cathcart Street on the south, and Cedar Street on the west. The project site spans the full block between Lincoln and Cathcart Streets; see Figure 1.
B. Existing and Surrounding Land Uses
The flat project site is paved and developed with a surface public parking lot that contains 134 parking spaces and one 5,400-square-foot commercial building that is currently in use as a fitness gym. The parking lot is known as 1 All figures are included at the end of this document.
17.137
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 2
“Public Parking Lot 4.” The site contains 12 non-native trees, nine of which are considered “heritage trees” under City regulations. The nine heritage trees include four magnolia, two liquid amber, two Chinese pistache, and one ginkgo. The existing parking lot is the location of a weekly Farmers Market that is held year-round.
The project site is located in the Cedar Street Village Corridor of the Downtown Plan. The site is surrounded by primarily developed commercial uses and mixed-use developments within the City’s downtown area. An existing church is located to the west of the project site and Cedar Street. Residential uses are located in mixed-used buildings to the east of the project site along Cathcart Street/Pacific Avenue, and several projects are currently under construction in the project vicinity, including a project to the west of the project site and Cedar Street, a project along Pacific Avenue south of Cathcart Street, and a project on Front Street to the east of the project site.
II. Project Description
A. Project Components
The project consists of a Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, LotLine Adjustment, Sign Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to demolish one existing commercial building and surface parking lot and construct the DLAHP, consisting of a new public library, affordable housing units, a parking garage, ground-floor commercial tenant space, and a commercial childcare facility, with associated site improvements. The proposed project uses would be integrated within a new 273,194-square-foot building, which would range in height from three to eight stories at 50 to 84 feet tall, respectively. The proposed lot-line adjustment would merge the two existing site parcels into one lot. The project also includes a density bonus request as permitted pursuant to state and local regulations with requested waivers and concessions to some development standards as explained in Section II.C. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2, and the proposed uses are further described below. Figures 3A and 3B show the proposed project building elevations. • Public Library. The proposed facility is an approximately 38,000-square-foot public library that would replace the existing downtown library located on Church Street across the street from City Hall. The library would be three stories, featuring two floors with elevated ceilings. The main library entrance is proposed at the mid-block point on Cedar Street, and includes a roof deck at the southwest corner of Cedar and Cathcart Streets.
• Affordable Housing. The proposed 100-percent-affordable-housing component includes 124 units located on five stories above the proposed parking garage. The proposed units include 13 studio units of about 450 square feet each, 48 one-bedroom units of approximately 500 square feet each, 31 two-bedroom units of approximately 730 to 840 square feet each, 31 three-bedroom units of approximately 900 to 950 square feet each, and 1 two-bedroom manager’s unit. The units are proposed as affordable to extremely low, very-low, and low income households.
• Parking. Garage. The eastern side of the project site would contain a 243-stall, three-story, above-grade public parking garage with minimal frontage on the street façades on Cathcart and Lincoln Streets. The parking garage would be a Public City Parking Facility with 24-hour access. The City and its affordable housing development partner have also considered one level of subterranean parking that would increase the on-site parking by approximately 90 spaces to 336 spaces, and the proposed site plan may be revised to include this option at a later date if directed by the City Council. It is noted that all project technical studies have considered inclusion of one subterranean level of parking, as does this review. The public
17.138
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 3
parking component of the proposed project is intended to replace the existing public parking on the project site and to offset deficits in available downtown parking capacity resulting from approved and anticipated future development projects.
• Childcare Facility. A one-story, approximately 1,500-square-foot daycare facility is proposed immediately adjacent to the proposed library. The daycare facility would have a capacity for a minimum of 16 children.
An outdoor play area would be located adjacent to the facility and would be used by children at the facility as well as on-site residents.
• Commercial Space. Approximately 11,950 square feet of commercial use is programmed for three stories at the southwest corner below the library roof deck. With demolition of the existing on-site commercial building, the project would result in a net increase of approximately 6,550 square feet of commercial space.
Access and Parking. Primary vehicular access to the proposed project would be provided along the southeastern portion of the site, from Cathcart Street, via a new one-way alley and parking garage entrance. The new alley would allow one-way access only in the northerly direction on the eastern edge of the project site, from Cathcart Street to Lincoln Street. The parking garage access is off of Cathcart Street, immediately west of the alley, and would allow both ingress and egress. Both access points would be improved with a new driveway approach.
As indicated above, a total of 243 parking spaces are proposed within the public parking garage. The project would also include 258 bicycle parking spaces located throughout the project site, of 140 are proposed Class I spaces that consist of individually enclosed, locked spaces. Class II bike spaces (i.e., bike racks) would be located along the sidewalk building entries and within the public parking garage along the pedestrian entry corridor. In addition, there would be separate, secured bike parking locations inside the parking garage for residential tenants and staff as well as library, daycare, and commercial employees.
The project includes frontage improvements along Cathcart Street, Cedar Street, and Lincoln Street per City standards, including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The proposed sidewalks would be built 10 to 12 feet wide. The project also includes four loading/unloading parking spaces along Cedar Street and five on-street parking spaces along Lincoln Street. A bus stop would be provided on Cedar Street just north of the Cathcart Street.
Utilities and Other Improvements. The project would connect to existing City water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain infrastructure. Stormwater would be treated on site through a biofiltration area and planters prior to conveyance into existing storm drains on Lincoln, Cedar, and Cathcart Streets. The proposed project would provide 14 new canopy trees, other landscaping, open space, and recreational amenities for residents.
B. Heritage Tree Removal Permit
On October 12, 2022, an application for a Heritage Tree Removal Permit was submitted to the Director of Parks and Recreation in conjunction with the proposed project, in accordance with the City’s Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 9.56, Preservation of Heritage Trees and Heritage Shrubs. The application requested removal of nine nonnative, heritage trees as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 9.56 (any tree whose trunk measures 44 inches or larger in diameter at a height of 54 inches or greater above underlying ground). A Heritage Tree Removal Permit is required for removal of any trees of heritage size per Municipal Code section 9.56.060(a). The application included submittal of an arborist report and payment of a tree replanting mitigation bond, which would accommodate
17.139
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 4
installation of a minimum of nine, 24-inch-box-sized replacement canopy trees as street trees along the perimeter of the project site.
The Heritage Tree Removal Permit was approved by the City’s Urban Forester on October 18, 2022, making the required findings in accordance with Municipal Code section 9.56.060(e). On October 27, 2022, an appeal of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit was submitted; an appeal requires consideration by the City Parks and Recreation Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission considered and denied the appeal on December 10, 2022.
Subsequently, the City Council on January 10, 2023, per applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, “called up” the heritage tree permits so as to assure that all heritage tree issues would be considered by the City Council at the same time the Council considers the other applications for the permits required by the DLAHP.
A Heritage Tree Removal Permit constitutes a discretionary permit reviewed through a process in parallel with the application for other entitlements for any project. The Municipal Code, including Chapter 9.56, contains no requirement for approval of use permits prior to, or concurrent with, granting of entitlement for a Heritage Tree Removal Permit. However, as the Heritage Tree Removal Permit application has been submitted in conjunction with the proposed DLAHP, the application for Heritage Tree Removal Permit may also be considered as part of the overall DLAHP.
C. Density Bonus Request
The project includes a density bonus request pursuant to California Government Code sections 65915 – 65918, which was enacted in 1979 to encourage the provision of affordable housing units in the state by offering a combination of benefits to developers. For projects that include the requisite number of affordable housing units, and upon the request of an applicant, cities are required to (i) allow more market rate units to be built than otherwise allowed by the applicable zoning designation); (ii) provide “incentives or concessions,” such as reduced development standards that result in actual and identifiable cost savings for the project; (iii) provide “waivers or modifications” of development standards that would physically preclude the project from being constructed; and (iv) allow reduced parking requirements. Cities are generally obligated to grant a density bonus and incentives, concessions, waivers, or reductions in development standards to the applicant so long as the proposed development complies with the applicable affordability requirements and the waivers or incentives/concessions meet certain standards. Projects that include a specified amount of affordable housing are entitled to a density bonus, even if the density bonus would allow a project to exceed the maximum density under the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code.
The amount of the density bonus is based on the number of affordable units at each income level that are included in a project. To determine whether a project qualifies for a density bonus, the percentage of affordable units is based on the maximum number of units that would be permitted under the City’s zoning code (i.e., the “base density”). Market-rate projects providing certain percentages of affordable units or units at deeper levels of affordability are entitled to an increase in density up to 50 percent of the total number of units that are allowed under the City's Zoning Ordinance, depending on specified percentages and levels of affordability. The density bonus units themselves are not required to be affordable, and pursuant to section 24.16.250(2) of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (as well as the State Density Bonus and California case law), “density bonus units shall not be included in the “total units” when determining the number of affordable units required to qualify a housing development for a density bonus.” Thus, by law, the percentages of affordable units that qualify a project for the density bonus are based on the base project only and not the base project plus the density bonus units.
17.140
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 5
City staff concluded that the base density that could be developed on the project site under current General Plan 2030 and zoning requirements is 46 units per acre. Neither the General Plan Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC) land use designation nor the Central Business District (CBD) zone district provide density requirements for uses located in these designations. The CBD zone district regulations indicate that the Downtown Plan development standards apply to projects in this zone district, but the Downtown Plan also does not provide permitted densities, though it supports higher-density development in the downtown area. The base density for the project was determined based on a development of a project concept conforming to all requirements of the CBD district and the Downtown Plan development regulations, including maximum allowed building heights and floor area ratio (FAR), which would affect the building size and the number of units that could be constructed on the site (TenOver 2023). Based on this review, it was determined that the base density for the project site is 46 units per acre, which would allow for 72 residential units on the 1.55-acre project site.
Because all of the units would be affordable to lower income households, with a base density of 72 units, an 80- percent density bonus over the base density, or up to 130 units, are permitted. (Gov. Code, § 65915(f)(3)(D)(i).) With a base density of 72 units, 14 units (20 percent) of the residential units would be required to be provided as affordable housing units at the low or very-low income level to meet the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.
However, the project proposes 124 affordable units, of which 19 units (or 26 percent of the base density) would be for extremely low-income households, 59 units (or 82 percent of the base density) would be for very-low-income households, 45 (or 62 percent of the base density) would be for low-income households, and 1 unit would be the manager’s unit. Additionally, according to Government Code section 65915(f)(3)(D)(ii), there are no maximum controls on density for projects where all units are affordable to lower income households and that are located within one-half mile of a major transit stop.
The law also provides a variety of tools that applicants can utilize to make projects physically or more economically feasible, including incentives/concessions and waivers that allow for modification of development standards if those standards would result in “actual and identifiable cost reductions” to the project or that “physically preclude” construction of the density bonus project. A project applicant is allowed to request as many waivers from development standards as needed if the development standard would preclude the density bonus project from being built at the allowed density. Per the City’s regulations, the proposed affordable housing component is eligible for four incentives or concessions, and the childcare component is eligible for an additional incentive/concession, but has not been requested.
One waiver and one incentive/concession have been requested, related to building height and the above-ground parking garage required with the requested density bonus. A waiver and incentive/concession are being requested for building height to exceed the 50- and 75-foot maximum per the Downtown Plan resulting from placement of the proposed housing component atop the 3-story above-ground parking garage. The project is requesting an exception from the Downtown Plan’s maximum height of 50 feet as specified in the Cedar Street Village Corridor subarea of the Downtown Plan. The exceedance of the 50-foot height limit is requested as both a waiver and an incentive/concession as explained below.
The Downtown Plan establishes a maximum building height of 50 feet above the allowed 35-foot limit in the Cedar Street Village Corridor on the east side of Cedar Street, and allows for an increase of up to 75 feet in the eastern portion of the site that is designated as “Additional Height Zone A,” subject to approval of a Design Permit by the City Council. As proposed, the residential component of the project has been sited partially within Additional Height Zone A.
17.141
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 6
The base density plans show three levels of underground parking and three levels of residences (with 72 units) above the parking garage, which would result in a fully-conforming building with a height of 48 feet. An incentive/concession is being requested for exceedance of the 50-foot height limit that would result from placement of the parking facility at surface level, which is proposed due to the high costs of construction of underground parking. Placement of the parking structure at surface level would cause the height of the building to exceed 50 feet.
A waiver is being requested to further allow building height to increase in height above 50 feet. The waiver is requested as an additional increase in height beyond 50 feet due to inclusion of the density bonus units; the height would further increase above that resulting from the additional height induced by placement of the parking garage at grade (requested as an incentive/concession). The residential component is partially placed within the Downtown Plan’s Additional Height Zone A, which allows for a request for height of up to 75 feet with approval by the City Council; however, about half of the residential component would encroach into the area outside of Additional Height Zone A, in which the maximum allowable height per the Downtown Plan is 50 feet. The waiver is being requested to allow building height to exceed the 50- and 75-foot maximum per the Downtown Plan as a result of placement of the proposed housing component above the 3-story above-ground parking garage. The residential component of the site, which covers approximately the eastern half of the project site, would reach 84 feet in height and 91 feet at the building edges including parapets. Compliance with the maximum height of 50 feet as specified in the Downtown Plan would require a reduction in the number of stories of the building, and consequently, would: 1) diminish parking capacity necessary to support existing and future downtown development, and 2) eliminate a significant number of housing units, which would physically preclude construction of the number of residential units allowed under state density bonus law. Due to the elevated costs associated with subterranean construction, an incentive/concession has been requested for placement of the parking structure above grade. Reasonable financial documentation has been prepared to justify the request. As proposed, the parking structure’s height of approximately 33 feet is less than the 35-foot height as identified in the Downtown Plan, demonstrates consistency with the Downtown Plan.
Pursuant to density bonus state law and the City’s zoning ordinance, an applicant is required to provide justification for any requested waivers. The City must grant these waivers unless they violate state or federal law, create a specific adverse impact on health and safety or the physical environment that cannot be mitigated, or adversely impact real property listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. The City has no evidence that the requested waiver and incentive/concession should not be granted as required by state law.
D. Existing Library Reuse and Relocation of the Farmers Market Reuse of the Existing Library
The proposed project would replace the existing library on Church Street, located across from City Hall and in close proximity to the Civic Auditorium. The approximately 59,000-square-foot site is bounded by Locust Street on north, Cedar Street on the east, Church Street on the north, and Center Street on the west. The site includes the existing downtown library and two associated public parking lots—Lot 14 and Lot 16, which have a total of 59 parking spaces.
On June 23, 2020, the City Council voted to advance the proposed project and initiated a reuse visioning process for the existing library that included an extensive public and stakeholder engagement process. Several potential
17.142
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 7
public uses and components were considered and discussed for the existing library site, including parks, plazas, the farmers market, parking, and mixed-use and affordable housing. With input from approximately 550 participants, a “Mixed-Use Housing with Civic Plaza” option received the highest score, followed by a “Plaza + Park” with housing as the second choice. A “Library Structure Re-purposed with Parking” option, which proposed to adaptively re-use the library structure for community or commercial uses, received the lowest score, and ranked lowest amongst the options (City of Santa Cruz 2021).
At this time, there is no City Council-approved direction for re-use for the existing library site if the proposed project is approved and constructed. While mixed-use housing with a public plaza received the highest ranking in the public visioning process, no option was selected as a preferred option, and other uses, such as community, institutional, or commercial uses, could be also be proposed as a part of a future project. Therefore, future uses at the existing library are speculative and cannot be reviewed at this time. When specific plans are developed and proposed for the existing library, separate environmental review and permit approvals would be required.
Relocation of the Farmers Market
The City has been in ongoing discussions with Santa Cruz Community Farmers Markets (SCCFM) since late summer of 2017, working to establish a new permanent location for the Downtown Farmers Market with an improved site, enhanced community space, and opportunity for year-round operations and expansion with special events. One site has been identified that is located one block away from the existing site at City Parking Lot 7 at the corner of Cathcart and Front Streets (City of Santa Cruz 2023a).
On October 14, 2022, the City and SCCFM jointly agreed to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to further define the next steps involved in establishing ongoing temporary and permanent operations of the SCCFM Downtown Farmers Market in downtown Santa Cruz. In a joint statement, both parties acknowledged:
• Temporary SCCFM market locations include, but are not limited to, the following: Lot 7, Lot 4, City Hall complex, including the courtyard and surrounding public rights of way; • SCCFM and the City have worked together over the last few years to develop conceptual site plans for operation of the market on Lot 7;
• SCCFM has approved Lot 7 and the conceptual site plans as one option for both a temporary and future permanent location for the market;
• SCCFM and the City will continue to identify more locations and funding for a permanent market in downtown over the year ahead which in addition to Lot 7, including but not be limited to, Lot 4 and the existing library site as identified in the study completed by the Project for Public Space and Group 4 Architecture approved by City Council in June 2021; and • SCCFM will continue to operate the market at the existing downtown location for the foreseeable future until SCCFM determines that surrounding construction impacts necessitate a relocation to a suitable alternative downtown site identified by SCCFM and the City.
Appropriate environmental review and permitting would be conducted at the time a preferred permanent location for the weekly Downtown Farmers Market is selected.
17.143
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 8
III. Reasons Why the Project is Exempt
CEQA provides “categorical exemptions” that are applicable to categories of projects and activities that the California Natural Resources Agency has determined generally do not pose a risk of significant impacts on the environment. The Class 32 categorical exemption is for “in-fill 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 in-fill exemption, as explained below.
A. Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Designations, Policies, and Regulations
The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan 2030 land use designations, the CBD zone district permitted land uses, and all applicable General Plan 2030 policies and zoning regulations as explained below.
General Plan Designations and Policies
As previously indicated, the project site is designated RVC in the General Plan 2030. The RVC designation is applied to areas that “emphasize a variety of commercial uses that serve Santa Cruz residents as well as visitors. Mixed-use development is strongly encouraged in RVC districts.” In the downtown area, the RVC designation specifically “emphasizes a mix of regional office and retail uses, residential and mixed-use developments, restaurants, and visitor attractions such as entertainment venues.” The designation also indicates that the Downtown Recovery Plan2 provides detailed requirements for this area.” Furthermore, the General Plan 2030 allows a FAR range of 0.25 to 5.0 for parcels that are designated RVC and located in the downtown area.
2 The Downtown Recovery Plan (DRP) is now called the Downtown Plan and is referred to as such in this document. The DRP was adopted in 1991 to guide reconstruction after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and provides development standards and guidelines to direct the rebuilding and recovery process. The DRP was adopted as a specific plan (pursuant to California Government Code requirements) to implement policies in the downtown area. Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan, Development Standards and Design Guidelines, is incorporated by reference in Part 24 of the Zoning Code, the CBD zone district, and the CBD district is part of the LCP implementation regulations. The DRP has been modified several times over the past 25 years with significant amendments adopted in 2017. The amendments approved in 2017 included changing the name of the Plan to “Downtown Plan” since post-earthquake recovery had been achieved and also included revisions to development standards, including provisions for additional height allowances under specified circumstances in the downtown area.
17.144
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 9
The proposed project includes a mix of uses, including community services (i.e., the relocated library and childcare facility), commercial uses, and residential uses, as well as continued public parking. Thus, the project is consistent with mixed-use developments emphasized in the General Plan 2030 for the downtown area. The project’s FAR is 4.08, which is within the allowed FAR established in the General Plan 2030 for the downtown area. Thus, the proposed mixed-use project land uses and FAR are consistent with the General Plan 2030 RVC land use designation.
The proposed project also is consistent with the policies of the General Plan 2030, including the Housing Element, based on City review explained in the February 23, 2023 Planning Commission staff report, dated February 15, 2023. The consistency review is included in Attachment A.
Zone District Uses and Development Regulations
As previously indicated, the project site is zoned CBD. Pursuant to Municipal Code section 24.10.2300, the purpose of the CBD zone district is to implement the Land Use Plan, Development Standards, and Design Guidelines of the Downtown Plan, a specific plan. It is intended to refine the Downtown Plan in the area of land use and regulations. It supports the purpose of the Downtown Plan, in the context of the General Plan 2030, which aims to maintain downtown as the urban center of the city with the many functions a city center serves.
Pursuant to section 24.10.2301, Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan, as amended, is adopted by reference in the CBD zone. The policies and regulations set forth in Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan shall control all uses in the CBD and its four subdistricts: Pacific Avenue Retail District; Front Street Riverfront Corridor; Cedar Street Village Corridor; and North Pacific Area.
The project site is located within the Cedar Street Village Corridor in the Downtown Plan. The land use plan and the standards and guidelines for this area strive to preserve and enhance the informal "village" qualities of the Cedar Street Corridor. Unlike the Pacific Avenue district, permitted ground-level uses include office in addition to retail, and residential uses are allowed at the ground level along the east-west streets and Center Street (City of Santa Cruz 2020b). A range of land uses are allowed within the Cedar Street Village Corridor.
East of Cedar Street, development may be allowed to exceed 35 feet on a discretionary basis to a maximum height of 50 feet (4 floors maximum). The granting of additional height above 35 feet is discretionary and requires a Design Permit with the recommendation of the Planning Director to the City Council, which must approve the additional height. In addition, approximately 50 feet on the eastern edge of the project site is located within “Additional Height Zone A,” which allows building heights to 75 feet with specified development standards. The granting of building height above the 55-foot base height limit is discretionary and requires a Design Permit with the recommendation of the Director of Planning to the City Council, which must approve the additional height. Projects that qualify for a density bonus as allowed under either State law or City-adopted density bonus ordinance are eligible for the additional height increase. It also is noted that the Downtown Plan indicates that projects that closely conform to the development standards, but with slight variations may be considered upon demonstration that the resulting project will better achieve stated Plan and community objectives. Such variations shall be minor in nature and must receive a positive recommendation from the Planning Director, with final approval by the City Council (section J.1).
The proposed project uses are consistent with allowed residential, commercial, and institutional and community facilities allowed in the Cedar Street Village Corridor. With the exception of the one requested waiver and one
17.145
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 10
requested incentive/concession, the proposed project is consistent with all CBD zone district requirements and Downtown Plan development standards as summarized below, based on City review explained in the February 23, 2023 Planning Commission staff report dated February 15, 2023. The consistency review is included in Attachment A.
The three-story elements of the proposed project (parking garage and commercial space) have a height of 33 feet, which is below the 35-foot height limit established in the Downtown Plan. The proposed library also is generally under 35 feet in height except for one element that extends to 47 feet in height, but does not exceed 50 feet in height which is allowed with discretionary approval. The 5-story residential component of the proposed project reaches a height of 84 feet (and 91 feet with parapets), which exceeds both the 75-foot maximum height allowed in “Additional Height Zone A” in the eastern portion of the site and also the 50-foot height limit on the portion of the site not located in the “Additional Height Zone A”. Figure 4 provides a conceptual depiction of the proposed building heights.
The proposed project is eligible for requesting additional height to 75 feet for the eastern portion of the site located within “Additional Height Zone A” if the City makes findings that the project is consistent with the following overarching City objectives (Downtown Plan, pages 72-73):
i. The additional height will help to achieve the First Principles of the Downtown Plan (e.g. form, housing, accessibility and open space).
ii. The additional height will contribute to an improved social and economic environment by including new housing.
iii. The form of the development promotes the appearance of a grouping of buildings rather than large, monolithic building masses.
iv. The development receiving additional height will physically and/or financially contribute its fair share (through an Improvement District, Development Agreement or similar mechanisms) to the implementation of internal pedestrian connections between Pacific Avenue and Front Street. v. The additional height will help to meaningfully achieve one or more of the following key community objectives, including but not limited to: Affordable Housing, Day Care Center, exceed Green Building minimums, Incubator Space for Small Business, Public Access Easements, Public Right-of-way Improvements, Publicly Accessible Open Space, Structured or Shared Parking, and Transportation Demand Management concepts.
The City has found that the proposed project is consistent with the overarching objectives of the Downtown Plan, although the 5-story residential component exceeds both the 75-foot maximum height allowed in “Additional Height Zone A” in the eastern portion of the site and also the 50-foot height limit on the portion of the site not located in the “Additional Height Zone A”. However, California State Density Bonus Law and the City’s corresponding Density Bonus Ordinance provide tools to incentivize affordable housing and/or deeper levels of affordability. One incentive is that applicants can utilize a waiver or modification to development standards if those standards would “physically preclude” construction of the density bonus project, which would include building height.
As described above in Section II.C and further explained in the City Planning Commission staff report dated February 15, 2023, one waiver and one incentive/concession have been requested to allow for the increased building height as a result of the proposed above-ground parking garage, which are required because it has
17.146
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 11
been shown that applicable zoning development standards would physically preclude the construction of the number of residential units allowed under the State Density Bonus Law. Chapter 24, Part 3 of the Municipal Code governs the City’s density bonus provisions. Pursuant to section 24.16.200, the purposes of Part 3 of this chapter are: (1) to provide incentives for the production of housing for very-low-income, low-income, moderateincome, and senior households; (2) to provide incentives for the creation of rental housing serving lower-income households; (3) to provide incentives for the construction of childcare centers serving very-low-, low-, and moderate-income households; and (4) to implement California Government Code sections 65915, 65915.5, 65915.7, and 65917 as required by Government Code section 65915(a). In enacting this part, it is also the intent of the City to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan 2030 Housing Element to encourage the construction of affordable housing in the City. Further, it is the intent of the City to encourage the development of rental housing in order to serve an economically diverse community and to mitigate the trend, as documented in the General Plan 2030 Housing Element, that only limited rental unit development occurs without public assistance.
The court decision in Wollmer v. City of Berkeley expressly held that the waivers a city was required to grant for a density-bonus-eligible project did not result in planning and zoning inconsistencies that disqualified the project from the categorical exemption for in-fill development, because the mandatory nature of the waivers meant that those waived standards were inapplicable to the project. The Court found that “taking these laws together as they operate in the context of a density bonus project, it is clear that the waived zoning standards are not “applicable” and that the requirements of Guidelines section 15332, subdivision (a) were met.” Therefore, based on the City’s analyses and the Wollmer decision, the project is consistent with the zone district designation and all applicable zoning regulations, as well as the General Plan 2030 land use designation and applicable policies.
B. Project Site Size and Surroundings
The 1.55-acre site is entirely located within City limits and is less than five acres in size. The proposed project would encompass the entire site. The project site is surrounded by urban uses including commercial uses along Pacific Avenue that border the project site on the east, as well as commercial uses along Lincoln and Cathcart Streets to the north and south, respectively. An existing church and commercial uses exist along Cedar Street to the west of the project site, as well as a mixed-use commercial/residential project that is under construction. CEQA does not provide a definition of “urban uses” that must be found to substantially surround a project in order to qualify for the exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15332. However, the project site is within the downtown area of the City, and both the downtown and the City are characteristic of a densely populated area. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines section 15194, which addresses an exemption for affordable housing, includes a requirement that the project be located within an “urbanized area or within a census-defined place with a population density of at least 5,000 persons per square mile.” Although the proposed project does not meet other requirements for use of the affordable housing exemption in section 15194, and therefore the City has not claimed that exemption is applicable to the proposed project, it is noted that the City’s 12.7 square miles supports a population of 5,045 persons per square mile, which is consistent with the definition of urban area presented in this section of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines section 15387 also defines “urbanized area” as a city or group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more and having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile, and the City also meets this definition, Therefore, the proposed development occurs within City limits on a project site of no more than five acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses.
17.147
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 12
C. Project Site Habitat Value for Rare, Threatened, and/or Endangered Species
The project site and surrounding properties are developed. The site is developed with one existing commercial building and a paved, surface public parking lot. The site includes 12 non-native, planted trees within the existing parking lot.
The project site is not within an area mapped as potential sensitive habitat as depicted in the City’s General Plan 2030, and there are no known endangered or threatened species on or adjacent to the site due to the site’s location within a developed urban area (City of Santa Cruz 2012a). However, a database search was conducted to further determine whether any rare, threatened, or endangered species are known to occur on or adjacent to the site or have the potential to occur on the site. The review included the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database, and the California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Inventory. The review did not identify any special-status species occurring on or near the site, and concluded that there is no potential habitat to support special-status species on the project site (Dudek 2023b). Therefore, the project site has no value as habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species.
It is noted that 12 non-native trees would be removed, but given the review of potential threatened or endangered species, tree removal would not affect habitat for special-status species. The potential for disturbance to nesting birds protected under state and federal regulations is discussed below in Section IV.C.
D. Significant Effects Relating to Traffic, Noise, Air Quality, or Water Quality Traffic
Vehicle Miles Traveled. In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted an update to the CEQA Guidelines, including the new CEQA Guidelines section implementing Senate Bill (SB) 743.
SB 743 and the CEQA Guidelines state that level of service (LOS) (i.e., congestion) will no longer be considered to be an environmental impact under CEQA and that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impact. Cities were required to adopt new thresholds and/or procedures related to VMT by July 2020.
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.
The threshold generally establishes that a project exceeding a level of 15 percent below the Countywide average VMT may result in a significant transportation impact.
The City’s SB 743 Implementation Guidelines (City of Santa Cruz 2022a) 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. The guidelines require that each distinct land use for a mixed-use project be analyzed separately unless they are determined to be insignificant to the total VMT. The guidelines also state that housing projects are expected to cause a lessthan-significant impact on VMT if a high percentage of the project is affordable, as determined by the City.
17.148
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 13
Furthermore, projects, or portions of a project that meet the screening criteria do not require a CEQA transportation analysis, and such projects, or portions of a project, will have a non-significant CEQA transportation impact based on their project location and characteristics. According to the City’s guidelines, projects that would not be expected to result in a significant VMT impact and that are screened out from further transportation impact review include:
• Small projects that generate fewer than 110 trips per day; • Projects near high-quality transit: within one-half 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 hours3;
• Local-serving retail (less than 50,000 square feet) projects; • Projects with a high percentage of affordable housing is provided as determined by the City of Santa Cruz;
• Local essential services, which includes daycare centers and libraries; • Map-based screening; and
• Redevelopment projects that do not result in a net increase in VMT.
The proposed project is located in a “VMT Efficient Area” based on the “Santa Cruz County Residential Screening Map.” This means that based on the VMT per capita threshold set by the City and County, the proposed project is located in an area that produces VMT per capita that is at least 15 percent below the countywide average, and therefore is below the City’s adopted VMT impact threshold. Additionally, each of the project elements can use the screening criteria in the City’s SB 743 Implementation Guidelines as follows. • Projects near High-Quality Transit: This screening criterion is met as the proposed project is within onehalf mile of a high-quality transit stop as defined by California Public Resources Code section 21064 (Santa Cruz Metro Center).
• Local-Serving Retail: This screening criterion covers the net increase of approximate 6,500 square feet space for commercial uses that would be considered local-serving retail uses, which is substantially less than the screening level of 50,000 square feet.
• Affordable Housing: This screening criterion is met as the proposed project provides 100-percentaffordable housing with the proposed 124 units of affordable housing, which would be considered a high proportion of affordable housing.
• Local Essential Service: This screening criterion covers the proposed daycare and government offices uses (library).
The proposed parking on the site represents a net increase of 109-202 public parking spaces with the proposed 243-space parking garage that could potentially be expanded to 336 spaces, which would replace the 134 existing spaces. Because the proposed parking is part of the public supply of parking in the downtown area and is not dedicated to the other proposed project uses, the parking component of the proposed project is analyzed as part of the overall shared public supply in the downtown area. In this case, the Parking District is projected to lose 448 spaces by 2030, but only projected to gain up to 336 spaces with the proposed project. This 3 The CEQA Guidelines indicate that, 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.
17.149
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 14
represents a net loss in the shared public supply of 112-205 spaces. The project does not add more parking than required by the City.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the VMT for the proposed project is assumed to be less than significant in accordance with the adopted City guidelines. Thus, 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 (City of Santa Cruz 2022d). Furthermore, the proposed project includes provision of bicycle parking in excess of City requirements (61 spaces in excess of City requirements), which could further reduce VMT by one percent (City of Santa Cruz 2022e).
It is also noted that the City’s guidelines follow the guidance of and are consistent with the State’s guidelines for evaluation of transportation and VMT impacts (California Office of Planning and Research 2018), which found that adding affordable housing to in-fill locations generally improves jobs-housing match, in turn shortening commutes and reducing VMT, and in areas where the existing jobs-housing match is closer to optimal, low-income housing nevertheless generates less VMT than market-rate housing. In addition, a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis for the lead agency to find a less-thansignificant impact on VMT, and evidence supports a presumption of less than significant impact for a 100- percent-affordable residential development (or the residential component of a mixed-use development) in in-fill locations (California Office of Planning and Research 2018).
Other Transportation Impacts. The City did not identify any other significant transportation-related effects resulting from the proposed project, including conflicts with transportation policies. The project site is located in proximity (less than one-half mile) to bus stops and the Santa Cruz Metro Center, thus facilitating transit use.
The project includes frontage and sidewalk improvements as well as 248 bicycle parking spaces which, as indicated above, exceeds City requirements by 61 spaces, and includes locked facilities which serve to facilitate and enhance pedestrian and bicycle travel. 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 avoid and minimize adverse impacts related to traffic. Thus, the project is consistent with General Plan 2030 policies that promote non-automobile transportation. The provision of public parking on the project site would be part of the Downtown Parking District and not dedicated solely to project uses. As indicated above, even with the proposed on-site net increase of public parking spaces on the project site, the Downtown Parking District overall would experience a net loss in public parking spaces before 2030.
However, this would not result in a significant transportation impact under criteria included in the CEQA Guidelines.
The General Plan 2030 strives to maintain the established LOS D or better at signalized intersections (M3.1.3).
Level of service is typically used to evaluate traffic operations, in which operating conditions range from LOS “A” (free-flowing) to LOS “F” (forced-flow). The General Plan 2030 also accepts a lower LOS and higher congestion at major regional intersections if necessary improvements would be prohibitively costly or result in significant, unacceptable environmental impacts (M3.1.4). Although LOS is no longer used as metric for determining significance of transportation impacts under CEQA, a traffic impact study was prepared for the project in accordance with City requirements. The study found that the intersection LOS analysis results show that all study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS established in General Plan 2030 policies during both AM and PM peak hours under “existing plus project” conditions (Kimley-Horn 2023), and thus, the
17.150
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 15
project would not result in traffic levels which would conflict with City LOS policies. The proposed project is also located in proximity to pedestrian and bicycle facilities that could be used for some of the project’s daily trips.
Noise
The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in permanent noise levels. The project consists of a mixed-use residential, public library, and commercial development with predominantly residential uses.
None of the project uses (residential, library, commercial, or childcare facility) would be associated with activities that would generate substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels. The proposed parking garage would be enclosed, which would generally create a shield to vehicular noise, and would replace the existing surface public parking lot on the project site.
An analysis of noise generated by mechanical equipment found that the increase in ambient noise levels would be below the threshold considered in the General Plan 2030 EIR for potentially significant impacts (Salter 2023). In addition, the analysis of noise levels with project traffic found that the increase in traffic resulting from the project would result in an increase in noise levels but they would remain below City thresholds.
Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact related to permanent increases in noise (Salter 2023). In addition, 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 decibels (dBA) above the local ambient noise level on a residential property. These regulations are intended to prevent increases in ambient noise levels.
There also would be a temporary increase in existing noise levels during project grading and construction. Noise levels 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 grading of the site, with lower noise levels occurring during building construction and finishing. Sensitive noise receptors, which are residential uses located approximately 155 feet west of the project site, would experience a temporary increase in noise levels. However, construction sound levels would be intermittent and varied through a single day as well as throughout the duration of project construction, and construction noise levels would decrease with distance from the construction site. Overall, construction noise levels would be temporary and short-term, and would fluctuate throughout the construction period with the construction activities producing higher noise levels occurring earlier in the construction phase.
Therefore, construction noise would not result in substantial increases in temporary noise levels or result in a significant impact to sensitive receptors.
The proposed project does not include any uses that would result in generation of groundborne vibration.
Potential vibration levels associated with construction are not expected to exceed thresholds for human annoyance or for damage to “normal dwelling houses” at the nearest residential properties. Thus, the project would not result in a significant impact related to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or noise (Salter 2023).
17.151
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 16
Air Quality
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 was used to estimate criteria air pollutant emissions generated during construction and operation of the proposed project. CalEEMod is a statewide computer model developed in cooperation with air districts throughout the state to quantify criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction activities from a variety of land use projects, such as residential, commercial, and industrial facilities. A construction assumptions scenario was developed based on the best available information known and provided by the City and its affordable housing development partner. Key construction assumptions include phase types, phase timing and duration, off-road equipment use (e.g., type, quantity, and hours of operation per day), number of vehicle trips (e.g., haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicles) and trip distance, ground disturbance acreage, amount of demolition debris, and paving area.
Emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with construction and operation of the proposed project based on the CalEEMod results are shown on Tables 1 and 2. As shown, maximum daily emissions would not exceed the applicable Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) significance thresholds (MBARD 2008) related to air quality. Therefore, project air pollutant emissions would during both construction and operations would result in a less-than-significant impact as all emissions levels would be substantially below MBARD thresholds.
Table 1. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Year
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
2024 1.38 19.96 14.46 0.05 3.38 1.84
2025 4.52 7.68 10.26 0.03 1.96 0.67
2026 4.52 9.23 10.96 0.02 0.68 0.52
Maximum Daily Emissions 4.52 19.96 14.46 0.05 3.38 1.84 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
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.
Emissions thresholds are included in MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2008).
CalEEMod model results are on file with the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department.
17.152
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 17
Table 2. Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emission Source
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
Project
Area 3.92 0.12 10.24 <0.01 0.06 0.06
Energy 0.06 0.3 0.34 <0.01 0.04 0.04
Mobile 7.22 6.90 59.08 0.09 10.32 2.80
Total 11.20 7.56 69.66 0.10 10.42 2.90
Existing
Area 0.15 <0.01 0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01
Energy <0.01 0.04 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Mobile 1.22 1.34 9.88 0.01 1.25 0.35
Total 1.37 1.37 9.91 0.01 1.29 0.36
Net Change in Emissions
Net Change (Project – Existing) 9.83 6.19 59.74 0.09 9.13 2.54 MBARD Threshold 137 137 550 150 82 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No N/A
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.
Emissions thresholds are included in MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2008).
CalEEMod model results are on file with the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department.
Air Quality Management Plan. Potential conflicts with the MBARD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) also were considered using guidance set forth by the MBARD’s CEQA Guidelines (MBARD 2008). A consistency determination is a process by which the lead agency demonstrates that the population associated with a proposed project is accommodated by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments’ (AMBAG’s) regional forecasts. AMBAG’s regional forecasts for population and dwelling units are embedded in the emission inventory projections used in the regional AQMP.
For population-related projects, the MBARD developed a procedure that compares existing, under-construction, and approved residential dwelling units with AMBAG’s housing unit forecast for a jurisdiction, as dwelling units are closely related to population and can be tracked within local jurisdictions; therefore, the number of dwelling units is used as the method for determining consistency with the AQMP. Consistency of indirect emissions associated with commercial, industrial, or institutional projects intended to meet the needs of the population as forecast in the AQMP is determined by comparing the estimated current population of the county in which the project is to be located with the applicable population forecast in the AQMP. If the estimated current population does not exceed the forecasts, indirect emissions associated with the project are deemed to be consistent with the AQMP. Projects which are consistent with AMBAG’s regional forecasts have been accommodated in the AQMP and are therefore consistent with the AQMP (MBARD 2008).
17.153
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 18
The MBARD’s most recent 2015 AQMP utilized AMBAG’s 2014 Regional Growth Forecast. The City had 24,250 existing dwelling units as of January 1, 2022 (California Department of Finance 2022), and approximately 1,711 residential units are under construction or have been approved throughout the City, including residential development at the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC)4. With the addition of these units, the City’s housing units would total 25,961 dwelling units. That number would increase to 26,085 dwelling units with the addition of the proposed project, which is below the AMBAG Regional Growth Forecast of 28,297 dwelling units for the year 2030 that were factored into the AQMP. Similarly, City population with the proposed project and other approved and under-construction housing units would total 70,607, which is below the AQMP forecast of 73,375 in the year 2030, and thus, the non-residential components of the proposed project, which are intended to serve the local population, would be consistent with the AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP.
Water Quality
The proposed project does not involve any discharges that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The City has developed a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) in order to fulfill the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (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 regulations, the City’s comprehensive SWMP is designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants and to protect water quality. The City also adopted an ordinance for “Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control” (Chapter 16.19 of the Municipal Code), as part of its SWMP. The ordinance identifies prohibited discharges and required Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction and new development. City regulations (Municipal Code section
16.19.140) require 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 BMPs including the City’s mandatory BMPs as detailed in the latest BMP manual published by the City’s Public Works Department. The City’s BMP manual requires the 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 project site is currently developed, and its impervious surface area would decrease from 65,560 square feet to 44,440 square feet with the proposed project. A stormwater control plan (SWCP) has been prepared for the project that details drainage features to collect and treat stormwater runoff. The project proposes to install a biofiltration area and mechanical filtration system and would be designed so that stormwater would collect into this system. Other measures also include provision of porous pavement on the perimeter of the site.
Stormwater would be filtered through this system before it is discharged into existing City storm drains.
Furthermore, the proposed project’s parking garage would eliminate the existing surface parking lot, which would reduce conveyance of urban pollutants typically found in parking lots into the City’s storm drain system. 4 Residential projects at UCSC are primarily student housing projects, and there is one approved employee housing project. In general, part-year student housing is considered group quarters and year-round faculty / student family housing is counted as housing units (AMBAG 2022). For the 2014 regional growth forecast used in the AQMP, University population and housing projections were completed separately from jurisdiction population projections (AMBAG 2014). For the purpose of this review and in accordance with current AMBAG guidance, approved employee housing is considered as housing units, and student housing is considered group quarters and is not included as housing units, but the population accommodated by new student housing is included in the population estimates.
17.154
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 19
The SWCP is subject to review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department, which has found that the project is in compliance with stormwater management and treatment provisions included in City regulations.
Thus, the proposed project would not alter existing drainage patterns, and operations would not result in a significant impact.
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 is required to list BMPs that the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff. Proposed grading and development on the project site would disturb more than 1 acre and, thus, the project would be subject to the Construction General Permit and preparation of a SWPPP, which would set forth measures to prevent erosion and protect water quality during construction.
Compliance with regulations contained in the 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 avoid/minimize potential water quality impacts from stormwater runoff.
E. Utilities and Public Services
The project site is in an urban area and is currently served by public utilities and services for water, wastewater, gas, electricity, and solid waste. The proposed project would continue to be served by existing utilities and service providers. Except for gas and electricity, all services and utilities are provided by the City. All existing public services and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project.
IV. Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions
The City has further considered whether the project is subject to any of the potential exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption found in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2. This section prohibits the use of categorical exemptions under the following circumstances:
(a) For certain classes of projects (not the Class 32 in-fill exemption) due to location; (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.
17.155
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 20
A. Location
The exemption exception in section 15300.2(a) does not apply because projects in the Class 32 category are not excluded on the basis of location.
B. Cumulative Impacts
Under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(b), a categorical exemption shall not be used when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. There is no specific time requirement for the consideration of cumulative impacts “over time.” However, CEQA requires a lead agency to consider cumulative impacts from “reasonably foreseeable” projects (CEQA Guidelines section 15355(b)).
Successive projects of the same type in the same place on the proposed project site have not been approved or proposed. Furthermore, once the construction of the proposed project is complete, there would be no available space on the site for future development. The City may consider inclusion of one subterranean level of parking as part of the proposed parking garage, but this would be included with the proposed project and not developed at a later date after the project had been constructed.
There are a number of other mixed-use and residential projects in the downtown area that have been approved or are under construction in proximity to the proposed project and within the downtown area as defined by the boundaries in the Downtown Plan. The geographic scope of the cumulative impact exception is clearly narrower than for projects for which an EIR is prepared, due to the more restrictive language of the potential exception (“projects of the same type in the same place”). However, notwithstanding the narrower scope of the exception, cumulative impacts from other projects similar to the proposed project located in vicinity of the proposed project or within downtown were fully considered.
There are three mixed-use projects under construction and three other approved mixed-use projects within the vicinity of the proposed project. All projects include ground-floor commercial uses with residential uses on the upper floors, and one project also includes a public transit facility and offices. Thus, these projects are similar to the proposed project and would result in construction of 641 residential units with ground-floor commercial uses.
However, there would be a net reduction of approximately 52,500 square feet of non-residential commercial and office space due to demolition of existing commercial buildings to accommodate the new mixed-use projects. These other downtown area projects also are expected to be constructed within the same general 2- to 5-year timeframe as the proposed project with construction completion by the year 2030.
The General Plan 2030 EIR considered potential new housing units and non-residential uses in the City that could be accommodated by the General Plan 2030 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 (City of Santa Cruz 2012b, DEIR volume-page 3-13). The proposed project is located within the “Downtown” neighborhood area that was identified in the General Plan 2030 EIR for the purposes of evaluating potential growth. The General Plan 2030 EIR identified additional development in the downtown neighborhood to include 299 residential units, approximately 38,900 square feet of commercial space, approximately 4,500 square feet of office space, and 82 hotel rooms. However, it is noted that the “Downtown” neighborhood in the General Plan 2030 EIR encompasses a larger area than is included within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. In addition, the downtown area located along the San Lorenzo River east of Front Street is located in the “River/Front” neighborhood in the General Plan
17.156
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 21
2030 EIR, for which potential future development was estimated at 337 residential units and approximately 70,000 and 91,600 square feet of commercial and office space, respectively. Additional potential future development within the area covered in the Downtown Plan also was considered with amendments to the Downtown Plan that were approved in 2017 to include a net increase of 711 residential units, approximately 2,200 square feet of office space, and a decrease in commercial space of approximately 14,700 square feet as evaluated in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR.
Taken together, potential future development in the downtown area considered in the General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs was estimated at 1,347 housing units and approximately 205,053 square feet of nonresidential commercial and office space. It is noted that these potential development numbers in the General Plan 2030 and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs were estimates developed for the purpose of completing environmental analyses, but were not adopted as caps or development limits.
Since adoption of the General Plan 2030, approximately 1,200 residential units have been constructed or approved in the “Downtown” and “River/Front” neighborhoods, which include the area within the Downtown Plan, and there has been a net reduction of approximately 3,300 square feet of non-residential space. With the proposed project, cumulative residential units in the downtown area would total 1,324 units, which is slightly below the total number of residential units considered for development (1,347 units) in the General Plan 2030 and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs. Additionally, with the proposed project, approved and constructed cumulative non-residential development, including the DLAHP, would have a net increase of approximately 54,750 square feet in the downtown area, which is approximately one-quarter of the amount of non-residential space (205,000 square feet) considered in the EIRs.
It is noted that there is one pending mixed-use development project in the downtown area that has not been approved, but is expected to be presented to City decision-makers in the near future, and thus is considered reasonably foreseeable. If approved, this project would include 276 residential units and a net decrease in commercial square footage. With this pending project, total residential units would exceed estimates considered in the analyses in the General Plan 2030 and Downtown Plan EIRs for the downtown area by 250 units, but would still be within the overall development and growth estimates considered in the General Plan EIR. In addition, there is one pending non-residential development project that also may be considered by City decision makers within the next six months. Although not a mixed-use project like the proposed DLAHP, it would result in addition of approximately 133,600 square feet of commercial space as a new hotel. However, when added to other approved and constructed non-residential space, including the DLAHP, non-residential square footage would be less than the amount considered in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and General Plan EIR.
There is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that significant impacts would occur as a result of reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects in the downtown area based on cumulative impact analyses conducted for the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR. Because approved cumulative development is within residential development estimates and far below non-residential development estimates considered and analyzed in the General Plan 2030 and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs, potential cumulative impacts in the downtown area from buildout under the plans have been adequately addressed. The General Plan 2030 EIR identified potential significant cumulative impacts related to noise, population, transportation/traffic, and water supply. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR identified significant cumulative impacts related to transportation/traffic, water supply, and schools. Cumulative impacts due to other development projects in the
17.157
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 22
vicinity of the proposed project would not be significant or the proposed project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable as explained below.
Noise. Neither the proposed project nor other downtown cumulative projects would contribute to cumulative noise impacts since the these projects are not located in proximity to the road segments subject to the cumulative noise impact (Westside industrial area) as identified in the General Plan 2030 EIR.
Transportation/Traffic. Previous evaluations of cumulative traffic impacts were based on the traffic congestion metric of LOS, which is no longer applicable due to changes in CEQA described above, which now require traffic impacts to be evaluated based on VMT. In establishing guidelines, the State Office of Planning and Research issued guidelines that indicate if a project falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with longterm environmental goals and relevant plans, there would be no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact (California Office of Planning and Research 2018). As indicated in Section III.D, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to VMT, and accordingly, cumulative traffic impacts also would be less-than significant.
Population. The General Plan 2030 EIR identified cumulative population growth as a potentially significant impact due to cumulative growth at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) in conjunction with growth accommodated by the General Plan 2030. The EIR concluded that cumulative growth (City and UCSC) could result in an average annual growth rate that would exceed historical growth rates and AMBAG population forecast growth rates if the North Campus area is annexed to the City in the next 20 years. UCSC updated its Long-Range Development Plan (LRDP) in 2021 and no longer proposes expansion into the North Campus area, although enrollments were projected to increase. The General Plan EIR considered UCSC enrollment to 19,500 students with provision of additional on-campus housing. According to UCSC’s website, enrollment for the 2021- 2022 academic year totaled approximately 19,000 students (University of California Santa Cruz 2023).
Regional population forecasts are updated every four years by AMBAG and have been updated since certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR and the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR. Current forecasts project a Citywide population of 72,218 in the year 2030 (AMBAG 2022). The City had a population of 64,075 people as of January 1, 2022 (California Department of Finance 2022). Based on the City’s existing average household size of 2.33, cumulative downtown projects, including the proposed project, projects under construction, approved projects in the downtown area, and constructed projects in the downtown area, could result in a population increase of approximately 3,085 persons as a result of development of 1,324 new housing units.
This is a conservatively high estimate as household sizes in the downtown area are about 1.9 persons per household are slightly lower than the Citywide average, based on Census information. City population as a result of cumulative downtown projects could increase to approximately 67,160 and would not exceed regional population forecasts for the City of 72,218 in the year 2030 (AMBAG 2022). Even with addition of the pending downtown project that could be approved in the near future (approximately 276 units), resulting population would be less than the regional forecast for the year 2030. Therefore, no new significant cumulative population growth impacts related to downtown development is expected.
The General Plan 2030 EIR also indicates that regional population forecasts, which are updated every four years, would account for changing trends in cumulative development and growth. Furthermore, it is also noted that the proposed project would not be inducing new population growth, but would serve existing households
17.158
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 23
in the city or county that are on waiting lists for affordable housing. The Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County has indicated to City staff that there are a total of 10,851 applicants throughout the county on its waiting list for affordable housing. It would be reasonable to assume that some of these people already live in the City, and thus, the project and other affordable housing projects in the downtown area would serve in part if not completely, existing City residents and would not result in any substantial population increases.
Water Supply. The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative impacts related to water supply identified in the General Plan 2030 and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs. As indicated above, the proposed project and cumulative approved downtown development are within the amount of development analyzed in both EIRs. With two pending downtown projects, development estimates analyzed for the downtown area would be exceeded, but would still be within development estimates considered in the city-wide General Plan EIR. As indicated in both EIRs, approved development projects would be subject to City requirements for installation of water-conserving fixtures and landscaping in accordance with current 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” that is required for a new or upgraded service connection or where a project adds new residential uses. This charge, as set forth in Chapter
16.14 of the Municipal Code, funds public water system improvements, and is assessed so projects pay the proportional share of the costs of new and existing water facilities necessary to meet the demand resulting from new or enlarged water services. This charge is intended to address the water supply impacts caused by new development in the City’s water service area, and the funds are used for construction of public water system improvements and conservation programs. Therefore, the project’s incremental contribution to a significant cumulative water supply impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
Schools. The General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs concluded that cumulative development could potentially affect school enrollments. The General Plan EIR concluded that this is a potentially significant cumulative impact, but would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with required payment of school impact fees to fund necessary facility expansion and/or additions (City of Santa Cruz, April 2012, DEIR volume).
Both EIRs also found 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, and future enrollment could be accommodated without construction of new schools, although some expansion of existing facilities may be necessary (City of Santa Cruz, April 2012, DEIR volume). Therefore, a project’s incremental contribution to this impact as a result of generation of students, including the proposed project, is not cumulatively considerable as the required payment of school impact fees would mitigate the project’s cumulative contribution such that it would no longer be considered cumulatively considerable.
Stormwater. Subsequent to the preparation and certification of the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, the City has identified a cumulative stormwater conveyance/capacity issue in the downtown area and is proposing a new pump station to address this issue and ensure adequate stormwater conveyance capacity for a five-year storm event in the downtown. A feasibility study was prepared for the City, including an evaluation of alternative sites for locating a new pump station. The study indicates that the existing
17.159
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 24
42- to 48-inch stormwater pipeline beneath the toe of the San Lorenzo River Levee, which extends between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street, is undersized, and the study identifies a preferred location for a new pump station at the southeast corner of the Front Street/Soquel Avenue intersection (City of Santa Cruz 2022c). The City proposes inclusion of the new pump station in the City’s upcoming Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program. The proposed DLAHP would not result in increased runoff due to an overall reduction in impervious surfaces as a result of the project, and therefore, would not contribute to this identified cumulative stormwater impact.
Conclusion. Based on cumulative impacts potentially resulting from reasonably foreseeable projects in the downtown area, no other potentially significant cumulative impacts have been identified. As explained above, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative water supply impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
No significant cumulative impacts have been identified for air quality or water quality. All development projects must comply with City stormwater regulations that would prevent or minimize water quality impacts as addressed in Section III.D, and thus, other cumulative projects in the downtown area would not result in a significant cumulative impact. Similarly, according to the MBARD, projects which are consistent with the AQMP would not result in a significant cumulative impact (MBARD 2008). Therefore, this exception of significant cumulative impacts of successive projects of the same type and in the same place does not apply to the project.
C. Significant Impacts Due to Unusual Circumstances
Under CEQA Guidelines section 5300.2(c), a categorical exemption shall not be used where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to “unusual circumstances.” Unusual circumstances may be established by showing that the project has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location, and that there is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that unusual feature or circumstance, or by showing that the project would have a significant environmental effect. For the unusual circumstances exception to apply, it is not enough alone that there is a reasonable possibility the project would have a significant environmental effect; instead there must be a reasonable possibility that the activity would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
The nature of a project may be “unusual,” particularly if its scope and size differ from conditions in the surrounding vicinity. This includes whether the project is or is not consistent with the surrounding zoning and land uses, including consistency with the underlying general plan and zoning designations and development standards. Conversely, the scope and size may be “unusual” if the use, height, or density vastly differ from surrounding uses. Therefore, “the presence of comparable facilities in the immediate area adequately supports [a]n implied finding that there [are] no ‘unusual circumstances’ precluding a categorical exemption.” (Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.
App.5th 809, 821, quoting Bloom v. McGurk (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1316.) The project site possesses no unusual features or environmental characteristics that distinguish it from other properties of the same size in the downtown area. The project site is located within an urban area, surrounded by development, and sensitive resources are not present as explained below. The project site’s immediate area, and the downtown area in general, have similar General Plan 2030 and zoning designations as the subject property.
There are no “unusual circumstances” that differentiate the project from the general class of similarly situated projects. As explained below, there are no “unusual circumstances” that differentiate the project from the general class of similarly situated properties or projects. For example, other properties in the surrounding area have
17.160
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 25
developed or could develop a similar mixed-used project, utilizing waivers permitted under the provisions of the state and local density bonus laws.
The project site is approximately 1.55 acres in size and is developed. There are numerous in-fill development sites in the downtown area that could similarly redevelop with a mixed-use project. There are at least six similar mixeduse projects that are currently under construction or approved in the downtown area on in-fill sites, some of which include surface parking lots similar to the project site; four of these projects have applied the in-fill development categorical exemption under CEQA. In addition, there is an approved mixed-use project in the downtown neighborhood as defined in the General Plan EIR, but outside the Downtown Plan area, and four other approved mixed-use projects within the City. A summary and comparison of these projects are included in Attachment B.
These projects have similar or greater densities and building heights as the proposed project, and most have utilized waivers and concessions permitted under state and local density bonus laws. The proposed project represents a density of 80 dwelling units (du) per acre. This density is within and substantially lower than densities of most of the above-referenced approved projects and projects that are under construction in the downtown area, where densities range from 84 to 196 du/acre, most of which are greater than 130 du/acre. The proposed project’s total number of housing units also is less than three of the approved downtown projects. Therefore, the size and density of the project do not represent unusual features or circumstances, as numerous other approved projects have similar or greater densities and size..
Lastly, the proposed project does not include uses that would be considered unusual in the downtown area. As indicated above in Section III.A, all proposed project uses are allowed in the CBD district as set forth in the Downtown Plan. The proposed parking garage is consistent with the City’s Downtown Plan, which indicates that parking in the downtown core should continue to be provided by the Parking District in a centralized fashion, to maximize shared use and minimize the quantity of stored vehicles. The Downtown Plan continues to call for parking structures and specifically calls for consideration of reuse of portions of City parking lots for residential redevelopment as replacement parking is provided in new structures. In this case, the project includes a parking garage, as well as housing and community uses. In addition, the Plan calls for consolidation of public and private properties to reinforce and expand the existing system of off-street parking along Cedar and Front Streets.
The proposed parking garage would remove the existing 134-space surface public parking lot and would provide a new three-level parking garage with 243-336 spaces available to the public, as well as the project users. While the project would result in an net increase in public parking on the project site, reviews by City staff indicate the Downtown Parking District would continue to operate with a deficit of approximately 112-205 parking spaces. Thus, although the new parking garage could result indirectly in traffic and air emissions as vehicles search for available parking and may exacerbate the existing parking deficit downtown, these situations are common and not be considered an unusual circumstance that would lead to a significant impact. The traffic generated by the proposed project would not lead to traffic congestion that exceeds City policy directives for acceptable levels of service (Kimley-Horn 2023) as explained in Section III.D. Similarly, the air emission modeling conducted for the project that accounts for project trips and the parking garage found that all criteria air pollutant emissions would be below regulatory thresholds as explained in Section III.D. Therefore, the proposed parking garage would not be an unusual feature or circumstance that could lead to a significant impact.
Aesthetics. The proposed project would result in a building height of 84 feet, which is higher than other buildings in the immediate vicinity due to the requested waiver required for qualifying projects that include density bonus units. The height also exceeds the additional 75-foot heights that could be allowed on the eastern portion of
17.161
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 26
the project site. However, the proposed project is similar in height and scale as three approved mixed-use projects in the downtown area that are also designated RVC in the General Plan 2030, and which have approved heights of 81-85 feet. Furthermore, the Downtown Plan permits additional height to 85 feet in the area to the east of the project site between Pacific Avenue and Front Street on the west and east, and Cathcart Street and Laurel Street on the north and south, respectively. The additional 85-foot height can also be allowed on the west side of Front Street between Cathcart Street and Soquel Avenue. In addition, there are two other buildings in the downtown area that exceed 80 feet in height, the Palomar Hotel and 110 Cooper Street (City of Santa Cruz 2017). Therefore, there are other existing, approved, and under construction projects with similar or slightly greater heights than the proposed project, and existing City plans allow for height up to 85 feet under specified conditions in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Thus, the proposed building height for the residential portion of the building, which exceeds the allowable additional building height, would not in and of itself be considered an unusual feature of the project because other buildings of similar size exist, are under construction, or could be constructed under existing city plans and regulations on similarly sized, in-fill sites as the proposed project.
The proposed project’s building height for the residential portion of the project would visually appear as a taller building with one or two stories visible behind existing buildings on Pacific Avenue. Given other buildings approved and being constructed in the downtown area and elsewhere in the city, the additional height would not, when viewed in proximity of other larger buildings, be considered an unusual circumstance. Additionally, the taller portion of the building is primarily confined to the eastern edge of the site, with lower building heights that are consistent with City standards being located along the Cedar Street frontage. This is consistent with the Downtown Plan’s standards call for horizontal and vertical variation to create the appearance of multiple buildings that are more in keeping with the surrounding area. The Plan states that “Additional height – even up to 85 feet in the Additional Height Zone A – can be absorbed appropriately if it is confined to a portion of a property, rather than as a massive block, terraced back from the street.” As indicated in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, there is no required presumption under CEQA that taller buildings are necessarily a substantial adverse change in the existing visual environment. Such determinations are made on a case-by-case basis at a lead agency’s discretion and in consideration of the relevant environmental setting or context, which here, is a nearly fully developed urban area. Future proposed buildings with additional height would not be considered to be substantially out of scale with other existing buildings in the downtown area (City of Santa Cruz 2017).
The proposed project would not block scenic views, such as ocean views or distant mountain views as described in the General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, nor affect scenic resources adjacent to a designated scenic highway, the primary consideration for identifying potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics. In an urbanized area, which the City is under the definition of the term in CEQA Guidelines section 15387, a project that results in conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality also could be considered a significant impact. However, there are no regulations governing scenic quality applicable to the project site. There are some regulations regarding scenic views in the coastal zone, but the project is not located in the coastal zone.
As indicated above, the additional height allowed by an approved waiver pursuant to the density bonus law would not be considered to conflict with zoning standards, and therefore, the heights allowed under the waiver would not be considered an unusual circumstance as similar density bonus and waiver requests have been
17.162
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 27
approved in the City in which new building heights have extended to 85 feet. Furthermore, CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21099) states that aesthetic impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an in-fill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment, although design review would still be required pursuant to local City requirements and regulations. The project site is considered an in-fill site and also is located within a transit priority area. City staff has reviewed the project and made the required findings for issuance of a Design Permit.
Heritage Tree Removal. The project involves the removal of 12 non-native trees, nine of which are heritage trees subject to approval of a Heritage Tree Removal Permit as discussed above in Section II.B. The project landscape plan includes planting of 14 canopy, 24-inch-box-sized street trees, which exceeds replanting requirements for removal of nine heritage trees. As indicated in Section II.B, the proposed removal of heritage trees was found to meet the City’s criteria for removal, and the project will replant trees in excess of the amount removed.
Removal of heritage trees is permitted by City regulations under specified circumstances and with required tree replanting at ratios specified by the City. 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 requirements set forth in City regulations would not result in a conflict with a local ordinance, and thus, removal of heritage trees consistent with City regulations and requirements would not be considered a significant impact of the project or an unusual circumstance.
The proposed heritage tree removal is similar to other approved projects in the downtown area and throughout the City that have also included removal of heritage trees and replanting replacement trees. Most in-fill sites have been previously developed and include some trees and landscaping, and thus, the presence of heritage trees on the project site does not represent an unusual feature or circumstance. Other project sites with recently approved Heritage Tree Removal Permits include but are not limited to: Pacific Front Mixed-Use Project site that is under construction (two heritage trees); the approved Riverfront Project (eight heritage trees) approved 190 West Cliff Drive mixed-use project (11 heritage trees); and 415 Natural Bridges Affordable Housing Project (four heritage trees.
Removal of heritage trees would not result in a significant impact due to unusual circumstances as properties and projects throughout the City are able to remove heritage trees through compliance with the criteria for removal, approval of permit, and replanting replacement trees as required by City regulations. Thus, the project and its location do not differ from other projects of any type and location throughout the City that are bound by the same regulations. In addition, the trees themselves do not represent an unusual feature. All trees are nonnative and planted as part of the parking lot landscaping or street trees. While several trees are larger trees and visible along Cedar Street and in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the trees are not visible from a wide-ranging area, are not visually prominent or distinctive, and are not considered scenic resources. The trees do not represent a significant or prominent visual element of the surrounding area, and removal would not substantially alter the visual character of the area. While any tree may possess aesthetic qualities, the trees that would be removed are not unusual for the species nor are they visually distinctive or prominent from a wide area. Therefore, the trees would not be considered an unusual feature, and 13 replacement trees are proposed.
17.163
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 28
The trees on 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). Compliance with the MBTA would require that either a pre-construction nesting survey be conducted to confirm that no nesting birds protected under the MBTA are present if trees or removed during the nesting season or to remove trees outside of the nesting season. Compliance with required regulations would not result in a significant impact.
Furthermore, the City’s General Plan 2030 (Action NCR2.4.1 and Table 1) establishes biological survey protocols, including pre-construction nesting bird surveys if tree removal construction were to commence during the nesting season with establishment of appropriate construction buffers if needed if nesting birds are found.
A standard project condition of approval requires Implementation of a pre-construction nesting survey, which would be applicable to the proposed project. Compliance with this standard condition would avoid any harm to nesting birds on-site, if any are found during the survey.
Thus, removal of heritage trees at the project site would not be considered an unusual circumstance as heritage trees have been removed at other sites in the downtown area and throughout the City to accommodate mixeduse and other residential projects.
Other Potential Impacts. There is no substantial evidence that the proposed project would result in a significant impact as explained below. Therefore, there are no unusual circumstances related to the project or its surroundings that may lead to a significant effect on the environment.
The project site is located with an A99 Flood Zone as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which also covers the entire downtown area and other parts of the City. This designation indicates that the project area is subject to inundation by a 1-percent-annual-chance flood event, but which will ultimately be protected upon completion of an under-construction federal flood protection system. A99 Zones are areas where enough progress has been made on the construction of a protection system, such as dikes, dams, and levees, to consider it complete for insurance rating purposes (FEMA 2023), which in this case are improvements to the levee adjacent to the San Lorenzo River (City of Santa Cruz 2012b). For these reasons, the project site does not contain unusual hydrologic conditions or circumstances, and the project would not result in significant impacts related to drainage or water quality degradation.
Most mixed-use and other development projects throughout the downtown area are required to prepare a geotechnical investigation report (Cornerstone Earth Group 2022). The geotechnical investigation conducted for the project addressed identified issues related to liquefaction, ground deformation, and lateral spreading, and provided recommendations to address these concerns. Implementation of these recommendations would be verified through design documents that would be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of construction (grading or building) permits. The investigation concluded that the project is geotechnically feasible given the existing soil conditions and implementation of construction and design recommendations included in the geotechnical investigation. The investigation did not reveal any conditions that differ from other sites in the downtown area and throughout the city, and thus, there are no soils or geological features that would be considered unusual that aren’t encountered at other sites throughout the City.
As explained in Section III.C, the project site is not located in a sensitive biological area, and the project would not result in impacts to biological resources as none exist on the project site or surrounding area.
17.164
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 29
The property is located within a sensitive archaeological area. A cultural resource evaluation was conducted, which included archival research and a surface reconnaissance. The archival research revealed that no previously recorded archaeological resources are located within the proposed project area. The project site does not contain historical resources as explained below in Section IV.F.
The project site is not located in a mapped fire hazard area per the City’s General Plan 2030 (City of Santa Cruz 2012a). Also, the project site not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE 2007).
Conclusion. For these reasons explained above, there are no unusual circumstances surrounding the project or project site that would suggest a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to such circumstances, and this exception does not apply to the project.
D. Scenic Resources
Under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(d), a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which 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. The project site is not located adjacent to or near a highway; the nearest highway, Highway 1, is located approximately 0.4 miles northwest of the project site. Furthermore, there are no officially designated state scenic highways within the City (Caltrans 2023).
Therefore, the project would not result in damage to scenic resources within an officially designated, state scenic highway, and this exception does not apply to the project.
E. Hazardous Waste Sites
Under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(e), a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to section 65962.5 of the Government Code (i.e., the Cortese List). The project site is not included on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The following Cortese List online data resources (CalEPA 2023) were reviewed during the preparation of this document: (1) the list of hazardous waste and substances sites from the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor database (DTSC 2023a); (2) the list of leaking underground storage tank sites from the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) GeoTracker database (SWRCB 2023a); (3) the list of solid waste disposal sites identified with Waste Constituent Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit (CalEPA 2023b); (4) the list of active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from the SWRCB (SWRCB 2023b); and (5) the list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC (CalEPA 2023c). In addition, an Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project found that the project site is not located on any of the DTSC lists of hazardous materials sites and was not listed in any of the regulatory databases (Weber, Hayes & Associates 2022). Therefore, based on the above review, the project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and this exception does not apply to the project.
It is noted that review of regulatory databases and local/state agency record repositories revealed there are a few chemical release sites in the general vicinity of the project site, but no documented sites with the potential to impact the project site were identified (Weber, Hayes & Associates 2022). However, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment identified two dry cleaners with undocumented releases and a documented, low-level solvent plume
17.165
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 30
present in shallow groundwater upgradient of the project site that has some potential to encroach (flow) beneath the site (Weber, Hayes & Associates 2022). A Phase II sampling and testing program was implemented to evaluate subsurface site conditions for potential contamination. No contaminated groundwater or vapor releases were found. The results showed that the bulk of the shallow soils (approximately one to three feet deep) across the project site were impacted with elevated concentrations of lead and arsenic that are from typical urban sources (lead-based paint and weed and rodent control). Most of the elevated metal concentrations are characterized as “non-hazardous” and can be disposed of at a local, municipal landfill. However, much of the shallow soils across the project site exceeded residential (unrestricted) or commercial land use screening threshold limits, but can be graded/removed and disposed of during development activities (Weber, Hayes & Associates 2022). The removal and disposal of these soils would be conducted in accordance and in compliance with applicable local and state regulations governing these activities; specifically future grading and soils removal would be required to be managed under an agency-approved Soil Management Plan (SMP) under the direction of the County of Santa Cruz Environmental Health Department.
F. Historical Resources
Under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(f), a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines a historical resource as:
• A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR);
• A resource listed in a local register of historical resources. • Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California…Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be :historically significant.” Generally, a resource is considered historically significant if it meets criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, including:
• Is associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
• Is associated with the lives of people important in our past. • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. • Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history; OR ▪ A resource determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency.
According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030, the project site is not located within a designated historic district (City of Santa Cruz 2012a). However, the project site is located in an area mapped as archaeologically sensitive per the City’s General Plan 2030 and contains one structure that is older than 50 years old.
A historical resources evaluation was conducted for the existing commercial building at 113 Lincoln Street that was constructed in 1941. The building has been altered considerably with a 1980 storefront remodeling campaign,
17.166
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 31
removal of the original entrance, and a 1986 rear addition. Given the changes made to what was a modest original design, the evaluation found that the building no longer possess sufficient historic integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship feeling and association for it to qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The evaluation also concluded that the existing building on the project site is not eligible for the Santa Cruz Historic Resources Inventory because the building does not meet City preservation criteria and has been altered substantially (PAST Consultants 2022). Therefore, the existing structure on the project site is not a historical resource under the definition of CEQA.
An archaeological investigation for the project concluded that potentially significant cultural materials may be located in the project area and recommended an extended site evaluation to locate subsurface resources, consisting of trenches to the depths of impacts in locations where historic maps indicate potential resources (Albion 2022). An extended testing program was undertaken that consisted of trenches throughout the project site. The testing found five historical-period features in the west central portion of the project site, and the results indicate that much of the site contains intermittent, shallow, and thin sheet deposit of scattered historical period artifacts associated with the mid- to late nineteenth and early to mid-twentieth century. The location and characteristics suggest these are examples of parcel-level dumping events indicative of residential refuse disposal behavior prior to centralized refuse collection that began in the mid-twentieth century. No prehistoric archaeological materials of any kind were found during the testing (Dudek 2023).
Evaluation of the five features concluded that they do not rise to a level where they could be found eligible for listing under the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) criteria and integrity requirements or under local criteria. Specifically, the features cannot be associated with a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage or with the lives of persons important in our past. As relative casual dumping events, there are no distinctive characteristics present, and the features clearly do not represent the work of an important creative individual, nor do they possess high artistic values. As numerous other examples of such deposits exist with greater integrity and historic associations, the features are not likely to yield information important to history. Therefore, these resources are not considered historical resources under CEQA (Dudek 2023).
The project site was tested, except for the area covered by the existing building. There is a moderate potential for encountering additional similar artifacts during construction. While it is not expected that additional deposits would meet the definition of a historical resource, archaeological monitoring during grading is recommended.
Based on this information, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historic resource, and this exception does not apply to the project.
For these reasons, the City is able to document that the project qualifies for the Categorical Exemption found at CEQA Guidelines section 15332, the in-fill exemption, and that none of the potential exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project or the project site.
17.167
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 32
V. References
Albion. 2022. Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the Santa Cruz Library Project, Santa Cruz Santa Cruz County, California. Final March 2022. Prepared for Weber, Hayes & Associates.
AMBAG.
▪ Adopted June 15, 2022. 2022 Regional Growth Forecast. ▪ Adopted June 13, 2018. 2018 Regional Growth Forecast. ▪ Adopted June 11, 2014. 2014 Regional Growth Forecast.
BKF Engineers. 2022. Stormwater Control Plan for Santa Cruz Library Mixed Use. September 8, 2022.
California Department of Finance (DOF). 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-housing-estimates-for-citiescounties-and-the-state-2020-2022/.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps.
Accessed on January 16, 2023 at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildlandhazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023. Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List).
Accessed February 6, 2023 at https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA).
▪ 2023a. Cortese List Data Resources. Accessed February 6, 2023 at https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/.
▪ 2023b. Sites identified with Waste Constituent Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. Accessed on January 17, 2023 at https://calepa.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf. ▪ 2023c. Hazardous Waste Facilities Subject to Corrective Action. Accessed February 6, 2023 at https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/?emrc=63e1903569867.
California Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018. Available online at: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). ▪ 2023a. List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database. Accessed on February 6, 2023 at
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search?CMD=search&case_number=&business_name=&main_st reet_name=&city=&zip=&county=&SITE_TYPE=LUFT&oilfield=&STATUS=&BRANCH=&MASTER_BASE=&S earch=Search
17.168
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 33
▪ 2023b. List of Active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders. Accessed on February 6, 2023 at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/enforcement/compliance/.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2023. Scenic Highways. Accessed January 17, 2023 at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenichighways.
City of Santa Cruz.
▪ 2023a. Farmers Market, City of Santa Cruz website. Accessed January 13, 2023 at https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/economic-development/developmentprojects/mixed-use-library-project/farmers-market. ▪ 2023b. General Plan Buildout Status Through December 2022. Accessed January 24, 2023 at https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-communitydevelopment/planning-division/active-planning-applications-and-status. ▪ 2022a. Santa Cruz Community Farmers Market and the City of Santa Cruz Joint Statement. October 14, 2022. Accessed December 29, 2022 at
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/91057/638018793399130000. ▪ 2022b. Parks & Recreation Commission Agenda Report for December 12, 2022, Subject:: 113, 119 Lincoln St: [CP22-0128; TR22-0201] (APNs 005-141-11, -21) – Appeal of the decision of the Director of Parks and Recreation to approve a Heritage Tree Removal Permit for removal of nine (9) Heritage Trees in conjunction with the Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project. December 5, 2022. ▪ 2022c. Final Soquel Avenue SDPS Feasibility Study, Feasibility Study for Constructing a Stormwater Pump Station at Soquel Avenue. December 2, 2022. Prepared for City of Santa Cruz. Prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler.
▪ 2022d. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for 119 Lincoln Street-Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project. November 1, 2022.
▪ 2022e. City of Santa Cruz SB743 Implementation Guidelines. May 12, 2022. ▪ 2021. Library Site Re-Use Visioning Process Final Draft. Prepared by Group 4. June 14, 2021. ▪ June 2020a. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz Adopting the Use of Vehicle Miles Traveled as the New Transportation Measure of Environmental Impacts. June 9, 2020 with Draft SB 743 Implementation Guidelines (May 27, 2020).
▪ 2020b. Downtown Plan. As amended through January 28, 2020. Available online at:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/8911/637490838888870000. ▪ October 2017. Downtown Plan Amendments Final EIR. [SCH#2017022050] Certified November 14, 2017. Includes Draft EIR document, dated July 2017. Prepared by Dudek. Available online at:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-communitydevelopment/long-range-policy-planning/area-plans-and-city-zoning-code/downtown-recovery-planamendments. ▪ 2012a. General Plan 2030. Adopted June 26, 2012. Available online at https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-communitydevelopment/long-range-policy-planning/general-plan.
17.169
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 34
▪ 2012b. 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-and-communitydevelopment/long-range-policy-planning/general-plan.
Cornerstone Earth Group. 2022. Geotechnical Investigation Downtown Library Residential Mixed Use, Cathcart Street and Cedar Street, Santa Cruz, California. June 2, 2022. Prepared for For the Future Housing, Inc.
Dryad, LLC.
▪ 2022a. December 19, 2022. Consulting Arborist Services for Development Addendum Report. ▪ 2022b. Consulting Arborist Services Addendum Report, City Lot #4, Cedar Street between Cathcart Street and Lincoln Street, Santa Cruz, CA. September 9, 2022.
▪ 2022c. Tree Inventory and Evaluations, Project Site: Downtown Library Project. January 18, 2022.
Dudek.
▪ 2023a. Phase II Archaeological Testing and Evaluation Report Downtown Library Mixed-Use Project, Santa Cruz, California. January 2023.
▪ 2023b. Special Status Species Potential to Occur Review. ▪ 2022. Extended Phase I Archaeological Testing Report Downtown Library Mixed-Use Project Santa Cruz, California. November 2022. Prepared for City of Santa Cruz Economic Development Department.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2023. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Accessed on February 13, 2023 at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search.
Kimley-Horn. 2023. Transportation Impact Study, Downtown Library and Affordable Housing, Santa Cruz, California. January 31, 2022. Prepared for City of Santa Cruz.
Monterey Bay Air Resources District.
▪ Adopted March 15, 2017. 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan. Available online at:
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=62318. ▪ February 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available online at:
https://www.mbard.org/files/0ce48fe68/CEQA+Guidelines.pdf. ▪ Adopted April 1996-Revised February 2016. Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. Available online at: https://www.mbard.org/files/b4d8179d3/CEQA+Implementation.pdf.
Past Consultants. 2022. Historic Evaluation for 113 – 119 Lincoln St., Santa Cruz, CA, APN. 005-141-11 and 005-141-21. Prepared for Weber, Hayes & Associates.
Salter. 2023. Downtown Library Mixed-Use, Santa Cruz, CA – Noise Impact Analysis. Prepared for For The Future of Housing. February 6, 2023.
TenOver. 2023. Base Density Vs. Proposed Density. January 6, 2003.
17.170
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 35
University of California Santa Cruz. 2023.
▪ Facts and Figures. Accessed on January 16, 2023 at https://www.ucsc.edu/about/facts-figures.html. ▪ University of California Santa Cruz. 2023. Personal communication, Erika Carpenter, Senior Planner, Physical & Environmental Planning Services, Physical Planning, Development & Operations.
Weber, Hayes & Associates. 2022. Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment. September 22, 2022. Prepared for City of Santa Cruz Economic Development Department.
17.171
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 36
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17.172
Project Location
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2022, County of Santa Cruz 2020, OpenStreetMap Date: 1/19/2023 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD\Figure1_ProjectLocation.mxd 0 200 400Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
Gilroy
Morgan Hill
Los Gatos
Saratoga Campbell
Cupertino
Los
Altos Hills Santa
Clara
San Jose
Palo Alto
Santa Cruz
Watsonville
Portola
Valley
Capitola
San Juan
Bautista
Sunnyvale
S A N T A C R U Z
C O U N T Y
S a n M a t e o
C o u n t y
S a n t a C l a r a
C o u n t y
M o n t e r e y
C o u n t y
101
1 152
1 82
85 84 130
17 236
9 680
280
Project Site
17.173
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 A1.2
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 50’-0”
N
352326('1(:6758&785(
6$17$&58= /,%5$5<0,;('86(
5(6,'(17,$/%,.(3$5.,1*
%,.(6
&/$66,
5(6,'(17,$/%,.(3$5.,1*
%,.(6
&/$66,
%,.(6
&/$66,,
%,.(6
&/$66,,
%,.(6
&/$66,,
/,%5$5<&200(5&,$/
'$<&$5(%,.(3$5.,1*
%,.(6
&/$66 ,
&('$5675((7
&$7+&$57675((7
/,1&2/1675((7
%,.(6
&/$66,,
%,.(6
&/$66,,
'$<&$5(
3/$<$5($
)/86+$&&(66
(
$'$
3$&,),&
%86,1(66
$&&(66
3$&,),&
%86,1(66
$&&(66
3$&,),&
6(59,&($5($
3$&,),&
$&&(66
/,1&2/1
6(59,&('225 3$&,),&
68,7( )$&&(66
3$&,),&
3$5.,1*$1'6(59,&(
$5($
5
(/(&
75$16)250(5
5(6,'(17,$/
*$5%$*(
/,%5$5<
*$5%$*(
/,%5$5<
/2$',1*
),5(5,6(5
/,%5$5<(175$1&(
0$,1 /,%5$5<
(17(5$1&(
3$5.,1**$5$*(
3('(675,$1
(175$1&(
3$5.,1**$5$*(
9(+,&8/$5
(175$1&(
5(6,'(17,$/
(175$1&(
5(6,'(17,$/
(175$1&(
&/5
RI
(;,67,1*675((7
3$5.,1*63$&(6
725(0$,121
/,1&2/1
(;,67,1*
21675((7
3$5.,1*63$&(6 72%(
5(029(' 72$&&2002'$7(
/$5*(56,'(:$/. 1(:
:,'(6,'(:$/.:,7+
/2$',1*81/2$',1*3$5.,1*
63$&(6
1(:
:,'(
6,'(:$/. 720$7&+
$'-$&(17
3$&,),&&$7+&$57
6,'(:$/. )5217$*(
(;,67,1*
21
675((73$5.,1*
63$&(672%(
5(029('21
&$7+&$5772
$&&2002'$7(
/$5*(56,'(:$/.
&/5
723/
21(:$<$//(<
&
21(:$<$//(<
/5
1(:
:,'(
6,'(:$/. 720$7&+
$'-$&(17 /,1&2/1
6,'(:$/. )5217$*(
%866723
3$5.,1**$5$*(
'$<&$5(
&200(5&,$/
/,%5$5<
0(&+$1,&$/
0DUVK6WUHHW
6DQ /XLV2ELVSR&$
LQIR#WHQRYHUVWXGLRFRP
ZZZWHQRYHUVWXGLRFRP 6&/,%5$5<0,;('86(
&('$5675((7 6$17$&58=&$/,)251,$
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22
COMMERCIAL
LIBRARY
DAYCARE
1 - B E D RO O M U N I T &
STUDIO
2-BEDROOM UNIT
3-BEDROOM UNIT
RES. SUPPORT SPACES
DECK
GREEN ROOF
GARAGE
Legend
A2.1
1ST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
6)
3$5.,1**$5$*(
6)
&200(5&,$/
6)
'$<&$5(
$
$
/,%5$5<
*$5%$*(
6833257
/,%5$5<
/2$',1*
/2%%<
6)
3/$<
5(6
*$5%$*(
5$0383
0$,/
(/(&
75$16)250(5
/2%%<
(9 ),5(
/,%5$5<
6)
%,.(
6725$*(
%,.(
6725$*(
$
$
$
$
$
$
6725$*(
0(&+$1,&$/
(9 (9 (9
(9
0DUVK6WUHHW
6DQ /XLV2ELVSR&$
LQIR#WHQRYHUVWXGLRFRP
ZZZWHQRYHUVWXGLRFRP 6&/,%5$5<0,;('86(
&('$5675((7 6$17$&58=&$/,)251,$
29(5$//)/2253/$1 /(9(/
Project Site Plan
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
FIGURE 2 SOURCE: TenOver 2022
Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD
17.174
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
539 Marsh
San Luis Ob
805.541.10
info@tenov
www.tenov
SC LIBRARY MIXED USE 600-698 CEDAR STREET
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
S A N TA C R U Z , C A
DATE: 0 9/ 08 / 2 2A3
1 WE S T E LE VATIO N
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
2 S OUTH EL E V ATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
K E YNO T E S
1. GLASS CURTAINWALL
2. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH
RAINSCREEN SYSTEM
3. WEATHERED WOOD TONGUE
SIDING
4. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH
5. GLASS RAILING AT LIBRARY
6. VINYL WINDOWS WITH BLAC
FINISH (AT RESIDENTIAL AR
7. 3-TONE INTEGRAL COLOR ST
METAL TRIM
8. SINGLE TONE FIELD COLOR
STUCCO
9. ACCENT INTEGRAL COLOR A
WINDOWS
10. HORIZONTAL CONCRETE BAS
FORM TEXTURE
11. OPEN AIR OPENING AT GARA
12. MAIN BUILDING SIGNAGE
13. GREEN ROOF
14. GLASS STOREFRONT
15. THERMALLY BROKEN ALUMIN
TOP OF ROOFTOP ACCESS STAIR: 95’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET: 91’-0”
Project Elevations
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
FIGURE 3A
Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD SOURCE: TenOver 2022
17.175
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01 0' - 0"
LEVEL 02 11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE 84' - 0"
LEVEL 03 22' - 0"
LEVEL 04 33' - 0"
LEVEL 05 44' - 0"
LEVEL 06 54' - 0"
LEVEL 07 64' - 0"
LEVEL 08 74' - 0"
539 Marsh St
San Luis Obis
805.541.1010
info@tenove
www.tenove
SC LIBRARY MIXED USE 600-698 CEDAR STREET SANTA CRUZ
CALIFORNIA
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
539 Marsh
San Luis O
805.541.10
info@teno
www.teno
SC LIBRARY MIXED USE 600-698 CEDAR STREET
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
S A N TA C R U Z , C A
DATE: 0 9/ 08 / 2 2A3
1 EAST E LE V ATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
2 NOR TH E LEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
TOP OF ROOFTOP ACCESS STAIR: 95’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET: 91’-0”
K E YNO T E S
1. GLASS CURTAINWALL
2. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH W
RAINSCREEN SYSTEM
3. WEATHERED WOOD TONGUE &
SIDING
4. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH FR
5. GLASS RAILING AT LIBRARY R
6. VINYL WINDOWS WITH BLACK
FINISH (AT RESIDENTIAL AREA
7. 3-TONE INTEGRAL COLOR STU
METAL TRIM
8. SINGLE TONE FIELD COLOR IN
STUCCO
9. ACCENT INTEGRAL COLOR AT
WINDOWS
10. HORIZONTAL CONCRETE BASE
FORM TEXTURE
11. OPEN AIR OPENING AT GARAG
12. MAIN BUILDING SIGNAGE
13. GREEN ROOF
14. GLASS STOREFRONT
15. THERMALLY BROKEN ALUMINU
Project Elevations
530 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing ProjectStreet FIGURE 3B
Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD SOURCE: TenOver 2022
17.176
7,21
785(
785(
5(
(17$*(
785(
',80
72
$7<3(,$
67<3(,$
57<3(,,,$
%07<3(,$
(7<3(,$6
)5217$*(,1&
$//2:$%/()5
%8,/',1*$5($
0,;('2&&83$
(48$7,2
5(65
),567)/225
6(&21')/22
6(3$5$7('2&
7+,5')/225 67<3(,$6 81/,0,7('
$7<3(,$6 81/,0,7('
07<3(,$6
81/,0,7('
727$/
727$/
5(4
'5$7,2 3(5)/225 3(5(17,5(%8,/',1*
&2'(6(&7,21
,)$33/,&$%/(
&%&
7+(0$;,080%8,/',1*+(,*+7,1)((7
6+$//127(;&(('7+(/,0,766(7)257+,1
6(&7,21)257+(%8,/',1*+$9,1*7+(
60$//(5$//2:$%/(+(,*+7$60($685('
)520*5$'(3/$1(
$6287/,1('+(5(7+(60$//(67
$//2:$%/(+(,*+7)257+(9$5,28686(6,6
7+(57<3(,,,$
7$.,1*+(,*+7
,1&5($6(
727$/%8,/',1*+(,*+7:,//%(
)520),1,6+)/225727232)522)
'(&.
6+$)767$,5:$<5$03$1'(6&$/$725
(1&/2685(67+528*+7+(+25,=217$/
$66(0%/<6+$//+$9(127/(667+$1$
+5),5(5$7,1*:,7+23(1,1*3527(&7,9(6
$//67$,572:(56$1'6+$)76*2,1*
7+528*+7+(32',80&216758&7,21:,//
%(2)$+55$7('(1&/2685(:,7+
23(1,1*3527(&7,9(6
7+(%8,/',1*$%29(7+(+25,=217$/
$66(0%/<6+$//%(*5283$
,)/(667+$1
2&&83$176
25*5283%05256
7+(352326('%8,/',1*$%29(7+(32',80
,672%(5:,7+,1&,'(17$/86(6
3(57$,1,1*727+(586(
7+(%8,/',1*%(/2:7+(+25,=217$/
$66(0%/<6+$//%(3527(&7('
7+528*+287%<$1$33529('$8720$7,&
635,1./(56<67(0,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+
6(&7,21
$1'&$1%($1<
2&&83$1&<(;&(37+
7+((17,5(6758&785(:,//%()8//<
635,1./(5(':,7+$11)3$6<67(0$1'
7+(5(:,//%(127<3(+2&&83$1&<
352326('
32',80&2'(5(9,(:
6(&7,21
$%8,/',1*6+$//%(&216,'(5('$6
6(3$5$7($1'',67,1&7%8,/',1*6)257+(
385326(2)'(7(50,1,1*$5($/,0,7$7,216
&217,18,7<2)),5(:$//6/,0,7$7,212)
180%(52)6725,(6$1'7<3(2)
&216758&7,21:+(5(7+()2//2:,1*$5(
0(7
+25,=721$/+285$66(0%/<9(57,&$/
2))6(76$//2:('%870867$/62%(+5
7+(%8,/',1*%(/2:
,1&/8',1*7+(
+25,=217$/$66(0%/<
,62)7<3(,$
&216758&7,21
5(/$7,2172352326('6758&785(
5(6,'(17,$/72:(5,6&216,'(5('$
6(3$5$7(%8,/',1*&203/<,1*:,7+$5($
:,7+)5217$*(,1&5($6(
+5&21&5(7(32',80352326('
%(7:((15(6,'(17,$/72:(5$1'352*5$0
%(1($7+
*$5$*($1'&200(5&,$/
$//352*5$0(;&(377+(5(6,'(17,$/,672
%($&216758&7,21
7+,5')/225
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6)
/,%5$5<$
$
',$*21$/+$7&+$5($
,1',&$7(6 (;7(172)
+532',80
6(&7,21 6(&7,21
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+(,*
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6)
/,%5$5<$
$
',$*21$/+$7&+$5($
,1',&$7(6 (;7(172)
+532',80
6(&7,21 6(&7,21
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+(,*
+532
3$5.
5(
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6)
/,%5$5<$
$
',$*21$/+$7&+$5($
,1',&$7(6 (;7(172)
+532',80
6(&7,21 6(&7,21
3$5
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(
SECTION 0
SECTION 0
+(,*+7 6725,(6 352326('
$7<3(,$6 8/ 8/ 6725,(6
726758&785(
67<3(,$6 8/ 8/
57<3(,,,$6
)520*5$'(
:,7+287$5($
,1&5($6(
:,7+287$5($
,1&5($6(
%07<3(,$6 8/ 8/ 6725,(6
726758&785(
(7<3(,$6 8/ 8/ 6725<
726758&785(
)5217$*(,1&5($6(48$/,),(5
3(5,0(7(5
3 :,'7+
:
/(1*7+
)
3(5&(17$*(
!
2)23(163$&(38%/,&:$<
2)%8,/',1*2138%/,&:$<2523(163$&(:0,1,080
:,'7+
5(48,5(' $&78$/
48$/,),(6 <(6
$//2:$%/()5217$*(,1&5($6(
,I $5($)$&725,1&5($6('8(72)5217$*(
) 3(5,0(7(57+$7)521762138%/,&:$<
3 3(5,0(7(52)(17,5(%8,/',1*
: :,'7+2)38%/,&:$<2523(163$&(
,I
)3
:
,I
,I
%8,/',1*$5($&$/&8/$7,216)/225
$D $//2:$%/($5($
$W 7$%8/$5$5($)$&725
16 7$%8/$5$5($)$&725)2516%8,/',1*
,I $5($)$&725,1&5($6('8(72)5217$*(
6D
'()$&72180%(52)6725,(6
0,;('2&&83$1&<08/7,6725<
(48$7,21 $D >$W
16[,I
@
5(65,,,$ $D >
[
@ $D
)/225
$//2:$%/()/5 /$5*(67352326
'
$//2:$%/(%8,/',1*+(,*+76725,(6 $5($6
0,;('86(2&&83$1&,(6$//2:$%/(+(,*+7
6725,(6
726758&785(
6725,(6$%29(32',80
72
6758&785(
*
1'6+$)76*2,1*
0&216758&7,21:,//
(1&/2685(:,7+
'6758&785(
6&216,'(5('$
&203/<,1*:,7+$5($
5($6(
80352326('
/72:(5$1'352*5$0
'&200(5&,$/
77+(5(6,'(17,$/,672
1
+532',80
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$ 6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
6758&785(
7232)
/,%5$5<$
$6725,(6
*/$66
&/(5(6725<
7232)6758&785(
),5(6(3
0,1
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
$
&+$5($
(172)
6(&7,21
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
&200(5&,$/0
$6725,(6
6758&785(
7232)
+532',80
),5(6(3
0,1
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
+532',80
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$ 6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
6758&785(
7232)
/,%5$5<$
$6725,(6
*/$66
&/(5(6725<
7232)6758&785(
),5(6(3
0,1
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
$5($
2)
6(&7,21
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
&200(5&,$/0
$6725,(6
6758&785(
7232)
+532',80
),5(6(3
0,1
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
+532',80
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$ 6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
6758&785(
7232)
/,%5$5<$
$6725,(6
*/$66
&/(5(6725<
7232)6758&785(
),5(6(3
0,1
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
&200(5&,$/0
$6725,(6
6758&785(
7232)
+532',80
),5(6(3
0,1
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
SECTION 01
SECTION 02
Project Building Heights
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
FIGURE 4 SOURCE: TenOver 2022
Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD
17.177
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 42
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17.178
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 A-1
ATTACHMENT A
City Review of Project Consistency
with General Plan and Zone District Regulations
General Plan Consistency
The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of RVC (Regional Visitor Commercial), characterized in the General Plan as below:
“Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC), 0.25 to 3.5 FAR. Applies to areas that emphasize a variety of commercial uses that serve Santa Cruz residents as well as visitors. Mixed-use development is strongly encouraged in RVC districts. Areas designated RVC include:
Downtown Santa Cruz, 0.25 to 5.0 FAR. Emphasizes a mix of regional office and retail uses, residential and mixed-use developments, restaurants, and visitor attractions such as entertainment venues. The Downtown Recovery Plan provides detailed requirements for this area.
The project uses are consistent with the General Plan land use designation. With an FAR of 4.08, the proposed project design conforms to the maximum allowable FAR of 5.0 as specified in the General Plan for development in the City’s downtown. The proposed mixed-use project conforms to, and fosters the attainment of, many goals and policies of the General Plan, including the following:
Goal LU3 A complementary balance of diverse land uses
▪ Land Use Development Policy LU3.1: Foster land use patterns that balance economic, housing, community, and environmental needs, and promote social diversity. ▪ Land Use Development Policy LU3.3: Develop, maintain, and encourage economically viable neighborhood-serving commercial districts. Cf. LU4.2.4 and ED5.2. ▪ Land Use Development Policy LU3.4 - In neighborhoods near visitor areas, give priority to uses that serve both visitors and residents.
▪ Land Use Development Policy LU3.7 - Encourage higher-intensity residential uses and maximum densities in accordance with the General Plan Land Use designations. ▪ Land Use Development Policy LU3.8 - Allow the following residential uses to exceed the maximum densities in this chapter
▪ Land Use Development Policy LU4.2 Encourage land use changes that reduce the need for autos.
Goal M1 Land use patterns, street design, parking, and access solutions that facilitate multiple transportation alternatives
▪ Mobility Development Policy M1.1 - Reduce automobile dependence by encouraging appropriate neighborhood and activity center development.
▪ Mobility Development Policy M1.3 - Create pedestrian-friendly frontage and streetscapes and attractive pedestrian-oriented areas.
17.179
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 A-2
▪ M4.2 Provide and maintain a complete, interconnected, safe, inviting, and efficient citywide bicycle network
▪ M4.4 Assure a high level of bicycle user amenities. Cf. PR1.6.4. M4.4.1 Maintain Zoning Ordinance and parking district requirements that require secure, covered bicycle parking and/or storage lockers at private and public facilities.
▪ M4.4.3 Increase the supply of bicycle parking throughout the city.
Goal ED1 A vibrant regional economic center
▪ Economic Development Policy ED1.1 Promote Santa Cruz as the principal retail, cultural, recreational, restaurant, entertainment, and commercial destination in the region. ▪ Economic Development Policy 5.2 - Provide for residents’ daily shopping needs in local-serving neighborhood commercial centers.
Goal CC 8 Excellent educational opportunities and resources ▪ CC8.5 Provide free and equal access to City libraries. ▪ CC8.6 Strive for library collections that meet community needs. ▪ CC8.7 Expand the communication and information network in the City’s libraries and optimize its quality.
▪ CC10.1 Encourage an adequate and diverse supply of childcare facilities and services citywide. ▪ CC10.2 Encourage development of accessible, affordable, and quality childcare facilities near public transportation, employment centers, and in the Downtown.
Goal NRC5 An enhanced and sustainable urban forest
▪ NRC5.1 Protect and manage tree resources in the urban environment, with emphasis on significant and heritage trees.
Removal of 12, non-native trees, including nine heritage trees, will be necessary as part of the project; however, the project will plant 14 new trees, which exceeds the City’s tree replacement requirement.
Goal H1: Encourage an adequate diversity in housing types and affordability levels to accommodate present and future housing needs of Santa Cruz residents.
▪ 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.
▪ Policy 1.2 Concentrate new housing in the Central Core, along major commercial corridors, and on major opportunity sites consistent with the Land Use Element. ▪ Policy 1.3 Facilitate the production of mixed residential-commercial uses through the use of appropriate development standards, design and compatibility review, and regulatory and financial incentives.
▪ Policy 1.4 Establish and maintain residential development standards that support housing production yet promote the vitality of established neighborhoods.
Goal H2: Increase and protect the supply of housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households.
▪ Policy 2.2 Facilitate the development of affordable housing through the provision of
17.180
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 A-3
regulatory concessions, financial incentives and assistance, density bonuses, and other means. ▪ Policy 2.5 Promote meaningful and informed participation of residents, community groups, and governmental agencies in local housing and community development activities.
Goal H4: Provide increased opportunities for low and moderate income residents to rent or purchase homes.
Goal H5: Improve housing and neighborhoods throughout Santa Cruz and in designated target areas. ▪ Policy 5.3 Ensure that the character and design of both in-fill development and remodel/rehabilitation projects promote the vitality of existing neighborhoods. ▪ Policy 5.4 Promote the overall vitality and livability of neighborhoods by providing adequate public services, community facilities, infrastructure, landscaping and open space, adequate parking, traffic management, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and public safety to meet the needs of each individual neighborhood, as well as by preventing and eliminating blighting conditions
Goal H6: Strive to fulfill the city’s housing needs while promoting an environmentally sustainable, compact community with clearly defined urban boundaries.
▪ Policy 6.1 Ensure a compatible relationship between new housing and circulation patterns and encourage pedestrian and bicycle friendly communities in order to minimize traffic impacts on quality of life.
▪ Policy 6.7 Promote transit-oriented, mixed-use residential developments that are close to services, reduce dependence on automobile use, and are of high quality As a mixed-used development encompassing a new public library; commercial tenant space; childcare facility; approximately 243-space structured parking; and residential complex incorporating 124 100% affordable residences, including studio-, one-, two- and three-bedroom residential units, situated in the City’s urban core, the project demonstrates consistency with the stated purpose of the CBD zone district, Cedar Street Village Corridor subarea and General Plan land use designations. The project would exceed the specified unit density of both the Zoning Ordinance as well as the General Plan but would conform to provisions of AB1763 and State Density Bonus Law, as specified above.
Zoning Consistency
The project site occurs on land contained in the CBD (Central Business District) zone district, the majority within the Cedar Street Village Corridor subarea and has a General Plan land use designation of RVC (Regional Visitor Commercial). Section 24.10.2300 of the City’s Zoning Code states the following in reference to the purpose of the Downtown Plan in implementing the City’s aspirations for the Central Business District:
“This part implements the Land Use Plan, Development Standards and Design Guidelines of the Downtown Plan (Plan), a specific plan. It is intended to refine the Plan in the area of land use and regulations. It supports the purpose of the Plan, in the context of the General Plan, which aims to maintain downtown the urban center of the city, with the many functions a city center serves. This chapter of the Zoning Ordinance is also part of the Local Coastal Implementation Plan.
17.181
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 A-4
The Central Business District Zone of the Downtown Plan is divided into four subareas, in order to enhance the character of each by special consideration of the character of each. A fifth area, CBD Subdistrict E, Lower Pacific Avenue, implements the policies of the Beach and South of Laurel Plan and is separate from the Downtown Plan.”
The Downtown Plan additionally establishes a vision for the City’s downtown core as embodied in the First Principles originally introduced in the Downtown Plan in 1991 and refined in the years thereafter. An excerpt of the Vision appears below:
“Vibrant, vital and active, the central business district constitutes the primary retail, commercial, professional and employment center for the City of Santa Cruz. This compact, high-density area is home to unique businesses, offering residents and visitors a diverse and wholesome environment for commercial, cultural, civic and social pursuits. Local, regional and national businesses combine in a potent blend, making the downtown a major destination for the entire region. “A range of housing types is integrated into the downtown. This urban-density housing provides both market-rate and affordable units, and expands the immediate market for downtown goods, services and public transportation. The economic and social vitality of the downtown has a positive effect on the surrounding areas and the entire community.” The project site occurs on land with the Cedar Street Village Corridor subarea of the Downtown Plan, which the Downtown Plan characterizes as follows:
“The Cedar Street Corridor is immediately west of the Pacific Avenue Retail District. The area provides an appropriate transition in scale and use between the downtown and the adjacent residential neighborhoods and the civic center. In contrast to Front Street, which plays a destinational retail role, Cedar Street serves as a more local-serving street with a mixture of professional offices, support and convenience retail, and restaurant uses. Unlike Pacific Avenue, which developed in a relatively consistent manner with a strong "street wall" of buildings, Cedar Street is more diverse in nature, with a mixture of one and two-story structures of varied setbacks. Many of the buildings are wood frame structures with a strong residential character.”
“[A]ll parking structures in this subarea are required to step down to 35 feet adjacent to public streets.
Upper-level residential uses are particularly encouraged within the Cedar Street subarea to intensify the resident population of the downtown and to create an appropriate land use transition to the adjacent neighborhoods.
Except for the increase in height proposed though request for an incentive/concession and waiver, the proposed project complies with all standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
17.182
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 B-1
ATTACHMENT B
Comparison of City Mixed-Use Projects
City of Santa Cruz Approved and Under Construction
Mixed-Use/Residential and Affordable Housing Projects
Project Site Size DUs / Density
Height
(in feet)
Number of Total
Trees / Heritage
Trees Removed
Density Bonus
Request
Downtown
• Front-Laurel 1.4 acres 205 / 146 du/ac 55-85 15 / 2 Yes • Pacific Station South 0.5 acres 85 / 170 du/ac 80 0 Yes • 523 Center St 0.77 acres 65 / 84 du/ac 48.5 0 No
• Riverfront Project 0.98 acres 175 / 179 du/ac 81 25 / 8 Yes • Pacific Station North 0.7 acre 94 / 134 du/ac 7 stories 0 Yes • 1013 Pacific 0.122 acres 17 / 139 du/ac 4 stories 0 Yes • 130 Center (not in Downtown
Plan area)
1.19 acres 233 / 196 du/ac 75 0 Yes
• 555 Pacific [1] 0.8 acres 94 / 118 du/ac 4 stories 1 / 1 No • Park Pacific-1547 Pacific [1] 0.53 acres 66 / 125 du/ac 56 1 / 1 No Other Parts of City
• 831 Water 0.9 acres 145 / 159 du/ac 60 0 Yes
• 915 Water 0.58 acres 105 / 181 du/ac 48 2 / 2 Yes
• 150 Felker 0.4 acres 32 / 80 du/ac 50 6 / 6 Yes
• 314 Jessie Street 0.4 acres 50 / 116 du/ac 4 stores 0 Yes • 190 W Cliff Drive 2.2 acres 89 / 40 du/ac 4 stores 55/11 Yes [1] Constructed and in operation.
17.183
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
9711.0010
MARCH 2023 B-2
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17.184
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -1- March 2023
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: CP22-00128
2. Project Title: Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project (DLAHP)
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:
Timothy Maier, Senior Planner
(831) 420-5129; [email protected]
5. Project Location: 113 and 119 Lincoln Street (005-141-11, -21); see Figure 1.
6. Project Applicant / Sponsor Name and Address:
Jim Rendler, For The Future Housing Inc., 945 W Julian Street, San Jose, CA 95126; Dixie Baus, Eden Housing, 22645 Grand Street, Hayward, CA 94541 Owner: City of Santa Cruz
7. General Plan Designation: Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC)
8. Zoning: Central Business District (CBD), Cedar Street Village Corridor subdistrict
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 Project Uses. The project consists of a Nonresidential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Lot-Line Adjustment, Sign Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to demolish one existing commercial building and surface parking lot and construct the DLAHP, consisting of a new public library, affordable housing units, a parking garage, ground-floor commercial tenant space, and a commercial childcare facility, with associated site improvements.
17.185
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -2- March 2023
An application for a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove nine heritage trees in conjunction with the proposed project, was submitted to the Director of Parks and Recreation and was approved by the City’s Urban Forester on October 18, 2022. The Parks and Recreation Commission considered and denied an appeal to the approval on December 10, 2022.
Subsequently, the City Council on January 10, 2023, per applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, “called up” the heritage tree permits so as to assure that all heritage tree issues would be considered by the City Council at the same time the Council considers the other applications for the permits required by the DLAHP.
The proposed project uses would be integrated within a new 273,194-square-foot building, which would range in height from three to eight stories at 50 to 84 feet tall, respectively. The proposed lot-line adjustment would merge the two existing site parcels into one lot. The project also includes a density bonus request as permitted pursuant to state and local regulations with requested waivers and concessions to some development standards as explained in Section II.C. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2, and the proposed uses are further described below. Figures 3A and 3B show the proposed project building elevations. Figure 4 provides a conceptual depiction of the proposed building heights. • Public Library. The proposed facility is an approximately 38,000-square-foot public library that would replace the existing downtown library located on Church Street across the street from City Hall. The library would be three stories, featuring two floors with elevated ceilings. The main library entrance is proposed at the mid-block point on Cedar Street, and includes a roof deck at the southwest corner of Cedar and Cathcart Streets. • Affordable Housing. The proposed 100-percent-affordable-housing component includes 124 units located on five stories above the proposed parking garage. The proposed units include 13 studio units of about 450 square feet each, 48 one-bedroom units of approximately 500 square feet each, 31 two-bedroom units of approximately 730 to 840 square feet each, 31 three-bedroom units of approximately 900 to 950 square feet each, and 1 two-bedroom manager’s unit. The units are proposed as affordable to extremely low, very-low, and low income households.
• Parking Garage. The eastern side of the project site would contain a 243-stall, three-story, above-grade public parking garage with minimal frontage on the street façades on Cathcart and Lincoln Streets. The parking garage would be a Public City Parking Facility with 24-hour access. The City has also considered one level of subterranean parking that would increase the on-site parking by approximately 90 spaces to 336 spaces, and the proposed site plan may be revised to include this option at a later date if directed by the City Council. It is noted that all project technical studies have considered inclusion of one subterranean level of parking, as does this review. The public parking component of the proposed project is intended to replace the existing public parking on the project site and to offset deficits in available downtown parking capacity resulting from approved and anticipated future development projects.
• Childcare Facility. A one-story, approximately 1,500-square-foot daycare facility is proposed immediately adjacent to the proposed library. The daycare facility would have
17.186
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -3- March 2023
a capacity for a minimum of 16 children. An outdoor play area would be located adjacent to the facility and would be used by children at the facility as well as on-site residents. • Commercial Space. Approximately 11,950 square feet of commercial use is programmed for three stories at the southwest corner below the library roof deck. With demolition of the existing on-site commercial building, the project would result in a net increase of approximately 6,550 square feet of commercial space.
The project includes a density bonus request pursuant to California Government Code sections 65915 – 65918, which was enacted in 1979 to encourage the provision of affordable housing units in the state by offering a combination of benefits to developers. The amount of the density bonus is based on the number of affordable units at each income level that are included in a project. To determine whether a project qualifies for a density bonus, the percentage of affordable units is based on the maximum number of units that would be permitted under the City’s zoning code (i.e., the “base density”). The City determined that the base density for the project site is 46 units per acre, which would allow for 72 residential units on the 1.55-acre project site.
Because all of the proposed housing units would be affordable to lower income households, with a base density of 72 units, an 80-percent density bonus over the base density, or up to 130 units, are permitted. (Gov. Code, § 65915(f)(3)(D)(i).) With a base density of 72 units, 14 units (20 percent) of the residential units would be required to be provided as affordable housing units at the low or very-low income level to meet the City’s inclusionary housing requirements. However, the project proposes 124 affordable units, of which 19 units (or 26 percent of the base density) would be for extremely low-income households, 59 units (or 82 percent of the base density) would be for very-low-income households, 45 (or 62 percent of the base density) would be for low-income households, and 1 unit would be the manager’s unit. Additionally, according to Government Code section 65915(f)(3)(D)(ii), there are no maximum controls on density for projects where all units are affordable to lower income households and that are located within one-half mile of a major transit stop.
One waiver and one incentive/concession have been requested related to building height and the above-ground parking garage that would be required with the requested density bonus.
A waiver and incentive/concession are being requested for building height to exceed the 50- and 75-foot maximum per the Downtown Plan resulting from placement of the proposed housing component atop the 3-story above-ground parking garage. The project is requesting an exception from the Downtown Plan’s maximum height of 50 feet as specified in the Cedar Street Village Corridor subarea of the Downtown Plan. The exceedance of the 50-foot height limit is requested as both a waiver and an incentive/concession as explained below.
The Downtown Plan establishes a maximum building height of 50 feet above the allowed 35- foot limit in the Cedar Street Village Corridor on the east side of Cedar Street, and allows for an increase of up to 75 feet in the eastern portion of the site that is designated as “Additional Height Zone A,” subject to approval of a Design Permit by the City Council. As proposed, the residential component of the project has been sited partially within Additional Height Zone A. An incentive/concession is being requested for exceedance of the 50-foot height limit that
17.187
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -4- March 2023
would result from placement of the parking facility at surface level, which is proposed due to the high costs of construction of underground parking. Placement of the parking structure at surface level would cause the height of the building to exceed 50 feet.
The waiver is requested as an additional increase in height beyond 50 feet due to inclusion of the density bonus units; the height would further increase above that resulting from the additional height induced by placement of the parking garage at grade. The residential component is partially placed within the Downtown Plan’s Additional Height Zone A, which allows for a request for height of up to 75 feet with approval by the City Council; however, about half of the residential component would encroach into the area outside of Additional Height Zone A, in which the maximum allowable height per the Downtown Plan is 50 feet.
The waiver is being requested to allow building height to exceed the 50- and 75-foot maximum per the Downtown Plan as a result of placement of the proposed housing component above the 3-story above-ground parking garage. The residential component of the site, which covers approximately the eastern half of the project site, would reach 84 feet in height and 91 feet at the building edges including parapets. Compliance with the maximum height of 50 feet as specified in the Downtown Plan would require a reduction in the number of stories of the building, and consequently, would: 1) diminish parking capacity necessary to support existing and future downtown development, and 2) eliminate a significant number of housing units, which would physically preclude construction of the number of residential units allowed under state density bonus law. Due to the elevated costs associated with subterranean construction, an incentive/concession has been requested for placement of the parking structure above grade. Reasonable financial documentation has been prepared to justify the request. As proposed, the parking structure’s height of approximately 33 feet is less than the 35-foot height as identified in the Downtown Plan, demonstrates consistency with the Downtown Plan.
Access and Parking. Primary vehicular access to the proposed project would be provided along the southeastern portion of the site, from Cathcart Street, via a new one-way alley and parking garage entrance. The new alley would allow one-way access only in the northerly direction on the eastern edge of the project site, from Cathcart Street to Lincoln Street. The parking garage access is off of Cathcart Street, immediately west of the alley, and would allow both ingress and egress. Both access points would be improved with a new driveway approach.
As indicated above, a total of 243 parking spaces are proposed within the public parking garage. The project would also include 258 bicycle parking spaces located throughout the project site, of 140 are proposed Class I spaces that consist of individually enclosed, locked spaces. Class II bike spaces (i.e., bike racks) would be located along the sidewalk building entries and within the public parking garage along the pedestrian entry corridor. In addition, there would be separate, secured bike parking locations inside the parking garage for residential tenants and staff as well as library, daycare, and commercial employees.
The project includes frontage improvements along Cathcart Street, Cedar Street, and Lincoln Street per City standards, including curbs, gutters, and expanded sidewalks. The proposed
17.188
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -5- March 2023
sidewalks would be built 10 to 12 feet wide. The project also includes four loading/unloading parking spaces along Cedar Street and five on-street parking spaces along Lincoln Street. A bus stop would be provided on Cedar Street just north of the Cathcart Street.
Utilities and Stormwater Management. The project would connect to existing City water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain infrastructure and would be served by other City public services and private utilities for electricity and natural gas. The project would connect to existing sanitary sewer main within Cathcart Street and Cedar Street and to an existing water main in Cathcart Street. Stormwater would be treated on site through a biofiltration area and planters prior to conveyance into existing storm drains on Lincoln, Cedar, and Cathcart Streets.
Landscaping. The project would involve the removal of nine heritage trees, as defined by the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance. The project proposes to plant an 14 new 24-inch-box-sized, canopy street trees along the perimeter of the site. On the ground-level, the landscape plan includes new street plantings and raised steel planters which would support various landscape plants and ground cover. The project would be landscaped on the podium level (4th floor), with a garden area, gathering space, raise steel planters, and green roof above the library; these areas would be landscaped with various plants and groundcover. The project would be subject to provisions of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 16.16 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Construction Schedule. The project involves demolition of a single-story commercial building (totaling approximately 5,400 square feet), asphalt pavement throughout the site, and frontage improvements along Cathcart Street, Cedar Street, and Lincoln Street. Construction is expected to occur over approximately 2.5 years, commencing in the year 2024.
Reuse of the Existing Library. The proposed project would replace the existing library on Church Street, which is located on an approximate 59,000-square-foot site that includes public parking lots in addition to the existing downtown library. In 2020, the city initiated a reuse visioning process for the existing library that included an extensive public and stakeholder engagement process. Several potential public uses and components were considered and discussed for the existing library site, including parks, plazas, the farmers market, parking, and mixed-use and affordable housing. With input from approximately 550 participants, a “Mixed-Use Housing with Civic Plaza” option received the highest score, followed by a “Plaza + Park” with housing as the second choice. A “Library Structure Repurposed with Parking” option, which proposed to adaptively re-use the library structure for community or commercial uses, received the lowest score, and ranked lowest amongst the options (SOURCE V.3h
1 ).
At this time, there is no City Council-approved direction for the existing library if the proposed project is approved and constructed. While mixed-use housing with a public plaza received the highest ranking in the public visioning process, no option was selected as a preferred 1 All cited sources/references are identified in Section V at the end of this document.
17.189
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -6- March 2023
option, and other uses, such as community, institutional, or commercial uses, could be also be proposed as a part of a future project. Therefore, future uses at the existing library are speculative and cannot be reviewed at this time. When specific plans are developed and proposed for the existing library, separate environmental review and permit approvals would be required.
Relocation of the Farmers Market. The existing parking lot at the project site is the location of a weekly farmers Market sponsored by the Santa Cruz Community Farmers Markets (SCCFM). The City has been in ongoing discussions with SCCFM since late summer of 2017, working to establish a new permanent location for the Downtown Farmers Market with an improved site, enhanced community space, and opportunity for year-round operations and expansion with special events. One site has been identified that is located one block away from the existing site at City Parking Lot 7 at the corner of Cathcart and Front Streets (City of Santa Cruz 2023).
In October 2022, the City and SCCFM jointly agreed to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to further define the next steps involved in establishing ongoing temporary and permanent operations of the SCCFM Downtown Farmers Market in downtown Santa Cruz. In a joint statement, both parties acknowledged temporary market locations, developing plans for a market on Lot 7, continuing to identify other locations and funding for a permanent market in downtown, and continued operation of the market at the existing downtown location for the foreseeable future until SCCFM determines that surrounding construction impacts necessitate a relocation to a suitable alternative downtown site identified by SCCFM and the City. Appropriate environmental review and permitting would be conducted at the time a preferred permanent location for the weekly Downtown Farmers Market is selected.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located at 113 and 119 Lincoln Street in the City of Santa Cruz (City) on an 1.55- acre (67,921-square-foot) site. The project site is located on the eastern side of Cedar Street, immediately south of Lincoln Street and north of Cathcart Street. The site is bounded by Lincoln Street on the north, commercial development along Pacific Avenue on the east, Cathcart Street on the south, and Cedar Street on the west. The project site spans the full block between Lincoln and Cathcart Streets; see Figure 1.
The project site is located in the Cedar Street Village Corridor of Downtown Plan. The site is surrounded by primarily developed commercial uses and mixed-use developments within the City’s downtown area. An existing church is located to the west of the project site and Cedar Street.
Residential uses are located in mixed-used buildings to the east of the project site along Cathcart Street/Pacific Avenue, and several projects are currently under construction in the project vicinity, including a project to the west of the project site and Cedar Street, a project along Pacific Avenue south of Cathcart Street, and a project on Front Street to the east of the project site.
17.190
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -7- March 2023
The flat project site is paved and developed with a surface public parking lot that contains 134 parking spaces and one 5,400-square foot commercial building that is currently in use as a fitness gym. The parking lot is known as “Public Parking Lot 4.” The existing parking lot is the location of a weekly Farmers Market that is held year-round.
The project site contains 12 existing, non-native landscape trees throughout the subject property of varying condition. Of this total, nine trees are considered heritage trees pursuant to City regulations (SOURCE V.15c):
• 4 Southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora)
• 2 Chinese Pistache (Pistachia chinensis)
• 2 Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
• 1 Maidenhair (Ginkgo biloba)
17.191
Project Location
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2022, County of Santa Cruz 2020, OpenStreetMap Date: 1/19/2023 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD\Figure1_ProjectLocation.mxd 0 200 400Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
Gilroy
Morgan Hill
Los Gatos
Saratoga Campbell
Cupertino
Los
Altos Hills Santa
Clara
San Jose
Palo Alto
Santa Cruz
Watsonville
Portola
Valley
Capitola
San Juan
Bautista
Sunnyvale
S A N T A C R U Z
C O U N T Y
S a n M a t e o
C o u n t y
S a n t a C l a r a
C o u n t y
M o n t e r e y
C o u n t y
101
1 152
1 82
85 84 130
17 236
9 680
280
Project Site
17.192
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22 A1.2
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 50’-0”
N
352326('1(:6758&785(
6$17$&58= /,%5$5<0,;('86(
5(6,'(17,$/%,.(3$5.,1*
%,.(6
&/$66,
5(6,'(17,$/%,.(3$5.,1*
%,.(6
&/$66,
%,.(6
&/$66,,
%,.(6
&/$66,,
%,.(6
&/$66,,
/,%5$5<&200(5&,$/
'$<&$5(%,.(3$5.,1*
%,.(6
&/$66 ,
&('$5675((7
&$7+&$57675((7
/,1&2/1675((7
%,.(6
&/$66,,
%,.(6
&/$66,,
'$<&$5(
3/$<$5($
)/86+$&&(66
(
$'$
3$&,),&
%86,1(66
$&&(66
3$&,),&
%86,1(66
$&&(66
3$&,),&
6(59,&($5($
3$&,),&
$&&(66
/,1&2/1
6(59,&('225 3$&,),&
68,7( )$&&(66
3$&,),&
3$5.,1*$1'6(59,&(
$5($
5
(/(&
75$16)250(5
5(6,'(17,$/
*$5%$*(
/,%5$5<
*$5%$*(
/,%5$5<
/2$',1*
),5(5,6(5
/,%5$5<(175$1&(
0$,1 /,%5$5<
(17(5$1&(
3$5.,1**$5$*(
3('(675,$1
(175$1&(
3$5.,1**$5$*(
9(+,&8/$5
(175$1&(
5(6,'(17,$/
(175$1&(
5(6,'(17,$/
(175$1&(
&/5
RI
(;,67,1*675((7
3$5.,1*63$&(6
725(0$,121
/,1&2/1
(;,67,1*
21675((7
3$5.,1*63$&(6 72%(
5(029(' 72$&&2002'$7(
/$5*(56,'(:$/. 1(:
:,'(6,'(:$/.:,7+
/2$',1*81/2$',1*3$5.,1*
63$&(6
1(:
:,'(
6,'(:$/. 720$7&+
$'-$&(17
3$&,),&&$7+&$57
6,'(:$/. )5217$*(
(;,67,1*
21
675((73$5.,1*
63$&(672%(
5(029('21
&$7+&$5772
$&&2002'$7(
/$5*(56,'(:$/.
&/5
723/
21(:$<$//(<
&
21(:$<$//(<
/5
1(:
:,'(
6,'(:$/. 720$7&+
$'-$&(17 /,1&2/1
6,'(:$/. )5217$*(
%866723
3$5.,1**$5$*(
'$<&$5(
&200(5&,$/
/,%5$5<
0(&+$1,&$/
0DUVK6WUHHW
6DQ /XLV2ELVSR&$
LQIR#WHQRYHUVWXGLRFRP
ZZZWHQRYHUVWXGLRFRP 6&/,%5$5<0,;('86(
&('$5675((7 6$17$&58=&$/,)251,$
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SANTA CRUZ, CA
DATE: 09/08/22
COMMERCIAL
LIBRARY
DAYCARE
1 - B E D RO O M U N I T &
STUDIO
2-BEDROOM UNIT
3-BEDROOM UNIT
RES. SUPPORT SPACES
DECK
GREEN ROOF
GARAGE
Legend
A2.1
1ST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
6)
3$5.,1**$5$*(
6)
&200(5&,$/
6)
'$<&$5(
$
$
/,%5$5<
*$5%$*(
6833257
/,%5$5<
/2$',1*
/2%%<
6)
3/$<
5(6
*$5%$*(
5$0383
0$,/
(/(&
75$16)250(5
/2%%<
(9 ),5(
/,%5$5<
6)
%,.(
6725$*(
%,.(
6725$*(
$
$
$
$
$
$
6725$*(
0(&+$1,&$/
(9 (9 (9
(9
0DUVK6WUHHW
6DQ /XLV2ELVSR&$
LQIR#WHQRYHUVWXGLRFRP
ZZZWHQRYHUVWXGLRFRP 6&/,%5$5<0,;('86(
&('$5675((7 6$17$&58=&$/,)251,$
29(5$//)/2253/$1 /(9(/
Project Site Plan
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
FIGURE 2 SOURCE: TenOver 2022
Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD
17.193
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
539 Marsh
San Luis Ob
805.541.10
info@tenov
www.tenov
SC LIBRARY MIXED USE 600-698 CEDAR STREET
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
S A N TA C R U Z , C A
DATE: 0 9/ 08 / 2 2A3
1 WE S T E LE VATIO N
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
2 S OUTH EL E V ATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
K E YNO T E S
1. GLASS CURTAINWALL
2. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH
RAINSCREEN SYSTEM
3. WEATHERED WOOD TONGUE
SIDING
4. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH
5. GLASS RAILING AT LIBRARY
6. VINYL WINDOWS WITH BLAC
FINISH (AT RESIDENTIAL AR
7. 3-TONE INTEGRAL COLOR ST
METAL TRIM
8. SINGLE TONE FIELD COLOR
STUCCO
9. ACCENT INTEGRAL COLOR A
WINDOWS
10. HORIZONTAL CONCRETE BAS
FORM TEXTURE
11. OPEN AIR OPENING AT GARA
12. MAIN BUILDING SIGNAGE
13. GREEN ROOF
14. GLASS STOREFRONT
15. THERMALLY BROKEN ALUMIN
TOP OF ROOFTOP ACCESS STAIR: 95’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET: 91’-0”
Project Elevations
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
FIGURE 3A
Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD SOURCE: TenOver 2022
17.194
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01 0' - 0"
LEVEL 02 11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE 84' - 0"
LEVEL 03 22' - 0"
LEVEL 04 33' - 0"
LEVEL 05 44' - 0"
LEVEL 06 54' - 0"
LEVEL 07 64' - 0"
LEVEL 08 74' - 0"
539 Marsh St
San Luis Obis
805.541.1010
info@tenove
www.tenove
SC LIBRARY MIXED USE 600-698 CEDAR STREET SANTA CRUZ
CALIFORNIA
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
11' - 0"
ROOF TOP PLATE
84' - 0"
LEVEL 03
22' - 0"
LEVEL 04
33' - 0"
LEVEL 05
44' - 0"
LEVEL 06
54' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 0"
539 Marsh
San Luis O
805.541.10
info@teno
www.teno
SC LIBRARY MIXED USE 600-698 CEDAR STREET
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
[email protected]
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY & AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
S A N TA C R U Z , C A
DATE: 0 9/ 08 / 2 2A3
1 EAST E LE V ATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
2 NOR TH E LEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
TOP OF ROOFTOP ACCESS STAIR: 95’-0”
TOP OF PARAPET: 91’-0”
K E YNO T E S
1. GLASS CURTAINWALL
2. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH W
RAINSCREEN SYSTEM
3. WEATHERED WOOD TONGUE &
SIDING
4. GLASS CURTAINWALL WITH FR
5. GLASS RAILING AT LIBRARY R
6. VINYL WINDOWS WITH BLACK
FINISH (AT RESIDENTIAL AREA
7. 3-TONE INTEGRAL COLOR STU
METAL TRIM
8. SINGLE TONE FIELD COLOR IN
STUCCO
9. ACCENT INTEGRAL COLOR AT
WINDOWS
10. HORIZONTAL CONCRETE BASE
FORM TEXTURE
11. OPEN AIR OPENING AT GARAG
12. MAIN BUILDING SIGNAGE
13. GREEN ROOF
14. GLASS STOREFRONT
15. THERMALLY BROKEN ALUMINU
Project Elevations
530 Downtown Library and Affordable Housing ProjectStreet FIGURE 3B
Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD SOURCE: TenOver 2022
17.195
7,21
785(
785(
5(
(17$*(
785(
',80
72
$7<3(,$
67<3(,$
57<3(,,,$
%07<3(,$
(7<3(,$6
)5217$*(,1&
$//2:$%/()5
%8,/',1*$5($
0,;('2&&83$
(48$7,2
5(65
),567)/225
6(&21')/22
6(3$5$7('2&
7+,5')/225 67<3(,$6 81/,0,7('
$7<3(,$6 81/,0,7('
07<3(,$6
81/,0,7('
727$/
727$/
5(4
'5$7,2 3(5)/225 3(5(17,5(%8,/',1*
&2'(6(&7,21
,)$33/,&$%/(
&%&
7+(0$;,080%8,/',1*+(,*+7,1)((7
6+$//127(;&(('7+(/,0,766(7)257+,1
6(&7,21)257+(%8,/',1*+$9,1*7+(
60$//(5$//2:$%/(+(,*+7$60($685('
)520*5$'(3/$1(
$6287/,1('+(5(7+(60$//(67
$//2:$%/(+(,*+7)257+(9$5,28686(6,6
7+(57<3(,,,$
7$.,1*+(,*+7
,1&5($6(
727$/%8,/',1*+(,*+7:,//%(
)520),1,6+)/225727232)522)
'(&.
6+$)767$,5:$<5$03$1'(6&$/$725
(1&/2685(67+528*+7+(+25,=217$/
$66(0%/<6+$//+$9(127/(667+$1$
+5),5(5$7,1*:,7+23(1,1*3527(&7,9(6
$//67$,572:(56$1'6+$)76*2,1*
7+528*+7+(32',80&216758&7,21:,//
%(2)$+55$7('(1&/2685(:,7+
23(1,1*3527(&7,9(6
7+(%8,/',1*$%29(7+(+25,=217$/
$66(0%/<6+$//%(*5283$
,)/(667+$1
2&&83$176
25*5283%05256
7+(352326('%8,/',1*$%29(7+(32',80
,672%(5:,7+,1&,'(17$/86(6
3(57$,1,1*727+(586(
7+(%8,/',1*%(/2:7+(+25,=217$/
$66(0%/<6+$//%(3527(&7('
7+528*+287%<$1$33529('$8720$7,&
635,1./(56<67(0,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+
6(&7,21
$1'&$1%($1<
2&&83$1&<(;&(37+
7+((17,5(6758&785(:,//%()8//<
635,1./(5(':,7+$11)3$6<67(0$1'
7+(5(:,//%(127<3(+2&&83$1&<
352326('
32',80&2'(5(9,(:
6(&7,21
$%8,/',1*6+$//%(&216,'(5('$6
6(3$5$7($1'',67,1&7%8,/',1*6)257+(
385326(2)'(7(50,1,1*$5($/,0,7$7,216
&217,18,7<2)),5(:$//6/,0,7$7,212)
180%(52)6725,(6$1'7<3(2)
&216758&7,21:+(5(7+()2//2:,1*$5(
0(7
+25,=721$/+285$66(0%/<9(57,&$/
2))6(76$//2:('%870867$/62%(+5
7+(%8,/',1*%(/2:
,1&/8',1*7+(
+25,=217$/$66(0%/<
,62)7<3(,$
&216758&7,21
5(/$7,2172352326('6758&785(
5(6,'(17,$/72:(5,6&216,'(5('$
6(3$5$7(%8,/',1*&203/<,1*:,7+$5($
:,7+)5217$*(,1&5($6(
+5&21&5(7(32',80352326('
%(7:((15(6,'(17,$/72:(5$1'352*5$0
%(1($7+
*$5$*($1'&200(5&,$/
$//352*5$0(;&(377+(5(6,'(17,$/,672
%($&216758&7,21
7+,5')/225
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6)
/,%5$5<$
$
',$*21$/+$7&+$5($
,1',&$7(6 (;7(172)
+532',80
6(&7,21 6(&7,21
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+(,*
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6)
/,%5$5<$
$
',$*21$/+$7&+$5($
,1',&$7(6 (;7(172)
+532',80
6(&7,21 6(&7,21
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+(,*
+532
3$5.
5(
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6)
/,%5$5<$
$
',$*21$/+$7&+$5($
,1',&$7(6 (;7(172)
+532',80
6(&7,21 6(&7,21
3$5
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(
SECTION 0
SECTION 0
+(,*+7 6725,(6 352326('
$7<3(,$6 8/ 8/ 6725,(6
726758&785(
67<3(,$6 8/ 8/
57<3(,,,$6
)520*5$'(
:,7+287$5($
,1&5($6(
:,7+287$5($
,1&5($6(
%07<3(,$6 8/ 8/ 6725,(6
726758&785(
(7<3(,$6 8/ 8/ 6725<
726758&785(
)5217$*(,1&5($6(48$/,),(5
3(5,0(7(5
3 :,'7+
:
/(1*7+
)
3(5&(17$*(
!
2)23(163$&(38%/,&:$<
2)%8,/',1*2138%/,&:$<2523(163$&(:0,1,080
:,'7+
5(48,5(' $&78$/
48$/,),(6 <(6
$//2:$%/()5217$*(,1&5($6(
,I $5($)$&725,1&5($6('8(72)5217$*(
) 3(5,0(7(57+$7)521762138%/,&:$<
3 3(5,0(7(52)(17,5(%8,/',1*
: :,'7+2)38%/,&:$<2523(163$&(
,I
)3
:
,I
,I
%8,/',1*$5($&$/&8/$7,216)/225
$D $//2:$%/($5($
$W 7$%8/$5$5($)$&725
16 7$%8/$5$5($)$&725)2516%8,/',1*
,I $5($)$&725,1&5($6('8(72)5217$*(
6D
'()$&72180%(52)6725,(6
0,;('2&&83$1&<08/7,6725<
(48$7,21 $D >$W
16[,I
@
5(65,,,$ $D >
[
@ $D
)/225
$//2:$%/()/5 /$5*(67352326
'
$//2:$%/(%8,/',1*+(,*+76725,(6 $5($6
0,;('86(2&&83$1&,(6$//2:$%/(+(,*+7
6725,(6
726758&785(
6725,(6$%29(32',80
72
6758&785(
*
1'6+$)76*2,1*
0&216758&7,21:,//
(1&/2685(:,7+
'6758&785(
6&216,'(5('$
&203/<,1*:,7+$5($
5($6(
80352326('
/72:(5$1'352*5$0
'&200(5&,$/
77+(5(6,'(17,$/,672
1
+532',80
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$ 6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
6758&785(
7232)
/,%5$5<$
$6725,(6
*/$66
&/(5(6725<
7232)6758&785(
),5(6(3
0,1
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
$
&+$5($
(172)
6(&7,21
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
&200(5&,$/0
$6725,(6
6758&785(
7232)
+532',80
),5(6(3
0,1
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
+532',80
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$ 6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
6758&785(
7232)
/,%5$5<$
$6725,(6
*/$66
&/(5(6725<
7232)6758&785(
),5(6(3
0,1
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
$5($
2)
6(&7,21
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
&200(5&,$/0
$6725,(6
6758&785(
7232)
+532',80
),5(6(3
0,1
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
+532',80
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$ 6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
6758&785(
7232)
/,%5$5<$
$6725,(6
*/$66
&/(5(6725<
7232)6758&785(
),5(6(3
0,1
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
3$5.,1**$5$*(6
$6725,(6
5(6,'(17,$/5
$ 6725,(6
&200(5&,$/0
$6725,(6
6758&785(
7232)
+532',80
),5(6(3
0,1
7232)6758&785(
127(
$//+(,*+76$5(0($685(')5207232)6/$%
SECTION 01
SECTION 02
Project Building Heights
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
FIGURE 4 SOURCE: TenOver 2022
Path: Z:\Projects\CityofSantaCruz_AsNeeded\j971110_DowntownLibrary\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\PD
17.196
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -13- March 2023
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(b)(1)(C)). 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 or exemption 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 assignificant 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 decision-making 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.
17.197
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -14- March 2023
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, section 15183, subd. (f).)
B. Use of Earlier Analyses
General Plan 2030. 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 supplemented, as may be necessary, with any site-specific mitigation measures identified in the project-specific environmental review process.
17.198
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -15- March 2023
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 Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC) in the City’s General Plan 2030 and is zoned Central Business District (CBD). The proposed mixed-use project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. According to the General Plan, this designation “applies to areas that emphasize a variety of commercial uses that serve Santa Cruz residents as well as visitors. Mixed-use development is strongly encouraged in RVC districts.” For the Downtown Santa Cruz Area, the General Plan indicates that the Regional Visitor Commercial designation “emphasizes a mix of regional office and retail uses, residential and mixed-use developments, restaurants, and visitor attractions such as entertainment venues,” and that “the Downtown Recovery Plan provides detailed requirements for this area.” The General Plan allows a floor area ratio (FAR) for the Regional Visitor Commercial (RVC) land use designation in the downtown area of up to 5.0. The project’s proposed FAR is 4.08, which is within the allowed FAR established in the General Plan.
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 1,088,000 and 1,273,910 square feet of commercial and office uses, respectively, throughout the City by the year 2030 (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume-page 3-13). Since adoption of the General Plan, approximately 2,392 residential units and approximately 436,950 and 41,315 square feet of commercial and office space, respectively, have been constructed or approved throughout the City. Thus, the DLAHP’s proposed 124 residential units and 46,050 square feet of non-residential uses would be within the remaining residential and non-residential buildout estimates considered in the city-wide General Plan EIR impact analyses.
It is noted that there are some pending development projects in the City, including in the downtown area that have not been approved, but are expected to be presented to City decision-makers in the near future, and thus, are considered reasonably foreseeable. If approved, these pending projects would include 570 residential units and a net increase of approximately 134,500 square feet of non-residential uses. Even with these pending projects that could be approved in the near future, total residential units (3,086 units) and nonresidential development (approximately 687,915 square feet) with the proposed project and other approved and under construction projects would not exceed development estimates considered in the analyses in the General Plan EIR.
The proposed project is located within the “Downtown” neighborhood area that was identified in the General Plan 2030 EIR for the purposes of evaluating potential growth. The
17.199
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -16- March 2023
General Plan 2030 EIR identified additional development in the downtown neighborhood to include 299 residential units, approximately 38,900 square feet of commercial space, approximately 4,500 square feet of office space, and 82 hotel rooms. However, it is noted that the “Downtown” neighborhood in the General Plan 2030 EIR encompasses a larger area than is included within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan as further described below. In addition, the downtown area located along the San Lorenzo River east of Front Street is located in the “River/Front” neighborhood in the General Plan 2030 EIR, for which potential future development was estimated at 337 residential units and approximately 70,000 and 91,600 square feet of commercial and office space, respectively. Additional potential future development within the area covered in the Downtown Plan also was considered with amendments to the Downtown Plan that were approved in 2017 as discussed below.
Downtown Plan. The Santa Cruz City Council approved amendments to the Downtown Plan (formerly Downtown Recovery Plan [DRP]) in November 2017. The DRP was originally adopted in 1991 to guide reconstruction of the downtown after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake that destroyed significant portions of the downtown area. The intent of the DRP was to establish policies, development standards and guidelines to direct the recovery process toward the rebuilding after the earthquake. The DRP was adopted as a specific plan (pursuant to California Government Code requirements) to implement policies in the downtown area. Chapter 4 of the Downtown Plan, Development Standards and Design Guidelines, is incorporated by reference in Part 24 of the Zoning Code in the CBD zone.
A series of amendments to the DRP were proposed in 2017, including a change in the plan’s name to “Downtown Plan.” A program EIR was prepared pursuant to section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which evaluated effects of the 2017 Plan amendments. The amendments included additional height allowances under specified circumstances and other revised development standards that could lead to potential increased development in the downtown area. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR evaluated impacts of this level of potential future development and addressed aesthetics, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, public services, transportation and traffic, water and wastewater utilities, land use, and cumulative impacts.
While the proposed project site is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan, it is not located in one of the development areas evaluated in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, although a new library at the project site was considered in the cumulative impact analysis in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR.
Potential future development in the downtown area considered in the General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs was estimated at approximately 636 residential units and 42,750 square feet of non-residential uses. Additional potential future development within the area covered in the Downtown Plan also was considered with amendments to the Downtown Plan that were approved in 2017 to include a net increase of 711 residential units, approximately 2,200 square feet of office space, and a decrease in commercial space of approximately 14,700 square feet as evaluated in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR;
17.200
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -17- March 2023
further discussion of the Downtown Plan is provided below. Taken together, approximately 1,347 housing units and approximately 205,053 square feet of non-residential commercial and office space were considered in the analyses in the General Plan 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR. As indicated above, potential development estimates in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs were only estimates developed for the purpose of completing environmental analyses, but were not caps or development limits.
Since adoption of the General Plan 2030, approximately 1,200 residential units have been constructed or approved in the “Downtown” and “River/Front” neighborhoods, which include the General Plan neighborhoods included within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan, and there has been a net reduction of approximately 3,300 square feet of non-residential space.
With the proposed project, cumulative residential units in the downtown area would total 1,324 units, which is slightly below the total number of residential units considered for development (1,347 units) in the General Plan 2030 and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs.
Additionally, with the proposed project, non-residential development would have result in a net increase of approximately 46,050 square feet, which is approximately one-quarter of the amount of non-residential space (205,000 square feet) considered in the General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs. Thus, the proposed 124 residential units and 46,050 square feet of non-residential uses are within the amount of development considered in the Downtown Plan areas.
It is noted that there is one pending mixed-use development project in the downtown area that has not been approved, but is expected to be presented to City decision-makers in the near future, and if approved, would include 276 residential units and a net decrease in commercial square footage. With this pending project, total residential units would exceed estimates considered in the analyses in the General Plan 2030 and Downtown Plan EIRs by 250 units, but would still be within the overall development and growth projections considered in the General Plan EIR. In addition, there is one pending non-residential development project that may be considered by City decision makers within the next six months. Although not a mixed-use project like the proposed DLAHP, it would result in addition of approximately 133,600 square feet of commercial space as a new hotel. However, when added to other approved and constructed non-residential space, including the DLAHP, non-residential square footage would be less than the amount considered in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and General Plan EIR.
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 Plan2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments EIR to determine whether the project’s impacts have been adequately analyzed in the EIRs 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 and/or Downtown Plan Amendments 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
17.201
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -18- March 2023
significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR and/or Downtown Plan Amendments EIR or new significant impacts 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 would substantially mitigate an environmental effect. Therefore, the following review includes mitigation measures identified in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and/or General Plan EIR that would be applicable to the site or project and/or relevant applicable development policies or standards that would be applied to the project.
The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and General Plan 2030 EIR are on file at the City’s Planning and Community Development Department, 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, California from 7:30 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:
• General Plan 2030 and EIR at:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-andcommunity-development/long-range-policy-planning/general-plan • Downtown Plan Amendments EIR at:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessD irectory/101/2849
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, visual character); agricultural and forest resources; air quality (conflicts with Air Quality Management Plan, project emissions, sensitive receptors, odors); biological resources (special status species, riparian, wetland or other sensitive habitat, conflicts with plans); cultural resources (historical resources); energy; greenhouse gas emissions (conflict with plans); hazards/hazardous materials (use/disposal of hazardous materials, create hazard, airport safety, emergency response, wildfire hazards); hydrology-water quality (groundwater, flood risk, conflicts with plans); land use; mineral resources; noise and vibration; population and housing; public services; recreation; transportation (conflicts with program, policy, design, emergency access); utilities (infrastructure, 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 (light and glare); biological resources (nesting birds, conflicts with local tree ordinance); cultural resources (archaeological resources, human burials); geology and soils (seismic, geologic hazards, erosion, soils, paleontological resources); greenhouse gas emissions; hazards/hazardous materials (exposure to hazardous materials); hydrology/water quality (drainage and water quality); transportation (conflict
17.202
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -19- March 2023
with CEQA Guidelines); tribal cultural resources; utilities (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
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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 on a
scenic vista?
DEIR pp. 4.1-9
to 4.1-10
FEIR pp. 4-41,
43 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 p. 4.1-11
FEIR pp. 4-41
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. 4.1-11
to 4.1-16
FEIR pp. 4-41-
43, 4-74, 4-89
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,
Downtown Plan
development
standards
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
DEIR pp. 4.1-16
to 4.1-17
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 the developed downtown area of the City of Santa Cruz.
The visual character of downtown is defined by existing development along tree-lined streets. The General Plan 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 City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR (SOURCE V.1b-DEIR Figure 4.3-1), the project site is not located within any mapped panoramic view areas and is not located within proximity to identified
17.203
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -20- March 2023
visual landmarks. The project is located in a developed, urban area, and no scenic views are available from the project site. Urban views, including those of the downtown project area, are identified along the San Lorenzo levee, (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume), further east of the project site.
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 Downtown Plan Amendments EIR concluded that construction of buildings with increased height and FAR allowed under the Downtown Plan amendments would not obstruct or remove scenic views downtown.
The proposed project 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 Downtown Plan Amendments 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 highway2. The project site is developed with one commercial building and a paved, public parking lot. There are no structures or features on the project site that would be considered scenic resources. As described above in Section IV.E.1(a), the project site is not in proximity to and would not impact any “visual landmarks” identified in the General Plan EIR.
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). The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR determined that development allowed under the Downtown Plan amendments would not have an adverse effect on scenic resources as none are present in the downtown area.
The project would result in the removal of 12 existing trees that are on the project site; nine of the trees to be removed are considered heritage trees under City regulations. Although nine to be removed are of heritage size as defined by City regulations, and several trees are larger trees that are visible along Cedar Street and in the immediate vicinity of the project site, 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 2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2023. Scenic Highways. Accessed January 17, 2023 at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenichighways.
17.204
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -21- March 2023
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 in the Downtown Plan Amendments 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. The project site is developed and surrounded primarily by developed commercial uses and mixed-use developments within the City’s downtown area. An existing church is located to the west of the project site and Cedar Street. Residential uses are located in mixed-used buildings to the east of the project site along Cathcart Street/Pacific Avenue, and several projects are currently under construction in the project vicinity, including a project to the west of the project site and Cedar Street, a project along Pacific Avenue south of Cathcart Street, and a project on Front Street to the east of the project site.
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.
As set forth in the General Plan, the Downtown Plan provides the detailed development requirements for the Downtown area. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR analyzed potential aesthetics impacts related to allowing increased heights in the downtown area, although no site-specific development plans for any particular parcel were available or reviewed, and the project site was not included in one of the “additional height” areas evaluated in the EIR. However, the Downtown Plan does allow development with taller buildings and standards such as building recesses, required upper floor stepbacks, and recessed breaks to promote the appearance of multiple buildings of varying heights, and to avoid the development of monolithic building. As a result, the Downtown Plan concluded that building mass of taller buildings would be broken up and there would not be full site area coverage where additional heights may be allowed. The Downtown Plan also includes design guidelines and standards that address architectural features, including building facades and windows, as well as building materials, colors, and lighting. Furthermore, the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR indicated that the continued landscaping with street trees, specifically along Pacific Avenue and Front Street, would further screen upper floors, soften views of building mass from distant views, and maintain pedestrian-level building scale, which would be applicable to other downtown areas as well.
The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR concluded that with implementation of requirements to limit the footprint of taller building area, provision of recesses, implementation of design treatments to minimize building mass, and compliance with the Downtown Plan development standards and design guidelines, potential intensified development resulting from potential additional allowed heights would not significantly alter the visual character of the downtown area.
This conclusion also is consistent with CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21099), which provides that aesthetic impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment, although design review would still be required pursuant to local City requirements and regulations.
17.205
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -22- March 2023
“Infill site” means a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses. “Transit priority area” means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned.
The project qualifies as mixed-use project on an infill site in a transit priority area (approximately 350 feet northwest of the Santa Cruz Metro Center on Pacific Avenue).
The proposed project is located in the Cedar Street Village Corridor of the Downtown Plan. East of Cedar Street, where development may be allowed to exceed 35 feet on a discretionary basis to a maximum height of 50 feet (4 floors maximum). The granting of additional height above 35 feet is discretionary and requires a Design Permit with the recommendation of the Planning Director to the City Council, which must approve the additional height. In addition, approximately 50 feet on the eastern edge of the project site is located within “Additional Height Zone A,” which allows building heights to 75 feet with specified development standards. The granting of building height above the 55-foot base height limit in Additional Height Zone A is discretionary and requires a Design Permit with the recommendation of the Director of Planning to the City Council, which must approve the additional height. Projects that qualify for a density bonus as allowed under either State law or Cityadopted density bonus ordinance are eligible for the additional height increase. It also is noted that the Downtown Plan indicates that projects that closely conform to the development standards, but with slight variations may be considered upon demonstration that the resulting project will better achieve stated Plan and community objectives. Such variations shall be minor in nature and must receive a positive recommendation from the Planning Director, with final approval by the City Council (section J.1).
The three-story elements of the proposed project (parking garage and commercial space) have a height of 33 feet, which is below the 35-foot height limit established in the Downtown Plan. The proposed library also is generally under 35 feet in height except for one element that extends to 47 feet in height, but does not exceed 50 feet in height which is allowed with discretionary approval.
The 5-story residential component of the proposed project reaches a height of 84 feet (and 91 feet with parapets), which exceeds both the 75-foot maximum height allowed in “Additional Height Zone A” in the eastern portion of the site and also the 50-foot height limit on the portion of the site not located in the “Additional Height Zone A”. Figure 4 provides a conceptual depiction of the proposed building heights.
The proposed project is eligible for requesting additional height to 75 feet for the eastern portion of the site located within “Additional Height Zone A” if the City makes findings that the project is consistent with the following overarching City objectives (Downtown Plan, pages 72-73):
i. The additional height will help to achieve the First Principles of the Downtown Plan (e.g. form, housing, accessibility and open space).
ii. The additional height will contribute to an improved social and economic environment by including new housing.
iii. The form of the development promotes the appearance of a grouping of buildings rather than large, monolithic building masses.
17.206
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -23- March 2023
iv. The development receiving additional height will physically and/or financially contribute its fair share (through an Improvement District, Development Agreement or similar mechanisms) to the implementation of internal pedestrian connections between Pacific Avenue and Front Street.
v. The additional height will help to meaningfully achieve one or more of the following key community objectives, including but not limited to: Affordable Housing, Day Care Center, exceed Green Building minimums, Incubator Space for Small Business, Public Access Easements, Public Right-of-way Improvements, Publicly Accessible Open Space, Structured or Shared Parking, and Transportation Demand Management concepts.
The proposed project would result in a building height of 84 feet, which is higher than other buildings in the immediate vicinity due to the requested waiver required for qualifying projects that include density bonus units. The height also exceeds the additional 75-foot heights that could be allowed on the eastern portion of the project site. However, the proposed project is similar in height and scale as three approved mixed-use projects in the downtown area that are also designated RVC in the General Plan 2030, and which have approved heights of 81 to 85 feet. Furthermore, the Downtown Plan permits additional height to 85 feet in the area to the east of the project site between Pacific Avenue and Front Street on the west and east, and Cathcart Street and Laurel Street on the north and south, respectively. The additional 85-foot height can also be allowed on the west side of Front Street between Cathcart Street and Soquel Avenue. In addition, there are two other buildings in the downtown area that exceed 80 feet in height, the Palomar Hotel and 110 Cooper Street (City of Santa Cruz 2017). Therefore, there are other existing, approved, and under construction projects with similar or slightly greater heights than the proposed project, and existing City plans allow for height up to 85 feet under specified conditions in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed building height for the residential portion of the building, which exceeds the allowable additional building height, would not in and of itself be considered an unusual feature of the project because other buildings of similar size exist, are under construction, or could be constructed under existing city plans and regulations on similarly sized, infill sites as the proposed project.
The proposed project’s building height for the residential portion of the project would visually appear as a taller building with one or two stories visible behind existing buildings on Pacific Avenue. Given other buildings approved and being constructed in the downtown area and elsewhere in the city, the additional height would not, when viewed in proximity of other larger buildings, be considered an unusual circumstance. Additionally, the taller portion of the building is primarily confined to the eastern edge of the site, with lower building heights that are consistent with City standards being located along the Cedar Street frontage. This is consistent with the Downtown Plan’s standards call for horizontal and vertical variation to create the appearance of multiple buildings that are more in keeping with the surrounding area. The Plan states that “Additional height – even up to 85 feet in the Additional Height Zone A – can be absorbed appropriately if it is confined to a portion of a property, rather than as a massive block, terraced back from the street.” As indicated in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR, there is no required presumption under CEQA that taller buildings are necessarily a substantial adverse change in the existing visual environment.
Such determinations are made on a case-by-case basis at a lead agency’s discretion and in consideration of the relevant environmental setting or context, which here, is a nearly fully developed
17.207
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -24- March 2023
urban area. Future proposed buildings with additional height would not be considered to be substantially out of scale with other existing buildings in the downtown area (City of Santa Cruz 2017).
The City has found that the proposed project is consistent with the overarching objectives of the Downtown Plan, although the 5-story residential component exceeds both the 75-foot maximum height allowed in “Additional Height Zone A” in the eastern portion of the site and also the 50-foot height limit on the portion of the site not located in the “Additional Height Zone A”.
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 review and approval would be considered an 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. Per the CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist (Appendix G) 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. In an urbanized area, a project that conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality could be considered to result in a significant impact. However, there are no regulations governing scenic quality applicable to the project site. There are some regulations regarding scenic views in the coastal zone, but the project is not located in the coastal zone.
The additional height allowed by an approved waiver pursuant to the density bonus law would not be considered to conflict with zoning standards. The court decision in Wollmer v. City of Berkeley expressly held that the waivers a city was required to grant for a density-bonus-eligible project did not result in planning and zoning inconsistencies that disqualified the project from the categorical exemption for in-fill development, because the mandatory nature of the waivers meant that those waived standards were inapplicable to the project. The Court found that “taking these laws together as they operate in the context of a density bonus project, it is clear that the waived zoning standards are not “applicable” and that the requirements of Guidelines section 15332, subdivision (a) were met.” Therefore, based on the City’s analyses and the Wollmer decision, the project with density bonus units and the requested height waiver is consistent with the zone district designation and all applicable zoning regulations.
Furthermore, as previously indicated, CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21099) states that aesthetic impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an in-fill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment, although design review would still be required pursuant to local City requirements and regulations.
17.208
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -25- March 2023
The project site is considered an in-fill site and also is located within a transit priority area. City staff has reviewed the project and made the required findings for issuance of a Design Permit.
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 building lighting. 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 infill 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 infill 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 exterior building lighting in the downtown 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 sky-reflected glare. Furthermore, the Design Permit review that is required for most larger development projects would ensure project compliance with City standards and regulations.
The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR indicated that exterior building lighting would be further reviewed as part of the Design Permit review for future site-specific developments, which would be conditioned to install lighting such that it is directed downward and would not create light onto adjacent properties. The Downtown Recovery Plan requires buildings to provide low-level lighting in the building façade. Therefore, the EIR concluded that the Plan amendments and future development would not result in a significant impact related to creation of a new source of substantial light or glare.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe light and glare impacts than evaluated in the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and the General Plan 2030 EIR.
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 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.
17.209
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -26- March 2023
2. AGRICULTURE AND
FOREST RESOURCES3
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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 Appendix
A p.23
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 Appendix
A p.23
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 Appendix
A p.23
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 Appendix
A p.23
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 Appendix
A p.23
DEIR pp. 4.15-3,
4.15-5 to 4.15-8
No No None
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 3 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.
17.210
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -27- March 2023
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 Downtown Plan Amendments EIR noted that no agricultural lands or timber resources are located in the downtown area. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to agriculture and forest resources would not occur or would be less than significant as a result of future development accommodated by the General Plan.
The project site is not located in the areas adjacent to agricultural lands or timber resources. The proposed project would not 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 Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and 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 QUALITY4
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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. 4.2-17
to 4.2-18
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. 4.2-19
to 4.2-21DEIR p.
5-8
DEIR pp. 4.11-6
to 4.11-7,
4.11-9 to
4.11-10, 4.11-18
to 4.11-34
FEIR pp. 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
4 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.
17.211
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -28- March 2023
3. AIR QUALITY4
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
DEIR Appendix
A pp. 25 to 26
DEIR pp. 4.11-7
to 4.11-8,
4.11-10 to
4.11-11,
4.11-18, 4.11-24
to 4.11-26
No No None
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 26
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.10a).
For population-related projects, the MBARD developed a procedure that compares existing, underconstruction, and approved residential dwelling units with AMBAG’s housing unit forecast for a jurisdiction, as dwelling units are closely related to population and can be tracked within local jurisdictions; therefore, the number of dwelling units is used as the method for determining consistency with the AQMP. Consistency of indirect emissions associated with commercial, industrial, or institutional projects intended to meet the needs of the population as forecast in the AQMP is determined by comparing the estimated current population of the county in which the project is to be located with the applicable population forecast in the AQMP. If the estimated current population does not exceed the forecasts, indirect emissions associated with the project are deemed to be consistent with the AQMP. Projects which are consistent with AMBAG’s regional forecasts have been accommodated in the AQMP and are therefore consistent with the AQMP (SOURCE 8a and 8b).
The MBARD’s most recent 2015 AQMP utilized AMBAG’s 2014 Regional Growth Forecast. The City had 24,250 existing dwelling units as of January 1, 2022 (California Department of Finance 2022), and
17.212
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -29- March 2023
approximately 1,711 residential units are under construction or have been approved throughout the City, including residential development at the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC)5. With the addition of these units, the City’s housing units would total 25,961dwelling units. That number would increase to 26,085 dwelling units with the addition of the proposed project, which is below the AMBAG Regional Growth Forecast of 28,297 dwelling units for the year 2030 that were factored into the AQMP. Similarly, City population with the proposed project and other approved and underconstruction housing units would total 70,607, which is below the AQMP forecast of 73,375 in the year 2030, and thus, the non-residential components of the proposed project, which are intended to serve the local population, would be consistent with the AQMP. 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 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, including those under construction, do not exceed adopted regional housing forecasts upon which the existing AQMP as explained above.
Thus, there would be no impact related to conflicts with the current adopted AQMP. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR also determined that growth that could be accommodated by the Downtown Plan amendments would be within the AMBAG forecast at the time and, thus, would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP (based on the 2014 Regional Growth Forecast).
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 in the Downtown Plan Amendments 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 5 Residential projects at UCSC are primarily student housing projects, and there is one approved employee housing project.
In general, part-year student housing is considered group quarters and year-round faculty / student family housing is counted as housing units (SOURCE V.4a). For the 2014 forecast used in the AQMP, University population and housing projections were completed separately from jurisdiction population projections (SOURCE V.4c). For the purpose of this review and in accordance with current AMBAG guidance, approved employee housing is considered as housing units, and student housing is considered group quarters and is not included as housing units, but the population accommodated by new student housing is included in the population estimates.
17.213
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -30- March 2023
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.10a).
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 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 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 project-level 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-than-significant 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.
17.214
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -31- March 2023
The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Downtown Plan amendments would result in construction-related emissions of air pollutants, but that the impact would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and MBARD-recommended measures to control construction emissions, as applicable. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR determined that operational emissions would not exceed emissions thresholds.
The proposed project would result in construction of a mixed-use development, consisting of a new public library, 124 affordable housing units, a net increase of approximately 6,550 square feet of commercial space, a childcare facility, and public parking. The project would indirectly generate air pollutant emissions through new regional vehicle trips. 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.10b), 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 1.55 acres in size, which is below the screening-level threshold.
However, project air emissions were modeled for operational and construction emissions to comply with MBARD CEQA Guidelines and also included modeling for operational emissions, using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, and as shown, 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
2024 1.38 19.96 14.46 0.05 3.38 1.84
2025 4.52 7.68 10.26 0.03 1.96 0.67
2026 4.52 9.23 10.96 0.02 0.68 0.52
Maximum Daily
Emissions 4.52 19.96 14.46 0.05 3.38 1.84
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
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.
Emissions thresholds are included in MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2008).
CalEEMod model results are on file with the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department.
17.215
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -32- March 2023
Table 2. Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emission Source
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
Project
Area 3.92 0.12 10.24 <0.01 0.06 0.06
Energy 0.06 0.3 0.34 <0.01 0.04 0.04
Mobile 7.22 6.90 59.08 0.09 10.32 2.80
Total 11.20 7.56 69.66 0.10 10.42 2.90
Existing
Area 0.15 <0.01 0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01
Energy <0.01 0.04 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Mobile 1.22 1.34 9.88 0.01 1.25 0.35
Total 1.37 1.37 9.91 0.01 1.29 0.36
Net Change in Emissions
Net Change (Project – Existing) 9.83 6.19 59.74 0.09 9.13 2.54 MBARD Threshold 137 137 550 150 82 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No N/A
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.
Emissions thresholds are included in MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2008).
CalEEMod model results 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 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments 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 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; no significant impacts were identified, and project emissions would be within the lessthan-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 2030 EIR and Downtown Plan Amendments 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
17.216
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -33- March 2023
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.10b). There are no sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site, however, a residential project is under construction across the street from the site, west of Cedar Street. 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.10b), land uses associated with odor complaints typically include landfills, agricultural uses, wastewater treatment 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.
17.217
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -34- March 2023
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
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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. 4.3-17
to 4.3-18
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
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
DEIR pp. 4.3-18
to 4.3-22
FEIR p. 2-4 to
2-5, 3-2
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
to 4.8-41,
4.8-48 to 4.8-51
FEIR p. 3-22
No No
GP Action
NR2.4.1 & GP
Table 1-
Assessment and
Management
Protocols for
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 p. 4.3-17
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
17.218
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -35- March 2023
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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
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. 4.3-17,
4.3-22
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
pre-construction
nesting bird
surveys
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 p. 4.3-17 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. 4.3-17
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
(a-c) Special-Status Species, Sensitive Habitat. The project site is developed with a public parking lot and one commercial building with 12 existing non-native, landscape trees. 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 or adjacent to a sensitive habitat area (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.8-3), and there are no known endangered or threatened species on or adjacent to the site due to the site’s location within a developed urban area (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). A data base search was conducted to further determine whether any rare, threatened, or endangered species are known to occur on or adjacent to the site or have the potential to occur on the site. The review included the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the
17.219
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -36- March 2023
federal Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) data base, and the California Native Plant Society’s Rare Plant Inventory. The review did not identify any special-status species occurring on or near the site, and concluded that there is no potential habitat to support special-status species on the project site (SOURCE V.16b). Therefore, the project site does not contain sensitive habitat or habitat for special-status species, and the project would result in no impact to sensitive habitat or special status species.
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. The General Plan 2030 requires environmental impact analyses for development in the vicinity of sensitive habitats (General Plan NCR2.1.3, NCR2.4 and NCR2.4.1), but the project site is not located in the vicinity of sensitive habitats as explained above. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR also concluded that future development would not result in indirect impacts to adjacent San Lorenzo River riparian or aquatic sensitive habitat with compliance with setbacks established in existing City plans, including the City-wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan, which references the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan as the guiding management plan for the area. The project site is not located adjacent to or near the San Lorenzo River.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts to special-status species or sensitive habitat 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. (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, that is included the General Plan 2030, prescribes 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 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.
17.220
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -37- March 2023
The project involves the removal of 12 trees. The trees on 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. Compliance with the MBTA would require that either a pre-construction nesting survey be conducted to confirm that no nesting birds protected under the MBTA are present if trees or removed during the nesting season or to remove trees outside of the nesting season. Compliance with required regulations would not result in a significant impact. Furthermore, General Plan Action NCR2.4.1 and Table 1 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.
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. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR includes Mitigation Measure 4.3.3 that requires a pre-construction nesting survey be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist if construction, including tree removal, adjacent to the San Lorenzo River is scheduled to begin during the nesting season. As indicated above, the project site is not located adjacent to or near the San Lorenzo River. Therefore, potential project impacts would be considered less than significant with application of the Downtown Plan Amendments EIR Mitigation Measure
4.3.3 requiring a pre-construction nesting survey, as well as General Plan policies that establish protocols for pre-construction nesting surveys and compliance with state and federal laws. There would be no significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards. 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 12 nonnative trees due to the proposed construction footprint, nine of which qualify as heritage trees as defined by the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance. Therefore, the project would require a heritage tree removal permit. The project plans show 14 new canopy 24-inch-box-sized street trees would be planted along the perimeter of the site. The heritage trees to be removed include four magnolia, two Chinese pistache, two liquid amber, and one ginkgo trees. The arborist report indicated that the physiological condition of the trees is typical of mature trees in restricted growing spaces surrounded by hardscape and overall decline and other conditions were observed (SOURCE V.15a,c).
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 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.
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,
17.221
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -38- March 2023
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 project includes replanting of 14 24-inch-box-sized street trees in accordance to city requirements. 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.
It is noted that on October 12, 2022, an application for a Heritage Tree Removal Permit was submitted to the Director of Parks and Recreation in conjunction with the proposed project, in accordance with the City’s Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 9.56, Preservation of Heritage Trees and Heritage Shrubs. The application requested removal of nine non-native, heritage trees as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 9.56. The Heritage Tree Removal Permit was approved by the City’s Urban Forester on October 18, 2022, making the required findings in accordance with Municipal Code section
9.56.060(e). On October 27, 2022, an appeal of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit was submitted; an appeal requires consideration by the City Parks and Recreation Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission considered and denied the appeal on December 10, 2022. Subsequently, the City Council on January 10, 2023, per applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, “called up” the heritage tree permits so as to assure that all heritage tree issues would be considered by the City Council at the same time the Council considers the other applications for the permits required by the DLAHP.
A Heritage Tree Removal Permit constitutes a discretionary permit reviewed through a process in parallel with the application for other entitlements for any project. The Municipal Code, including Chapter 9.56, contains no requirement for approval of use permits prior to, or concurrent with, granting of entitlement for a Heritage Tree Removal Permit. However, as the Heritage Tree Removal Permit application has been submitted in conjunction with the proposed DLAHP, the application for Heritage Tree Removal Permit may also be considered as part of the overall DLAHP. (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.
17.222
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -39- March 2023
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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 defined in Section
15064.5?
DEIR pp. 4.4-13
to 4.4-14
DEIR pp. 4.9-12
to 4.9-14,
4.9-15, 4.9-21,
4.9-23 to 4.9-24
Yes Yes None
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
DEIR pp. 4.4-12
to 4.4-13
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
Objective
Standard to
require
compliance with
archaeological
report
recommenddations
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
DEIR pp. 4.4-12
to 4.4-13
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 a commercial building that was constructed in 1941 that is considered a simplified Streamline Modern style (SOURCE V.18).
A historical resources evaluation was conducted for the existing commercial building at 113 Lincoln Street that was constructed in 1941 to determine whether either structure is a historical resource under the definitions in CEQA. The building has been altered considerably with a 1980 storefront remodeling campaign, removal of the original entrance, and a 1986 rear addition. Given the changes made to what was a modest original design, the evaluation found that the building no longer possesses sufficient historic integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship feeling and association for it to qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The evaluation also concluded that the existing building on the project site is not eligible for the Santa Cruz Historic Resources Inventory because the building does not meet City preservation criteria and has been altered substantially (SOURCE V.18).
Therefore, the existing structure on the project site is not a historical resource under the definition of CEQA.
17.223
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -40- March 2023
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 result of demolition of the existing building at the project site. 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. 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.12). The NWIC records search indicated that no archaeological studies have been conducted on the project site and no resources have been previously identified on the project site. Ten resources have been recorded within a one-quarter mile radius of the project site, and five archaeological studies have been conducted within a 500-foot radius of the project site. Visual inspection of the project site did not reveal evidence of precolonial or historic-era artifacts or intact archaeological deposits. However, an archaeological investigation for the project concluded that potentially significant cultural materials may be located in the project area and recommended an extended site evaluation to locate subsurface resources, consisting of trenches to the depths of impacts in locations where historic maps indicate potential resources (SOURCE V.12).
An extended testing program was undertaken that consisted of trenches throughout the project site.
The testing found five historical-period features in the west central portion of the project site, and the results indicate that much of the site contains intermittent, shallow, and thin sheet deposit of scattered historical period artifacts associated with the mid- to late nineteenth and early to midtwentieth century. The location and characteristics suggest these are examples of parcel-level dumping events indicative of residential refuse disposal behavior prior to centralized refuse collection that began in the mid-twentieth century. The testing did not reveal evidence of the existence of any archaeological resources or deposits. No prehistoric archaeological materials of any kind were found during the testing (SOURCE V.16a).
Evaluation of the five features concluded that they do not rise to a level where they could be found eligible for listing under the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) criteria and integrity requirements or under local criteria. Specifically, the features cannot be associated with a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage or with the lives of persons important in our past. As relatively casual dumping events, there are no distinctive characteristics present, and the features clearly do not represent the work of an important creative individual, nor do they possess high artistic values. As numerous other examples of such deposits exist with greater integrity and historic associations, the features are not likely to yield information important to history. Therefore, these resources are not considered historic resources under CEQA (SOURCE V.16a). The project site was tested, except for the area covered by the existing building. There
17.224
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -41- March 2023
is a moderate potential for encountering additional similar artifacts during construction. While it is not expected that additional deposits would meet the definition of a historical resource, archaeological monitoring during grading is recommended. However, any artifacts found would be expected to be similar to those already recovered, which would not be considered historical resources.
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. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR also concluded that compliance with City regulations and General Plan policies and actions (would result in less-than-significant impacts on archaeological resources.
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, although monitoring during demolition and grading were recommended. The project would not 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.
17.225
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -42- March 2023
6. ENERGY
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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. 5-1 to
5-3
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?
DEIR pp. 5-2 to
5-3
DEIR pp. 4.6-46;
5-5
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 is in proximity to bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the area, which would provide incentives for non-automobile transportation modes. The project provides 258 bicycle parking stalls, which exceeds City standards by about 61 spaces and also provides 15 electric vehicle parking spaces that would be available to residents and visitors. 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 water conservation fixtures and features, including drought-resistant landscaping. 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 124 dwelling units, a 38,000-square-foot public
17.226
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -43- March 2023
library, a childcare facility, and approximately a net increase of 6,550 square feet of commercial space. This level of development would be within the overall amount of 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.
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
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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 Appendix
A pp. 32 to 33
DEIR pp. 4.10-7
to 4.10-9,
4.10-20
No No None
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? DEIR Appendix
A pp. 32 to 33
DEIR pp. 4.10-6
to 4.10-14,
4.10-21 to
4.10-23
No No
General Plan
Action HZ6.3.1
Municipal Code
section
18.04.030
(California
Building Code
adoption,
including
Seismic Design
Criteria)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
DEIR Appendix
A pp. 32 to 33
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
17.227
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -44- March 2023
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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
investigation
requirements
regarding
geotechnical
investigations
iv) Landslides? DEIR Appendix
A pp. 32 to 33
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 Appendix
A p. 33
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 Appendix
A pp. 32 to 33
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 substantial risks to life or
property? DEIR Appendix
A p. 33
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
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?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 33 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. 4.4-14
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
17.228
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -45- March 2023
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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
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 11 miles to the northeast, and the San Gregorio, approximately 10 miles to the west. Other known active faults in the vicinity of the site include the Zayante – Vergeles (approximately 8 miles northeast of the site), the Monterey Bay-Tularcitos (approximately 6 southwest of the site), and the Sargent (approximately 12 miles northeast of the site) (SOURCE V.14). 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, the project site is located in an area susceptible to liquefaction (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.14). The soils consisted generally of 1 to 5.5 feet of undocumented fill, which consist of loose silty sand and loose poorly graded sand with silt. Below the undocumented fill, native alluvial soils consisted of loose to medium dense silty sand and poorly graded sand with silt to a depth of approximately 16 feet; additional alluvial soils with dense to very dense poorly graded sand were found to a depth of 60 feet.
The geotechnical report noted that groundwater was encountered between 9 to 11 feet below grade during the exploratory borings.
The geotechnical report concludes that there is a potential for liquefaction of soils, which could cause liquefaction-induced settlement to the order of 5 ⅔ to 6 ½ inches, resulting in differential settlement up to 4 ¼ inches. To address this concern, the report recommends specific design parameters for the proposed building’s foundation and ground improvement. The report also states that there is the potential for ground deformation and surficial cracking and lateral spreading. To address these concerns, the report recommends that the mixed-use building be supported on shallow foundation overlying ground improvement. Furthermore, the report recommends that the ground floor slab be
17.229
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -46- March 2023
either underlain by ground improvement as well, or be designed as structural slab capable of spanning between footings. Implementation of these recommendations would be verified through design documents that would 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 existing 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). 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 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.
17.230
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -47- March 2023
(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 Baywood loamy sand, 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).
The project would result in grading and excavation of approximately 1,100 cubic yards (cy) of soil that would be removed with approximately 150 cy of fill provided. 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 from north to south. Project earthwork 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. 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 postconstruction. 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 Baywood loamy sand, which has a low expansive soil potential. As discussed above, a project geotechnical investigation 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 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
17.231
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -48- March 2023
(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.
17.232
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -49- March 2023
8. GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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. 4.2-21
to 4.2-22
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
Municipal Code
Chapter 6.100
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
DEIR pp. 4.2-17
to 4.2-18
DEIR pp.
4.12-18 to
4.12-20, 4.12-29
to 4.12-31
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.
17.233
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -50- March 2023
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 2017 Scoping Plan identified a balanced mix of strategies to meet the State’s 2030 GHG limit.
The current 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) was approved by CARB on December 15, 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path not just to carbon neutrality by 2045, but also to the 2030 GHG emissions reduction target. The 2022 Scoping Plan analyzed four scenarios, with the objective of informing the most viable path to remain on track to achieve the 2030 GHG reduction target. The scenario modeling indicates that, if the plan described in the Proposed Scenario is fully implemented, and done so on schedule, the State would cut GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels, result in a 71 percent reduction in smog-forming air pollution, reduce fossil fuel consumption by 94 percent, and create 4 million new jobs, among other benefits (SOURCE V.5a).
The 2022 Scoping Plan details “Local Actions” in Appendix D, which includes recommendations intended to build momentum for local government actions that align with the State’s climate goals, with a focus on local GHG reduction strategies (commonly referred to as climate action planning) and approval of new land use development projects, including through environmental review under
17.234
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -51- March 2023
CEQA. The recommendations provided in Appendix D are non-binding and should not be interpreted as a directive to local governments, but rather as evidence-based analytical tools to assist local governments with their role as essential partners in achieving California’s climate goals. Appendix D recognizes consistency with a CEQA-qualified GHG reduction plan such as a Climate Action Plan as a preferred option for evaluating potential GHG emission impacts under CEQA (SOURCE V.5b).
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 September 2022, the City adopted the 2030 Climate Action Plan (CAP) that updates the previous 2020 CAP that was adopted in 2012 and outlines measures and actions that are intended to reduce GHG emissions, per capita, by approximately 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, meeting the California Senate Bill 32 target for 2030 to reduce total GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels.
The CAP also seeks to achieve a carbon neutrality goal by the year 2035 prior to the State’s target carbon neutrality goal by 2045.
The CAP includes 31 measures with 152 associated individual actions, intended to reduce GHG emissions throughout the City. The measures include those related building energy use and reduction, transportation, public infrastructure, and other climate restoration and sustainable government measures. Through implementation of its measures and actions, the CAP aims to reduce building energy consumption, vehicle miles traveled, solid waste generation, and increase carbon sequestration.
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 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 CAP, 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 124 dwelling units and other non-residential uses within the City. This level of development would be within the overall amount of residential and nonresidential development and of the type of infill development desired and evaluated in the General Plan EIR and within remaining potential development as described in Section IV.B. Because the project size is within the total amount of potential residential development and level of GHG emissions analyzed in the General Plan EIR, it is of the type of denser infill development desired under the City’s plans, and it includes several of the emissions reducing features recommended in the City’s CAP (as explained further below), no impacts peculiar to the site or substantially more severe impacts would occur.
17.235
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -52- March 2023
As indicated above, the City updated its CAP in 2030, providing new emissions inventories, GHG emissions reductions targets and specific measures to reduce emissions. While, the proposed project is within the remaining buildout evaluated in the General Plan EIR, the updated CAP identifies a per capita GHG emissions level of 4.22 MT CO2e (Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is the standard units to measure GHG emissions) for the year of 2019, which is slightly higher than the amount forecast in the 2008 baseline year in the General Plan 2030 EIR (3.82 MT CO2e per capita per year). The CAP also identifies a target of 2.74 MT CO2e per capita per year in the year 2030, which is slightly lower than the per capita amount forecast in the General Plan EIR (3.82 MT CO2e per capita per year). The 2030 CAP specifies reduction measures that can achieve this goal and indicates that the per capita emissions target can be met with implementation of the measures included in the CAP (SOURCE V.3e).
Emissions modeling conducted for the project shows that the proposed project could result in GHG emissions of approximately 4.5 MT CO2e per capita per year, which is higher than the level forecast in the General Plan EIR and the recently adopted 2030 CAP. However, the CAP targets are not thresholds under CEQA, and the MBARD does not have adopted thresholds for GHG emissions, except for stationary sources. The project includes or can include a number of GHG emission reduction measures presented in the CAP, including the following, which are all considered “high impact actions” in the CAP:
• Prohibition of natural gas in new construction with provision all electric power and appliances (BE-1.1), which is part of the enforcement of the City’s natural gas prohibition ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 6.100)
• Install charging stations for 20 percent of the parking spaces in new multi-family housing and commercial projects (T4.2)
• Reduce off-street parking requirements for new housing developments close to frequent transit service (T3.4)
• Provide secure bike parking in new developments (T1.3) The proposed project includes features that would reduce GHG emissions, consistent with these measures including in the 2030 CAP, including provision of 15 parking spaces for electric vehicles, provision of 258 bicycle parking spaces, which is approximately 60 more spaces than required by City regulations with nearly half of these spaces being locked, Class I facilities, prohibition of natural gas with an all-electric facility, and overall reduced parking in the downtown area. Inclusion of these measures in the project would reduce the project’s incremental and per capita GHG emissions and would comply with an adopted CAP, and thus, the project’s incremental contribution to GHG emissions and climate change would not be cumulatively considerable or significant.
The State CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing a GHG emissions assessment, establish specific thresholds of significance, or mandate specific mitigation measures.
Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance that are consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA. Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project’s potential impact results through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all
17.236
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -53- March 2023
other sources of GHGs (CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.4 and 15183.5). There are currently no established thresholds for assessing whether the GHG emissions of the proposed project would be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. The MBARD does not have an adopted GHG emissions threshold, except it does have an adopted guideline for stationary source projects in which a project would not have not a significant GHG emissions impact if the project emits less than 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year or complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (SOURCE V.10c). As indicated above, while the City’s CAP has a per capita emissions target, it is not a threshold for the purpose of CEQA analyses.
However, the City’s adopted CAP provides a quantification of emissions reductions that would result over time throughout the City through implementation of the measures and actions included in the CAP. For the purposes of CEQA, the City’s 2030 CAP serves as a “Qualified Climate Action Plan” that the City can streamline the environmental review process of future projects. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4(b)(2), a lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with an adopted emissions reduction plan in determining significance of a project’s GHG emissions. The proposed project does implement some of these measures as explained above, which would reduce the project’s incremental contribution to GHG emissions and climate change, and are consistent with the GHG emissions reduction measures included in the City’s CAP. The GHG emissions reduction measures included in the City’s adopted CAP are considered uniformly applied development standards. Therefore, 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.
(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.
As described above, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted the 2030 CAP which addresses citywide greenhouse emissions and reduction strategies. The CAP incorporates a variety of measures and actions that focus on continued effort to reduce GHG emissions.
The CAP provides City emissions inventories, identifies emissions reduction target for the year 2030 and beyond, and includes measures and actions that are categorized into the following sections with corresponding measures and actions: building energy; transportation; water, waste, and wastewater; climate restoration; climate economy; and sustainable municipal government. These measures address and cover topics related to building energy consumption, solar programs, building electrification, active/public transportation programs, including: ridesharing, electric vehicles, remote work policy and infrastructure, water consumption, solid waste reduction, wastewater treatment, urban forestry, green jobs, and municipal facilities. Each measure has supporting actions, states the GHG reduction potential, lists which City department is responsible for implementation, and explains the advantages and benefits of the specific action. The CAP also includes an Implementation chapter that outlines funding, implementation accountability, and monitoring / reporting procedures for the measures and actions.
17.237
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -54- March 2023
The proposed project includes features that further reduce GHG emissions, consistent with measures included in the 2030 CAP as described above. Furthermore, the project represents a unique mixeduse development consisting of a public library, affordable housing, commercial retail, and daycare that would be located in an accessible location to the community. By establishing these uses in close proximity to each other, and downtown Santa Cruz, the project encourages active transportation and could reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled within the City. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with provisions of the CAP.
In addition, 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.4b). 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
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 35
DEIR pp. 4.14-9
to 4.14-10 No No None
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 Appendix
A p. 35
DEIR pp. 4.14-5
to 4.14-7,
4.14-9 to
4.14-11
No No None
17.238
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -55- March 2023
9. HAZARDS AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
¼ miles of an existing or proposed
school?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 35
DEIR pp.
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 Appendix
A p. 35
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 or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the
project area?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 35 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 Appendix
A pp. 35 to 36
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 Appendix
A p. 36
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, c) Use or Release of Hazardous Materials or Creation of Hazard. The proposed project consists of a mixed-use project, consisting of residential, library, childcare facility, and commercial land uses, 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. The project site is not within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school, and would not result in stationary emission sources or hazardous emissions.
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,
17.239
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -56- March 2023
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 and land uses that would be within the overall scope of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and would not result in industrial or other types of uses that would use and/or dispose of hazardous materials other than routine household and business cleaning supplies. 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. (d) Exposure to Hazardous Materials. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The following Cortese List online data resources (SOURCE V.9b) were reviewed during the preparation of this document: (1) the list of hazardous waste and substances sites from the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor database (SOURCE V.9a); (2) the list of leaking underground storage tank sites from the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) GeoTracker database (SOURCE V.9e); (3) the list of solid waste disposal sites identified with Waste Constituent Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit (SOURCE V.9c); (4) the list of active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from the SWRCB (SOURCE V.9f); and (5) the list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC (SOURCE V.9d). In addition, an Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project found that the project site is not located on any of the DTSC lists of hazardous materials sites and was not listed in any of the regulatory databases (Weber, Hayes & Associates 2022).
A combined Phase I & Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed for the project that evaluates the potential presence of environmental hazards and risks associated with the subject property. The ESA documents the investigation steps, regulatory records, site inspection, and interview with persons with knowledge of the site. The Phase I records search and historic document review did not reveal any environmental condition of concern for the project site (SOURCE V.20).
The Phase I/II ESA did indicate that there are a number of commercial properties with chemical releases in the vicinity of the project site; the majority of these chemical release sites have undergone case closure and obtain regulatory No Further Action status. However, the Phase I ESA indicates there is well-documented, widespread low-concentration solvent plume (TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, & Vinyl Chloride) present in downtown area groundwater that is upgradient of the project site. This dilute plume has some limited potential to encroach/flow beneath the project site, based on the southwesterly groundwater flow direction in the area. This relatively low-concentration contaminant
17.240
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -57- March 2023
groundwater plume, which remains an open agency case, and is considered a Controlled Recognized Condition (CREC). In addition to documenting the location of known groundwater plumes, the Phase I ESA also evaluated the potential for pollutant plume off-gassing. The upgradient, relatively lowconcentration solvent plume described above appears to be the only documented release having the potential for vapor encroachment (SOURCE V.20).
Historical land use records also document the presence of a long term of a dry cleaner to the north (upgradient) and one to the southwest (side/downgradient) of the project site. Dry cleaners are known to use relatively large quantities of chemicals, discharge dry cleaning solvent wastewater to drainage lines, and generate chemical wastes. Neither of the two cleaner businesses have any agencydocumented chemical releases. However, the Phase I ESA notes that dry cleaning businesses in general have a record of solvent-laden wash water releases to drainage sumps and drainage piping so there exists some elevated potential risk of undocumented chemical releases that could encroach beneath the project site (SOURCE V.20).
A Phase II ESA was performed, which included a soil vapor and groundwater sampling program. The Phase II ESA was implemented to evaluate subsurface project site conditions. Sampling for the Phase II ESA involved collecting five groundwater samples, nine soil vapor samples, and eighteen soil core samples. The testing found trace-to-low detection of two common urban contaminants – gasoline range total petroleum hydrocarbons and solvents in groundwater beneath the site that concentration levels were detected well below established water quality and environmental screening thresholds (SOURCE V.20).
The soil vapor sample results contained relatively low-concentration volatile concentrations that included fuel-based and solvent-based volatile contaminants; two sample locations were shown to have concentrations that slightly exceeded the land use threshold for Benzene (fuel-based contamination), which is considered a common urban contaminant. Two other sample locations were shown to have low concentrations of two common degreaser compounds historically used for dry cleaning and automotive repair operations, however; the results show low concentrations levels were reported as relatively low, however, exceeding residential land use thresholds. Neither of these contamination levels exceed the commercial land use screening thresholds (SOURCE V.20).
The Phase II sampling and testing program results showed that the bulk of the shallow soils (approximately one to three feet deep) across the project site were impacted with elevated concentrations of lead and arsenic that are from typical urban sources (lead-based paint and weed and rodent control). Most of the elevated metal concentrations are characterized as “non-hazardous” and can be disposed of at a local, municipal landfill. However, much of the shallow soils across the project site exceeded residential (unrestricted) or commercial land use screening threshold limits, but can be graded/removed and disposed of during development activities (SOURCE V.20).
The removal and disposal of these soils would be conducted in accordance and in compliance with applicable local and state regulations governing these activities. The Phase I/II ESA recommends that of the report be submitted the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services (SCC-EHS), as the overseeing agency, for their review and comment. The Phase I/II ESA also recommends that future earthworks and soil handling will need to be managed under an agency-approved Soil Management
17.241
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -58- March 2023
Plan and SCC-EHS for which the agency will likely require additional soil vapor evaluation to confirm vapor intrusion is not a concern. The Soil Management Plan would also likely include supplemental soil delineation testing to further define the limits of shallow soil contamination and to provide accepting landfills with required acceptance data.
The proposed project includes demolition of one existing commercial building, 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.
The commercial building to be demolished was constructed originally in 1941 (SOURCE V.18).
Therefore, it has the potential to include LBP and ACMs. Project construction, including demolition, 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.
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 and/or with removal of hazardous building materials during demolition, but with adherence to federal, state, and local regulations, impacts would be less than significant. The preparation and implementation of Soil Management Plan for removal of contaminated soils during construction would be conducted with oversight from the County Environmental Health Department, and the City has designated as the County as the entity responsible for enforcing hazardous materials regulations. Thus, removal and disposal would be conducted in accordance with adopted regulations that would be considered uniformly applied development standards. In addition, a standard condition of approval is included in the project to require testing for asbestos and lead-based 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 with compliance with applicable regulations and the application of uniformly applied development standards that 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.
17.242
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -59- March 2023
(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 via Cathcart Street. The vehicular entrance from Cathcart Street would allow for two-way access to the project’s parking garage. A 20-foot-wide alley along the eastern edge of the project site would provide one-way access from Cathcart Street to Lincoln Street for emergency vehicles to access the area in the event of an emergency. The project would not include any changes to exiting public roadways that provide emergency access to the site, except for access improvements into the site. 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 actions as 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 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.
17.243
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -60- March 2023
10. HYDROLOGY AND
WATER QUALITY
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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. 4.5-12
to 4.5-13
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 Appendix
A p. 36
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. 4.5-11
to 4.5-12
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. 4.5-11
to 4.5-12
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. 4.5-11
to 4.5-12
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. 4.5-11
to 4.5-12
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
drainage and
BMPs
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
DEIR pp. 4.5-13
DEIR pp. 4.7-12
to 4.7-14,
4.7-25 to 4.7-27
No No
General Plan
2030 Actions
CC5.1.7,
17.244
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -61- March 2023
10. HYDROLOGY AND
WATER QUALITY
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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
HZ6.4.6,
HZ6.4.10
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
DEIR pp. 4.5-13
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 Appendix
A p. 36 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 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
17.245
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -62- March 2023
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 (44,440 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 site is currently developed, and its impervious surface area would decrease from 65,560 square feet to 44,440 square feet with the proposed project. A stormwater control plan (SWCP) has been prepared for the project that details drainage features to collect and treat stormwater runoff. The project proposes to install a biofiltration area and mechanical filtration system. Stormwater would be collected and filtered by eight new bioretention basins surrounding the perimeter of the site; stormwater would also be collected at the project’s green roof (SOURCE V.13). Other measures also include provision of porous pavement on the perimeter of the site. Stormwater would be filtered through this system before it is discharged into existing City storm drains. Furthermore, the proposed project’s parking garage would eliminate the existing surface parking lot, which would reduce conveyance of urban pollutants typically found in parking lots into the City’s storm drain system.
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.
17.246
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -63- March 2023
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 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. The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR and General Plan EIR concluded that potential impacts related to water quality would be less than significant with compliance with City stormwater regulations and BMPs and implementation of SWPPP and erosion control plans as may be required. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant water quality impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan and Downtown Plan Amendments EIRs, 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. 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 65,096 square feet of impervious surface area; the project proposes a net decrease of 20,656 square feet impervious surface area through the construction of the new building, resulting in a total of 44,440 square feet of impervious surface on-site. The project site would connect to the City’s existing storm drain located in Cathcart Street and Lincoln Street. As described above in subsection (a), stormwater would be collected and treated onsite with a new storm drain system, including bioretention areas and green roof, before being discharged into the City’s storm drains. The proposed project would not alter existing drainage patterns. The project’s stormwater system is
17.247
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -64- March 2023
designed so that the project stormwater flows would exceed the capacity of storm water facilities or result in substantial erosion.
The General Plan EIR and Downtown Amendments 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 would not alter existing drainage patterns as it would lead to a net decrease in onsite impervious surface by approximately 20,650 square feet. Furthermore, section
24.14.050 of the City’s Municipal Code requires preparation of a drainage plan. Drainage improvements, per this plan, 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 the Stormwater Control 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 located within an A99 Flood Zone as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure
4.7-1). This designation indicates that the project area is subject to inundation by a 1-percent-annualchance flood event that will be protected by a Federal flood control system where construction has reached specified legal requirements. A99 Zones are areas where enough progress has been made on the construction of a protection system, such as dikes, dams, and levees, to consider it complete for insurance rating purposes, which in this case are improvements to the levee adjacent to San Lorenzo River (SOURCE V.1b). The project site also is within a mapped tsunami inundation zone (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.7-2). However, 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 Downtown Plan Amendments EIR also concluded that compliance with federal flood requirements and implementation of City plans and programs, impacts resulting from future development would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in significant flood hazards not otherwise addressed in the General Plan and Downtown Plan EIRs 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
17.248
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -65- March 2023
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.2b). 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; it is located in the downtown area, away from zones along the coastal areas of the City, that are subject to sea level rise hazards. The project site also doesn’t contain any critical facilities, listed in the Climate Adaptation Plan, that provide essential services and protect life and property within the City. 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. The proposed project would not result in new discharges or conflict with provisions in the Central Coast Basin Plan as all stormwater would be directed into the City’s storm drain system with pre-treatment in a bioretention basin to prevent water quality degradation in accordance with the City’s stormwater requirements. 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 or obstruct implementation of an adopted water quality or groundwater plans.
11. LAND USE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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 p. 4.9-4
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. 4.9-5
to 4.9-8
FEIR pp. 3-5-37,
4.9-9 to 4.9-11
DEIR pp. 4.1-9
to 4.1-14,
4.1-25 to 4.1-27
No No None
(a) Physically Divide an Established Community. The project site is located within the developed, downtown, urban area of the City, and the project would not physically divide an established
17.249
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -66- March 2023
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 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 City staff review of the General Plan 2030, 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
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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 Appendix
A p. 16
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 Appendix
A p. 16
DEIR pp. 4.15-3
to 4.15-4,
4.15-6
No No None
(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.
17.250
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -67- March 2023
13. NOISE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
Downtown Plan
Amendments
EIR
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 Appendix
A pp. 38 to 40
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 Appendix
A pp. 39 to 40
DEIR pp.
4.13-10, 4.13-20
to 4.13-22
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?
DEIR Appendix
A p. 38 Not Applicable No No None
(a) Noise Increases. The primary existing noise source within the project area is traffic noise along area streets. The project site is not within a noise contour mapped per the General Plan; Front Street to the east of the project site 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).
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
17.251
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -68- March 2023
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. 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, as well as a new library, a childcare facility, commercial space and a parking garage that would be enclosed. None of the project uses residential, library, commercial, or childcare facility)not typically associated with activities that would generate substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels. The proposed parking garage would be enclosed, which would generally create a shield to vehicular noise, and would replace the existing surface public parking lot on the project site.
A project Noise Impact Analysis (SOURCE V.19) evaluated potential operational and construction noise associated with the project and found that the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in permanent noise levels. The analysis evaluated operational noise generated by mechanical equipment and indirect noise associated with project traffic. The project mechanical equipment would be limited to the roof and to the area between the library mezzanine and future residential community patio. The library will be fully air-conditioned, and heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning units could be located in areas exposed to adjacent property lines. Based on previous noise measurements near the project site , the lowest hourly Leq noise level is 43 dBA, which represents the ambient noise level (SOURCE V.19). Based on Municipal Code Section 24.14.260, the property line noise criterion for the project mechanical equipment is 48 dBA (i.e., ambient noise level plus five) (SOURCE V.19). The analysis found that the potential noise increases related to mechanical equipment is below the threshold considered in the General Plan 2030 EIR for potentially significant impacts, which is a permanent increase in noise level of five decibels in areas where ambient levels are below 60 dBA Ldn (SOURCE V.19).
An analysis of noise generated by mechanical equipment found that the increase in ambient noise levels would be below the threshold considered in the General Plan 2030 EIR for potentially significant impacts (Salter 2023). In addition, the analysis of noise levels with project traffic found that the increase in traffic resulting from the project would result in an increase in noise levels below City thresholds. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact related to permanent increases in noise (Salter 2023). In addition, 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 decibels (dBA) above the local ambient noise level on a residential property. These regulations are intended to prevent increases in ambient noise levels.
17.252
Downtown Library and Affordable Housing Project
Environmental Review -69- March 2023
The analysis found that the project traffic when added to existing traffic volumes as identified in the project traffic analysis (SOURCE V.17) would result in an increase in ambient noise levels of less than three decibels at the intersections studied, which would be a less-than-significant increase in noise as the increase would be less than the five-decibel threshold in the General Plan EIR.
There would be a temporary increase in existing noise levels during demolition, earthwork, and construction of the project. The nearest sensitive noise receptors are residential uses located on Cedar Street, approximately 155 feet to the south of the project site. A residential project is currently under construction on the west side of Cedar Street across the street from the proposed 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. 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.
There would be a temporary increase in existing noise levels during project grading and construction.
Noise levels 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 grading of the site, with lower noise levels occurring during building construction and finishing. Sensitive noise receptors, which are residential uses located approximately 155 feet west of the project site, would experience a temporary increase in noise levels. However, construction sound levels would be intermittent and varied through a single day as well as throughout the duration of project construction, and construction noise levels would decrease with distance from the construction site. Overall, construction noise levels would be temporary and short-term, and would fluctuate throughout the construction period with the construction activities producing higher noise levels occurring earlier in the construction phase. Therefore, construction noise would not result in substantial increases in temporary noise levels or result in a significant impact to sensitive receptors (SOURCE V.19).