Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, February 13, 2024 (part 3 of 5)

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 twenty-four (24) months of the date of final approval, unless extended by city ordinance or state law, or it shall become null and void.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. All final working drawings shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval in conjunction with building permit application. The plans submitted for building permits shall have the same level of articulation, detailing, and dimensionality as shown in the approved plans. All approved exterior finishes and materials shall be clearly notated on the building permit plans, and consistent with the approved plans. Any deviations from the approved materials palette must be specifically called out (clouded) in the building permit plan set and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of the building permit.

7. 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

18.31 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 900 High Street, CP23-0164

Page 2 of 10 ends

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

8. Prior to issuance of the first building or grading permit, the applicant’s team (including property ownership representatives, architect, civil engineer, geologist, geotechnical engineer, contractor, and project arborist) shall meet with City Staff to ensure that all parties understand and agree to the Conditions of Approval.

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

10. All refuse and recycling activities during construction shall be done in accordance with Chapter 6.12 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code. Be aware that private companies offering refuse or debris box services are not allowed to operate within the City limits, except under certain limited circumstances detailed in Chapter 6.12.160.

11. All requirements of the Building, Fire, Parks, 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. Plans submitted for building permit issuance shall include electric vehicle charging stations as required per Section 24.12.241 of the Zoning Ordinance, and accessible parking as required under state law.

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

15. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application and will be reviewed by both the Planning Department and Water Department. The landscape and irrigation plans shall demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the City’s WaterEfficient Landscaping Ordinance in Chapter 16.16 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code prior to issuance of the building permit.

18.32 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 900 High Street, CP23-0164

Page 3 of 10 ends

16. All landscaping, including all replacement trees, shall be installed prior to issuance of occupancy permits (including temporary occupancy).

17. Subsequent to occupancy of the premises, all landscaping shall be permanently maintained.

Such maintenance shall be secured through an 18-month bond prior to occupancy.

18. All trees shall be a minimum 15-gallon size. The fourteen heritage trees to be removed shall be replaced by either three 15-gallon or one 24-inch size tree, pursuant to Santa Cruz City Council Resolution No. NS-30,072. Building permit plans shall be revised to demonstrate compliance with heritage tree replacement requirements.

19. Throughout construction, the applicant shall implement all recommendations of the Arborist report prepared by Kurt Fouts dated November 2021 and follow-up Arborist letter dated February 2022.

20. A qualified arborist must conduct an inspection of the site upon installation of tree protection fencing, prior to issuance of the first grading permit, and prior to pouring of the foundation to ensure tree protection measures and maintenance care are provided. A copy of the inspection letter, including recommendations for modifications to tree care or construction activity to maintain tree health, shall be provided to the Director of Planning and Community Development or his/her designee following each inspection. If the Planning Department receives complaints that tree protection measures are not implemented throughout the construction process, additional inspection(s) from the project arborist may be required.

21. In the event one or more of the preserved heritage tree(s) are not maintained and damage has occurred due to construction activity, a stop work order will be issued on the subject property.

Prior to commencement of construction, the applicant must submit an arborist report describing any measures necessary to restore the health of the impacted tree(s) to the Department of Planning and Community Development and City Arborist for review and approval.

22. During pre-construction and construction activities, any removal of additional heritage trees due to changes in the proposed plan or failure to implement appropriate tree protection measures shall require approval of a Heritage Tree Removal Permit pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 9 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, Preservation of Heritage Trees and Heritage Shrubs, and shall be replaced at an enhanced ratio of either four 15-gallon trees or two 24-inch sized trees.

23. During pre-construction and construction activities, should any heritage tree experience decline and require removal due to causes unrelated to construction activities (as determined by the City Arborist), a heritage tree removal permit shall be obtained pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 9 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, Preservation of Heritage Trees and Heritage Shrubs, and the tree(s) shall be replaced at the City’s standard replacement ratio of one 24-inch sized or three 15-gallon tree for each Heritage tree removed.

18.33 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 900 High Street, CP23-0164

Page 4 of 10 ends

24. The final building permit plans shall show the number, size, location, and species of the replacement trees subject to approval by the City Urban Forester.

25. The project shall provide 96 bike parking spaces, including 60 Class 1 spaces and 36 Class 2 spaces. Bike parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 24.12.250-252 of the City's Zoning Ordinance.

26. 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.

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

28. Storm drain and stormwater retention facilities that span both the proposed lots shall be covered by easement(s). These easements shall be shown on the final map and easement language shall be approved by the Planning, Public Works, and Water Departments prior to final map recordation. Easements encompassing storm drain or stormwater retention facilities that cross property lines shall be recorded at the time of final map recordation.

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

30. The plan for erosion control approved as part of this application shall be submitted and all work installed by November 1.

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. Handicap access shall be provided in accordance with California Building Code.

18.34 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 900 High Street, CP23-0164

Page 5 of 10 ends

33. 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. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide documentation confirming that all mechanical equipment comply with the City’s noise standards.

34. Final colors shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to application for building permits, provided there are no substantial deviations from the final colors as proposed in the Project submittal and application materials.

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

24.16.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Participation Agreement establishing compliance with inclusionary housing requirements shall be entered into prior to recordation of the final subdivision map and recorded prior to final occupancy of the first unit. In addition to complying with the City’s inclusionary ordinance, which restricts affordability of units in perpetuity, the Participation Agreement shall also document and require the affordability restrictions associated with the granting of the applicant’s density bonus request, as specified in the staff report, including the applicant’s voluntary offer to provide one of the low-income units at a very-low-income level for the initial 50% density bonus and including the applicant’s voluntary offer to provide one additional very low-income unit beyond that needed for the project’s supplemental density bonus under AB1287, as described in the staff report.

36. 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.

37. 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 applicant’s submittal of a complete Notice of Intent (NOI) package.

38. Applicant’s/Property Owner’s Duty to Defend, Indemnify, and Hold Harmless. a. Applicant and Property Owner agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, employees, attorneys, and agents (the “City Parties”) from and against all liabilities, losses, liens, damages, judgments, costs, and expenses,

18.35 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 900 High Street, CP23-0164

Page 6 of 10 ends

including, without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees (“Losses”), arising in any way related to this Project.
b. Applicant and Property Owner agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its officials, officers, employees, attorneys, and agents (“City Parties”) from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, and proceedings (collectively, “Actions”) brought against the City, its officials, officers, employees, attorneys, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or otherwise modify the decision on the Project, permit decision, or environmental review related to the Project; or Actions alleging failure to comply with the requirements of any federal, state, or local laws, including, but not limited to, CEQA, general plan, or zoning requirements related to the Project.

The defense and indemnification obligation includes reimbursing the City for any and all costs incurred in connection with such Actions, including but not limited to, costs of suit, expenses, payment of attorney’s fees, City staff costs, court costs, damages, liabilities, judgments, and settlement costs.
c. Applicant and Property Owner shall also defend, indemnify and hold harmless City Parties for all costs incurred in additional investigation of or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending any document (such as an EIR, negative declaration, specific plan, general plan amendment, or ordinance) if made necessary by said Actions and if the Applicant or Property Owner seeks to pursue securing such approvals and/or clearances, after initiation of the Actions, which are conditioned on the approval of these documents.
d. City shall notify Applicant and Property Owner of any such Actions and City agrees to cooperate in the defense of the Actions. Upon receipt of such notification, Applicant and/or Property Owner shall assume the defense of the Actions, including the employment of counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City. In the event of a conflict of interest, City may employ separate counsel to represent the City; and Applicant and/or Property Owner agrees to pay for the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the City’s separate counsel.
e. Applicant and Property Owner agree that City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of such Actions; but such participation shall not relieve Applicant or Property Owner of any of the obligations herein to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City Parties. If the City Attorney’s Office participates in the defense, all of the City Attorney’s Office fees and costs, and City staff costs, shall be paid by the Applicant and/or Property Owner.
f. In the event that Applicant and/or Property Owner is required to defend City in connection with any Actions, City shall retain the right to reasonably approve: the counsel to so defend City; all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld but which is contingent on the approval of the City council.

18.36 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 900 High Street, CP23-0164

Page 7 of 10 ends

g. Applicant and Property Owner agree to reimburse and indemnify the City for all of City’s costs, fees, including attorney’s fees and costs, staff costs, and damages incurred in enforcing these provisions to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City Parties.
h. Applicant’s and Property Owner’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not apply to the extent such Actions or Losses are caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City Parties. Applicant’s and Property Owner’s obligation to defend shall arise regardless of any claim or assertion that City Parties caused or contributed to the Losses.
i. The obligations of Applicant and Property to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City Parties, are joint and several.
j. The obligations in this section shall survive the expiration or termination of these Conditions of Approval.

39. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay park dedication fees based on the final building permit plans.

40. All best management practices noted in the June 2019 Biotic Assessment, prepared by EcoSystems West Consulting Group shall be implemented for the duration of the construction period.

41. Pursuant to the recommendations of the project biologist, EcoSystems West Consulting Group, if project site work occurs anytime between February 1 and August 31, the applicant shall submit documentation of a pre-construction nesting bird survey by a qualified biologist prior to the start of work. The survey shall be completed no more than seven days before the start of any project construction activities on the site (including tree removal, clearing, and excavation) and shall include observations of any nesting activities on the site. Site work may commence once the Planning Department has accepted the report and confirmed that there are no nesting birds on the site or that an appropriate buffer zone around any active nests has been recommended by the biologist and physically established on the site.

42. Pursuant to the recommendations of the project biologist, EcoSystems West Consulting Group, all project site work, including tree removal, shall occur outside of the monarch butterfly and western red bat roosting reasons (September 15 through November 15). The applicant shall submit documentation of a pre-construction roosting of monarch butterflies, dusky- footed woodrats, and western red bats on site prepared by a qualified biologist prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit associated with the project. The survey shall be completed no more than seven days before the start of any construction activities on the site (including tree removal, clearing, and excavation and shall include observations of any roosting activities on the site. Site work may commence once the Planning Department has accepted the report and confirmed that there are no roosting or nesting monarchs, duskyfooted woodrats, or western red bats on the site, or that an appropriate buffer zone around any

18.37 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 900 High Street, CP23-0164

Page 8 of 10 ends

active roosting/nesting areas has been recommended by the biologist and physically established on the site.

43. Prior to final inspection of a Building Permit, all rental units in the project shall be enrolled in the City of Santa Cruz Residential Rental Inspection Program. The units are exempt from inspections and annual registration fees for the first five years of occupancy (based on the date of the building permit’s final inspection) and will be activated automatically after five years.

44. All civil plan sheets of the building permit submittal be stamped by a licensed civil engineer.

45. Prior to issuance of the first building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the City a letter from the project Geotechnical Engineer of Record, Becky Dees of Dees and Associates, Inc. indicating that all geotechnical recommendations have been addressed and incorporated into the building permit plan submittal. Additionally, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first unit, the applicant shall submit to the City a letter from project Geotechnical Engineer of Record indicating that the project has been constructed in accordance with all geotechnical recommendations. If the Geotechnical Engineer of Record is unable to complete this work, the Director of Planning and Community Development or his/her designee shall have the authority to review the qualifications and approve of an alternative Geotechnical Engineer to complete the required work.

46. Prior to issuance of the first building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the City a letter from the project Geologist of Record, Erik Zinn of Pacific Crest Engineering indicating that all geological recommendations have been addressed and incorporated into the building permit plan submittal. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Geological Plan Review Letter prepared by Pacific Crest Engineering, dated June 29, 2023, a qualified geologist from Pacific Crest Engineering shall be present onsite to observe any excavations performed as part of the construction activities. Additionally, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first unit, the applicant shall submit to the City a letter from project Geologist of Record indicating that the project has been constructed in accordance with all geological recommendations. If the Geologist of Record is unable to complete this work, the Director of Planning and Community Development or his/her designee shall have the authority to review the qualifications and approve of an alternative Geologist to complete the required work.

47. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall pay Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) as required by the Public Works Department.

48. All diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower shall be zeroemissions or equipped with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Final or Interim compliant engines. Alternatively, CARB Tier 2 or 3 compliant engines may be used if CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS) filters are added to each piece of off-road diesel-fueled equipment.

49. A construction management and access plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development and Public Works prior to issuance of the building permit. The construction management and access plan shall show proposed staging areas of construction equipment and include information as to how construction vehicles will access and exit the

18.38 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 900 High Street, CP23-0164

Page 9 of 10 ends

site. To reduce impacts to the adjacent Westlake Elementary, the eastern driveway shall be used to provide construction access to and from the site whenever possible. To minimize traffic impacts along High Street and other residential streets in the vicinity, construction vehicles shall prioritize the use of Bay Drive to access the site when possible.

50. The applicant shall identify a “Neighbor Liaison” to provide a single point to field any construction-related questions, concerns, or complaints. The “Neighbor Liaison” contact information shall be posted onsite, near the project frontage visible from the public right-ofway for the duration of construction activities. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall: (1) provide a draft “Neighbor Liaison” contact information to the Department of Planning and Community Development; and (2) provide evidence that the “Neighbor Liaison” sign has been posted onsite.

51. Access to Lot 1 consistent with what is shown on the Tentative Map, Sheet C0.1, of the approved plans, shall be maintained and cannot be substantially modified without prior approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development or his/her designee.

Conditions of Approval Related to the Minor Land Division In accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act, the City Council has imposed the following requirements, because it finds that such construction is necessary for reasons of public health and safety and/or because the required construction is a necessary prerequisite to the orderly development of the surrounding area. The following conditions are applied in addition to the aforementioned conditions specified for application no. CP22-0164.

52. A copy of the recorded deed of the new parcel shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development of the City of Santa Cruz.

53. A parcel map showing the original parcel and the parcels being created by the resubdivision, with pertinent supporting data, shall be filed with the Planning Department with the appropriate recording fees as set by the County Recorder. Said parcel map shall be a reproducible tracing prepared by a licensed land surveyor or a registered civil engineer.

54. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall submit improvement plans for review and approval as required by the Department of Public Works, or an improvement agreement shall be entered into with the City Council, together with the necessary improvement security as set forth in Chapter 23.24 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The plans shall include but not be limited to:
 Undergrounding of utilities.
 Installation or repair of curbs, gutters and sidewalks.  Streetlights as necessary along the project frontage.

55. Appropriate permit(s) shall be obtained to complete necessary onsite and offsite improvements including but not limited to, installation of sewer lines, water systems, and fire hydrants. Testing must also be conducted to satisfy the requirements of the Fire, Public

18.39 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
For 900 High Street, CP23-0164

Page 10 of 10 ends

Works, and Water Departments, prior to the issuance of building permits to construct the building(s).

18.40 18.41

18.42 PROJECT DIRECTORY

ARCHITECT

WORKBENCH
CONTACT: JAMILEH CANNON
189 WALNUT AVE.

SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
P: 415.730.2952
E: [email protected]

APPLICANT/TENANT

ENVISION I, LLC

SIBLEY SIMON
189 WALNUT AVE.

SANTA CRUZ CA 95060.

P: 831.419.4091
E: [email protected]

CONTRACTOR

WORKBENCH
CONTACT: TIM GORDIN
189 WALNUT AVE.

SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
P: 931.902.9734
E: [email protected]
CIVIL
C2G/CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP INC.

CONTACT: TODD R. CREAMER
4444 SCOTTS VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 6,
SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066-4529
P: 831.438.4420
E: [email protected]

LANDSCAPE

FORM/WORK LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECTURE
CONTACT: MICHAEL VAIL, ASLA
2585 UNIVERSITY AVE.

SAN DIEGO, CA 92104
P: 619.269.4423
E: [email protected]

GEOTECHNICAL
DEES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
501 MISSION STREET, SUITE 8A
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
P: 831.427.1770
E: [email protected]

GEOLOGY

ZINN GEOLOGY
2231 40TH AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062
P: 831.334.4833
E: [email protected]

ARBORIST

KURT FOUTS
826 MONTEREY AVENUE
CAPITOLA, CA 95010
P: 831.359.3607
E: [email protected]

PROPERTY OWNER

PEACE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST

JAMES WELLER
900 HIGH ST
SANTA CRUZ CA 95060.

P: 510.325.13.61
E: [email protected]
A101 1
SIM
1011
1 A101
SIM 1i
1t

DOOR OR GATE NUMBER

WALL TAG

WINDOW TAG

ROOM NUMBER

ELEVATION MARKER

ROOM AREA

DETAIL NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

REVISION NUMBER

KEYEDNOTE NUMBER
A101 1 Ref
1Ref
1 Ref
1Ref

ELEVATION NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

BUILDING

SECTION NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

GRAPHIC LEGEND
Room name
101
150 SF

X X X X ROOM FINISHES
1 PEACE VILLAGE, VIEW OF ENTRY
11/30/25
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
NTS
1/25/2024 10:57:24 AM
GP0.01

COVER SHEET INDEX
22133

01.25.2024

MB / DD

EB / JP
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40

PEACE VILLAGE

RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMENTS

01.25.2024
DRAWING INDEX.

C5.1 STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN
C6.1 EROSION CONTROL PLAN
C7.1 DETAILS
C7.2 DETAILS
C7.3 DETAILS
C7.4 DETAILS
C7.5 DETAILS

ARCHITECTURAL
AP0.51 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
AP1.01 PROPOSED FIRST LEVEL PLAN
AP1.02 PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL PLAN
AP1.03 PROPOSED THIRD LEVEL PLAN
AP1.04 PROPOSED FOURTH LEVEL PLAN
AP1.05 PROPOSED FIFTH LEVEL PLAN
AP1.06 PROPOSED SIXTH LEVEL PLAN
AP1.07 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
AP3.01 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
AP3.02 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
AP3.03 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
AP4.01 BUILDING SECTIONS
AP5.01 ENLARGED WALL SECTIONS
AP9.01 TRASH ENCLOSURE
AP9.02 CAR, EV, BICYCLE PARKING, & STORAGE INFO

LANDSCAPE
LC-1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
LC-2 SUPPLEMENTAL LANDSCAPE EXHIBITS
LC-3 PRELIMINARY EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN
DRAWING INDEX.

GENERAL
GP0.01 COVER SHEET INDEX
GP0.02 PROJECT INFO
GP0.03 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS
GP0.04 OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT
GP0.05 RENDERING & 3D EXHIBITS
GP0.06 RENDERING & 3D EXHIBITS
GP0.07 RENDERING & 3D EXHIBITS
GP0.08 RENDERING & 3D EXHIBITS
GP0.09 SHADOW STUDY
GP0.10.1 SITE PLAN
GP0.10.2 SITE SECTIONS
GP0.11 RECORDED EASEMENTS
CIVIL
C0.0 SHEET INDEX
C0.1 TENTATIVE MAP
C1.1 EXISTING SITE & DEMOLITION PLAN
C1.2 SIGNAGE & STRIPING PLAN
C2.1 SITE IMPROVEMENTS
C2.2 SITE IMPROVEMENTS
C3.1 UTILITY PLAN
C3.2 UTILITY PLAN
C4.1 GRADING PLAN
C4.2 GRADING PLAN
C4.3 SECTIONS
C4.4 DRIVEWAY PROFILE
NOTE: NATURAL GAS-FREE DESIGN AS REQUIRED BY SCMC 6.100 1 1 1
1 2
2 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024

18.43 PROJECT DATA
APN:................................................................................................001-02-240 ZONING DISTRICT:..........................................................................R-1-10 LAND USE DESIGNATION:...............................................................RESIDENTIAL COASTAL ZONE:..............................................................................NO OCCUPANCY GROUP:.....................................................................R-2 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE:..................................................V-A BUILDING SPRINKLERED:................................................................YES PROPOSED PARCEL AREA:..............................................................97,121 SF PROPOSED LOT SIZE:.......................................................................2.23 ACRES EXISTING PARCEL AREA:.................................................................258,825 SF EXISTING LOT SIZE:..........................................................................5.9 ACRES AREA OF +30% SLOPE:....................................................................14,980 SF PROPOSED BUILDING AREA:..................................................... 42,769 SF

ASSESSORS MAP ZONING MAP

SUBJECT

PROPERTY

SCOPE OF WORK
WORKBENCH AND ENVISION I, LLC PLAN TO BUILD 40 UNITS OF HOUSING AT 900 HIGH ST. THE UNITS WILL BE A MIX OF STUDIO, 1, 2, 3 , 4, & 5 BEDROOM UNITS. THERE WILL BE SEVEN 4 AND 5 BEDROOM UNITS THAT OCCUPY THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS OF THE BUILDING AND SHARE LARGER AMENITY SPACES ALSO ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS.

THE 'L' SHAPED BUILDING WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 42,769 SQUARE FEET RANGING IN HEIGHT FROM 3 TO 4 STORIES OF TYPE V-A CONSTRUCTION.

THE EXISTING SITE CURRENTLY INCLUDES 3 SEPARATE BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED PARKING LOT. BEHIND THE BUILDINGS THERE IS A STEEP SLOPE (30%) THAT LEADS UP TO A MORE LEVEL OPEN AREA THAT IS TO BE PRESERVED AS OPEN SPACE.

THE EXISTING PARCEL WILL BE SPLIT INTO TWO PARCELS, WITH THE NORTHERN PARCEL OF 97,121 SQUARE FEET CONTAINING THE PROPOSED NEW BUILDING AND EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS, UTILITIES, AND PARKING RECORDED ON THE SOUTHERN PARCEL.

CONTEXT & MOBILITY

BUS STOP, TYP

BUS STOP, TYP
HIGH ST.

HIGH ST. HIGH ST.

BAY DR.

MOORE ST.

ROUTE 10
ROUTE 12
ROUTE 15 (LOOP)
ROUTE 16
ROUTE 19 (LOOP)
ROUTE 20
ROUTE 41
ROUTE 42

PLANNING CODE NOTES

BUILDING HEIGHT PER
R-1-10 ZONING
(SCMC 24.10.350)
HT. ABOVE LIMIT:

REQUIRED: PRINCIPAL: 2 1/2 STORIES & 30'
ACCESSORY: 1 STORY & 15'
SINGLE-STORY STRUCTURE: N/A
ALLOWABLE: 30'
PROVIDED: 54'
(CONCESSION #1 SOUGHT)
ALLOWED: NONE
PROVIDED: 54'
(CONCESSION #1 SOUGHT)

BICYCLE PARKING

24.12.250(2)(A)

24.12.250(2)(B)
SEE AP9.02 F0R MORE

INFO ON BICYCLE PARKING
REQUIRED: 42 CLASS-I SPACES RESIDENTIAL (1 SPACE / UNIT) 11 CLASS-II SPACES RESIDENTIAL (1 SPACE / 4 UNITS)
PROVIDED: 96 SPACES
60 CLASS-I SPACES
46 CLASS-II SPACES
SETBACKS PER R-1-10
ZONING
SETBACKS:
(13.10.323)
FRONT: 25'
SIDE: 10'
REAR: 30'
SEE PLANS FOR SETBACKS PROVIDED (CONCESSION #2 & WAIVER SOUGHT)

ADDITIONAL SITE CONDITIONS
USABLE OPEN SPACE REQUIRED: NONE DUE TO SFH ZONE
PROVIDED: 20,903 SF
SEE SHEET GP0.04 FOR OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT
POINT SOURCE AIR/WATER POLLUTANTS: NO
VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONE: NO, PER CAL FIRE 2022 FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY

ZONE MAP
WETLANDS: NO, PER US FISH AND WILDIFE NATIONAL

WETLANDS INVENTORY
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE: NO, PER DTSC HAZERDOUS WASTE SITE LIST

SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA SUBJECT
TO INUNDATION BY 100-YEAR FLOOD: NO, PER CITY G.I.S
DELINEATED EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE: NO, PER USGS EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE MAP HISTORIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES: YES, PER ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORT BY ALBION &

DPR FORM ON FILE AT THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
SPECIES OF CONCERN: NO, PER BIOTIC REPORT BY ECOSYSTEMS WEST &

MONARCH BUTTERFLIES SURVEY
RECORDED PUBLIC EASEMENTS: NO, PER CITY G.I.S AND APN DATA COASTAL ZONE: NO, PER CITY G.I.S
STREAM OR OTHER RESOURCE: NO, PER CITY G.I.S AND CALFIFORNIA FISH AND

GAME STREAM MAP

ANY APPROVALS UNDER THE

SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, INCLUDING,

BUT NOT LIMITED TO, A PARCEL MAP,

A TENTATIVE MAP, OR A CONDOMINIUM
MAP, BEING REQUESTED YES, SEE C0.1
DENSITY:

PER SANTA CRUZ

GENERAL PLAN
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (1.1-10 DU/AC)
EXISTING PARCEL SIZE: 258,825 SF
AREA OF 30% OR GREATER SLOPE: 14,980 SF
PARCEL AREA MINUS 30% OR GREATER SLOPE AREA: 243,845 SF = 5.56 ACRES
55 UNITS ALLOWED
40 PROVIDED
1 1
2 2
2 PARKING QUALIFIES FOR AB2097 & AB1851, SEE SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED:

CHURCH - 72 SPACES REQUIRED
(1 SPACE PER 3.5 SEATS)
PRESCHOOL - 12 SPACES REQUIRED
(1 SPACE PER EMPLOYEE)
CURRENT 1 BR RESIDENCE - 1 SPACE REQUIRED
RESIDENTIAL - 4 SPACES REQUIRED
(SEE BELOW FOR EV & ACCESSIBLE REQUIREMENTS)
REQUIRED:
3 EV CHARGING INSTALLED SPACES, OF WHICH 1 IS ACCESSIBLE (5% OF 60 RESIDENTIAL SPACES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED WITHOUT AB2097) PROVIDED:

AT LEAST 117 TOTAL SPACES ON TWO PARCELS
INCLUDES 2 ACCESSIBLE SPACES ON NEW PARCEL SERVING RESIDENCE (1 IS EV) INCLUDES 3 EV CHARGING INSTALLED SPACES ON NEW PARCEL
INCLUDES 1 SPACE RESERVED FOR EXISTING RESIDENCE
INCLUDES 12 SPACES RESERVED DURING OPERATNG HOURS FOR PRESCHOOL USE INCLUDES AT LEAST 104 TOTAL SPACES FOR USES OTHER THAN PRESCHOOL &

EXISTING RESIDENCE
PROPOSED:

REQUIRED:
2 ACCESSIBLE SPACES, OF WHICH 1 IS VAN ACCESSIBLE AND 1 IS EV CHARGING (2% OF THE 60 RESIDENTIAL SPACES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED WITHOUT AB2097.

AT LEAST ONE IN EVERY EIGHT ACCESSIBLE SPACES MUST BE VAN ACCESSIBLE) 3 DENSITY BONUS NOTES
STATE DENSITY BONUS:

PERCENT % OF LOW INCOME TO ACHIEVE STATE DENSITY BONUS:

REQUIRED: 24%
PROVIDED: ~ 26%
LOW INCOME UNIT COUNT TO ACHIEVE STATE DENSITY BONUS:

REQUIRED: 6 UNITS
PROVIDED: 6 UNITS
( 5 LOW-INOME & 1 VERY LOW INCOME)
AB 1297 DENSITY BONUS:

MIN. TO ACHIEVE 22% DENSITY BONUS:
% VERY LOW INCOME UNITS
REQUIRED: 6%
PROVIDED: 13%
VERY LOW INCOME UNIT COUNT:

REQUIRED: 2 UNITS
PROVIDED: 3 UNITS
*BY RESTRICTING TEN PERCENT OR MORE ADDITIONAL UNITS AT

THE VERY LOW INCOME LEVEL, THE PROJECT IS ELIGIBLE FOR AN ADDITIONAL DENSITY BONUS OF 38.75% OR NINE UNITS; FIVE
ARE PROPOSED.
11/30/25
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
NTS
1/25/2024 2:56:30 P
M
GP0.02

PROJECT INFO
22133

01.23.2024

MB / DD

EB / JP
900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060PEACE VILLAGE
001-022-40

BUILDING GROSS AREA

GROSS AREA BY USE

PROJECT - UNIT COUNT
TOTAL

LEVEL RESIDENTIAL

INTERIOR

CIRCULATION

OUTDOOR
CIRCULATION AMENITY SERVICE / MECH. TOTALS
LEVEL 1 3,264 SF 1,206 SF 919 SF 1,585 SF 313 SF 7,286 SF LEVEL 2 4,754 SF 609 SF 875 SF 1,156 SF 189 SF 7,583 SF LEVEL 3 7,253 SF 744 SF 1328 SF 0 SF 178 SF 9,503 SF
LEVEL 4 8,748 SF 744 SF 1560 SF 0 SF 177 SF 11,229 SF
LEVEL 5 3,196 SF 534 SF 728 SF 0 SF 177 SF 4,635 SF
LEVEL 6 2,532 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 2,532 SF
GRAND TOTALS 29,747 SF 3,838 SF 5410 SF 2,741 SF 1,033 SF 42,769 SF

UNIT - STUDIO
UNIT - JR 1 BED
UNIT - 1 BED
UNIT - 2 BED
UNIT - 3 BED
UNIT - 4 BED
UNIT - 5 BED
11 2
1 15
4 6
1 40
1 1
1 2
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.23.2024
4 4
4 18.44
SU
BJ
ECT
SITE 1 2
4 7
13 10
9 8
3 6
11 12
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 1
23 234
6789 10
11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23
24 24 25
25 26
26 5
5 11/30/25
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
NTS
1/25/2024 10:57:49 AM
GP0.03

EXISTING SITE
PHOTOS
22133

01.25.2024

MB / DD

EB / JP
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024

18.45 UP
DN
UP
UP
DN
UP UP
UP DN
DN
UP UP
DN
DN
UP UP
DN
DN
2350 SF
G.O.S
392 SF
C.O.S.
2856 SF
G.O.S

OPEN SPACE / AMENITY LEGEND

COLIVING PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

GROUP USABLE OPEN SPACE

WING A ROOF OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS
TOTAL UNIT COUNT 40 UNITS
GROUP USABLE OPEN SPACE REQ'D NONE REQD.

OPEN SPACE LEGEND
G.O.S. GROUP OPEN SPACE
C.O.S COLIVING OPEN SPACE
GROUP USABLE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 20,903 SF
CO-LIVING PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQ'D NONE REQD.

CO-LIVING PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 392 SF
18047 SF

GROUP USABLE OPEN
SPACE 11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 10:59:4
0 A
M
GP0.04

OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT
22133

01.25.2024

MB / DD

EB / JP
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
1" = 30'-0"
1 1ST LEVEL
1" = 30'-0"
2 2ND LEVEL
1" = 30'-0" 3
3RD LEVEL
1" = 30'-0" 4
4TH LEVEL
1" = 30'-0" 5
5TH LEVEL / APARTMENT'S LOWER LEVEL
1" = 30'-0" 6
6TH LEVEL / / APARTMENT'S UPPER LEVEL
1" = 30'-0" 7

GROUND LEVEL
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024

18.46 11/30/25
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
NTS
1/25/2024 10:59:59 AM
GP0.05
RENDERING & 3D

EXHIBITS
22133

01.25.2024

MB / DD

EB / JP
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
12" = 1'-0"

VIEW OF WING A FROM SOUTH-WEST
1" = 40'-0"
1 KEY PLAN
SCALE: NTS
1 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024

18.47 11/30/25
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
NTS
1/25/2024 11:00:13 AM
GP0.06
RENDERING & 3D

EXHIBITS
22133

01.25.2024

MB / DD

EB / JC
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
12" = 1'-0"

VIEW OF MAIN ENTRANCE, LOBBY AND CO-LIVING SPACE
1" = 40'-0"
1 KEY PLAN
SCALE: NTS
2 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024

18.48 11/30/25
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
NTS
1/25/2024 11:00:28 AM
GP0.07
RENDERING & 3D

EXHIBITS
22133

01.25.2024
MB

JP / EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
12" = 1'-0"

VIEW SOUTH-EAST TOWARDS OCEAN FROM TERRACE
1" = 40'-0"
1 KEY PLAN
3 SCALE: NTS
1 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024

18.49 2
1 3

PROPOSED BUILDING
PROPOSED BUILDING PROPOSED BUILDING 1 2 3
11/30/25
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
NTS
25/2024 11:00:45 AM
GP0.08
RENDERING & 3D

EXHIBITS
22133

01.25.2024

DD / MB
EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024

18.50 11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
1/25/2024 11:05:25 AM
GP0.09

SHADOW STUDY
22133

01.25.2024

MB / DD

EB / JP
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
4 SOLAR STUDY - JUN 21 - 3PM
2 SOLAR STUDY - DEC 21 - 12PM
5 SOLAR STUDY - JUN 21 - 12PM
3 SOLAR STUDY - DEC 21 - 9AM
6 SOLAR STUDY - JUN 21 - 9AM
7 SOLAR STUDY - DEC 21 - 3PM
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024

18.51 DN
DN
DN
No Parking
(N 38°14'00" W 107.10) (N 38°14'00" W 72.22) (N 38°14'00" W 139.50) (N 38°14'00" W 687.81) (S 15°14 0' 0" E 640.69)
(S 74°46'00" W 285.12)
GV

ENTRANCE
ONLY
ONLY

EX TI
ONLY
EXIT
OTS P
NO

PARKING VAN

ACCESSIBLE
SPACE
STOP

COMPACT

EXISTING PARKING

EXISTING CHURCH

BUILDING

EXISTING CHURCH

BUILDING

EXISTING

PRESCHOOL

BUILDING

HIGH STREET

EXISTING COVERED

WALKWAY

EXISTING COVERED WALKWAY

EXISTING

PARKING

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL

NEW BUILDING - WING A

BBQ & PICNIC AREA

ADJACENT PROPERTY
APN: 001-19-173
ZONING: R110 ADJACENT PROPERTY
1,000 HIGH ST.

APN: 001-02-241
ZONING: PF PROPOSED PARKING
16 17
18 19
20 60'-0" WIDE

PROPOSED

RESIDENTIAL NEW

BUILDING - WING B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 11 12 13 14 15

ADJACENT PROPERTY
APN 001-261-52
ZONING: PF
8 9

SUBJECT PROPERTY
APN 001-022-40
ZONING: R110

ADJACENT PROPERTY
APN 001-022-39
ZONING: R110

ADJACENT PROPERTY
APN: 001-191-01

ADJACENT PROPERTY
APN: 001-191-02

ADJACENT PROPERTY
APN: 001-191-03
2 2
1 1

ADJACENT PROPERTY
APN: 006-241-23

ADJACENT

PROPERTY
APN: 006-241-02

ADJACENT

PROPERTY
APN: 006-241-03

ADJACENT

PROPERTY
APN: 006-241-04

ADJACENT

PROPERTY
APN: 006-241-05

ADJACENT

PROPERTY
APN: 006-241-06

ADJACENT

PROPERTY
APN: 006-241-07

MOORE STREET
(N) PRIVATE STORMDRAINAGE EASEMENT,

SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
(N) EVAE, PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS, & UTILITY EASEMENT
SERVING LOT 2, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
(N) EVAE, PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS, & UTILITY EASEMENT
SERVING LOT 1, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS

COMPACT

PROPOSED PAVED ACCESS
ADA

PARKING
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN. REFER

TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS AND

ARBORIST REPORT
EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN.

REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS

AND ARBORIST REPORT
EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN.

REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS

AND ARBORIST REPORT
2 2
(N) PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS, & UTILITY EASEMENT SERVING
LOT 1, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS

STANDARD

PROPOSED EV ADA PARKING
EV EV
3 3

SITE PLAN LEGEND
20' FIRE ROAD

PROPOSED UNIT

OPEN SPACE
EXISTING 30% (OR

GREATER) SLOPES

PRIVATE STORM-DRAINAGE EASEMENT

EXISTING CONCRETE

LANDSCAPED PLANTING AREA

BBQ & PICNIC AREA

STORMWATER PANTER BOX

PLANT BUFFER

EVAE, PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS, & UTILITY
EASEMENT SERVING LOT 1

EVAE, PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS, & UTILITY
EASEMENT SERVING LOT 2

PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS, & UTILITY
EASEMENT SERVING LOT 1
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 11:05:4
0 A
M
GP0.10.1

SITE PLAN
22133

01.25.2024

MB / DD

EB / JP
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
1" = 40'-0" 3

SITE PLAN
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 18.52
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
LEVEL 5
40' - 0"
LEVEL 6
50' - 0"
ROOF
60' - 0"
T.O. PARAPET
44' - 4"

EXISTING ADJACENT

BUILDING

EXISTING PRE-

SCHOOL BUILDING

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL

NEW BUILDING

EXISTING WESTLAKE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL APPROX. 19' - 6"
APPROX. 22' - 10"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
LEVEL 5
40' - 0"
LEVEL 6
50' - 0"
ROOF
60' - 0"
T.O. PARAPET
44' - 4"

HIGH STREET
60'-0" WIDE

EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL NEW

BUILDING-WING B

EXISTING

ADJACENT
BUILDINGAPPROX. 31' - 9"

EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCES APPROX. 17' - 0"
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
1/32" = 1'-0"
1/25/2024 11:06:43 AM
GP0.10.2

SITE SECTIONS
22133

01.25.2024
MB
JP/EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
1/32" = 1'-0"
1 SITE SECTION THROUGH TALLEST PORTION OF THE BUILDING
1/32" = 1'-0"
2 STREET CROSS SECTION
1 1
1 1

18.53 11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
1/25/2024 11:06:49 AM
GP0.11

RECORDED

EASEMENTS
22133

01.25.2024
MB
JP/EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
NTS
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024

18.54 No Parking
UP
UP UP
STOP
NO

PARKING VAN

ACCESSIBLE
SPACE
STOP

COMPACT

COMPACT
COMPACT SEE C2.1 SEE C2.2 SEE C3.1SEE C4.1 SEE C3.2SEE C4.2 H Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc. ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number 2011.04 08.15.2022 DD/JBTC

PEACE VILLAGE
900 HIGH ST.

EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING
No Parking EXISTING BUILDING
H Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc. ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number 2011.04 08.15.2022 DD/JBTC

PEACE VILLAGE
900 HIGH ST.

STOP NO PARKING VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE STOP COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING No Parking EXISTING BUILDING UP UP UP H Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc. ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number 2011.04 08.15.2022 DD/JBTC

PEACE VILLAGE
900 HIGH ST.

C (CA)) Scale: NTS UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLE SIGN 1 1'-5" (MIN.) NOTES: 1. ALL SIGN SUBSTRATES SHALL BE 1/8" THICK REFLECTORIZED ALUMINUM 2. LETTERS AND GRAPHICS SHALL BE SILK SCREENED REFLECTORIZED ALUMINUM 3. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE MOUNTED WITH TAMPER PROOF SCREWS TO GALVANIZED 2" DIAMETER STANDARD STEEL PIPE. PIPE SHALL BE SHOP PRIMED AND PAINTED WITH 2 COATS OF EXTERIOR ENAMEL 4. IN LIEU OF TAMPER PROOF SCREWS, SPOT WELDING END OF BOLT AFTER NUT INSTALLATION IS ACCEPTABLE 5. PROVIDE 3/4" RADIUS AT ALL SIGN CORNERS 6. SIGNS SHALL BE MOUNTED IN A CONSPICUOUS LOCATION 6. CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM WITH DISTRICT FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION. SPECIFIC INFORMATION MUST BE INCLUDED ON PERMANENT SIGN. 7. SIGN SHALL BE INSTALLED PER DETAIL 13 ON SHEET C5.10 OR ON EXISTING SIGN POST 1'-10" (MIN.) UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLES PARKED IN DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE SPACES NOT DISPLAYING DISTINGUISHING PLACARDS OR SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES ISSUED FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES WILL BE TOWED AWAY AT OWNER'S EXPENSE. TOWED VEHICLES MAY BE RECLAIMED AT: SANTA CRUZ POLICE DEPT. OR BY TELEPHONING (831) 471-1131. SIGN PER CBC 11B-502.8 METAL SIGN WITH 1" HIGH (MIN.) WHITE LETTERS BLUE BACKGROUND 18" MIN. 12" MIN. 89 18.58
EXISTING BUILDING UP UP UP NO PARKING VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE STOP COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT 2 H Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc. ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number 2011.04 08.15.2022 DD/JBTC

PEACE VILLAGE
900 HIGH ST.

EXISTING BUILDING UP UP UP NO PARKING VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE STOP COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT 200' HYDRANT RADIUS FROM HYDRANT
200' HYDRANT RADIUS 200' HOSE PULL 200' HOSE PULL 200' HOSE PULL 200' HYDRANT RADIUS FROM STAND PIPE / FDC H Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc. ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number 2011.04 08.15.2022 DD/JBTC

PEACE VILLAGE
900 HIGH ST.

1.7%

1.7% 3.3% 8.0% 1.5%
0%
6% 0% 1.3% 1.3% 2.2% 3:1 2.0% 1.5%

1.8%

1.8% H Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc. ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number 2011.04 08.15.2022 DD/JBTC

PEACE VILLAGE
900 HIGH ST.

SELF-TREATING AREA SELF-TREATING AREA

INTERNAL BYPASS
(2-YR CONVEYANCE)

SELF-TREATING AREA

18.67 STOP NO PARKING VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE STOP COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING No Parking EXISTING BUILDING UP UP UP H Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc. ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number 2011.04 08.15.2022 DD/JBTC

PEACE VILLAGE
900 HIGH ST.

SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 001-022-40 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE C G /CIVIL CONSULTANTS Engineers/Planners Scotts Valley, CA 95066 4444 Scotts Valley Drive / Suite 6 831.438.4420 2 GROUP, INC. 1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.23 2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.23 0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.22 C6.1 EROSION CONTROL PLAN SILT FENCE FIBER ROLL PONDING HT. STANDARD DETAIL TRENCH WITH NATIVE BACKFILL STEEL OR WOOD POST 12" MIN. FLOW FLOW RUNOFF8" GRAVEL FLOW 9" MAX. STORAGE HT. 12" MIN. (RECOMMENDED) RUNOFF ALTERNATE DETAIL TRENCH WITH GRAVEL PONDING HT. THE HEIGHT OF A SILT FENCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 36 INCHES. STORAGE HEIGHT SHALL NEVER EXCEED 18". THE FENCE LINE SHALL FOLLOW THE CONTOUR AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE. IF POSSIBLE, THE FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE CUT FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL TO AVOID THE USE OF JOINTS. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, FILTER CLOTH SHALL BE SPLICED ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST, WITH A MINIMUM 6-INCH OVERLAP AND BOTH ENDS SECURELY FASTENED TO THE POST. POSTS SHALL BE SPACED A MAXIMUM OF 10 FEET APART AND DRIVEN SECURELY INTO THE GROUND (MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES). WHEN EXTRA STRENGTH FABRIC IS USED WITHOUT THE WIRE SUPPORT FENCE, POST SPACING SHALL NOT EXCEED 6 FEET. TURN THE ENDS OF THE FENCE UPHILL. A TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES WIDE AND 6 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE LINE OF POSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER. WHEN STANDARD-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC IS USED, A WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE SHALL BE FASTENED SECURELY TO THE UPSLOPE SIDE OF THE POSTS USING HEAVY DUTY WIRE STAPLES AT LEAST 1 INCH LONG, TIE WIRES OR HOG RINGS. THE WIRE SHALL EXTEND INTO THE TRENCH A MINIMUM OF 2 INCHES AND SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 36 INCHES ABOVE THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE. THE STANDARD-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE STAPLED OR WIRED TO THE FENCE, AND 6 INCHES OF THE FABRIC SHALL EXTEND INTO THE TRENCH. THE FABRIC SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 36 INCHES ABOVE THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE. FILTER FABRIC SHALL NOT BE STAPLED TO EXISTING TREES. WHEN EXTRA-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC AND CLOSER POST SPACING ARE USED, THE WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE MAY BE ELIMINATED. IN SUCH A CASE, THE FILTER FABRIC IS STAPLED OR WIRED DIRECTLY TO THE POSTS. THE TRENCH SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND THE SOIL COMPACTED OVER THE TOE OF THE FILTER FABRIC. SILT FENCES PLACED AT THE TOE OF A SLOPE SHALL BE SET AT LEAST 6 FEET FROM THE TOE IN ORDER TO INCREASE PONDING VOLUME. SILT FENCES SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR USEFUL PURPOSE, BUT NOT BEFORE THE UPSLOPE AREA HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED, AND ANY SEDIMENT STORED BEHIND THE SILT FENCE HAS BEEN REMOVED. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE SILT FENCES AND FILTER BARRIERS SHALL BE INSPECTED WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT STORM (1" IN 24 HR.). ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN IT REACHES 1/3 HEIGHT OF THE FENCE OR 9 INCHES MAXIMUM. THE REMOVED SEDIMENT SHALL VEGETATE OR OTHERWISE STABILIZED. Scale: NTS SILT FENCE 2 FILTER FABRIC EXTRA STRENGTH NEEDED MESH SUPPORT WITHOUT WIRE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS FILTER FABRIC ATTACH SECURELY TO UPSTREAM SIDE OF POST. WOOD POST 36" HIGH MAX 4"x6" TRENCH WITH COMPACTED BACKFILL 10 FT MAX SPACING WITH WIRE SUPPORT FENCE 6 FT MAX SPACING WITHOUT WIRE SUPPORT FENCE SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION FIBER ROLL SANITARY FACILITY MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT STORAGE AREA SWPPP MANAGER TO MARK KNOWN LOCATIONS LEGEND EROSION CONTROL NOTES BLANDO BROME 50% ROSE CLOVER (PELLET INOCULATED) 35% CREEPING RED RESCUE 15% ZORRO ANNUAL FESCUE TRACE WILDFLOWERS TRACE 1. BETWEEN OCTOBER 15 AND APRIL 15, EXPOSED SOIL SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION AT ALL TIMES. HAY BALES, FILTER BERMS, OR OTHER MEANS SHALL BE EMPLOYED TO PREVENT TURBID RUNOFF TO ADJOINING PROPERTIES. 2. ALL AREA ON AND OFF SITE, EXPOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION, IF NOT PERMANENTLY LANDSCAPED PER PLANS, SHALL BE PROTECTED BY MULCHING AND/OR PLANTING OF THE FOLLOWING APPROVED EROSION CONTROL MIX, AT A RATE OF 35 POUNDS PER ACRE: 3. UNNECESSARY GRADING AND DISTURBING OR SOIL SHALL BE AVOIDED. 4. ANY EXCESS MATERIAL SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF-SITE OR STOCKPILED IN A MANNER TO AVOID RUNOFF ONTO ADJOINING PROPERTIES. Scale: NTS FIBER ROLLS 1 varies Slope Fiber roll wood stakes 3/4"X3/4" 8" ∅ min CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS LOCATE FIBER ROLLS ON LEVEL CONTOURS SPACED AS FOLLOWS: - SLOPE INCLINATION OF 4 :1 (H:V) OR FLATTER: FIBER ROLLS SHOULD BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM INTERVAL OF 20 FT. - SLOPE INCLINATION BETWEEN 4:1 AND 2:1 (H:V) FIBER ROLLS SHOULD BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM INTERVAL OF 15 FT. (A CLOSER SPACING IS MORE EFFECTIVE). - SLOPE INCLINATION OF 2:1 (H:V) OR GREATER: FIBER ROLLS SHOULD BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM INTERVAL OF 10 FT. (A CLOSER SPACING IS MORE EFFECTIVE). - TURN THE ENDS OF THE FIBER ROLL UP SLOPE TO PREVENT RUNOFF FROM GOING AROUND THE ROLL. STAKE FIBER ROLLS INTO A 2 TO 4 IN. DEEP TRENCH WITH A WIDTH EQUAL TO THE DIAMETER OF THE FIBER ROLL. - DRIVE STAKES AT THE END OF EACH FIBER ROLL AND SPACED 4 FT MAXIMUM ON CENTER. - USE WOOD STAKES WITH A NOMINAL CLASSIFICATION OF 0.75 BY 0.75 IN. AND A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 24 IN. - IF MORE THAN ONE FIBER ROLL IS PLACED IN A ROW, THE ROLLS SHOULD BE OVERLAPPED, NOT ABUTTED. REPAIR OR REPLACE SPLIT, TORN, UNRAVELING OR SLUMPING FIBER ROLLS. Rolls Fiber measured along the Vertical spacing varies between face of the slope 10' and 20' 4' Max 4' Max into a steeper slope slope where it transitions Install a fiber roll near along a level contour Install fiber roll 4' Max Note: IF THE FIBER ROLL IS USED AS A SEDIMENT CAPTURE DEVICE, OR AS AN EROSION CONTROL DEVICE TO MAINTAIN SHEET FLOWS, SEDIMENT THAT ACCUMULATES IN THE BMP MUST BE PERIODICALLY REMOVED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN BMP EFFECTIVENESS. SEDIMENT SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION REACHES ONE-HALF THE DESIGNATED SEDIMENT STORAGE DEPTH, USUALLY ONE-HALF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TOP OF THE FIBER ROLL AND THE ADJACENT GROUND SURFACE. SEDIMENT REMOVED DURING THE MAINTENANCE MAY BE INCORPORATED INTO EARTHWORK ON THE SITE OR DISPOSED AT AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION. 4' Max Scale: NTS FILTREX® INLET PROTECTION 3 DRAIN INLET PLAN DRAIN INLET SECTION NOTES: 1. ALL MATERIAL TO MEET FILTREXX® SPECIFICATIONS. 2. FILTER MEDIA™ FILL TO MEET APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. 3. COMPOST MATERIAL TO BE DISPERSED ON SITE, AS DETERMINED BY ENGINEER. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXTEND MIRAFI 140N FABRIC 6" BEYOND CATCH BASIN AFTER PLACEMENT OF GRATE 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL FILTER FABRIC FROM ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS UPON COMPLETION OF PROJECT FILTREXX® 8" SOXX™ CATCH BASIN MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC WIRE TIES, (TYP.) STORM GRATE 5. UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALL REMAINING EXPOSED AREAS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY REVEGETATED PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. 6. ANY MATERIAL STOCKPILED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE COVERED WITH PLASTIC. 7. DURING CONSTRUCTION, NO TURBID SITE WATER SHALL BE PERMITTED TO ENTER STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. USE OF SILT AND GREASE TRAPS, FILTER BERMS, OR HAY BALES MAY BE USED TO PREVENT SUCH DISCHARGE. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY COUNTY 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY EARTHWORK IS BEGUN. 9. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM "EXCAVATION, GRADING, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS" PER DSA. NO CLEARING, GRADING, OR EXCAVATION SHALL TAKE PLACE BETWEEN OCTOBER 15, AND APRIL 15 UNLESS THERE IS AN APPROVED WINTER EROSION CONTROL PLAN. ALL DISTURBED SOUL SHALL BE SEEDED, MULCHED, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY OCTOBER 15. 18.68 Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc. ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number 2011.04 08.15.2022 DD/JBTC

PEACE VILLAGE
900 HIGH ST.

SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 001-022-40 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE C G /CIVIL CONSULTANTS Engineers/Planners Scotts Valley, CA 95066 4444 Scotts Valley Drive / Suite 6 831.438.4420 2 GROUP, INC. 1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.23 2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.23 0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.22 C7.1 DETAILS (N) 4" THICK CONCRETE SLAB (3,000 PSI) FGSUBGRADE @ 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION 4" THICK CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE ROCK Scale: NTS CONCRETE SIDEWALK SECTION 1 #4 REBAR @ 24" OC EW FLOW FLOW NOTES: 1. FOR CHANNELIZATION OF INTERCEPTING LINES, POROVIDE SMOOTH TRANSITIONS (APPROX. 1'-8" INSIDE RADIUS) TOWARDS DOWNSTREAM FLOW OF MAIN. 2. PRECASE CONCRETE PIPE SECTIONS, ADJUSTMENT RINGS AND TAPERED SECTIONS SHALL CONFORM TO CLASS II REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (ATSM C 76) 3. ALL RAMNECK JOINTS SHALL BE SMOOTHLY FINISHED WITH WATER PROOF MORTAR. 4. THE USE OF MORE THAN 12" OF ADJUSTING RINGS TO CONFORM TO GRADE SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. 5. CONCENTRIC MANHOLES MAY BE USED WHEN A UTILITY CONFLICT OCCURS OR WHEN APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. CAST-IN-PLACE CLASS "B" CONCRETE BASE SLOPE = 1" PER FOOT MIN. GROUT AND SHAPE TO SMOOTH FINISH. MORTAR ALL JOINTS SEE NOTE 3. SEE NOTE 4PAVEMENT GRADE STANDARD FRAME & COVER SEE DTL. 12 ON THIS SHEET (12" X10" CLASS "B" CONCRETE COLLAR (CONTRACTOR IS TO AVOID EXCAVATING INTO SUBGRADE WHEN INSTALLING COLLAR) TOP OF PIPE SHALL BE CUT FLUSH WITH MANHOLE INSIDE WALL R=1'-8" (SEE NOTE 1) 12" MIN. 12" 2" MIN. ASPHALT CAP 2'-0" VARIES VARIES 4'-0" STD. 4" MIN. 6" THRU. 36" DIA. 6" MIN. 10" D1 6" THRU 36" 3" MIN. Scale: NTS MANHOLE 8 Scale: NTS PERVIOUS PAVER SECTION 3 NTS VEHICULAR CONCRETE SECTION 2 MEDIUM BROOM FINISH #3 @ 18" O.C. BOTH DIRECTIONS 4" AB MIN. BELOW CONC. 6" 12" 6" NOTE: 1. TYPE OF CONCRETE: CLASS A 2. MINIMUM 6" CLASS 2 AB, COMPACTED TO 95%. 3. DOWEL WITH #4 BARS, 12" LONG, AT 24" ON CENTERS, EMBEDDED 4" WITH EPOXY IN EDGE OF EXISTING CONCRETE. 4. DOWELING & REINFORCING TO BE PROVIDED AT JOINTS. 6" RECOMPACT 12" NATIVE SUBGRADE TO 95% 6" Scale: NTS ASPHALT TIE-IN DETAIL 11 (N) AC (N) PAVEMENT SECTION 1.0' MIN. EXISTING AC PAVEMENT SURFACE TACK COAT EXISTING PAVEMENT (N) AB Scale: NTS VEHICULAR AC PAVEMENT SECTION 6 (N) 7.5" AB CLASS II COMPACTED TO 95% R.C. FGCONTRACTOR SHALL SCARIFY AND RECOMPACT SUBGRADE PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (N) 2.5" AC TYPE A - 1/2" MAX. MED. LIFTS SHALL BE CONDUCTED PER CAL TRANS SPECS SECTION 39-6.01 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION TO IMPROVE THE THE PAVEMENT LIFE AND REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR PAVEMENT DISTRESS THROUGH CONSTRUCTION, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE FULL DESIGN ASPHALT CONCRETE SECTION BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC LOADING. ALTERNATIVELY, A HIGHER TRAFFIC INDEX MAY BE CHOSEN FOR THE AREAS WHERE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC WILL BE USING THE PAVEMENTS. A THICKER SECTION OF 3 INCHES OF AC PAVEMENT OVER 10 INCHES OF CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE MAY BE USED FOR THE AREAS OF HIGHER CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC. AN ALTERNATIVE TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR CRACKING WITHIN THE AC PAVEMENT IS TO INSTALL A MOISTURE BARRIER AT LEAST 24 INCHES DEEP BEHIND THE PAVEMENT CURBING OR EDGE CONDITIONS SAWCUT LINE Scale: NTS FIXED BOLLARD 12 Fixed Bollard SCALE: NTS PRESSURE TREATED WOOD HEADER DETAIL 10 2X4 PRESSURE TREATED STAKE 36" OC (3)10d GALVANIZED NAILS AT EACH STAKE NEW ASPHALT PAVING & BASE 2X12 PRESSURE TREATED HEADER FILL WITH NATIVE Scale: NTS CONCRETE SIDEWALK SECTION 9 FG. REFER TO LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PLAN FOR PAVING FINISH 4" THICK CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE ROCK OVER 5" THICK NON-EXPANSIVE FILL OR 9" THICK CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE ROCK 4" THICK CONCRETE SLAB (4,000 PSI). REFER TO LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PLAN FOR SPECIFIC FINISH AND COLOR REQUIREMENTS #4 REBAR @ 12" O.C. EACH WAY EQEQ Scale: NTS CONCRETE CURB & VALLEY GUTTER 5 TYPE C CURB 6" 6" 1-1/2" SCORELINE R = 12" 12" (BFC) FINISH SURFACE PER PLAN Scale: NTS GROUTED RIP-RAP 13 TYPE V-VALLEY GUTTER 48" 24" 6" MIN. 6" MIN. AGGREGATE BASE COMPACT BASE MATERIAL TO 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION 2"** Scale: NTS CURB TAPER DETAIL 7 Scale: NTS DEEPENED CONCRETE CURB AT BIORETETNION AREA 4 #4 REBAR, CONTINUOUS #4 REBAR, 18" O.C. #4 REBAR @ 12" O.C.E.W. CONCRETE SIDEWALK (SEE DETAIL 6) DEEPENED CURB DEEPENED CURB SHALL BE EMBEDDED MINIMUM 12" INTO PREPARED SUBGRADE. COMPACT SUBGRADE TO PER GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1 1 PROVIDE 1' WIDE DRAINAGE OPENINGS EVERY 6' O.C. CONTRACTOR SHALL SCARIFY AND RECOMPACT SUBGRADE PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PAVEMENT PER DETAILS 1 & 2 (2) #4 REBAR CONTINUOUS 2' R=1" TOP OF CURB TOP OF PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION JOINT 2' 6" CONSTRUCTION JOINT 6" TYPE C CURB TAPER FINISH GRADE PER PLANS EDGE OF PREPARED SUBGRADE #4 REBAR, CONTINUOUS #4 REBAR, 18" O.C. #4 REBAR @ 12" O.C.E.W. CONCRETE SIDEWALK DEEPENED CURB DEEPENED CURB SHALL BE EMBEDDED MINIMUM 12" INTO PREPARED SUBGRADE. COMPACT SUBGRADE TO PER GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1 1 FINISH GRADE PER PLANS EDGE OF PREPARED SUBGRADE DEEPENED EDGE AT BIORETENTION AREAS 1. TYPE A & C CURB & FLUSH CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF CLASS B CONCRETE, 6 SACK MINIMUM. 2. WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT 20° INTERVALS, AND AT THE ENDS OF RETURNS. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE AT MAXIMUM 60 FEET SPACING. 3. IF SIDEWALK IS NOT INSTALLED MONOLITHICALLY WITH CURB & GUTTER, PLACE #4 DOWELS 18" LONG AT 4' O.C. IN BACK OF CURB 2" DOWN FROM TOP OF CURB, 6" IN CONCRETE. * COUNTER SLOPE OF ADJOINING GUTTERS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN 24" OF THE CURB RAMP SHALL NOT BE STEEPER 1"V IN 20"H (CBC 11B-406.5.8) ** GUTTER PAN SLOPE WITHIN ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL SHALL NOT EXCEED 1"V IN 20"H OR 5.0% SLOPE NOTE: 1. REFER TO DETAIL 5/S0.12 FOR CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT DETAILS & DEVELOPMENT LENGTHSAGGREGATE BASE TYPE A CURB AND GUTTER (CATCH) * CROSS SLOPE OF GUTTER AT CURB CUTS SHALL BE 1" IN 20" 6" 12" SEE NOTE #3 REGARDING REBAR REQUIREMENTS 6" 3/4" * R = 1" R = 12" 31-1/2" 18" 1-1/2" 6" 6" 1-1/4" 6" TOP OF CURB FACE OF CURB R=1/2" 18.69 Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc. ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number 2011.04 08.15.2022 DD/JBTC

PEACE VILLAGE
900 HIGH ST.

ENTRANCE
ONLY
ONLY

EX TI
ONLY
EXIT
OTS P
NO

PARKING VAN

ACCESSIBLE
SPACE
STOP

COMPACT

COMPACT
N

SITE PLAN LEGEND
20' FIRE ROAD

PROPOSED UNIT OPEN SPACE
EXISTING 30% (OR GREATER) SLOPES

PRIVATE STORM-DRAINAGE EASEMENT

EXISTING CONCRETE

LANDSCAPED PLANTING AREA

BBQ & PICNIC AREA

STORMWATER PANTER BOX

PLANT BUFFER

EVAE, PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS, & UTILITY EASEMENT
SERVING LOT 2

EVAE, PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS, & UTILITY EASEMENT
SERVING LOT 1
PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS, & UTILITY EASEMENT SERVING LOT 1

EXISTING PARKING
30% - 49% GRADE
14,980.00 SF

EXISTING CHURCH

BUILDING

EXISTING CHURCH

BUILDING

EXISTING

PRESCHOOL

BUILDING

HIGH STREET

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING COVERED WALKWAY EXISTING COVERED WALKWAY

EXISTING

PARKING

EXISTIN
G
DRIVEW
A
Y
5' WIDE EGRESS

CORRIDOR BELOW

EGRESS STAIR
(LEVEL 1-5)

EGRESS STAIR A
(LEVEL 1-4)

CO-LIVING OUTDOOR
SPACE AT LEVEL 1
5' WIDE EGRESS CORRIDOR BELOW

PROPOSED RAMP

PROPOSED PAVED ACCESS

BALCONIES BELOW
(ON LEVEL 2 & 3)

PLANT BUFFER

PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE
SEE AP9.01
STORMWATER PLANTER BOX PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE PARKING (24) PROPOSED PLANTERS WITH SEATING, TYP.

STORMWATER PLANTER, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS

LANDSCAPED PLANTING AREA

PROPOSED

PAVED ACCESS

BBQ & PICNIC AREA, SEE

LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS

TERRACE AT
LEVEL 4

PROPOSED STAIR
ACCESS
BALCONIES BELOW, TYP.

BALCONIES BELOW, TYP.

PRIVATE PATIOS
ON LEVEL 1
BUILDING ENTRANCE BELOW AT LEVEL 1

PROPOSED

PAVED ACCESS

ADJACENT PROPERTY
850 HIGH ST.

APN: 001-19-173

ADJACENT PROPERTY
1,000 HIGH ST.

APN: 001-02-241

RETAINING WALL - SEE CIVIL

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE ( S 74°40'00" E 535.12)

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
EVAE
20' - 0"

STANDARD

PROPOSED PARKING
(N) 3' WOODEN FENCE
(E) CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN
(E) 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN
(E) 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN
SIDE SETBACK LINE @ 10'
FRONT SETBACK LINE @ 25'-0"
-0"

SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0"SIDE SETBACK LINE @ 10'-0"
REAR SETBACK LINE @ 30'-0"
REAR SETBACK LINE @ 30'-0"

REAR SETBACK
30' - 0"
FRONT SETBACK LINE @ 25'-0"
FRONT SETBACK LINE @ 25'-0"

FRONT SETBACK
25' - 0"
16 17
18 19
20 QUARRY SETBACK
30' - 0"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 11 12 13 14 15

PROPOSED EV ADA PARKING

BUILDING MOUNTED HIGH
EFFICIENCY LED LIGHT, TYP.

PROPOSED CLASS II
BIKE PARKING (6)

POLE LIGHT WITH SINGLE HEAD

HIGH EFFICIENCY LED AREA LIGHT

LOW LEVEL POST-MOUNT HIGH

EFFICIENCY LED PATHWAY LIGHT,
TYP.

ADA PARKING

SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0"

PROPOSED CLASS II
BIKE PARKING (16)
(N) EVAE, PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS, & UTILITY EASEMENT
SERVING LOT 1, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.
8 9
17' - 10 3/4"
65' - 11 3/4"
45' - 0 1/8"
HYD.
46' - 5 1/8"
64' - 8 1/2"
TYP.
8' - 0"
19' - 10 3/4"
HYD.

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF
TRAVEL
Δ =
R
4 = 5 4 . 2 6 '
L =
6 ° 0 5 ' 5 5 "
4 3 . 6 6
R = 5 5 . 6 1 '
Δ = 2 8 ° 3 2 ' 1 8 "
L = 2 7 . 7 0
R = 2 7 . 1 3 '
Δ = 7 6 ° 2 5 ' 0 8 "
L = 3 6 . 1 8
S 7 6 ° 0 6 ' 5 1 " W 2 3 9 . 6 4
S 38°14'00" W
239.64
1 1
1 N 7 6 ° 0 0 ' 4 0 " E 6 2 . 8 4 '
(N) EVAE, PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS, & UTILITY EASEMENT
SERVING LOT 2, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
1 1

FDC, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
1 FDC, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS

FDC, SEE CIVIL

DRAWINGS
1 SIDEYARD
1 SETBACK
0' - 0"
ROOF SCREEN, TYP.
(N) PRIVATE STORMDRAINAGE EASEMENT,

SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
(N) EVAE, PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS, & UTILITY EASEMENT
SERVING LOT 1, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS

COMPACT
16'-0" TYP.

TYP.
20' - 0"
TYP.
9' - 0"
19'-0" TYP
TYP.
9' - 0"
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

LOW LEVEL POST-MOUNT HIGH EFFICIENCY
LED PATHWAY LIGHT, TYP.

RECESSED LED DOWNLIGHT,

SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN. REFER TO LANDSCAPE

DRAWINGS AND ARBORIST REPORT
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN, TYP. REFER TO LANDSCAPE

DRAWINGS AND ARBORIST REPORT
EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, TYP.

REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS

AND ARBORIST REPORT

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
LANDSCAPED PLANTING AREA, TYP. SEE

LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE

LANDSCAPE PLANTING AREA

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
(N) PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS, & UTILITY EASEMENT SERVING
LOT 1, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.
(N) PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS, & UTILITY EASEMENT SERVING
LOT 1, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.

EV EV
3 3

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION.

2. THE PROJECT WILL MEET THE NECESSARY PROVISIONS OF CBC CHAPTER 10, 11A & 11B AS APPLICABLE

3. NO PUBLIC FUNDS WILL BE USED

SITE PLAN NOTES
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 10:52:03 AM
AP0.51

PROPOSED SITE
PLAN
22133

01.25.2024

MB / JP / DD
EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.

SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
1" = 30'-0" 1

SITE PLAN
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 18.74
UP
UP
UP
UP

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION.

2. THE PROJECT WILL MEET THE NECESSARY PROVISIONS OF CBC CHAPTER 10, 11A & 11B AS

APPLICABLE

3. NO PUBLIC FUNDS WILL BE USED

FLOOR PLAN NOTES

UNIT MIX

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
TOTAL

UNIT - STUDIO
UNIT - JR 1 BED
UNIT - 1 BED
UNIT - 2 BED
UNIT - 3 BED
UNIT - 4 BED
UNIT - 5 BED
11 2
1 15
4 6
1 40
N
1 AP4.01
2 AP4.01
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
1 2
3 M
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
N
O
P
AP3.02
1 AP3.03
2 AP3.02
AP3.03
2 AP3.01
4 1
AP3.01
1 326 SF

CLASS I BICYCLE
STOR.
1160 SF

CO-LIVING

AMENITY
SPACE
229 SF
TRASH
139 SF
STAIR 1
58 SF
ELEV
116 SF
OFFICE
650 SF

RESIDENTIAL

CORRIDOR

EGRESS STAIR A
(LEVEL 1-4)

STORMWATER

PLANTER BOX

PROPOSED

PAVED ACCESS

PROPOSED
RAMP
PLANT
BUFFER

PROPOSED

PLANTERS

WITH SEATING

PROPOSED

STAIR ACCESS

PRIVATE PATIOS

STORMWATER

PLANTER BOX

BUILDING

ENTRANCE

PROPOSED

PAVED ACCESS

EGRESS STAIR
(LEVEL 1-5)
TOTAL: 24

STORMWATER

PLANTER
BOX
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 4
BEDROOM 1
BATH 2
BATH 1
BEDROOM 4 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 1
BATH 2
BATH 1
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 4
BEDROOM 1
BATH 2
BATH 1
1002 SF
4 BR CO-LIVING
UNIT
987 SF
4 BR CO-LIVING
UNIT
1000 SF
4 BR CO-LIVING
UNIT
DINING

LIVINGLAUNDRY

KITCHEN
PANTRY
7 7
4 TOTAL: 60
24 AP3.01 2
TOTAL: 16
48 SF

CLASS II

BICYCLE

PARKING
145 SF

CLASS II

BICYCLE

PARKING
393 SF

CO-LIVING PRIVATE

OUTDOOR SPACE

PROPERTY
LINE
1 AP5.01
64' - 1"
152' - 8 3/4"
32°
26' - 8 7/8"
17' - 4 3/4" 13' - 11 1/2"
30' - 0"
39' - 4"
30' - 0"
39' - 0"
7 7
7 58 SF

PACKAGE
7 7
7 4' - 2 5/8"
6' - 8 7/8"
10' - 9 3/4"
12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 11' - 11 7/8" 12' - 0 1/8" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0"

SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0"
5' - 0" 4' - 0"
1 2 3
11' - 7" 39' - 11 1/2"

MAILBOXES
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19' - 10 7/8"
1 GP0.10.2
12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 44' - 6" -
-
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT,
TYP.

DOWNSPOUT,
TYP.
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 10:52:17 AM
AP1.01

PROPOSED FIRST

LEVEL PLAN
22133

01.25.2024

JP / OH
EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1" = 10'-0" 1
PROPOSED LEVEL 1 PLAN
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2

18.75 DN
UP
UP
UP DN

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION.

2. THE PROJECT WILL MEET THE NECESSARY PROVISIONS OF CBC CHAPTER 10, 11A & 11B AS

APPLICABLE

3. NO PUBLIC FUNDS WILL BE USED

FLOOR PLAN NOTES

UNIT MIX

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
TOTAL

CO-LIVING

AMENITY
SPACE
117 SF
TRASH STAIR 1
ELEV
121 SF

LAUNDRY

PRIVATE
BALCONIES, TYP.

EGRESS STAIR A
(LEVEL 1-4)
5' WIDE EGRESS

CORRIDOR

PRIVATE

BALCONY

EGRESS STAIR
(LEVEL 1-5)
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 4
BEDROOM 1
BATH 2
BATH 1
BEDROOM 4 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 1
BATH 2
BATH 1
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 4
BEDROOM 1
BATH 2
BATH 1
BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 4
BEDROOM 5
BATH 1
CL
AP3.01 2
316 SF

CIRCULATION

PROPERTY
LINE
1 AP5.01
68' - 6"
39' - 0"
27' - 3 3/4" 17' - 5 1/2"
17' - 11 5/8"
32°
39' - 4"
30' - 0"
156' - 0"
30' - 0"

KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING

SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0"
5' - 0" 4' - 0"
5' - 0" 4' - 4"
6' - 8
5/8"
10' - 9"
83°
12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 4 5 6 7
11' - 7" 39' - 11 1/2"
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 GP0.10.2
12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 44' - 6" -
-
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT,
TYP.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 10:52:32 AM
AP1.02

PROPOSED SECOND

LEVEL PLAN
22133

01.25.2024

JP / OH
EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1" = 10'-0" 1
PROPOSED LEVEL 2 PLAN
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 18.76
DN
UP
UP
DN

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION.

2. THE PROJECT WILL MEET THE NECESSARY PROVISIONS OF CBC CHAPTER 10, 11A & 11B AS

APPLICABLE

3. NO PUBLIC FUNDS WILL BE USED

FLOOR PLAN NOTES

UNIT MIX

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
TOTAL

UNIT - STUDIO
UNIT - JR 1 BED
UNIT - 1 BED
UNIT - 2 BED
UNIT - 3 BED
UNIT - 4 BED
UNIT - 5 BED
11 2
1 15
4 6
1 40
1 AP4.01
2 AP4.01
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
1 2
3 M
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
N
O
P
AP3.02
1 AP3.02
AP3.03
2 AP3.01
4 1
647 SF
2 BR UNIT
398 SF
1 BR UNIT
139 SF
STAIR 1
116 SF
TRASH
58 SF
ELEV
316 SF
STUDIO
657 SF
2 BR UNIT
307 SF
STUDIO
1015 SF
3 BR UNIT
319 SF
STUDIO
318 SF
STUDIO
318 SF
STUDIO
660 SF
2 BR UNIT
317 SF
STUDIO
317 SF
STUDIO
317 SF
STUDIO
644 SF
2 BR UNIT

PRIVATE

BALCONIES

EGRESS STAIR A
(LEVEL 1-4)
5' WIDE EGRESS

CORRIDOR

PRIVATE

BALCONIES

EGRESS STAIR
(LEVEL 1-5)
5' WIDE EGRESS

CORRIDOR

PRIVATE PATIOS
BEDROOM 1
BATH 1
BEDROOM 1
BATH 1 BATH 1 BATH 1
BEDROOM 1
BATH 1
BEDROOM 1
BATH 1 BATH 1 BATH 1 BEDROOM 1
BATH 1
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 3
CL
BATH 2
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 2
BATH 1

BEDROOM
BATH 1
BATH 1
BATH 1
BATH 1
AP3.01 2
446 SF

CIRCULATION

PROPERTY
LINE
1 AP5.01
156' - 0"
39' - 4"
30' - 0"
116' - 6"
39' - 0"
30' - 0"
32°
7' - 1 7/8"

SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0"
12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 6' - 8
5/8"
10' - 9"
83°
5' - 0" 4' - 0"
5' - 0" 4' - 4"
360
355
350
345
340
335
360
355
350
345
340
335
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18
19 20
21 11' - 7" 39' - 11 1/2"
52' - 6"
-
-
1 GP0.10.2
12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 44' - 6" -
-
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT,
TYP.

N
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 10:52:52 AM
AP1.03

PROPOSED THIRD

LEVEL PLAN
22133

01.25.2024

JP / OH
EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1" = 10'-0" 1
PROPOSED LEVEL 3 PLAN
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 18.77
DN
UP
UP
1 AP4.01
2 AP4.01
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
1 2
3 M
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
N
O
P
AP3.02
1 AP3.03
2 AP3.02
AP3.03
2 AP3.01
4 1
AP3.01
1 938 SF
3 BR UNIT
646 SF
2 BR UNIT
397 SF
1 BR UNIT
117 SF
TRASH
139 SF
STAIR 1
58 SF
ELEV 317 SF
STUDIO
656 SF
2 BR UNIT
317 SF
STUDIO
657 SF
2 BR UNIT
316 SF
STUDIO
646 SF
2 BR UNIT
628 SF
2 BR UNIT
925 SF
3 BR UNIT
628 SF
2 BR UNIT
916 SF
3 BR UNIT

PRIVATE TERRACES

EGRESS STAIR A
(LEVEL 1-4)
5' WIDE EGRESS

CORRIDOR

PRIVATE

BALCONIES

EGRESS STAIR
(LEVEL 1-5)
5' WIDE EGRESS

CORRIDOR

PRIVATE PATIOS

PRIVATE

BALCONIES
BEDROOM 1
BATH 1
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 3
CL
BATH 2
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 2
BATH 1

BEDROOM
BATH 1
BATH 1
BATH 1
BEDROOM 1
BATH 1
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 1
BATH 1
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3
CL
BATH 2
BEDROOM 1
BATH 1
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3
CL
BATH 2
BEDROOM 1
BATH 1
BEDROOM 1
BATH 1
BATH 1
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 2
BATH 1
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 2
BATH 1
AP3.01 2
446 SF

CIRCULATION

PROPERTY
LINE
1 AP5.01
39' - 4"
30' - 0"
156' - 0" 7' - 0"
32°
176' - 6"
39' - 0"
30' - 0"

SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0"
35' - 7" 24' - 0" 36' - 0" 24' - 0" 37' - 3"
12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 5' - 0" 4' - 1 7/8"
4' - 0" 5' - 0"
12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 44' - 6" 84°
147°
360
355
350
345
340
335
360
355
350
345
340
335
22 23 24 25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
11' - 7" 39' - 11 1/2"
-
-
1 GP0.10.2
-
-
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT,
TYP.

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION.

2. THE PROJECT WILL MEET THE NECESSARY PROVISIONS OF CBC CHAPTER 10, 11A & 11B AS

APPLICABLE

3. NO PUBLIC FUNDS WILL BE USED

FLOOR PLAN NOTES

UNIT MIX

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
TOTAL

UNIT - STUDIO
UNIT - JR 1 BED
UNIT - 1 BED
UNIT - 2 BED
UNIT - 3 BED
UNIT - 4 BED
UNIT - 5 BED
11 2
1 15
4 6
1 40
N
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 10:53:09 AM
AP1.04

PROPOSED FOURTH

LEVEL PLAN
22133

01.25.2024

JP / OH
EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 18.78
DN
DN
1 AP4.01
2 AP4.01
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
1 2
3 M
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
N
O
P
AP3.02
1 AP3.02
AP3.03
2 AP3.01
4 1
117 SF
TRASH
58 SF
ELEV
139 SF
STAIR 1
657 SF
2 BR UNIT
646 SF
2 BR UNIT -

DOWNSTAIRS
305 SF
2 BED UNIT -

DOWNSTAIRS
646 SF
2 BR UNIT -

DOWNSTAIRS
305 SF
2 BED UNIT -

DOWNSTAIRS
299 SF
1 BR UNIT -

DOWNSTAIRS

EGRESS STAIR
(LEVEL 1-5)
5' WIDE EGRESS

CORRIDOR

PRIVATE BALCONIES
LEVEL 4 ROOF

TERRACE AT LEVEL
4 BELOW
BEDROOM 1
BATH 1
BATH 1
BATH 1
BATH 1
BATH 1
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 2
BATH 1
AP3.01 2
247 SF

CIRCULATION

PROPERTY
LINE
1 AP5.01
30' - 0"
39' - 0"
176' - 6"
30' - 0"
LEVEL 4 ROOF

SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0"
156' - 0"
12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 44' - 6" 132' - 0"
4' - 0" 5' - 0"
35 36
37 38
40 39
11' - 7" 39' - 11 1/2"
-
-
1 GP0.10.2
35' - 8 3/4" 24' - 0" 36' - 0" 24' - 0" 36' - 11 1/2"
-
-
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT,
TYP.

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION.

2. THE PROJECT WILL MEET THE NECESSARY PROVISIONS OF CBC CHAPTER 10, 11A & 11B AS

APPLICABLE

3. NO PUBLIC FUNDS WILL BE USED

FLOOR PLAN NOTES

UNIT MIX

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
TOTAL

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 10:53:23 AM
AP1.05

PROPOSED FIFTH

LEVEL PLAN
22133

01.25.2024

JP / OH
EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
1" = 10'-0" 1
PROPOSED LEVEL 5 PLAN

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES

1. SEE SHEET GP0.01-GP0.05 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION.

2. THE PROJECT WILL MEET THE NECESSARY PROVISIONS OF CBC CHAPTER 10, 11A & 11B AS

APPLICABLE

3. NO PUBLIC FUNDS WILL BE USED

FLOOR PLAN NOTES

UNIT MIX

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES
TOTAL

UNIT - STUDIO
UNIT - JR 1 BED
UNIT - 1 BED
UNIT - 2 BED
UNIT - 3 BED
UNIT - 4 BED
UNIT - 5 BED
11 2
1 15
4 6
1 40
1 AP4.01
2 AP4.01
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
1 2
3 M
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
N
O
P
AP3.02
1 AP3.03
2 AP3.02
AP3.03
2 AP3.01
4 1
AP3.01
1 PROPOSED BALCONIES
BEDROOM 2
BATH 2
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 2
BATH 2
234 SF
1 BR - UPSTAIRS
576 SF
2 BR UNIT -

UPSTAIRS
243 SF
2 BED UNIT -

UPSTAIRS
576 SF
2 BR UNIT -

UPSTAIRS
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1
BATH 2
LIVING
BATH 2
LIVING

PROPERTY
LINE
DN
176' - 6"
30' - 0"
156' - 0"
30' - 0"
44' - 0"
44' - 0"
54' - 0"
54' - 0"
54' - 0"
54' - 0"
44' - 0"
44' - 0"
44' - 0" 44' - 0"
LEVEL 4 ROOF
LEVEL 4 ROOF

MECHANICAL

ENCLOSURE
54' - 0"
54' - 0"
LEVEL 5 ROOF
4' - 0"

POTENTIAL LOCATION OF

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

MECHANICAL

EQUIPMENT SCREEN

SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0"
12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 35' - 7" 24' - 0" 36' - 0" 24' - 0" 37' - 3"
32°
36 37
38 39
40 243 SF
2 BED UNIT -

UPSTAIRS
11' - 7" 48' - 11 1/2"
-
-
-
-
1 GP0.10.2
-
-

DOWNSPOUT,
TYP.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 10:53:32 AM
AP1.06

PROPOSED SIXTH

LEVEL PLAN
22133

01.25.2024

JP / OH
EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40

FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1" = 10'-0" 1
PROPOSED LEVEL 6 PLAN
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 18.80
DN
DN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
1 2
3 M
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
N
O
P
176' - 6"
LEVEL 6 ROOF

MECHANICAL

EQUIPEMENT
LEVEL 5 ROOF
LEVEL 4
ROOF
LEVEL 4
ROOF
30' - 0"
156' - 0"
30' - 0"
44' - 4"
44' - 4"
44' - 4"
44' - 4"
44' - 4"
44' - 4"
44' - 4"
54' - 0"
54' - 0"
54' - 0"
54' - 0"
63' - 6"
63' - 6"
63' - 6"
63' - 6"
LEVEL 5 ROOF
56' - 0"
56' - 0"
12' - 0 1/8" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 32°
4' - 5 1/2"
5' - 0 1/2"

SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0"
11' - 7" 39' - 11 1/2"
54' - 9 1/8"
35' - 7" 24' - 5" 36' - 0" 24' - 0" 36' - 7 7/8"

PV ARRAY PV ARRAY

PV ARRAY
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT,
TYP.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 10:53:38 AM
AP1.07

PROPOSED ROOF
PLAN
22133

01.25.2024
DD/ MB

JP / EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
1" = 10'-0" 1

PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
2 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 18.81

1. PROPERTY LINES ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION, REFER TO PLAN DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PROPERTY LINE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS.

2. CURBS AND STREETS ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION VIEW, REFER TO LAND SURVEY FOR EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, AND STREET INFORMATION.

ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES
ELEVATION KEYED NOTES 1
MATERIALS LEGEND2
OPTION 1:

VINYL FRAMED

SLIDING SYSTEM W/

GLAZED OR OPAQUE
PANELS
OPTION 2:

ALUMINUM FRAMED

SLIDING SYSTEM W/

GLAZED OR OPAQUE
PANELS
OPTION 1:

FORMED METAL

CHANNEL, PAINTED
OPTION 2:

FORMED

METAL, PAINTED
OPTION 1:

RESIN-IMPREGNATED
WOOD
OPTION 2:

EXTERIOR RATED

TIMBER SLATS

CURTAIN WALL
OPTION 1:

GLAZED

ALUMINUM

FRAME SYSTEM

CURTAIN WALL
OPTION 2:

STRUCTURAL

SILICONE

GLAZED ALUMINUM
SYSTEM
CURTAIN WALL OPTION 3:

GLAZED ALUMINUM AND

TIMBER SYSTEM

CURTAIN WALL OPTION
4:

STRUCTURAL SILICONE

GLAZED TIMBER
SYSTEM
WINDOWS OPTION 1:

VINYL FRAMED

WINDOW, DBL GLAZED
WINDOWS OPTION 2:

ALUMINUM FRAMED

WINDOW, DBL GLAZED
OPTION 1:
"CALIBER" LED WALL SCONCE
DOWNLIGHT ONLY, OR SIM.

OPTION 2:

LED RECESSED
DOWNLIGHT OR SIM.

OPTION 3:

LINEAR LED DOWNLIGHT
RAILING OPTION 1:

GLASS RAILING
RAILING OPTION 2:

PAINTED METAL

PICKET RAILING

EXTERIOR FINISHES

RAILINGS

CURTAIN WALL

WINDOWS

BALCONY DOORS
STRINGER @ STAIRS/BALCONY SLAB

AND SHADING
SOFFIT

LIGHTING
OPTION 1:

CEMENTITIOUS PANEL
OPTION 2:

STUCCO OR SIM.

WOOD BATTENS OR ALUMINUM

BATTENS WITH TIMBER LOOK
FINISH OR SIM.
34 5

ROOF SCREEN
6 7
OPTION 1:

PERFORATED CORRUGATED

METAL ROOF SCREEN
OPTION 2:

CORRUGATED
METAL \ SCREEN
8 9
10 LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
LEVEL 5
40' - 0"
LEVEL 6
50' - 0"
ROOF
60' - 0"
44' - 4"
T.O. PARAPET
44' - 4"
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"
146
2 8
2 3
23 46
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT,
TYP.

LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
LEVEL 5
40' - 0"
T.O. PARAPET
44' - 4"
1 85
2 4' - 4" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"
44' - 4"
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
LEVEL 5
40' - 0"
44' - 4"
4' - 4" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"
T.O. PARAPET
44' - 4"
41 89
54' - 0"
85 DOWNSPOUT,
TYP.

DOWNSPOUT, TYP.
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 10:54:18 AM
AP3.01

PROPOSED

ELEVATIONS
22133

01.25.2024
MB/LB
JP/EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40

BUILDING ELEVATION KEYED NOTE

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 CEMENTITIOUS PANEL OR STUCCO OR SIM.
2 WOOD BATTENS OR ALUMINUM BATTENS WITH TIMBER LOOK FINISH OR SIM. 3 GLAZED ALUMINUM CURTAIN WALL OR SIM.
4 GLASS RAILING
5 VINYL OR ALUMINUM WINDOW
6 VINYL OR ALUMINUM SLIDING DOORS
7 CORRUGATED METAL ROOF SCREEN OR SIM.
8 CHARCOAL / DARK GREY FORMED METAL OR SIM.
9 WOOD SOFFIT OR SIM
1" = 10'-0"
1 SOUTH ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"
2 WEST ELEVATION
1 1
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
1" = 10'-0"
4 NORTH ELEVATION 1
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 18.82

1. PROPERTY LINES ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION, REFER TO PLAN DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PROPERTY LINE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS.

2. CURBS AND STREETS ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION VIEW, REFER TO LAND SURVEY FOR EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, AND STREET INFORMATION.

ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES
ELEVATION KEYED NOTES 1
MATERIALS LEGEND2
OPTION 1:

VINYL FRAMED

SLIDING SYSTEM W/

GLAZED OR OPAQUE
PANELS
OPTION 2:

ALUMINUM FRAMED

SLIDING SYSTEM W/

GLAZED OR OPAQUE
PANELS
OPTION 1:

FORMED METAL

CHANNEL, PAINTED
OPTION 2:

FORMED

METAL, PAINTED
OPTION 1:

RESIN-IMPREGNATED
WOOD
OPTION 2:

EXTERIOR RATED

TIMBER SLATS

CURTAIN WALL
OPTION 1:

GLAZED

ALUMINUM

FRAME SYSTEM

CURTAIN WALL
OPTION 2:

STRUCTURAL

SILICONE

GLAZED ALUMINUM
SYSTEM
CURTAIN WALL OPTION 3:

GLAZED ALUMINUM AND

TIMBER SYSTEM

CURTAIN WALL OPTION
4:

STRUCTURAL SILICONE

GLAZED TIMBER
SYSTEM
WINDOWS OPTION 1:

VINYL FRAMED

WINDOW, DBL GLAZED
WINDOWS OPTION 2:

ALUMINUM FRAMED

WINDOW, DBL GLAZED
OPTION 1:
"CALIBER" LED WALL SCONCE
DOWNLIGHT ONLY, OR SIM.

OPTION 2:

LED RECESSED
DOWNLIGHT OR SIM.

OPTION 3:

LINEAR LED DOWNLIGHT
RAILING OPTION 1:

GLASS RAILING
RAILING OPTION 2:

PAINTED METAL

PICKET RAILING

EXTERIOR FINISHES

RAILINGS

CURTAIN WALL

WINDOWS

BALCONY DOORS
STRINGER @ STAIRS/BALCONY SLAB

AND SHADING
SOFFIT

LIGHTING
OPTION 1:

CEMENTITIOUS PANEL
OPTION 2:

STUCCO OR SIM.

WOOD BATTENS OR ALUMINUM

BATTENS WITH TIMBER LOOK
FINISH OR SIM.
34 5

ROOF SCREEN
6 7
OPTION 1:

PERFORATED CORRUGATED

METAL ROOF SCREEN
OPTION 2:

CORRUGATED
METAL \ SCREEN
8 9
10 LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
LEVEL 5
40' - 0"
LEVEL 6
50' - 0"
ROOF
60' - 0"
10' - 0" 10' - 0"
33' - 6"
4' - 4" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"
44' - 4"
T.O. PARAPET
44' - 4"
1 2
2 146
3 10' - 0"
7 54' - 0"
6 5
9 28
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
LEVEL 5
40' - 0"
LEVEL 6
50' - 0"
ROOF
60' - 0"
4' - 4" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"
3' - 6" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"
33' - 6"
T.O. PARAPET
44' - 4"
1 2
54 581

DOWNSPOUT,
TYP.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 10:54:43 AM
AP3.02

PROPOSED

ELEVATIONS
22133

01.25.2024
MB/LB
JP/EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40

BUILDING ELEVATION KEYED NOTE

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 CEMENTITIOUS PANEL OR STUCCO OR SIM.
2 WOOD BATTENS OR ALUMINUM BATTENS WITH TIMBER LOOK FINISH OR SIM. 3 GLAZED ALUMINUM CURTAIN WALL OR SIM.
4 GLASS RAILING
5 VINYL OR ALUMINUM WINDOW
6 VINYL OR ALUMINUM SLIDING DOORS
7 CORRUGATED METAL ROOF SCREEN OR SIM.
8 CHARCOAL / DARK GREY FORMED METAL OR SIM.
9 WOOD SOFFIT OR SIM
1" = 10'-0"
1 SOUTH WEST ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"
2 NORTH WEST ELEVATION
1 1
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 18.83

1. PROPERTY LINES ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION, REFER TO PLAN DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PROPERTY LINE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS.

2. CURBS AND STREETS ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE ELEVATION VIEW, REFER TO LAND SURVEY FOR EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, AND STREET INFORMATION.

ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES
ELEVATION KEYED NOTES 1
MATERIALS LEGEND2
OPTION 1:

VINYL FRAMED

SLIDING SYSTEM W/

GLAZED OR OPAQUE
PANELS
OPTION 2:

ALUMINUM FRAMED

SLIDING SYSTEM W/

GLAZED OR OPAQUE
PANELS
OPTION 1:

FORMED METAL

CHANNEL, PAINTED
OPTION 2:

FORMED

METAL, PAINTED
OPTION 1:

RESIN-IMPREGNATED
WOOD
OPTION 2:

EXTERIOR RATED

TIMBER SLATS

CURTAIN WALL
OPTION 1:

GLAZED

ALUMINUM

FRAME SYSTEM

CURTAIN WALL
OPTION 2:

STRUCTURAL

SILICONE

GLAZED ALUMINUM
SYSTEM
CURTAIN WALL OPTION 3:

GLAZED ALUMINUM AND

TIMBER SYSTEM

CURTAIN WALL OPTION
4:

STRUCTURAL SILICONE

GLAZED TIMBER
SYSTEM
WINDOWS OPTION 1:

VINYL FRAMED

WINDOW, DBL GLAZED
WINDOWS OPTION 2:

ALUMINUM FRAMED

WINDOW, DBL GLAZED
OPTION 1:
"CALIBER" LED WALL SCONCE
DOWNLIGHT ONLY, OR SIM.

OPTION 2:

LED RECESSED
DOWNLIGHT OR SIM.

OPTION 3:

LINEAR LED DOWNLIGHT
RAILING OPTION 1:

GLASS RAILING
RAILING OPTION 2:

PAINTED METAL

PICKET RAILING

EXTERIOR FINISHES

RAILINGS

CURTAIN WALL

WINDOWS

BALCONY DOORS
STRINGER @ STAIRS/BALCONY SLAB

AND SHADING
SOFFIT

LIGHTING
OPTION 1:

CEMENTITIOUS PANEL
OPTION 2:

STUCCO OR SIM.

WOOD BATTENS OR ALUMINUM

BATTENS WITH TIMBER LOOK
FINISH OR SIM.
34 5

ROOF SCREEN
6 7
OPTION 1:

PERFORATED CORRUGATED

METAL ROOF SCREEN
OPTION 2:

CORRUGATED
METAL \ SCREEN
8 9
10 LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
LEVEL 5
40' - 0"
LEVEL 6
50' - 0"
ROOF
60' - 0"
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 3' - 6"
33' - 6"
T.O. PARAPET
44' - 4"
44' - 4"
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 4' - 4"
54' - 0" 2' - 0"
51 4
8 7
9 63' - 6"
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT,
TYP.

LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
LEVEL 5
40' - 0"
LEVEL 6
50' - 0"
ROOF
60' - 0"
T.O. PARAPET
44' - 4"
1 42
56 12
71 6
32 9
3 8
3 4' - 4" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"
44' - 4"
8 2
54' - 0"
63' - 6"
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.

DOWNSPOUT, TYP.
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 10:55:11 AM
AP3.03

PROPOSED

ELEVATIONS
22133

01.25.2024
MB/LB
EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40

BUILDING ELEVATION KEYED NOTE

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 CEMENTITIOUS PANEL OR STUCCO OR SIM.
2 WOOD BATTENS OR ALUMINUM BATTENS WITH TIMBER LOOK FINISH OR SIM. 3 GLAZED ALUMINUM CURTAIN WALL OR SIM.
4 GLASS RAILING
5 VINYL OR ALUMINUM WINDOW
6 VINYL OR ALUMINUM SLIDING DOORS
7 CORRUGATED METAL ROOF SCREEN OR SIM.
8 CHARCOAL / DARK GREY FORMED METAL OR SIM.
9 WOOD SOFFIT OR SIM
1" = 10'-0"
1 NORTH EAST ELEVATION
1" = 10'-0"
2 SOUTH EAST ELEVATION
1 1
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2

18.84 LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
LEVEL 5
40' - 0"
3' - 6" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"

BIKE PARKING
LEVEL 6
50' - 0"
ROOF
60' - 0"
33' - 6"

MLKJ I HGFEDCBA
T.O. PARAPET
44' - 4"

RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR

STAIRCASE
CO-LIVING AMENITY SPACE CIRC.

BATH
BATH

LIVING / KITCHEN

BEDROOM LIVING/KITCHEN

BEDROOM LIVING/KITCHEN
CIRC.

CIRC.

STUDIO
BATH
BATH

STUDIO BATH

LIVING / KITCHEN STUDIO

LIVING / KITCHEN STUDIO LIVING / KITCHEN BATH STUDIO BATH LIVING / KITCHEN

LIVING / KITCHEN BATH LIVING / KITCHEN
DOUBLE
HT. UNITS

LIVING / KITCHEN LIVING/KITCHEN

BATH BATH LIVING / KITCHEN BATH BATH
STUDIO
DOUBLE
HT. UNITS
----

MECHANICAL SCREEN

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
AP5.01
DOUBLE
HT. UNITS
DOUBLE
HT. UNITS
44' - 4"
54' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
LEVEL 5
40' - 0"
LEVEL 6
50' - 0"
ROOF
60' - 0"
4' - 4" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"
44' - 4"
T.O. PARAPET
44' - 4"
BATH

BATH LIVING/ KITCHEN BEDROOM

STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO
BATH

LIVING/ KITCHEN

LIVING/ KITCHEN BATH LIVING/ KITCHEN BEDROOM BATH LIVING/ KITCHEN BATH LIVING/ KITCHEN BEDROOM

BATH LIVING/ KITCHEN LIVING/ K'NETTE LIVING/ KITCHEN LIVING/ KITCHEN BATH LIVING/ KITCHEN BEDROOM

BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM PANTRY

BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM

CLASS II

BICYCLE

PARKING

RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR

CO-LIVING AMENITY SPACE

LIVING/ KITCHEN

STORMWATER

PLANTER BOX

BEDROOM

BEDROOM CO-LIVING AMENITY SPACE

CLASS II

BICYCLE

PARKING

CLASS I

BICYCLE

PARKING
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
1" = 10'-0"
1/25/2024 10:56:04 AM
AP4.01

BUILDING SECTIONS
22133

01.25.2024

MB / DD

EB / JP
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
1" = 10'-0"
1 SECTION THROUGH WING B
1" = 10'-0"
2 SECTION THROUGH WING A
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
2 2

18.85 LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
LEVEL 3
20' - 0"
LEVEL 4
30' - 0"
LEVEL 5
40' - 0"
T.O. PARAPET
44' - 4"
2 BR UNIT
2 BR UNIT

CO-LIVING

AMENITY SPACE

CLASS I BICYCLE
STOR.
40' - 0" PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT 4' - 4"
42"
MIN
PATIO
9' - 0"
9' - 2 1/2"
8' - 0" 2' - 0" 8' - 0" 2' - 0" 9' - 0" 1' - 0"
29 4618

PARAPET UNOCCUPIED ROOF

WALL SECTION KEYED NOTES

1. REFER ALSO TO SHEETS AP3.01, AP3.02 AND AP3.03.

WALL SECTION GENERAL NOTES 1
MATERIALS LEGEND2
OPTION 1:

VINYL FRAMED

SLIDING SYSTEM W/

GLAZED OR OPAQUE
PANELS
OPTION 2:

ALUMINUM FRAMED

SLIDING SYSTEM W/

GLAZED OR OPAQUE
PANELS
OPTION 1:

FORMED METAL

CHANNEL, PAINTED
OPTION 2:

FORMED

METAL, PAINTED
OPTION 1:

RESIN-IMPREGNATED
WOOD
OPTION 2:

EXTERIOR RATED

TIMBER SLATS

CURTAIN WALL
OPTION 1:

GLAZED

ALUMINUM

FRAME SYSTEM

CURTAIN WALL
OPTION 2:

STRUCTURAL

SILICONE

GLAZED ALUMINUM
SYSTEM
CURTAIN WALL OPTION 3:

GLAZED ALUMINUM AND

TIMBER SYSTEM

CURTAIN WALL OPTION
4:

STRUCTURAL SILICONE

GLAZED TIMBER
SYSTEM
WINDOWS OPTION 1:

VINYL FRAMED

WINDOW, DBL GLAZED
WINDOWS OPTION 2:

ALUMINUM FRAMED

WINDOW, DBL GLAZED
OPTION 1:
"CALIBER" LED WALL SCONCE
DOWNLIGHT ONLY, OR SIM.

OPTION 2:

LED RECESSED
DOWNLIGHT OR SIM.

OPTION 3:

LINEAR LED DOWNLIGHT
RAILING OPTION 1:

GLASS RAILING
RAILING OPTION 2:

PAINTED METAL

PICKET RAILING

EXTERIOR FINISHES

RAILINGS

CURTAIN WALL

WINDOWS

BALCONY DOORS
STRINGER @ STAIRS/BALCONY SLAB

AND SHADING
SOFFIT

LIGHTING
OPTION 1:

CEMENTITIOUS PANEL
OPTION 2:

STUCCO OR SIM.

WOOD BATTENS OR ALUMINUM

BATTENS WITH TIMBER LOOK
FINISH OR SIM.
34 5

ROOF SCREEN
6 7
OPTION 1:

PERFORATED CORRUGATED

METAL ROOF SCREEN
OPTION 2:

CORRUGATED
METAL \ SCREEN
8 9
10 11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 10:56:23 AM
AP5.01

ENLARGED WALL

SECTIONS
22133

01.25.2024

MB / JP
EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
3/8" = 1'-0"
1 SECTION THROUGH WING B

BUILDING ELEVATION KEYED NOTE

KEYNOTE MATERIAL
1 CEMENTITIOUS PANEL OR STUCCO OR SIM.
2 WOOD BATTENS OR ALUMINUM BATTENS WITH TIMBER LOOK FINISH OR SIM. 3 GLAZED ALUMINUM CURTAIN WALL OR SIM.
4 GLASS RAILING
5 VINYL OR ALUMINUM WINDOW
6 VINYL OR ALUMINUM SLIDING DOORS
7 CORRUGATED METAL ROOF SCREEN OR SIM.
8 CHARCOAL / DARK GREY FORMED METAL OR SIM.
9 WOOD SOFFIT OR SIM
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
1 1
1 1
1 18.86
3 AP9.01
AP9.01 2
AP9.01
5 AP9.01 4

GATE POST SHALL BE
MINIMUM 4" DIA

GALVANIZED STEEL SET IN
CLASS "2" P.C.C.

FREESTANDING FROM THE

ENCLOSURE STRUCTURE

GATE POST
FOOTING, 18" DIA.

BARRIER CURB INTEGRATED

WITH FOOTING AND
MASONRY BLOCK OR EQUAL.
2" WEEP HOLE, TYP
2% MIN
SLOPE

CONCRETE
SLAB

DOUBLE SWING DOOR GATE
GREATER THAN 90 - DEGREE

CAPABILITY

DRAIN TO SANITARY
SEWER.
6 CY
REFUSE

SERVICE PAD APPROACH

HSS POST, TYP

HOSE BIB
1 %
S
LO
P
E
4 CY

RECYCLE
2' - 6" 2' - 6"
4 CY

RECYCLE
1 %
S
LO
P
E
22' - 6"
R R
2' - 10"
2' - 1"

CLEAR OPENING
15' - 0"

DOWNSPOUT
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"

STEEL DECK ROOF

CMU WALL WITH

PAINTED CEMENT
HSS POST PLASTER FINISH 2% MIN SLOPE

STRESS PAD
10' - 2"
AP9.01 6
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"

STEEL DECK ROOF

WOOD OR WOOD-LOOK

BATTENS ON GATES
10' - 2"
2% MIN
SLOPE

HSS POST

STEEL FRAME
AP9.01 7
AP9.01 8
AP9.01 6

DOWNSPOUT

OUTFALL TO

PLANTER

DOWNSPOUT
GUTTER
1 /2
"
/
1 '
-
0 "
12' MIN. 12' - 0 3/8"
15' MAX. 14' - 9 3/8"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"

CMU WALL WITH PAINTED

CEMENT PLASTER FINISH
36" METAL DOOR
2% MIN
SLOPE

STRESS PAD
10' - 2"
AP9.01 6

DOWNSPOUT

OUTFALL TO

PLANTER

DOWNSPOUT
GUTTER
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"

CMU WALL WITH PAINTED

CEMENT PLASTER FINISH
2% MIN
SLOPE
10' - 2"
1 /
2 "
/
1 '-
0 "

STEEL DECK ROOF

HSS POST

DOWNSPOUT

OUTFALL TO PLANTER
6"
6" P.C.C. WITH #4
REBAR AT 16"
O.C. BOTH WAYS

FINISHED
GRADE
6" MIN. CL. 2 A.B.
@ 95%

COMPACTION
TOP 6" OF

SUBGRADE

COMPACTED TO
95%

GATE POST

FINISHED GRADE
3' - 0"
1' - 6"
0' - 3"
GATE

WELD STEEL TAB FOR CANE BOLT

IN RETRACTED POSITION
3/4" DIA. X 1.5' (MIN.) LONG

STEEL CANE BOLT WITH HANDLE
1" INSIDE DIA. X 4" LONG STEEL
SCHEDULE 40 PIPE SLEEVE WELDED
TO GATE.

WELDED WASHER STOP
3" DEEP X 1"
INSIDE DIA.

RECEIVER

FINISHED GRADE
CLEAR MIN. 0' - 2"
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
As indicated
1/25/2024 10:57:04 AM
AP9.01

TRASH ENCLOSURE
22133

01.25.2024
MB/DD

EB / JP
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 TRASH ENCLOSURE
1/4" = 1'-0"
3 TRASH ENCLOSURE - SOUTH ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 TRASH ENCLOSURE - WEST ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
5 TRASH ENCLOSURE - NORTH ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
4 TRASH ENCLOSURE - EAST ELEVATION
3" = 1'-0"
6 TRASH ENCLOSURE - P.C.C. PAD
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
7 TRASH ENCLOSURE - GATE POST FOOTING DETAIL
3" = 1'-0"
8 TRASH ENCLOSURE - CANE BOLT LATCH DETAIL
Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024
2 1

18.87 PROPOSED CLASS-I BICYCLE PARKING

PROPOSED CLASS-II BICYCLE PARKING
RESIDENTIAL:
11/30/23
Scale
Project number
Print Date
Drawn by
Checked by
189 WALNUT AVENUE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
WORKBENCHBUILT.COM
P: 831.227.2217
All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc.

ISSUES/ REVISIONS
APN number
12" = 1'-0"
1/25/2024 10:57:09 AM
AP9.02

CAR, EV, BICYCLE

PARKING, &

STORAGE INFO
22133

01.25.2024
MB
EB
PEACE VILLAGE900 HIGH ST.SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
001-022-40
1 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE
0 SB330 PRE-APPLICATION 11.21.2022
1 PLANNING REVISION 01 02.23.2023
2 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023
3 PLANNING REVISION 03 11.13.2023
4 PLANNING REVISION 04 01.25.2024

18.88 NO

PARKING
VAN

ACCESSIBLE
SPACE
STOP

COMPACT

COMPACT
COMPACT 135.0000 EXISTING CHURCH. ENTRY COURTYARD. UNIT PAVERS @ ADA PARKING STALLS. EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY. CONCRETE PAVING. TRASH ENCLOSURE. SMALL SHADE STRUCTURE. SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING. LANDSCAPE BOULDERS. BBQ AREA W/ OVERHEAD TRELLIS. SEATING AREA W/ BOULDERS. EXISTING CHURCH PARKING. NEW 3-FT. WOOD HOGWIRE FENCE. EXISTING CHAIN-LINK FENCE: REPAIR & REPLACE AS NEEDED. EXISTING METAL FENCE @SCHOOL TO REMAIN. EXISTING SCHOOL. LOW SITE RETAINING WALL OR PLANTER WALL IN SMOOTH CONCRETE. LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS 4321765891011 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1"=20' NORTH Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc. ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number 9/7/2022 4:35:42 PM 22133 06.07.2023

PEACE VILLAGE
900 HIGH ST.

SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 001-022-40 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E form/work 2585 UNIVERSITY AVE. SAN DIEGO, CA 92104 T: 619.269.4423 01 PLANNING REVISION 01 03.02.2023 02 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023 LC-1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN 2 3
5 6
6 7
8 9 10
7 11 PLAN KEY EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. SEE ARBORIST REPORT. NEW TREES. SEE LC-2. NEW LANDSCAPING. SEE LC-2. STORMWATER PLANTER LANDSCAPING. SEE LC-2. EXISTING/NATURALIZED GRASSES AND LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN. 1 4
5 6 12 12 EXISTING TREES TOTAL TO REMAIN 10 TOTAL TO BE REMOVED 22 TOTAL HERITAGE TREES TO BE REMOVED 14 REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED 28 @ 15-GAL. REPLACEMENT TREES PROVIDED 36 LC2 LC2 EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED. SEE ARBORIST REPORT. 8 13141516 16 15 14 13 17 17 17 17 17
8 IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREA TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 16,548 NOTE: PLANTING IS DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, PER SECTION 16.16.030(A)(3). 18.89 355 360 365 370 375 Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc. ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number 9/7/2022 4:35:42 PM 22133 06.07.2023

PEACE VILLAGE
900 HIGH ST.

SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 001-022-40 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E form/work 2585 UNIVERSITY AVE. SAN DIEGO, CA 92104 T: 619.269.4423 01 PLANNING REVISION 01 03.02.2023 02 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023 LC-2 SUPPLEMENTAL LANDSCAPE EXHIBITS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE IMAGERY CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION THROUGH UPPER RESIDENT AREA PRECAST 'NATURAL' SEATING ELEMENTS SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING SMALL SHADE STRUCTURE PROTECTED DISTANT VIEWS WOOD HOGWIRE FENCING CANDIDATE PLANT LEGEND 18.90 Scale Project number Print Date Drawn by Checked by 189 WALNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 WORKBENCHBUILT.COM P: 831.227.2217 All drawings and written material appearing herin constitute original and unpublished work of Workbench, Inc. and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Workbench, Inc. ISSUES/ REVISIONS APN number 9/7/2022 4:35:42 PM 22133 06.07.2023

PEACE VILLAGE
900 HIGH ST.

SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 001-022-40 Issue DESCRIPTION DATE L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E form/work 2585 UNIVERSITY AVE. SAN DIEGO, CA 92104 T: 619.269.4423 01 PLANNING REVISION 01 03.02.2023 02 PLANNING REVISION 02 06.07.2023 PRELIMINARY EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN SCALE: 1"=20' NORTH LC-3 PRELIMINARY EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN CONCEPTUAL LIGHTING FIXTURES 18.91 Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -1- Revised January 2024
City of Santa Cruz

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

FOR DETERMINATION OF CEQA EXEMPTION
I. BACKGROUND

1. Application No: CP21-0160

2. Project Title: Peace Village Housing

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:

Brittany Whitehill, Senior Planner
(831) 420-5247 | [email protected]

5. Project Location: 900 High Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 001-022-40); see Figure 1.

6. Project Applicant / Sponsor Name and Address:

Applicant: Workbench Built, Diana Alfaro, 189 Walnut Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Owner: Peace United Church of Christ, James Weller, 900 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060

7. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (1.1-10 DU/AC)

8. Zoning: Single-Family Residence, 10,000 square foot minimum (R-1-10)

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
The project consists of a Minor Land Division, Design Permit, Slope Development Permit, Density Bonus Request, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to divide a 258,825-square-foot (approximately 5.9-acre) lot with an existing church and associated residence and daycare facility and develop a 40-unit residential apartment project. The existing parcel would be divided into two lots with a flag lot configuration. The lower lot, fronting High Street, would consist of 3.68 acres and would retain the existing church campus. The upper lot would

18.92 Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -2- Revised January 2024
consist of approximately 2.23 acres on which the project proposes to construct a 40-unit, fivestory residential apartment building. The project would remove 14 heritage trees to construct the apartment complex and associated site improvements.

Proposed Tentative Parcel Map and Site Plan. As shown in the proposed tentative parcel map (see Figure 2), the subject property would be divided into two new lots. The front lot, labeled as Lot 2 on the proposed tentative parcel map, would be a 162,326-square-foot (approximately 3.72acre), irregular-shaped lot and would retain the existing church campus and surface parking. Lot 1 is proposed as an 96,499-square-foot (2.23-acre), irregular flag lot behind Lot 2, with an approximately 20-foot-wide flag pole fronting onto High Street at the southeast corner of the project site.

Residential Project. The 40-unit residential project would be located in an “V”-shaped building totaling approximately 42,770 square feet and ranging in height from three to five stories. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 3. A mix of unit sizes are proposed including 11 studio, 3 one-bedroom, 15 two-bedroom, 4 three-bedroom, 6 four-bedroom, and 1 fivebedroom units. The project would include 20,903 square feet of useable open space for project residents and 392 square feet of co-living private open space for its residents. A barbecue and picnic area are also proposed adjacent to the primary open space area which is north of the proposed residential structure. This area would be improved with a shade structure and overhead trellis.

Density Bonus. The project will be sited on a newly created 2.23-acre lot, which has a base residential density of 23 units. By providing six low-income units (one of which is voluntarily restricted to very low-income households) and three additional very low-income units, the project two density bonuses, amounting to total density bonus of 88.75%, or 21 additional units, under State Density Bonus Law, as amended by California Assembly Bill 1287. The project proposes 17 density bonus units in addition to the 23 base density units, for a total unit count of 40 units. The proposed density complies with the density restrictions of the Santa Cruz General Plan, as modified by State Density Bonus Law.

As part of the density bonus request, the project request concessions/incentives and a waiver from development standards. Per section 24.16.225 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, the project qualifies for two incentives/concessions since it provides at least 20 percent of units to lower-income households. Per section 24.16.255 (4), the project is eligible to request an unlimited number of waivers or modifications to development standards, if those standards physically preclude the construction of the housing development, and the housing development is eligible for a density bonus. Although the project does not propose density bonus units, it is eligible for a density bonus based on the number of low-income and verylow-income units provided and may request two incentives/concessions and unlimited waivers.

The density bonus request includes the following incentives/concessions and waivers:
• Height/Stories: The project requests concessions for increased building height and number of allowed stories to allow a building that is five stories and 54 feet tall at its

18.93 Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -3- Revised January 2024
highest point instead of the 2.5-story and 30-foot maximum height permitted in the underlying R-1-10 zone district. Per zoning ordinance section 24.16.225.3, the project qualifies for such concessions when the applicant provides reasonable documentation showing that the requested concession results in actual and identifiable cost savings to the project to provide for affordable rents. The applicant has submitted information explaining that allowing the greater building height will reduce the project footprint, thus reducing costs associated with excavation, grading, and soil engineering. • Front Setback: The project requests a concession for a reduced front setback of 17 feet,

10.75 inches instead of the required 25-foot front setback. The applicant has submitted information explaining that reducing the setback moves the front of the building off the sloped area, thus reducing costs associated with grading, soil engineering, and overall construction.
• Trash Enclosure Location: The project is requesting a waiver to allow an accessory building—the trash enclosure—to be placed in front of the building and within the front yard setback of Lot 2. This is the only possible location for the trash enclosure that meets Public Works refuse service standards and that avoids constraints such as steep slopes and heritage trees.

Access and Parking. The project would provide two vehicular access points from High Street.

At the southwest corner of the site, the existing “entrance only” driveway would accommodate inbound vehicles turning right from High Street. This driveway would lead to the existing surface-level parking on Lot 2 (the front lot with the existing church campus) and continue onto Lot 1 to provide access to the new apartment complex. This drive aisle would circumnavigate the site and exit onto High Street at the southeast corner of the site. This secondary driveway would accommodate both vehicles entering into and exiting from the site. A private access easement would cover the driveways and surface parking area to provide parking and vehicular access to both Lots 1 and 2. A total of 60 vehicle (including 8 electric vehicle ready) and 96 bicycle parking spaces are proposed for the development.

Twenty of the proposed parking spaces would be located on the proposed Lot 1, where the proposed apartments would be located.

Landscaping. The proposed project includes removal of 22 trees, 14 of which are considered heritage trees, as defined by the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance, and approximately 50 existing trees on the project parcel would be retained. The project would retain some existing naturalized grassing and landscaping surrounding the northern portion of the proposed building. The project would be landscaped with 36 new trees and 26,548 square feet of irrigated landscaped area which would include various drought-tolerant shrubs and perennial grasses. The project would be subject to provisions of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO), per Chapter 16.16 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Stormwater and Utilities. The project site is currently partially developed with impervious surface area associated with the existing church and surface parking. Stormwater would be controlled with a rainwater harvesting system which would include two bio-retention areas and two flow-through planters, all leading to an approximately 1,600-cubic-foot underground

18.94 Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -4- Revised January 2024
retention/detention chamber that would flow to a High Street public storm drain inlet.

Furthermore, several Low Impact Development (LID) methods are proposed in the project’s Stormwater Control Plan.

The project would be serviced by public sewer and water mains from High Street. Electricity would be provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).

Construction Schedule and Earthwork. Construction would be expected to occur over approximately two and a half years, beginning with demolition in the spring of 2026 and concluding with architectural coating activities in 2028. During grading and earthwork activities approximately 3,100 cubic yards (cy) of earth material would be cut form the site and approximately 300 cy of earth material would be filled. Therefore, there would be a net volume of 2,800 cy of earth material exported from the project site.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located at 900 High Street in the western portion of the city of Santa Cruz on an approximate 5.9-acre (258,825-square-foot) site. The project site is located on the north side of High Street immediately to the northeast of its intersection with Moore Street. The project site is bordered by University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) faculty housing to the north, single-family homes and City-owned land to the east, High Street and single-family homes to the south, and an elementary school to the west.

The project parcel contains an existing church facility and parking lot adjacent to High Street that would be retained as part of proposed Lot 2. The northern portion of the site, which is the site of the proposed residential project and would become Lot 1, is undeveloped, except for a previously graded parking area. The site is characterized by non-native grassland with mixed evergreen and eucalyptus trees.

The project site contains 73 existing trees on site of varying condition. Of this total, 33 trees are considered heritage trees pursuant to City regulations. Existing trees include:
• 24 Italian Stone Pine (Pinus pinea)
• 20 Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus)
• 13 Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxlon)
• 7 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata)
• 2 Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
• 2 Flowering Ornamental pear (Pyrus calleryana)
• 3 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
• 2 Silver wattle acacia (Acacia dealbata)

18.95 Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -5- Revised January 2024
FIGURE 1: Project Location
SOURCE: Dees & Associates

18.96 Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -6- Revised November 2023
FIGURE 2: Project Tentative Map

18.97 Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -7- Revised November 2023
FIGURE 3: Project Site Plan

18.98 Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -8- Revised November 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 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 further CEQA analyses.

18.99 Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -9- Revised November 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
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.

18.100
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -10- Revised November 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 Low Density Residential in the City’s General Plan 2030 with a density range of 1.1 to 10 units per acre. The development proposes a base density of 23 units, in compliance with the General Plan density range. General plan policy LU3.7.1 encourages development at the higher end of the density range unless site characteristics or zoning regulations require a lower density. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use residential designation, and 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 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 3-131 ). Since
adoption of the General Plan, approximately 2,726 residential units have been constructed or approved throughout the City. Thus, the project 40 residential units, when added to constructed and approved project residential projects, would be within the remaining residential buildout estimates considered in the city-wide General Plan EIR impact analyses.

It is also noted that the project is within the development estimated for the Upper Westside neighborhood in which the project is located. The General Plan EIR estimated 171 new residential units in this neighborhood, and to date, approximately 76 units have been constructed or approved. With the proposed project and other pending development applications, new residential development in the Upper Westside would total 106 units.

It is noted that there are some pending development projects in the City, 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 513 additional residential units throughout the City. Even with these pending projects that could be approved in the near future, total residential units (with the proposed project and other approved and under construction projects (approximately 3,280 units) would not exceed development estimates considered in the analyses in the General Plan EIR. 1 All source references are included at the end of this report.

18.101
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -11- Revised November 2023
C. Environmental Checklist Review
The purpose of the checklist presented on the following pages is to evaluate the impact categories covered in the City’s certified General Plan 2030 EIR to determine whether the project’s impacts have been adequately analyzed in the EIR or whether any new significant impacts peculiar to the project or project site would result. Where an impact resulting from the project was adequately analyzed previously, the review provides a cross-reference to the pages in the General Plan EIR where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic. The checklist also identifies whether the project involves new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR or new significant impacts 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 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 General Plan 2030 EIR is on file at the City’s Planning and Community Development Department, 809 Center Street, Room 101, Santa Cruz, California from 7:30 to 11:30 AM, Monday through Thursday. The document also is available for review on the City of Santa Cruz Planning Department’s website at: https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/citydepartments/planning-and-community-development/long-range-policy-planning/generalplan.

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

The following site-specific impacts have been analyzed and determined to be less than significant due to substantial mitigation resulting from General Plan policies, zoning regulations and/or development standards that are uniformly applied to development projects throughout the City: aesthetics (visual character, light and glare); air quality (project emissions, sensitive receptors); biological resources (special status species, nesting birds, conflicts with local tree ordinance); cultural resources (archaeological resources, human

18.102
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -12- Revised November 2023
burials); geology and soils (seismic and geologic hazards, erosion, soils); hydrology-water quality (water quality, drainage); noise (noise increases); transportation (conflicts with program or policy, conflict with CEQA Guidelines); tribal cultural resources; utilities (water supply); wildfire; and cumulative impacts. Thus, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183, no further environmental analysis is required.

E. Checklist and Discussion

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

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

24.14.266
Standard
Condition of
Approval to
prevent offsite
lighting
(a) Scenic Views. The project site is located in the upper westside area of the City of Santa Cruz. The visual character is defined by predominantly single-family residential development interspersed with schools and churches. UCSC is located to the north of the project site, and Westlake Elementary School borders the project site on the west. The General Plan indicates that prominent scenic views

18.103
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -13- Revised November 2023
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.1bDEIR Figure 4.3-1), the project site is not located within any mapped panoramic view areas, but it is south of UCSC, which is identified as a visual landmark in the General Plan EIR (Ibid.).

The General Plan EIR, which comprehensively addressed visual impacts associated with new population growth and development, concluded that most of the future development accommodated by the General Plan would not be in areas that are part of a public scenic view. The EIR discussed several limited areas in which potential disruption to scenic views could occur with future development, but the project site is not located within these areas. None of the General Plan policies and actions directed toward protection of scenic views are applicable to the project as no scenic views would be affected by the proposed project.

The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic view as none have been identified, mapped or observed that include the project site. While portions of the project are visible from adjacent properties, the project site generally is screened from view from High Street by existing trees and landscaping that will be retained; the site is not part of any longer-range scenic views available from public properties. The portions of UCSC identified as a visual landmark would be unaffected by the proposed project because the project site is not visible from publicly-viewed locations of UCSC, and, thus, would not affect views of UCSC. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts related to scenic views than evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (b) Scenic Resources. There are no designated state scenic highways or roads within the City. The project site is not located near a state-designated scenic highway2. The project site is developed with one single-family residence. 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 in proximity UCSC, which is identified as a “visual landmark” in the General Plan EIR, but the project would not affect public scenic views of UCSC.

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 2030 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).
2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2023. Scenic Highways. Accessed September 20, 2023 at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenichighways.

18.104
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -14- Revised November 2023
The project would result in the removal of 22 trees, 14 of which are heritage trees under City regulations. Although some of these trees are larger, and taller eucalyptus trees that are visible from adjacent properties and partially visible from High Street, the trees are not visible from a wideranging, publicly-viewed area, are not visually prominent or distinctive, and are not considered scenic resources. Thus, the project would not have an impact on scenic resources. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in impacts to scenic resources that would be peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the General Plan 2030 EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (c) Effects on Visual Character. The project site is partially developed and surrounded by single-family residential neighborhoods, except for the Westlake Elementary School to the west. The General Plan 2030 EIR concluded that most of the future development accommodated by the General Plan would not substantially degrade the visual character of surrounding areas with implementation of General Plan policies and actions to develop design guidelines and review development to protect “distinctive design characteristics” and landmarks of neighborhoods (CD2.1, CD2.3) in combination with continued application of design review as part of Design Permit approvals.

The proposed project consists of a “V”-shaped building with a surface parking lot and landscaping.

The building is stepped up an existing slope and consists of four and five floors of apartments with a maximum height of 54 feet. This height would be greater than other residences in the neighborhood, which are generally two stories in height. The overall massing would also be similar to, but greater than, the existing church building and adjacent school. However, the additional height would be required to be approved as part of the waivers and concessions allowed by the density bonus request.

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 entail consideration of uniformly applied development standards, which, as applied to the project, 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. 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. There are no other applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. It is noted that 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

18.105
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -15- Revised November 2023
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 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.”
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 exterior building lighting typical in residential neighborhoods. This type of lighting would be oriented so as to not create off-site light.

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 residential lighting in the area, and would not result in nighttime illumination levels beyond the property line. Additionally, section 24.14.266 of the City’s Municipal Code prohibits direct or skyreflected glare. Furthermore, the Design Permit review that is required for most larger development projects would ensure project compliance with City standards and regulations.

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

18.106
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -16- Revised November 2023

2. AGRICULTURE AND
FOREST RESOURCES3
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
DEIR pp. 4.15-3,

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

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

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

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

4.15-5 to 4.15-8 No No None
The project site is located within the developed 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 project 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.

18.107
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -17- Revised November 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 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 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
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
DEIR pp.

4.11-11 to

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

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

4.11-9 to

4.11-10, 4.11-18
to 4.11-34
FEIR 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
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
DEIR pp. 4.11-7
to 4.11-8,

4.11-10 to

4.11-11,
No No None
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.

18.108
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -18- Revised November 2023

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

4.11-26 to

4.11-27
No No
Municipal Code
section

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

The California Clean Air Act requires that AQMPs be updated every three years. The MBARD has updated the AQMP seven times. The most recent update, the 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP), was adopted in 2017. The 2016 AQMP relies on a multilevel partnership of federal, state, regional, and local governmental agencies. The 2016 AQMP documents the MBARD’s progress toward attaining the state 8-hour ozone standard, which is more stringent than the state 1-hour ozone standard. The 2016 AQMP builds on information developed in past AQMPs and updates the 2012 AQMP. The primary elements from the 2012 AQMP that were updated in the 2016 revision include the air quality trends analysis, emission inventory, and mobile source programs (SOURCE V.9a).

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 24,415 existing dwelling units as of January 1, 2023 (California Department of Finance 2023), and approximately 2,000 residential units are under construction or have been approved throughout the City, including residential development at the University of California Santa Cruz

18.109
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -19- Revised November 2023
(UCSC)5. With the addition of these units, the City’s housing units would total 26,615 dwelling units.

That number would increase to 26,655 dwelling units with the addition of the proposed project’s 40 residential apartment units; the resulting total is below the AMBAG Regional Growth Forecast of 28,297 dwelling units for the year 2030 that were factored into 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 was based as explained above. Thus, there would be no impact related to conflicts with the current adopted AQMP.

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

The project site is located within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the MBARD and includes Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito Counties. The NCCAB 5 Residential projects at UCSC are primarily student housing projects, and there is one approved employee housing project and the first phase of the Student Housing West (Hagar Development). In general, part-year student housing is considered group quarters and year-round faculty / student family housing is counted as housing units (SOURCE V.3a). For the 2014 forecast used in the AQMP, University population and housing projections were completed separately from jurisdiction population projections (SOURCE V.3c). 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.

18.110
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -20- Revised November 2023
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.9a).

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.

The proposed project would result in construction of a 40-unit residential apartment project. The project would indirectly generate air pollutant emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The MBARD CEQA Guidelines provide several land use types with corresponding screening threshold levels to assess ozone impacts. The proposed project size is substantially below the MBARD’s screening levels for apartments (1,080 dwelling units), which is used to determine potential

18.111
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -21- Revised November 2023
significant ozone impacts as set forth in the MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (SOURCE V.9b).

Therefore, project emissions would not be considered substantial or result in an air quality violation, although air emissions as a result of the project were modeled as further described below.

Project construction could result in generation of dust and PM10 emissions as a result of site excavation and grading. According to MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (SOURCE V.9b), 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 2.0 acres in size, which is slightly below the screening-level threshold for construction-related emissions.

Even though the proposed development would be below MBARD screening levels, air emissions were modeled for project construction and operations to comply with General Plan policies, using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version. 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. Therefore, the project-level review required by the General Plan 2030, and as considered in the General Plan EIR, finds that potential emissions would not exceed MBARD’s adopted CEQA significance thresholds, and the project would not violate current air quality standards or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Table 1. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Year
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
Summer
2026 1.90 41.14 26.08 0.23 7.88 3.22
2027 27.21 4.34 7.03 0.01 0.25 0.18
Winter
2026 1.15 8.84 11.34 0.02 0.51 0.32
2027 1.10 8.51 11.21 0.02 0.48 0.29
Maximum Daily
Emissions 27.21 41.14 26.08 0.23 7.88 3.22
MBARD Threshold N/A N/A N/A N/A 82 N/A
Threshold
Exceeded? N/A N/A N/A N/A No N/A
Source: Dudek
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; MBARD = Monterey Bay Air Resources District; N/A = not applicable; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gases; SOx = sulfur oxides. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod and include watering of exposed areas two times per day, per the City’s Standard Construction Practices.

Technical calculations are on file with the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department. *Includes watering active sites 2x/day and low-VOC coatings

18.112
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -22- Revised November 2023
Table 2. Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emission Source
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
Summer
Area 1.21 0.02 2.27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 1.19 0.55 5.21 0.01 0.75 0.20
Total Summer 2.40 0.57 7.49 0.02 0.75 0.20
Winter
Area 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 1.17 0.64 5.88 0.01 0.75 0.20
Total Winter 2.18 0.64 5.88 0.02 0.75 0.20
Maximum Daily
Emissions 2.40 0.64 7.49 0.02 0.75 0.20
MBARD Threshold 137 137 550 150 82 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No N/A
Source: Dudek
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; MBARD = Monterey Bay Air Resources District; N/A = not applicable; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gases; SOx = sulfur oxides. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod.

Technical calculations are on file with the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department. *Includes all-electric development
General Plan Action HZ2.2.1 establishes a procedure for project-level reviews and requires sitespecific 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 EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

In addition, according to the MBARD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, projects that are consistent with the AQMP would not result in cumulative impacts as regional emissions have been factored into the AQMP. The MBARD prepares air quality plans which address attainment of the state and federal emission standards, and incorporate growth forecasts developed by AMBAG. As indicated in subsection 3(a) above, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP, which takes into account cumulative development within the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant increase.

18.113
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -23- Revised November 2023
(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.9b). The project site is located within a developed -residential neighborhood, and existing residences, which are considered sensitive receptors, are located to the north, south, and east of the project site. Westlake Elementary School to the west of the project site and an existing pre-school on the project site are also considered sensitive receptors. 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, the construction of the proposed residential apartment project 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.

Subsequent to certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR, changes were made to California guidelines regarding review of health risks associated with exposure to TACs. The most recent guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (2015 Risk Assessment Guidelines Manual) updated some cancer risk parameters, such as age-sensitivity factors, daily breathing rates, exposure period, fraction of time at home, and cancer potency factors. Diesel particulate emissions from heavy construction equipment and vehicles during construction could result in a health risk to proximate sensitive receptors, particularly to children and pregnant women. However, use of heavy-duty construction equipment is subject to a CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure for in-use diesel construction equipment to reduce diesel particulate emissions and use of diesel trucks is also subject to an Airborne Toxics Control Measure, which serve to reduce emissions. Additionally, construction equipment that includes CARB-compliant emissions control equipment or diesel particulate filters can substantially reduce emissions and associated potential health risks to a level that would not be considered a significant impact.

General Plan 2030 Policy and Program HZ2.2 and HZ2.2.1 require review of air quality issues and mitigation of air quality impacts, and use of best available equipment controls are standard measures to control or reduce diesel emissions. The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) (SOURCE 2.a) includes measures to work toward reduction/elimination of off-road gasoline- and diesel-powered equipment, including construction equipment (Actions T6.1 through T6.5), and best available equipment

18.114
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -24- Revised November 2023
technology is identified as typical controls for TAC emissions from diesel equipment (SOURCE 2a-Appenix A). Additionally, the City’s Water Department has identified Standard Construction Practices to be implemented by the City and/or its contractors during construction, which includes a requirement to use specified CARB-compliant equipment and/or diesel-particulate filters to substantially reduce diesel emissions. A project condition of approval requires use of specified CARB-compliant equipment and/or filters(e.g., requiring use of Tier 4 emission control technology), which would mitigate potential impacts associated with exposure to diesel emissions to a less-than-significant level, consistent with General Plan Program HZ2.2.1, Climate Action Plan measures and Standard Construction Practices implemented in the City, all of which are considered uniformly applied development standards. Thus, no new significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or the site related to exposure of sensitive receptors to diesel-TAC emissions would occur with application of uniformly applied development standards, and 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.9b), 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.

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

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

4.8-16 to

4.8-21, 4.8-41,

4.8-43 to
No No
GP Policy
NRC2.1, NCR2.4,
Actions
NCR2.1.3,
NCR2.1.4

18.115
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -25- Revised November 2023

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?

4.8-44, 4.8-48
to 4.8-51
FEIR pp. 3-22,
3-25 to 3-40
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. 4.8-14
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 pp. 4.8-15,

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

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

4.8-41, 4.8-44
to 4.8-45
No No
GP Action
NRC2.2.1
GP Action
NR2.4.1 & GP
Table 1-
Assessment and
Management
Protocols for
pre-construction
nesting bird
surveys
Condition of
Approval for
Pre-construction
bird nesting
surveys

18.116
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -26- Revised November 2023

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? DEIR pp. 4.8-41,

4.8-45 to 4.8-47 No No
Municipal Code
Chapter 9-6
Heritage Tree
Removal Permit,
required
replacement
trees, and
payment of inlieu fees
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
DEIR pp. 4.5-11
to 4.5-12,

4.8-25 to

4.8-26, 4.8-37
FEIR p. 3-23
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable None
(a) Special-Status Species. The approximate 5.9-acre parcel is partially developed with an existing church, driveways and parking areas. The proposed project site is located in the northernmost portion of the parcel and is dominated by non-native grassland with mixed evergreen (ornamental) forest and eucalyptus forest vegetation communities around the periphery of the meadow (SOURCE V.13c).

According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the eastern portion of the project site is within a mapped potential monarch butterfly habitat (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.8-3).

A Biotic Assessment was conducted for the project to determine the presence of sensitive habitat, plants, or wildlife species on the project site, and to assess the project’s potential impacts to sensitive biological resources (SOURCE V.13c). The project site supports three habitat types: non-native grassland, mixed evergreen (ornamental) forest and eucalyptus forest. The non-native grassland consists primarily of non-native grasses and forbs (Ibid.).

Mixed evergreen (ornamental) forest occupies a small and fragmented portion of the site, and is limited primarily to steep hillslope south of the project site and along the northwest perimeter of the site, bordering West Lake Elementary. At the project site, this habitat type is comprised of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), blue gum eucalyptus, (Eucalyptus golbulus), silver wattle acacia (Acacia dealbata), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Douglas fir (Pseudostuga menziesii), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), and cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosus, C. lacteus) (SOURCE V.vc).

Eucalyptus forest is comprised primarily of planted blue gum eucalyptus, and is limited primarily to a hedgerow of blue gum eucalyptus along the northeastern perimeter of the project site, which extends off the property to the north. Blue gum eucalyptus trees are an exotic species and rated as a “moderately invasive” by the California Invasive Plant Council (SOURCE V.10c).

18.117
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -27- Revised November 2023
The Biotic Assessment included a database search and site investigation to 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 project site consists predominantly of habitat types that support nonnative, weedy, and invasive tree and plants species. No sensitive plants species were observed during appropriately timed site visits and none are expected to occur (SOURCE V. 13c).

The scrub and forest habitats on the project site support the nesting activities of common bird species and provides potential habitat for the following wildlife species: monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), sensitive “Birds of Conservation Concern” (see subsection (d) below), San Francisco duskyfooted woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), and the western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii). The scrub and forest habitats, especially those along the margins of the grassland, provide potential habitat for the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, but no woodrat houses were observed in the Biotic Assessment study area during field surveys; however, this species may occupy the grassland/scrub/forest ecotones prior to the initiation of project activities (SOURCE V. 13c). The forests within the project area may provide habitat for one sensitive species, the western red bat, a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special Concern (Ibid.).

Although unlikely due to marginal habitat conditions, monarch butterflies may utilize the eucalyptus grove on the project as an autumnal or winter roost site, or these trees may buffer more suitable habitat to the northeast. If monarchs are present, removal of roost or buffer trees would directly impact roosting habitat. The grove of eucalyptus trees within the project site is located approximately 1.8 miles from the coast, just over the typical distance of winter roost sites for monarch butterflies. This grove consists of mature trees that lack lower, spreading limbs and most likely lack sufficient wind protection to serve as primary winter roost habitat; however, these trees may serve as buffer trees for the groves located to the northeast. Kalkar Quarry and Westlake Pond provide nearby water sources; the landscaped areas and grassland of the project area provide marginal nectaring habitat (SOURCE V.13c).

Autumnal and overwintering monarch roosts are known to occur in the eucalyptus grove at Home of Peace Cemetery approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the project site (SOURCE V.13c). Monarch butterflies are considered sensitive in the City’s General Plan 2030, have a NatureServe Rarity Rank of S2/S36
, are a candidate for federal listing as a threatened species as discussed below, are included on CDFW’s list of Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority and identified as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in California's State Wildlife Action Plan, and were recently listed as endangered by the International Union of the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Currently, however, no federal or state regulatory protections exist for monarch butterflies. The monarch 6 The California Natural Diversity Database program is a member of the NatureServe Network of natural heritage programs, and uses the same conservation status methodology as other network programs. The ranking system was originally developed by The Nature Conservancy and is now maintained and recently revised by NatureServe. It includes a Global rank (G-rank), describing the status for a given taxon over its entire distribution, and a State rank (S-rank), describing the status for the taxon over its state distribution. S2-Imperiled indicates species at high risk of extirpation in the state due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. S3-Vulnerable indicates species is at moderate risk of extirpation in the state due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors. SOURCE: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, July 2023. Special Animals List.

18.118
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -28- Revised November 2023
butterfly was petitioned to be listed as a threatened species in 2014 and was under review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In May 2019, the USFWS announced an extension of the deadline to determine whether the species warrants protection under the federal Endangered Species Act. In December 2020, the USFWS announced that the candidacy for listing was warranted but precluded by other earlier listed and more imperiled species. The monarch will remain a candidate for listing pending annual review of its status until a final decision is made by the USFWS (SOURCE V.13c).

No fall or winter monarch butterfly roost surveys were conducted during the site visits conducted for the Biotic Assessment in 2019. However, two subsequent follow-up surveys were conducted.

Autumnal and winter roost surveys of monarch butterfly habitat were conducted during fall/winter 2019-20 to determine if monarchs occupied the eucalyptus grove on the project site; site visits to nearby monarch roosting reference sites were also conducted at Natural Bridges and Lighthouse Field State Parks. Monarch butterflies were observed on or near the project site only once during the course of the surveys. During the second fall survey (November 24, 2019), eight individual monarchs were observed flying and nectaring on the property immediately adjacent (north) of project property that is contiguous with the project parcel. No butterflies were observed roosting on or near the project site during this survey date. No other monarch butterflies were observed during other fall/winter survey dates. The biological review concluded that the eucalyptus grove on project property is not currently providing autumnal or winter roost habitat for monarch butterflies, nor is the site likely to provide a winter roost site in the future, although the eucalyptus grove may serve as buffer trees for a transitory autumnal roost site in more suitable groves to the northeast (SOURCE V.13b).

A second monarch butterfly habitat survey was conducted during the winter of 2022-23 to determine if monarchs occupied the eucalyptus grove on the project site; site visits to nearby monarch roosting reference sites were also conducted at Natural Bridges and Lighthouse Field State Parks. No monarchs were observed roosting, flying or sunning, although the biologist observed more than 1,000 monarchs clustering in Lighthouse Field and Natural Bridges State Beach on the same morning as the survey at the project site. The biological review concluded that wintering monarchs are presumed absent from the project property, and no additional surveys were recommended for the site.

However, to avoid potential impacts to autumnal roosting monarch butterflies that may be present near the property, it was recommended that tree removal be conducted outside of the autumnal roosting period, which would typically be from September 1 to November 15 (SOURCE V.13a).

The Biotic Assessment (SOURCE V.13a) and subsequent surveys (SOURCE V.13a, 13b) did not identify direct or indirect project impacts monarch butterflies or habitat. However, to avoid potential impacts to autumnal roosting monarch butterflies that may be present near the property, it was recommended that tree removal be conducted outside of the autumnal roosting period (typically September 15 – November 15). Based on these subsequent biotic reviews, the City has developed an additional condition of approval that functions as “avoidance and management strategies” within the meaning of General Plan policy-Action NRC2.4.1, which is a uniformly applied development policy within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

NRC2.4.1 references Table 1 of the NRC element, which identifies four broad categories of avoidance and management strategies for monarch butterflies:

18.119
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -29- Revised November 2023
• Avoidance – design plans to avoid take of individuals and habitat • Buffers to maintain suitable habitat conditions
• Conduct construction activities outside of winter roosting season or develop appropriate mitigation such as buffers to avoid disturbance such as smoke and fumes • Management to protect from indirect impacts
The Biotic Assessment prepared for the project provides the review as required by the General Plan, including two seasons of field surveys in accordance with protocols set forth in the General Plan as referenced in Action NCR2.4.1 (Table 1-Assessment and Management Protocols for Sensitive Species and Habitat). As noted above, Action NCR2.4.1 indicates that Table 1 summarizes assessment protocols to be used determine if a sensitive biological resource is present, and identifies general avoidance or management strategies to be employed when sensitive biological resources occur. The General Plan sensitive species and habitat protocols include recommended management strategies in the event a resource is found. For monarch butterflies, these include the avoidance and management strategies indicated above. While monarch roosting sites were not identified on the project site or adjacent to the project site, and no significant indirect impacts were identified resulting from tree removal or construction of the proposed project, the condition of approval recommended in the subsequent biological survey regarding timing of tree removal is consistent with, and an example of, the management strategies identified in the General Plan NRC2.4.1 and Table , and will be included in the project conditions of approval.

The Biological Assessment concluded that special status bats may utilize the forest habitats of the project area for roosting. Bat maternity roosting occurs typically between May 1 and September 1, and winter hibernacula (shelter occupied during the winter by a dormant animal) for many bat species are found between November 1 and February 15. Similarly, the scrub and forest habitats, especially those along the margins of the grassland, provide potential habitat for the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. Neither the woodrat nor bats or woodrat houses were identified on the project site, and no significant indirect impacts were identified resulting from tree removal or construction of the proposed project. However, the Biological Assessment includes recommendations for timing of tree removal to protect bats if present, which is generally the same timeframe as recommended for monarch butterflies (September 1 to November 1), and conducting pre-construction surveys for woodrats, which are included as project conditions of approval. Similar to the monarch butterfly, the conditions of approval are imposed pursuant to General Plan policyAction NRC2.4.1 and Table 1, which prescribe surveys and avoidance and/or mitigation for special status bats and the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. These avoidance and management strategies will be made mandatory and enforceable as project conditions of approval.

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).

18.120
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -30- Revised November 2023
Therefore, no significant impacts to special-status species would occur as a result of the project. The proposed project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site with application of uniformly applied development standards or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Sensitive Habitats. Sensitive habitats are defined by local, state, or federal agencies as those habitats that support special status species, provide important habitat values for wildlife, represent areas of unusual or regionally restricted habitat types, and/or provide high biological diversity.

Sensitive habitats include CDFW Sensitive Natural Communities (rank of G/S1 – G/S3), riparian corridors, wetlands, and habitats for species that are legally protected or other rare species (CDFW CNDDB 2018).

Sensitive habitats may also include areas of high biological diversity, areas providing important wildlife habitat, and vegetation types that are rare or unique to the region. CEQA also considers impacts to natural communities identified as sensitive in local and regional plans, regulations, and ordinances. A biotic review of the project site did not identify presence of sensitive habitats, and none of the property contains wetland or aquatic or other features that could be subject to state and federal regulations (SOURCE V.13c).

No sensitive habitat types were identified within the project site and study area for the Biotic Assessment. Eucalyptus forest is comprised primarily of planted blue gum eucalyptus, and is limited primarily to a hedgerow of blue gum eucalyptus along the northeastern perimeter of the project site, which extends off the property to the north. Blue gum eucalyptus trees are an exotic species and rated as a “moderately invasive” by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC 2018). This habitat type is not considered a sensitive habitat type unless it supports autumnal or overwintering roosting monarch butterflies. The majority of the grove extends offsite and would not be impacted by the proposed project (SOURCE V.13c).

The project site also was evaluated for the presence of coastal prairie grassland, a sensitive habitat identified in the General Plan. Purple needlegrass, an indicator of coastal prairie grasslands, was present in low abundance within the upper meadow. However, this species was largely confined to small patches along the perimeter of the meadow and was the only native herbaceous species identified within the grassland. The Biotic Assessment conducted for the project site concluded the meadow is unlikely to support a diverse native seedbank as no other coastal prairie species were identified during the site visits conducted for the Biotic Assessment, and it is expected that these species would have been observed, even at very low abundance. Because this area is classified as non-native grassland, it is not considered a sensitive habitat type (SOURCE V.13c). (c) Wetlands. No wetlands or other waters subject to federal or state jurisdiction were identified within the project site (SOURCE V.13c). A concrete lined ditch along the eastern perimeter of the Study Area conveys surface water from the site to a storm drain along High Street in the southeast corner of the property. Stormwater management associated with the proposed residential development may utilize this existing feature or this conveyance system may be realigned and/or improved to accommodate the project. Removal and relocation will require compliance with City of Santa Cruz and Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) requirements.

18.121
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -31- Revised November 2023
(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.

The project involves the removal of 22 trees, of which 14 are considered heritage trees under City regulations. All 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). All nesting birds of prey (i.e., hawks and owls), other native nesting birds and their occupied nests and individual birds of prey are protected by the California Fish and Game Commission Code (CFGC) (§ 3503 and 3503.5) (CFGC 2016). Special-status bird species receive additional protections, primarily for nesting activities.

Suitable potential nesting habitat for special-status birds and other common avian species is present within or adjacent to the proposed Project Area (SOURCE V.13c). A number native bird species utilizing the project area were observed during the Biological Assessment site visit, but no sensitive bird species were observed during the biological surveys. Several species: olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), and Allen’s hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin) are U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern, and have been observed nearby at High Street Church, Westlake Pond and Kalkar Quarry, and may nest within or near the project site (Ibid.).

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 would be 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, which is referenced therein, establish biological survey protocols, including pre-construction nesting bird surveys with establishment of appropriate construction buffers if needed, if tree removal and/or construction were to commence during the nesting season. A project condition of approval requires implementation of a pre-construction nesting survey.

18.122
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -32- Revised November 2023
Common roosting bat species are protected under the CFGC. As indicated above, the project Biotic Assessment recommends pre-construction surveys if tree removal or building demolition occurs within the maternity roosting season (May 1-September 1), which generally coincides with the bird nesting season, or during winter hibernation (November 1-February 15). A condition of approval requires pre-construction surveys for bats to ensure compliance with state regulations.

The General Plan EIR concluded that potential impacts of future development that could directly or indirectly interfere with wildlife breeding/nesting would be less than significant with implementation of the General Plan policies and actions for resource protection, which include a requirement to conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys to protect nesting birds if present at a construction site, which is a standard condition of approval. Inclusion of a standard condition of approval to require a pre-construction bird nesting survey would be considered application of uniformly applied development standards. Therefore, potential project impacts would be considered less than significant with application of uniformly applied development standards (condition of approval to conduct pre-construction nesting survey) 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 22 trees due to the proposed construction footprint or deteriorating health of the tree, 14 of which qualify as heritage trees as defined by the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance. The heritage trees to be removed include 12 blue gum eucalyptus, one silver wattle acacia, and one blackwood acacia trees. The arborist report indicated that these trees need to be removed due to the construction footprint and some are unsuitable for protection due to poor overall condition; all trees are non-native (SOURCE V.15). The remaining 51 trees, including 19 heritage trees, on the project parcel would be retained and preserved. The project landscaping plans all for replanting 36 trees.

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. As indicated above, the project landscaping plan includes replanting 36 trees. The removal of 14 heritage trees would require replanting at least 28 24-inch size trees. The project proposes to plant 36 new trees, and thus, would exceed the replanting requirements, and the project would not conflict with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance.

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

18.123
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -33- Revised November 2023
The proposed landscaping plans indicate that the project site will be replanted with 36 replacement trees per City regulations. The proposed trees shown on the project landscape plan comply with the City’s replacement tree requirements for heritage trees. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts related to conflicts with local ordinances or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development standards set forth in the heritage tree regulations, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(f) Habitat Conservation Plans. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans in the project vicinity. The City’s recently approved Operations and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (O&M HCP) is not applicable to the proposed project or project site as it was developed for improvements or projects related to City facilities with the potential to take federally listed species and other non-listed special-status species.

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

4.9-15, 4.9-21,

4.9-23 to 4.9-24
Yes Yes None
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
DEIR pp. 4.9-10
to 4.9-12,

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

24.12.430
Objective
Standard to
require
compliance with
archaeological
report
recommenddations
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
DEIR pp. 4.9-10
to 4.9-12,

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

24.12.430
(a) Historical Resources. According to maps developed for the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within a designated historic district (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.9-4). The project site includes an existing church that will be retained on one of the two

18.124
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -34- Revised November 2023
proposed new lots. The project would not result in demolition of existing buildings and is set back from the existing church.

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 lessthan-significant level. The project does not propose to demolish or alter any structures, and therefore, there would be no impact to a historic resource. 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 and highly sensitive for archaeological resources (SOURCE V.1c). A Phase I Archaeological Study was conducted for the project site, which included a background records search at the California Historical Resources Information System Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University (NWIC), and a field investigation with a pedestrian survey. The records search found one archaeological resource that had been previously identified within the project area and six resources had been recorded within a one-quarter-mile radius of the project site (SOURCE V.10b). The project area was found to be within Rancherίa de las Fuentes occupied primarily by indigenous peoples of Ohlone decent from Mission Santa Cruz during the mid-19th Century, and 750 feet east of the recorded boundary of the Cowell Lime Works Historic District, currently owned by UCSC (Ibid.). Cultural materials noted during the surface investigation at the project site lead to the recommendation for conducting an Extended Phase I assessment (Ibid.).

An Extended Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the project. This assessment was prepared per the recommendation of a Phase I Archaeological Study which included a pedestrian survey that identified cultural materials, specifically a chipped glass projectile point that may have been associated with Native Americans during a historic era. The assessment included a review of previous cultural resource research in the project area, subsurface presence/absence testing of the project area, and report of findings and recommendations.

As indicated above, the archival research indicates there is evidence of historically documented land uses associated with Ranchería de la Fuentes and the Henry Cowell Lime & Cement Company within the project area. However, the Extended Phase I testing and assessment concluded that there is no evidence that these historic land uses resulted in remnants of an archaeological signature within the project area (SOURCE V.10a).

The surface testing produced negative results. During the subsurface investigation, eight shovel test probes were excavated to expose subsurface deposits. None of the materials found for those probes were diagnosed to a historic age and items were intermixed with modern trash and construction fill.

The testing resulted in no evidence for culturally produced deposits. Based on these findings, the assessment concluded the project area does not contain intact cultural deposits associated with Ranchería de la Fuentes or with nearby historic-era resources (e.g., Henry Cowell Lime & Cement

18.125
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -35- Revised November 2023
Company), and recommended no further studies (e.g., resource identification or evaluation) (SOURCE V.10a).

Nonetheless, the Extended Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment does recommend that if previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during construction, that work be halted in that area until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the find. 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.

Although the project site is located in a sensitive and highly sensitive archaeological area as mapped by the City , 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 and subsequent site testing concluded that the project area does not contain intact cultural deposits. Therefore, 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.

18.126
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -36- Revised November 2023

6. ENERGY
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
a Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
DEIR pp. 4.6-27
to 4.6-29, 4.6-
45 to 4.6-46, 5-
4 to 5-6
No No None
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
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. The project would be subject to approval of building permits that meet the CBC and City Green Building Code requirements, as well as compliance with City requirements for water conservation fixtures and features, including drought-resistant landscaping. The project applicant proposes to construct the project with all electric utilities. 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 project also includes eight electric vehicle ready parking spaces that would be available for residents.

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 40 dwelling units. 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

18.127
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -37- Revised November 2023
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 would comply with building code requirements described above. Therefore, no further review is necessary.

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

4.10-20
No No None
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
DEIR pp. 4.10-6
to 4.10-14,

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 pp.

4.10-12 to

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

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

4.10-13 to
No No None

18.128
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -38- Revised November 2023

4.10-14, 4.10-22
to 4.10-24
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
DEIR pp.

4.10-17 to

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

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

4.10-15 to

4.10-16, 4.10-24
to 4.10-25
No No
Municipal Code
sections

24.14.030 and

24.08.800-820
(Slope
Regulations)
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 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?
Not Applicable Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable Not Applicable
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
DEIR pp. 4.9-14
to 4.9-16,

4.9-21, 4.9-24
to 4.9-25
No No
GP EIR
Mitigation 4.9-2;
standard
Condition of
Approval for
Accidental
Discovery of
Paleontological
Resources
(a-i) Fault Rupture. The project site is located in a seismically active region of California, which has the potential to be subject to very intense shaking during a seismic event. The City of Santa Cruz is

18.129
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -39- Revised November 2023
situated between two major active faults: the San Andreas, approximately 11 miles to the northeast, and the San Gregorio, approximately nine miles to the west. Other known active faults in the vicinity of the site include the Zayante – Vergeles, and the Monterey Bay-Tularcitos. 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. Therefore, 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. As indicated above, 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. Several active or potentially active faults are located in the vicinity and are considered capable of generating moderate to severe ground shaking. The closest faults to the project site are the Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault (5.8 miles southwest), the offshore San Gregorio Fault (8.6 miles southwest), the Zayante-Vergeles Fault (8.8 miles northwest), and the San Andreas Fault (11.6 miles northeast). The project site is likely to experience at least one moderate to severe earthquake from one of these faults during the next 50 years (SOURCE V.12a). Therefore, the project could be subject to strong seismic shaking during an earthquake on regional faults.

Liquefaction Hazard. According to maps developed as part of the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located in an area susceptible to liquefaction (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.10-4). The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project also noted the project site has a very low potential for liquefaction due to the lack of groundwater (SOURCE V.12a).

Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability. According to maps developed as part of the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project is also not in an area susceptible to landslides (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.10-3). The project geologic and geotechnical reports indicated that there has not been any historic landslides on the natural south facing slope and no surficial landslides were observed in the cut at the base of the slope during the geotechnical investigation (SOURCE V.12a).

The project parcel was previously graded to accommodate the existing church and parking improvements, and a portion of the proposed residential site is includes a previously graded existing parking lot, which is nearly level. The project site is located on a moderately steep, 25-foot-high, south-facing slope above High Street. Perpendicular to the south-facing slope is a near-vertical, 50- to 70-foot-high, east-facing cut slope remaining from an abandoned quarry located just east of the project site. The geotechnical analysis indicated that a stability analysis of the south facing slope that lies between the parking lot and the upper terrace where the building will be situated was conducted, the south-facing slope was found to be stable under both static and seismic conditions (SOURCE V.12a).

The geologic investigation indicated that there is a potential for rock falls within the steep east-facing quarry face adjacent to the proposed building site, and a stability analysis of the soil overlying the

18.130
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -40- Revised November 2023
marble comprising the east slope was performed. The analysis found that the soil overlying the marble is stable under both static and seismic conditions (Ibid.). The proposed project would be set back 60 feet from the top of the adjacent slope to the east (SOURCE V.12a).

The proposed project includes a Slope Development Permit because a portion of the apartment building is proposed on a slope of 30 to 50 percent. Municipal Code section 24.14.030, which establishes slope regulations for properties located outside of the coastal zone, were enacted to minimize the risks associated with project development in areas characterized by combustible vegetation and steep and/or unstable slopes. A further purpose is to avoid excessive height, bulk, and mass normally associated with building on slopes. Municipal code sections 24.08.800-820 establish requirements for issuance of a Slope Development Permit if a project is found consistent with the slope regulations, and specific findings are made. The City has determined that measures have been included within the design of the project to address environmental constraint areas identified in the Natural Resources and Conservation Element and the Safety Element of the General Plan, including the project’s incorporation of architectural and design elements that serve to reduce the mass and bulk of structures to protect public views, consistent with provisions of the regulations.

Karst Formation Hazards. The project site is underlain by marble bedrock that is overlain by marine terrace deposits and soil. The marble formation in the region is characterized by irregular surface landforms, such as sinkholes (or dolines), caves, and underground drainages, known as karst topography (SOURCE V.12a). Karst topography is formed from the dissolution of soluble bedrock, which generates voids in the subsurface. Construction in karst terrain is potentially hazardous because many karst features are not visible at the surface, and settling or collapse can occur beneath a structure.

A geologic investigation, geotechnical investigation, and follow-up geologic review were conducted for the Project. The geotechnical investigation included a series of soils borings and addressed issues raised in the geologic report. The geotechnical investigation found that the marble formation at the proposed building site is relatively level and is capped with about 10 to 30 feet of marine terrace soils.

Voids have developed in the marble creating dolines, also known as sinkholes, with doline fill consisting of broken marble rocks and soil that have collapsed into the voids. The composition of doline fill is typically mixed soil and angular fragments of bedrock. Dolines frequently reactivate and renewed collapse of the soil/rubble matrix frequently occurs when extra water is added to an existing doline. This is because the soils become weaker and heavier as they become unnaturally saturated causing soil collapses under its own weight and from erosion of the soils through a process called soil piping, where soil is carried away with the water flowing the karst formations (SOURCE V.12a). No groundwater was encountered in the borings (Ibid.).

Geotechnical borings suggest that the marble bedrock is generally located 6 to 12 feet below existing grade in the existing parking area at the base of the slope, and about 30 to 35 feet below the proposed building area at the top of the slope. Although the marble surface appears uniform in the geotechnical borings, the marble in areas between the borings can vary greatly so the information from the borings is only reliable at the actual boring locations. Therefore, the geotechnical report recommends drilling additional borings in a smaller grid pattern prior to developing plans and specifications for the project, to adequately characterize the intact marble and sinkhole hazards north of the existing parking area (SOURCE V.12a).

18.131
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -41- Revised November 2023
Project Review. The risks related to geological hazards to the proposed project (seismic shaking, doline reactivation, differential settlement) can all be mitigated through adequate geotechnical engineering and structural engineering design and construction and ground improvement. The geologic investigation indicated that there is a low to moderate potential for karst-related subsidence during the lifetime of the project where the existing doline was identified, and a low potential for karst-related subsidence on the balance of the site; recommendations were provided for inclusion in the project geotechnical investigation (SOURCE V.18). A follow-up geologic review of the currently proposed project plans indicated that the recommendations of the preliminary geologic investigation are still applicable to the project (SOURCE V.16). The follow-up geologic review indicates that the currently proposed project is geologically feasible, and the risks related to geological hazards to the habitable structures (seismic shaking, doline reactivation, differential settlement) can all be mitigated through adequate geotechnical engineering and structural engineering design and construction and ground improvement, although additional drilling was recommended when final building locations are established (Ibid.).

The geotechnical report concluded that the project is feasible given the recommendations presented in the report are incorporated into the design and properly followed during construction. Primary geotechnical concerns include performing additional subsurface exploration to further explore the marble formation beneath the building, mitigating potential future sink hole formation beneath structures, providing firm uniform support for the building foundation, setting improvements back from the top of the quarry slope, retaining or flattening the cut slope at the base of the slope beneath the proposed building, controlling site drainage and designing for strong seismic shaking (SOURCE V.12a).

The project would be designed to accommodate site-specific geologic conditions in accordance with recommendations of the project site-specific geologic and geotechnical investigations, and, as applicable, would adhere to the provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) to address geologic hazards and include appropriate design measures. These measures would minimize risks associated with geologic hazards such as subsidence or collapse. Implementation of the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation 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 do 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 General Plan EIR concluded that adherence to existing regulations and standards, including the 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

18.132
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -42- Revised November 2023
professionals for proposed development in potential liquefaction areas and requires developments to incorporate the design and other mitigation measures recommended by the investigation. 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 geologic and geotechnical investigations were performed, and design recommendations would be implemented and be considered application of a uniformly applied development standards. 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 and other recommendations in the geologic and geotechnical reports. In addition, the requirements of Municipal Code section

24.08.820 establish applicable conditions that must be met in order to grant approval of a Slope Development Permit. These findings and conditions would be required and implemented, and would be considered application of a uniformly applied development 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. (b) Erosion. According to maps developed as part of the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site consists of Watsonville loam thick surface soils, with 15 to 30 percent slopes (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.10-6). As described in the General Plan EIR, erosion potential for this soil profile is considered high to very high (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume).

Project earthwork would include grading, trenching, and removal of trees and other vegetation.

Construction of the residential building and associated driveway and parking improvements would result in grading and excavation of approximately 3,100 cy of earth material would be cut from the site and approximately 300 cy of earth material would be filled. Therefore, there would be net export of approximately 2,800 cy of earth material off site. These construction activities would include ground disturbance, which would potentially result in short-term soil erosion. To address potential erosion of on-site soils (which are noted to have a high/very high potential for erosion in the General Plan EIR), project plans include an erosion control plan that would be implemented during construction. Erosion control measures on the plan include, but are not limited to: implementation of construction best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with City regulations; installation and inspection of erosion and sediment control BMPs, such as hay bales, filter berms, silt fencing, fiber rolls, and/or other measures; daily checks and sweeping as needed of sidewalk and street; proper storage of construction materials; protection of soil stockpiles from stormwater runoff;

18.133
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -43- Revised November 2023
installation and maintenance of additional sediment control measures during rainy season (October 15 through April 15); and storm drain inlet/catch basin protection. Thus, implementation of project erosion control plans would prevent excessive erosion during construction.

In addition, because the proposed project footprint is greater than 1 acre, it would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for construction site stormwater discharges, and would comply with those requirements. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required to be prepared and implemented under these requirements, which includes appropriate erosion-control and water-quality-control measures during site preparation, grading, construction, and post-construction. Implementation of the SWPPP for the proposed project would minimize short-term erosion impacts.

Future development of the project would result in limited disturbance within identified building envelops and new driveway and walkway areas; development of these areas would result in 13,794 square feet of new impervious surface covering soils. 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. See subsection 10(a) below regarding potential water quality impacts due to grading and earthwork.

The General Plan EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the General 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. According to maps developed as part of the City’s General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site consists primarily of Watsonville loam thick surface soils, with 15 to 30 percent slopes (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.10-6). These soils are characterized as having a low to moderate potential for expansive soils according to the U.S. Soil Survey. The project’s Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation did not identify expansive soils at the project site, and concluded that the site is suitable for development with implementation of recommendations in the design-level geotechnical report (SOURCE V.12a). Implementation of recommendations set forth in the project geotechnical report is required by the California Building Code and City regulations and policies, which would ensure that potential exposure to geotechnical hazards related to expansive soils would be mitigated.

The General Plan EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the General Plan could be exposed to expansive soils, which would be addressed through compliance with state and local regulations, including the CBC requirements and section 24.14.070 of the City’s Municipal Code (requirement for geotechnical investigations), which would ensure that buildings are designed to

18.134
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -44- Revised November 2023
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 a 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 Metamorphic Bedrock (Mesozoic or Paleozoic) (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.9-5). Metamorphic Bedrock is not one of the four geologic units in the General Plan area known to contain paleontological resources (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). Therefore, the project site is not located within a paleontologically sensitive area.

The General Plan EIR Mitigation 4.9-2 added General Plan Action HA1.2.3 to the General Plan, 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. However, the project is not included within a paleontologically sensitive area, and would not be subject to this condition. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant paleontological resource impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

18.135
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -45- Revised November 2023

8. GREENHOUSE GAS

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

4.12-13 to

4.12-17, 4.12-21
to 4.12-28
FEIR pp. 3-26 to
3-27
No No
Climate Action
Plan GHG
Reduction
Measures
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.

4.12-18 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.

18.136
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -46- Revised November 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.2a).

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

18.137
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -47- Revised November 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.4b).

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 to 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 addition of 40 dwelling units within the City. This level of development would be within the overall amount of residential 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, no impacts peculiar to the site or substantially more severe impacts would occur.

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

18.138
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -48- Revised November 2023
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.2a). Emissions modeling conducted for the project shows that the proposed project could result in GHG emissions of approximately 1.8 MT CO2e per capita per year, which is lower than the level forecast in the General Plan EIR and the recently adopted 2030 CAP.

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 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.9c). 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. To determine consistency, the City adopted a “Project Review Checklist” as part of the CAP to determine consistency with the CAP on a project-by-project basis. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, a lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a previously adopted plan or mitigation program under specified circumstances. In order for the CAP to be considered a qualified GHG reduction strategy and provide for CEQA streamlining of GHG analysis for future development the CAP must identify those measures that are applicable to new development. The CAP includes measures that are applicable to existing developments, municipal government operations, as well as voluntary and mandatory measures to be applied to new development for public and private projects. Mandatory GHG reduction programs that are applicable to new development are summarized in the following CAP Project Review Checklist. This CAP Project Review Checklist identifies applicable regulations, applicability, requirements, and monitoring and reporting

18.139
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -49- Revised November 2023
required by regulations. A development project that demonstrates incorporation of the measures in the Checklist would be considered consistent with the CAP.

The project applicant completed and submitted the Project Review Checklist, which shows incorporation of measures that would reduce the project’s incremental contribution to GHG emissions and climate change, consistent with the City’s adopted CAP. Therefore, the project was determined to be consistent with the City’s CAP. As previously indicated, the project’s proposed 40 units are within the buildout estimates analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and additionally the GHG emissions reduction measures included in the City’s adopted CAP and included in the proposed project, are considered uniformly applied development standards. Therefore, the project also 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 targets 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. The proposed project includes features that further reduce GHG emissions, consistent with measures included in the 2030 CAP as described above.

The project incorporates GHG reduction measures identified by the City in the CAP Project Review Checklist, and as explained above, the project was found consistent with the City’s CAP. 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.

18.140
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -50- Revised November 2023

9. HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
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 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 pp. 4.14-5
to 4.14-7,

4.14-9 to

4.14-11
No No None
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
¼ miles of an existing or proposed
school?
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 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?
Not Applicable Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable Not Applicable
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
DEIR pp. 4.6-2
to 4.6-5, 4.6-33
to 4.6-37
No No None
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
DEIR pp. 4.6-3
to 4.6-4, 4.6-34
to 4.6-35
No No
General Plan
Actions HZ1.5.3,
HZ1.5.4
Standard Fire
Department
Conditions of
Approval

18.141
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -51- Revised November 2023
(a, b, c) Use or Release of Hazardous Materials or Creation of Hazard. The proposed project consists of a residential project, 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. While the project site is located immediately east of Westlake Elementary School, project operations, which are residential in nature, 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, 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 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.8b) 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.8a); (2) the list of leaking underground storage tank sites from the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) GeoTracker database (SOURCE V.8e); (3) the list of solid waste disposal sites identified with Waste Constituent Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit (SOURCE V.8c); (4) the list of active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from the SWRCB (SOURCE V.8f); 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.8d).

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. 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

18.142
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -52- Revised November 2023
ensure the avoidance of any significant effects. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (e) Airport Safety. The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or air strip and would not be subjected to potential aircraft hazards.
(f) Emergency Response. Existing ingress to and egress from the project site is provided via two driveways off High Street, along the project site’s southwestern and southeastern boundaries.

Currently, vehicles access the project site from High Street from the southeastern portion of the site and are circulated in a counterclockwise pattern, to the existing church parking lots; vehicles exit the project site onto High Street, using the southwestern driveway. The project would continue to be served by these driveways. However, the project proposes to update circulation patterns onto and off these driveways, as well as on site. Under the proposed project, vehicles would be allowed to enter and exit the project site both driveways and be allowed to circulate the site internally in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions. The proposed driveway and primary internal access road would be a minimum 20 feet wide, allowing for emergency vehicle access. Also, under the proposed circulation conditions, vehicles would have multiple turnaround points, including at the two parking lot areas. These changes to vehicle circulation would therefore improve access for residents, visitors, and emergency vehicles.

The project would not include any changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency access to the site, except for access private improvements into the site as described above. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan and would not result in an impact. Currently, the City does not have an adopted evacuation plan detailing the specifics of how an evacuation of a neighborhood would occur because an evacuation would need to respond to the specific challenges posed by the specific disaster prompting the evacuation. However, evacuations are highly coordinated and closely managed by the Office of Emergency Services. If an evacuation were necessary, evacuation zones would be established, and designated zones would be evacuated at staggered times to minimize congestion of evacuees with notification provided to evacuees. Natural disaster evacuation is a city-wide and regional issue, and a project of the size of the proposed project would have no implications for the City’s established evacuation procedures.

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) Wildfire. 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. 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.

18.143
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -53- Revised November 2023
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 high fire hazard area (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.6-1). The project would result in a net increase of a 40-unit residential building. The proposed building envelope is set back from the wooded portions of the site, and fire clearance would be provided around new structures. The proposed project would meet all City requirements for access, and the building would be required to install fire sprinkler systems in accordance with City regulations. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

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]). Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

10. HYDROLOGY AND

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

4.7-8 to 4.7-12,

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

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

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

24.14.090

18.144
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -54- Revised November 2023

10. HYDROLOGY AND

WATER QUALITY
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:

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

24.14.050,
Chapter 16.19
and 18.45
regarding runoff
control, grading
and erosion
control
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
DEIR pp. 4.7-5
to 4.7-8, 4.7-22
to 4.7-24
No No See above
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
DEIR pp. 4.7-5
to 4.7-8, 4.7-22
to 4.7-24
No No See above
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
DEIR pp. 4.7-7
to 4.7-8, 4.7-22
to 4.7-24
No No
General Plan
2030 Action
CC5.1.8 and
Municipal Code
Chapters 16.19
and 24.14
regarding
drainage and
BMPs
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
DEIR pp. 4.7-12
to 4.7-14,

4.7-25 to 4.7-27
No No
General Plan
2030 Actions
CC5.1.7,
HZ6.4.6,
HZ6.4.10
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
DEIR pp. 4.7-15,

4.7-25 to

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

18.145
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -55- Revised November 2023
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 BMPs for construction and new development. City regulations (Municipal Code section 16.19.140) requires that any construction project, including those undertaken under any permit or approval granted pursuant to Titles 15 (Streets and Sidewalks), 18 (Buildings and Construction), and 24 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code, shall implement BMPs 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 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 (approximately 22,941 square feet), the project would be required to comply with Tiers 1 through 4 (Site Design, Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Management).

The project site is currently partially developed, and its impervious surface area would increase from approximately 9,147square feet to 22,941square feet with the proposed project. New impervious surfaces could increase the delivery of urban pollutants to vicinity storm drains or water courses, but

18.146
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -56- Revised November 2023
none exist on or adjacent to the project site. A Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) has been prepared for the project that details drainage features to collect and treat stormwater runoff. The SWCP notes that runoff retention is not feasible on the project site due to geologic concerns associated with the formation of sinkholes due to the site’s karst topography. In lieu of retention, the SWCP notes that per the recommendation of the State, the project would direct 10% of the Project Equivalent Impervious Surface Area (EISA) to on-site stormwater control measures (SCMs).

Stormwater would be controlled with a media filtration vault via a “flow-through” method which would be sized to capture and treat 0.20 inches of stormwater per hour. SCMs include flow-through planters, self-treating biofiltration areas, and underground chambers for retention of 10% EISA and project peak flow management located at the southeastern portion of the site. The SWCP recommends the following site design and runoff elements intended to control runoff: disconnected downspouts, disperse driveway runoff to landscape areas, groundwater infiltration, and implementation of biofiltration areas and flow-through planters (as described above) (SOURCE V.11).

Incorporation of these measures to treat stormwater runoff would be consistent with City stormwater management requirements.

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 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.

Project construction would include grading, trenching, and removing trees and other vegetation that could result in short-term soil erosion. As indicated in subsection 7(b) above, project plans include an erosion control plan that would be implemented during construction, in accordance with City regulations, including implementation of construction BMPs. Construction of the proposed project would result in a development area of more than one acre, which would be subject to the NPDES permit requirements for construction site stormwater discharges and preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. Implementation of the SWPPP would further minimize short-term erosion impacts. In addition, the project would be required to implement the City’s regulatory requirements and BMPs, as detailed in the “Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual” published by the City’s Public Works Department.

The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to City regulations to protect water quality, impacts from future development on water quality, including potential erosion, would be less than significant. Compliance with regulations contained in the City’s Municipal Code regarding design of stormwater drainage systems to meet water quality standards (section 24.14.050 of the City’s Municipal) and 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 as may be required during construction, would mitigate potential storm runoff water quality and erosion impacts resulting from increased stormwater and construction activities and would be considered application of uniformly

18.147
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -57- Revised November 2023
applied development standards. Project stormwater drainage improvements have been designed in accordance with City standards and Public Works requirements in order to meet water quality standards. The 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 EIR, and the project would not result in water quality impacts peculiar to the site or project with application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Groundwater. The City is primarily developed, and no groundwater recharge areas are identified or mapped in the City’s General Plan 2030 or General Plan EIR; groundwater resources utilized as part of the City’s water supply are obtained from aquifers outside of the City (SOURCE V.1b. DEIR volume).

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

The project site is located within a developed residential area with some public/institutional uses in the immediate vicinity. 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 existing parcel is developed with asphalt roads and parking with existing buildings. The project site is north of these existing improvements and is undeveloped, other than a small impervious surface area of concrete and asphalt associated with the existing parking lot. The site currently drains north to south and is collected in an on-site storm drain system (via pipes, inlets, and concrete swales) that exits the site from the southeasterly corner of the site. Site storm drains connect into the existing public storm drain system on High Street, which ultimately flows to Neary Lagoon.

With proposed development of an apartment building, impervious surface area on the project site would increase. The project would replace 9,147 square feet of impervious surface area and create 13,794 square feet of new impervious surface area, for a total of 22,941 square feet of impervious surface area. (SOURCE V.11).

18.148
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -58- Revised November 2023
One Drainage Management Area (DMA) has been delineated for new construction on the site. A Media Filtration Vault and underground chambers are proposed for the DMA, which includes all the new and/or replaced impervious area. The Chamber bottom would be more than 3 feet above the seasonal high groundwater level. The media filtration vault would provide the treatment method prior to storm water entering the chambers. The chambers would provide retention and peak management control.

Due to the new and/or replaced impervious area of 22,941 square feet proposed, this project falls within the Tier 4 Post-Construction BMP Requirements. As indicated above, runoff retention is infeasible for the project site due to karst formations and associated concerns that collecting water on site for the purposes of retention would likely cause sinkholes to occur. Thus, the project would retain 10% of the EISA on site.

Due to the risk related to doline reactivation at the site, the geotechnical report prepared for the project recommends that surface runoff from the proposed improvements and coming off the slope above the improvements should be captured and discharged off-site. Bioswales and retention systems may be used to store and filter runoff, but these systems will need to be sealed so no water is infiltrated into the soil. Irrigated landscape areas located within 20 feet of structures should also be sealed to prevent irrigation water from seeping into the subsoils. Buried utilities that carry water (water, sewer, fire etc.) that are located within 50 feet of structures should be regularly tested for leaks as sink holes can develop quickly.

The General Plan EIR concluded that potential impacts related to increased stormwater runoff would be a less-than-significant impact with implementation of General Plan policies and actions that require new development to maintain pre-development runoff levels (CC5.1.8). The project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns, although impervious surface area would increase.

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 preproject 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 project was reviewed by the City’s Stormwater Division for compliance with the City’s Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual for Private and Public Development, and the project was found to be compliant with City and State requirements related to stormwater retention and drainage. The proposed project would not result in significant drainage impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the site or project with implementation of uniformly applied development standards related to stormwater management. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(c [iv], d) Flood Hazard Areas and Risk of Release of Pollutants. According to maps prepared for the General Plan 2030 and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within a flood hazard area (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.7-1). The project site also is not within a mapped tsunami inundation zone (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.7-2).

18.149
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -59- Revised November 2023
With implementation of the proposed policies and actions related to flood control and adherence to other City plans and regulations, the General Plan EIR concluded that future development would not result in substantial risk of exposure of structures or people to flood hazards and impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in significant flood hazards not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the site or project. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

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

The EIR indicated that the City was in the process of drafting a “Climate Change Adaptation Plan” to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of climate change on the City of Santa Cruz, analyze the severity of the hazards that the City faces, and develop potential adaptation responses to reduce the risk and exposure of the City to these hazards. The City prepared a “Climate Adaptation Plan” with funding from FEMA. 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 coastal storm hazards or sea level rise (SOURCE V.2e). 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 stormwater would be treated through SCMs (described above) that include flowthrough planters, self-treating biofiltration areas, and underground chambers for retention. These SCMs would 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.

18.150
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -60- Revised November 2023

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

4.1-25 to 4.1-27
No No None
(a) Physically Divide an Established Community. The project site is located with in an existing predominantly low-density residential neighborhood in the City. The project site is bordered by UCSC faculty housing to the north, single-family homes to the east, single-family homes to the south, and an elementary school to the west. The construction of the proposed residential project within an existing developed area would not physically divide an established community.

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

As described in Section II, the applicant has requested two “concessions” and one “waiver” pursuant to state and local density bonus laws. The project proposes to provide five low -income units and four very- low- income units, which is 22.5 percent of the 40 total units at the low- income or lower level.

This level of affordability exceeds the minimum 10- percent lower-income threshold to qualify the project for a density bonus. The density bonus request includes concessions/incentives and a waiver from development standards per section 24.16.225 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code. Per section

24.16.255 (4), the project is eligible to request an unlimited number of waivers or modifications to

18.151
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -61- Revised November 2023
development standards, if those standards physically preclude the construction of the housing development, and the housing development is eligible for a density bonus. Therefore, the project is eligible for a density bonus based on the number of low- income and very- low- income units provided and may request two incentives/concessions and unlimited waivers; the project does not present a conflict with City’s Municipal Code regulations.

The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, and the project would not result in land use impacts peculiar to the site or project. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

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

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

4.15-6
No No None
(a-b) Loss of Mineral Resources. There are no mineral resources within the City (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). The project therefore would not result in any impact peculiar to the parcel or project with respect to this impact, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

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

4.13-10 to

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

24.14.260,

18.152
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -62- Revised November 2023

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

4.13-10, 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?
Not Applicable No No None
(a) Noise Increases. The only source of significant noise at the project site is from the existing playgrounds at the adjacent elementary school (SOURCE V.17). The project site is located off of High Street. The noise assessment conducted for the General Plan EIR indicates that noise levels along High Street Between Bay Street and Moore Street would be within the 65-decibel contour within 70 feet of the centerline of the road. The project site is located nearly 300 feet north of High Street and is not located within a mapped noise contour (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 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

18.153
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -63- Revised November 2023
above, the project site is not mapped within a noise contour per the General Plan; however, the project is located adjacent to a 65-dBA noise contour along High Street. 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 that would be enclosed. This use is not typically associated with activities that would generate substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels.

There would be a temporary increase in existing noise levels during construction of the project. The nearest sensitive noise receptors the preschool, elementary school, and residential uses on the UCSC campus adjacent to the project site. Noise impacts resulting from construction would depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noisegenerating 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. 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. Sensitive noise receptors 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.

Furthermore, the General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies and actions that set forth measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts of increased noise resulting from construction or operation of development projects (HZ3.1.1,HZ3.1.2, HZ3.1.3, and HZ3.1.5). The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to City regulations, noise impacts from future development would be less than significant. The General Plan EIR concluded that development accommodated by the plan would result in construction of varying sound level and duration, but with implementation of General Plan policies and actions that set forth measures to minimize exposure to construction noise levels, the increase in temporary noise levels from construction-related activities would be considered less than significant. General Plan policies seek to minimize and monitor construction noise (HZ3.1.3, HZ3.1.5). In particular, the General Plan seeks to ensure that construction activities are managed to minimize overall noise impacts on surrounding land uses (HZ3.1.3). Development projects are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and typical conditions of approval include limiting the day and times of day during which construction and/or heavy construction can be conducted, provision of notification to neighbors regarding construction

18.154
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -64- Revised November 2023
schedules, and implementation of a process to receive and respond to noise complaints. These are some of the types of measures that would be required by the City to manage and minimize construction noise impacts of development projects per proposed General Plan Actions HZ3.1.3 and HZ3.1.5 (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume), which would be considered uniformly applied development policies and standards.

Municipal Code section 24.14.220 indicates that no land or building in any district shall be used or occupied in any manner so as to create noise or vibration in such a manner or in an amount as to adversely affect the surrounding area or adjoining premises. Municipal Code section 9.36.010 prohibits offensive noise between the hours of 10 PM and 8 AM and section 9.36.020 prohibits unreasonably disturbing noises. Furthermore, section 24.14.260 prohibits increases of sound levels above 5 dBA above the local ambient on a residential property. These regulations are intended to prevent increases in ambient noise levels and would be considered uniformly applied regulations to which the proposed project would be subject to compliance.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site regarding permanent or temporary increases in noise with the application of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (b) Vibration. The proposed residential use would not result in generation of or exposure to vibration as neither the proposed use or other existing residential uses in the vicinity are known to be sources of vibration. The General Plan EIR indicates that there were no planned land uses that would be expected to result in generation of groundborne vibration, and that the potential for vibration is mostly associated with construction-related impacts. Construction, and potentially resulting vibration, would be performed during daytime hours and would be temporary in nature, although standard construction equipment typically does not generate substantial levels of vibration. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to City regulations, noise impacts from construction of future development projects would be less than significant. Municipal Code section 24.14.220 indicates that no land or building in any district shall be used or occupied in any manner so as to create noise or vibration in such a manner or in an amount as to adversely affect the surrounding area or adjoining premises. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site regarding generation of excessive vibration. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (e-f) Airport Noise. The project site is not located near an airport or private airstrip.

18.155
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -65- Revised November 2023

14. POPULATION

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

The City had a population of 63,224 people as of January 1, 2023 (SOURCE V.5). The proposed project‘s 40 residential units would result in an increased population of approximately 92 residents based on the City’s existing average household size of 2.3. With the addition of the project’s residents, the City’s population would total 63,317. This is within the adopted regional population forecast of 68,845 for the city of Santa Cruz for the year 2025 (SOURCE V.3a), and also within the population forecast of 64,649 residents in the City in 2025 that was considered in the General Plan 2030 EIR.

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially induce unplanned population growth. Since the potential population growth resulting from the proposed project would fall within the total level of development analyzed in the General Plan EIR and is consistent with current regional forecasts, no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Displacement of Existing Housing or People. No housing units exist on the portion of the project site that would be developed (proposed Lot 1). Therefore, the project would not result in displacement of housing or residents, and thus, would not result in any impact peculiar to the parcel of the project with respect to this category of impact.

18.156
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -66- Revised November 2023

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

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

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

4.6-37 to 4.6-40
FEIR pp. 3-20 to
3-22
No No None
Other public facilities? Not Applicable No No None
Police and Fire Protection Services. As indicated in Section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan EIR considered construction of approximately 3,350 residential units within the City to the year 2030 (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume); the proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. Thus, the project’s net increase of 40 residential units would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential development and buildout accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant for fire and police protection services. Thus, construction of any new public facilities to serve the project would not be warranted with General Plan buildout. Since the proposed project size would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would not result in more severe impacts than analyzed in these EIRs, no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

School Enrollments. The project would result in construction of 40 residential units. The project site and surrounding area would be served by the Santa Cruz City Schools. The project and construction of 40 residential units would result in an estimated enrollment increase of 19 to 20 students throughout all grades based on student generation factors per unit included in the General Plan EIR

18.157
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -67- Revised November 2023
of 0.273 for grades K-6 and 0.207 for grades 7-12 (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume). Schools serving the project site (Westlake Elementary, Mission Hill Middle School, and Santa Cruz High School) have capacity to serve the project based on enrollment projections, and expansion would not be required to serve the project (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume).

The General Plan EIR concluded that buildout resulting from implementation of the General Plan 2030 could result in potentially significant impacts to schools, but, with required payment of school impact fees to fund necessary facility expansion and/or additions in conjunction with potential reuse of the former Natural Bridges Elementary School if needed, the impact would be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level. As the proposed project would be within the amount of development analyzed in the and General Plan EIR and would be within the amount of development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, no new or substantially worsened impacts to schools or impacts peculiar to the project or site would occur. Furthermore, the project would be required to pay school impact fees that are collected at the time of issuance of a building permit. No further environmental analysis is required regarding this public service pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3. It is also noted that payment of school impact fees would be required.

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

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

4.6-37 to 4.6-40
No No
Parks and
Recreation
Facilities Tax
b) Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities?
DEIR pp. 4.6-10
to 4.6-11 No No None
(a) Use of Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities. The City has responsibility for management, maintenance, and operation of over 1,700 acres of parks and open space lands, and various community/recreational facilities, and oversees development of new parks and improvements within City-owned parks, open space, and community facilities. The nearest recreational facilities to the project site include the neighborhood park Westlake Park (approximately 0.1 mile to the south), Pogonip open space (approximately 0.4 miles to the north), and community park Harvey West Park (approximately 0.5 miles to the east).

As indicated in Section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan EIR considered construction of approximately 3,350 residential units within the City to the year 2030 (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR volume), and

18.158
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -68- Revised November 2023
the proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. Thus, the proposed project would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The EIR analyses concluded that, while the City does not meet its goal for neighborhood parks of 2.0 acres per 1,000 residents and for community parks of 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents, implementation of General Plan goals, policies, and actions that set forth measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on park and recreational facilities, as well as compliance with local regulations, would ensure that impacts to parks and recreational facilities resulting from buildout of the General Plan would be less than significant.

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

17. TRANSPORTATION

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

18.159
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -69- Revised November 2023

17. TRANSPORTATION

AND TRAFFIC
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Not Applicable No No
GP Policy LU4.2
GP Actions
M3.1.1, M3.1.1
regarding trip
reduction, high
occupant
vehicle travel,
and alternative
travel modes
City VMT
Implementation
Guidelines
Traffic Impact
Fee Program
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (for
example, sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(for example, farm equipment)?
DEIR pp. 4.4-45
to 4.4-46 No No None
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
DEIR pp. 4.6-33
to 4.6-37 No No None
(a) Conflict with Circulation Plan, Policy or Ordinance. The project site is located within a developed single-family residential neighborhood. Project access will be provided via improved driveways from High Street.

The local circulation network serving the project site includes High Street, Bay Street, surrounding local streets and Mission Street-Highway 1 (State Route 1. The Santa Cruz Metro Transit District (METRO) has bus route service along High Street and Bay Street. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are located in the area. The project includes bicycle parking spaces for residents. The project vicinity has multi-use paths, sidewalks, and some nearby transit stops.

The General Plan 2030 includes goals, policies and actions that set forth comprehensive measures to reduce vehicle trips, increase vehicle occupancy, encourage use of alternative transportation modes, and promote alternative-sustainable land use patterns, all of which would help reduce vehicle trips, avoid and minimize adverse impacts related to traffic. The project would not conflict with any policies, programs or regulations addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The project is located in developed area near transit, services, education facilities and recreation with a sidewalk and bike lane network. The project provides onsite bicycle parking facilities, and the project location is in proximity to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian

18.160
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -70- Revised November 2023
facilities, which would facilitate use of alternative modes of transportation, consistent with General Plan transportation policies and goals.

The City’s General Plan strives to maintain the established “level of service” D or better at signalized intersections (M3.1.3). “Level of service” (LOS) is typically used to evaluate traffic operations, in which operating conditions range from LOS “A” (free-flowing) to LOS “F” (forced-flow). Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and D on State highway facilities. Delays for signalized intersections are evaluated for the overall peak hour as an “average.” The methodologies for unsignalized intersections also evaluates the delays for each “critical” movement (e.g. stop sign controlled approaches on the minor street and main line left turn). The City’s General Plan also accepts a lower level of service and higher congestion at major regional intersections if necessary improvements would be prohibitively costly or result in significant, unacceptable environmental impacts (M3.1.4).

The General Plan EIR did not identify any impacted intersections in the project vicinity with development accommodated by the General Plan, except at the High Street/Laurent Street and High Street/Western Drive intersections. The High Street/Laurent Street intersection could be improved to acceptable service levels with signalization, and improvements at the High Street/Western Drive intersection would reduce delays but would not achieve acceptable levels of service (SOURCE V1.b, DEIR volume).

The proposed project would result in generating approximately 270 daily trips with 16 and 20 AM and PM peak hour trips, respectively (SOURCE 14a). This level of trips did not warrant preparation of a traffic study under City requirements.

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

The General Plan EIR identified one intersection in the general project vicinity at High and Laurent Streets that would operate at deficient LOS but could be improved to an acceptable level with signalization, and a second intersection at High and Western could be improved with reduced delays.

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

The project would result in increases in traffic, but as indicated in section IV.B, the project size would be within the potential buildout evaluated in the EIR traffic analyses. Therefore, the proposed project

18.161
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -71- Revised November 2023
is within the scope of traffic analyses conducted for the General Plan EIR and would not result in new significant or more severe significant impacts evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

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

In addition, subsequent to the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR for the General Plan, provisions of CEQA essentially outlawing the use of level of service as a basis for finding significant transportation impacts took effect. Senate Bill (SB) 743, enacted in 2013, created Public Resources Code section 21099, which directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to establish criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas, with the option of creating new statewide criteria. The significance criteria for transit priority areas were to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the new criteria, OPR and the Secretary were to recommend potential metrics that included, but were not limited to, vehicle miles traveled [VMT], vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. Section 21099 further provided that, once the CEQA Guidelines had been updated as required by the statute, “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service [LOS] or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to [CEQA], except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” Consistent with these directives, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, which became effective in late 2018. It provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts,” with VMT referring to “the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.” Rather than limit its scope only to transit priority areas, the section changed the approach to assessing transportation impacts under CEQA all over the State. By its own terms, however, the section did not require agencies to begin using VMT as a new metric until July 1, 2020. LOS had ceased to be a valid significance criterion as of late 2018, however. (See Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 625-626.) For these reasons, the City could not find a significant transportationrelated effect from the proposed project even if the project resulted in LOS worse than what was anticipated in the General Plan EIR, which, given the small size of the project and the number of trips it would generate in peak hours, it would not be expected to do. (b) Conflicts with State CEQA Guidelines. Subsequent to certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines at the end of 2018 added a new question of whether or

18.162
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -72- Revised November 2023
not a project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

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

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

In accordance with the amended CEQA Guidelines, the City has transitioned from intersection LOS formerly used for traffic impact analyses to VMT as the metric for determining potentially significant impacts. The City adopted a VMT transportation threshold on June 9, 2020 in accordance with CEQA and state requirements, as well as VMT Implementation Guidelines that are consistent with the State’s SB 743 Guidelines. The threshold generally establishes that a project exceeding a level of 15 percent below the County-wide average VMT may result in a significant transportation impact. The City’s adopted SB 743 (VMT) Implementation Guidelines include potential Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to help achieve VMT reduction. Updates to the City’s Guidelines were adopted on June 14, 2022.

The City’s guidelines to determine whether a land use project is within the VMT threshold includes a screening process in which situations are identified under which projects are determined to not have a significant impact and further VMT analysis is not required. 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 less-thansignificant impact on VMT if a high percentage of the project is affordable, as determined by the City.

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 a ½ mile of a major transit stop or a high quality transit corridor with a combined service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during the AM and PM peak hours;
• Local-serving retail if a single store is less than 50,000 square feet or project is a localserving project as determined by the City; • Affordable housing projects that provide a high percentage of affordable housing as determined by the City;
• Local essential service, including day care center, public K-12 schools, police or fire facility, medical/dental office building, government offices, and supportive housing types (assisted living, permanent supportive housing, memory care, etc.);

18.163
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -73- Revised November 2023
• Map based screening; and
• Redevelopment projects that do not result in a net increase in VMT (SOURCE V.2d).

A project VMT review was conducted for the proposed project. As indicated above, the project would generate 270 daily trips, which is more than 110 daily trips, and thus, the project does not fall under ‘Small Projects’ category. Additionally, the Project is not within a ½ mile of an existing major transit stop with two or more bus lines with service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during both morning and afternoon peak periods. Under existing conditions, transit service within the Project vicinity is provided by Santa Cruz METRO with Route 10, Route 18 and Route 20 operating within ½ mile radius of the site. The service internal frequency during morning and afternoon peak periods is 30 minutes to an hour for these routes. Therefore, the Project does not fall under the ‘Projects Near High Quality Transit’ (SOURCE V.14b).

However, a review of ‘VMT Screening Maps’ for Residential land use for the Santa Cruz County shows that the proposed project location is within the area which is at or below City VMT Threshold.

Additionally, the ‘VMT Screening Tool’ was also used. The ‘VMT Screening Tool’ is used for projects which generate less than or equal to 2,000 daily trips and using either the address or the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) number, the Screening Tool allows the user to determine if the Project will cause the VMT thresholds of significance to exceed and cause a significant impact. The 2019 Base Year VMT results indicate that the proposed project VMT is less than 15% below the county-wide per capita average VMT, resulting in no significant VMT impact. The average VMT/per capita for residential land uses is 10.5, and the City’s threshold of 15% below the county-wide per capita average VMT is 8.9.

The VMT/Capita for the proposed Project is 7.9, which is below the City’s VMT threshold (SOURCE V.14b). Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact related to VMT based on the City’s adopted threshold and guidelines and would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.

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

While the General Plan EIR did not analyze VMT as the requirement to do so was not in place, the proposed project does not exceed the City’s VMT threshold, which was adopted after certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR. As indicated above in subsection (a), the project would be subject to payment of traffic impact fees that are applied uniformly throughout the City to all new development as part of the city-wide TIF program. TIF fees are used to address needed traffic improvements at key intersections for circulation and also for alternative transportation improvements; 15 percent of the collected TIF fees are allocated to alternative transportation improvements. Therefore, with payment

18.164
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -74- Revised November 2023
of required traffic impact fees, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or site with implementation of uniformly applied development policies and standards, and no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3.

In addition, the City’s adopted SB 743 (VMT) Implementation Guidelines include potential Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to help achieve VMT reduction, which serve to reduce project VMT impacts and are considered uniformly applied development standards. The proposed project was designed pursuant to these guidelines, and includes provision of more bicycle parking than required (96 spaces in lieu of 53 required), consistent with TDM measure 20, and less vehicle parking than required, consistent with TDM measure 27 in the City’s Guidelines. Therefore, with this design planned pursuant to the City’s VMT guidelines and payment of required traffic impact fees, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or site with implementation of uniformly applied development policies and standards, and no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3. (c, d) Design-Safety and Emergency Access. The project has been designed in accordance with standard City requirements, and there are no access designs that would substantially increase hazards. The project was reviewed by the City’s transportation engineering staff of the Public Works Department and as a result of this review, the existing onsite circulation was modified to reduce potential conflicts with Westlake Elementary School access. Furthermore, the project would be designed in accordance with City police and fire department requirements and would provide for adequate emergency access. Therefore, the project would not result in increased hazards related to project design, would not provide inadequate emergency access, and would not result in new significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or site; no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3.

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL

RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
Not Evaluated Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
GP EIR
Mitigation 4.9-1
and Municipal
Code section

24.12.430

18.165
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -75- Revised November 2023

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL

RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar
to Project
or Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Would the project: Standards
c) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe?
Not Evaluated Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
GP EIR
Mitigation 4.9-1
and Municipal
Code section

24.12.430
State Assembly Bill (AB) 52, effective July 1, 2015 after the City’s adoption of the General Plan 2030, recognizes that California Native American prehistoric, historic, archaeological, cultural, and sacred places are essential elements in tribal cultural traditions, heritages, and identities. The law establishes a new category of resources in the California Environmental Quality Act called “tribal cultural resources” that considers the tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation. Public Resources Code section 21074 defines a “tribal cultural resource” as either:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(a) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(b) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of section 5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of section 5024.1. (a-b) Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation. The California Public Resources Code section 21084.2 establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” The requirements for review of impacts to tribal cultural resources were added after the certification of the General Plan EIR. No known tribal cultural resources have been identified at this time. It is noted that as described above in Section IV.E.5, Cultural Resources, cultural resources assessments found that there is no evidence of archaeological features associated with the Ranchería de la Fuentes and the Henry Cowell Lime & Cement Company that are within the project area.

Furthermore, testing at the site resulted in no evidence for culturally produced deposits. Based on

18.166
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -76- Revised November 2023
these findings, the assessment concluded that the project area does not contain intact cultural deposits associated with Ranchería de la Fuentes or with nearby historic-era resources (e.g., Henry Cowell Lime & Cement Company (SOURCE V.10a).

Section 24.12.430 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth the procedure to follow in the event that unknown archaeological materials, which could include tribal cultural resources, are unearthed during construction, as described in Section IV.E.5 above, and implementation of these standards would be a standard condition of approval. Thus, the project would not result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources or impacts peculiar to the project or the site 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.

19. UTILITIES AND

4.6-41 to

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

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

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

18.167
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -77- Revised November 2023

19. UTILITIES AND

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

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

The City’s General Plan EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of impacts of water demand within the City’s service area, including potential buildout accommodated by the General Plan. The General Plan EIR predicted that water supplies would be adequate in normal years to serve estimated growth within the City of Santa Cruz water service area, although the document acknowledges that the outcome of the pending Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for anadromous fisheries may affect supplies. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to the City’s water supply would be significant and unavoidable during times of prolonged drought and potentially significant during normal years by the year 2030. Measures are identified in General Plan policies and actions to further conserve water, reduce demand and implement a desalination facility to provide a supplemental water supply during droughts. Subsequent to the adoption of the City’s General Plan 2030, the City adopted the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), and in November 2021, the City adopted the 2020

18.168
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -78- Revised November 2023
UWMP. The 2015 UWMP reported that water demand in the City’s water service area has ranged between nearly 3,800 million gallons per year (MGY) in 2006 to approximately 2,500 MGY in 2015 (SOURCE V.2f).

The 2020 UWMP reported that annual water use has decreased since the early 2000s, but annual water use fell to a level of about 2.5 billion gallons, similar to the level experienced during the 1970s drought. However, in 2020, demand was still at a similar level as 2015, about 2.6 billion gallons, despite several years above long-term average rainfall from 2016 and 2020. Current projections forecast that water use over the next 25 years, including projected population growth, will increase at a very slow rate to reach approximately 2.8 billion gallons per year by 2045 (SOURCE V.2c).

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

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

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

18.169
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -79- Revised November 2023
designed to secure future water supply reliability. Since 2015, the City of Santa Cruz has been pursuing a Water Supply Augmentation Strategy (WSAS) developed by the Water Supply Advisory Committee, a citizen committee, which was formed in 2014 by Santa Cruz City Council with the charge to analyze potential solutions to deliver a safe, adequate, reliable, affordable and environmentally sustainable water supply for the City of Santa Cruz. The WSAS portfolio elements, which are being pursued on a concurrent timeline, include:
• Element 0: Demand Management. Demand Management, or conservation, is not considered a water supply for the purposes of the UWMP, but is addressed in the UWMP 2020. • Element 1: Transfers and Exchanges. The City has been piloting water transfers to the Soquel Creek Water District since 2018, as water supplies are available, under a cooperative piloting agreement that extends through 2025. Potential water transfers and exchanges with local water districts in addition to the Soquel Creek Water District, include Central Water District, Scotts Valley Water District, and San Lorenzo Valley Water District, which would be facilitated by the City’s proposed water rights modifications to place of use as briefly summarized below. • Element 2: Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). The City has been evaluating the feasibility of ASR in both the Santa Cruz Mid-County and in the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basins, with current work primarily focused on the portion of Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin within the City of Santa Cruz service area. Pilot testing has been conducted at the existing Beltz 8 and Beltz 12 well facilities to better understand potential water quality and operational constraints.

Implementation of ASR also may occur in the future in the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin.
• Element 3: Recycled Water or Desalination. Following completion of the 2017 Desalination Feasibility Update Review Report, further study of recycled water has been prioritized over study of seawater desalination. The City is continuing to examine the use of recycled water through commissioned engineering studies. The 2018 Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study recommendation includes two projects that would provide non-potable reuse in the City. The City is also committed to exploring other reuse opportunities, including:
coordination with Soquel Creek Water District’s Pure Water Soquel project, exploring groundwater replenishment and reuse at Beltz Well system, and exploring groundwater replenishment and reuse in Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin (SOURCE V.2c).

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

18.170
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -80- Revised November 2023
• Water supply augmentation components, including new aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) facilities at unidentified locations, ASR facilities at the existing Beltz Well facilities, water transfers and exchanges and intertie improvements; and
• Surface water diversion improvements, including the Felton Diversion fish passage improvements and the Tait Diversion and Coast Pump Station improvements (SOURCE V.2c).

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

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

18.171
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -81- Revised November 2023
(d-e) Solid Waste Disposal. The project would be served by existing utilities, and the General Plan EIR concluded that the City’s landfill would be adequate to handle growth and development accommodated by the General Plan and would not require expansion or construction of facilities to serve future growth. As indicated in section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan EIR considered development of approximately 3,350 residential units within the City to the year 2030 (SOURCE V.1b); and the proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. The EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential development and buildout accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant for solid waste disposal. Since the size of the proposed project would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or site. No further environmental analysis is required regarding solid waste pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3.

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

18.172
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -82- Revised November 2023
(a) Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans. The project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (SOURCE V.6). See also Section IV.E.9(f) regarding emergency access.
(b-d) Exacerbation of Wildfire Impacts. Subsequent to the certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR, in 2019 OPR amended the CEQA Guidelines to add wildfire-related impacts and exposure to the Appendix G checklist questions. The project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.

The project site is located in a local responsibility area. Local responsibility areas are located within incorporated city limits, and therefore, fire protection would be provided by the City’s fire department. As indicated in section IV.9(g) above, 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 high fire hazard area (SOURCE V.1b, DEIR Figure 4.6-1). The project is surrounded by residential development to the north and east and public/institutional uses to the south and west.

The project site is mapped within a wildland-urban interface (WUI) zone as shown on the City’s Zoning/Land Use/Wildland Urban Interface map (https://vw8.cityofsantacruz.com/zone/). Projects located within a mapped WUI zone must adhere to requirements for building construction and vegetation and fuel management, including Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code (CCR Title 24, Part 9), Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, and Public Resources Code section 4291. This includes building construction used in exterior of buildings in WUI areas to be fire-resistant construction and requirements for fuel modification and defensible space.

The project would result in a net increase of 40 residential units. The proposed building envelope is set back from the wooded portions of the site, and fire clearance would be provided around new structures. The proposed project would meet all City requirements for access, and buildings would be required to install fire sprinkler systems in accordance with City regulations. The project does not require installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure, such as roads and emergency water sources, and fire access requirements are met. Utilities would be located underground. The surrounding neighborhood is primarily developed with residences, schools, and churches and the slope on the project site was determined to be stable, thus, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks related to potential downslope flooding or landslides as a result of runoff or post-fire slope instability. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose people or structures to significant risks including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of post-fire conditions. The proposed project therefore would not cause any impacts peculiar to the parcel or the project, and no further environmental analysis is required regarding wildfire pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3. See also section IV.9(g) above.

18.173
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -83- Revised November 2023

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS

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

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

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

4.8-48 to

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

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

24.12.430
b) Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of the
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
DEIR pp. 5-8 to
5-36
FEIR pp. 3-27 to
3-33
No No No
c) Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DEIR pp. 4.13-4
to 4.13-8,

4.13-10 to

4.13-20
No No None
(a) Quality of the Environment. The project would not degrade the quality of the environment or otherwise affect fish and wildlife habitat as discussed in Section IV.E.4 (Biological Resources) of this Environmental Checklist review. As explained in Section IV.E.4, biological resource impacts are not peculiar to the parcel or the project because they were either adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR or can be substantially mitigated by the application of uniformly applied development policies or standards. As discussed in Section IV.E.5 (Cultural Resources) and Section IV.E.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources), cultural resources are not peculiar to the parcel or the project because they were either adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR or can be substantially mitigated by the application of uniformly applied development policies or standards. The project would not result in elimination of important examples of a major period of California history or prehistory.

18.174
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -84- Revised November 2023
(b) Cumulative Impacts. The General Plan EIR identified potential significant cumulative impacts related to noise, population, transportation/traffic, and water supply. Vehicle trips resulting from the proposed project would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. However, the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative noise impacts since the project is 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.

Population. The General Plan 2030 EIR identified cumulative population growth as a potentially significant impact due to growth at the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) in conjunction with growth accommodated by the General Plan. 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 oncampus housing. According to UCSC’s website (https://www.ucsc.edu/about/facts-figures.html), enrollment for the 2021-2022 academic year totaled approximately 19,000 students.

Regional population forecasts are updated every four years by AMBAG and have been updated since certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR. Current forecasts project a Citywide population of 72,218 in the year 2030 (SOURCE: 3a). The City had a population of 63,224 people as of January 1, 2023 (SOURCE V.5). Based on the City’s existing average household sizes, cumulative residential projects7 could result in a population increase of approximately 8,070 persons as a result of development of approximately 2,500 new housing units and student housing at UCSC based on average citywide household sizes (2.33 persons per household) and the slightly lower household size in the downtown area (1.9 persons per household, based on Census information). City population as a result of cumulative residential projects could increase to approximately 71,295, which would not exceed the regional population forecast for the City of 72,218 in the year 2030 (SOURCE V.3a). Therefore, no new significant cumulative population growth impacts related to cumulative 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.

Transportation/Traffic. The proposed project would contribute to cumulative traffic impacts analyzed in the General Plan 2030 EIR. The General Plan EIR did not identify any impacted intersections in the project vicinity with development accommodated by the General Plan, except at the High Street/Laurent Street intersection, which could be improved to acceptable operational service levels with signalization (SOURCE V1.b, DEIR volume).

The previous General Plan EIR’s 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 in Section IV.E.19, 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 long-term environmental goals and relevant 7 Cumulative projects include the proposed project, projects under construction, approved projects, and reasonably foreseeable pending projects, including residential projects at UCSC.

18.175
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -85- Revised November 2023
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 (SOURCE V.7). As indicated in IV.E.19(b), the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to VMT, and accordingly, cumulative traffic impacts also would be less than significant. Future development projects would be individually evaluated for potential VMT impacts, and none have been identified. There are no new significant cumulative transportation impacts to which the proposed project would contribute that have not been addressed in the General Plan EIR.

Water Supply. The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative impacts related to water supply identified in the General Plan 2030 EIR. As indicated in the EIR, 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 and resulting construction of three singlefamily units 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 mitigate 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. Payment of the System Development Charge and implementation of other water conservation measures would mitigate the project’s contribution to cumulative water supply impacts.

As indicated in Section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan EIR considered development of approximately 3,350 residential units within the City to the year 2030 (SOURCE V.1b), and cumulative development, including the proposed project, projects under construction and approved projects, is within the total and remaining estimated unbuilt residential units and non-residential square footage.

Furthermore, as explained in Section IV.E.19(b), projected water demands have decreased since certification of the General Plan 2030 EIR, and the City has an updated UWMP (2020). Cumulative development is within the population projections used in the 2020 UWMP to estimate future water demand. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative water demand would not result in new or more severe significant impacts relating to water supply than analyzed in the General Plan EIR, nor would the project result in any new significant impacts that are peculiar to the site or project that were not considered in these EIRs. The project would be subject to City requirements for installation of water-conserving fixtures and landscaping in accordance with current City Municipal Code and building requirements.

18.176
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -86- Revised November 2023
Under multi-year drought conditions, the proposed project, like other City customers, would be subject to water use restrictions. The increase in water demand due to the proposed project would not substantially exacerbate water supply reliability in the future or during a drought because the amount of additional demand when spread across all service area customers would not result in any noticeable increase in the timing or extent of curtailment in customer use that would otherwise be implemented during drought conditions. In addition, the project would pay the required “System Development Charge” for the required new service connection. This charge, as set forth in Chapter

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

Schools. The General Plan EIR found that cumulative development could potentially affect school enrollments and 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). The General Plan EIR 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 (SOURCE V.1b, 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.

Conclusion. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new significant cumulative impacts or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan 2030 EIR. Nor would the project result in cumulative water supply or traffic impacts peculiar to the project or site with implementation of uniformly applied development standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. (c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings. The General Plan EIR did not identify impacts related to air or water pollution, exposure to hazardous materials or noise levels that would result in adverse effects on human beings; see Sections IV.E.3, 9, 10 and 13. Thus, no environmental effects have been identified that would have direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings, and the project would not result in new significant impacts peculiar to the project or site that would result in substantial adverse effects on humans.

18.177
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -87- Revised November 2023
V. REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCE LIST
Agency Plans and Studies

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

2. Other City of Sana Cruz Adopted Plans and Studies.
a. 2022. City of Santa Cruz 2030 Climate Action Plan Update, Resilient Together. Adopted September 2022.
b. Adopted June 14, 2022. SB 743 Implementation Guidelines, City of Santa Cruz. May 12, 2022.
c. Adopted November 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by the City of Santa Cruz, Water Department. Available online at:
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/water/urban-watermanagement-plan-2020. d. June 2020. 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). e. 2018. City of Santa Cruz Climate Adaptation Plan Update 2018-2023. f. Adopted August 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by City of Santa Cruz Water Department.

3. AMBAG.
a. Adopted June 15, 2022. “2022 Regional Growth Forecast.” b. Adopted June 2022. Monterey Bay 2045 Moving Forward, 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy. c. Adopted June 11, 2014. “2014 Regional Growth Forecast”.

4. California Air Resources Board (CARB)
a. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 2022. Accessed February 6, at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf. b. 2022. California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan—Appendix D, Local Actions.

November 2022. Accessed February 6, 2023 at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-localactions.pdf.

18.178
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -88- Revised November 2023

5. California Department of Finance. May 2023. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2023.” Available online at:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housingestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/.

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

7. 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.

8. California Hazardous Materials Database Reviews
a. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023. Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List). Accessed on September 11, 2023 at https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/.
b. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2023. Cortese List Data Resources. Accessed on September 11, 2023 at
https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/.
c. CalEPA. 2023. Sites identified with Waste Constituent Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. Accessed on September 11, 2023 at https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseListCurrentList.pdf. d. CalEPA. 2023. Hazardous Waste Facilities Subject to Corrective Action. Accessed on September 11, 2023 at https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962- 5a/?emrc=63e1903569867.
e. California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database.

Accessed on September 11, 2023 at
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search?CMD=search&case_number=&busines s_name=&main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&SITE_TYPE=LUFT&oilfield=&STA TUS=&BRANCH=&MASTER_BASE=&Search=Search
f. SWRCB. 2023b. List of Active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders. Accessed on September 11, 2023 at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/enforcement/c ompliance/.

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

18.179
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -89- Revised November 2023
Project Studies and Other References

10. Albion Environmental, Inc.
a. 2023. Extended Phase I Study for 900 High Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Final. March 2023.
b. 2019. Phase I Archaeological Study for 900 High Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. June 2019

11. C2G / Civil Consultants Group, Inc. 2023. Storm Water Control Plan, Peace Village Residential Development, Santa Cruz, CA, APN 001-022-40. Revised March 27, 2023.

12. Dees & Associates, Inc.
a. 2023. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Townhome Development, 900 High Street, APN 001-022-40, Santa Cruz, California. March 2023. b. 2022. Slope Stability Analysis, 900 High Street, APN 001-022-40, Santa Cruz, California.

April 1, 2022.

13. Ecosystems West Consulting Group
a. 2023. Subject: Follow-up (Winter 2022) Monarch Butterflies Surveys of Peace United Church Property (APN 001-022-40), Santa Cruz, CA. January 4, 2023. b. 2020. Monarch Butterflies Surveys of Peace United Church Property (APN 001-022-40), Santa Cruz, CA. May 20, 2020.
c. 2019. Biotic Assessment for the Proposed Residential Development at Peace United Church (900 High Street), Santa Cruz, California. July 16, 2019.

14. Kimley-Horn.
a. 2023. 900 High Street Project – Revised Trip Generation Memo. January 5, 2023. b. 2022. 900 High Street – Vehicles Miles Travelled (VMT) Memo. November 3, 2022.

15. Kurt Fouts Arborist Consultant. 2023. Arborist Report- Tree Resource Evaluation & Project Impact Analysis. Peace Church 900 High Street, Santa Cruz – California, APN 001-022-40.

September 25, 2022.

16. Pacific Crest Engineering, Inc. 2023. Geologic Feasibility of Proposed Development, Proposed Housing, 900 High Street, Santa Cruz CA 95060, County of Santa Cruz APN 001-022-40. Revised March 10, 2023.

17. Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. 2022. Letter from Jeffrey K. Pack, President, to Mr. Belal Kaddoura, Envision I, LLC. Subject: 900 High Street, Santa Cruz. August 9, 2022.

18. Zinn Geology. 2018. Phase I Karst and Slope Stability Hazards Investigation, Proposed Apartment Housing, 900 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, County of Santa Cruz APN 001-022-40. July 2, 2018.

18.180
Peace Village Housing
Environmental Review -90- Revised November 2023
Report Preparation: City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department and Economic Development Department in association with Dudek.

18.181
Peace Village
900 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA
Planning Permit Application Supplemental Information
By: Envision I, LLC
This document includes:

1. Project Summary Narrative

2. Project Info

3. General Plan & Zoning Conformity

4. Community Benefits

5. Density Bonus & Inclusionary Housing Calcs

6. Parking Information

7. Requested Concessions & Waivers
For more information, contact [email protected] and [email protected]

18.182

1. Project Summary Narrative
Envision I, LLC proposes to develop a portion of the current lot at 900 High Street to create multifamily rental housing. The project involves dividing the lot into two lots, both of which would continue to be owned by Peace United Church or its subsidiary. Peace United Church has entered a development agreement with Envision I, LLC. A portion of the northern of the two parcels would be developed with a new building ranging from 3-5 stories in height. The project would involve having easements for access, utilities, and storm water management systems through the front parcel.

The project is applying for a planning/design permit (with the application conforming with the SB330 pre-application requirements), a density bonus with waiver(s) and concession(s), heritage tree removal permit, and slope permit, among other permits.

The building comprises 40 total units across a mix of studios, 1, 2, and 3-bedroom units, and 4– 5-bedroom units used in a co-living program, for a total of 85 bedrooms. (The full unit mix is shown below.). The project would include 17.4% of the base density units (4 units) as deed restricted units affordable to very low-income households and an additional 21.7% of base density units (5 units) as deed restricted units affordable to low-income households.

The design seeks to create much needed housing supply while incorporating benefits to the wider community in several ways, including through the provision of co-living units to lessen the demand on other rental housing types, affordable housing that is more deeply affordable to a lower income level than required under the city inclusionary ordinance and density bonus ordinance, establishing financial stability to maintain the existing facilities used on the property for community events, maintaining more open space by building multifamily housing instead of single family homes, and reducing traffic conflicts by reconfiguring property egress away from the adjacent intersection.

18.183

2. Project Information
General Plan Designation: L - Low Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R1-10
Existing Parcel Size is > 258,800sf.

Current Design Team contracted by Envision I, LLC:

Architect: Workbench
Civil Engineer: C2G
Landscape Architect: form/work Landscape Architecture
Arborist Consultant: Kurt Fouts
Biotic Consultant: EcoSystems West
Geotechnical Engineer: Dees & Associates
Geologist: Eric Zinn
Archeological Consultant: Albion Environmental, Inc.

Traffic Engineers: Kimley-Horn
Lender: New Way Homes, Inc.

TBD: Structural engineer, MEP, acoustic engineer, waterproofing/passive house & energy modeling, etc.

3. General Plan & Zoning Conformity
Because this is a housing development project that qualifies for bonus density and because other conditions of state housing laws are met, this project may develop the housing uses and density allowed by the general plan, even if not all of the density or the same configuration of housing are allowed under zoning. This project is designed to meet all of the applicable zoning standards as written at the time of application except:
• Height. The proposed building ranges from three to five stories in height. The zoning has a base height maximum of 2.5 stories (30 feet). Increasing the allowed height from 2.5 to 5 stories is proposed here via a density bonus concession. This increase both improves the project overall (e.g., leaving far more open space), and decreases the cost of construction, which in turn enables more affordability. (See more in the Requested Concessions & Waivers section below.)
• Use. The proposed use is a multifamily building. The project has less density than the maximum allowed by the general plan on the nearly six acre existing parcel in terms of number of units and less than density bonus law allows on the new proposed residential parcel. Having the project’s units in a single building on one lot rather than each in its own building on separate lots does not conform to the zoning designation but is allowed under the general plan. Specifically, we note that:
o The general plan designation is Low-Density Residential. This designation “Provides for single-family residential neighborhoods typically comprising detached homes.” (Emphasis added) However, the general plan does not disallow all multifamily housing, and also specifically allows for clustered development in

18.184
which “a number of dwelling units are placed in closer proximity than usual, or are attached, to protect resources and views and allow for siting that is sensitive to adjacent uses.” In the case of this proposed development, the proponents, including Envision I, LLC and Peace United Church, have worked to design a project that both continues to allow the adjacent church, pre-school, and community events uses and minimizes impact on neighboring views. • Trash enclosure location. The proposed trash enclosure is an accessory structure, and applicable zoning regulations do not allow accessory structures in front yards. The proposed trash enclosure location qualifies as within a front yard of the new proposed parcel despite it being behind the church buildings relative to the public right of way. All other possible locations for the trash enclosure are infeasible. This project is requesting a waiver to approve the proposed trash enclosure location. (See more in the Requested Concessions & Waivers section below.)

4. Community Benefits

1. Housing Supply & Type
A large number of Santa Cruz’s single-family homes are used as co-living by groups of young professionals, grad students, and undergrad students, among others. Some of this demand is driving the creation of many small studios under Santa Cruz’s SRO ordinances; this project’s coliving units provide a different living experience than SROs. This project aims to create a sense of community in a purpose-designed co-living product that will be more attractive to many and more affordable than new SRO studios under construction in Santa Cruz. This will help make more of Santa Cruz’s limited stock of single-family homes available to other uses such as families.

2. Base Density
The base density of the new proposed residential parcel is calculated as follows:

Size of the proposed new residential parcel in square feet: 96499.4 Size of the proposed parcel in acres: 2.21532
Maximum allowed density in the general plan: 10 units per gross parcel acre Base Density for Density Bonus Law purposes: 23 units (gross area in acres *10, rounded up)

3. Inclusionary Affordable Housing Requirement
The City’s inclusionary housing ordinance requires 20% of the rental units (that are a part of the base density allowed by the general plan) in this project to be made available to low-income tenants at affordable rents in perpetuity. This equates to 5 units. However, the City’s inclusionary ordinance also requires a unit mix representative of the unit mix in the project or a

18.185
unit mix that achieves at least 20% of the bedrooms in the project. Because of the wide range of unit bedroom counts in the project, this requires a further calculation. The 23 base density units are proposed as:

Studios: 6
1-bedroom: 2
2-bedrooms: 8
3-bedrooms: 2
4-bedrooms: 4
5-bedrooms: 1
Total Bedroom Count: 49
20% of Total Bedrooms: 10
Therefore we propose to have 5 units totaling 10 bedrooms that are restricted as affordable to low-income households in perpetuity:

Studios: 1
2-Bedrooms: 3
3-Bedrooms: 1

4. Density Bonus Qualification & Units
This project will also meet the requirements for two density bonuses.

For the first density bonus under CA state density bonus law, the project proposes to qualify for a 50% bonus (i.e. twelve (12) additional bonus units) by restricting ≥ 24% of the base density units, i.e. six (6) units, as affordable to at least low-income households for at least 55 years.

Of those six units restricted for this purpose, five (5) of them will be deed restricted to lowincome affordability in perpetuity to meet the city’s inclusionary housing requirements.

The sixth of those six units restricted for this purpose, will be deed restricted at very-low income for 55-years. This restriction to very-low rather than low-income level is a voluntary further restriction by the applicant for the purpose of community benefit.

The unit breakdown for the above six units is follows:

Base Density: 23 units
Required number of LI units required for a 50% density bonus: 6 Unit Mix:

Unit Type # of Units Affordability Level
Studio 1 Low Income
Studio 1 Very-Low Income
2-Bedroom 3 Low Income

18.186
3-Bedroom 1 Low Income
The second density bonus used by this project was created by AB1287, which passed in 2023 and went into effect January 1, 2024. To qualify for this additional density bonus, 3 additional units will be restricted to very–low income for 55 years. Because these three additional VLI units represent ≥ 10% of the base density of 23 units, this provides the project an additional

38.75% density bonus, or 9 additional units. This is proposed as follows:

Base Density: 23 units
Required number of units required for a 38.75% density bonus: 3 Unit Mix:

Unit Type # of Units Affordability Level
Studio 1 Very-Low Income
2-Bedroom 1 Very-Low Income
3-Bedroom 1 Very-Low Income
Therefore, between the first density bonus with 5 (at least) LI units and the second density bonus with 3 VLI units, the project is allowed a density of up to 44 units on the proposed parcel.

As proposed, the project will only use 40 of these allowed units.

5. Total Unit Mix & Affordable Housing
To make the project financially feasible, we are proposing a certain distribution of unit mix of the affordable units, with all of the lower-income affordable units being studios, 2-bdrm, or 3- bdrm units. (This allows the co-living units, which are inherently a more affordable product than studios, to be rented at a level up to market rate.) The following table shows this mix, including showing that the proposal exceeds the inclusionary % not only for the number of units but also the number of bedrooms and exceeds the %’s of affordable units required for the two density bonuses.

Base Density Unit Mix & Affordable Percentages - Peace Village Unit Type Number
in Base
Density
#
Units
VLI
% Units
VLI of
Base
Units
#
Units
LI
% Units
LI of Base
Density
Total %
Affordable
of Base
Density
Total
Bdrms Base
Density
Units
#
Bdrms
VLI
%
Bdrms
VLI
#
Bdrms
LI
%
Bdrms
LI
Total %
Bdrm
Afford.

Studio 6 2 33.3% 1 16.7% 50% 6 2 18.2% 1 16.7% 50%
1-Bedroom 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2 0 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0%
2-Bedroom 8 1 12.5% 3 37.5% 50% 16 2 12.5% 6 37.5% 50%
3-Bedroom 2 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 100% 6 3 50% 3 50% 100%

18.187
4-Bedroom 4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16 0 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0%
5-Bedroom 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5 0 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0%
Total 23 4 17.4% 5 21.7% 39.1% 49 7 14.3% 10 20.4% 34.7% Meanwhile, the total unit mix including bonus units is as follows:

Unit Type Number in
Total Project
Studio 11
1-Bedroom 3
2-Bedroom 15
3-Bedroom 4
4-Bedroom 6
5-Bedroom 1
Total 40
This plan represents a significant community benefit, as it is substantially more affordable housing than is required. Not only is one of the LI units voluntarily restricted to VLI, but in addition, 1 more VLI unit is restricted than necessary for the second bonus to allow a total of 40 units in the project.

6. Existing facilities used by the public:

For decades, thousands of people per year have attended some of the many events that take place on this site. Peace United Church makes its facilities available for rent for private and public events at very affordable rental costs. (For example, the main sanctuary seating up to 250 people for up to 5 hours currently has a rental fee of $700, with a $100 discount for non-profits; for such a large venue this is a very modest fee. Similarly, the fireside lounge rents for $150 for up to 3 hours.) From free concerts and classes to political and public engagement events to private weddings, parties, and meetings, this site typically hosted about 300 events per year prepandemic, not counting the church’s own services. Spaces available for rental include the sanctuary, fellowship hall, fireside lounge, music room, upper room, kitchen, and library.

This model of inexpensive venue availability cannot continue unless the property owner, Peace United Church, finds sources of revenue to maintain these facilities. The facilities have significant unfunded, deferred maintenance that must be addressed. This project is designed to both increase housing supply and to put the entire existing site on financially sustainable footing so that these facilities can continue to be made available to the public for many more decades to come.

18.188

7. Open space
The proposed project design leaves well over an acre of the proposed new parcel as an undeveloped area, including most of the upper terrace of the property. Approximately 23,253sf is proposed as usable open space under Santa Cruz city definitions (much of the other undeveloped area being more than 10% slope). Developing the parcel under district regulations would involve a much greater building footprint (40 homes as separate buildings), with more driveways, including homes and driving access on that upper terrace. Under such district regulations there is not an open space requirement. This compact proposal of one multi-family building increases open space, consolidates open space, and also greatly reduces the impact on the views from the properties on Hagar Ct by comparison.

3. Improve current intersection conflict with property egress.

Currently, the egress for the entire Peace United Church property is very close (within 70 feet) of the High Street & Moore Street intersection. This presents conflicts, particularly at busy traffic times. The proposed project will reconfigure circulation on the site to move the egress to approximately eight times further from the intersection.

5. Residential Density & Inclusionary Housing Information and Calculations
Parcel Size, Acres: 5.942
Parcel Size, sq ft, City GIS: 258,833.521
Parcel Size, sq ft, County GIS: 258,825
Area of 30%+ slope2: 14,980
Parcel Area net of 30%+ slope area: 243,845 sq ft
Base Unit Count Allowed by Current Zoning: 24 (rounded down from 24.38) Base Unit Count Allowed by General Plan Designation under Density Bonus Law: 60 (rounded up from 59.42)
Max Unit Count Allowed With One 50% CA Bonus Density: 90 # of Residential Units currently on the property: 1 (within a portion of one of the church buildings)
Local Inclusionary Zoning Requirement: 20% of base density units required to be low-income affordable units in perpetuity.
1 A full-parcel survey to determine exact sq footage has not been completed but is underway; for calculations here, we’re using the lower of the County & City GIS numbers. 2 As per diagram in the plan set based on a recent survey by Alpha Land Surveys, Inc.

18.189

6. Parking
The project qualifies under AB 1851 (2020) for an alternate method of meeting parking requirements, as shown below:

1. The project qualifies as a “Religious institution affiliated housing development project” because it meets each of the following:
a. Is on one or more contiguous parcels owned by Peace United Church, which is a religious institution.
b. The project is currently on or within .1 miles of a parcel that contains religious use parking (after the proposed lot split the project will be on a parcel adjacent to a parcel containing religious use parking).
c. The proposed housing development project qualifies for a density bonus.

2. The project does not reduce the amount of religious use parking by more than 50%.

There are currently 146 parking spaces on site, of which 72 are required to be for the church under local ordinance. A portion of the proposed building is on a paved parking lot containing 14 spaces. This project proposes eliminating those 14 spaces and not otherwise reducing the number of parking spaces on the property. This reduction of 14 spaces is less than 50% of the total parking on site, and it does not at all reduce the 72 required church spaces. Therefore, the proposed potential reduction of religious use parking is well under 50% and arguably 0%.

The above criteria qualify the project for the use of AB 1851. In addition, the project plans to have a car share vehicle for residents (or for combined resident and public use). With such provision, the religious use parking spaces remaining after project completion may be used to satisfy the entirety of the residential parking requirement.

Church sanctuary seats: 250
Church parking requirement: 1 space per 3.5 seats = 72 spaces Other uses on site: Coastal Community Preschool: 12 employees Parking ratio for the preschool use: 1 per employee
Westlake Elementary Staff: 10 spaces
Current 1-bedroom residence: 1 space
Total spaces on site pre-project & required uses: 146 = 72 religious use, 12 required for preschool, 10 required for Westlake Elementary staff, 1 for the residence, 51 not required for a specific use
Total spaces on site post-project: at least 117 = 72 religious use (also available for residential use), 12 required for pre-school, 10 required for Westlake Elementary, 1 for the existing residence, 22 not required for a specific use.

18.190
The following table shows the parking requirement under bonus density law for the residential project.

Unit Type Parking Requirement/Unit,
Bonus Density Law
# Units Required
Spaces
studio 1 11 11
1-bdrm 1 3 3
2-bdrm 1.5 15 22.5
3-bdrm 1.5 4 6
4-bdrm 2.5 6 15
5-bdrm 2.5 1 2.5
Total Requirement 60
The total residential parking required is less than the 72 religious use parking spaces remaining after project completion. The project therefore is not required to provide parking spaces that are for residential use only.

Parking Agreement with Santa Cruz City School District:

In April of 2018, the Peace United Church and Santa Cruz City School District recorded a formal agreement allowing specific terms of reciprocal access to each properties parking facilities. (Informally the relationship predates this by many years.) The SCCSD was granted ten parking permits which would allow parking within the Peace United Church’s parking lot. The parking permits are to be used by faculty, staff, or parents. In exchange for the ten parking permits, the school district would allow overflow parking for Peace United congregants, attendees at events, and other visitors designated by the Peace United Church during times when the school is not in session (evenings, weekends, and school holidays).

The initial term of the agreement is ten years, with another ten-year option to extend, and can be renegotiated with 30 days’ written notice by either party.

7. Requested Concessions & Waivers
Qualification for concessions and waivers:
>16% of the base density units are designated as VLI deed restricted affordability units granting the project 4 concessions or incentives and eligibility for waivers if applicable.

Concession 1:

Requirement: Code 24.10.350 District Regulations provision a. Height of Buildings: R-1-10:

2.5 stories and 30 ft maximum height.

18.191
Project Proposed: At highest point, 5 stories and 54 ft height.

The applicant is requesting a concession to allow for a height of five stories and 54 ft at its tallest point. The project is currently designed with a portion of the building stepping up on the slope that exists in the middle of the property. The current design was determined to be an effective means of mitigating unnecessary construction costs as it significantly reduces the amount of grading and excavation needed to accommodate a building that can host the proposed density.

Reducing unnecessary excavation and grading will result in significant construction cost savings, which preserves the project’s intent to provide as much affordable housing as possible. If the project were not allowed the height concession the project would need to expand its footprint to accommodate the proposed unit count. The expanded footprint would require additional excavation, grading, and soil engineering, incurring significantly higher construction costs as a result. This would reduce the project’s financial feasibility, effectively reducing the project’s capacity to provide below market-rate housing.

Concession 2:

Requirement: Code 24.10.350 District Regulations provision d. Front Yard setback: R-1-10 = 25 ft.

Project Proposed: Front Yard Setback = 17’ 10”
The applicant is requesting a concession to adjust the zoning requirement that calls for a 25 ft. front yard setback from the “front” property line (in this case, the proposed property line that is between the church and the project). If the project were required to comply with the front yard setback requirement, the building would need to move back onto the portion of the property that includes the slope. This would require the project to incur the additional grading, soil engineering, and overall construction costs described in concession 1.

Waiver 1:

Requirement: Code 24.10.140 Accessory Buildings provision 2 is applicable to this site and states “No accessory building shall be located in a front or exterior side yard.” Proposed: The plan set shows the proposed location of the trash enclosure, which is in a location that qualifies as the front yard of the new proposed parcel.

The applicant is requesting a waiver under density bonus law to allow the trash enclosure in the proposed location. We note that the location is behind the existing/remaining church buildings relative to the public right of way. The waiver is being requested because all possible locations on the proposed parcel that would be in conformity of the code cited above are either:
• On a steep slope, making them infeasible for use as a trash enclosure; or • On areas of the property that are inaccessible to vehicles due to the steep slope, and financially infeasible to make accessible.

18.192
We note that other locations that are not within either of the above infeasible areas, which are also locations of existing heritage trees or on the area of the proposed new building (which is cited in the only location that is feasible due to slope and other constraints), are also in the front yard area.

The site plan submitted shows the areas of steep slope that verify the need for the waiver as described above.

If any questions remain unanswered after reviewing this form, please do not hesitate to reach out to:

Sibley Simon
[email protected]
Thank you!

18.193
GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | CHEMICAL | MATERIAL TESTING | SPECIAL INSPECTIONS 444 AIRPORT BLVD., SUITE 106 | WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 | PHONE 831-722-9446 | WWW.4PACIFIC-CREST.COM 1 January 2024 Job No. 22135
Envision I, LLC
Attention: Sibley Simon
189 Walnut Ave
Santa Cruz, 95060
[email protected]
831-419-4091
Subject: Response to geological aspects of 11 December 2023 appeal letter Proposed housing
900 High Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
County of Santa Cruz APN 001-022-40

REFERENCES
“City of Santa Cruz – Santa Cruz City Council – Appeal regarding 900 High St. Santa Cruz [CP22-0164]”, dated 11 December 2023, prepared by Norman Tardif representing Springtree HOA and Westlake Neighbors Association. “Subject: Geologic plan review of civil engineering plans -Proposed housing - 900 High Street - Santa Cruz, CA 95060 - County of Santa Cruz APN 001-022-40”, dated 29 June 2023, unpublished consultant letter by Pacific Crest Engineering.

Dear Sibley,
At your request, we have reviewed the appeal letter submitted for your project to the City of Santa Cruz on 11 December 2023, and have prepared responses to the passages in the letter that are geological in nature. Our responses are informed by both the extensive subsurface work performed on the site, as well as the author’s 30+ years of experience of geological consulting with the University of Santa Cruz at California on hazardous karst conditions relative to proposed developments.

We have maintained a similar order of the passages from the appellant’s letter to avoid confusion. Our responses can be seen below.

APPELLANT: We request that the City Council adds the following three geology recommendations to the conditions of approval for this development proposal.

Background: The proposed building site is located in the vicinity of underground limestone rock formations that are characterized by voids, fissures, caves, and sink holes. These “karst" formations are well-known in this area of Santa Cruz and have been mined for decades. The karsts are mechanically unstable and unsuitable for building upon, without significant mitigation.

18.194
Response to geology portions of appellant letter - Envision I – PUC – 900 High St Page 2 1 January 2024 Project No. 22135

PACIFIC CREST ENGINEERING RESPONSE
The appellant is correct regarding the presence of karst and associated hazards on the site. A review of the documents issued for the project (preliminary geology report, slope stability analysis input and building-design level investigation report update) indicates that we have adequately characterized the hazards related to karst hazards and slope stability relative to the proposed development. We have applied the same standard of practice for geology investigations in karst for this project that we have successfully developed and employed in our work at UCSC.

We have worked and continue to work closely on recommended karst hazard-related risk mitigation schemes with the project team, including the Project Geotechnical Engineer, Becky Dees of Dees and Associates, and the Project Civil Engineer, David Dauphin of C2G Civil Engineering. It is important that the continued engineering on the project be informed by the geology, in order to ensure that the design and construction of the project is geologically suitable and subject to an acceptable level of risk.

The request to add excerpted passages of our past report as a condition of approval does not appear to acknowledge the fact that our submitted and accepted reports and letters are already part of the administrative record, and the issued recommendations will become part of design specifications. Our recommendations and the design specifications will need to be followed by the contractor and developer during construction for us (or anyone else acting as Project Geologist Of Record) to sign off on the successfully completed project. In some sense, the geology recommendations are already “baked” into the design and construction and require compliance and conformance for the Project Geologist of Record to sign off the project after it is constructed.

APPELLANT: It is our goal to ensure that the design of the proposed structures is appropriate to the dangers created by the site's unique geology. Thepurpose of the recommendations below is to ensure that the developers are aware of the hazards, prior to finalized designs, and before construction begins.

Each of these recommendations were included by Pacific Crest Engineering in the Geologic Feasibility Letter prepared for this site, dated March 10, 2023. Further, we note that these precautions are standard operating procedure for any new construction considered on the UCSC campus.

PACIFIC CREST ENGINEERING RESPONSE
The appellant has outlined goals that are similar to the objectives and rules and regulations pertaining to geology investigations, geological plan reviews and geological construction observation. All geology investigations are required to adequately characterize the hazards, the risks to the proposed developments related to the hazards and the recommended mitigation measures to lower the risks to the

18.195
Response to geology portions of appellant letter - Envision I – PUC – 900 High St Page 3 1 January 2024 Project No. 22135
development where warranted. It is our opinion that our work to date on the project satisfies these objectives and will continue to do so as we continue our design input and eventually construction observation.

APPELLANT: "One or more borings should be advanced near the steep quarry wall that lies to the east of the site to characterize the thickness and character of the marine terrace deposits that overlie the marble bedrock."

PACIFIC CREST ENGINEERING RESPONSE
Dees and Associates completed supplemental drilling for the revised building scheme in September 2023, including borings along the edge of the building closest to the quarry face. Furthermore, the developer has set the building back behind our recommended quarry face setback to mitigate the risk posed by potential landsliding out of the quarry face. The supplemental drilling in 2023 and preliminary analysis of that data has not resulted in any new or revised recommendations on any geological issues related to the appeal. The recommendations provided in the June 2023 Geologic Plan Review Letter (Pacific Crest Engineering) continue to reflect our current recommendations.

APPELLANT: "Once the development footprint has finally been settled upon, the Project Geologist of Record should develop a design-level karst drilling program in conjunction with Project Geotechnical Engineer of Record for the portion of the habitable structure footprint where the risk related to karst hazards has not been adequately quantified for final design. "

PACFIC CREST ENGINEERING RESPONSE
Dees and Associates completed the recommended supplemental drilling for the revised building scheme in September 2023.

APPELLANT: "We recommend that our firm be provided the opportunity for a review of the final design and specifications in order that our recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specification.If our firm is not accorded the privilege of making the recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations."

PACIFIC CREST ENGINEERING RESPONSE
Recommending continued project participation and working closely with the design team is typical for any development project that requires a geological investigation.

The developer and design team has worked (and continues to work) closely with Pacific Crest Engineering to develop a residential design package that will achieve the development objectives and adequately mitigate the risks related to geological hazards at the site. It is also important to note that we are always committed to provide the recommended construction observation services for any given project we

18.196
Response to geology portions of appellant letter - Envision I – PUC – 900 High St Page 4 1 January 2024 Project No. 22135
investigate, in order to ensure that the geological specifications for the risk mitigation are followed by the contractors.

OVERALL RESPONSE
The appellant does not appear to have presented any geological issues that would form a basis for a valid appeal. They have paraphrased our past work on the project and do not appear to disagree with the work completed thus far. Indeed, they appear to have reiterated our findings and recommendations to pay close attention to the karst hazards (and other geological hazards) at the site with respect to development design as it evolves.

We look forward to answering any further questions and providing any future input on this matter at City of Santa Cruz Council meetings.

This concludes our letter. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns about this letter.

Sincerely,
PACIFIC CREST ENGINEERING INC.

Erik N. Zinn
Principal Geologist
P.G. #6854, C.E.G. #2139

CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ERIK N. ZINN
No. 2139

PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ERIK N. ZINN
No. 6854

18.197

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: November 22, 2023
AGENDA OF: November 30, 2023
ITEM NO: CP22-0164 900 High Street
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission deny the appeal, upholding the Zoning Administrator acknowledgement of the environmental determination and approval of the Minor Land Division, Design Permit, Slope Development Permit, Density Bonus Request, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit based on the findings listed below and the Conditions of Approval listed as Exhibit A of the staff report.

PROJECT DATA:

Property Owner: Peace United Church of Christ APN: 001-022-40 Project Applicant: Workbench Built, Diana Alfaro
Application Type: Minor Land Division, Design Permit, Slope Development Permit, Density Bonus Request, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to divide a parcel into two lots and construct a 40 unit (including four Low Income units and five Very Low Income units), four-story apartment building within 20 feet of a 30-percent slope and to remove 14 heritage trees on a site with an existing church in the R-1-10 (Single Family Residence) zone district.

Zoning: R-1-10 (Single Family Residence)
Project Consistency: Consistent with the above listed zone district, except as modified by California Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(4) (Density Bonus Law)
General Plan: L (Low Density Residential)
Project Consistency: Consistent with the General Plan designation Land Use - existing: Church with preschool and dwelling - proposed: 40-unit apartment building; church with preschool and dwelling - surrounding: UCSC housing (north) quarry, single family homes, city-owned land, church (east), single-family homes (south), elementary school (west) Lot Area: 5.9 acres (258,825 square feet)
Lot Dimensions: Irregular
Coastal Review: Not in Coastal Zone
Environmental Review: Statutory Exemption per section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code (Sec. 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines)
Planning Staff: Brittany Whitehill

18.198

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION & HISTORY
The project site is a 5.9-acre lot located on the
north side of High Street immediately to the
northeast of its intersection with Moore Street.

The site is surrounded by UCSC campus
housing to the north; a quarry, single-family
homes, city-owned land, and a church to the
east; single-family homes across High Street to
the south; and Westlake Elementary School to
the west. The property is developed with a
church that was constructed in 1957. The church
campus hosts a preschool as well as a caretaker
dwelling unit. The site slopes upward from north
to south, and the unimproved north end of the
site comprises open grassland and trees.

The project proposes to split the parcel into two lots. The lower lot will be 3.9 acres and will retain the existing church campus. The upper lot will be 2.0 acres. On the upper lot, the project proposes to construct a 40-unit, four-story residential apartment building. The project requires approval of a Minor Land Division to approve the tentative map for the lot split. In addition, the project requires approval of a Design Permit as it involves the construction of three or more units.

The project proposes to provide five low-income units and four very low-income units, amounting to 22.5-percent of the 40 total units at the low-income or lower level. This level of affordability exceeds the minimum 10-percent lower-income threshold to qualify the project for a density bonus. The density bonus request does not include a request for density bonus units but rather requests two concessions/incentives and one waiver from development standards. Per Municipal Code Section 24.16.225, the project qualifies for two incentives/concessions since it provides at least 20-percent of units to lower-income households.

Because the building is proposed on a slope of 30- to 50-percent, the project requires approval of a Slope Development Permit. Finally, the project proposes to remove 14 heritage trees, requiring approval of a Heritage Tree Removal Permit. Because the project involves a Minor Land Division and a Density Bonus Request, the application was required to be approved at a Zoning Administrator public hearing.

The applicant submitted a preapplication for this project in 2022, and the preapplication was deemed complete on January 11, 2023, for consistency with the preapplication submittal requirements under SB330. The project is locked into all standards and policies in place at the time it was deemed complete under SB330, including standards in place prior to the effective date of the most recent objective development standards ordinance.

The Zoning Administrator heard this item on October 4, 2023. Fifteen members of the public spoke at the meeting. Eight public comments were generally supportive of the project, citing the project’s

18.199

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 3
contributions towards the City’s housing supply. Seven public comments opposed the project, citing concerns with vehicle congestion generated by the project, traffic safety impacts at the project site and adjacent Westlake Elementary, tree removal, and compatibility with the character of the neighborhood. Additionally, 28 pieces of written correspondence on the project have been received by Planning staff during the duration of the project review.

On October 15, 2023, Deborah Elston, representing the Westlake Neighborhood Association, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the project. Since the appeal was filed, twentyfive additional pieces of written correspondence were received (as of November 21, 2023). Two comment letters opposed the project and twenty-three expressed support.

ANALYSIS
The attachment entitled Zoning Administrator Staff Report from October 4, 2023, provides an indepth analysis of the proposed project. This staff report addresses the issues raised in the appeal letter submitted by the appellant. The following summarizes each point made in the appeal (shown in bold text), followed by staff responses for each item. The appellant raises the following objections to the project in question:

The appellant claims that preliminary geotechnical analysis on the site (included borings and drilling in various areas to identify potential geotechnical hazards and appropriate construction recommendations) may have resulted in a murky appearance of Westlake Pond.

The geotechnical analysis performed at the site is typical of pre-construction geotechnical analysis and reflects industry best practices. The appellant did not provide evidence or rationale as to how the borings could have resulted in changes to the appearance of Westlake Pond, which is located approximately 750 feet from the project site.

In response to these claims, the project’s geotechnical engineer, Rebecca L. Dees of Dees & Associates, Inc. provided a letter, dated November 2, 2023, summarizing the geotechnical investigation that has occurred to date and confirming that no groundwater was encountered when borings were drilled.

The appellant questions where stormwater runoff associated with the project will flow, citing concerns with existing flooding on High Street and storm water runoff into Westlake Pond.

The project was reviewed by the City’s Stormwater Division for compliance with the City’s Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual for Private and Public Development and the project was found to be compliant with City and State requirements related to stormwater retention and drainage. The project’s drainage will integrate into the existing storm drainage system on High Street, which ultimately flows to Neary Lagoon. Additionally, as required by City and State stormwater design regulations the project proposes to treat and retain a portion of the stormwater onsite. The Department of Public Works has confirmed that the existing storm drain system has

18.200

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 4
the capacity to accommodate any additional runoff that may be generated by the project. Public Works staff have also confirmed that there are no known flooding concerns along High Street.

The appellant expresses concerns with the proposed onsite circulation plan of the project and potential offsite safety and quality of life impacts.

The church and ancillary uses at 900 High Street are currently serviced by a driveway that circumnavigates the site in a counterclockwise direction, providing ingress at the eastern edge of the site and egress at the western edge, adjacent to Westlake Elementary, as shown below:

During review of the project the City’s Public Works Department identified that the existing onsite circulation was suboptimal due to the proximity of the egress driveway to the driveway for Westlake Elementary. To address existing onsite circulation deficiencies, the project will renavigate onsite traffic by providing a right turn only, entrance/ ingress point at the west driveway adjacent to Westlake Elementary. The primary ingress and egress will be provided at the east driveway, away from Westlake Elementary. Signage will be placed onsite to deter residents and visitors from turning left across High Street onto the “west” driveway. Members of the public have requested that a barrier be placed in the middle of High Street to prevent vehicles from turning left into the west driveway. Public Works staff have considered this request, and ultimately determined it could create an additional traffic safety hazard. Additionally, the west driveway will provide emergency vehicle and trash collection access to the site, therefore it needs to be accessible from both directions on High Street.

Westlake
Elementary
Driveway
West
Driveway:

Existing
Egress
East
Driveway:

Existing
Ingress

18.201

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 5
The redirection of onsite vehicle circulation is anticipated to reduce potential conflicts between vehicles exiting the project site and pedestrians and vehicles at or around Westlake Elementary.

The appellant claims that the project does not encourage a reduction in automobile use, citing the lack of grocery stores nearby and inconvenience of buses. The appellant contends that the project violates General Plan Policy LU4.2. - Encourage land use changes that reduce the need for automobiles.

The project site is located within one-half mile walking distance from several community-serving uses, including UCSC, Westlake Elementary School, Westlake Park, several churches, and a small (approximately 6,300 square foot) strip mall including a convenience store (7-Eleven) and laundromat located at 224 Cardiff Place. The small commercial center has a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) General Plan land use designation. The General Plan includes the following language for NC designated properties: Intended for small scale commercial uses that serve residential neighborhoods, such as laundromats, grocery stores, and convenience stores. These uses can provide a focal point for the neighborhood and help reduce the number of automobile trips that nearby residents must take.

The site is located approximately one mile from Mission Street and surrounding streets, which provides access to numerous commercial uses, including grocery stores, restaurants and medical offices. Mission Street and surrounding areas can be accessed via High Street and Bay Drive, which are both fully improved roadways providing bike lanes, sidewalks, street trees and lighting.

For many, this may be a reasonable distance to travel by bike or foot. Additionally, the site is West
Driveway:

Proposed
right turn,
ingress only
East
Driveway:

Proposed
primary
ingress/egress
Westlake
Elementary
Driveway

18.202

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 6
within one-half mile of several major transit stops, which provide bus service with 15-minute headways to destinations throughout the region, which the state has determined is adequate to supersede any on-site parking requirements (AB2097).

Under the state’s provisions, the project provides 20 dedicated resident parking spaces to accommodate the 40 proposed units, so residents will not be guaranteed onsite parking. For some who rely heavily on automobile use, a lack of onsite parking with the project may be viewed as an inconvenience; however, convenience is a highly subjective and personal metric. Those who are deterred by a lack of onsite parking will likely opt not to rent a unit at this apartment.

The appellant states that tribal resources, including burials and artifacts, have been identified during other construction projects in the vicinity and notes that the project is located within a Highly Sensitive Archeological Area. The appellant states that that an “oversite person” should be present onsite (presumably during construction activities).

The site is located within areas mapped in the General Plan as sensitive and highly sensitive for archaeological resources. Albion Environmental prepared an initial archaeological investigation in June 2019, and subsequent Extended Phase I Study in March 2023. The reports did not indicate the presence of any intact archaeological resource. Typically, if initial archaeological investigations do not identify intact archeological resources, an archaeologist is not required to monitor the site unless otherwise indicated. Alternatively, the archaeological report recommended that the applicant notify the appropriate authorities should earth-moving work result in discovery of an intact resource. This recommendation is consistent with a City standard condition of approval that is included for this project.

In the event that archeological resources, artifacts or human remains are discovered during earthmoving activities, the applicant is required to immediately stop work, stake off the vicinity where resources were discovered, and notify both the Santa Cruz County Sheriff-Coroner and Director of Planning and Community Development. At that time, an appropriate course of action would be determined by the County Sheriff’s Office and Department of Planning and Community Development based on the specific situation.

The appellant makes various claims related to the methodologies used to analyze Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS) impacts of the project.

The first portion of the response to these claims provides background information on the City’s VMT and LOS policies and how traffic impacts of the project were analyzed. Following the background discussion are specific responses to the appellant’s claims.

SB743 Background Information
In 2013, the State of California passed Senate Bill 743 (SB743), which altered how transportation impacts from new development are measured under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prior to SB743, transportation impacts were assessed in terms of Level of Service (LOS), a measure of automobile delays along a roadway. While LOS was the default metric for

18.203

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 7
determining transportation environmental impacts for many years, LOS is an automobile-centric metric that does not support statewide sustainability goals and, therefore, can no longer be used as part of a project’s CEQA analysis. SB743 requires that Lead Agencies replace LOS CEQA analysis with VMT analysis to better align transportation impacts analysis and mitigation outcomes under CEQA with statewide goals, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, increase of infill development, and improved public health.

On June 9, 2020, the City of Santa Cruz City Council enacted Resolution NS-29,676, which adopted a VMT threshold as the new transportation measure of transportation-related environmental impacts. The threshold generally establishes that a project exceeding a level of 15% below the County-wide average VMT may result in a significant transportation impact. The City’s VMT policy also established that certain projects can be assumed to have a non-significant CEQA transportation impact (“screen out”) based upon their project location and characteristics.

Project-Specific VMT Analysis
As part of the required CEQA review for the project, a project-specific VMT analysis was conducted. The project was determined to meet two screening criteria of the City’s VMT guidelines. Firstly, a review of ‘VMT Screening Maps’ for Residential land use for the Santa Cruz County indicated that proposed project location is within the area which is at or below City VMT Threshold. Secondly, the ‘VMT Screening Tool’ was used, indicating that project-generated VMT is less than 15% below the county-wide per capita average VMT, resulting in no significant VMT impact. A detailed discussion of the project’s VMT analysis can be found in the attachment entitled “Statutory Exemption Checklist”.

Project-Specific LOS Analysis
While LOS is no longer a valid metric for analyzing environmental impacts under CEQA, agencies may continue to implement LOS-focused policies outside of the CEQA process. The Santa Cruz General Plan includes several aspirational LOS-related policies. City staff strives to implement these policies through development review, to the extent that they do not conflict with VMT related policies of the General Plan or violate the requirements of SB743. Additionally, project-specific LOS analysis provides useful information to the City by identifying key locations where traffic infrastructure improvements could improve LOS.

The City requires a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to be prepared for any project that is estimated to generate 50 or more vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. A primary goal of the TIS is to determine potential traffic impacts that may be associated with a project and to provide a nexus for offsite improvements to mitigate the impacts. Projects generating less than 50 PM peak hour trips are exempt from TIS requirements but required to pay a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF), which is used to fund City transportation-related Capital Improvement Projects.

A Trip Generation Memo dated December 12, 2022, was prepared for the project. The Trip Generation Memo estimated that the new apartment complex could generate between 20 and 26 PM peak hour trips. The trip generation estimation of 20 trips utilized the Institute of

18.204

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 8
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code 220 for Multifamily Housing. The 26-trip estimation was based on Land Use Code 225 for Off-Campus Student Apartments, due to the site’s proximity to UCSC and potential for students to rent units onsite. Because both trip generation estimations were below 50 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour, a traffic impact study was not required to be prepared; however, the project includes a condition of approval requiring payment of the TIF prior to issuance of the building permit, as is typical for projects of this scale.

The following provides responses to the specific LOS and VMT claims in the appeal letter:

The VMT analysis used data from a baseline year of 2019 and did not account for traffic generated by Westlake Elementary or UCSC.

As described above, the goal of VMT analysis is not to study the presence of traffic or LOS. The 2019 VMT baseline referenced in the appellant’s letter does not reflect traffic counts.

Alternatively, the City’s adopted VMT policy establishes that a project may result in significant VMT impact if the project generated VMT is greater than 15% below baseline VMT values, which were established in the year 2019. These baseline VMT values reflect regional average per-capita VMT and are not reflective of traffic counts as implied by the appellant’s letter.

The VMT calculations are based on unit count as opposed to potential number of residents and do not accurately reflect the project generated VMT.

The project was determined to screen out from any potential VMT impact by meeting two screening criteria established in the City’s adopted VMT guidelines: ‘VMT Screening Maps’ and ‘VMT Screening Tool’. The project is not anticipated to create a significant VMT impact due to its location and characteristics. The potential number of residents is not an input used to determine a project’s eligibility to screen out of VMT impacts.

The project will result in a significant cumulative impact to Level of Service (LOS), as was determined for a previously approved and litigated project located on Cardiff Street and High Street in 2005 (Case No CV 149246).

The project and subsequent court decision referenced in the appellant’s letter occurred prior to the enactment of SB743, when LOS was the metric used to identify transportation-related impacts under CEQA. Under SB743, lead agencies must evaluate projects for VMT impacts under CEQA.

The project was thoroughly evaluated for VMT impacts under CEQA and found to result in no project-specific VMT-related CEQA impact, as described above.

A cumulative traffic study should have been conducted as part of the development review.

The City has an adopted threshold of 50 PM peak hour trips whereby a Traffic Impact Study is required. A trip generation memo satisfying the requirements of the Public Works Department was prepared for the project and concluded that the project would not generate more than 26 PM peak hour trips, therefore a Traffic Impact Study was not required to be prepared. Importantly, this

18.205

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 9
uniformly applied threshold is an objective development standard. Applying a different threshold could be considered a violation of the Housing Accountability Act.

The project should have been analyzed for LOS impacts as opposed to VMT impacts, as an LOS analysis would more accurately depict traffic safety.

Under SB743, the City is not allowed to utilize LOS as a metric to determine environmental impacts under CEQA. Nevertheless, the project was analyzed for impacts to traffic safety. During the development review process, the project was revised to improve existing onsite circulation and reduce potential impacts to traffic safety, as described above.

The traffic on High Street during from approximately 2:30-6:30 PM greatly impacts the mental health of neighbors.

Citywide traffic impacts and roadway capacity were studied in the 2030 General Plan. The General Plan EIR identified two impacted intersections in the project vicinity: High Street/Laurent Street and High Street/Western Drive intersections. The High Street/Laurent Street intersection could be improved to acceptable service levels with signalization, and improvements at the High Street/Western Drive intersection would reduce delays but would not achieve acceptable levels of service.

The project is expected to result in marginal increases in traffic, but as described in detail in the attachment entitled Statutory Exemption Checklist, the project size would be within the potential buildout evaluated in the EIR traffic analyses. Therefore, the proposed project is within the scope of traffic analyses conducted for the General Plan EIR and would not result in new significant or more severe significant impacts evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, as previously described, following the passage of SB743, LOS can no longer be used as a transportation metric for determining environmental impacts under CEQA.

Moreover, the Housing Accountability Act strictly limits the City’s ability to deny or reduce residential or mixed-use project’s unit count or square footage when said project is consistent with a city’s objective standards. To do so, the City would need to find a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete,” pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A). In other words, the project would need to violate an existing written health and safety standard in effect on the date the application is deemed complete. While there are impacted intersections and, at times, significant traffic in the project vicinity, there is no evidence to suggest that marginal additions to vehicle traffic generated by the project would result in significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impacts to public health and safety.

18.206

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 10
The project violates the following General Plan Policies:
 M1.2.2 – Maintain Street access to neighborhoods through the Capital Improvements Program. The City will continue to implement the Capital Improvements Program, which includes two approved transportation-related infrastructure projects in the vicinity: Bay Drive Protected Bike Lanes and Pedestrian Path (Project # c402304), which will add protected bike lanes and an improved pedestrian path along Bay Drive, between Escalona Drive and High Street; and Bay/High Intersection Improvements (Project # c401103), which will improve the intersection at Bay Drive and High Street. The project will be required to pay a Traffic Impact Fee prior to issuance of the building permit, which will be used to fund City transportation-related Capital Improvement Projects.  M3.1 – Acknowledge and manage congestion, and M3.1.3 – Strive to maintain the established “level of service” D or better at signalized intersections. In response to the policies set forth in the General Plan Mobility chapter, M3.1, the project is located in an infill environment: near transit, jobs, goods, services, education facilities and recreation, and with a sidewalk and bike lane network. The project provides easy access to many daily residential needs, and characteristics of the project incentivize use of alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, the project supports many of the General Plan transportation policies and goals.

Regarding M3.1.3, the City has studied intersection LOS as part of the 2030 General Plan and acknowledges the existing deficiencies at the High Street/Laurent Street and High Street/Western Drive intersections, near the project site. However, due to the size of the project and anticipated trip generation, the project is not expected to significantly worsen these intersections.
 M3.2 – Ensure road safety for all users. As described in appeal point 3, the project was reviewed by traffic and transportation engineering staff of the Public Works Department.

In response to the traffic and transportation review, the existing onsite circulation was modified to reduce potential conflicts with Westlake Elementary.  M3.3 – Discourage, reduce, and slow through-traffic and trucks on neighborhood streets. Addressing Policy M3.3, the closest residential neighborhood is the Westlake neighborhood, comprised of Laurent Street, Moore Street, Escalona Drive and other local residential streets. The General Plan identifies Escalona Drive and Laurent Street as collector streets, whereas both High Street and Bay Drive are designated as arterial streets.

All other streets in the immediate project vicinity are designated as residential/local streets.

None of the local/residential streets appear to provide more direct or efficient access to or from the project site, therefore, it is unlikely that substantial traffic will be added to those streets because of congestion on Bay Drive or High Street.

18.207

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 11
The appellant questions how the entire project site area (5.9 acres) was used to establish the base residential density for the project site, when the proposed apartment would be located on a single lot within the project site comprising 2 acres.

The site’s General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential accommodates singlefamily residential neighborhoods typically comprising detached homes and with a density range of 1.1 to 10 dwellings per acre. The project site, in its entirety, is 5.9 acres in size, therefore the General Plan land use designation would accommodate up to 59 units on the site. The project proposes 40 units, which is consistent with the residential density that was studied and anticipated in the 2030 General Plan.

The residential development will be contained entirely on Lot 1, comprising 2 acres. General Plan Policy LU3.7.1 supports clustering of residential development, with units closer together or attached, to respond to a site’s topography, environmental constraints, or adjacent uses. In this case, the existing church campus on the site limits the buildable area to the vacant land above the campus, which comprises the new 2.0-acre Lot 1. This layout, in addition to constraints associated with City policy to maximize retention of heritage trees and a steep slope that limits access to the upper part of the site, supports the clustering of the units into a single apartment building. To ensure future development does not exceed the density ranges envisioned in the General Plan, a condition of approval requires a deed restriction to be recorded on both new parcels to limit the overall site base density to the maximum allowed under the General Plan.

The practice of “clustering” of density on a singular lot within a project site was recently litigated on a separate approved project within the City, located at 126 Eucalyptus Street (Santa Cruz Superior Court 22CV02838 Segal v. City of Santa Cruz). The Court ruled in favor of the City’s practice of clustering residential density.

The appellant questions how occupancy will be limited in lease to 85 residents, whether the units could be converted to condominium units, and why the project provides 96 bike parking spaces and 15 vehicle parking spaces.

The City does not regulate lease agreements between property owners and lessees. Allowed occupancy of units is based on requirements set forth in the Uniform Housing Code and California Health and Safety Code. Applying additional restrictions on the number of occupants who can inhabit a unit could be argued as a violation of the Fair Housing Act.

Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 23.37 et. seq. includes regulations and procedures related to condominium conversions of existing residential structures. As described in Section. 23.37.020, generally speaking, condominium conversions are not permitted unless the multifamily dwelling vacancy rate in Santa Cruz exceeds five percent. When there is a vacancy surplus, application for residential condominium conversions may be filed. Approvals may be allowed up to the number of units that would bring the vacancy rate no lower than five percent. Staff is unaware of any time period during the last 20 years where vacancy rates exceeded five percent. Given the unprecedented demand for housing in the City of Santa Cruz, it is unlikely that condominium conversion will be a possibility for the foreseeable future.

18.208

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 12
If the citywide multifamily residential vacancy rates were such that condominium conversion was allowed, and the City were to receive a request for condominium conversion at this site, the project would need to comply with all applicable requirements of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act related to condominium conversion in effect at the time of the requested condominium conversion, which may include modifications to the building and/or site, establishment of a homeowners association and covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), and noticing, first right of refusal, and relocation assistance to residential tenants.

Regarding vehicle parking, recently adopted State laws have reduced parking requirements that would have otherwise been required in the Zoning Ordinance for this project. Effective January 1, 2021, AB1851 added California Government Code section 65913.6, which allows up to 50-percent of existing church parking to be eliminated to accommodate a new housing development and allows the remaining church parking to be double counted toward the housing parking requirement. Furthermore, effective January 1st of this year, AB2097 modified California Government Code Section 65863.2 to eliminate any parking requirement for a site within half a mile of an existing or planned major transit stop. Locally, this bill was codified into the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council in April, 2023. The entire project site is within half a mile of a planned major transit stop, and therefore parking is not required. While new parking is not required, and the existing parking serving the church can be eliminated without replacement, the project proposes new driveways leading to and from the building and 20 new parking spaces adjacent to the new building.

Regarding bike parking, the project would be required to provide 53 bike parking stalls and the applicant has opted to provide 96. By providing an abundance of secure bike parking onsite, relative to the amount of vehicle parking, the project will incentivize use of alternative modes of transport for residents and visitors. The provision of abundant bike parking is aligned with several General Plan policies, including PR1.6.4 (provide and encourage provision of adequate bike parking) and M4.4.3 (increase the supply of bicycle parking throughout the City).

The appellant questions how visitors and deliveries will be accommodated on the property and claims that visitors and deliveries will create adverse traffic impacts.

Pursuant to AB2097, the City cannot require the project to provide designated guest parking.

However, the project will provide 20 parking spaces on the proposed Lot 1, which could accommodate some guest parking. Additionally, guests will be able to access the site using alternative modes of transportation, including by bicycle or bus.

The ITE land use codes used to estimate trip generation associated with land uses are based on observed trip count averages associated with specific land uses and account for typical numbers of residents and visitors. Therefore, the fact that visitors may visit the site would not change the expected trip generation detailed in the attachment entitled “Trip Generation Memo”.

Regarding deliveries, the project was deemed complete prior to the adoption of the Objective Standards for Multifamily Development. When the project was deemed complete, the City did not have an adopted objective standard requiring an onsite loading space associated with a multi18.209

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 13
family residential use. Nevertheless, the project site is large and provides ample parking and circulation areas where delivery vehicles could temporarily park. The apartment building will be set back over 300 feet from High Street. Delivery vehicles are expected to park close to the apartment building to complete deliveries and are not expected to park on High Street or cause any disruptions to offsite circulation.

The appellant requests more information regarding social events at the existing church, including frequency of events and how parking will be managed.

In response to this question, Peace United Church of Christ has specified that the majority of events occurring onsite are small events (such as meetings) for which the existing parking supply is sufficient. Periodically, Peace United will either host or rent facilities for larger events, such as weddings, memorial services, and special holiday church services. The City has not received complaints regarding any past events onsite. If a significant event beyond the scope of what would be allowed at the church campus were to be proposed, a Five-Day Use Permit would need to be obtained, pursuant to Sec. 24.10.180 of the Zoning Code. At that time, possible impacts of the special event would be evaluated, however, the City’s ability to regulate parking on the site would remain limited under the provisions of AB1851 and AB2097, as described above.

The appellant claims that vistas from the residences on Hagar Court will be impacted by the project, and that the project violates General Plan policies related to protection of public views and preservation of open space:
 CD1.2 – Ensure that the scale, bulk, and setbacks of new development preserve important public scenic views and vistas. The project would not impact a significant public view identified in Figure 4.3-1 of the City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report (EIR); however, project impacts to public views were considered as part of the project review.

The nearest vantage points from which the coast may be viewable where the project could conceivably impact coastal views are located along Hagar Court, north (uphill) from the project. These vantage points are obstructed by existing buildings on private properties; therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impact on important public views or designated scenic coastal areas.

Although the new building may be visible from nearby properties and the public right of way, the building has been designed to step down in height, mimicking the sloped topography of the site and reducing the appearance of building mass and bulk. The site is designed such that the new building will be substantially screened from view from public right-of-way on High Street and Hagar Court, and from surrounding properties. The site design includes significant setbacks from surrounding property lines, which allow for a landscape buffer comprised of existing trees and naturalized grasses, as well as a varied palette of new plants.

18.210

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 14
 CD1.4 – Ensure that development adjacent to open space lands maintains visual and physical connections to that open space. Although a large portion of the project site is currently undeveloped and in a natural state, the project is not adjacent to any designated open space, therefore this General Plan policy is not directly applicable to the project.
 CD 2.1 – Protect and enhance the distinctive physical and design characteristics of neighborhoods and districts throughout the city. The site is not located within a historic district or within an area plan that seeks to preserve an established architectural style. Additionally, the Housing Accountability Act prohibits agencies from requiring projects to comply with standards that are not objective, quantifiable, written development standards. The subjective nature of CD

2.1 precludes the City from using it to deny or reduce the density or intensity of the project unless a finding can be made that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety. The appellant has not provided any evidence that such a condition exists nor is City staff aware of any standard that meets this threshold based on these policies.

The appellant requests that construction vehicles not be allowed to cross through neighborhood streets, and that they must access High Street via Bay Drive. The appellant demands construction deliveries not occur during the drop-off and pickup hours of Westlake Elementary.

To address the appellant’s concerns regarding construction-related traffic and conflicts with the Westlake Elementary pick-up and drop-off timeframes, staff has included a recommended condition of approval that a construction access and management plan be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the building permit. Through review of the construction access and management plan, staff will be able to review construction logistics, such as construction hours, truck routes, and construction staging areas to avoid conflicts where possible.

The appellant claims that residents enter into a “zoning contract” when they purchase property in a neighborhood, citing Longtin’s California Land Use and California Zoning Practice, as well as a California Supreme Court case Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles. The appellant suggests that the project will result in a diminution in property values, economic obsolescence, and adverse impacts to the community.

The publications Longtin’s California Land Use and California Zoning Practice cited by the applicant may be educational but are not legally binding regulatory documents. Land use on the site is regulated by the city’s Zoning Code, General Plan, and various state laws. The project was reviewed for compliance with applicable requirements in the Zoning Code and General Plan, and found to be compliant with all applicable requirements, except as modified by State Density Bonus Law and SB330.

18.211

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 15
The California Supreme Court case cited by the applicant, Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, dates back to 1974 and is related to a proposed mobile home development in Los Angeles County on a site zoned for single-family residential and light agricultural uses. The County of Los Angeles granted a variance to allow the project. The project approval was litigated, and ultimately the California Supreme Court found that the County did not make sufficient, evidence-based variance findings required to grant the variance. A variance is not requested as part of the 900 High Street project, nor is a variance required to approve the project, so the decision in the referenced court case is not relevant.

The project site is located in the R-1-10 zone district, which primarily provides for single family residential uses. While the R-1-10 zone district does not provide for multi-family residential development, California Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(4) states that a project shall not be considered inconsistent with applicable zoning standards if it meets the General Plan density. A prohibition of multi-family development on the site would preclude development at the allowed density under the General Plan, and thus be inconsistent with the California Government Code.

While the project does deviate from certain development standards, these deviations are either a result of the allowed density under the General Plan, or directly tied to the project’s density bonus request, as described fully in the attachment entitled “October 4, 2023 Zoning Administrator Staff Report”.

The appellant opposes the proposed removal of 14 Heritage trees, claiming that these trees provide noise and wind buffering, and that their removal will result in soil instability.

The project proposes removal of 14 heritage trees, six that are in poor condition and eight that are within the project footprint. The project arborist evaluated whether an alternative building location would enable preservation of additional heritage trees. Due to various constraints, including required setbacks from highly-slopes areas of the site and the quarry to the east, a feasible alternative building placement that resulted in a greater degree of heritage tree preservation was not identified. A condition of approval requires the project to replace each removed heritage tree with either one 24-inch size tree or three 15-gallon trees, pursuant to City Council Resolution No.

NS-30,072.

Staff found inconclusive research to support the idea that trees can be planted in a manner to provide wind buffering, however, the City has no adopted policy requiring trees to be planted or maintained in a manner to buffer wind.

The research surrounding the efficacy of trees as noise buffers also appears to be inconclusive. A publication by the US Department of Agriculture describes that trees can potentially provide some noise dampening effects only if they are planted specifically for the purpose of noise buffering (either immediately adjacent to the source or recipient of the noise, and in a dense, wide buffer).

The existing trees onsite proposed to be removed do not possess the characteristics that may contribute to effective noise buffering.

Importantly, the California Supreme Court recently made a decision regarding the Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California case that noise impacts generated by people

18.212

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 16
residing at housing developments cannot be viewed as a significant environmental impact under CEQA. Following the Supreme Court decision, Assembly Bill 1307, which specifies that the effects of noise generated by residential project occupants and their guests on human beings is not a significant effect on the environment for purposes of CEQA, was passed by the California State Assembly and signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 7, 2023.

Regarding soil instability, most research surrounding the potential erosion impacts related to tree removal seems to study impacts of clear cutting many trees. The proposed tree removal is selective, therefore research related to the impacts of large-scale tree removal is not applicable. Most trees onsite will remain, and the plant palette proposes a net increase in the existing number of trees onsite to mitigate any possible erosion impacts. Additionally, extensive geotechnical analysis of the project has been conducted and the project will be required to implement all recommendations of the project geotechnical engineer.

The appellant claims that, in the event of a catastrophic fire or earthquake, the combination of residents from the 900 High Street project and the UCSC population will make it impossible for the neighborhood to evacuate safely.

Planning staff have consulted with the Fire Department regarding this claim. There is no adopted plan detailing the specifics of how an evacuation of the neighborhood would occur because an evacuation would need to respond to the specific challenges posed by the specific disaster prompting the evacuation. However, from a procedural standpoint, evacuations are highly coordinated and closely managed by the Office of Emergency Services. If an evacuation were necessary, evacuation zones would be established. Designated zones would be evacuated at staggered times to minimize congestion of evacuees (for example, UCSC and the Westlake neighborhood would be evacuated at different times). In terms of evacuation notification, evacuees would first be alerted by an online notification system, then by a reverse 911 call, and finally, first responders would conduct door-to-door evacuation notifications. Natural disaster evacuation is a city-wide and regional issue, and a project of this size would have no implications on the City’s established evacuation procedures.

The appellant claims that a Police Officer required to be stationed at High and Moore Streets because of existing traffic accident hazards, and that traffic monitoring at Westlake Elementary is causing a significant staffing burden on the Police Department.

The Planning Department has consulted the Police Department regarding this claim. The Police Department has confirmed that officers are not stationed at any intersection in the City. There is a crossing guard at the intersection of High Street and Moore Street during pickup and drop-off times, but this is a standard practice near elementary schools throughout the City. The Police Department has analyzed the accident records at the High Street and Moore Street intersection and did not find an unusually high rate of accidents.

The appellant requests the project be conditioned to require the property be managed by a certified, professional property manager.

18.213

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 17
The California Department of Real Estate requires that any residential development with sixteen or more rental units have an onsite manager. Violation of this requirement is punishable under state law. This requirement is not typically regulated or monitored by the City; however, the applicant has indicated that they fully intend to comply with this requirement.

The appellant requests that the residents of the 900 High Street development enter into an agreement disallowing their participation in the City’s street parking permit program.

The City has an established procedure for granting parking permits subject to municipal code section 10.41. If a property is within an existing parking permit district, the property must present a qualified petition and receive an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the district in order to become eligible to participate in the parking permit program. The 900 High Street development would be required to follow the procedure detailed in municipal code section 10.41 to become eligible to participate in the City’s street parking permit program. Staff does not recommend deviating from the established parking permit program procedures and requirements on a case-by-case basis.

The appellant acknowledges that some form of a project may proceed, but requests that the density be reduced.

The Housing Accountability Act strictly limits cities’ ability to deny or reduce residential or mixed-use project’s unit count or square footage when said project is consistent with a city’s objective standards, as modified by State Density Bonus Law, if applicable. The City would not be able to deny the project, or condition the project to require reduced density, floor area ratio or unit count, unless the City made written findings that the project would have a specific, adverse impact (as cited and defined above) upon public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. The appellant has provided no evidence to support these findings.

The appeal submittal includes a letter from Coastal Community Preschool, Inc, which is the preschool currently operating at 900 High Street. The Coastal Community Preschool letter raises a variety of concerns, which are summarized below. On November 7, 2023, Staff received a follow up email from Coastal Community Preschool indicating that the concerns expressed in their original letter have been addressed through coordination with their landlord, Peace United Church of Christ. Both parties have indicated that they intend to work in coordination as the project progresses.

The following summarizes points raised in Coastal Community Preschool’s initial letter.  The letter expresses concerns that the proposed subdivision and ownership of the properties could adversely impact their business. Ultimately, the property owner is entitled to subdivide and develop the property in a way that complies with adopted standards and regulations. This particular concern is a private civil matter in which the City cannot get involved. City staff is encouraged that the original

18.214

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 18
concerns raised by Coastal Community Preschool seem to have been addressed and encourages ongoing coordination between both parties.
 Traffic generated by the project will cause emissions, noise and dust negatively impacting children at the preschool. Potential air quality impacts of the project were analyzed extensively as part of the CEQA statutory exemption checklist. With implementation of City standard conditions of approval and applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures, the project is not expected to result in any new or more severe air quality impacts than those previously studied in the General Plan EIR. As previously noted, staff is recommending a new condition of approval whereby the applicant must submit a construction access and management plan prior to issuance of the building permit. Through review of the construction access and management plan, staff will be able to review construction logistics and may be able to alleviate adverse impacts to the preschool resulting from construction.  Parking spaces currently used by preschool staff will be taken away, so the preschool requests that a dedicated parking area be established to accommodate their use. As previously described, the City cannot require parking to be provided or maintained as part of this project pursuant to AB2097. That said, Lot 2, containing the church and preschool, contains ample parking that exceeds the minimum required parking for the land uses based on municipal code requirements, which will remain with the project. Community Coastal Preschool has indicated that their concerns related to parking have been addressed though coordination with the Peace United Church of Christ. Staff encourages ongoing coordination between both parties regarding the parking and circulation needs of the preschool use.
 The preschool’s security will be compromised during construction. The preschool did not specify the nature of their security concerns during construction; however, construction logistics will be evaluated during the building permit process through the construction access and logistics plan referenced above. City staff encourages the both parties to coordinate regarding potential construction-related security concerns.
 The proposed circulation will impact an existing offsite crosswalk traversing High Street, which is used by students of Westlake Elementary and the preschool: The onsite circulation has been renavigated in a clockwise fashion to reduce any potential conflicts between cars exiting the site and pedestrians crossing High Street to or from Westlake Elementary, as fully described above.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

18.215

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 19
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with General Plan, Community Plan or Zoning). Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 allows a lead agency to avoid repeating analyses that were already provided in a certified general plan EIR for a development project that is consistent with the general plan. Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and its parallel CEQA Guidelines provision, section 15183, provide for streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with the general plan for which an EIR was certified. Subsection (d) further indicates that an effect of a project upon the environment shall not be considered “peculiar to the parcel or to the project…if uniformly applied development policies or standards” have been previously adopted by the city or county, with a finding based upon substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards would not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. Under these provisions of CEQA, the project has been found to be consistent with the General Plan. It has been determined that the City’s General Plan 2030 EIR has adequately addressed most environmental issues related to the project, and some site-specific project impacts have been analyzed and determined to be less than significant due to substantial mitigation resulting from General Plan policies, zoning regulations and/or development standards that are uniformly applied to development projects throughout the City.

Therefore, no further environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the project is exempt from further CEQA review. An environmental checklist attached to the Planning Commission staff report provides the explanations and support for this determination.

SUMMARY:

In summary, the assertions presented in the appeal are generally unsubstantiated and/or irrelevant to the project, and staff continues to support the project as designed and with the conditions approved by the Zoning Administrator, with the addition of three new conditions of approval to address specific concerns related to construction activity raised in the appeal: one requiring the applicant to provide a construction access and management plan for staff review and approval prior to issuance of the building, one requiring that stationary construction equipment meet specified emissions standards, and one requiring a “Neighbor Liaison” contact be identified and contact information be posted onsite to field questions and concerns related to construction activity.

The project is consistent with the General Plan and meets all the applicable required objective site development standards except as modified by density bonus waivers and concessions. As such, the City is limited in its discretion, especially when it involves reducing density or denying a housing development project under the Housing Accountability Act. The number of affordable units exceeds density bonus and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal, upholding the Zoning Administrator approval of the Minor Land Division, Design Permit, Slope Development Permit, Density Bonus Request, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit based on the Findings listed below and the Attached Conditions of Approval.

18.216

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 20
FINDINGS:

Tentative Parcel Map, Section 23.16.020.6, 23.16.050.4

1. The proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with applicable general or specific plans adopted by the city of Santa Cruz.

The proposal to divide the 258,825 square foot (5.9-acre) project site into two parcels is consistent with the density requirements, goals, and policies of the L (Low Density Residential) General Plan designation and is consistent with the development standards of the R-1-10 zone district. The land division will result in the two parcels exceeding the minimum 10,000 square foot parcel size and 70-foot minimum lot width required in the R1-10 zone district.

Santa Cruz Municipal Code Sec. 23.24.030.6 (i) allows for the creation of a flag lot where warranted by physical conditions of land form, existing lot pattern, or unusual size and shape of parcels. It requires the strip of land connecting the main portion of a flag lot to the street to be not less than twenty feet wide at any point and requires that it provide practical vehicular access; but the code specifies that it shall not be used to help satisfy the minimum lot area requirement of the zoning district.

The proposed subdivision results in a flag lot configuration to allow for infill development on the site while preserving the existing church and associated uses. The flag lot configuration allows for the proposed residential development to be located on a portion of the site with relatively low slope and minimal impacts to Heritage trees.

The project is also consistent with the goals and policies in the General Plan and the current Housing Element in that the project will maximize development on an underutilized infill parcel (Policy LU3.7.1) in a way that is consistent with surrounding single-family land uses (GP Policy LU4.1.2; Housing Element Policy 1.4). The subdivision and development have been configured to maximize preservation of heritage trees on the site (Policy LU2.3.6).

2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.

The subdivision and development have been designed to consolidate residential density on a portion of the site most suitable for development. The proposed subdivision and building configuration results in a site plan which preserves the existing church use onsite and allows for reuse of existing vehicular circulation areas.

18.217

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 21
that the applicant stop work and contact the appropriate authorities should earth-moving work result in discovery of an intact resource. This recommendation is consistent with a standard condition of approval that is included for this project.

The building will be constructed on a portion of the site with a relatively low degree of slope and high soil stability, thereby minimizing grading associated with the project and potential geological hazards. A geotechnical investigation prepared by Dees and Associates dated August 11, 2021, found the soils suitable for residential development with implementation of recommendations in the report, which have been included as conditions of approval.

The northeastern portion of the site contains a eucalyptus grove that is identified in the General Plan as potentially containing monarch butterfly habitat. A report prepared by Ecosystems West Consulting Group dated May 20, 2020, and a follow-up report, dated January 4, 2023, concluded that the eucalyptus grove was not providing fall or winter roosting habitat, and was unlikely to provide suitable habitat in the future. The reports recommended a preconstruction survey be conducted in the fall prior to the commencement of construction, and that tree removal occur outside of the fall roosting period. Both recommendations are included as conditions of approval.

By adhering to the recommendations in the archaeological, geotechnical and biotic reports, the project is not anticipated to create any adverse impacts to resources and the portion of the site where development is proposed is suitable for development.

The newly created lot where the housing development will be sited will be physically suitable for the development of the residential use. The developable portion of the lot meets the minimum net lot area requirements for the R-1-10 zone district. The project site is surrounded by other residential uses and will have access to public utilities including sewer and water.

The design and improvements of the proposed land division are consistent with the applicable policies of the General Plan in that the applicant is required to make streetscape improvements including the construction of a new sidewalk with curb and gutter improvements at each frontage (CD4.3.5, M.4.1.7-M4.1.9) and all utilities serving future development will be required to be placed underground (CD4.2.3). The parcel is not located within a specific plan area.

3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The newly created lot where the housing development will be sited will be physically suitable for the density of residential development proposed. The developable portion of the lot meets the minimum net lot area requirements for the R-1-10 zone district. The project site is surrounded by other residential uses and will have access to public utilities including sewer and water.

The site’s General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential accommodates single family residential neighborhoods typically consisting of detached homes and with a

18.218

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 22
density range of 1.1 to 10 dwellings per acre. The project site, in its entirety, is 5.9 acres in size, therefore the General Plan land use designation would accommodate up to 59 units on the site. The project proposes 40 units, which is consistent with the residential density that was studied and anticipated in the 2030 General Plan.

4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The northeastern portion of the site contains a eucalyptus grove that is identified in the General Plan as potentially containing monarch butterfly habitat. An analysis prepared by Ecosystems West Consulting Group concluded that the eucalyptus grove was not providing fall or winter roosting habitat and was unlikely to provide suitable habitat in the future. The reports recommended a preconstruction survey be conducted in the fall prior to the commencement of construction, and that tree removal occur outside of the fall roosting period. Both recommendations are included as conditions of approval with the project to avoid potential adverse impacts to wildlife habitats.

The project includes a standard condition of approval that, if project site work occurs anytime between February 1 and August 31, the applicant shall submit documentation of a preconstruction nesting bird survey by a qualified biologist prior to the start of work.

Preconstruction surveys of nesting birds and roosting monarchs will minimize any potential adverse impact to wildlife or their habitat on the site.

5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

18.219

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 23
The design of the subdivision will not cause serious public health problems in that the applicant will be required to construct site and utility improvements in accordance with City Standards and Public Works design criteria. Storm water treatment and retention facilities designed for the proposed Lot 1 and residential development comply with City standards.

The new residential development on the proposed Lot 1 will be required to meet all requirements of the California Building Code and all applicable City Ordinances.

6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or the use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

The site does not contain any existing public easements that would be impacted by the project or subdivision.

Design Permit, Section 24.08.430

7. 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.

Although the site’s General Plan land use designation Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation and R-1-10 zone district envisions primarily single-family development, Senate Bill 330 (SB330), and the amendments it made to the Housing Accountability Act, identifies the General Plan as superseding any inconsistent zoning designation and requires an agency to permit residential development on a particular site at the density allowed under the General Plan. In this case, the density proposed is within the density range envisioned in the General Plan.

The entire project site is 5.9 acres, and the new 40-unit building plus the existing unit within the church complex results in a density of 6.9 dwellings per acre, in the middle of the density range. To ensure future development does not exceed the density range envisioned in the General Plan, conditions of approval require limitations to be recorded on both new parcels to limit the overall site density to the maximum allowed.

The project bolsters several policies of the existing Housing Element related to facilitating the development of affordable housing through density bonus and other means (HE2.2), encouraging fully integrated neighborhoods with new affordable residential development featuring a variety of housing types in areas of the City low concentrations of affordable housing (HE 2.7 and 4.8), and ensuring that the character and design of both infill development and remodel/rehabilitation projects promote the vitality of existing neighborhoods (HE 5.3). The is consistent with General Plan Policy LU1.1 by optimizing development intensity of an infill parcel that is adequately served by public utilities, and

18.220

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 24
located near community amenities, including several religious facilities, elementary and higher education facilities, and existing public transit service.

The site is located within areas mapped in the General Plan as sensitive and highly sensitive for archaeological resources. Archeological assessments of the site during did not indicate the presence of any intact archaeological resource but recommended that the applicant stop work and contact the appropriate authorities should earth-moving work result in discovery of an intact resource. This recommendation is consistent with a standard condition of approval, which aims to identify and protect archeological resources throughout the construction process. This condition of approval is included in the recommended conditions of approval.

General Plan policy HZ3.2.3 requires that interior noise in all new multifamily housing does not exceed 45 dBA. An initial noise assessment letter prepared by Edward L Pack Associates Inc. dated August 9, 2022, noted that the only possible source of significant noise at the site would be the playgrounds at the adjacent Westlake Elementary School. Given the distance between the playgrounds and the proposed building footprint (approximately 400 feet), noise impacts on residents are expected to be minimal and consistent with the General Plan policy.

The project is not located in any area plan boundary. The project is not located in the Coastal Zone.

8. 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 development standards of the R-1-10 zone district and all other applicable sections of Chapter 24 (Zoning) of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, that were in effect at the time the project’s SB330 preapplication was deemed complete, except as modified by density bonus concessions and waivers. An SB330 preapplication associated with the project was deemed complete prior to the City’s adoption of the citywide Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Housing (Objective Standards) contained in Section

24.12.185 of the Zoning Ordinance, therefore the project is not subject to the Objective Standards.

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

The project is a residential project; therefore, this finding does not apply.

18.221

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 25

10. 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 project complies with all applicable objective development and design standards of Chapter 24 (Zoning) of the municipal code, except as modified by the density bonus request.

The site contains a church that was constructed in 1957 and is described as a property that is eligible but has opted out of listing on Volume III of the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey.

The church will remain as part of the development; therefore, the new residential development will have no impact on the existing building. Additionally, the new apartment is sited to be largely screened from public view. The proposed development incorporates angled massing, as well as colors and materials, that are compatible with the existing church building. Therefore, any portions of the proposed building that are visible from the street will be compatible with the existing church building and will not adversely impact the church campus’ context.

The site is not located within a historic district or within an area plan that seeks to preserve an established architectural style. Although there are several listed historic resources along High Street, the new development is set back substantially from High Street and will not result in any visual impacts affecting the context of any historic resource in its vicinity.

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

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

The project maintains a balance of scale, form and proportion by breaking up the building massing into a V-shaped configuration and stepping the building height to mimic the sloped topography of the site. The site is designed such that the new building will be substantially screened from view from public right of way and surrounding properties. The site design includes significant setbacks from surrounding property lines, which allow for a landscape buffer comprised of existing trees and naturalized grasses, as well as a varied palette of new plants.

The design features a multitude of windows, glass doors and balconies to punctuate the façade such that there are no large, blank building walls. The plans include a proposed material palette but indicate that similar alternative materials may be proposed during the building permit phase. To ensure that the materials will be of high quality and compatible with the existing and surrounding development, a condition of approval will require that any

18.222

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 26
deviation from the proposed materials be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of the building permit.

The trash enclosure will be screened from public view by the existing church campus to remain onsite. Existing trees to remain along the western property line will provide a visual screen between Westlake Elementary and the trash enclosure. A condition of approval requires any rooftop mechanical equipment or utility installations to be screened from public view and requires utility installations to be accessible. The site does not include or contribute to a viewshed of any significant public views identified in the General Plan.

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

The project site does abut several different land uses, including UCSC campus housing to the north; a quarry, single family homes, city owned land, and a church to the east; single family homes across High Street to the south; and Westlake Elementary School to the west.

Because the proposed residential development is consistent with the allowed densities in the General Plan, the project will not affect the use High Street beyond the expected increase in bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle usage as anticipated under the city buildout projected in the General Plan. The residential use is located within a predominately residential neighborhood and is not anticipated to result in adverse noise or operational impacts to adjacent school and church uses, or single-family homes.

13. 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 report recommended removal of 14 heritage trees, six that are in poor condition and eight that are within the project footprint. An addendum letter dated February 3, 2023, evaluated whether an alternative building location would enable preservation of additional heritage trees, but did not identify a superior alternative. The orientation and location of the building on the site maximizes preservation of heritage trees while avoiding highly sloped areas. The building has been designed to be significantly screened from view from the street

18.223

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 27
and surrounding properties, and to step down in height with the hillside, thereby minimizing its perceived height, as well as required grading and alteration of natural landforms. The proposed landscape plan incorporates a variety of native plants while maintaining much of the site in a natural state. A shadow study was submitted by the applicant indicating that the proposed building is not expected to significantly worsen shading impacts to adjacent properties beyond current conditions.

14. 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 project would not impact a significant public view identified in Figure 4.3-1 of the City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report (EIR); however, project impacts to public views were considered as part of the project review. The nearest vantage points from which the coast may be viewable where the project could conceivably impact coastal views are located along Hagar Court, west (uphill) from the project. These vantage points are obstructed by existing buildings on private property; therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impact on important public views or designated scenic coastal areas.

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

Any noise or vibrations that may occur as a result of construction will be temporary. Once constructed, the residential apartment building will generate noise typical of a residential neighborhood. An initial noise assessment letter prepared by Edward L Pack Associates Inc. dated August 9, 2022, noted that the only possible source of significant noise impacting the project site would be the playgrounds at the adjacent Westlake Elementary School. Given the distance between the playgrounds and the proposed building footprint (approximately 400 feet), noise impacts on residents are expected to be minimal and consistent with the General Plan policy.

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

The new building has windows on all elevations that will allow natural light and ventilation into the building. The balconies and terraces provide each unit with private outdoor space to access sunlight and fresh air. The site plan retains several heritage trees throughout the site and includes new landscaping that will provide cooling and shading. The flat roof provides a space where solar photovoltaic equipment could be installed.

18.224

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 28
Slope Development Permit, Section 24.08.820

17. Measures have been included within the design of the project to mitigate impacts on environmental constraint areas identified in the Natural Resources and Conservation Element and the Safety Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program.

The northeastern portion of the site contains a eucalyptus grove that is identified in the General Plan as potentially containing monarch butterfly habitat. To identify and mitigate any adverse impacts to monarch butterfly habitat onsite, the project application submittal included a report prepared by Ecosystems West Consulting Group dated May 20, 2020, and a follow-up report, dated January 4, 2023. The reports concluded that the eucalyptus grove was not providing fall or winter roosting habitat and was unlikely to provide suitable habitat in the future. The reports recommended a preconstruction survey be conducted in the fall prior to the commencement of construction, and that tree removal occur outside of the fall roosting period.

The site is located within areas mapped in the General Plan as sensitive and highly sensitive for archaeological resources. Albion Environmental prepared an initial archaeological investigation in June 2019, and subsequent Extended Phase I Study in March 2023. The reports did not indicate the presence of any intact archaeological resource but recommended that the applicant stop work and contact the appropriate authorities should earth-moving work result in discovery of an intact resource. The recommended condition of approval includes standard conditions that are consistent with the recommendations of Albion Environmental to minimize potential impacts to archeological resources on the site.

18. Landscaping of an appropriate type, size, and quality is proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental effect.

The project proposes to remove fourteen heritage trees. The planting palette includes thirtysix new trees, which, at maturity, are expected to result in comparable or greater tree canopy as compared to existing conditions. The proposed plant palette includes numerous native species and incorporates a variety of groundcovers, shrubs and trees. A majority of the site will retain its existing, naturalized landscaping. The existing retained and proposed landscaping will minimize potential environmental impacts typically associated with development such as groundwater runoff, erosion, and loss of tree canopy.

19. Usable open space is proposed in an amount equal to that normally required.

The project is located within the R-1-10 zone district, which does not have a minimum open space requirement. However, the project provides one or more private balconies of terraces for all units, as well as a common resident amenity area at the northern portion of the site, which includes a paved path, seating areas, barbeque areas, trellises, and enhanced landscaping.

18.225

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 29

20. A registered civil engineer or other qualified professional will design streets, buildings, and other man-made structures to conform with existing landforms and topography.

The project applicant has engaged the services of a licensed civil engineer to aid in the design of driveway and site improvements, as well as the building. A condition of approval will require that all civil plan sheets of the building permit submittal be stamped by a licensed civil engineer.

21. Adequate fire safety measures as required by the city fire department have been incorporated into the design of the proposed development, when located in a designated fire hazard area.

The project was reviewed by the Santa Cruz Fire Department and was found to be in compliance with all fire department requirements for projects located in designated fire hazard areas.

22. The proposed project employs architectural and design elements which in total serve to reduce the mass and bulk of structures to protect public views. Such elements may include:
a. Multiple floor levels which follow natural slopes: The building height ranges from three stories to four stories and is staggered to follow the natural slope of the property, thereby minimizing visual impacts and grading quantities. b. Multiple roof lines to provide visual interest and break up the visual impact of the building: The stepped-down design of the building results in multiple, staggered roof lines that reduce the perceived mass and bulk of the building and preserve views from onsite. The project is not expected to impact public views. c. Decks and balconies to provide building articulation: The building facades are punctuated with balconies and incorporate a multitude of windows and several accent materials. These features provide building articulation to enhance visual interest of the building while reducing the appearance of mass and bulk. d. Foundation types such as poles, piles, or stepped levels which minimize cut and fill and need for retaining walls: The stepped-down building design reduces grading needs to accommodate the project. Additionally, the project proposes minor improvements to existing driveways, in lieu of new driveways. Maintaining existing driveways to provide access to the site further reduces grading quantities. e. Fence lines, walls, and other features which blend with the terrain rather than strike off at an angle against it: The project will maintain and improve existing fences along the shared side property lines. A new, three-foot wooden and hog wire fence is proposed along the rear property line. The fence will be of minimal height and highly transparent and will blend into the natural terrain. A low, small retaining

18.226

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 30
wall is proposed directly southeast of the proposed building. This retaining wall will be incorporated into a staggered landscape design that is compatible with the natural surroundings and will not adversely impact any public views.

23. If a project proposed for construction is in a landslide area identified in a site-specific geological report prepared pursuant to Section 24.14.030(1)(d), findings must be made that mitigation measures necessary to fulfill the purpose of this part have been incorporated into project design, based on the project’s environmental review and geotechnical reports.

A project-specific geotechnical report prepared by Dees & Associates, Inc. in March 2023 included a stability analysis of the portion of the site where the building will be situated. The analysis indicated that the portion of the site where the proposed building is stable under both static and seismic conditions. The project has been designed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. A condition of approval will require that a Phase 2 geotechnical study focused on additional subsurface exploration of the marble formation be conducted prior to issuance of the building permit, consistent with the recommendations of the initial geotechnical report. Additionally, a condition of approval will require that the geotechnical engineer provide a letter indicating that their recommendations were incorporated into the building permit design, prior to issuance of the building permit, and implemented throughout construction, prior to building permit final.

Density Bonus, Section 24.16.270.2

24. 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.

The project proposes to provide five low-income units and four very low-income units, amounting to 22.5-percent of the 40 total units at the low income or lower level. This level of affordability exceeds the minimum 10-percent lower-income threshold to qualify the project for a density bonus. The density bonus request does not propose additional units but does request concessions/incentives and a waiver from development standards. Per section

24.16.225 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, the project qualifies for two incentives/concessions since it provides at least 20-percent of units to lower-income households. Per section 24.16.255 (4), the project is eligible to request an unlimited number of waivers or modifications to development standard, if those standards physically preclude the construction of the housing development, and the housing development is eligible for density bonus. Although the project does not propose density bonus units, it is eligible for density bonus based on the number of low income and very low-income units provided and may request two incentives/concessions and unlimited waivers.

AB2097 modified California Government Code Section 65863.2 to eliminate any parking requirement for a site within half a mile of an existing or planned major transit stop. The

18.227

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 31
project site is within half a mile of a planned major transit stop, and therefore parking is not required for the project.

The project will be privately financed; all financing costs for implementation and monitoring will be provided by the applicant.

25. 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 24.16.255.

Per Section 24.16.225.3, a density bonus project qualifies for concessions when the applicant provides reasonable documentation showing that the requested concession results in actual and identifiable cost savings to the project to provide for affordable rents. The project requests a concession for increased building height and stories to allow a building that is four stories and 54 feet tall at its highest point (a portion of the stair tower and trash room extend to the fifth story level; however, these areas are exempt from height limitations pursuant to Sec. 24.12.150.1.e of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code). The applicant has provided justification that the greater building height will reduce the project footprint, thus reducing costs associated with excavation, grading, and soil engineering. The project also requests a concession for a reduced front yard of 17’10.75”, in lieu of the minimum 20’ front setback required in the R-1-10 zone district. The applicant has provided justification that the reduced front setback enables the building to be shifted away from the significantly sloped portion of the lot, thus reducing costs associated with grading, soil engineering, and overall construction.

26. 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 project is not based on dedication of land; therefore, this finding does not apply.

27. 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.

The project does not include a child care center; therefore, this finding does not apply.

28. 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 project does not include a condominium conversion; therefore, this finding does not apply.

29. 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

18.228

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 32
existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing development will be located.

The project does not include a mixed-use building or development; therefore, this finding does not apply.

30. 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.

Section 24.16.255.4 of the municipal code allows a density bonus project to qualify for an unlimited number of waivers from development standards if it is shown that the standards will physically preclude the proposed housing development. The project is required to construct a new trash enclosure to accommodate refuse. The project is requesting a waiver to allow an accessory building, the trash enclosure, to be placed adjacent to the apartment building and within the front setback of Lot 1. This is the only possible location for the trash enclosure that complies with meets Public Works refuse service standards and that avoids constraints such as steep slopes and heritage trees.

31. 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 project does not request a commercial development bonus; therefore, this finding does not apply.

32. 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 in the Coastal Zone; therefore, this finding does not apply.

Heritage Tree Removal Permit, Resolution No. NS-23, 710

33. Alteration of a heritage tree or shrub would only affect less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the crown of said heritage tree or heritage shrub; Fourteen heritage trees are proposed for complete removal; therefore, this finding does not apply.

18.229

AGENDA REPORT
PC November 30, 2023
SUBJECT: 900 High Street – CP22-0164
PAGE 33

34. Findings by the Director of Parks & Recreation can be established in conformity with the City’s Urban Forest and Wildland Interface Policy Statement; The trees are located in the urban forest and in the wildland-urban interface. The proposed removal of trees is consistent with this policy statement in that prioritizes removal to those in poor condition or those that must be removed due to location within the project footprint, thus retaining the maximum number of trees given the proposed project. In addition, removal of trees in close proximity to the proposed building is consistent with wildland-urban interface policy to provide for defensible space around residential structures.

Santa Cruz City CouncilFebruary 13, 2024

Santa Cruz City Council
February 13, 2024